Troy

@Delano The concept of race as a social concept is real. The concept of race as a genetic construct is not real. Pioneer wants to play games and say that all "concepts" are real and therefor the conceptualized thing must also be real is just silly ploy he is using to say race has a genetic basis rather than just accepting the science. @Pioneer1 "the existence of race as a social construct" was never in dispute. It is your assertion that race is defined by our genetics that has been rejected by science. For the upteenth time, NO. I do not agree with the "various races that different nations and cultures classify/group people into." Obviously, they are social constructs which one day I suspect more and more people will come to reject, because it is a dumb social construct, which ignorant people have only used to justify the ranking of people based upon the stupid shit some white boys made up a few hundred years ago to justify the enslavement of African people. I reject the "concept" of race on that basis alone.

That was never in dispute. You keep changing the conversation. Race as a social construct exist that’s obvious. That however does that make it real any more than The concept of Santa Claus Makes him real. Playing around with the definition of words it’s not gonna change this.

Honestly I thought you might simply admit that You would prefer to live in 2021 than 1821, for all the obvious reasons. But you are unwilling to concede any point. If you’re going to be intellectually dishonest there is no point in even debating. Right? I mean if you won’t acknowledge the obvious, you go to all kind of Machinations to change the meaning of words. We can’t have a intelligent conversation, can we? I mean you won’t admit that you prefer to live in 2021 but you can’t give a reason for it other than to say you don’t have enough information. I gave you a laundry list of reasons why life was worse in 1921 and you tell me you can’t make an intelligent decision... Try this: give me a decision based upon all the information you have — as imperfect as it is. People make decisions in this fashion all the time; indeed, most decisions are made this way. Chose 2021 or 1821.

Do you know the difference between something that is a concept and something that is real @Pioneer1?

OK let me know when you comb through the data and decide if you rather live here in 1821 or 2021.

Sooo what was the purpose all of all this.

Obviously not, but I read about it? So you are telling me, with a straight face, that you know so little about what life was like in America, for a Black man, in 1821 that you cannot decide which period you would like to live in? Seriously?! Are you familiar with the term intellectual dishonesty?

OK good. So you you believe in a jolly fat bearded white guy who maintains a naughty and nice list and flys around faster that the speed of light with reindeer distributing toys made by elves in the North Pole, commonly know as Santa Claus?

Are you aware that there is a distinction between an idea and a physical thing?

You are “not sure” about 1821, are you kidding me?! You’ll do anything not to consider point. So you were telling me you would rather live in 1921 the United States? A country that just got out of World War I, about to enter the depression, where polio and shit like that was rampant. we just got out of the flu pandemic. Negroes were getting lynched every other week. A time that pre-dated all technology when most lives were short and hard. 1921 was the year of the Tulsa Race Massacre. There were people still alive who bore the scars of massa’s whip... ... and you wanna go back? Again, we can’t have a serious conversation if you won’t be serious. So again, is there any doubt in your mind that 2021, despite all its problems, is a better time for a Black person to be living in the United States that 1821?

OK, if your definition of “existence” means anything that can be conceived in one’s own mind or things that exist elsewhere in the multi-verse, well sure, Santa Claus exists. If you are now going to try to shoehorn that definition into one to justify the reality of a social construct you’d be hard-pressed to do that. Actually, no, you do that every day of the week ... never mind.

OK then, Santa Claus existed in your space/time continuum, but I did not experience that timeline.

I did try @Delano.

Wow man. I already know you can read an article and interpret to support your world view when it direct contradicts it, but my first response was abundantly clear. Please simply read my response:

Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars By Henry Louis Gates Jr. July 20, 1992, Section A, Page 15 (This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.) During the past decade, the historic relationship between African Americans and Jewish Americans -- a relationship that sponsored so many of the concrete advances of the civil rights era -- showed another and less attractive face. While anti-Semitism is generally on the wane in this country, it has been on the rise among black Americans. A recent survey finds not only that blacks are twice as likely as whites to hold anti-Semitic views but -- significantly -- that it is among the younger and more educated blacks that anti-Semitism is most pronounced. The trend has been deeply disquieting for many black intellectuals. But it is something most of us, as if by unstated agreement, simply choose not to talk about. At a time when black America is beleaguered on all sides, there is a strong temptation simply to ignore the phenomenon or treat it as something strictly marginal. And Black Demagoguesand Pseudo-Scholars yet to do so would be a serious mistake. As the African-American philosopher Cornel West has insisted, attention to black anti-Semitism is crucial, however discomfiting, in no small part because the moral credibility of our struggle against racism hangs in the balance. When the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in an impassioned address at a conference of the World Jewish Congress on July 7, condemned the sordid history of anti-Semitism, he not only went some distance toward retrieving the once abandoned mantle of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s humane statesmanship, he also delivered a stern rebuke -- while not specifically citing black anti-Semitism -- to those black leaders who have sought to bolster their own strength through division. Mr. Jackson and others have learned that we must not allow these demagogues to turn the wellspring of memory into a renewable resource of enmity everlasting. We must begin by recognizing what is new about the new anti-Semitism. Make no mistake: this is antiSemitism from the top down, engineered and promoted by leaders who affect to be speaking for a largerresentment. This top-down anti-Semitism, in large part the province of the better educated classes, can thus be contrasted with the anti-Semitism from below common among African American urban communities in the 1930's and 40's, which followed in many ways a familiar pattern of clientelistic hostility toward the neighborhood vendor or landlord. In American cities, hostility of this sort is now commonly directed toward Korean shop owners. But "minority" traders and shopkeepers elsewhere in the world -- such as the Indians of East Africa and the Chinese of Southeast Asia -- have experienced similar ethnic antagonism. Anti-Jewish sentiment can also be traced to Christian anti-Semitism, given the historic importance of Christianity in the black community. Unfortunately, the old paradigms will not serve to explain the new bigotry and its role in black America. For one thing, its preferred currency is not the mumbled epithet or curse but the densely argued treatise; it belongs as much to the repertory of campus lecturers as community activists. And it comes in wildly different packages. A book popular with some in the "Afrocentric" movement, "The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man's Racism, Sexism, and Aggression" by Michael Bradley, argues that white people are so vicious because they, unlike the rest of mankind, are descended from the brutish Neanderthals. More to the point, it speculates that the Jews may have been the " 'purest' and oldest NeanderthalCaucasoids," the iciest of the ice people; hence (he explains) the singularly odious character of ancient Jewish culture. Crackpot as it sounds, the book has lately been reissued with endorsements from two members of the Africana Studies Department of the City College of New York, as well as an introduction by Dr. John Henrik Clarke, professor emeritus of Hunter College and the great paterfamilias of the Afrocentric movement. Dr. Clarke has recently attacked multiculturalism as the product of what he called the "Jewish educational Mafia." And while Dr. Leonard Jeffries's views on supposed Jewish complicity in the subjection of blacks captured headlines, his intellectual cohorts such as Conrad Muhammad and Khallid Muhammad address community gatherings and college students across the country purveying a similar doctrine. College speakers and publications have played a disturbing role in legitimating the new creed. Last year, U.C.L.A.'s black newspaper, Nommo, defended the importance of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious Czarist canard that portrays a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. (Those who took issue were rebuked with an article headlined: "Anti-Semitic? Ridiculous -- Chill.") Speaking at Harvard University earlier this year, Conrad Muhammad, the New York representative of the Nation of Islam, neatly annexed environmentalism to anti-Semitism when he blamed the Jews for despoiling the environment and destroying the ozone layer. But the bible of the new anti-Semitism is "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," an official publication of the Nation of Islam that boasts 1,275 footnotes in the course of 334 pages. Sober and scholarly looking, it may well be one of the most influential books published in the black community in last 12 months. It is available in black-oriented shops in cities across the nation, even those that specialize in Kente cloth and beads rather than books. It can also can be ordered over the phone, by dialing 1-800-48- TRUTH. Meanwhile, the book's conclusions are, in many circles, increasingly treated as damning historical fact. The book, one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled, was prepared by the historical research department of the Nation of Islam. It charges that the Jews were "key operatives"in the historic crime of slavery, playing an "inordinate" and "disproportionate" role and "carv [ ing ] out for themselves a monumental culpability in slavery -- and the black holocaust." Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation. To be sure, the book massively misrepresents the historical record, largely through a process of cunningly selective quotation of often reputable sources. But its authors could be confident that few of its readers would go to the trouble of actually hunting down the works cited. For if readers actually did so, they might discover a rather different picture. They might find out -- from the book's own vaunted authorities -- that, for example, of all the African slaves imported into the New World, American Jewish merchants accounted for less than 2 percent, a finding sharply at odds with the Nation's of Islam's claim of Jewish "predominance" in this traffic. They might find out that in the domestic trade it appears that all of the Jewish slave traders combined bought and sold fewer slaves than the single gentile firm of Franklin and Armfield. In short, they might learn what the historian Harold Brackman has documented at length -- that the book's repeated insistence that the Jews dominated the slave trade depends on an unscrupulous distortion of the historic record. But the most ominous words in the book are found on the cover: "Volume One." More have been promised, to carry on the saga of Jewish iniquity to the present day. However shoddy the scholarship of works like "The Secret Relationship," underlying it is something even more troubling: the tacit conviction that culpability is heritable. For it suggests a doctrine of racial continuity, in which the racial evil of a people is merely manifest (rather than constituted) by their historical misdeeds. The reported misdeeds are thus the signs of an essential nature that is evil. How does this theology of guilt surface in our everyday moral discourse? In New York, earlier this spring, a forum was held at the Church of St. Paul and Andrew to provide an occasion for blacks and Jews to engage in dialogue on such issues as slavery and social injustice. Both Jewish and black panelists found common ground, and common causes. But a tone-setting contingent of blacks in the audience took strong issue with the proceedings. Outraged, they demanded to know why the Jews, those historic malefactors, had not apologized to the "descendants of African kings and queens." And so the organizer of the event, Melanie Kaye Kantrowitz, did. Her voice quavering with emotion, she said: "I think I speak for a lot of people in this room when I say 'I'm sorry.' We're ashamed of it, we hate it, and that's why we organized this event." Should the Melanie Kantrowitzes of the world, whose ancestors survived pogroms and, latterly, the Nazi Holocaust, be the primary object of our wrath? And what is yielded by this hateful sport of victimology, save the conversion of a tragic past into a game of recrimination? Perhaps that was on the mind of another audience member. "I don't want an apology," a dreadlocked woman told her angrily. "I want reparations. Forty acres and a mule, plus interest." These are times that try the spirit of liberal outreach. In fact, the Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, himself explained the real agenda behind his campaign, speaking before an audience of 15,000 at the University of Illinois last fall. The purpose of "The Secret Relationship," he said, was to "rearrange a relationship" that "has been detrimental to us." "Rearrange" is a curiously elliptical term here: if a relation with another group has been detrimental, it only makes sense to sever it as quickly and unequivocally as possible. In short, by "rearrange," he means to convert a relation of friendship, alliance and uplift into one of enmity, distrust and hatred. But why target the Jews? Using the same historical methodology, after all, the researchers of the book could have produced a damning treatise on the involvement of left-handers in the "black holocaust." The answer requires us to go beyond the usual shibboleths about bigotry and view the matter, from the demagogues' perspective, strategically: as the bid of one black elite to supplant another. It requires us, in short, to see anti-Semitism as a weapon in the raging battle of who will speak for black America -- those who have sought common cause with others or those who preach a barricaded withdrawal into racial authenticity. The strategy of these apostles of hate, I believe, is best understood as ethnic isolationism -- they know that the more isolated black America becomes, the greater their power. And what's the most efficient way to begin to sever black America from its allies? Bash the Jews, these demagogues apparently calculate, and you're halfway there. I myself think that the great French aphorist Rochefoucault put his finger on something germane when he observed, "We can rarely bring ourselves to forgive those who have helped us." For sometimes it seems that the trajectory of black-Jewish relations is a protracted enactment of Rochefoucault's paradox. Many American Jews are puzzled by the recrudescence of black anti-Semitism, in view of the historic alliance between the two groups. The brutal truth has escaped them: that the new anti-Semitism arises not in spite of the black-Jewish alliance but because of that alliance. For precisely such trans-ethnic, trans-racial cooperation -- epitomized by the historic partnership between blacks and Jews -- is what poses the greatest threat to the isolationist movement. In short, for the tacticians of the new anti-Semitism, the original sin of American Jews was their involvement -- truly "inordinate," truly "disproportionate" -- not in slavery, but in the front ranks of the civil rights struggle. For decent and principled reasons, many black intellectuals are loath to criticize "oppositional" black leaders. Yet it has become increasingly apparent that to continue to maintain a comradely silence may be, in effect, to capitulate to the isolationist agenda, to betray our charge and trust. And, to be sure, many black writers, intellectuals, and religious leaders have taken an unequivocal stand on this issue. Cornel West aptly describes black anti-Semitism as "the bitter fruit of a profound self-destructive impulse, nurtured on the vines of hopelessness and concealed by empty gestures of black unity." After 12 years of conservative indifference, those political figures who acquiesced, by malign neglect, to the deepening crisis of black America should not feign surprise that we should prove so vulnerable to the demagogues' rousing messages of hate, their manipulation of the past and present. Bigotry, as a tragic century has taught us, is an opportunistic infection, attacking most virulently when the body politic is in a weakened state. Yet neither should those who care about black America gloss over what cannot be condoned: that much respect we owe to ourselves. For surely it falls to all of us to recapture the basic insight that Dr. King so insistently expounded. "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality," he told us. "Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly." How easy to forget this -- and how vital to remember. A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 15 of the National edition with the headline: Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars JOHN HENRIK CLARKE IN HIS RESPONSE TO AN OP ED ATTACK IN THE NY TIMES CALLED "Black Demagogues and Pseudo-scholars "Professor Gates, Cornel West and other Black conservatives use beautiful words, sometimes to say nothing, sometimes to say what has already been said and sometimes to say what is not in debate. They display their ignorance of European history and history in general. They decry any form of Black nationalism and often call it racism without knowing that for the last 500 years the world has been controlled by European or White nationalism. African self-assertion, the demand for a proper curriculum in the schools demand that we stop praising a liar and a faker like Christopher Columbus who discovered absolutely nothing-threatens an apparatus of European control set in motion by the Atlantic slave trade and continued with colonialism that ultimately laid the basis for present-day monopoly capitalism. No matter what Europeans say they believe religiously, politically or culturally, their main objective in the world is control. Everything that has ever been developed in the European mind was meant to facilitate mind control of the world. There are no exceptions, Left or Right politically. Black conservatives are really frustrated slaves crawling back to the plantation, figuratively, letting their master know that they are willing to go back into bondage. One needs to question their words because, as slaves and enemies of their people, they will say what they are told to say and do what they are told to do. The Black conservatives have nothing to conserve except their miserable obscurity and their tragic cowardice."

You tell me. Would you like to go back to 1821, or 1921? That is an interesting statement I can’t think of a scenario in the United States in which the historic levels of wealth any quality can be justify or construed into being something good. I guess you have to think more deeply about the subject. Martin, Malcolm, and Fred all worked within grassroots organizations. I seriously doubt they would’ve had any impact in 2021 in an era where we consume news and information from the likes of Twitter. Today we let our social media feeds tell us what to think and how to feel. That is not hyperbolic; this is today’s reality. This has divided even more and exacerbated our differences. There are People doing real work in their communities however it is increasingly difficult to gain a meaningful following. These people don’t have time to post bullshit on Instagram. Even if they did who’s the say that the little white boys who run the social media platforms will allow their messages to be seen. Someone like Fred Hampton would be working in relative obscurity today.

OK, then tell me who Santa Claus. Is he your brother-in-law from Detriot?

OK I’ll bite; there is no jolly fat bearded white guy who maintains a naughty and nice list and flys around faster that the speed of light with reindeer distributing toys made by elves in the North Pole.

Sure he did, don't fixate on the young Malcolm regurgitate the white devil stuff from the NOI. Think about what he was saying upon his return from his Haji, wehn he was speaking for himself Then you understand why he was killed. Exactly -- which is why he was killed. Same with Fred. Sure, racism is real, but is dying along with the ignoramuses who believe and practice it. If you can't see it getting better in this country as far as racism is concerned, there is nothing I can tell you to change your mind. What is getting worse is wealth inequality. Again, this is fueled by greed and the way our system of capitalism works. Greed, and the winner take all mentality, is rewarded. This has always been counter productive and I'd argue against human nature. Racism is a byproduct, not the source. But I agree @Pioneer1, the sooner we stop seeking the approval of, and financially supporting, our enemies the better off we we all be in the long term. As long as we, ourselves, are motivated by greed and self interest, the longer our people will suffer. People like Malcolm, Martin, and Fred exist today, but they but they will never emerge as leaders because we simply do not have the platforms for them -- because we don't support them. They "serve" at the whim of our enemies. They can instantly be de-platformed -- not unlike the useful idiot "45" once his usefulness was exhausted. The proxies for our so-called "leaders" are trying to attract followers on Twitter. When was they last time a Black person posed a real threat to doing something really substantive for Black folks? This is why I knew Obama would never be assassinated. Kamala has nothing to worry about either -- even when she takes over for Biden.

I listened to the first minute or so of the video couple; do you know what he is smoking? As far as I can tell he doesn’t say. But what he does say is that he hope he doesn’t overdose. You can’t OD on marijuana. I suspect if you really listen to the lyrics you might come away with the idea that the young man may be lamenting getting high, on more serious drugs, by himself, as a means to deal with this life.

@Pioneer1 YOU were the one who asked the question. Did you ever watch the film Judas and the Black Messiah? If So you would see that the protagonist Fred Hampton was murdered by the FBI primarily because he was a leader who recognized that poor whites, Hispanics, black people all were fighting the same injustices. You also recognized the MLK and Malcolm X were killed for the same reasons recognizing the fact that Hatred of white people is Simply because they are white makes no sense and the we are all victims I need to work together to fight the injustices that are crippling us all. Slavery and The prison industrial complex are fueled by greed. Slavery pre-dated The concept of racism. In fact I’m sure most slaves who ever lived were white. The whole system of feudalism was founded on slavery it’s not taught that way but that’s what it was.

This book helps explain why racism is bad for everyone.

The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together by Heather McGhee Explains why racism is bad even for the white racist. This book came to mind after one of @Pioneer1’s comments on the futility every trying to get along.

yeah, why not?

Honestly that would explain their behavior. Oprahs is the face of the publication and it gives the implicit impression that supporting Bookshop.org is the same as supporting an indie web based bookseller.