independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Is The Rainbow Children a racist album?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 7 of 7 <1234567
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #180 posted 05/01/07 4:32am

2elijah

xplnyrslf said:

I'll check out the NY Historical info on Wednesday when I have a day off.
Not to turn this into a history lesson, but, slaves were a commodity at the time. The ships had data on the # of slaves who boarded the ship and the # that arrived. This information happened to be saved over time.
The controversy on # thrown overboard would be the difference between the two, which is available. This doesn't reflect the actual facts as the illegal trade continued and there was no record keeping. Same circumstances: death as a result of treatment, poor nutrition, disease, etc. I'll see if Hugh Thomas's book has enough data to calculate the details. Better yet, see if he has a website and if stats exist. Get back to you....


Cool, check out both exhibits (the one from October)that I listed in my previous post as well. Thanks for that information you gave, I will check it out as well.
smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #181 posted 05/01/07 5:43am

kpowers

avatar

Exaclty where is it at if at all??? Is it during the Darth Vader part???? if so then I miss it since I fast forward that part.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #182 posted 05/01/07 7:01am

wlcm2thdwn

"You're thousand years are up, now you gotta SHARE the land" Prince is talking about the White man. Devil ,Devil what you know, you've been here since 1914, now you've got to go. Come on, anybody knows who he means!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #183 posted 05/01/07 7:08am

xplnyrslf

2elijah said:

xplnyrslf said:

I'll check out the NY Historical info on Wednesday when I have a day off.
Not to turn this into a history lesson, but, slaves were a commodity at the time. The ships had data on the # of slaves who boarded the ship and the # that arrived. This information happened to be saved over time.
The controversy on # thrown overboard would be the difference between the two, which is available. This doesn't reflect the actual facts as the illegal trade continued and there was no record keeping. Same circumstances: death as a result of treatment, poor nutrition, disease, etc. I'll see if Hugh Thomas's book has enough data to calculate the details. Better yet, see if he has a website and if stats exist. Get back to you....


Cool, check out both exhibits (the one from October)that I listed in my previous post as well. Thanks for that information you gave, I will check it out as well.
smile


Here's the data according to "The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database":
11.4 million departures from Africa and 10 million arrivals which leaves 1.4 million who perished. This is based on records from 27,233 ships.(I would assume the deceased were thrown over board in the process)
Here's the link.
http://www.iisg.nl/~ialhi...0010_5.php

Again, this is an estimate and the # is higher, but due to the illegal slave trade where records weren't kept, impossible to calculate.
[Edited 5/1/07 7:11am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #184 posted 05/01/07 8:46am

2elijah

xplnyrslf said:

2elijah said:



Cool, check out both exhibits (the one from October)that I listed in my previous post as well. Thanks for that information you gave, I will check it out as well.
smile


Here's the data according to "The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database":
11.4 million departures from Africa and 10 million arrivals which leaves 1.4 million who perished. This is based on records from 27,233 ships.(I would assume the deceased were thrown over board in the process)
Here's the link.
http://www.iisg.nl/~ialhi...0010_5.php

Again, this is an estimate and the # is higher, but due to the illegal slave trade where records weren't kept, impossible to calculate.
[Edited 5/1/07 7:11am]


Ok, so their database "accounts for the 27,233 Trans-Atlantic slave ship voyages made between 1595 and 1866", True that the estimates of the transport of slaves are higher, before and after those dates, because it also doesn't account for the slave ships appearing before 1595 in the Caribbean and stopping off at different ports around the World selling and trading the slaves. Interesting;and the healthier and stronger the slaves were, the more expensive they were. The ones that became sick were thrown overboard.

At the NY Historical Society's "Slavery in America" exhibition, I remember seeing documented lists in a book, with the names of slaves and the prices for them listed next to their names, even children.They also had the original "draft" copy of the Emancipation Proclamation on display in a glass case;along with that, I also saw some real "shackles" displayed in a case that were used on the slaves' hands and feet.

Here's an excerpt from the NY Historical Society's Q&A page regarding the new exhibition - New York Divided: Slavery and the Civil War


A Conversation with New York Divided: Slavery and the Civil War chief historian James Horton and exhibition curator Richard Rabinowitz

(... and yes Mr. Rabinowitz is Jewish)

Q:
"If you had to point to one public misconception about New York and slavery, what would it be and why?"

A:
RR:"One public misconception is that we think of racism as a persistent, almost natural way for human beings to treat one another. But racial prejudice really has a history; it was invented during the period we cover in this exhibition to support the maintenance of southern slavery and northern profit. Strangely enough, during the period of slavery in New York, there is very little talk about the differences between blacks and whites. Once blacks got their freedom, a new system of racial control and hierarchy was substituted for the system of slavery in the north. It included segregation of schools, public transportation, the denial of equal rights and dignity to black New Yorkers in a way that was a handbook or tutorial for what the south would do during the period we call Jim Crow, the post Civil War period."


Q:
"Why do you think the topic of slavery has resonated with your audience?"

A:
RR: "I think a lot of New Yorkers, white and Asian and Latino as well as black, are excited to explore the true history of our city and our nation – how the issues we confront today are rooted in our past. At a time of media hype and political posturing, well-researched history is refreshing."

A:
JH: [i]"In America the institution of slavery was fundamentally bound to the issue of race. In addition to its economic functions slavery was also a critically important form of racial control. After its abolition at the end of the Civil War, new racial policies laying the foundation for legalized racial segregation became the mechanism of new racial control. All these things were based on the pseudo-science of race theory. These theories remained legally significant at least until the mid-1960s when Civil Rights legislation brought an end to legal segregation. Yet the effects of the almost 250 years of American slavery and one hundred years of legalized racial segregation have left their mark on the culture and assumptions of American society. Confronting the history of American slavery, uncomfortable as it can sometimes be, forces us to focus on the characteristics in our society and often in ourselves that have been influenced by that history. Racial differences and misunderstanding still hamper progress in American society. Ultimately, confronting this history will make it easier for many Americans to understand one another as we continue the conversation on race that is so important for the general health of our society."

[Edited 5/2/07 11:33am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #185 posted 05/01/07 10:06am

xplnyrslf

Taking the world-wide slave trade in consideration, there were definitely more than 1.4 million slaves who died on slave ships.
I wanted to clear up the misconception that it was only 1000-10,000 who died according to another orger. It's always good to look at the facts.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #186 posted 05/01/07 1:22pm

LoDog

avatar

Huh?
Peace and be wild!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #187 posted 05/01/07 3:23pm

JonnyApplesauc
e

meow85 said:

JonnyApplesauce said:

How do yall live in a world disproportionately, adversely affected by racist, white supremacy and ask if a Prince record is racist? He spent his career making lemonade out of his racist reality, sometimes at his own expense, and he makes one record that eludes to the problem and gets this. To Be clear, most white male dominated and controlled governments have been, and still are white supremacist and racist. The fact that I point it out dosent make me racist. If I have to debate w/ a govt. whether I'm three fifths a man, its racist. If my people have to struggle and die to be able to vote, just 40 years ago, its racist. If I have to go to extraordinary measures to do things that my white counterpart takes for gramted, its racist. Give me a break.

So you're saying if a person's been on the receiving end they're incapable of dishing it out?

Horseshit, my man. Read my post way, WAY above: I'm in the "it's not racist" camp. BUT to say a person (in this case Prince) can't be racist because they've experienced it themselves is stupid.


Theres this old joke; maybe youve heard it. There were 3 good old boys walking their dog through the woods and they came upon this Black dude. So they put a shotgun on him and say "We're going to bury you up to your neck and you have to fight our dog. If you beat him, we'll let you go." So they bury the brother and only his head is sticking out of the ground and they turn the dog loose on him. So the brother bites the dog's paw so hard he yelps and runs away. So one good old boy goes "Hey boy, fight my dog fair!"

Aint nobody dishing anything out, we just tired man.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #188 posted 05/01/07 4:33pm

Graycap23

JonnyApplesauce said:

meow85 said:


So you're saying if a person's been on the receiving end they're incapable of dishing it out?

Horseshit, my man. Read my post way, WAY above: I'm in the "it's not racist" camp. BUT to say a person (in this case Prince) can't be racist because they've experienced it themselves is stupid.


Theres this old joke; maybe youve heard it. There were 3 good old boys walking their dog through the woods and they came upon this Black dude. So they put a shotgun on him and say "We're going to bury you up to your neck and you have to fight our dog. If you beat him, we'll let you go." So they bury the brother and only his head is sticking out of the ground and they turn the dog loose on him. So the brother bites the dog's paw so hard he yelps and runs away. So one good old boy goes "Hey boy, fight my dog fair!"

Aint nobody dishing anything out, we just tired man.



Never heard it.....but I LIKES. wink
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #189 posted 05/01/07 4:38pm

Illustrator

I'm sure that like any one else,
there are some racists who like it,
& some racists who don't.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #190 posted 05/03/07 4:48pm

bizarre

avatar

Graycap23 said:

wonder505 said:


In essence, the fact that Jewish families had to change their names to fit in is just as bad of course, but at least, and this is not downgrading their suffering at all, they were able to hang on to their lineage and identity, whereas with African slaves those ties were cut dead. For an African American to trace his African lineage is extremely difficult. That to me is the underlying point in Family Name.


U guys are leaving out very important facts. After the 1st generation or so, a LOT of Slaves were the product of RAPE from the slave masters. This goes a lot DEEPER than just the name. The same CANNOT be said of the Jews who CHANGED their names.


Unchanging surnames in the european sense are not the tradition of either Jews OR Africans. Jews were forced to take on last names by laws passed in the countries they resided in, and were sometimes given derogatory last names by officials. African slaves were either named for their slaveowners like people on here are saying or took new names when they were freed. Please it isn't easy to find your ancestory either way. But either way, those names ARE a part of our heritage.

Being offended that your family name was "taken away" is crazy if there wasn't one in the first place. As a jewish person I know MY last name is part of a history of jews being forced to live 'apart' from others. A more serious offense is the separation of children from their parents with no way of passing on family history. But the song isn't about that, is it.
Anyone on here who is comparing the jews and blacks is falling into a racist trap by downplaying what the other has suffered. And it's pointless!
The one question no one seems able to answer is why Prince would even choose to compare the plights of Blacks and Jews. I think in a religious way he is probably prejudiced against Jews.(Is that the same thing as racist? I don't even know.) Anyways check it out --- interesting facts below ---so we can all be more educated about ourselves and each other:

Ashkenazi Jewish surnames (excerpt) (http://www.answers.com/topic/family-name)
Until a few hundred years ago, Ashkenazim (Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe) followed no tradition of surnames, but used patronymics within the synagogue, and matronymics in other venues. For example, a boy named Joseph of a father named Isaac would be called to the Torah as Joseph ben Isaac. That same boy of a mother named Rachel would be known in business as Joseph ben Rachel. A male used the Hebrew word ben ("son") and a female used bas ("daughter").
Northern European countries legislated that Jews required "proper" surnames. The city mayors were to choose the name for every Jewish family.
In Prussia, special military commissions were created to choose the names. It became common that the poorer Jews were forced to adopt simply bizarre names or even derogatory, offensive ones. Among those created were:
Ochsenschwanz ("oxtail")
Temperaturwechsel ("temperature change")
Kanalgeruch ("sewer stink")
Singmirwas ("sing me something") [citation needed]
The Jews of Poland adopted names much earlier. Those who were adopted by a szlachta family usually changed the name to that of the family.

African traditions regarding surnames (http://www.namesite.com/namesite/faq.html)
Most African peoples do not distinguish between first names and surnames like Europeans generally do. So, whereas Smith is a surname and John a first name in the west, a name like Kamau (Gikuyu, Kenya, Quiet warrior) can be both a first (given) name and a surname. Thus many Africans are named Kamau as their given or first name and many others have Kamau as their surname.
What is the African naming system?
There is no single African naming system. Many different approaches are used in selecting names for children. The most common themes center around respect for ancestors and a deep desire to carry on the names of the ancestors, coupled with this is recognition of the circumstances of birth. Thus were the prior children twins, what day and time of day was the child born, what season etc. Many peoples in Africa also name children in honor of relatives or friends who have recently passed on so as to preserve their name and in the belief that they have been resurrected in the newborn child. (jews do that too!)


smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #191 posted 05/04/07 3:52pm

kpowers

avatar

xplnyrslf said:

Taking the world-wide slave trade in consideration, there were definitely more than 1.4 million slaves who died on slave ships.
I wanted to clear up the misconception that it was only 1000-10,000 who died according to another orger. It's always good to look at the facts.



Any info of how many slaves remained in Africa??? How about numbers of slaves sold to Arab countrys????
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #192 posted 05/04/07 4:23pm

Illustrator

kpowers said:

xplnyrslf said:

Taking the world-wide slave trade in consideration, there were definitely more than 1.4 million slaves who died on slave ships.
I wanted to clear up the misconception that it was only 1000-10,000 who died according to another orger. It's always good to look at the facts.



Any info of how many slaves remained in Africa??? How about numbers of slaves sold to Arab countrys????

I remember that for a brief time,
Prince wrote the word "slave" on his face.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #193 posted 05/04/07 4:40pm

kpowers

avatar

Illustrator said:

kpowers said:




Any info of how many slaves remained in Africa??? How about numbers of slaves sold to Arab countrys????

I remember that for a brief time,
Prince wrote the word "slave" on his face.



That was his protest against Warner brothers, I do belive.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #194 posted 05/05/07 11:39am

meow85

avatar

Tremolina said:

meow85 said:



Of course, there's also the issue of Native Americans' family names. We've mostly all either got adopted European names that were given or chosen for us, like Richard or George, or oddly Anglicized "native" names like Little Feather and Red Bear. None of which are our true family names either.

I kow that's added a somewhat unrelated element to the conversation, but it's worth remembering blacks and Jews aren't the only ones lacking a verbal attachment to their heritage.


I don't think that's unrelated at all. The history of native Americans is an inherent part of American history and the atrocities commited against them are equally horrific and should equally have never taken place.

But comparing atrocities is exactly what got this thread lost.

Comparing atrocities by itself is already quite impossible to do, but moreso often undermines the point that has to be made, because it entices an emotional, angry response from those offended by the comparison, which does not lead to understanding, let alone agreement.

This thread takes the bait of comparing atrocities, which leaves everybody divided and in disagreement. The whole point of debating the issue then gets lost.

It's a shame Prince wrote those lyrics because they entice these endless discussions that rarely lead to better understanding and agreement, but usually more bitterness and misunderstanding. I think he could have and should have written a song about every major atrocity itself and asked our attention for all of them equally, because:

Hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow and (institutionalised) racism against African American people that is still going on today is more than enough atrocity to deserve attention, eradication, protection, prevention ánd reparation on its own.

There is NO NEED to get into comparisons to get that point across.

Likewise:

Hundreds of years of anti-semitism, the Holocaust and continuing hatred against Jewish people is more than enough atrocity to deserve attention, eradication, protection, prevention ánd reparation on its own.

There is NO NEED for comparisons to get that point across.

And equally:

Hundreds of years of theft and genocide on Native American people and an institionalised apartheid that is still going on today is more than enough atrocity to to deserve attention, eradication, protection, prevention ánd reparation on its own.

There is NO NEED to get into comparisons to get that point across.

I respect Prince for having the guts to bring the issue up and make people talk about it, but I believe he should try to make people talk not about what is worse, but about what happened, what is still going on today and what we can do about it, instead of consolidating and creating more divisions that lead us nowhere.
[Edited 4/30/07 3:21am]


clapping Damned well said. Bravo.

The fact is comparisons can't be made with any sense of fairness because it too easily leads into judging which horror story was the worst, and by extension, which used and abused group has the most right to complain. Well, it just doens't work that way. Everyone got screwed.
"A Watcher scoffs at gravity!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #195 posted 05/05/07 4:01pm

Makavelli99

It's not a racist album he just speaking the truth, more of a religious album if anything. why does the truth always have to mean racism? Africans and African descendants will remain in the struggle for a long long time, a long recovery.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #196 posted 05/05/07 6:25pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

Am I the only one surprise that this thread was never moved to P&R yet? confused
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 7 of 7 <1234567
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Is The Rainbow Children a racist album?