Black men side Black female athletes

[richardmurray]

 

In all humanity , the last few centuries have been a time of male domination over women. The biggest legacy from that is the promoting in many homes, to male children, through amale figure or media completely designed by males promoting a male dominant agenda,  the role of male + the role of female. 

The problem is when you have a man raised to think male , boy or man , is superior to female, girl or woman, in all ways then you get a problem when a female reaches any level of superiority over a male. Why? Cause the identity of male in said homes isn't from self alone, it is from relationship to female. 

For example, a male who is unemployed, living in a home that a woman pays for, can't accept himself because part of his identity as a male, that he was raised with, is to be above female. So even if you are living in a females home and you get to eat and sleep well and don't even have to improve your financial condition , at some point you have to be in control , because you were raised male is superior to female, not male is an individual aside female.

And this connects to the usa, it is no accident that the usa is the best country for women. That more women around humanity flock to the usa.  The idea of individual rights over collective rights has allowed the usa for all of its enslaving/genocidal/corrupt/cruel ways to be a place where women in all collectives, whether they be communities or religious groups or other, to thrive positively. And non white european women , who have to deal with a complex male system of male superiors first with white european and then their own local variant outside the usa, find the usa a blessing. Remember in the usa no federal law exist banning underage marriage, it is a states law issue. and four states, including california, allow for underage marriage. so, many states still allow for a female under eighteen to marry a male who is mature. Still cruel, unjust, enslaving, cruel but a blessing in that even if their collective is weak they can thrive positively regardless of the negativity in their home life. As eddie murphy said, unfufu

 

An excerpt from the article linked below

...

Cheptegei, 33, who lived in Kenya, had been in a critical condition after suffering burns on 75% of her body following last Sunday’s attack at her house in the western Trans Nzoia County. Her death was confirmed on X by the Kenyan Olympic Team on Thursday.

Cheptegei finished 44th in the women’s marathon at the Paris Olympics weeks ago.

Trans Nzoia County police commander Jeremiah ole Kosiom said earlier this week that the athlete had been doused in petrol by her boyfriend, Dickson Ndiema, who stormed her house with a jerry can of gasoline and set fire to her after a disagreement over land. Ndiema, who was also burned, is being treated at a hospital in the city of Eldoret.

A medical official at the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital where Cheptegei was being treated told CNN affiliate Citizen TV on Thursday that she suffered multi-organ failure late Wednesday.

Cheptegei is the third elite female athlete to be killed in Kenya in the last three years.

In 2021, 25-year-old Kenyan Olympic runner Agnes Tirop was found dead in her Iten home in the country’s Elgeyo-Marakwet County with stab wounds in her neck. Her husband, Ibrahim Rotich, was charged with murder after Kenyan prosecutors accused him of killing her.

Months later, another Kenyan athlete Damaris Mutua, 28, was found strangled in a home with a pillow over her face. Mutua had just placed third at a half marathon in Angola earlier that month. Authorities said her boyfriend was the main suspect.

CNN’s Nimi Princewill contributed reporting.

...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/paris-pays-tribute-to-ugandan-olympic-runner-rebecca-cheptegei-who-died-after-allegedly-being-set-on-fire-by-her-boyfriend/ar-AA1qcR9e?ocid=BingNewsSerp

 

 

[ProfD]

For most of human history and throughout most of the animal kingdom, males are superior. 

 

Around the planet and even here in the US, males are still the dominant figure. White women don't challenge their male counterparts in public. 

 

By design, here in America, Black women are specifically promoted as being head of household or in a stronger position than Black men. 

 

No other race, culture or group of people promotes women above men. We don't hear those women claiming to be strong or primary breadwinner or head of household.

 

A Black man should never be in a relationship wirh a woman who is superior to him on any level. Like a vending machine, it is out of order.

 

A Black man should choose his woman according to his ability to provide for and protect her and his family.

 

A broke man has no business pursuing a woman. He should be looking  to better his overall position in life.

 

Successful women shouldn't settle for broke azz men either. It's a recipe for disaster especially when inevitably it comes to head for one reason or another.

 

The male ego is not wired to handle being the tail instead of the head. No amount of single mothers will be able to raise their sons to think differently either.

 

That mother might turn her son into a marshmallow but once he becomes a man, instinctively, he'll know he isn't supposed to be in a weak position. He will be uncomfortable in it.

 

The worst thing that could've happened to Black folks is the war on masculinity. Like anything else negative, it has disproportionately affected Black men and by extension....our people.

 

In my posts, right behind the system of racism white supremacy, I call out Black men for failing to lead on all fronts....race, family and community.

[richardmurray]

well @ProfD throughout most of the nonhuman species males are not superior. first bacteria or fungus are not gendered. and more of them exist than red blooded. among insects, females are usually the ones in control, the female bee who is in total control of the hive/the black widow spider who like most female spiders kills her mate/the preying mantis who does likewise ..... most insect species have a superior role with the female not male or have an equality. And among the red blooded, no female lion has ever been raped, the reason being she is bigger.  The male lion isn't superior to the female, he serves a role as does she and female lions exist outside prides. The female tiger and male tiger are equals, both are solitary, they only get together to mate. ... 

Your opening phrase is incorrect. Most nonhuman species have a neutral relationship between their members or a female advantage between their members. Humans are unique children of earth. Even fellow sapiens, like gorillas or others, while they have a male leader of the tribe, the existence of females is a partnership , a neutrality. 

but humans are... again, unique, that is part of the unigueness in humans. 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

For most of human history and throughout most of the animal kingdom, males are superior

most of human hsitory, yes, but not most non humans, no.

 

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Around the planet and even here in the US, males are still the dominant figure. White women don't challenge their male counterparts in public. 

 

By design, here in America, Black women are specifically promoted as being head of household or in a stronger position than Black men. 

 

No other race, culture or group of people promotes women above men. We don't hear those women claiming to be strong or primary breadwinner or head of household.

 

you said a lot, i think your speaking on generalities right, cause I have seen white women challenge white men in nyc. 

And...well, I wish you would state the over 150 years of black men being herded into prisons. I wish more black people would state this reality. That action by whites really has led to thie scenario. And  again, if my girlfriend or wife is making more money than me o r better I am not making any money, well she is the breadwinner. Why should I not follow her lead? And... again I have lived in nyc, maybe where you are in the usa, you never heard of white women or white asian women or non black women saying they are head of household or breadwinners but it happens alot in nyc:) 

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

A Black man should never be in a relationship wirh a woman who is superior to him on any level. Like a vending machine, it is out of order.

 

A Black man should choose his woman according to his ability to provide for and protect her and his family.

 

so Profd, if a man works as a security guard and he sees a black female millionaire, he should never be in a relationship with her?   our poor village is in trouble in the usa:) 

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

A broke man has no business pursuing a woman. He should be looking  to better his overall position in life.

it's funny, from the early 1500s to 1865 most black men were enslaved which means they were completely broke... that is the financial status of the enslaved... are you suggesting enslaved black men should never have pursued enslaved black women from the early 1500s to 1865? 

I have to ask, you find your existence based on a mistake

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Successful women shouldn't settle for broke azz men either. It's a recipe for disaster especially when inevitably it comes to head for one reason or another.

well your prose proves the problems. why is it a recipe for disaster, maybe the ingredients need to mature? maybe it isn't inevitable if men change or try to change?

 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

The male ego is not wired to handle being the tail instead of the head. No amount of single mothers will be able to raise their sons to think differently either.

 

That mother might turn her son into a marshmallow but once he becomes a man, instinctively, he'll know he isn't supposed to be in a weak position. He will be uncomfortable in it.

 

The worst thing that could've happened to Black folks is the war on masculinity. Like anything else negative, it has disproportionately affected Black men and by extension....our people.

 

In my posts, right behind the system of racism white supremacy, I call out Black men for failing to lead on all fronts....race, family and community.

well ok:) I have to say i like myself:) but i am not less of a man if a woman i like has more money than me , if anything i am happy for her. It doesn't mean i will stop being on my own path but.... what you say is very rigid, i argue what you say proves my position right...well, at the least, thank you @ProfD great multilog:)

 

[ProfD]

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

well @ProfD Your opening phrase is incorrect. Most nonhuman species have a neutral relationship between their members or a female advantage between their members.

I wrote *most* knowing those examples would come up.

 

Male lions run the pride. They kill offspring not sired by them. Females hunt and kill. Male eats 1st. But, I'm not going to write a Zoology book here.

 

As the resident agnostic here, from what I've read, the Supreme Being created man 1st and gave him a partner...woman.

 

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

you said a lot, i think your speaking on generalities right...

Always in generalities. Specificity when making a point.

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

And...well, I wish you would state the over 150 years of black men being herded into prisons. I wish more black people would state this reality. That action by whites really has led to thie scenario.

History is one thing. What free men do is another.

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

And  again, if my girlfriend or wife is making more money than me o r better I am not making any money, well she is the breadwinner. Why should I not follow her lead?

If  a man is  comfortable in that position, enjoy it. Just don't get upset if/when she flexes on that broke azz.

 

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

so Profd, if a man works as a security guard and he sees a black female millionaire, he should never be in a relationship with her?   our poor village is in trouble in the usa:) 

A female millionaire has no business with a security guard other than getting her oil changed. 

 

The security guard should know that he's temporary and enjoy the time spent  accordingly.

 

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

it's funny, from the early 1500s to 1865 most black men were enslaved which means they were completely broke... that is the financial status of the enslaved... are you suggesting enslaved black men should never have pursued enslaved black women from the early 1500s to 1865? 

False equivalence.  All slaves were broke equally.

 

Even in modern times, it seems poor people procreate more than anybody else. 

 

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

well your prose proves the problems. why is it a recipe for disaster, maybe the ingredients need to mature? maybe it isn't inevitable if men change or try to change?

The war on masculinity is suggesting that men change. No other race of men have accepted that memo.

 

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

well ok:) I have to say i like myself:) but i am not less of a man if a woman i like has more money than me , if anything i am happy for her. It doesn't mean i will stop being on my own path but....

No need for apology or justification. If you're fortunate enough to play with women above your pay grade...enjoy while it lasts. Don't get upset or offended if/when it falls apart. 

28 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

what you say is very rigid, i argue what you say proves my position right...well, at the least, thank you @ProfD great multilog:)

 

I was was raised by strong Black men and nurtured by strong Black women. 

 

So, I make no apologies whatsoever for being an alpha-male which some might see as rigid or chauvinistic.

 

Because I'm not arrogant or conceited in my position, women of all levels seem to love me to pieces. It probably helps that I'm a musician and a comedian too.

[Pioneer1]

If our brother Tariq Nasheed were on this board he would QUICKLY "correct" the title of your thread as should be: African men side African female athletes...lol.

We know that murder and domestic violence transcend race and nationality, but the fact that crimes this heinous are RARELY committed by FBA men is beyond coincidence.
There are certain things AfroAmerican men do to women and there are certain things they just don't do PERIOD, let alone to the women they loved or used to love.
Dousing them in gasoline and setting them on fire is one of those things that is RARELY done by Black Americans...male or female.

Again....it happens...but it's rare.

It's like HANGING a person.
Of all the different ways niccaz kill eachother, hanging another is near the bottom of the list; somewhere near crucifixion and burying people alive.

Perhaps because gats are so readily available.... not sure.....but to douse somebody is gas and set them on fire it particularly hateful and vicious. 

[aka Contrarian]

In case y'all don't know it, Baby Boomers aren't the first group to be categorized by sociologists.

Before them was another generation born during the 1930s, sometimes known as "depression babies:, who lived through WW2  and grew up during the1950s. That would be me. And we were known as the "Silent Generation". Mostly because we didn't rock the boat when it came to society's ethics or traditions. It was a man's world. So, in regard to the family, the father was the breadwinner and the ceremonial head of the household. Seemingly.  In many cases, however, women ruled the roost with their iron fists in velvet gloves and the secret weapon between their legs. Hen pecked men were quite common. They obediently brought their paychecks home to their wives, tolerating their "not tonight, dear, I have a headache" excuses.

Male authority was limited to being the designated disciplinarian who played the role of the mean guy who upon arriving home from a hard day at the office was greeted with a recap of all the the terrible things he was expected to punish his children for.

If all else failed, wives used tears to sucker husbands into seeing things their way.

That was a white scenario and TV sit-coms had a field day portraying dear ol dad as the bungling  dupe of ridicule and humiliation at the hands of his wife and kids.

Blacks hadn't made it to the tv screens yet not to mention that their  scenarios were slightly different. If ol dad was on the scene, he and his hard working, long- sufferin wife split their duties. And if she got too overbearing he wasn't above splitting the scene or going upside her head before she put his ass out. 

Of course these are all caricatures of what went on  back then.

The point is, is that women have always found ways to cope with deeply-rooted chauvanistic paternalism, and as the 1960s  approached the Feminists movement got underway and became a thorn in men's sides.  The "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" acknowegement followed and put things in perspective. Soon women began to  challenge the ol boys network for a seat at the table.

Today, it's a mixed bag. Women have choices. If they don't want to give up their freedom and independence that don't have to. Marriage is an option, not a goal.

Bi-sexuality and lesbianism are out in the open.

And, yes. misogyny is still alive and well.

 

Just some thoughts on my part...

[Pioneer1]

I wasn't aware of the back and forth between ProfD and richardmurray...lol.

 

 

ProfD

 

I hear (read..lol) what you're saying and as usual you make valid and powerful points, but let me give you something to think about.

 

 

We can blame the White Power Structure for waging war against Black masculinity and blame the Black woman for being his accomplice.
However if the Black man SUCCUMBS to this war or GIVES IN to this war...then who is the biggest problem?
It's one thing to fight back....and LOSE to a more powerful force.
It's another thing to not fight back AT ALL and instead run up in the house, lay on the couch, and smoke a blunt while your woman and children are getting their ass beat.


Maybe their war and opposition just exposed how weak and pathetic so many of these niggaz really are...even if it's the MAJORITY of our brothers.

Why do I say such a thing?

 

Look at what White men have ATTEMPTED to do to the Arabs in the East.
They have ATTEMPTED to emasculate them and punk them in front of their women but nearly every one of them will stand up and DIE if necessary to keep "order" in their community and maintain their hegemony in the household and community.   
Look at those Palestinians and how they are being slaughtered....but every two days somebody is setting off rockets and shit letting them know they are still "here" and got some breath in them.
I wouldn't do that....lol
But the "fight" in them is just that bold.
 

Is that good or bad?
I'm not sure.

Maybe punking out and even turning into a cross dressing sissy with long blonde hair is a subconscious CHESS MOVE that allows Black men to survive a powerful enemy with overwhelming opposition that he can't defeat at this time.
Maybe it's meant to by us some time so that instead of being exterminated....he lives to reproduce a future generation that will eventually win the war.
 

....or maybe just produce another generation of punks, lol.

 

But at some point, we're going to have to take a look at the Black man himself and ask:
 

1. Why doesn't he TAKE charge of his family and community instead of begging White men or his lady to "share" some of the power?

and

2. Why doesn't he prepare to DIE if necessary rather than continue to live in such a humble and humiliated state?

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

However if the Black man SUCCUMBS to this war or GIVES IN to this war...then who is the biggest problem?
It's one thing to fight back....and LOSE to a more powerful force.
It's another thing to not fight back AT ALL...

There was a point in time when Black men had to learn how to fight or spend a lifetime being a punk.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Maybe punking out and even turning into a cross dressing sissy with long blonde hair is a subconscious CHESS MOVE that allows Black men to survive a powerful enemy with overwhelming opposition that he can't defeat at this time.

Nope. That's a b8tch move. Try it in prison and see how well it works out.

 

Life is no different. A man has to stand on business or be willing to die protecting his own. 

 

The system has done a bang up job on the Black man from all angles. He has no desire to fight. Just trying to get in where he fits and lay low.

[Pioneer1]

Then another question......
Is being the "man" of the house or head of the community WORTH dying for?

I often wonder should men really be "thriving" for that type of mentality or should it just automatically be "in" you to do that and think that way....which means that if it's not in you already, it's not meant to be.

Who says the man who lets his woman take charge while he kicks back and enjoys himself and not ruffle any feathers is any worse than the man who wears his masculinity on his sleeves and trying to maintain control at all costs?

This are sincere questions.
I'm no longer religious, so I don't believe that "all" men were given some Divine authority to rule.
I believe human males tend to be dominant by nature because of our testosterone...but there are many exceptions.
So....who says that the brothers who are taking the easy way out....but surviving and enjoying themselves by living off of women...are in the wrong?
Who says the Arabs who are dying to be "the man" and maintain respect and fear from their women....are right?

[ProfD]

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Then another question......
Is being the "man" of the house or head of the community WORTH dying for?

How do you define worth?

 

Many men have been assassinated or have died on battlefields for one reason or three. 

 

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I often wonder should men really be "thriving" for that type of mentality or should it just automatically be "in" you to do that and think that way....which means that if it's not in you already, it's not meant to be.

There's no shortage of men who have stayed on the sidelines.  Never got into the game.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Who says the man who lets his woman take charge while he kicks back and enjoys himself and not ruffle any feathers is any worse than the man who wears his masculinity on his sleeves and trying to maintain control at all costs?

Society judges a man on his words, deeds and actions.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'm no longer religious, so I don't believe that "all" men were given some Divine authority to rule.

Religion has little or nothing to do with how men operate in the grand scheme of things.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I believe human males tend to be dominant by nature because of our testosterone...but there are many exceptions.

 

So....who says that the brothers who are taking the easy way out....but surviving and enjoying themselves by living off of women...are in the wrong?

Right.  Therein lies the difference between alpha, beta and gamma males.  Every man isn't built to be a soldier.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Who says the Arabs who are dying to be "the man" and maintain respect and fear from their women....are right?

Men aren't dying to maintain respect and/or fear from their women.  They are dying to protect the freedom and way of life for their people.

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1 @aka Contrarian @ProfD

nice multilog from you alll:) 

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

 

How do you define worth?

 

The amount of value or benefit you get from it.

 

In modern American society, let's say you have two married couples....
One is traditional with the man as head of the household; the other is more liberal with the husband and wife sharing power as equally as possible, or possibly with her possessing a little more power.
 

What TANGIBLE benefits can the man of the first couple enjoy that the man of the second couple is missing out on by not being the head?

 

There's no shortage of men who have stayed on the sidelines.  Never got into the game.
 

Yes, and lived to be a ripe old age and died healthy and happy laying on top of some young woman in bed...lol.
While some brave (or stupid?) young men are laying in the grave over a LIE.

Religion has little or nothing to do with how men operate in the grand scheme of things.
 

I totally agree.

Right.  Therein lies the difference between alpha, beta and gamma males.  Every man isn't built to be a soldier.
 

Totally agree again.

The Officers tend to be the educated ones, many of whom come from wealthy families and THEY make the decisions of how the war will be fought.
Meanwhile the grunt-soldiers on the ground doing the fighting tend to be uneducated, poor, and in the dark about what the war is even about.

If I had my choice at this stage in my life, I'd MUCH rather be an Officer than a soldier.



 

Men aren't dying to maintain respect and/or fear from their women.  They are dying to protect the freedom and way of life for their people
 

Yes, that's why I brought them up as an example.

Now the question is, is it WORKING for them?
Looks to me like the more the Palestinians "stand up" for themselves, the more suffering and violence they end up enduring.

The men AND women AND children are dying by the tens of thousands and they are not free or safe, so what benefit does a man being hyper-masculine and traditional offer the community in cases like that where you're facing overwhelming oppression?

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The amount of value or benefit you get from it.

That's up to the individual.

 

Dr. MLK Jr. knew he wouldn't live long. 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In modern American society, let's say you have two married couples....
One is traditional with the man as head of the household; the other is more liberal with the husband and wife sharing power as equally as possible, or possibly with her possessing a little more power.
 

What TANGIBLE benefits can the man of the first couple enjoy that the man of the second couple is missing out on by not being the head?

The 1st man has peace of mind in knowing his wife will never accused him of being broke. 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes, and lived to be a ripe old age and died healthy and happy laying on top of some young woman in bed...lol.

Only the luckiest old men get to enjoy that happy endings.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

While some brave (or stupid?) young men are laying in the grave over a LIE.

Many men die in wars whether they choose to go or not.

 

For example, Russian and Ukraine losing thousands of men.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 I'd MUCH rather be an Officer than a soldier.

Officers get killed on wars too.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Now the question is, is it WORKING for them?
Looks to me like the more the Palestinians "stand up" for themselves, the more suffering and violence they end up enduring.

Throughout history, many people have chosen to die rather than be oppressed.

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The men AND women AND children are dying by the tens of thousands and they are not free or safe, so what benefit does a man being hyper-masculine and traditional offer the community in cases like that where you're facing overwhelming oppression?

Saving future generations from oppression is worthwhile to some men. 

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

The 1st man has peace of mind in knowing his wife will never accused him of being broke. 

 

How so?
Could you go into a little more detail.

 

I've seen a lot of married couples where the husband and wife share power and the wife even seems to lead and make most of the decisions, who are doing VERY well financially.

 

 

Only the luckiest old men get to enjoy that happy endings.

 

Maybe that should be one of the goals of most men...lol.

 

 

 

 

Throughout history, many people have chosen to die rather than be oppressed.

 

The Palestinians are enduring both death AND oppression.

It's not like they all chose to die a "noble death" before being forced to endure suffering and humiliation.
No, they've gone through and ARE going through humiliation and oppression AS WELL as being killed..
And have been for many generations.
 

And as mentioned before, their courage and brevity hasn't seemed to reward them.
But I understand that many believe that they will be rewarded in the "afterlife" for their actions, so perhaps that's fueling them to keep going.

 

 

[ProfD]

8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How so?
Could you go into a little more detail.

The wife of a financially stable man won't nag him about not having any money.  She might be complain about him being too tight with it.

 

8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I've seen a lot of married couples where the husband and wife share power and the wife even seems to lead and make most of the decisions, who are doing VERY well financially.

Sure.  There is no one size fits all when it comes to relationships.  Roles and responsibilities can and do change.  Depends on the situation.

8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Maybe that should be one of the goals of most men...lol.

Heterosexual men jump through many hoops for that snatch box.  It takes some men longer than others to realize it's easier to pay as you go.  Less stress and headaches.  Most men never get that memo.

 

8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Palestinians are enduring both death AND oppression.

It's not like they all chose to die a "noble death" before being forced to endure suffering and humiliation.
No, they've gone through and ARE going through humiliation and oppression AS WELL as being killed..
And have been for many generations.

Fighting, killing and dying has become a way of life for people in that region.  Those who can escape it will get out of dodge.

8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And as mentioned before, their courage and brevity hasn't seemed to reward them.
But I understand that many believe that they will be rewarded in the "afterlife" for their actions, so perhaps that's fueling them to keep going.

Many men of a certain faith do believe their martyrdom will be rewarded in the afterlife. 

 

I'd imagine it ties back to if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

 

The luckiest people on ships during chattel slave trade were either killed and/or thrown overboard or got sick and died before or shortly after it landed.

 

Some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others.  Oppression probably works in the same way. 

 

My contention is that human beings should not be enslaving or killing each other for no good reason. 

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

The wife of a financially stable man won't nag him about not having any money.  She might be complain about him being too tight with it.

 

Perhaps she'll nag him about something else...not being able to satisfy her in the bedroom, or being a wimp, or being emotionally detached...lol.

 

 

 

Sure.  There is no one size fits all when it comes to relationships.  Roles and responsibilities can and do change.  Depends on the situation.

 

That's exactly my point.
So why even add the extra stress of pushing "traditional" or "male dominated" relationships when people are going to hook up and make it work however they like anyway?

If a man is dominant...he WILL dominate.
No need to push him to do so or encourage the woman to "dial it down".


 

 

 

 

Some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others.  Oppression probably works in the same way. 

 

I wonder do Black people have a higher tolerance for pain and oppression and THAT in and of itself could be a problem in some cases.
 

Meaning.....

Where as Black folks will put up with abuse and oppression and tolerate it and endure it because they're strong enough to, the weaker more delicate White man will be quicker to "snap" under pressure and go crazy either killing himself or every oppressor he can get his hands on because he can't take it anymore..

 

 

My contention is that human beings should not be enslaving or killing each other for no good reason.

 

For no GOOD reason?

Wait a minute....lol...is their a "good" reason to enslave another?

Am I talking to ProfD or the frankster, up in here????
 

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

For no GOOD reason?

Wait a minute....lol...is their a "good" reason to enslave another?

Am I talking to ProfD or the frankster, up in here????

I dare not type for anyone else but according to my logic...

 

A good reason to enslave someone is to make them pay off a debt owed. Still that doesn't mean the person should be mistreated or abused.

 

A good reason to kill someone would catching them in the act of causing harm, injury or death to a defenseless or weaker person. 

 

Taking by force someone else's land;  enslaving and/or killing them just because they're weaker isn’t a good reason.

[Pioneer1]

19 hours ago, ProfD said:

I dare not type for anyone else but according to my logic...

 

A good reason to enslave someone is to make them pay off a debt owed. Still that doesn't mean the person should be mistreated or abused.

 

A good reason to kill someone would catching them in the act of causing harm, injury or death to a defenseless or weaker person. 

 

Taking by force someone else's land;  enslaving and/or killing them just because they're weaker isn’t a good reason.

Stop playing frankster!
You done fucked around and stole ProfD's Username and Password and now you're going around the board promoting slavery in his name.....LOL.

....ya play too much.

[ProfD]

40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Stop playing frankster!
You done fucked around and stole ProfD's Username and Password and now you're going around the board promoting slavery in his name.....LOL.

....ya play too much.

Nah bro, the resident agnostic is still in control of the account typing for himself.

 

I gave a reason for why someone could be enslaved. Not to support or condone it. 

 

In fact, slavery started out as indentured servitude. Chattel slavery took it to another level.

 

Maybe because I'm not religious, I see good and evil from different perspectives.

[Pioneer1]

Well, I guess it depends on how one defines slavery.

I had this discussion with a Cuban dude at work a few weeks ago and it carried on for 3 days....lol.
We couldn't agree on the exact definition of what a slave is.

Is it somebody who is forced to work for FREE.
Or is it somebody who is forced to work PERIOD whether they're getting paid or not?

And how far does it go?
You may not be FORCED to work for another, but if you a threatened with jail time or have no other employers available...is it much of a choice?

Prison Labor, as it's practiced in the United States today...is a form of slavery.
They used to force the inmates to work for free, but so many people compared it to slavery that they started paying them SOMETHING per hour just to say they were getting paid.

 

[ProfD]

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well, I guess it depends on how one defines slavery.

 

And how far does it go?

A slave is someone who has no choice but to serve their master until the debt is paid and/or they are set free.

[Pioneer1]

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

A slave is someone who has no choice but to serve their master until the.debt is paid and/or they are set free.

I'll keep it even more simple.
A slave is someone who has no choice and must serve (or as the U.S. constitution put it "involuntary servitude") their master until or unless they are set free.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD @Pioneer1 

I think both of you reveal your inner thinking when either of your leanest definitions of a slave don't include , until they make themselves free. Considering we are all DOSers from a DOS perspective i would think a mandatory element of any definition of a slave, lean or complex or any adjective is to include,"until they make themselves free. I figure being set free is an optional element in the definition. 

Very telling you two. 

[Pioneer1]

3 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD @Pioneer1 

I think both of you reveal your inner thinking when either of your leanest definitions of a slave don't include , until they make themselves free. Considering we are all DOSers from a DOS perspective i would think a mandatory element of any definition of a slave, lean or complex or any adjective is to include,"until they make themselves free. I figure being set free is an optional element in the definition. 

Very telling you two. 

You sound a little like Kanye when he said a few years ago (or was it last year???) that 400 years of Slavery was a CHOICE.

 

[richardmurray]

1 minute ago, Pioneer1 said:

You sound a little like Kanye when he said a few years ago (or was it last year???) that 400 years of Slavery was a CHOICE.

 

really @Pioneer1 I must admit I don't see my point as analogous to his. 

First, He is saying enslaved people have a choice and that is a lie. I try not to lie, first and foremost. An enslaved person is enslaved through a shackle of some sort. A physical shackle matters. Kanye to me is being traitorous to the memory of black people enslaved on each continent by whites all over: asia/america/europe/+ africa. Now he is correct to imply shackles of heritage, shackles of financial condition can be overcome. BUT, he is incorrect in that he suggest said non physical shackles are easily overcome. Financial shackles+heritage shackles are not easy to overcome as human history proves. 

Second, my point is that you and @ProfD definitions focus on being free after being set free by a master or soon to be former master's will, and my point is as a DOSer the focus should be on being free after making yourselves free and I admit my thinking is violence alone. Cause even if you fail to segregate yourself from your former masters, while being violent you are free. I don't see the similarity at all Pioneer. 

[ProfD]

42 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD @Pioneer1 

I think both of you reveal your inner thinking when either of your leanest definitions of a slave don't include , until they make themselves free.

 

17 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

Second, my point is that you and @ProfD definitions focus on being free after being set free by a master or soon to be former master's will, and my point is as a DOSer the focus should be on being free after making yourselves free and I admit my thinking is violence alone. 

Setting oneself free i.e. escaping slavery by any means necessary is definitely an option even if it means killing folks. I'm all for it.

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

The similarity between your statement and Kanye's.....

"I think both of you reveal your inner thinking when either of your leanest definitions of a slave don't include , until they make themselves free. "

"For 400 years?  That sounds like a choice to me!"

....both suggest that it was the slave's responsibility to FIGHT BACK and FREE HIMSELF instead of tolerating it.
 

That's why I said you sound a little like Yeezy...lol.
 

 

 

ProfD

Setting oneself free i.e. escaping slavery by any means necessary is definitely an option even if it means killing folks. I'm all for it
 

I've often fantasized about if I were on the slave plantation...how I'd kill the entire slaveholding family thinking that I'd free myself and my people.

What I didn't consider was that White Slave owners also considered those possibilities and often set up protocols designed for situations such as that...which often arose.
 

There were MANY slave rebellions and revolts in the South, but it took an actual WAR to end it.
 

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

There were MANY slave rebellions and revolts in the South, but it took an actual WAR to end it.

Absolutely. White slave-owners took a lot of losses. Of course, history books won't tell us that part.

 

The Civil War makes it look like well meaning white folks went to blows with their brethren for our benefit.

[Pioneer1]

Like I mentioned before, the White men of the North were LOSING the war on a regular basis until they started training and implementing Black troops.

White folks were having draft riots and even switching sides until WE got in the fight and started whooping Rebel ass...lol.

 

[richardmurray]

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

richardmurray

The similarity between your statement and Kanye's.....

"I think both of you reveal your inner thinking when either of your leanest definitions of a slave don't include , until they make themselves free. "

"For 400 years?  That sounds like a choice to me!"

....both suggest that it was the slave's responsibility to FIGHT BACK and FREE HIMSELF instead of tolerating it.
 

That's why I said you sound a little like Yeezy...lol.

I see @Pioneer1 That wasn't my intent. I sadly , contruscted my prose poorly.... I never said anyone enslaved has any responsibility to anything. I quote the remainder of my prose to clarify for the online stranger

 

On 9/14/2024 at 10:21 AM, richardmurray said:

Considering we are all DOSers from a DOS perspective i would think a mandatory element of any definition of a slave, lean or complex or any adjective is to include,"until they make themselves free. I figure being set free is an optional element in the definition. 

 

@ProfD+ @Pioneer1 

to the war between the states, after reading both of your proses segments, placed at the following

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I've often fantasized about if I were on the slave plantation...how I'd kill the entire slaveholding family thinking that I'd free myself and my people.

What I didn't consider was that White Slave owners also considered those possibilities and often set up protocols designed for situations such as that...which often arose.
 

There were MANY slave rebellions and revolts in the South, but it took an actual WAR to end it.

 

12 hours ago, ProfD said:

Absolutely. White slave-owners took a lot of losses. Of course, history books won't tell us that part.

 

The Civil War makes it look like well meaning white folks went to blows with their brethren for our benefit.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Like I mentioned before, the White men of the North were LOSING the war on a regular basis until they started training and implementing Black troops.

White folks were having draft riots and even switching sides until WE got in the fight and started whooping Rebel ass...lol.

 

I have issues to the statements you both make...

Pioneer

Slavery didn't end with the war between the states Pioneer. You know this. Profd does as well, all black people do. you know slavery  is legal to this day in the prison system and blacks, specifically black men were herded into the prison system legally while criminally by white state governments of the former confederacy or their municipal counties starting immediately after the war between the states ended.

I Argue, slavery has never ended in the usa, mutated yes , changed yes, but never ended. Rikers island ,started in the 1970s in nyc, to me is connected to the plantations of infant USA. 

Everyone , blacks or non blacks have to stop the slavery ended in the usa thing. It not only is a lie, because I know of groups, composed of blacks + non blacks, who are fighting to end slavery in the year 2024 in the usa as we multilog. But also because the lie isn't about slavery really, but about identity. When non blacks say slavery is ended they want to suggest their wealth isn't connected to it + their community has no modern role in it+the usa is a country for all above other countries. WHILE , yes i capped while, when Blacks say slavery is ended they want to suggest their community isn't influenced by white abuse+ black individuals are free to act in positive relation to whites absent a negative communal relationship between the two peoples in the modern+ the usa is a country for all above other countries. 

Slavery never ended in the usa, changed yes, mutated yes, but never ended, when anyone says slavery has ended in the usa , from indigenious on some reservation /open air prison for natives to someone from somewhere outside the usa landing somewhere in it the day this post was created, beyond the lie of if, the elemental reasonings why are very harmful. 

Profd

well has the civil war done what you suggest. remember school books in elementary school that stated how benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson and george washington saw slavery as a countdown issue. To rephrase, they all said it would lead to a serious internal issue, and i call an internal war a serious internal issue. I think even the most common history books to little wee children in the usa make it clear, albeit with less verbosity than me,  that the war between the states was an inevitability based on the obvious dysfunctional friction from the beginning of a legal system which suggest universal individual rights while having legal enslavement of individuals. I think many whites like to suggest either they were goodie whites fighting for the negro or proud whites looking to maintain their enslaving heritage but both are wrong, all sides of whites+ blacks+ indigenous were simply playing out the inevitable war that was started by the humans commonly called the founding fathers of the usa. the war was predicted in 1776 yes, it took circa one hundred years to finally happen but it was predicted because of the dysfunction. At the least, I am glad not merely in my home but even the local educational environment i had that the usa was never presented as you suggest.  And I want to defend your position in one way profd, something I learned a while back, in the usa, education is really fractured , fractured meaning, people can have totally different educational experiences or environments and be neighbors in the same municipal region. So I end with , maybe that is how the war between the states was presented to you and  I am glad to not have been in such a zone. And no way exists in the usa to apply one system to every municipality in the usa. 

Pioneer

The confederacy lost the war because of two people, robert e lee + jefferson davis, they both acted stupidly in their own spheres of influence, it is that simple. Modern history proves the problem, look at Sudan/look at many countries that were former white european descent imperial possessions in central america/south east asia/parts of africa/eastern europe/western asia... secession is easy but secession requires one thing more than anything else to lead to success, what is the plan to be at peace? If no plan exists then you get the confederacy. 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

I have issues to the statements you both make...

No surprise. It's par for the course that you would have issues with a statement and/or feel the need to correct it.

 

[richardmurray]

@ProfD haahaha 

at least it is three of us this time:)

 

I do think the status of slavery in the usa, + the comprehension of the war between the states are vital in the black dos populace in the usa. 

[ProfD]

 

6 hours ago, richardmurray said:

I do think the status of slavery in the usa, + the comprehension of the war between the states are vital in the black dos populace in the usa. 

In 2024 and beyond, most vital to FBA/ADOS is getting reparations for America's greatest sin.

 

We can revisit the history of slavery once those checks are cut along with land, free healthcare and free education.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD 

11 hours ago, ProfD said:

In 2024 and beyond, most vital to FBA/ADOS is getting reparations for America's greatest sin.

 

well. I will never deny things to repair the negativity in the heritage, reparations,  of the descendants of those enslaved in the usa is important. 

But... I have never seen offline or online, enough strategic cohesion in planning or definition to said reparations in the ADOS/FBA community. In this very community I recall this great quote by a black community advocate 

 

"

I wanted to see strong, young Black entrepreneurs like Charles and Willa Bruce take up space here and be able to build and develop here, like the Bruces once we're able to do.

Community is what got the land back. So, yes, the family won, but the community did not.

"

to read the full transcript

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2349&type=status

That quote embody the problem for the millions of black descended of enslaved in india/millions of black descended of enslaved in brasil/ millions of black descended of enslaved in the usa... that while all DOSers concur the issue is important, the consensus in our tribe in the village doesn't exist and sequentially

 

other links

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/10813-california-reparations-leaves-out-cash/?do=findComment&comment=65454

 

[ProfD]

11 hours ago, richardmurray said:

But... I have never seen offline or online, enough strategic cohesion in planning or definition to said reparations in the ADOS/FBA community.

Sure.  The framework for reparations is being codified at the grassroots level within the FBA/ADOS community. A lot more work needs to be done. 

 

 

[richardmurray]

8 hours ago, ProfD said:

Sure.  The framework for reparations is being codified at the grassroots level within the FBA/ADOS community. A lot more work needs to be done. 

 

 

@ProfD ok and i have a question for you.  But first a premise.  this codification you speak of, it really took over 150 years, since the war between the states to get to it current position in the ados community. Reparations has been discussed since the end of the war between the states among black dosers, so... it took over 150 years just to get to the current condition. So my question is the following, accepting the premise, what if the black dos populace in the usa never finishes codifying reparations? 

 

[ProfD]

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD ok and i have a question for you.  But first a premise.  this codification you speak of, it really took over 150 years, since the war between the states to get to it current position in the ados community.

Sure. It took 100 years for FBA/ADOS to get Civil Rights.  

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Reparations has been discussed since the end of the war between the states among black dosers, so... it took over 150 years just to get to the current condition.

IMO, reparations has never been a priority. I believe FBA/ADOS felt it was a bridge too far to cross. 

12 hours ago, richardmurray said:

So my question is the following, accepting the premise, what if the black dos populace in the usa never finishes codifying reparations? 

 

If Gen-X doesn't pull reparations across the finish line, it will probably die on the vine.

 

Each generation of FBA/ADOS  is further removed from America's original sin. Most likely, they will not pick up the torch for reparations. 

[Pioneer1]

What if I were to tell you that CHATTLE Slavery itself may in fact come back to some parts of the United States?
And it may even be more brutal than it was the first time because the next generation would have "learned lessons" on how to gain and maintain control over their slaves as well as the technology to do so that the previous generations DIDN'T have?

And what if I told you that many if not most of these immigrants they're bringing in the nation will be the primary ones responsible for it's possible return?

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

What if I were to tell you that CHATTLE Slavery itself may in fact come back to some parts of the United States?

I would think you'd finally found the *right* weed.

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

And what if I told you that many if not most of these immigrants they're bringing in the nation will be the primary ones responsible for it's possible return?

Then, I'd sound like Kanye West saying they chose to be a slave.

 

In 2024 and beyond, folks may not earn what they want but it's not forced labor either. 

[Pioneer1]

9 minutes ago, ProfD said:

 

Then, I'd sound like Kanye West saying they chose to be a slave.

Absolutely.....why do you think they want to come here?

They are SIGNING UP (as frankster would say...lol) to be slaves.

Just like the poor White folks don't care about poverty AS LONG AS they are a step above the average Black person and has more than they have, it's the same with many of these immigrants.
They sign up to be slaves under White folks and make it crystal clear they have no problem being 2nd or even 3rd class citizens with White folks incharge....as long as it's understood that White folks like them better than they like you.

A few more enlightened ones will battle with the others for more power and proximity to White folks.

The smarter Latino may fight with the smarter Arab over political power and being closer to White success.
The smarter Korean may fight with the smarter Pakistani over economic power and being closer to White success.
..... but they all have the same reaction to the Black man with an ashy face and some powdered white lips running up to their car with a squeegee in his hand.

[richardmurray]

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

What if I were to tell you that CHATTLE Slavery itself may in fact come back to some parts of the United States?
And it may even be more brutal than it was the first time because the next generation would have "learned lessons" on how to gain and maintain control over their slaves as well as the technology to do so that the previous generations DIDN'T have?

And what if I told you that many if not most of these immigrants they're bringing in the nation will be the primary ones responsible for it's possible return?

history proves everything returns