By the way, the reason you won't see a "white fact of the day" thread is because people with light coloured skin do not feel the need to identify one another as "white" or feel united in their skin tones. Often they'll more strongly identify themselves by nationality ("American" or "French" or "German") religion ("Catholic" or "Protestant" etc) or political views etc. You won't see a "blue eyed people fact of the day" thread or a "brown haired people fact of the day" thread either.

ian said:

"light coloured skin"?

ROFLMAO

"skin tones"?



you just don't get it.



And often their definitions of those identities have so marginalized people who don't have such "light coloured skin" (bwaahaahahaahaa, wooohooohoooehehhehee ) that those with darker "skin tones" must find affirmation in some other identity.

EDIT corrected misspellings due to laughing hysterically while typing.
.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 4 5:42:49 PST 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

ian said:

so im getting the feeling that we can not have sence of black pride on he org.

No -

I could start a 'Rebublican Fact of the Day' - but I am sure it would upset the Unionist minority who hold illegal claim to part of our Country...

Bren1 said:

Hey if your pro republiccan got for it

BlackMiles said:

black pride on a website named after a black man performing black music?

what are you thinking?

ya i understand your point i agree w/ you but in the past when post is to afro centric they feel the need to delte it

BlackMiles said:

Dunno why you get that feeling, I have no problem with it anyway. I actually agreed with NuPwrSoul's post despite his ignorant sarky response to what I said

BlackMiles said:

Bullshit. I'll remove posts that are racist, or break the rules in some other way. End of story.

NuPwrSoul said:

A lot of folks still think that Prince is white.

NuPwrSoul said:

I've no problem with people finding "affirmation" in any identity they wish. The point was that there is no "white identity" because it isn't necessary for white people to have the colour of their skin as a key factor in their sense of identity.

Historically plenty of people with white skin have been "marginalised" (as you euphemistically put it) by other people with white skin, the difference between the two being one side is waving a different national flag or clutching a different religious symbol or some similiar bullshit. Whatever way you look at it, it's just flag waving.

A huge part of what I'd describe as "Irish identity" has become defined by the Irish struggle for freedom under British occupation. In my sense of identity, there's a long list of things that make it up, with the colour of my skin not even featuring. I can appreciate however, that black Americans have been "marginalised" and thus construct an identity based on their skin colour and their oppression in America. It's to be expected.

Oh, where is Larry Graham when you really need him. We are all just rainbow children.

Ian said -

"Historically plenty of people with white skin have been "marginalised" (as you euphemistically put it) by other people with white skin, the difference between the two being one side is waving a different national flag or clutching a different religious symbol or some similiar bullshit. Whatever way you look at it, it's just flag waving"


Have to agree with you there Ian - Guess thats the reason you are a moderator

ian said:

No they DO have "white identity" they just don't call it that. They call it "American," "European," etc. The whole point of my initial post on this thread is that for years (centuries?) Caucasians seemingly have arrogated to themselves the universal standard/norm which they define against an "Other" whether that "Other" be Zulu (in South Africa), Indian/coolie (in India), Black (in America), etc.

That isn't to say that within and among Caucasians that there aren't other kinds of divisions but that wasn't the point. The point was that whites either in America or in former colonies of England, France, Belgium, Portugal, etc. often defined themselves against an "Other" person of color. White was the default. It was assumed. It never needed to be stated.

NuPwrSoul said:

I have known a good number of "Americans" and "Europeans" who are black.

IceNine said:

Yes, so do I. And that has nothing to do with the fact that until the onset of the multiculturalism movement when people talked about "American" or "European" literature, music, film, culture, etc. seldom if ever did they include those "good number of 'Americans' and 'Europeans' who are black."

NuPwrSoul said:

That was then, this is now... time moves on and all that...

The way I see it is this:

I like all people who are good people, be they white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. I dislike people SOLELY for their actions or thoughts and NEVER for the color of their skin or nationality. I think that people are still too fucking focused on skin color and that they need to wake up to the fact that there are great people of all races and nationalities. Anyone who hates a person based upon his/her skin color is a complete fool who needs an education.

EDIT: With that said, I think that it is perfectly acceptable for people to hate each other based upon their interactions with others individually and not as a race.

...
[This message was edited Fri Dec 6 6:30:24 PST 2002 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

Nobody was talking about hating anyone because of their skin color, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. And this has nothing to do with who is a "good" person, or whether you or anyone else (n)ever focus on someone's skin color.

This is about the marginalization of the experiences of Black and other non-white people in the educational system, and how that shapes the discourse in popular culture that reflects that same marginalization.

And I AM talking about the NOW. A quick review of most textbooks will find that the experiences of non-whites are still marginalized.

NuPwrSoul said:

I believe that it does have to do with hate based upon skin color... there are various white racist groups who hate black organizations and various black racist groups who hate white organizations. I agree with those who say that presenting things as "black facts" instead of "facts" is separatist and improper.

I realize that there are those who want to maintain separation and I feel that things such as "black facts" perpetuate that mindset.

IceNine said:

I disagree. If one were promoting "black facts" or more generally "black history" as an alternative to anything else, it may be a separatist project.

But given that black folk live and go to school in America, anything that is promoted as black can only be a supplement/complement to a larger narrative. It's not a case of either/or, but both/and.

If one were promoting an alternative "black" reality, it may be separatist. But this does not necessarily translate into hate for anyone else.

NuPwrSoul said:

Maybe it is just semantics, but I think that it would be ideal if it was presented as simple "fact" or "history" rather than a "black fact" or "black history." I can understand that there are different sides to all stories and that the majority of history books were written by white people, but I feel that it is wrong to present the "black facts" version of the subject, as the title itself is separatist. I feel that much more productive discourse can be achieved by presenting facts as facts rather than inserting race into the presentation and thus bringing separation into the equation.

How about this:

FACT OF THE DAY for Tuesday, December 03, 2002

In 1964, Academy Award for best actor of the year presented (April 13) to Sidney Poitier for his performance in Lilies of the Field.

This works, doesn't it?

IceNine said:

If exclusion were the only thing caused by marginalization, then mere inclusion could possibly address it. However, marginalization on the basis of race also alienates and devalues on the basis of race; therefore, IMHO the inclusion needs to be done in a way that embraces and affirms on the same basis.
.
[This message was edited Fri Dec 6 6:58:20 PST 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

NuPwrSoul said:

I realize that much or our history is written by people with an agenda and I can see the point in "black" history as well, but I do not think that it is as effective as it would be if black scholars simply wrote some new books and presented them as fact without calling them "black history" books, as that makes them seem separatist.

You see what I am getting at?

Analogy:

Much of history is now written and re-written by socialists. If a libertarian were to come along and publish something called "libertarian history," he would immediately lose credibility and effectiveness. He would marginalize his own damn self by doing this.

NuPwrSoul said:

Yes, a fan site dedicated to Prince, a black musician, is really guilty of marginalizing black people from the mainstream.

Ridiculous. There's no need for such nonsense here.

IceNine said:

I see what you're getting at, but I still say inclusion alone is insufficient in addressing the effects of marginalization. The inclusion has to be done in a way that affirms what had been devalued.

In addition to that, there is something unique about the experiences of black people in America that distinguishes itself from the experiences of others. In some ways this distinction is gradually disappearing, but in other ways this distinction remains quite strong.

Black history scholars hence do not just merely write history in "black face," they focus on the stories and experiences of black people because those experiences/stories speak to this uniqueness and offer commentary on the ways that power, race, and class have shaped the American experience in general.
.
[This message was edited Fri Dec 6 7:13:36 PST 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

teller said:

Your analogy does not hold to that about which I am speaking here.

Black history and socialist history is different in that black history does not purport to offer a "black view" of history, but rather focus on the experiences of black people to illustrate something about America.

Socialist history (as would libertarian history) would NOT be about socialists in American history... it is history written from a particular ideological point of view.

Two different things here--one is the subject of study and the other is the perspective from which such a study is undertaken.

NuPwrSoul said:

Understood.

NuPwrSoul said:

What/whom has been devalued/marginalised? Can you please give me a pointed example--something that really stands out as an illustration?

NuPwrSoul said:

I agree with NuPwrSoul. In Europe, we have a similar problem, but it's not about races, but about nationalities. Like Ian said.

Currently, history teachers in European countries which have been fighting their neighbours for 2 millenia, are trying to streamline their education programs.

In order to do that, they think nationalist aspects of al those histories must be de-emphasized. They think that the history books must be objectivated.

I don't agree with that.

First, it is going to be extremely hard. Every nation wants to keep it's history the way it is. They use NuPwrSoul's argument that they have a unique history with unique, important viewpoints that can't be marginalized by their former enemies.

Moreover, valuable information might get lost, about interests, convictions and illusions that were driving the individual countries.

So I think every conflict in European history should be described with sources from all parties. As a result, European children should learn to discuss their history from different perspectives.

I'm not an American, but I figure it might indeed make sense to find out if there is such a thing as a White identity, so you could distinguish White sources and speak of a White history. I think you need that in order to describe the history Blacks and Whites have together.
.
[This message was edited Mon Apr 28 14:24:13 PDT 2003 by LillianLaughs]