KingSausage said:

I'm getting a weird feeling that this thread is going nowhere. Maybe it was something I ate?

I give it my best. You know that don't you?

CharismaDove said:

filthyrichyuppie said:

Yeah, I know. I'm having the same issues with him as well.

Actually, it was about you and how you refuse to stop rehashing old shit for no reason and arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

I get lonely, being that one step ahead all the time.

thesoulbrother said:

I just find it laughable that he wants to compare record labels and contracts to slavery but yet The Time and The Family couldn't even use their own name. Regardless of whatever legal situations that entails, two of his most popular groups have to change their names just so they can go out and perform. Now what kind of sense does that make? You're gonna deny your own artists the right to use their name so they can make a living?

yep... he's a hypocrite... plain and simple

it's the same when he bitches about people covering his songs, and then the next minute he's covering someone else's song

.

[Edited 9/4/15 16:29pm]

filthyrichyuppie said:

MoBettaBliss said:

thesoulbrother said:

I just find it laughable that he wants to compare record labels and contracts to slavery but yet The Time and The Family couldn't even use their own name. Regardless of whatever legal situations that entails, two of his most popular groups have to change their names just so they can go out and perform. Now what kind of sense does that make? You're gonna deny your own artists the right to use their name so they can make a living?

yep... he's a hypocrite... plain and simple

it's the same when he bitches about people covering his songs, and then the next minute he's covering someone else's song

Yep People who helped build the foundation that everything he can do now is built on...
It was troubling seeing how he so easily disconnected with the Time & the Family reached out too him. He responses was worse than a slave master. Even moreso reading the correspondence and communications between Alan/Eric Leeds, Susannah & St Paul especially to Prince and almost like he was still bitter over St Paul leaving "Well you took money out of my pocket, I'm going to make it harder for you to get some" and with the Time, it was all ego -The Time would have killed it as an opening act. But he didn't realize the Time & the Family making music and a scene with him (as well as the Revolution and Sheila E) would have brought more money, more attention, more highlighting hof his vast career...

MoBettaBliss said:

thesoulbrother said:

I just find it laughable that he wants to compare record labels and contracts to slavery but yet The Time and The Family couldn't even use their own name. Regardless of whatever legal situations that entails, two of his most popular groups have to change their names just so they can go out and perform. Now what kind of sense does that make? You're gonna deny your own artists the right to use their name so they can make a living?

yep... he's a hypocrite... plain and simple

it's the same when he bitches about people covering his songs, and then the next minute he's covering someone else's song

OMG Prince lies, is a hypocrite, is egotistical, is weird, is inconsistent, is blah blah blah.. I can't believe it. Over 35 years in the music business and its finally clear to me now..

lezama said:

MoBettaBliss said:

yep... he's a hypocrite... plain and simple

it's the same when he bitches about people covering his songs, and then the next minute he's covering someone else's song

OMG Prince lies, is a hypocrite, is egotistical, is weird, is inconsistent, is blah blah blah.. I can't believe it. Over 35 years in the music business and its finally clear to me now..

do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to spew drivel?

@ lezama

LMAO...for real tho...

Prince has been stretching the truth, acting weird, being egotistical and inconsistent, since he moved out of Bernadette's basement...why is everyone so up in arms and surprised now?...he's always been consistent with his inconsistencies... he's a Boss ...and sometimes thats what Bosses do....its partly what made him the elusive, mystical icon he still is today...i aint mad at him

williamb610 said:

murph said:

To the folks who r making it seem like Prince is talking out of his ass about the origins of the police. Its obvious hes talking about the American experience not the English origins of PoPo. This aint Prince talking crazy about chem trails or some side eye worthy bullshit. In the US the police were viewed as overseeers for slaves and property before they evolved.. There r plenty of writings on this... [Edited 9/4/15 17:09pm]

Not true my friend.

America did not form out of nothing. the Police are not an American invention. the People that began forming what became Constables Police & Sheriffs came from a place where they had some type of law enforcement. So we can't cut of that part of the origins. These forms of law enforcement were just as much in areas where there was no slavery as well as out West, and in places that were not connected to the Confederate or Union states.

The Early Days of American Law Enforcement

The Watch

More than 350 years ago, America’s first known system of law enforcement was established in Boston. As soon as colonists had settled there in 1630, local ordinances had allowed for constables to be appointed. Soon after, in April 1631, the townspeople formed a “watch” made up of six watchmen, one constable, and several volunteers who patrolled at night, walking the rounds.

Initially run by a combination of obligatory and voluntary participation, the 17th century watch typically reported fires, maintained order in the streets, raised the “hue and cry” (pursuing suspected criminals with loud cries to raise alarm), and captured and arrested lawbreakers. Constables had similar tasks, which included maintaining health and sanitation and bringing suspects and witnesses to court—frequently for such conduct as working on the Sabbath, cursing in public places, and failing to pen animals properly.

In the more rural, sparsely populated areas of the Colonies, the sheriff was the main law enforcement figure. Appointed by the governor, sheriffs’ duties included serving legal documents such as writs, appearing in court, and collecting taxes. In many cases, the sheriff was paid a fixed amount for each task he performed, some, for example, receiving payment based on the amount of taxes they collected. Occasionally, these tasks proved dangerous. In fact, the first known American peace officer to be killed in the line of duty was Columbia County (NY) Sheriff Cornelius Hogeboom, who was shot on October 22, 1791, as he attempted to serve a writ of ejectment.

This early policing system was modeled after the English structure, which incorporated the watch, constables, and sheriffs (derived from the British term, “shire-reeves”) in a community-based police organization. (Interestingly, the British system developed from “kin policing” dating back to about 900 A.D., in which law enforcement power was in the people’s hands, and they were responsible for their families or “kin.”) Early law enforcement was reactionary, rather than pre-emptive—the watch usually responded to criminal behavior only when requested by victims or witnesses. And, with monetary incentive in certain areas, apprehending criminals was not always a priority.

MoBettaBliss said:

lezama said:

OMG Prince lies, is a hypocrite, is egotistical, is weird, is inconsistent, is blah blah blah.. I can't believe it. Over 35 years in the music business and its finally clear to me now..

do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to spew drivel?

Lol.. sorry I just get tired of the same line every month of every year for the past 20 years of me following the man. I personally don't care what his perspectives are on most matters. I agree with his sometimes, disagree with him others.. in neither case do actually care what his opinion is. I don't follow Prince for his perspectives on social matters, just his music. If I wanted brilliant political rhetoric and thoughtful sociological analyses of the world I'd look to maybe Cornel West, Slavoj Zizek, Antonio Negri or Howard Zinn or someone not Prince. If I want to discover new artists that I might be into then I might read a Prince interview to see who he's digging.

pdiddy2011 said:

2elijah said:

williamb610 said:

Prince is right, about the institution of police in Amerika. "Slave patrols and night watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behavior of minorities."

That's a direct quote from someone's book that's online.

"Many southern police departments began as slave patrols."

This ain't chemtrails talk. This is truth! Get 'em Prince!!

Maybe this will help calm the discussion. Here is a link regarding the history of policing in America. It didn't take much effort to do the research. Here is an excerpt to confirm what Prince said, which took place in the south back in the day It isn't something Prince made up folks. Hope this helps:

http://plsonline.eku.edu/...tes-part-1 "In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path. The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the "Slave Patrol" (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing "Jim Crow" segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system. The key question, of course, is what was it about the United States in the 1830s that necessitated the development of local, centralized, bureaucratic police forces? One answer is that cities were growing. The United States was no longer a collection of small cities and rural hamlets. Urbanization was occurring at an ever-quickening pace and old informal watch and constable system was no longer adequate to control disorder. Anecdotal accounts suggest increasing crime and vice in urban centers. Mob violence, particularly violence directed at immigrants and African Americans by white youths, occurred with some frequency. Public disorder, mostly public drunkenness and sometimes prostitution, was more visible and less easily controlled in growing urban centers than it had been rural villages (Walker 1996). But evidence of an actual crime wave is lacking. So, if the modern American police force was not a direct response to crime, then what was it a response to?"

(Click on link to read the rest) [Edited 9/4/15 17:19pm]

Bless the police for keeping decent people safe.

Thank you for the link.

filthyrichyuppie said:

CharismaDove said:

Actually, it was about you and how you refuse to stop rehashing old shit for no reason and arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

I get lonely, being that one step ahead all the time.

Lawd prince just be quiet and stop embarrassing jay Z. he not up there saying that or representing that.

OldFriends4Sale said:

CharismaDove said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

murph said:

To the folks who r making it seem like Prince is talking out of his ass about the origins of the police. Its obvious hes talking about the American experience not the English origins of PoPo. This aint Prince talking crazy about chem trails or some side eye worthy bullshit. In the US the police were viewed as overseeers for slaves and property before they evolved.. There r plenty of writings on this... [Edited 9/4/15 17:09pm]

Not true my friend.

America did not form out of nothing. the Police are not an American invention. the People that began forming what became Constables Police & Sheriffs came from a place where they had some type of law enforcement. So we can't cut of that part of the origins. These forms of law enforcement were just as much in areas where there was no slavery as well as out West, and in places that were not connected to the Confederate or Union states.

The Early Days of American Law Enforcement

The Watch

More than 350 years ago, America’s first known system of law enforcement was established in Boston. As soon as colonists had settled there in 1630, local ordinances had allowed for constables to be appointed. Soon after, in April 1631, the townspeople formed a “watch” made up of six watchmen, one constable, and several volunteers who patrolled at night, walking the rounds.

Initially run by a combination of obligatory and voluntary participation, the 17th century watch typically reported fires, maintained order in the streets, raised the “hue and cry” (pursuing suspected criminals with loud cries to raise alarm), and captured and arrested lawbreakers. Constables had similar tasks, which included maintaining health and sanitation and bringing suspects and witnesses to court—frequently for such conduct as working on the Sabbath, cursing in public places, and failing to pen animals properly.

In the more rural, sparsely populated areas of the Colonies, the sheriff was the main law enforcement figure. Appointed by the governor, sheriffs’ duties included serving legal documents such as writs, appearing in court, and collecting taxes. In many cases, the sheriff was paid a fixed amount for each task he performed, some, for example, receiving payment based on the amount of taxes they collected. Occasionally, these tasks proved dangerous. In fact, the first known American peace officer to be killed in the line of duty was Columbia County (NY) Sheriff Cornelius Hogeboom, who was shot on October 22, 1791, as he attempted to serve a writ of ejectment.

This early policing system was modeled after the English structure, which incorporated the watch, constables, and sheriffs (derived from the British term, “shire-reeves”) in a community-based police organization. (Interestingly, the British system developed from “kin policing” dating back to about 900 A.D., in which law enforcement power was in the people’s hands, and they were responsible for their families or “kin.”) Early law enforcement was reactionary, rather than pre-emptive—the watch usually responded to criminal behavior only when requested by victims or witnesses. And, with monetary incentive in certain areas, apprehending criminals was not always a priority.

This is your third time posting the same article in this thread, did you provide the source/link yet?

controversy99 said:

controversy99 said:

pdiddy2011 said:

I'm pretty sure Prince is referencing police history in the states. London's police history has nothing to do iwith his statement.

You're both right, in part, and both wrong. London is generally credited with creating the first "modern" and professional police force in the early to mid 1800s. Their approach when then adopted in many countries, including much of the United States. This is generally accepted in criminology history, including in the U.S. But also generally accepted in U.S. criminology history is that policing in the Southern States followed a different path. It was established primarily as a means of controlling the slave population and capturing runaways. While it incorporated some of the London ideas, it grew primarily out of the slave payrolls and evolved from that in the post slavery period. To quote: "In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path. The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the "Slave Patrol" (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules." http://plsonline.eku.edu/...tes-part-1 Prince's statement can be considered accurate in the U.S. because the slave patrols predated the "modern" London professional police force. People in the U.S. can be extremely ignorant of the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean we don't know our own history. Like any country, there have been external influences and internal evolution.

The ignorance is maddening.

filthyrichyuppie said:

controversy99 said:

CharismaDove said:

BlackandRising said:

lol you said you lost interest and that you can't keep repeating yourself, but here you are. I just wanted to see if you'd reply again.

Lol this guy is unbelievable. He's not worth debating with because all he does is try and keep the argument alive even if it's over, going as much as possible, responding no matter what. He seems incapable of understanding simple statements.

[Edited 9/4/15 13:15pm]

yeah I realized that by his second post, but wanted to see where he'd go with it. he didn't disappoint.

filthyrichyuppie said:

Angelsoncrack said:

BlackandRising said:

I personally think he's at a stage where his role should not simply be making music. Race was written when? Attitudes, thoughts, etc., change as we grow. I thought Race was a great message back in the day. Now I think it's wholly naive. And on the contrary, I think he's finally using the past to focus on what needs to be done in/for the future. What's the old adage about forgetting the past and being doomed to repeat it?

[Edited 9/4/15 11:28am]

Maybe, but I really don't understand how bringing up 'police were created to protect the property of white folks' is of any relevancy to sorting out the issue that America faces right now. I don't see how it is promting change?? And to be fair I don't think using a statement that has clearly offended/alienated some of his fans here is going to prompt them to want to change it either. You don't change situations like this by vilifying (even subtly) a whole race of people.

This is why I dislike identity based politics, I feel it just paints people with too broad of a brush rather than viewing them as a complex set of individuals.

well I see it as using metaphors/comparisons that purposely make people uncomfortable. If what he says alienates some of his fans, maybe in his mind, he's like fuck it, cause if you don't take the time/energy to at least try to understand where he's coming from, then what's the point? During these times of seeing story after story of black peopel being killed by LE, I have even come to grips with the fact that I might need to teach my 5 yr old how to interact so it's second nature when he's older. The fact that some of my white friends look at me like I have horns growing out of my head tell sme that they either don't care about the reasons I feel I have to, or they're simply oblivious to it. Either makes me kind of wince. But when I use examples of past atrocities to get my point across, I'm not vilifying an entire race of people. I often shake my head when white people feel that's what's happening when these things are articulated by soemone of color. It's actually mind-boggling to me.

BlackandRising said:

Angelsoncrack said:

Maybe, but I really don't understand how bringing up 'police were created to protect the property of white folks' is of any relevancy to sorting out the issue that America faces right now. I don't see how it is promting change?? And to be fair I don't think using a statement that has clearly offended/alienated some of his fans here is going to prompt them to want to change it either. You don't change situations like this by vilifying (even subtly) a whole race of people.

This is why I dislike identity based politics, I feel it just paints people with too broad of a brush rather than viewing them as a complex set of individuals.

well I see it as using metaphors/comparisons that purposely make people uncomfortable. If what he says alienates some of his fans, maybe in his mind, he's like fuck it, cause if you don't take the time/energy to at least try to understand where he's coming from, then what's the point? During these times of seeing story after story of black peopel being killed by LE, I have even come to grips with the fact that I might need to teach my 5 yr old how to interact so it's second nature when he's older. The fact that some of my white friends look at me like I have horns growing out of my head tell sme that they either don't care about the reasons I feel I have to, or they're simply oblivious to it. Either makes me kind of wince. But when I use examples of past atrocities to get my point across, I'm not vilifying an entire race of people. I often shake my head when white people feel that's what's happening when these things are articulated by soemone of color. It's actually mind-boggling to me.

well said