Jump to content
harry brown

Royal Wedding, Are. You. Watching?

Recommended Posts

Well, I am discreet and law-abiding, I respect authority even, but I'll take an unwise chance and sacrifice my life for loved ones.  MLK once said "a man who has nothing he would die for ought not to be living," is a meaningful principle to live by.  

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm reading this thread, all I can think of is "Gaslighting"!   

@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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, brother and I'm a living example of you accuracy with respect reading and visiting as I've already clocked over 30,000 hours hanging un libraries and universities in order to know the Near East.  Great post!

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

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" ????

 

@Pioneer1Thank you!!!

 

Absolutely!--although that would be a crude definition of a much bigger picture, in that these giants were "fallen angels", however, part of their genetics reveal that they

do not come from 'the modern mankind'--Homonids. Their presence, based on my understanding of research into Genetics, come from intermixing, however it was a specific kind of 'Selective Breeding' that led to their presence. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Troy said:

Bottom line, you can 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.

 

@Troy This is so true.

 

I just commented earlier in another post in that after living in Florida for a whole year, I never knew the history that surrounds Eatonville! It was only after I read about this that I have become even more enriched. Florida has so much more history than I could have ever imagined. I am simply stunned. I am a Navy Brat and have lived in many areas in the States, but I am so shocked to see only a small part of Florida, and now that I am here, I realize that there is no way that I can possibly take in all of the mjaor events that have taken place in this state. I've never seen anything like it in all of my life! I lived in Southern California and been to Hollywood, and well, IMO, Florida beats California by a much wider margin. Florida seems like 'a country to me' instead of a state in America. It is so varied. So, I agree that travelling gives a much deeper insight to a place but only if you read will you see more information. If you don't read, you will definitely be 'uninformed'. 

 

Furthermore though, I am the kind of person that can't ignore the down side of many places, and this has led me to not really care about travelling as a tourist to see different places. I'd rather watch a video, a documentary. The beautiful things you see in many places covers up a much bigger picture of economic oppressed areas and, the process in achieving these earthly paradises on earth are still there but ignored by most--I can't do that.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes @Chevdove, despite the typo the quote you copied shows you understood what I meant. Your point illustrated perfectly the point I was trying to make which is escaping some people.  I only visited Eatonville because if it's history.  Otherwise I would not have known about it or even cared to have visited the place.

 

Many people know every little about their own communities, states, or country despite living here all their lives.  

 

troyineatonville.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Awesome picture! 

 

Yes, you have no idea how many times that I have asked someone questions about their homeland, and I ask them about certain histories I have read about, and they look at me as if I had two heads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 10:39 AM, Troy said:

he annual Zora! Festival which they host and that I plan to attend

 

Yes, that's interesting. 

 

Yes, I believe though that the museum is awesome and for me, an added dimension in my quest of knowlege.  I am so surprised to learn about this town. My relative works in Orlando and commonly spoke about Kissimee county, but I never knew about Eatonville and the kind of history it holds. I hear quite often, about a lot of police activity in this area. Now, I feel there may be a connection.

 

900px-Orange_County_Florida_Incorporated

I see Eatonville on this map and can see now, how it is a part of Central Florida. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Troy


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.


Lol, you sound like one HECK of a brother!
 

 

 

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.


Thank you.
Eyewitness testimony is notorious because of the often distorted thinking process of individuals and this can be translated into the material you read about other place.

I agree with you that BOTH reading and visiting a place is ideal.
But my point was if we had to compare one with the other, in MOST cases visiting and seeing for yourself is better because you can take in more detail.

Now on the other hand, in some cases where there is serious danger involved, reading about the place is better.
President Roosevelt didn't have to visit Japan to learn how to best defeat them in WWII, everything he needed to know he could READ about from others in his briefings and make the best decisions from there.


 

 

 

 


Mel

 

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

 

I'm suprised that they consider "oral history interviews" a primary source of information.

To me, "primary" or "first hand" means YOU YOURSELF have witnessed or experienced an event.

 

 

 

 

 


Chev

 

Absolutely!--although that would be a crude definition of a much bigger picture, in that these giants were "fallen angels", however, part of their genetics reveal that they

do not come from 'the modern mankind'--Homonids. Their presence, based on my understanding of research into Genetics, come from intermixing, however it was a specific kind of 'Selective Breeding' that led to their presence.


Interesting......
Can you go into a little more detail about what you mean as far as selective breeding or giants?

Even as a kid I would wonder IF angels were spirits or spiritual entities from another realm, how would they be able to have any type of sexual act with human beings in the physical much less reproduce with them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 yeah that was the question I asked @Mel Hopkins too.  Our book club is discussing Barracoon next month. It is a first hand account, related by Zora Neale Hurston, of a Brother who survived being kidnapped in Africa, the middle passage, and enslavement in Amerikkka.  This is  is a first hand account.

 

The formerly enslaved African is of course a primary source, but if I understand Mel correctly, the book Zora Neal Hurston wrote relating the story is also a primary source.

 

I also assume my relating the content of the book from memory would not be a primary source... is that right Mel.

 

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

 

I recorded a video of a woman who talked about giant Africans (something I currently do not believe).  I asked where she got this information and she told me I could find it on YouTube.  I immediately thought about a video I previously saw on Youtube of a dig which showed the bones of a 20 foot skeleton. I immediately dismissed it as a hoax - because if this were true surely we would all already know about it.. right?

 

If you frame of reference is that we are constantly being lied to and information is being withheld from you you are susceptible to believe anything... which is entirely understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'm suprised that they consider "oral history interviews" a primary source of information.

To me, "primary" or "first hand" means YOU YOURSELF have witnessed or experienced an event.

 

@Pioneer1, probably because the person you're interviewing for your dissertation is the one who experienced the account firsthand.  Once you're awarded your phd and publish it then it  becomes a secondary source for those who read it.

  @Troy legally speaking what you're referring to is hearsay.  Or secondary. It was told to Zora.  It's a primary source for her and if she had to defend it she could.   None of us who are reading the book, can source everything told in the book so it's secondary for us.  Now if you go and find the brother and interview him about what he said in the book  then you return to primary source.    I read a lot of things about Issa Rae from articles that were already published - so if I wanted to use it in my article - I asked her directly and I taped our interview.  I use mostly primary sourced information but there are parts of the article that I use secondary sources - such as videos that she's appeared in. 

Eyewitnesses accounts are upheld in a court of law.  We can only rely on their testimony to be true because we didn't witness the act.  That is unless that someone is lying  -if they are found out they are charged with perjury.   If a person can't defend their dissertation with source documents then they won't get their doctorate.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...