Muhammad Rasheed - J. Richard wrote: "Ok, so let's back up, because we are still talking past each other."
It seems like you want me to change my focus on how I think about the material, seemingly based on some sort of etiquette around confining our activist protests to the months that are highlighted by formal observance. As an American anti-racism activist, that would be difficult for me (and even insulting) considering when the "We the People..." line was written, my people were being exploited/plundered to amass the nation's wealth. As mentioned, this original sin was never corrected, but even after slavery was abolished, the wrongs were compounded further over the next 150 yrs into the present day. Protesting the lineage-based systemic racism performed against my ethnic group is a 24/7 activity until it is finally fixed. Otherwise:
♫ Don't tell me I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble ♫
~Nina Simone; Mississippi Goddamn
Using the LGBT activist example, it is clear that a focused, aggressive and even overbearing tactic is key to getting the politics the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) need, since our party rival is obviously far more politically successful than we have been. If ADOS continues to take the "gradualism" advice from our white liberal allies, it's clear that we'll end up back in the shackles "for our own good."
J. Richard wrote: "That doesn't diminish critiques of structural or cultural racism in the U.S."
I've noticed that within the content of mass media entertainment, the message of anti-racism has abruptly ceased. Now when we see black characters they are either promoting LGBT causes, or interracial relationship causes. Even when they decide to mention police brutality, oddly it is always a black actor in the role of the abusive cop. The vast majority of any pro-civil rights messaging is all about the LGBT and then immigration/feminism. My people's sacred Freedom Struggle has been greatly diminished in the national discussion, with polls revealing that the average American believing that racism isn't a big deal anymore and it's a thing of the past. This disturbing & frustrating fact directly contradicts your claim.
J. Richard wrote: "Not what is, we all see the laws being passed. [...] It's also for allies showing solidarity."
That reminds me of the intense battles for school desegregation during the Civil Rights Era. The SCOTUS decided with the Brown v Board of Education decision that it was impossible to have a "separate but equal" U.S. school system and the only possible way for ADOS children to get the same quality education enjoyed by the white community was to combine the two identity groups together in American schools. White America's response to this decision was to violently REFUSE to share their hoarded toys with ADOS and they "white flighted" -- using real estate economic schemes with local political grifts to keep the schools segregated up into the present day. Now we find that the school districts most guilty of this systemic racism are in the most liberal states in the Union. Of all the ugly documented history in U.S. race relations, this item sums up my relationship with my allies more than any other.
J. Richard wrote: "Just as the statements made in previous months were attempts to show solidarity and recognition of the struggles of others."
I remember the legions of LGBT members complaining that my new Juneteenth Federal Observance Day had to be in "their" month. That's the day (19th June) that commemorates my ethnic group being freed from 230 yrs of chattel slavery, by the way.
J. Richard wrote: "Saying that gay and transgender people have rights and should receive the same protections and even celebrations that more privileged Americans have in no way ignores the facts that structural, cultural, interpersonal, and personal racism, sexism, discrimination, and abuses of power don't exist. Not does it ignore the fact that for gay Americans the above statement is not literally true in so many cases, it's heartbreaking."
White people are gay. White people are the leaders driving that branch of the civil rights agenda in the political and media spheres. White people have successfully gotten multiple Black ethnic group members to help support them in this work, both in politics and in mass media entertainment. The LGBT movement is the precious political baby of white people. White people are also the wealthiest, most politically powerful identity group in the country. How? Because of the headstart provided by the 400 yrs of ongoing accrued anti-ADOS systemic racist plunder & exploitation against my people. The fact that the dominant political identity is using the civil rights model of the most disenfranchised, wealthless political identity to fight for its LGBT goals creates an awkward relationship, I would think.
J. Richard wrote: "I just don't see why anyone would want someone to stop advocating for the rights of ANY group that is currently losing standing because other groups still don't have the essentials of equality."
Frankly, it seems like the only reason why the white community—who controls 90% of the $146 trillion in National Household Wealth and is the official face of every aspect of the US government and can conjure whatever they want out of thin air at their whim, like an entire new branch of the US military forces, or tax cuts for the [white] rich laws—would work so hard to create special civil rights protected minority classes that they can identify in, is to grift the system. #MultipleStreamsOfIncome
J. Richard wrote: "There are long histories of oppression, violence, and exploitation there as well, but this is not a contest"
Sure it is. It's a political contest jockeying for position for one to finally pull up out of the economic bottom caste as a group, while the other uses the considerable discrimination-fueled power at its command to maintain a political/economic monopoly and widen the racial wealth gap to its
2053 breaking point.
J. Richard wrote: "it's all horrible and needs to change."
Agreed.
J. Richard wrote: "But that other group is ALSO getting the sh*t end of the stick."
The ADOS communities in Flint MI and Jackson MS still don't have drinking water while their corrupt state & local governments seek to push those people out and seize the properties for their "opportunity zone" gentrification investment folios. What percentage of those investors and crooked politicians are white and gay? What sh*tty-ended stick are they holding?
J. Richard wrote: "(that's how capitalism is designed, after all)."
That's a marxist-communist derived quip it sounds like. I don't even remotely subscribe to that. I did notice that the 1866 Civil Rights Act, that allows the ADOS group to compete equally with white capitalists in the open free markets was sabotaged by the governments refusal to enforce antitrust, so the current monopolized landscape functions as the direct counter to that act, significantly contributing to my group's artificially impoverished state. Should I consider it a coincidence that my allies began indoctrinating me into hating capitalism just 53yrs after that act was signed, while they pretended that the monopoly designed to lock me out of the capitalist free markets is synonymous with capitalism?
J. Richard wrote: "Focusing on one group does not mean we are disregarding the other groups."
Meanwhile, my allies stripped my sacred Freedom Struggle down to a flimsy "n-word is bad!" slogan, while all of mass media is full of LGBT activism messaging. This conspicuously conflicts with your claim.
J. Richard wrote: "But we also designate particular times to focus on particular struggles so that we can come together."
It seems like you want my group to "come together" to help the LGBT achieve all of their political goals while my people's goals continue to be neglected another 150 yrs.ll of their political goals while my people's goals continue to be neglected another 150 yrs.
J. Richard Stevens - M. Rasheed wrote: "It seems like you want me to change my focus on how I think about the material, seemingly based on some sort of etiquette around confining our activist protests to the months that are highlighted by formal observance. "
Nope, I just want you to understand why other people are using these slogans to support other people, and to ask that we not stifle any voices trying to engage the struggles for different peoples who have common goals. That's it.
The pride movement is using that slogan across t-shirts, signs, banners, stickers ... there is a current political meaning for it. In context, in their struggle.
I get that you are saying you are experiencing those words differently. And I am not trying at all to diminish that or to diminish any other struggles. But as someone who tries to be an ally to both of these groups and others, I'm not sure I see coopting one group's message right when it it mobilized at the point of having the most solidarity and momentum as a net gain for anyone.
That's it. All I am saying.
In terms of meaning, when "We the People" was written historically, African-Americans, Native Americans, women, gay Americans ... pretty much anyone not male and white was bring oppressed by the same system advancing those values. Female labor lost through millennia is nothing we scoff at either. Same sex identities are intersectional, you can't really divide and conquer and compare the tragedies of the groups. Again, it's not a competition, but the use of those words to create political purchase is not the meaning you are putting on it, context frames use.
I will respond to a few things you say.
M. Rasheed wrote: "Using the LGBT activist example, it is clear that an aggressive and even overbearing tactic is key to getting the politics the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) need, since our party rival is obviously far more politically successful than we have been."
That's a relative and overgeneralized statement on both ends, and you don't know to whom you speak when either describing tactics or what's happened to other groups.
M. Rasheed wrote: "If ADOS continues to take the "gradualism" advice from our white liberal allies, it's clear that we'll end up back in the shackles 'for our own good.'"
Third time I am telling you that you misunderstood what I said. I never said anything of the kind, you have projected quite a bit into my words, creating some pretty awful strawman arguments.
M. Rasheed wrote: "Meanwhile, my allies stripped my sacred Freedom Struggle down to a flimsy "n-word is bad!" slogan, while all of mass media is full of LGBT activism messaging. This conspicuously conflicts with your claim."
Clearly we are not looking at the same media, if that is your view. Your disregard for the struggles of others isn't helping your case, and I am caring less and less how you evaluate my claims.
M. Rasheed wrote: "That's a marxist-communist derived quip it sounds like."
Well, that's rather reductive, if you think you think those are your choices. Or that Marxism and Communism are the same thing. I don't think you grasp how narrow and reductive some of your framing is. I understand what you are saying, I just keep pointing out that is not ALL there is to say.
I have not disagreed with anything you have said about historical context, I might also add that not thing you have posted or said is new to me. Not one. Nor was anything Erik posted new to me ... I was just pointing out it's not really connecting in this context.
I am not saying stop, I think we have similar goals, but I am telling you that when you try to flank with information someone else's cause, when you choose not to be an ally to those that are trying to be an ally to you, it helps no one.
M. Rasheed wrote: "It seems like you want my group to "come together" to help the LGBT achieve all of their political goals while my people's goals continue to be neglected another 150 yrs."
I don't know who you think your group is, I have plenty of African-American American friends planning to march, and I was alongside some of them and more in BLM marches. I am speaking to you, not some group you represent, that group is not here taking the actions and tactics you are. Plenty of people from all walks of life are engaged with multiple group efforts.
The rights being rolled back right now will not come back for people apparently outside your group (however you are defining your group). I hope you are not meaning to say you are ok or dismissive with that, I have been carefully trying to skirt that particular meaning from some of your comments.
I recommend you go back and read more carefully what I wrote above and consider that I am repeatedly telling you that you are misrepresenting the content and context of my remarks, because we have been talking past each other from your first comment.
I've tried to get us closer to the same page, but at this point, you either are willing to consider what's been said to you or you aren't, and the repetitive narrow parsing when I am telling you we aren't on the same page, and that I don't think you are demonstrating quite as broad a command of other perspectives as you assert just isn't gaining either of us anything. I hope you at least consider some of the above, instead of forcing your narrow context onto it and dismissing it.
Muhammad Rasheed - J. Richard wrote: "Nope"
Meanwhile, you said exactly that at least three times. Are you saying you actually meant something else then? That's weird.
J. Richard wrote: "and to ask that we not stifle any voices trying to engage the struggles for different peoples who have common goals."
But it's okay to stifle my ethnic group's sacred Freedom Struggle and even replace it altogether with the LGBT one. Curious. I'll admit this is the kind of allyship that I've come to expect from that direction. It's very on brand.
J. Richard wrote: "And I am not trying at all to diminish that"
I'm unsure if you really know what that means when you express it, or if you just want me to blindly believe you. Your reaction to my instant dismissal of that marxist-communist tripe you hinted at does give me a clue though.
J. Richard wrote: "But as someone who tries to be an ally to both of these groups and others"
I don't know what that means when you say it.
J. Richard wrote: "I'm not sure I see coopting one group's message right when it it mobilized at the point of having the most solidarity and momentum as a net gain for anyone."
lol The "Pride" slogan literally coopted the term from the original "Black Pride" as part of their violent force teaming efforts to deflect the momentum of the anti-racism civil rights movement into this other direction. But go off.
J. Richard wrote: "That's it. All I am saying."
Meh.
J. Richard wrote: "In terms of meaning, when 'We the People' was written historically, African-Americans, Native Americans, women, gay Americans ... pretty much anyone not male and white was bring oppressed by the same system advancing those values."
This is called a "retconning of the historical narrative."
1.) White women during the slavery era were 100% actively part of the problem. At every single stage of the racism-based caste system game that elevated the white political identity to the highest levels of the political-economic order, white women benefited in every way that can be measured. That is the root cause of the sociopathic levels of privileged entitlement the caricatured "Beckys" and "Karens" display daily.
2.) Also during the slavery era, homosexual white men were allowed to violate-rape the enslaved Black men at their leisure in the most violently depraved ways imaginable, up to and including cannibalizing the black flesh. Literally no one came to save these poor people, as the white men of the day lived like lords doing whatever they liked and my ancestors were their preferred prey. Realistically, a direct line can be drawn from the insane appetites (see what I did there? 😃) built up from those and going all the way to a notorious figure like Jeffrey Dahmer... a homosexual white man with a literal taste for the flesh of Black men.
3.) We can stop bringing up the native Americans all the time in this context since they have already received their reparations payouts and have been made whole numerous times over the last century and a half. Whites are even allowed to cosplay as them whenever they feel like it so they can get in on those government free gibs—which appears to be the true goal of all of these Democratic Party identity groups, shedding some light on why my group keeps being shoved to the back burner, and perhaps why you lot are so eerily fascinated by the Rachel Dolezal case (and are rooting her on).
J. Richard wrote: "Same sex identities are intersectional, you can't really divide and conquer and compare the tragedies of the groups."
Psh. Try me.
J. Richard wrote: "Again, it's not a competition"
Again, sure it is. Your group wants to maintain its economic-political monopoly over society at my group's expense. and you have zero scruples over how you perform the task.
J. Richard wrote: "That's a relative and overgeneralized statement on both ends, and you don't know to whom you speak when either describing tactics or what's happened to other groups."
That just means you don't want to talk about it.
J. Richard wrote: "Third time I am telling you that you misunderstood what I said."
No, I didn't.
J. Richard wrote: "I never said anything of the kind"
I didn't say you did. I provided the info freely of my own volition to express how I felt about my group's relationship with our allies when it comes to the controversial paternalism/gradualism items. I saw no reason to beat around the bush on the topic.
J. Richard wrote: "Clearly we are not looking at the same media, if that is your view."
lol Well, if you aren't responsible for tracking the marketing data, someone in that camp is.
J. Richard wrote: "Your disregard for the struggles of others isn't helping your case, and I am caring less and less how you evaluate my claims."
An ironic comment considering the fact that "my case" has literally been stripped down to "n-word is bad!" while all my rivals are successfully getting laws passed in their favor ultimately to increase the width & breadth of the black/white racial wealth gap. Using my old civil rights model, I point out yet again.
J. Richard wrote: "Well, that's rather reductive"
You don't think your anti-capitalism statement was reductive?
J. Richard wrote: "I don't think you grasp how narrow and reductive some of your framing is. I understand what you are saying, I just keep pointing out that is not ALL there is to say."
TRANSLATION: "We want you to stop thinking the way you think and instead blindly read off of this white liberal prepared script. No need to think about anything as we've done all of that for you."
J. Richard wrote: "I have not disagreed with anything you have said about historical context"
I honestly think you are genuinely afraid to get into a public debate about it since you've no doubt noticed I'm not the type to court the white gaze for favor. I am in fact, eager to get info out of you that you accidentally allow to escape in your sloppiness. I'm actually surprised that you kept going considering how jittery-n-stuttery you sounded in that last post. I salute your staunch belief in your own personal powers. We should all be so deluded. lol
J. Richard wrote: "I was just pointing out it's not really connecting in this context."
I understand you don't want it to be publicly connected.
J. Richard wrote: "I am not saying stop, I think we have similar goals"
We have very different goals. I want to be free of white supremacy, while you want to use the tools and weaponry of #TeamBlue to reinforce it from your side of the aisle for another 400 yrs, in shadowy partnership with #TeamRed (while pretending otherwise).
J. Richard wrote: "but I am telling you that"
J. Richard wrote: "when you try to flank with information someone else's cause"
My cause was already sabotaged and stripped down to "n-word is bad!" by that very same someone you are protecting.
J. Richard wrote: "when you choose not to be an ally to those that are trying to be an ally to you, it helps no one."
Revisit my comment about school resegregation in the USA, please.
J. Richard wrote: "I don't know who you think your group is"
My group is the American descendants of slavery -- the Black American former slave class.
J. Richard wrote: "I have plenty of African-American American friends"
That means nothing to me. There are numerous foreign-born Black immigrant ethnic groups who also use the "African-American" label... none of them are my ethnic group.
J. Richard wrote: "planning to march, and I was alongside some of them and more in BLM marches."
Since you appear to be out of the loop, please note that 'BLM' turned out to be a LGBT front group that used Black trauma to raise funds to turn over to my political rivals. Should I be surprised that you brought these initials out with a flourish to prove your bona fides? Let me assure you, I am not.
J. Richard wrote: "I am speaking to you, not some group you represent, that group is not here taking the actions and tactics you are."
lol You're adorable.
J. Richard wrote: "Plenty of people from all walks of life are engaged with multiple group efforts."
Right. And all of them have agreed to help white people achieve goals that will magically keep whites as the dominant identity group under the false banner of "diVErsITy aND iNClusIOn."
J. Richard Stevens - M. Rasheed wrote: "Meanwhile, you said exactly that at least three times. Are you saying you actually meant something else then? That's weird."
No, but this is the fourth time now I am saying you are misrepresenting what I did say. But I am gathering that is a choice, and not one that is going th change.
M. Rasheed wrote: "But it's okay to stifle my ethnic group's sacred Freedom Struggle and even replace it altogether with the LGBT one."
Given I said the opposite if this multiple times, I think we're done.
You can chose intellectual dishonesty. I will continue to be your ally, just not always in the way you personally want.
The fact that you continue to frame LGBTQ issues as white issues and rolling right over my points to the contrary just reproduces the precise narrow reductionism I was objecting to in my original comment, meaning we are not participating in a conversation.
Erik von Wodtke - Happy Monday
@J. Richard and Muhammad... Stepping back and rereading this conversation that sparked here, it is very interesting and it is an education that most students do need. Teachers as well, but let’s step back as teachers, because pride tends to blind teachers when sensitive topics are taught. Is there a conclusion? No. And… that is a healthy understanding here. We all need to listen and continue to learn.
Going back to the original statement “We The People… Means Everyone”
As educators/teachers, we have a responsibility to do our best to teach truth. Even though the intentions are nice, it is just not true and it is important that ALL Americans understand that sad truth.
In 2023 gay American are still told they are sinners and mentally Ill. Group prayers happen to “cure” them…. Even shock therapy in some states.
In 2023 the kkk is still a legal organization. And I don’t need to go on, you all know the real sick truth of what is out there is 2023.
Philosophy and ethics need to be focused on in education. Labels and memes need to be examined and exposed as dangerous.
Anyhow…
Have seen this Black American History Crash Course series? It is well done. I’m going to be doing an episode a day with my students, this summer. Both of your thoughts and input would be valued and appreciated. Check it out if you have the time.
J. Richard Stevens - @Erik... I appreciate your attempt to reframe this discussion, again.
Yes, I have seen those materials, as I believe I already indicated.
But at the core of the discussion above: a political statement used by a movement has a contemporary context. You can choose to address the historic context, but that does not change the actual connotative use of the contemporary context. (There is also not a single reductive historic context, which I tried to explain above, but I get it ... those speaking aren't always open to listening).
And that's what I was objecting to from Muhammed: the the rhetorical insistence of one context away from another and then a turn to denotative meaning in defense ... it's just not intellectually honest to make all those moves and not address another in terms with more integrity.
So, I say again: I hear you. I do not think you seem to hear what I was saying, but that is fine. We share some common goals, though we still do not appear to be connecting on all topics discussed.
The cultural discrimination you are citing above is terrible and we should oppose it, but I also wanted to remind you that for all groups in question the structural discrimination is worse. There are good reasons for all of us to remain active and vigilant in the support of others.
Erik von Wodtke - @J. Richard... yes, it is interesting. I do understand your points. Some students at Pomona College here were having a very similar discussion on these same issues. I see obvious layers of education within these discussions. The elements where people do not feel they are being listened to or understood is especially critical to understanding of these issues. It’s hard to refrain from making inductive judgments and drawing conclusions about any of this. I’m seeing listening and learning imperative to form any kind of understanding.
Erik von Wodtke - One part that sticks in my mind here. You stated “the 13th Amendment, suffrage, civil rights… all leading to a more inclusive equality for people.” Have they?… to the point where it can be celebrated? Or is pride blinding us all with statements like “we the people, means everyone”
Discussions this brings forward (while refraining from inductive conclusions) The philosophical discussion of:
1) equality vs. equity from the 13th Amendment to 2023.
2) The Philosophical discussion of: what is considered a Person in 2023. (With the understanding that a human and a person are two distinct different things.)
3) Is it truthful in 2023 to say “we the people, means everyone” ? Who is this everyone? And still in 2023 everyone doesn’t agree that everyone is everyone. Samuel Becket would have a field day with that almost absurd but true bit. 😆
Also an ironic observations from over the past 4 years showed that many minority groups in America now don’t want inclusion, because they have grown resentful. Where it once was leading to inclusively celebrating everyone’s cultural differences, to screaming cultural appropriation and some dramatic form of authoritarian social justice. I don’t have answers to any of this… fascinating to observe… and continue listening, learning, and loving.
Right?
Muhammad Rasheed - J. Richard wrote: "No, but this is the fourth time now I am saying you are misrepresenting what I did say."
Then I'm dismissing the claim a fourth time because it is not true. Far from misrepresenting what you've said, I merely provided other information in the historical record that reveals what you want me to believe is a fiction. Your claims stand as they are, and if they look different from how you'd want them to appear when sitting next to the greater factual context of U.S. race relations, then you need to change your narrative to reflect truth. I don't need to dial back on the facts to make you more comfortable.
J. Richard wrote: "Given I said the opposite if this multiple times."
You've said the opposite multiple times, but your denials conflict directly with the actual facts. That makes you a liar.
J. Richard wrote: "You can chose intellectual dishonesty."
Please note that I've posted the sources that support my position, and you've thus far only countered with a butthurt tantrum based on my not blindly believing you just because you used your "nice" white voice to gaslight me with. I'll generously choose to believe that you don't actually know what intellectual dishonesty means. You're welcome.
J. Richard wrote: "I will continue to be your ally"
♪ Yippeee ♫ 🙄
J. Richard wrote: "just not always in the way you personally want."
Right. A homosexual white ally is a figure who uses their political power and influence to bully Black people into giving up their own anti-racism Freedom Struggle to be a permanent support class under white causes. We've already established this infuriating truth in this very thread.
J. Richard wrote: "The fact that you continue to frame LGBTQ issues as white issues"
Let me help you. Remember during the 2010 mid-term elections when the LGBT community were shocked to discover that the Black American community overwhelmingly voted "No" to the gay marriage item in California... the most liberal state in the Union. The obvious conclusion—despite how white-owned mass media has chosen to portray us in every tv show & film ever since in an obvious brainwashing campaign effort—is that the American descendants of slavery ethnic group have always been a conservative-leaning group when it comes to such social issues. This shouldn't really be surprising considering the Black Church has led the fight for our struggles through both the abolitionist period and the civil rights era. Was not our most celebrated political activist a formal Baptist minister?
Combine that with this item that you conspicuously ignored earlier:
...and the facts demonstrate to all who have eyes to see that the entire LGBT movement is a white-driven political agenda. My people are being exploited to use as the face of this thing for no other reason than because you coopted the anti-racism civil rights movement apparatus to toss out my Freedom Struggle agenda to replace with your own. While we all watched.
J. Richard wrote: "and rolling right over my points"
Yes, but only because your points are nonsense.
J. Richard wrote: "meaning we are not participating in a conversation."
Agreed. I'm having a teaching moment, and you are having a tantrum because I won't ignore the facts of history to lessen myself to help support the #TeamBlue side of white supremacy. Stop pretending to be an ally of my people, please. Thanks.
Erik von Wodtke - @Muhammad... Thanks for sharing this article.
Lots to think about here. 4W is an interesting look at these topics from a strong feminist point of view. I was unaware that the trans my movement was doing this.
Muhammad Rasheed - Erik wrote: "Is there a conclusion? No."
The conclusion is that the white identity group needs to set aside its extra curricular pet sjw projects and throw everything it has into the long overdue group economic uplift of the American descendants of slavery. Once my ever-complicit US government makes my ethnic group whole with a properly robust Reparations program and economic inclusion into a wealth-building ownership protected class, then you may continue on with your little political games.
Erik wrote: "And… that is a healthy understanding here. We all need to listen and continue to learn."
After 400 yrs of a library of anti-racism literature, what I need is massive transformational politics to pull my people out of the wealthless bottom caste of the nation.
Erik wrote: "Even though the intentions are nice, it is just not true and it is important that ALL Americans understand that sad truth."
Many Americans are very aware of the truth and care only about their own group getting ahead politically. If my group isn't blindly helping others without asking for anything in return, we are vilified. The rules are always magically different for us. According to Stevens, I'm not supposed to point that out though. 😒
Erik wrote: "In 2023 gay American are still told they are sinners"
According to the source texts of the world religions, it is a sin to engage in same-sex intercourse.
Erik wrote: "and mentally Ill."
Homosexuality was removed from the list of mental illnesses by aggressive, emotion-based, civil unrest demonstrations, not by way of objective scientific methods. Both of these two items require candid & courageous conversations with a sincere aim to get to the truth of the matter, not kneejerk political actions.
Erik wrote: "In 2023 the kkk is still a legal organization."
Numerous Ferguson MO activists and their children have been lynched.
Erik wrote: "And I don’t need to go on, you all know the real sick truth of what is out there is 2023."
Yes, but what is the point of bringing these items up? To do what exactly?
Erik wrote: "Philosophy and ethics need to be focused on in education."
Education to secure what goal?
Erik wrote: "Anyhow…"
🤔🤨
Erik wrote: "Have seen this Black American History Crash Course series? It is well done."
By what metric are you using to determine if it is "well done" or not? Do these two figures represent the founders?
Who are they exactly? Who wrote this "Black History" segment?
Erik von Wodtke - @Muhammad... Dr. Clint Smith composed and hosted Crash Course's Black American History series, which ran from 2021 until late in 2022.
Muhammad Rasheed - Erik wrote: "Dr. Clint Smith composed and hosted"
His personal website says he was only the host. Do they say who wrote the series in the credits?
Erik wrote: "It’s worth checking out."
What are you basing that on exactly? It's worth checking out according to what measure?
Erik von Wodtke - @Muhammad... He not just wrote it, he composed the series with a personal touch.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Erik... I wonder what role the "Content Manager/Script Editor" performed on this series specifically? 🤔
Muhammad Rasheed - @Erik... There's no need to over emphasize the "with a personal touch" part for me. I know that's the tactic for using an agreeable humanizing storytelling technique to prevent historical narratives from being dry & too academically stilted. I'm personally indifferent to it.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Erik... I'm amused that Smith pointedly leaves out that he wrote the series on his own website. I wonder if that hints at how heavy-handed this "Content Manager/Script Editor" was? lol
I expect key elements to be left out of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade history to keep from upsetting certain over-sensitive groups...
Muhammad Rasheed - Is your family Dutch, Erik?
Muhammad Rasheed - German?
Erik von Wodtke - @Muhammad... His oratory is very companionate and personal. That’s all I’m referring to. I’m not trying to sell you on anything… it’s free for the public to learn from.
I’m going to assume you know the details of the series content.
Erik von Wodtke - @Muhammad... Dr. Clint Smith is legit. Here is his book.
Muhammad Rasheed - Erik wrote: "his oratory is very companionate and personal."
I'm very confident this is indeed true. Using a talented Black face as the front of a white-owned business is pretty normal. I wonder if these two mysterious figures paid him at all, or if they (more than likely) smooth-talked Smith into doing it for the promise of fake tenure credits or whatever?
Muhammad Rasheed - Erik wrote: "I’m not trying to sell you on anything…"
You did post the link often enough in the thread to give the impression that you receive a commission off each Patreon subscription. You ever hear the term "hard sell?"
Erik wrote: "I’m going to assume you know the details of the series content."
Maybe a little. 😏 I'm sure you know why I asked if you were Dutch. 😉
I've learned to develop a deep disquieting suspicion of efforts to very carefully spoonfeed me the uncomfortable material that white people most often hide from, particularly when the material was written and/or heavily content managed/script edited by the usual suspects. A candid and courageous confrontation with that material will lead to its ultimate logical conclusion: My long overdue Reparations program... if you were really my "ally" anyway.
The last 150 yrs have proven without doubt that none of you want that (unless you can somehow Dolezal your way into breaking off some of it for yourselves). So forgive me, please, if I show a complete lack of interest in your "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down" version of my history that you'd really rather not talk about at all.
Muhammad Rasheed - Erik wrote: "Dr. Clint Smith is legit."
And by that you mean he's received all the prizes, awards and formal approvals from prestigious, liberal-left leaning white organizations. In other words, he's unquestionably loyal to the anti-ADOS white liberal agenda and can be counted on to support everything you need him to support. Just in case he has a rebellious, truth-speaking activist spirit in him, he has his assigned "Content Manager/Script Editor" handler to make sure he remains reliably "legit."
Got it. 👍
Erik von Wodtke - @Muhammad... Legit, meaning his work seems to speak for itself/himself…. As opposed to being a puppet. Dr. Smith is new to me. And… He got me listening.
Seems like your constructive notes on each individual episode, would be educational for the public to hear. This is a scary subject that the average person is looking to avoid.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm quite deep-dived into the material, Erik. So much so, that I have to use my status as a practicing Abrahamic theist to actively keep a bitter hatred out of my heart to prevent the rage from threatening my spot in paradise.
Watching material based on my history that is fabricated by an anointed agent of my political rivals that deliberately covers up the central role of certain groups, while simultaneously avoiding the logical Reparations debt payout part of the story, would only make me angry, and I'm not in the mood for a helping of the type of foolishness I'm already aware of from that crowd.
Tell me, what assurances can you provide that this material is actually objectively legitimate, as opposed to thoroughly-scrubbed, partisan-approved Legit™? I'm not eager to have my time wasted, or even getting so furiously triggered that I'm inspired to go on an official anti-Crash Course tour.
Muhammad Rasheed - Erik wrote: "Legit, meaning his work seems to speak for itself/himself…"
Sure. 🙄 It "speaks for itself" if you don't know anything and have nothing to compare it to.
Erik wrote: "As opposed to being a puppet."
He's definitely a puppet. He's a Black man who is 100% loyal to the white liberal platform—he owes his entire lifestyle to that ideological framework, so how is he not a puppet? His graduate degrees come from a notoriously racist ivy league, with a history of attacking and smearing grassroot anti-racism organizations. If his Über-prestigious alma mater told him to jump, he would interrupt the order to enthusiastically ask "How high?!" lol Only a dedicated activist—stubbornly & proudly displaying his/her white plume free of outsider-monied sponsorship—isn't a puppet.
