Maybe it's time to play the racist card but now in reverse, now the racism must be towards white people, then, they might understand

2elijah said:

controversy99 said:

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.

Yes that quote is from the same source I posted. I didn't realize you and others posted that link already. Thanks.
[Edited 9/4/15 18:37pm]

babynoz said:

214 said:

KingSausage said:

214 said:

Maybe it's time to play the racist card but now in reverse, now the racism must be towards white people, then, they might understand

You can't just reverse systematic power structures and privilege. Also, that idea is shitty.

Yes is shitty, but it won't in some decades, you might live to see

controversy99 said:

babynoz said:

The ignorance is maddening.

Is that directed at me?

Absolutely not....if so then I would have quoted you. I am speaking of the people who don't know the history that Prince is referencing but are still whining about what he said. I saw the same PBS special that murph mentioned and have read about it as well.

I'm in agreement with the post I quoted regarding the slave patrols.

[Edited 9/4/15 19:06pm]

214 said:

KingSausage said:

214 said: You can't just reverse systematic power structures and privilege. Also, that idea is shitty.

Yes is shitty, but it won't in some decades, you might live to see

You've not had a happy life, have you?

KingSausage said:

Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread. Burn this thread.

Yup, time to leave. The kooks have come out to play.

filthyrichyuppie said:

214 said:

Yes is shitty, but it won't in some decades, you might live to see

You've not had a happy life, have you?

i hate white people and asian people, besides that i'm happy

* Do not post racist or 'hateful' material.
This means no racist/homophobic comments, period. Discussions of racism itself in the proper forum are OK. Making hateful comments, directed at a person or group, may get your account immediately suspended. We are extremely serious about this. prince.org is not a place for racial bigotry or hateful speech.

im confused...i dont even know who is addressing whom anymore...or about what...

214 said:

filthyrichyuppie said:

You've not had a happy life, have you?

i hate white people and asian people, besides that i'm happy

There's about 3 Billion of them.

Sad 4 u... lolz!

EroticDreamer said:

214 said:

i hate white people and asian people, besides that i'm happy

There's about 3 Billion of them.

Sad 4 u... lolz!

i'm just kidding, i hate no one

OldFriends4Sale said:

BlackandRising said:

jesus christ Prince.org has become a bastion of anti-thought. Articulating what may have been the impetus of what we now know as law enforcement doesn't diminish what they do by and large now. He's didn't say that the modern version of law enforcement isn't difficult or required; he's simply pointing out, IMHO, one of the things about America that made America, and how the ripples of that system in some ways are still present. In his world, he's using it to bring light to what he feels are the shortcomings of parts of the music industry.

Prince has made about 2-3 'statements' somehow connected to some current cop issues. But they all are always connected with his Musical venture...

That is what I find dishonest. I have no problem dealing with realities of racial injustice.

Nothing Prince said is connected with the music industry. Black have power in the music industry
Prince had it too, had his own label. Prince isn't the best manager or businessman. Racism wasn't the problem and neither was WB.

Albums Matter, remember those?

Making a statement regarding racial inequality is anyone's right, whether you think they have/had power/ownership or not.

OldFriends4Sale said:

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.

Again, when the law governing the land (the contitution) is expressly racist in sentiment (3/5 person), it should not be shocking that various offshoots from that law (the police) might promote some racist enforcement. The law governing the land allowed for blacks to be property of whites, so it is pretty much a given that white law inferred that policing is for white property, not black property. So the statement isn't far-fetched, no matter how matter-of-fact or simplistic it sounds.

KingSausage said:

BlackandRising said:

my point is, who are you to say that it is wrong? Here's an article that relates to what he is stating: http://plsonline.eku.edu/...n-policing

To simply say that he is wrong is the height of ignorance, especially when it comes to American history. It's literally whitewashed. That whitewashing is continuing today. Just research the changes to AP History that were recently approved, then tell me that he's "wrong".

It's not that Prince is wrong or that the American policing system doesn't have deep roots in racist structures. It's that Prince's statement offers an overly simplified and dumbed down version of the truth, which is sadly par for the course with him. The link you provided backs this up. "The birth and development of the American police can be traced to a multitude of historical, legal and political-economic conditions. The institution of slavery and the control of minorities, however, were two of the more formidable historic features of American society shaping early policing." As it makes clear, there were many factors involved in the creation of Americam policing. Not merely racist influences meant to protect white people's money. Also, that link has only two sources cited. I wouldn't call it academically rigorous.

I would think the statement was oversimplified because his intent was not to make a speech on the roots of American law enforcement. In my opinion, at its core, he is (simply) pointing out that American law enforcement has been largely nonincusive of blacks from the very beginning.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Angelsoncrack said:

He's contradicting everything he sang about in "race";

"Down with history, and all this BS propoganda

Keeping you from me, and me from you as we grow

I don't wanna know

Why those before us hated each other"

That's exactly what he is doing. Concentrating on the past rather than thinking of ways to improve the situation at hand. Be the statement accurate or not.

He should just make music

bad businessman, who when he had his label it was shut down because people did not get paid

He isn't a good example of people owning lol

I always feel there is a definite problem when someone implies that someone else should just stay in their place, which is how I read your comment. Prince could be the worst businessman on the planet, but he has been black for nearly 60 years, and he should share his opinion on black experience if he wants to share it. PS, he has provided you with plenty of music, if that's all you'd like to hear from him.

OldFriends4Sale 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]

I think Prince's focus should stay on working with #All Artists in understanding their liberties and right as Artists/Musicians. That is where his energy has been for a long time. And it is clear that that is where it is by those quotes. Artists of every ethnic group look up too him. Continue on the direction that hasn't changed in Prince. Prince is not going to get in the street and march, he isn't going to go live in an all black underpriviledged community and get them to get their own police.

I am personally happy that Prince doesn't look to you for focusing his energies.

I'm pretty sure he can work with artists rights and speak on racial equality - if he wants.

"Artists of every ethnic group look up to him." So what? They still can. And he can still have opinions about what he sees as inequality for his own specific race.

Also, its mighty presumptuous of you to say that he wouldn't march; and even if he doesn't, there are many, many things he can do to help in those communities, such as bring awareness to issues by speaking out, donating money to schools, performing in the community, etc. One more thing - he has done all those things.

filthyrichyuppie said:

EFFDUBB said:

So, do you think the police were created here in America to protect the Native Americans' property? Who's property do you think the police was created to protect? What role do you think the "police" played in regards to the native americans property. What role do you think the police played in regard to the property of the Africans here in America? Do you think they were created to protect the property of the Africans? You're so offended by him saying the police were created to protect the property of white folks, yet you haven't said whom you think they were created to "protect & serve"? Who?

You're a bit late to the party, darlin'. Go back to the beginning of this thread. Once you've caught up, then you can rephrase.

If EFFDUBB is late, he/she made a grand entrance. All valid points. If blacks were considered 3/5 person, I suspect native americans were considered even less.

Maybe, this will help. Let's just change Prince's quote just a hair.

"Police Were Created to Protect Property (except that of Blacks and Native Americans)." That way the quote isn't directly pointing out favortism toward "white folks". Is that better?

RJOrion said:

it seems obvious that some still want the minstrel show to continue... if a black man is "fortunate" enough to be allowed to sing & dance for entertainment purposes, he BETTER not dare speak of anything else besides singing and dancing, or do anything else besides sing or dance...lest he be ridiculed or labeled a troublemaker...some things never change...smh

... that most certainly seems to be a common sentiment... and not just on the org...

pdiddy2011 said:

thesoulbrother said:

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. Prince is full of shit. He is always talking about linking contracts to slavery and it pisses me off each and everytime he does that. I think what people fail to grasp is that back in 1993, Prince was given a 7-year, $100 million deal. With that kind of money Prince had the potential to do some wonderful and amazing things. Not to mention, in 1985 he had his own label, Paisley Park. Michael Jackson, the number one entertainer in the world, didn't have his own label in 1985. Instead of Prince using the leverage and the tools (and the money) that he had to bless the music world with some real talent and some real music, he released bullshit from people like Dale Bozzio and Carmen Electra.

So he gets "free" and changes his name to that ridiculous symbol but scrawls "slave" on his face and becomes militant. Get the fuck outta here, man. Now all of a sudden you black? For the record I have never seen Prince with a black woman as a love interest in any of his videos, with the exception of Troy Beyer in Three Chains O' Gold but who the fuck saw it? Prince again raised all this commotion about wanting to "free the music" only to put out schlock like Newpower Soul and Larry Graham's forgettable GCS2000. Again, he had the power to be so far ahead of the game with his 1-800-NEW-FUNK and his NPG Music Club sites but he dropped the ball. He self-sabotaged his own shit before it even had a chance to grow and catch on. Everytime Prince innovated something like selling a concert ticket with a CD or selling his own singles on his site, he walked away from it. That's his own undoing.

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? But you wanna talk slavery? Negro please.

As far as I'm concerned, it makes no difference is he releases this album on Tidal, Spotify, iTunes, Google Play, the traditional way, or if he gives this motherfucker away. It won't mean jack shit if it's not good. Plectrumelectrum did 33,000 copies and Art Official Age did 66,000 which equals wood and double wood respectively. Jocking Jay Z will not make the masses flock to Tidal to buy his new album. Furthermore, saying silly shit in the press before the release of an album to sound pseudo-intellectual won't do any good either. The bottom line is Prince is one bitter motherfucker still trying to hold on to what little relevancy he has left in a world that passed him by years ago. This is the same artist who fought the record label tooth and nail to get his masters and now that he has them?

Don't worry. I'll wait.

I agree with some others commenting on your post. You have definitely provided some food for thought, and make some good points.

However, paragraph one - you may very well be right about Prince dropping the ball with the leverage he had and what he might have done with the tools he had. But, being a bad business man does not preclude you from speaking out on a topic that you feel strongly about. He knows about being black. He knows about being underpriveleged. Bad businessman or not, he knows that ownership is better than "occupancy". I have no problem with him speaking on it.

Paragraph 2 - similar to paragraph 1; so much of your issue seems to be with Prince's lack of business acumen and/or lack of talent scouting, which, might be true. But, having love interests or album covers with girls that aren't black doesn't in the least bit make Prince any less black.

Paragraph 3 - I don't know the particulars about the cases with the Time and The Family, but you make a case I'm not prepared to argue with.

Paragraph 4 - Speaking out on issues is not silly, if they're important to you. Also, I'm not at all sure why speaking out on devisive issues would be thought of as an absolute gain when you have an album coming out. I think he speaks on these issues when albums are coming out because that is when it gets the most traction, and more people are going to be listening. Also, he got his masters back and is trying to tell others to do the same. No problem, from where I stand.

pdiddy2011 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.

I see this being at the very crux of the race relations problem. Making a statement against prejudicial, discriminatory actions IS NOT "vilifying (even subtly) a whole race of people."

When a person, or group of people, give their insight/opinions about discriminatory activity, they are not saying everyone in the majority group is that way. I think many people of the majority group that are being spoken of feel specifically attacked, so they take offense to what has been pointed out. If black people could be dragged through the streets and water-hosed and treated as cattle and lynched and profiled, then the majority can suck up the mere mention of those practices and say yes they are wrong. Inequality from the police towards blacks was and is wrong. Saying so isn't saying that cops are bad (in general) or that white people don't like black people (in general).

Anyone that says that was a long time ago or quit dwelling in the past or quit being a victim really needs to take their head out of the sand. Peoples family legacies are all still directly affected by the actions of the majority group since this country's conception.

tab32792 said:

Lol I'm starting to think people forget Prince IS black. One doesn't have to just live in the common folks world to see what's going on and has been forever. Also the comments saying "why don't people just get on with it & live in peace together, etc" that's like saying all that bad shit happened years ago and we should just forget about it. Bullshit. Slavery and Jim crow weren't that long ago. And black lives matter is an important movement. The all lives matter statement is the problem. We know all lives matter but AmeriKKKA and law enforcement seem to forget about the black ones or just don't care. [Edited 9/5/15 5:06am]

The hypocrisy and historical ignorance on here...
Prince is black, so that gives him credibility when he's actually pouring gas on the situation? Yet when other honorable black people on the national scene (Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Sheriff David A. Clarke) comment on race, they're marginalized and mocked, called house negros and Uncle Toms by the so-called "racial justice" crowd. They're more black than obama bloodwise, but apparently he's been anointed the Black Jesus.

And the 3/5ths Compromise was intended to give the Southern states less power. It had nothing to do with the value of slaves' lives, but a way for the Northern states to reduce the South's influence via census. It was a way to eventually end slavery. So please stop with the ignorance. Oh, and Jim Crow laws and KKK? Creations of the Democrats.

"All lives matter" is a problem? You thinking that is the real problem. Look up "divisive." Hey, here's a BLM supporter...

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/sldwsvz.jpg[/img:$uid]

214 said:

Maybe it's time to play the racist card but now in reverse, now the racism must be towards white people, then, they might understand

Yep that is a good idea

controversy99 said:

babynoz said:

The ignorance is maddening.

Is that directed at me?

It is always indirectly directed,