DOES PRINCE HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE CLAIMS IN THIS SONG? OR IS HE BEING A BIT PRESUMPTUOUS? YOU DECIDE!

Here's an article written by a favorite columist of mine. His name is Dr. Thomas Sowell. An ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE black man who is considered by many to be one of the HEAVIEST intellectuals in economics and politics. He is a Senior Follow at the Hoover Institution in California, AND EVERYTHING HE TALKS ABOUT IN THIS ARTICLE SHOOTS DOWN WHAT PRINCE IS EXPOUNDING IN THE SONG "FAMILY NAME". Read the link below, and speak your minds! Do you AGREE with Dr. Sowell, OR Prince?

http://www.jewishworldrev...031802.asp

I also forgot to mention something that may PIQUE your interested into reading this. Dr. Sowell clearly states the following in the article:

1) FAMILY NAMES were not given to SLAVES.

2) Slaves were FORBIDDEN to have FAMILY NAMES because it would imply kinship to the slave owners famliy--which is NOT something they wanted.

3) Family names that blacks had were ADOPTED BY THEM, NOT THEIR slave owners. This was done in order to supply them with a sense BONDING.

4) Blacks mentioning that they HAD a family name RISKED being harmed and therefore AVOIDED mentioning it.

Kudos to you HIGHRISK. Very good read, and interesting. I think Sowell makes a good case. The best I have heard so far. Isn't it interesting that history and even memory is so subjective. I think it's also funny that he points to the people who are rejecting their 'slave names' as being vouge in the 60's to present. That might point the finger at Larry as far as where this beliefe was germinated for Prince. I don't have the answer cause I still have my family name. But good find!

HIGHRISK said:

Highrisk: what is your point, that one man who goes against what 60 Million People say is right, I read the article that you supplied, but the article does not address why Slaves didn't have African names, Someone gave them a name, If Family names was not given to the Slaves then why does the archives list the name of the Slave Owners as the name of the Slave. Why do Records show that Last names were given, And Slaves could not read or write so how did the names get on the documents?

You read something by someone that perhaps have your opinion, and you make him to be an expert. He's not an expert and neither is you or I. But I know that I have documentation that says my father, GrandFather, Great Grand father, and Great Great GrandFather had a name that was given to them by their Slave Owner. Not opinion but Documentation. Now respond to that HighRisk:

jazzy328is said:

The reason for that is the same reason that the people who were slaves stopped speaking 'African' after a point because it was many languages not just one. Through the generations they would have lost it because they didn't write it down. Latin is a dead language because it is no longer spoken, but the written form remains. I do think that it is doubtful that tribal African societies even had last names. That's a Western/European thing isn't it? Native Americans never had them.

I'm not going to argue with your documentation. You appearently know more about this than I do. These are just my thoughts.

Cornerman,

What you fail to realize is that it was common practice amongst North American slaveowners to DELIBERATELY mix Africans of different ethnic groups together, so that they could not continue to speak their respective African languages. There was a CONCERTED effort to force the Africans into a social postion in which they would lose their ancestral traditions, language, culture, etc.--it most definitely DID NOT happen by accident.

It is very easy to see this by comparing modern American blacks to Latin Americans and Caribbean peoples of African descent. In Latin America, slaveowners did not have the same kind of zero-tolerance policy toward African culture (although they were certainly very racist in their own right).

As a result, there are many, many people in Latin America and the Caribbean TODAY who practice religions that are derived from beliefs brought over the Atlantic by their African ancestors. In addition, there has been greater retention of words of African derivation that are used in the everyday language of the people, and African-derived cultural practices are a major influence on the mainstream culture of many countries (Brazil, Haiti, and Cuba are prime examples of this phenomenon).

Again, the cultural/linguistic dislocation that occured in the case of North American blacks WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT--it was deliberate. On a tactical level, The North American slaveowners felt that the enslaved Africans would be easier to control if their ancestral cultures were stamped out entirely. To achieve this goal, they made every effort to see that Africans from the same ethnic group were separated, so that they would not be able to to unite (and potentially rebel) with other members of their ethnic/linguistic group. This was also achieved by selling members of families to different slaveowners, destroying the traditional concept of family as well as that of culture and language.

Your statement that Africans ceased to speak their languages because, in America, there were "many languages not one", doesn't really make sense. Africa had/has many distinct ethnic/linguistic groups living in close proximity to one another, but these groups don't suddenly stop speaking their respective languages because there are others who speak different languages in the area. The relevant issue here is not that there were "many" languages versus "one"--the enslaved Africans in North America lost their languages because they were not allowed to freely associate with others who shared the same cultural/linguistic background.

This nation has not even BEGUN to come to grips with the damage that was done during the slavery/jim crow period, and this is why America continues to have a serious "race" problem to this day.
[This message was edited Sun Jul 21 5:59:40 PDT 2002 by polymetric]

When i heard Prince say that he was all about "change" at the celebration this year, it made me feel excited to feel that he has no intention of standing still. He's always been progressive, creating and changing his style and sound. He probably has acess to a greater quality and quantity of information than most of us. Credible information that any of us receive at any time entitles us to change our opinions and beliefs. Evidence can be found to support many different views and i know from my own experience that many times i've operated from a certain perspective only to later find errors in my understanding. So i just think that if Prince 'feels' a certain way about something then he has evidence to back it up. But then again, this is subject to change!

you make a very good point, MZFLASH

mzflash said:

VERY good point!

This article from "Jewishworldreview.com" offers up no evidence to support the claims.

Claims that are ill founded to say the least. I can only think you posted it here as flamebait as nobody can truly take this seriously...

Revisionism.

"Slaves were not only not given family names, they were forbidden to have family names...Slaveowners in the American antebellum South were especially opposed to slaves having family names because such names emphasized family ties -- and the only legally recognized tie of a slave was to his owner, who could sell him miles away from his kin."~~Thomas Sewell


"You might say, 'What you mad about?'...but you still got your family name.."~~Prince


Sounds like they're both more or less saying the same thing to me...

Whether the surnames used by slave were "given" to them by their slave owners, or "created" by slaves themselves in response to the horrors of slavery ripping their families apart from their ancestry and each other, the point is still the same...Prince uses the topic of "family names" as an all-encompasing example of how blacks in America have been forcibly separated from their roots, ancestry and culture...it's not simply a song about why his last name really isn't "Nelson"...

Sewell's article doesn't dispute that point..at all.

The big question in my mind is...

How important is your heritage?

I find it rather unimportant and I don't know very much about my ancestors and I don't really care... I could come from long line of sheep fuckers and I still wouldn't care. I am not affected by the name or doings of my ancestors. From what I have been told, my family is a mixture of Scottish, Irish, Italian and American Indians... how's that for a complete mutt??? I don't feel any kinship or allegiance with any of those groups. I do not go around calling myself a Scottish-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or Native American... nor do I care if any of these people were kings, plumbers, businessmen or zealots.

You are who YOU are, not who your ancestors were.


The previous comments were only an opinion and are not to be taken as univeral law, nor should they be construed as "truth." Your mileage may vary.

IceNine said:

But at least you're given the choice to care or not...and the chance to...which, I think, was the point of the song.

wellbeyond said:

I can see that, but the big question is "what does it even matter?"

I just don't understand it at all... this doesn't mean that it is unimportant, it just means that I don't understand why it is a big deal. Maybe I feel the way I do because America has a decided lack of tradition, culture and community whereas other countries have tremendous tradition, culture and community.

Who knows???

No offense to ANYONES views but I immediately have a "here we go" reaction when I see "Ultra-Conservative black man"...I immediately know whats going to be said. And Im sure thats what some think when they see the words Liberal such and such...the problem is that they never see anywhere in the middle, or that some things are truths.

IceNine said:

Could also be that your "history" and "heritage" are more readily available to you...and because of that, there's less of a desire to experience it...as where if it were a mystery to you, if were something "taken" from you, there would be more curiosity and more desire to understand your "origins" undiluted by something like slavery...just human nature, actually...(and by "you" I don't mean you personally)...

wellbeyond said:

That is quite possible for some, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not care about any of that stuff no matter what.

The accomplishments, tragedies, triumphs or failures of my ancestors do not interest me and do not influence my position in society in any way, shape form or fashion.

Maybe I am just an asshole, but I really don't see the point or purpose of this ancestor stuff.

IceNine said:

You may not...but don't freak when others do...lol...everyone has their own road to follow thru life...different things take on different levels of importance to different people at different times during that life...

Wellbeyond stop pussyfutting around and just say the words you know you want to say! you know the words y.w.u.i.a.b.t. You know u want to say it lol.

???...

Not following, rd...lol

wellbeyond said:

I haven't "freaked" at all and I don't really care one way or another... I just asked a question. I was only stating my opinion on the "name" issue and wasn't trying to insult anyone who thinks that it is very important... I simply stated that I don't understand it.

If I was freaking out, I could have said something like this:

All of you ignorant fuckers out there who are worried about this name shit are nothing but a bunch of whiny pricks!!! If you would pull your heads out of your stupid asses for a while, you might be able to see the world around you instead of only seeing your personal shit. Why don't you go on a fucking quest to find out who you are? With any luck you will find out that you came from a long line of horse-fucking degenerates and this new-found knowledge will throw you into such a terrible depression that you will kill yourself by jumping ass first into a bear trap!


I didn't go that way because I really don't care and wasn't "freaking out."

See what I'm saying?

"The accomplishments, tragedies, triumphs or failures of my ancestors do not interest me and do not influence my position in society in any way, shape form or fashion."

I think that your heritage can affect your station in life, or postition in society today. You can't deny that the triumphs and tragedies of your ancestors have influenced your postion in society at least at the time of your birth. After that It's up to us to shape our own destiny. IMO

wellbeyond said:

You are basically saying in your explanations i.a.b.t.y.w.u.

rdhull said:

"It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand."

I believe that is what my learned colleague, RD, is trying to say.

Am I right???

LoL...the "freak" comment wasn't meant as "freaking out"...those are two different things in my mind...sorry I didn't put it in a way that emphasized that difference, Ice..

By "freaked", I just meant "be surprised"...as in "I can't believe anyone really cares"..."freaked out" would be all that shtuff you wrote up above there..lol

wellbeyond said:

Ahhh... I get you!

:LOL:

How did you like that "freaking out" part? I think that qualifies as REAL freaking out!

Is that what he meant??..lol...welp, no...I didn't mean that at all...(I personally hate that saying, btw...)...what I said could apply to any variety of things in life, not just those pertaining to being black in America...

IceNine said:

LOL yup ..dont crucifyme guys!! Im a jokester...cant get nuthin past nines lol.

IceNine said:

Not too shabby..lol...actually, a little more "OMG!!"-like comments and a little less "whiney fuckers" would make it perfect...