nyse said:[quote]ernestsewell said:[quote]

144,000 in total are going to heaven. I've yet to find where Christ said THAT in the New Testament. It's heresy.

Its only like that in the J.W.'s version of the New Testament revelation. In the regular New Testament it says the 144,000 are witnesses on the planet to evangelize the unsaved as one last chance to be redeemed during the great tribulation before final judgement. Oh crap, now i'm involved in a religous discussion which I always promise myself to stay out of.

I guess it couldn't be avoided in this case as I was just seriously seeking understandment of the album.
[Edited 6/25/09 11:26am]

Love2tha9s said:[quote]nyse said:[quote]

ernestsewell said:

lol at least i won't try 2 make this a religious discussion either as much as possible, but if u were 2 line up every single type of bible (king james, new living translation, new world translation etc etc) and just reading one verse from each of them, they all have different wordings ..so confusion is not unheard of

2elijah said:

Why worry about something as insignificant as the..... truth?

Graycap23 said:

What I got from the part of that song, was that it may have been referencing that those of the jewish faith was involved in the slave trade as well, and owned slaves who carried their surnames.

If that is indeed fact, how would that be anti-semitic unless he said something "derogatory" about jewish people in that track. I haven't listened to that track in a while, and don't believe I heard anything derogatory said about them. If someone wrote in a history book that those of the Jewish faith also owned slaves during the slavery days in America, would one consider that anti-semitic, especially if nothing derogatory is mentioned within that statement? Not being sarcastic, just curious as to how one of jewish faith would take that.
[Edited 6/25/09 11:41am]

2elijah said:

The anti-semetic part might be how he singles them out. African tribal kings were involved in the slave trade as well as all sorts of other people. The Jews were also slaves as well throughout history. What point is Prince trying to make? That Jews enslaved blacks in the past and contiue to give blacks the shaft in the present? That's fucked up and doesn't even begin to tell the truth.

2elijah said:

Don't get me started.

nyse said:[quote]ernestsewell said:[quote]

144,000 in total are going to heaven. I've yet to find where Christ said THAT in the New Testament. It's heresy.

It still doesn't say that ONLY those 144,000 are the ONLY ones going to heaven. That's a fallacy on the JW's part.

JudasLChrist said:

careful now...

ernestsewell said:[quote]nyse said:[quote]

ernestsewell said:

i've heard that said way b4 i ever encountered with any JW's in my life. my grandmother used 2 tell me that and she was a baptist

L4OATheOriginal said:

I was raised Independent Baptist, which was 10x worse and more strict than the Southern Baptists. I'd NEVER heard of the 144,000 being the ONLY people going to heaven.

Love2tha9s said:

My assumption was always this:

Prince, at the time anyway, was leaning more towards a viewpoint that Blacks had been thru the same types of atrocities as Jews, but not given the same level of outrage, condemnation and recourse, both in the States and worldwide, as Jews were afforded. The perception being one of African Americans being told to "get over it" concerning things like slavery, etc...and he probably fell in line with others who would, say, compare how the holocaust was viewed in the U.S. to how slavery was viewed, how Jews were "given their own country" as where black slaves were given land (40 acres and a mule), only to have most of it stolen back by the KKK or even the government. Within that discourse would come a natural comparison between the plight Jews have faced and the plight Blacks have faced.

So when you get to a song like "Family Name", Prince brings up the whole "get over it" argument he probably felt is used too much towards blacks ("You might say, 'What U mad about?'..")...then goes on to compare the names blacks have been anchored with ("Lynch", for instance...not a good name for a race who was regularly lynched publicly to cheering crowds) to the names Jews have ("Rosenbloom", "Pearlman"...Rose In Bloom...Pearl...get it? lol)...I never even slightly got the impression that Prince was blaming Jews for stripping away blacks' family "names" and african heritage.

So why compare black family names to the family names of jews? I'm guessing to illustrate how blacks in this country have had it just as bad, if not worse, than Jews have had it...but that he believed people in the U.S. aren't nearly as willing to acknowledge it to the same level, probably because slavery is "our" national shame, as where the holocaust is another country's shame (as well as being more recent). He also wanted to point out areas in which he probably felt the majority of U.S. citizens didn't really appreciate the full level of harm centuries of slavery and racism placed on the black race...I actually thought singing about how being saddled with your slave master's last name was an ultimate insult was pretty damn clever, myself.

Prince was becoming a bit militant at the time, which turned off some of his fans...it's ok in everyone's eyes if he's being militant towards sexual attitudes, of course lol ...when the target is politics or religion, it's a bit dicier.


...
[Edited 6/25/09 11:52am]

L4OATheOriginal said:

Careful now? What the heck does that mean?

L4OATheOriginal said:

Couldn't have said any of that any better!



As far as the voice thing, I've said that many times. Don't know why folks don't see that, and dig it.

I like it.

Musically, 'The Rainbow Children' is Prince's most continuous, thematic album ever, and Prince's musical freedom, on nearly all instruments, is refreshing. The album has the quality I most respect in any album... It's timeless, and can be played many times, while still remaining fresh. LONGEVITY.

.
[Edited 6/25/09 11:54am]

Byron said:

But (if what you say it true - and I certainly think it's plausible)...why does he seek to make his (valid) point on the backs of others who've had it just as bad?

Because when you do that, you muddy your argument. This thread (and the kajillion others on the same subject) is proof of that.

JudasLChrist said:

I am aware that some Africans were involved with the slave trade as well, but would not be insulted or deny it, if someone said they were, because it is a fact, however, slavery is wrong no matter who was involved, past or present.

But if this is true about those of the jewish faith owning slaves, and you have African-Americans today walking around with jewish surnames, why would you be angry at a "fact?"


JudasLChrist:


For whatever reason he mentioned those of the "jewish faith", I cannot answer, and I don't think anyone can, including me, other than draw "assumptions" from the lyrics, I think if he had mentioned others, not of faith but by race/ethnic group, i.e, French, English, Dutch, etc., then I think members of those specific group(s) would have probably asked the same questions you and others have about why they were singled out.

.
[Edited 6/25/09 12:00pm]

Genesia said:

Oh, I agree it does risk muddying up the debate...it wouldn't be an avenue I would take to make the same points. But, that IS one of the ways some people use to champion their cause and try to get people to see it in a different light.

You have animal rights advocates comparing cattle slaughterhouses to the holocaust. Is it valid? Debatable. Does it chance muddying up the debate? You betcha. You have people comparing Bush to Hitler (or even Obama to Hitler now). Actually, both the holocaust and Hitler are commonly used as comparisons, I've found. Prince brought up the comparison again in "Muse 2 The Pharaoh", as a way of saying "who really had it worse, people?"...

Byron said:

Thank you! I knew he said something to that effect...but thought it was in Family Name. When I couldn't find it there, I thought I was losing my mind.

What this tells me, however, is that the "name thing" was no accident.

Genesia said:

I don't think anyone on here (or anywhere) is saying the "Family Name thing" was an accident, though lol...it's obvious it's purposeful. The debate, though, is what that purpose is. I don't think merely comparing slavery to the holocaust and saying "which was worse" is antisemetic. I don't think comparing black American family names to jewish American family names and saying "which is worse" is antisemetic.

Changing "Goldberg" to "Goldstruck", though, might be lol...

Byron, I believe you just summed it up.

Byron said:

I agree with this. The "Get over it" is such a common response. It's almost like when mentioning slavery or crimes related to that of America's past, it is pretty much "belittled" by many, so to speak. Mention of an "apology or reparations" to descendants of African/African-American slaves often sparks major criticism adn anger from many.

Not to mention very "little" media coverage last week about the recent "Apology to African-Americans for slavery/segregation" that Senator Tom Harkin read on the Senate floor" now waiting to be passed by the House. It did not receive much coverage in the media. I had to search for it on the net, and found a vid of it on youtube. Pretty much went unnoticed by much of the media as "unimportant", yet they plan on having a "celebration on Capital Hill on July 7th" in reference to this "apology" passing.

Whoopy-do..
[Edited 6/25/09 12:21pm]

ernestsewell said:

Some of what you say is not exactly correct, at least from my couple of years of study with a JW. Now, I am not a JW because after two years of study, I could not accept that one was not supposed to be politically active. But, there are some assertions that you make, which are not true.

For one, in my two years of study, I was never told that they do not accept Jesus as the son of God. Can you please reference something from their literature that asserts that? I know that they have changed their stance on some beliefs, but I would like to see where they have it written in the literature, including the New World Translation, that they do not accept Jesus as the son of God. In fact, for the entire two years of study, we would close our opening and closing prayer with "in Jesus name, Amen."

Next, the word "trinity" never appears in any version of the Bible, especially the King James Version. The concept of "trinity" is of Catholic origin, but the word itself never appears in the Bible. However, if you can show it to me in the King James Version, I will yield and say that I am wrong.

Third, JW are not asserting that only 144,000 are going to heaven. In fact, if you read the actual scripture in the Revelations, it reads that at the first look there are 144,000 faithful, and when John looks further there is a multitude to great number. The 144,000 are those who will serve as Jesus’ cabinet, for lack of a better term. The 144,000 will be like teachers and administrators for the others in paradise. Now, I'll admit that I had some problem completely understanding this concept also, but it shows that JW are not telling people that only 144,000 will go to heaven. Well, let me modify that because JW believe that Earth will be the Paradise or Utopia because "the meek will inherit the Earth," not heaven. So, that multitude to great to number will exist in perfect paradise on heaven, and the other 144,000 will exist between the paradise Earth and heaven.

The deep voice I take just for dramatic effect, which is what you said. Sometimes I think its lame and sometimes I don't, but I love TRC.

As for the so-called "anti-Jewish statements" I will yield because I can see where one can get that interpretation. However, I take it more as a metaphoric thing where Prince tries to link Jewish and African struggles while also commenting on the fragile relationship that African Americans and Jews have had since the early days of the Civil Right Movement. There are many African Americans who think that Jews have moreso pimped the CRM while they also discriminated against African Americans. Of course, this is all in how one sees or views it based on what they are bringing to the table of perception, and Prince could have been more articulate on this point.

Again, if you can show me where I am wrong on my thoughts, I am more than willing to yield.

There is also some fishy stuff going on in Muse 2 the Pharaoh. "Holocaust aside many lived and died when all truth is told would you rather be dead or be sold." This is clearly stating that the horrors of slavery were worse than the horrors of the holocaust. There is no need to compare the two, they were both terrible.

Byron said:

Well, I happen to think lyrics like, "Holocaust aside" or "would you rather be dead or be sold" are anti-semitic - in the sense that he minimizes a crime perpetrated against a very specific group of people to make his own point. I interpret "would you rather be dead or be sold" as saying that Hitler did Jews a favor by just killing them instead of turning them into slaves (completely ignoring the fact that millions were enslaved and then killed).

Now, I will grant that maybe he used the Holocaust simply because it was the most blatant example of a crime against humanity he could think of. But my feeling is that slavery was horror enough on its own terms. Making the point doesn't require diminishing what happened to anyone else.

Darwintheorgangrinder said:

Why, though, do you think Prince said "Holocaust aside"?...Aside usually means "other than" or "set apart from"...if you took that lyric literally, Prince is actually saying "Setting aside the holocaust, many people have lived and died...but how many people have been sold? And ask yourself, which would be worse for you right now: to die or to be sold into slavery?"

Now, I don't think he actually meant it that way...but I do keep going back to his use of the word "aside"...it seems to indicate he's NOT comparing slavery to the holocaust, not that he is. But again, I just assumed that he used the wrong word there lol...maybe I shouldn't, though.

Byron said:

I think he said "aside" because it rhymes with "died" - not really thinking about what he was saying.

Genesia said:

That's a HUGE stretch on your part, though..."doing them a favor"? I don't think that was Prince's intent at all in that song.



How does pointing out that he felt something else was even worse than the holocaust in his eyes equate to diminishing the holocaust? Not to oversimplify things, but it would be like me saying Lovesexy is better than Purple Rain, and someone saying I don't need to "diminish" Purple Rain in order to talk about how good Lovesexy is lol...I agree that comparing atrocities definitely borders on tacky, but I can't automatically shove it into the anti-semetic category by default. I don't think there's a single topic of discussion that automatically gets you labeled by merely bringing it up. It depends on the context in which you bring it up, and the point wanting to be made.

Genesia said:

Interesting. I see this completely the OPPOSITE way. It seems that Prince is saying, DEATH is worse than being sold. At least when u are sold, u are still alive.

Genesia said:

That could be, although he seemed to be VERY thoughtful in what he was saying throughout The Rainbow Children, in my eyes...he could have just as easily said "Holocaust not denied, many lived and died...but if truth be told, would you rather be dead or be sold?". THAT, to me, would have been a clear-cut comparison between the two, and made it ridiculously clear that the deaths he was talking to were the ones that occurred during the holocaust.

The "may lived and died" part always stuck out at me as well...the holocaust isn't really known for the "many" people that lived, afterall. That part of the lyric seems like such a generic statement, almost more like "throughout the history of mankind, many people have lived and died"...

To me, he saying it's better to be dead than sold.

Genesia said:

oh now u are being silly lol. Prince knew what he was doing when used aside. He is saying without thinking about the horrors of the holocaust. What is more an insult to humanity "death" or being treated as subhman. Its a question presented for the individual to decide. Many people have died with honor. There is no honor in being a slave.

Graycap23 said:

I took it as just the opposite...plus, Prince has often sung of death as the ultimate freedom/source of happiness/etc. And this album came after like 5 years of writing "Slave" on his cheek lol ...I don't think he was putting ANYTHING beneficial to being "sold" and "human property"...