somebody blew up america

chopitdown

blackredyellow wrote:

Do you have a source for this or did you just make that up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiri_Baraka#Controversy
In 1965, Baraka wrote: "Most American white men are trained to be fags. For this reason it is no wonder their faces are weak and blank. … The average ofay [white person] thinks of the black man as potentially raping every white lady in sight. Which is true, in the sense that the black man should want to rob the white man of everything he has. But for most whites the guilt of the robbery is the guilt of rape. That is, they know in their deepest hearts that they should be robbed, and the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped.",[5] Jerry Gafio Watts. Amiri Baraka: The Politics and Art of a Black Intellectual. NYU Press, 2001. pg 332

i found a preview of the book online but pages 327-373 aren't available for preview

NMyTree

For the record and for the sake of a reality check, Cheguevara6.


These evil white men in power do not just discriminate against blacks.

They discriminate against whites, too. Any white person who does not meet up to the standards and pedigree they demand.

Just as other rich, wealthy and powerful black men, asian men and leaders of all countries/races/religions, all around the world; do.

Descrimination of "class" and "pedigree" occurs a lot more often, than it does based on race.

blackredyellow

chopitdown wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiri_Baraka#Controversy
In 1965, Baraka wrote: "Most American white men are trained to be fags. For this reason it is no wonder their faces are weak and blank. … The average ofay [white person] thinks of the black man as potentially raping every white lady in sight. Which is true, in the sense that the black man should want to rob the white man of everything he has. But for most whites the guilt of the robbery is the guilt of rape. That is, they know in their deepest hearts that they should be robbed, and the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped.",[5] Jerry Gafio Watts. Amiri Baraka: The Politics and Art of a Black Intellectual. NYU Press, 2001. pg 332

i found a preview of the book online but pages 327-373 aren't available for preview

Nevermind me, I'm an idiot The first page of this thread was blocked for me at work for some reason and I skimmed the rest. I saw discussion about Obama not being black enough, and read his post as Barack said that quote, not Amiri Baraka.

chopitdown

blackredyellow wrote:

Nevermind me, I'm an idiot The first page of this thread was blocked for me at work for some reason and I skimmed the rest. I saw discussion about Obama not being black enough, and read his post as Barack said that quote, not Amiri Baraka.

no worries.

musicismylife78

NMyTree wrote:

Holy Moly! Are you kidding me?

You're about as one-sided as it gets!

You see things from one side and one side only.

Half truths, selective memory, selective history and sweeping generalizations is all you submit.





And this is where you completely miss the point.

This country needs real change, significant change from any and all future leaders and presidents; regardless of their race or religious loyalties!!!!

Not just the black ones. Not just the ones who are black enough. Not just the white ones. Color and race does not matter. If you want to eliminate racisim and wipe it off the map; then start thinking in terms of people, not race.

We need real change, period!!

precisely my friend. Precisely. Which is why I support candidates who are for REAL CHANGE not just some silly, "lets change a few laws" reformist crap.

Obama isnt a radical. He isnt promising real change. Which makes his popularity so mindboggling. He is the new boss same as the old boss. He is promising a few changes, and a few alterations but nothing radically will be different under an obama administration.

Change, real change, will only come from the grassroots, and will only be supported by radical candidates.

Kucinich is the only radical running for president, and the only one promosiing real change.

musicismylife78

chopitdown wrote:

don't get me wrong, i'm not a huge fan of obama; I don't agree with his positions. But here's a couple of facts about him and quotes from him re: your assertations.

In a July 2007 article, The New York Times credited Obama with leading the passage of an Illinois state law mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and another law that "required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor racial profiling." The same article also reported that Obama "was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies."[wiki]
..
We know the government can't solve every problem. We know that we've got obligations to ourselves and obligations to our children that no government can meet. We don't expect government to guarantee success in life. But when so many children, when millions of children start off in the race of life so far behind only because of race, only because of class, that's a betrayal of our ideals. That's not just an African-American problem. That is an American problem that we have to solve...

in re: to apologizing for slavery:
You know, I have to confess that I am less interested in apologies, which to me are just words, and more interested in commitment. And as president the expression of grief or sorrow towards our past history is to ensure that we're creating a brighter future for those who've been impacted. That means building schools that work, putting people back to work, making sure that we've got a criminal justice system that is just. Those are the steps that I think as president I'd be much more focused on.



perhaps you should read a little bit about him and not just jump on the not black enough bandwagon.

edit: he just goes about it in a methodical way; he's not going to jump up and down and tell crazy whitey to go to hell, and tell the pigs they don't dont do their job...that will get you nowhere.

but maybe we need that kind of person who is genuinely upset and shows it.
As Ben harper said, "its past time trying to be sensitive about saving water while brushing your teeth". His point is valid. In this time of global war, the environment in its last legs, etc... is the next president really worth it, if he or she is a moderate?

I want real change. Not some phony reformist liberal crap. Real change. The only person who will give us that is Kucinich.

A vote for ANY of the other candidates is a vote for more war.

chopitdown

Cheguevara6 wrote:

but maybe we need that kind of person who is genuinely upset and shows it.
As Ben harper said, "its past time trying to be sensitive about saving water while brushing your teeth". His point is valid. In this time of global war, the environment in its last legs, etc... is the next president really worth it, if he or she is a moderate?

I want real change. Not some phony reformist liberal crap. Real change. The only person who will give us that is Kucinich.

A vote for ANY of the other candidates is a vote for more war.

a president can't make people change, a person has to change. You cannot force someone to do something, you can make the penalties severe for failing to follow guidelines (see capital punishment) and yet still people murder etc... It's time to stop looking to the president and government for change and time to make change in what you can do.

It seems with your writings over the past that you are very idealistic and stuck in a place that doesn't exist. You must first deal with the fact that humans do very bad things and come to grips with the fact the world is imperfect and to want to change it is good and you should try, but you cannot be surprised when it doesn't change completely....you'll go crazy. You cannot make everyone get along.

NMyTree

Cheguevara6 wrote:

precisely my friend. Precisely.

Change, real change, will only come from the grassroots, and will only be supported by radical candidates.

Kucinich is the only radical running for president, and the only one promosiing real change.

But Kucinich is not black enough:D

Precisely, you miss the point.....once again.

it's not about color or race.

P.S. A militant black man as president/leader would only cause more violence, more murder and more problems for this country. Obviously, it will never happen, but just entertaining the thought makes it clear a militant black man would only make things worse.

P.S. 2 Most militant black men/women are pure racists.

chopitdown

NMyTree wrote:

P.S. A militant black man as president/leader would only cause more violence, more murder and more problems for this country. Obviously, it will never happen, but just entertaining the thought makes it clear a militant black man would only make things worse.

P.S. 2 Most militant black men/women are pure racists.

look at his namesake though, Che was a prime example of how to accomplish things peacefully :rolleyes:

VINNY GOOMBA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K_BTjLt0Aps

MLC2006

blackredyellow wrote:

Do you have a source for this or did you just make that up?

"Most American white men are trained to be fags. For this reason it is no wonder their faces are weak and blank. … The average ofay [white person] thinks of the black man as potentially raping every white lady in sight. Which is true, in the sense that the black man should want to rob the white man of everything he has. But for most whites the guilt of the robbery is the guilt of rape. That is, they know in their deepest hearts that they should be robbed, and the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped"

musicismylife78

I love how people refuse to answer any questions.

Why would kerouac, ginsberg and the best poet movement open with open arms Baraka if he was a antigay bigot?

And again, why isnt anyone discussing Obama's blatant homophobia in being against gay marriage?

RainDog

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Obama isnt a radical. He isnt promising real change. Which makes his popularity so mindboggling.

It's not really mindboggling if you think about it. A popular candidate with popular ideas is, pretty much by the construct of radicalism, not radical.

Obama is promising incrimental change - which is real change. It's just not fast enough for you. In fact, the speed at which you want to change things isn't really condusive to democracy - especially if you demand that it must change on your timetable.

chopitdown

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I love how people refuse to answer any questions.

Why would kerouac, ginsberg and the best poet movement open with open arms Baraka if he was a antigay bigot?

And again, why isnt anyone discussing Obama's blatant homophobia in being against gay marriage?

they didn't agree on everything. People work together, embrace others, and respect others who have different ideas (see Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt)...they don't nec agree on everything, but there is a respect. You can have different views and still respect someone as a poet and you can take bits and pieces from everyone. Some of the best friends I have are much more liberal than I am b/c we can discuss things and not attack each other.

i don't know if i'd call somone being against gay marriage but for gay rights (benefits etc...) a blatant homophobe. He participated in a GLBT debate, so I don't think he's quite the blatant homophobe you'd like him to be.

I can't believe I'm defending Obama, but you carry such things to extremes and paint with such a broad brush that i'm surprised you can support anyone.

catefrances

MLC2006 wrote:

this Baraka once said that all white males in America are raised to be fags. now, I was not raised to be a "fag" and I was also not raised to use such derogatory terms about people. the rhetoric that he spews out is offensive, nothing more, nothing less. I don't doubt that he has faced racism in his life, but when comes out with this trash, he reduces himself to the level of the racists that he claims to be against. MLK took the high ground and proved that he was above the fray, and that is why he is regarded in such a good light. Baraka is nothing, he will not be remembered when he dies in a few years and I highly doubt that most HS aged children of any race could tell you who he is. if you think someone saying that other people are rapists and fags is a "great American", then you are out of touch.

by fags, how do you know the man meant it in the homosexual sense? perhaps baraka was saying that white men are raised to just accept what is fed to them and not question a damn thing. that white men have no conviction and therefore get railroaded into believing the world should be as they see it. that white men are weak, not homosexual.
if this is the case then if he is disparaging anyone it is white men not gays.

chopitdown wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiri_Baraka#Controversy
In 1965, Baraka wrote: "Most American white men are trained to be fags. For this reason it is no wonder their faces are weak and blank. … The average ofay [white person] thinks of the black man as potentially raping every white lady in sight. Which is true, in the sense that the black man should want to rob the white man of everything he has. But for most whites the guilt of the robbery is the guilt of rape. That is, they know in their deepest hearts that they should be robbed, and the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped.",[5] Jerry Gafio Watts. Amiri Baraka: The Politics and Art of a Black Intellectual. NYU Press, 2001. pg 332

i found a preview of the book online but pages 327-373 aren't available for preview

thank you.

and as i can see baraka has indeed labelled white men as weak and blank.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bottom line. You can't promote hatred and expect anything to get better.

That's the reality of it, and were all (99%) guilty of it all the time....daily.

Had another epiphany today on the way to a client. There's hope for me yet...

Purple Hawk

catefrances wrote:

the problem with obama is that he's a politician. and by NOT BLACK ENOUGH what exactly do you mean?

He (not obama, but che gore) is a divider. He is obsessed with the color of someone's skin...it's pretty transparent. notice it isn't conservatives saying he' isn't black enough...b/c...what the fuck does that even mean? the very idea of looking at people like that reeks of racism, and politics of division.

you have to understand...liberals are liberals above anything else...that is their identity. i'd argue it's a replacement for religion...but we don't want to go there

conservative blacks like clarence thomas and jc watts aren't really black to these people. same with bill cosby. feminists are only against sexual harrassment if done by a rep (packwood) but not by a dem (kennedy's, clinton, et. al.) all of these groups are not for the environment, they are not for civil rights, they are not for feminism, they are for liberalism...and it's pretty obvious.

you have to understand, this is the agenda of the left...to divide us, rather than uniting us on our common ground.

Purple Hawk

Cheguevara6 wrote:

why isnt anyone discussing Obama's blatant homophobia in being against gay marriage?

probably b/c most normal people don't equate being against gay marriage with being homophobic.

i understand that it's easier to make your arguments by calling people homophobes, racists, sexists, but anyone with a brain sees through this crap.

catefrances

Purple Hawk wrote:

you have to understand...liberals are liberals above anything else...that is their identity. i'd argue it's a replacement for religion...but we don't want to go there

you have to understand, this is the agenda of the left...to divide us, rather than uniting us on our common ground.

you have to understand that i too am left wing hawk. don't blanket judge us all. that would be ignorant.;)

catefrances

people people people let's not forget amiri baraka is A POET. he is not painting pretty pictures that's for sure. who knows if he expects us to read his work and take evrything he writes as gospel. but he's got us thinking and engaging with each other. and that's what it's all about.