Jump to content

Royal Wedding, Are. You. Watching?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 how would you abuse your citizenship by marrying for money?  Are you a U.S. national?   Marrying for money isn't illegal in U.S. 

 

I'm natural born and reared U.S. citizen, but regardless, though I'm not familiar with the exact statute/ordinance consider marriage to a foreigner for money and then apply for a visa, residency, or citizenship is forbidden.  No one had to tell me this and I may wrong, I doubt it.  You're right most anything one does for money isn't illegal, except if it to do something that impacts the integrity of laws and privileges.  Such as applying for immigration status for a foreigner married to a U.S. citizen as part of a payment.  Now, does that make a follower, fool, or avoid legal complications for a monetary benefit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalexander2 said:

You're right most anything one does for money isn't illegal, except if it to do something that impacts the integrity of laws and privileges. 

 

@Kalexander2 Ok, now I understand your position. In your comment above you left out the part about marrying for money to gain citizenship for yourself or someone else.   

Based on the information you've provided, I wouldn't now if that makes you a follower or even obedient to authority.   This could be one area that you feel it's wrong to take money for something you'd do for free.  There's no way I could know your threshold .    \

 

Besides, following rules without question is not the same as honoring one's integrity.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:


Based on the information you've provided, I wouldn't now if that makes you a follower or even obedient to authority.   This could be one area that you feel it's wrong to take money for something you'd do for free.  There's no way I could know your threshold .  

 

Yeah, well, why else would a wealthy foreign woman want to marry a Black American man, certainly not for love which is the other reason I refused, I knew it would just for the money.  And no person should face possible abuse by a male gold-digger.  Truth is, one side of me says I'm a fool for passing up an opportunity for, whatever; and another says I'm a rebel because I went against the norm, putting principle before profit.  I grow and please myself by doing or not doing what is considered normal.  Most men would have jumped instantly at such an offer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

I simply refuse to believe in the "out of Africa" theory.

Do I have proof or a ton of solid evidence to support my disbelief?

Outside of my observations of the phenotypical patterns of people around the globe....no.

But given the ever changing history that anthropologists, paleontologists, and others in Western science offers the world every few decades.....I'm sure before this century is out they'll have a NEW theory of where humans supposedly came from.


 

 


Megahn is a white-looking multimillionaire celebrity she is not Nay-Nay from the projects. Let's not pretend that all people are the same or viewed the same way.


Exactly.
I don't even think they see her as actually "Black".

AfroAmericans see her as Black because we've been raised with that erroneous "one drop" rule.
But they simply see her as "non-British" and probably lump her in the same category as Italians, Greeks, Arabs, ect.....


 

 


Mel

People are NOT commodities. We are members of a networked community. So, marriage is not a step-up but rather a strategic partnership based on goals.


Since marriage is also government-sanctioned some people marry to expand their territories.


Married people may not be commodities but MARRIAGE itself is usually a commodity and a financial agreement in THIS society as well as European, African, and Asian societies.

Historically speaking, people RARELY got married for "love"....but out of financial, social, and political benefit and it was usually for the benefit of the men in the relationship and not the women.
Even though a poor woman may have married a wealthier man, it wasn't the woman who benefited from the arrangement so much as it was her father and brothers who got some control of the money and land involved.

Personally, I would have NO PROBLEM marrying a woman for my economic well being or hers AS LONG AS IT'S UNDERSTOOD between us that that's what we're marrying for.

In my opinion,  LYING and BREAKING OATHS TO THE SUPREME BEING is wrong, not simply chasing after wealth or status.

So if I lied for the reasons I married her or took an oath to marry her for a particular reason and then broke it.....that would be "wrong".
But simply marrying for money or financial gain in and of itself isn't wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Notwithstanding how any of us feel, Meghan’s marriage to the prince has or will have an effect on the Black community worldwide.  Perhaps not an economic or political effect but of attitudes of sorts.  Some may see it as a Black woman making it good in a bad, dark time for Black folk and benefit from some positive attitude; others may see it as a realization of false pretense of moving up in the world, enlighten by a negative attitude.

 

No matter what the attitude, Meghan owns nothing to the Black community; she’s not the cause of issues facing Black people and she cannot be a solution, even she was the queen.  Though it means nothing to me or my life, “I’m happy for her,” and pray she doesn’t fall victim as did Princess Dianna.  Never bought that ‘car accident’ excuse for her murder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

Never bought that ‘car accident’ excuse for her murder!

 

@Kalexander2Nope... Me neither!  LOL!    I still think Queen Elizabeth II is straight up gansta.  I know I wouldn't cross her.   I remember shopping in London - and the taxes on my stuff equaled the cost of goods.  The queen don't play.   And one would have to wonder why her dynasty hasn't been overthrown like Ethiopia Monarchy.   

 

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

MARRIAGE itself is usually a commodity and a financial agreement in THIS society as well as European, African, and Asian societies.


@Pioneer1  It is amazing that so many people don't question why they have to get a state sanctioned marriage license.  Marriage is a state-sanctioned business.  Children are (fruit of the labor) of marriage.  But so many folks are under the fairy tale impression it's because " I love him/her"  - NOPE! In fact it has nothing to do with religion either - - as some familiar with marriage laws - say the state allows G-d to be party to the marriage but here in the U.S. ; God is optional.  

 

19 hours ago, Cynique said:

a black woman from Howard U had recently married an Ethiopian prince


@Cynique Yes, I saw that too. According to the New York Times article, (October 13, 2017)  Joel Makonnen had dated Ariana Austin for 12 years before he admitted that he was the great-grandson of Haile Selassie, Ethiopia's emperor who was ousted (1974 ) After an civil war the monarchy was overthrown in 1991.   Makonnen is a prince without a country.  Still, the story of their wedding brought Ethiopia back into mainstream news.   

After your post, I started thinking about how stories of folks in the African diaspora don't get coverage like European diaspora  in america .   For example.  if  Ariana Austin met  Prince Yoel  in 2005; you mean to tell me, no other media knew he was living here in the U.S.  Where are the stories on him prior to his wedding?   He could only keep his identity a secret because he knew American Media wouldn't cover him. 

  @Troy  I agree we have to do better with getting media coverage for our community.  I know I've been responsible for getting my fair share of folks on record - but I'm just one journalist/media consultant.  I knew about Meghan before the world started talking about her - because I watched the first season of  suits  and I'm huge hallmark channel watcher...  I thought it was funny how they would cast her in racially ambiguous roles... and then she got all this hate mail when Suits cast Wendell Pierce as her overprotecting father.  Folks started complaining that she hid that she was black - and she  responded that she never said she wasn't black to her critics.   

But anyway; this  thread reminded me of when I pitched a story to an Essence editor in 2007 that black men were getting "snipped" (vasectomies) in record numbers - they were interested at first - then shelved it.   Ten years later, I saw a similar story in the NY Post where white men said they are getting snipped to avoid gold-diggers and child support.   Maybe if I'd pitch baby mama drama Essence would have ran with it.  

 If you tiring of hearing about Harry - and hate how every made a big deal about the wedding - blame media - especially mainstream black media. They don't want to do stories that are important to the black community, in a timely fashion.  |

(Note:  Ebony is always interested in cutting edge stories from the black community.  I've always had an easier time "selling" stories to them. )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2018 at 11:53 PM, Pioneer1 said:

s my understanding that the Arabs in Africa were descended from the Arabs of Asian nations like Iraq, Syria, Saudi, ect...who invaded and occupied Africa centuries ago.

 

@Pioneer1 But here is the issue that I see though; The Western Civilization and I suppose other nations too, keep changing the names and the maps with regards to the origins of certain people in ancient times. Iraq, Syria, Saudi, had people living in these areas that had other descriptive names that place them with 'other origins' that places them in Africa too, before they migrated east. For example, in the land of ancient Iran, Persia, lived the people of AI; and from my research, this name connects to a very early people during the Copper Age, that dominated 'the MIddle East' [ie. Jerusalem] and that came from MADAI-JAPHETH. From this civilization came people and civilization like;

THE MENES, the ARMENIANS, the MEDES, MEDO-PERSIA, the ACHAEMENIDS, ... and some of these people were concentrated in THE WEST initially. Nevertheless, they are still defined as ORIENTAL, but not necessarily ASIAN. Some the early people, from my research shows that they were, as you said, BLACK. They interacted with the ancestors of the Khurds and Greater Babylon and etc.  

21 hours ago, Cynique said:

And i was a little surprised at how sistas so eagerly bought into this scenario as if it were a romantic fantasy they had been secretly harboring.  I have little or no regard for Brittain's Royals who i consider a family of dull-witted parasites, paid homage for absolutely no reason. 

 

@Cynique Thank you!!!\

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins

23 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 You wrote  Harry wouldn't marry Gabby in billion years...  I get the sense that's statement was made on some arbitrary value assignment. 

 

Yes arbitrary, subjective, and often unjust -- particularly as they relate to Black people.  Mel do you think Harry would marry Gabby?  Does anyone here think he would (for all the reasons one might image) or am I just making stuff up?

 

Ebony is far from the magazine it once was. I've written about that here a couple of times here, but Ebony is not unique. We have lost so much media there is not one Black owned daily newspaper in all of America --despite all of our education, wealth, and talent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chevdove
 

But here is the issue that I see though; The Western Civilization and I suppose other nations too, keep changing the names and the maps with regards to the origins of certain people in ancient times. Iraq, Syria, Saudi, had people living in these areas that had other descriptive names that place them with 'other origins' that places them in Africa too, before they migrated east. For example, in the land of ancient Iran, Persia, lived the people of AI


I've heard the argument that the Middle East is actually part of northeast Africa but the West tries to seperate it.
To be honest, I could see it that way....but barely.
As far as I'm concerned it's just as much if not more a part of Asia than Africa.

I believe since most Black people in the United States are either Muslim or Christian they have an interest in seeing what their religions call the "holy land" as part of Africa.....similar to how a lot of our people want to make Jesus and the other biblical characters Black.
I'm beyond that at this point.

I do recognize that the ORIGINAL inhabitants of that region were indeed Black.....

Before the Caucasian Medes and Persians moved into Iran the original peoples there were a Black people known as Elamites.

Before for the Caucasian Syrians moved into the Palestine coastal regions, the original people's in that area were Black and built a city called "Salem" that Caucasian later came in, continued to build upon, and now call "Jeru-SALEM"
They were a tall and strong Black people and when the Caucasians saw them they called them "Giants".

Infact, the original inhabitants of Italy and Greece were Black people known as Etruscans.

So clearly Black isn't limited to Africa.




and from my research, this name connects to a very early people during the Copper Age, that dominated 'the MIddle East' [ie. Jerusalem] and that came from MADAI-JAPHETH. From this civilization came people and civilization like;


Japeth is also related to the Greco-Roman deity JUPITER.

According to the myth, when Japeth and his family moved down from the Caucasus mountains into Greece...him and many of his offspring were deified as Greek gods and heros.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Troy said:

the problem is that white people put Egypt which is firmly on the African Continent in a nonsensically named place they made up called the "middle East."  Clearly Egypt is in Africa -- full stop, end of story.

 

Right, brother, thanks to Alfred Wegener, the German polar researcher, geophysicist and meteorologist; his continental drift hypothesis, the planet could be considered Africa if his hypothesis is correct.  Even Egyptians recognize theirs as part of Africa, as well as the more accurate history, geometry, and science texts. Most people do not realize or understand this fact.   Honestly, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Egypt is part of Africa as well as Lybia and Morocco but they are still considered part of the Middle East as well.

Middle East is more of a CULTURAL term than a geographical one.
Juar like the term Latin America.

Latin American countries are found in both North AND South America....two continents.

Likewise, the "Middle East" also spans two continents....Africa and Asia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying Syrians are culturally the same as Egyptians, and Israelis the same as iranians?!

 

Latin America and the middle east are not analogous at all.

 

You are the first person i ever heard say morroco was in the middle east. This is high school geography and you presumably have the internet at your disposal.... smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Troy said:

So you are saying Syrians are culturally the same as Egyptians, and Israelis the same as iranians?!

 

Latin America and the middle east are not analogous at all.

 

You are the first person i ever heard say morroco was in the middle east. This is high school geography and you presumably have the internet at your disposal.... smh

 

Yeah, Latin America is a cultural term; that’s ridiculous.  Latin America is comprised mostly of Latin peoples within the Americas, it's geography.  Middle Eastern Peoples are Africans, Arabs, And Jews.  In fact, the term "Middle East" was probably first originated in the 1850's by Britons but became popular when Americans designated it as the area between Arabia and India.  Hence, Middle East.

 

Right again, there’s no data anywhere that would support (even) remotely Latin America and the Middle East are comparable.

 

Any elementary school student knows Morocco is Africa, never considered part of the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you're understanding mine.....

I KNOW where those nations are located, but IT DOESN'T MATTER whether or not the country is in Africa or not the term "Middle East" has more to do with culture than continent.
Egypt, Lybia, and Morocco may be in Africa but it's CONTROLLED by Arabs and it's culture is an Arabic culture.

And yes Israel and Iran is part of Middle Eastern culture because of their history.
Hebrew is a Semetic language like Arabic.
Israel has a large population of Arabs still within it's borders.
Persian or Farsi is written in Arabic and Iran is a predominately Muslim nation.

I understand YOUR point that these nations are in the continent of Africa, but you're looking at maps and I'm talking about how many of the people from those nations see THEMSELVES.
...especially those from Egypt and Morocco that I've talked to.

They share far more in common with other Arabs from places like Syria and Bahrain, than they do Black folks from Zimbabwe or Angola.

 

 

 

 

 


Neither you nor I invented the term "Middle East".
I'm not sure how productive it would be for us to wrangle over it's exact meaning of a tern neither of us invented or have control over.

If the media and even the Eyptian government wants to call Egypt the Middle East and align it with Syria and Iraq....what can me, you, or any of the Black controlled nations in Africa do about it?

That's what White Supremacy does.

It causes confusion and have people of color arguing among themselves over politics, religion, geography, and everything else.
Meanwhile the Caucasians who ORCHESTRATED IT and the terms being used aren't arguing over anything but which one of them gets the biggest share of the wealth and resources they're sucking from the land....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1, I'm not confused.  But it is pointless to argue over geography because maps clearly show Morocco and Egypt are in Africa. 

 

As far as the Middle East is concerned it was something created by white folks, like the national borders of present day Africa, created without regard to the cultures or input from the people who lived there. 

 

If your definition of being in the middle East is, "CONTROLLED by Arabs and it's culture," how do you explain Israel?   

Besides you, who else considers Morocco to be in the Middle East?  

 

No need to bring in issues of politics, religion, or the white man into this. Just admit you made a mistake, learn from the experience, and move on -- what is the big deal?

 

-------------

 

Hey @Kalexander2 no need to copy the entire post of someone you are replying too -- especially when your reply immediately follows (just a tip to reduce clutter in the conversations)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Troy said:

Pioneer, I'm not confused.  But it is pointless to argue over geography because maps clearly show Morocco and Egypt are in Africa. 

 

As far as the Middle East is concerned it was something created by white folks, like the national borders of present day Africa, created without regard to the cultures or input from the people who lived there. 

 

Besides you, who else considers Morocco to be in the Middle East.  

 

No need to bring in issues of politics, religion, or the white man into this. Just admit you made a mistake, learn from the experience, and move on -- what is the big deal?

 

You are right, brother Troy; in fact, I'm about 8-hours from the Egyptian border, visited there several times, driving from Israel; yet they call Israel part of the Middle East, even area's in Palestine they call Israel.  It's all Africa with African Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religion cultures and people.  One cannot say they are of Arab cultures only; not Egypt, Libya, nor Morocco.  They are part of the African continent where Black African, Arabs, and Jews live.  Simple as that, period.  


Even the United Nations, though they recognize something called the 'State of Isreal," they actually consider what is called Israel as Palestine.  Isreal is just a government State without a country, until the 1947 war where even Jews called a "Beautiful Bride Married to Another" as Palestine.  Colorful words to that successfully hide their true intention from this stupid world.  


You must realize brother, it's easy for Europeans to win-over foolish Black folk because they understand we'll never question what they say.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the establishment of an Embassy in Israel is icing on the cake.

 

Are any of the Black folks in your your neck of the woods interested in the royal wedding?

 

Remember, you don't have to copy what I wrote in your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, even to my surprise Arabs don't seem to care about the Embassy in Jerusalem.  Many never really had access when it was Tel Aviv.  I was there several times to cancel a resident visa for my wife, we decided it best she does not come to the U.S.   Something about fear of me being harmed should she face Arab hating Islamaphobic white folk.  She's right too, I'll make them kill me!  unfortunately, my compassion is not passive.

 

The royal wedding, many of the women folk in my wife's family, and others have positive comments about it, but also see it as a Black woman being submissive to a Whiteman.  I constantly hear commentary that American Blacks are becoming worse than whites.   That's probably because they expected Barack Obama to stand-up to Netanyahu more forcefully.   At any rate, I can easily get away from conversations I disdain by denying I speak Arabic or Hebrew unless I'm at one the universities here or in Palestine. 

 

My wife won't allow me to go to bars, but she did surprise me on New Years with a bottle of 50-year-old Glenfiddich Single Malt Scotch Whiskey.   And no, she's stingy to pay $23,000, she got it from an auction house in Dubai for $2,000., more than 2/3rd remain.   You'll never gtuess how many Russian females are here; more Russian Jews then Middle Eastern Jews and most, if all are deeply involved in criminal activity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do certainly hope I never have to also, brother;  especially when countless others involuntarily make the ultimate sacrifice every hour of every day.   How about you, brother Troy, where's the limit drawn with your loved ones, how far will you go 'where no man has gone before' to save one or all of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 11:33 PM, Pioneer1 said:

According to the myth, when Japeth and his family moved down from the Caucasus mountains into Greece...him and many of his offspring were deified as Greek gods and heros.

 

I love it! This so wonderfully stated. 

However, with respect to the 'giants' I don't believe that they were all 'this' or all 'that', or all negative or all positive. 

 

That is the issue here, some statements are 'myth' and I believe that over the years, the sound proof to confirm history is a tool(s) that we can not use or do not possess to verify history as being totally true or not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chevdove said:

That is the issue here, some statements are 'myth' and I believe that over the years, the sound proof to confirm history is a tool(s) that we can not use or do not possess to verify history as being totally true or not.  

 

Right, when humans adopt myths it's usually for convenience; passed down through history making its way into history textbooks is intended to only confirm white customs, their beliefs, and how they see nature.  For white folk.

 

Like the myth that the Middle East is the cradle of western civilization; when, in fact, in reality, there's little civilized here, unless one sees insincere greetings and mannerism civilized.  It does, however, demonstrate racist, xenophobic mentalities of the West.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

Like the myth that the Middle East is the cradle of western civilization

 

LOL! yes, that is a confusion.

They keep redrawing the maps even when it concerns early history. I think the term WEST ASIA meant one thing and included Iran,

then the term NEAR EAST was used to include MESOPOTAMIA and maybe Turkey, and now the term is THE MIDDLE EAST to 

include Mesopotamia and etc. And then way back whenever, the term West Asia was Iran and I suppose Central Asia was 

around the Aral Sea. Clearly, these terms reveal the presence and domination of Asiatics in 'the Middle East' LOL! 

 

The East, Asia, Asiatics, the FAR EAST, the NEAR EAST, the ORIENT ... this whole world seems to be dominated by THE EAST. smh.

 

On 6/29/2018 at 11:53 PM, Troy said:

You are the first person i ever heard say morroco was in the middle east. This is high school geography and you presumably have the internet at your disposal.... smh

 

@TroyUh oh! LOL! Can I get in on this conversation?

 

Actually, uhm, I absolutely remember reading somewhere that the international leagues in the Western nations did change the maps around some point in 1947 when they recarved the maps for the Jews in Europe to go back to 'the Middle East' and, I vaguely do remember that, believe it or not, yes, MOROCCO was included in on their geographical definition of 'THE MIDDLE EAST'. I think it does have something to do with the Arabs, Islam, and the muslims. yes, I think @Pioneer1 maybe right here. I just remember when I read something along those lines, I was amazed that they were defining parts of North Africa, all the way west as 'the Middle East'. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chevdove:  I've come to the opinion that we may never know, with clear certainty, true world history let alone our own true history.  What it comes down to is a kind of 'deductive' reasoning; it is unlikely life started in the 'snow' or in hostile environments unfavorable, or unable to sustain human organisms and if it did humans could not strive; too long unless they were cannibalistic in nature; many Blacks want to believe this is the case.  I disdain white folks too but creating what suits us is unreasonable; though ancient white folk must have been cannibals.   Ancient Africans practiced cannibalism up to the 19th century and they lived in favorable climate environments. 

 

I wish you could see the caves in the desert areas here, they can totally sustain humans indefinitely.  I've been doing a great deal of inquiring about purchasing some desert area; aside from the cobra's, scopion's, and bugs, conversion to modern living; with a dunes buggy and/or camel, comfort is truly possible.  The only real setback is dealing with locals who see strangers as unwelcome intruders.  Which tells me right-way whites  could not have come out of the desert to people who considered them unwelcomed outsiders and,  certainly not without, at least sunscreen,

 

It's a lie that white European Jews ever lived in the desert before the last six-thousand years; the 1947 war establishing their so-called right to return home was the biggest vile they ever pulled over on the world's eyes. And it worked through history textbooks, folklore, and myths.

 

The controversy between creationism and Darwin only adds to the confusion.  Take the hegemonic power vacuum over the past few thousand years and people are left babbling who they are where they came from with a few groups actually in-charge.  But it doesn't matter either because of world events of today; who's going to be left standing if James Balwin is right about destruction by "The Fire Next Time?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

What it comes down to is a kind of 'deductive' reasoning; it is unlikely life started in the 'snow' or in hostile environments unfavorable, or unable to sustain human organisms and if it did humans could not strive; too long unless they were cannibalistic in nature;

 

yes, I do believe this too, about deductive reasoning, sifting through lies to try and get at the real truth. And yes, I believe that about cannibalism too.

 

3 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

I wish you could see the caves in the desert areas here, they can totally sustain humans indefinitely. 

 

That sounds so fascinating. 

 

3 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

The controversy between creationism and Darwin only adds to the confusion. 

 

yes, that is true. This planet is old and who knows what is up ahead for mankind for sure. Nevertheless, I am not the kind of person to just let this system continue to feed me lies and then want me to accept it as truth! There is a strange spirit in this world today that somehow sees a benefit in oppressing people for self gain. Why can't we seek a better quality of life without feeling the desire to crush other people and to deliberately support a system of lies? This is so crazy. 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Troy

You're arguing with me over how stupid a term is that I didn't even create?

I didn't invent the term.

Like you said, White people invented the term "Middle East"....tell THEM that Egypt and Libya is in Africa and not me....lol.


As far as Morocco goes.......

Perhaps I AM wrong about it but I've heard it being described as Middle Eastern before regardless as to how erroneous and stupid it may SOUND.

I know you don't care too much for using Wikipedia as a source but when it comes to definitions they are good at going into the history of terms and words and under "other definitions of the Middle East" we read:

"
Various concepts are often being paralleled to Middle East, most notably Near East, Fertile Crescent and the Levant. Near East, Levant and Fertile Crescent are geographic concepts, which refer to large sections of the modern defined Middle East, with Near East being the closest to Middle East in its geographic meaning. Due to it primarily being Arabic speaking, the Maghreb region of North Africa is sometimes included."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East


Maghreb is pretty much what the Arabs called all of North Africa west of Egypt.

Also, I've seen Moroccan restaurants being refered to as "Middle Eastern" foods.

Like I said, I didn't invent the term so don't get mad at me man....lol.

The next time CNN or ABC refers to Egypt or Libya or some other African nation as "Middle Eastern" you may want to send them and e-mail correcting them, lol.


 

 

 


Chevdove
 

Actually, uhm, I absolutely remember reading somewhere that the international leagues in the Western nations did change the maps around some point in 1947 when they recarved the maps for the Jews in Europe to go back to 'the Middle East' and, I vaguely do remember that, believe it or not, yes, MOROCCO was included in on their geographical definition of 'THE MIDDLE EAST'. I think it does have something to do with the Arabs, Islam, and the muslims. yes, I think @Pioneer1 maybe right here. I just remember when I read something along those lines, I was amazed that they were defining parts of North Africa, all the way west as 'the Middle East'
 

Thank you.
I've heard people refer to Morocco and even all of North Africa as the "Middle East" because of it's Arabic culture.
But like i said, I'm not fond of arguing over terms I didn't create.



 

I love it! This so wonderfully stated.

However, with respect to the 'giants' I don't believe that they were all 'this' or all 'that', or all negative or all positive.


It is my belief that the "giants" spoken of in the Bible is just the terms that Caucasians used for the earlier Black races that existed in those regions before they invaded.

We know that Black civilizations that were more advanced with better diet and higher knowledge lived in those regions and when the smaller and more ignorant Caucasians came into contact with these people they were intimidated and refered to them as giants.

If we look at the Masai and Dinka of Kenya and Sudan we STILL find very tall well built Black men and women who probably occupied much of that region before the Caucasian races drove them out.

So yes, just like you have good and bad Black people today....you had good and bad Black people back in those days.

But when Caucasians came with their new religions, they had to PORTRAY them as evil and wicked and abomnible in order to have an excuse to kill them and drive them out.

 

 

 

That is the issue here, some statements are 'myth' and I believe that over the years, the sound proof to confirm history is a tool(s) that we can not use or do not possess to verify history as being totally true or not.


You're absolutely correct!

A myth is a SYMBOLIC STORY that is designed to conceal the truth.
With the right codes you can UNLOCK that truth that the myth contains.

I believe the story of Noah's ark was a MYTH that contained the TRUTH of Caucasians coming down out of the Caucasus mountains and spreading out over the region.

Mr. Ararat which the Ark allegedly landed on is located in the Caucasus mountains and his children and grandchildren spreading in different directions is the same as how the Caucasians spread out from the Caucasus mountains to found various civilizations.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Why can't we seek a better quality of life without feeling the desire to crush other people and to deliberately support a system of lies? This is so crazy. 

 

@Chevdove More questions as to possible answers may be deduced via the tale of Cain & Abel who ignored a better life in exchange for human jealousy of his brother, or human 'survival by any means necessary,' responsible for the creation of powerful State governments that justify war and servitude for a better life.  Yes, crazy as it is, matters have always been this way and; any other view is a mirage, a deliberate lie to deceive us.

 

5 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

which really puts the onus on mainstream media.  They are exposed - no longer can they feed "educated" and "experienced" folks bullshit ... and expect us to swallow it.

 

@Mel Hopkins:  Right, and that's true for each and every media outlet in the world, especially America!!  The media can no-longer feed folks BS because people do not even to be told what's happening. At all. Period.  Anyone with eyes, ears, and the sanity to understand know what is happening.  Thanks

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins I dunno. It is very possible @Pioneer1 read somewhere that morocco is in the middle east.  I just have never heard anyone say that but to his point what is the point of debating it "Middle East," is a nonsensical term, and only means something to the imperialists who coined it.

 

I just watched a video where Denzel Washington, who I saw on Broadway on Sunday, said; "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed and if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." I was like dayam, Denzel has a radial side.  I was impressed, cause all this time I thought he was just an actor. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel

 

@Troy and @Pioneer1 it seems as if both of you agree - which really puts the onus on mainstream media. They are exposed - no longer can they feed "educated" and "experienced" folks bullshit ... and expect us to swallow it.


Dr. Wade Nobles said that power was the ability to define reality and have others accept it.

Most people around the world will deny what they SEE with their very eyes, only to accept what they are TOLD on television.

I think if people started letting thier own observations and experiences educate them as much as possible instead of relying soley on what they see on television or even what they may read in a book....the vast majority of the world's problems would be solved in less than one years time.

Like you said earlier, it's better to actually VISIT people places and see for yourself instead of just reading about them.....you come with an entirely different and more wholesome perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/30/2018 at 9:14 AM, Pioneer1 said:

That's what White Supremacy does.

It causes confusion and have people of color arguing among themselves over politics, religion, geography, and everything else.
Meanwhile the Caucasians who ORCHESTRATED IT and the terms being used aren't arguing over anything but which one of them gets the biggest share of the wealth and resources they're sucking from the land....lol.

 

@Pioneer1 Truth!

 

But because of being in a state of confusion is still why we should keep searching for the whole truth, and this will hopefully end our confusion. Even though sometimes

it may seem hard to debate, converse, or argue over issues that affect us as a whole, and yes, we as a whole may be mocked due to the conflicst that arise as a result of being confused, and in how we debate, however, how else will be gain truth? We have been lied to and exploited by White Supremacy and its' Movements for so long. And, some of the topics raised in this post regarding 'the Royals' seems so fitting on this wise. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

@Pioneer1 I tried to make a comment weeks ago, but my comment was not posted due to what was a 'caching' problem that has now been fixed. I wanted to address this statement because of my research. In terms of the 'Blacks' you refer to that were originally in this region before the Caucasians invaded I agree. But in respect to the dates and times, I think there is so much more to this subject of giants. And the reason why I mention this is due to my study on 'Genetics' in terms of the presence of giants. For this reason, I do see a distinction in the kind of giants you refer to from other kinds of giants written about to have lived in this region. 

 

Even in the Bible, I see the science of 'giants' mentioned with a distinction with regards to Colorism.

 

The Bible details, even an Israelite man, who fits the very description you write about; SAUL.

 

Saul is described as being very tall and he is linked to the KISHITES of that region. This also makes a lot of sense due to a Biblical description of an intense Civil conflict in Israel that involved the tribe of Benjamin of which was Saul's tribe. After that conflict, the Benjamites were cut down to a small number, and these survivors intermixed with the Hamitic people in the region, and this DNA shows up in Saul. However, my understanding of the tall Black Ethiops in that region are not the same as the giants like GOLIATH of GATH. Based on my studies, the Bible was accurate in its' description of giants, but I recognize a distinction. The Gathite giant, Goliath had his origins in MYCENAE and this would be significant in his description as a giant. Not only that, but I also have a personal story that links to my understanding of the presence of 'giants' in their assocation with lighter skinned origins. The giant gene does not come from Black people in origin!

 

Therefore, I do agree with you in that the so-called 'Caucasians' have caused confusion in getting a better understanding of the truth when they migrated down into this land from the North [ie Northeast] and I see how their influence also was apart of the presence of the giants too.

 

 

 

 

On 7/2/2018 at 4:24 PM, Pioneer1 said:

It is my belief that the "giants" spoken of in the Bible is just the terms that Caucasians used for the earlier Black races that existed in those regions before they invaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2018 at 4:34 PM, Pioneer1 said:

...it's better to actually VISIT people places and see for yourself instead of just reading about them.....you come with an entirely different and more wholesome perspective.

 

This statement does not resonate with me at all.  Ideally, it is best to read and visit a place.  But if you are interested in learning about a place, and can only read about it or visit it.  I would choose reading.

 

I say reading because you can get more more information about a place than you can visiting it.  You can read about more locations you can read the historical context you can read the perspectives of locals, and the collective observations of many others.  You simply can't do this on a visit.

 

Don;t get me wrong I love to travel and if I personally had a choice I would rather visit a place than read about it, but I'd also recognize that my experience is very limited and may even be misleading.  It is saying you know something about Florida, because you visited Disney.

 

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter RodneyWhen I visited Nigeria the Brother I was staying with told me I should read Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa before I came.  He told me it would help me understand what I would see on my visit.  I followed his advice and I'm glad I did.  I simply would not have had a clue why NIgeria is in the state that it is in.  Indeed many of the people who live there don't know.  

 

I also came to discover that I knew more about Nigerian writers than many of the locals.

 

Personal experience can only take you so far @Pioneer1 books and the internet have the potential to advance man's knowledge tremendously.

 

It is just unfortunate that capitalists have perverted the internet and it is having the opposite effect -- making us less informed or worse, ill informed.  Sure books can be used for evil too, but we can choose the books we read, while the garbage on social media is pushed to us and we consume it unfiltered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Troy said:

You simply can't do this on a visit.

 

Actually you can and I have @Troy ...

Comparing traveling to disney to learn about florida is a false equivalency... If you are visiting a spot to do the same thing you've always done in this case be entertained;  then chances are you're not going to read a non-fiction book either.   

However, if you are traveling to learn you will; and better than in any books because you will engage in the cultures... you will actually visit their architecture; and even their museums.   I learned more about the Peruvians in one day than I could ever learn in a book... BUT once I visited Peru (several times actually)... I knew what books to look for to expand my learning.    When I visited Beijing, PRC  I learned more about their currency than any one taught in the financial newspapers.     When I visited Rome, Amsterdam, Brazil - I gained a perspective on culture; agriculture, economy etc. 

When you visit a country and interact with its people first hand then when someone recommends books to you will know if those books have a specific bias to them.  Same holds true for the internet - once I visited the countries - I knew what to search for on the internet.   

In fact, I wrote about visiting countries and learning  in this blog "Stop and Smell the roses, said the white rabbit

Edited by Mel Hopkins
added a link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chevdove

Glad to see you back!

The information you're providing is so powerful and detailed, it reminds me of those giants they allegedly found in western China a while back.
They were said to have blond hair and white skin.

Are you suggesting that the particular giants that you're speaking off are descendants of what many Christian scholars refer to as "fallen angels" ????




Troy

I agree that reading about a place AND visiting it would most likely be better than just flying over and visiting it with no direction or guidance; however the problem with ONLY reading about it is that you're getting SOMEONE ELSE'S opinion about a place from THEIR perspective.
Everyone processes information differently and we know how other people see life and interpret their surroundings may not always line up with yours.

I used to live down South and MY interpreration and opinion of the South is different from most of what I read about in books or online....especially articles and reports written by Caucasians.

I was born and raised in Michigan.
When I hear the word "Michigan" my understanding of the word and the images it brings will be entirely different than YOURS or someone else who knows far less about the state because of so much of the first hand knowledge I have of this place.

If given a choice between the two....and it's safe to do,,,,,it's better to go and see for yourself because you're taking in far more sensory information that match up with YOUR senses and mindset so that you can interpret and process the information in YOUR way.
Unless danger is involved, first hand direct knowledge is almost always better than second hand knowledge you're receiving from others.

 

Even the courts don't see eye witness testimony as very credible because of the errors in human memory and perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we are in disagreement @Mel Hopkins I agree one's motivation, for travel and reading, is important.  If I substituted MIami for Disney would that make a difference in my analogy?

 

Again, I say both visiting and reading is ideal and that I personally prefer visiting than reading, but visiting requires a lot more time than reading.

 

I think I know Florida better than more Floridians.  I been to  every corner of the state from Panama City to Dry Tortugus.  I've lived in Tampa and West Palm Beach I recruited students at FAMU and done volunteer work in Okeechobee. I've swam in every major beach, visited most of the Black-owned bookstores, vacation in Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Sanibel and Captiva, I've ridden an airboat in the everglades, fished on both coasts, etc etc.  But this is after more than 30 years of experience.  I can learn about all of this and more in a few good books in a san of a few months.  

 

Bottom line, you can not know a place simple by visiting.  You really need to do both.  If you visit a place and believe you know it without reading about it, I think you will simply be under-informed.  @Pioneer1 you make a good point regarding eyewitness testimony.

 

I think we put too much weight our personal experiences in terms of what we believe to be true. We simply can't experience more than we can read in a book.  

 

Indeed our collective hubris believing that we can is responsible for repeating historical errors and failing to lean from the experiences of others.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Troy said:

I think we put too much weight our personal experiences in terms of what we believe to be true. We simply can't experience more than we can read in a book.  

 

Indeed our collective hubris believing that we can is responsible for repeating historical errors and failing to lean from the experiences of others.

 

 

Maybe, but brother, prior to actually visiting her in the Near East I was of the opinion that most, if not all Muslims were terrorists, believed America was a country of devils, and that Christ Jesus as God's son and died on the cross.  Fact is, it was all bullshit.  Not from just interacting with the people, the elderly but by going to the libraries and universities reading about all sides of the story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why you can simply consume american propaganda.  We have to read widely and outside out culture.  If one did that they would not need to visit any place to learn this.  It would take less time and be far cheaper.  

 

In fact it is the only way most of us can learn since most of us don't have the resources to travel the world.  Most of us however can travel to the library.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've all overlooked another venue which i choose regularly, and that's the travelogues which are readily available on TV.  These filmed documentaries take you on  tours of countries all over the world, immersing you in their indigenous cultures, while a running narration fills you in on their history as well as other interesting information. I have visited many places in the comfort of my home.  This works for me.   

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Troy said:

This is why you can simply consume american propaganda.  We have to read widely and outside out culture.  If one did that they would not need to visit any place to learn this.  It would take less time and be far cheaper.  

 

The American propaganda reduced to reading the material, especially college textbooks is yet another reason to visit the source destination for accurate data, brother; trust me, there's material here the U.S. would never allow to be taught, let alone available for public consumption.  How many times have you, yourself acknowledged fallacies in the 'printed' reading material?  More on point than sister @Mel Hopkins example, why travel through outer space when one need only to read make-up of the planets to know where they are and existence of life?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troy said:

I agree one's motivation, for travel and reading, is important.

 

@Troy  yes, motivation is key...

But it's rare that you can stumble on a book and know its intention.  Remember "The story of the lion and hunter would be different if the lion wrote it" 

So when traveling to a location even for a leisurely trip,  as I mentioned in my blog post; one may have an opportunity to touch upon several cultural perspectives first. Those can lead to looking for books on your topic of interest. 

For example, In one day,  while in Lima, I went to the beach, a popular restaurant that serves the best Ceviche'  and I visited an  erotic museum that featured 1500 year old pottery from the Moche civilization...  Just within that 24 hours I learned that the rocks on the beach dated back to the hunter-gatherer age (don't quote me I'm speaking off memory); early trade was rooted in fishing and the Moche people, Incas and Peruvians culture wasn't rooted in Christianity ... It was forced upon them. 

 

So I would toss any book that would say Peruvians were always Christians; big cattle ranchers and had sandy beaches. LOL.    However, If I never traveled to Peru, I wouldn't have had that information. 

Also there was some type of scuffle between the Spaniards and the Moors and it is shown in the architecture... So again then I 'd  follow up with a book that speaks of the two cultures and how they interacted with each other. 

Just like in journalism/and or researching a dissertation:  

First /Primary source: Presence, Eyewitness; oral history interviewing those who experience it; newspapers; periodicals-

Secondary source: Print Published academic  books 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cynique good point.  I don't mean to suggest the information can only be communicated through books. Videos are a great way to learn about far flung places and cultures. Before technology we replied upon an oral communication.

 

The bottom line is personal first hand information is not always the best or even possible. 

 

@Mel Hopkins I never studied journalism but something is unclear to me.  First hand experience, as I understand it is, one witnessing something happen.  Now if you read something I witnessed is what I wrote considered a "First/Primary" source?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kalexander2 said:

How many times have you, yourself acknowledged fallacies in the 'printed' reading material?

Exactly @Kalexander2 !   There are so many more locations I desire to visit (I need more courage in this case, than money) because I don't trust what most people have written.  Also, I find a lot of 'foreign' locations are just heartbreaking because I feel like all I have to do is turn the corner and be home; It is just that commercialized.  On the contrary, there are places right here in the U.S. that look like corporate america didn't touch it.   

5 minutes ago, Troy said:

Now if you read something I witnessed is what I wrote considered a "First/Primary" source?

@Troy, Yes, your eyewitness testimony is included in First/Primary source... If I interviewed you on what you witnessed it is still first/primary source.   If I use your eye-witness account that you told to a New York Times reporter that NYT published in my story for Padunk Newspaper  - it is still considered a primary source.    I just have to attribute your quote to the NYT publication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Cynique said:

You've all overlooked another venue which i choose regularly, and that's the travelogues which are readily available on TV.  These filmed documentaries take you on  tours of countries all over the world, immersing you in their indigenous cultures,

 

Yes, sister, Cynique, “participant observation, empirical, qualitative/quantitative” are the best-known methods of learning about things unknown.  I’ve yet to see actual moving images of Israeli armed forces forcing families out of their homes mid-night and then blowing-up those homes the next day to build settlements for Jewish settlers, or military snipers shooting children standing in their windows.  YEAH, I didn’t believe it either until I saw it with my own two eyes.   Then, and only then was I encouraged to go read, find out why these things were happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...