rabbutt said:

-someone asked about being gay. He mentioned how he used to be a cokehead, and that one day he really had to take a look at himself in the mirror, and examine. He likened someone being gay to him being a cokehead. That was my ? , I was the atheist in the room that day . I remember Prince being cool and he seemed interested in my point of view, it was Larry who was such a butthead, that all of his music was banned from my house for a year

Wow, after all these years, you're the first person I've found here who was actually in the room.

I was the one who challenged him on the topic of him not liking people covering his songs, referencing the 4 covers on Emancipation, and the fact that the first single was a cover. "It's okay when YOU do it?" I'm glad I didn't get kicked out.

SchlomoThaHomo said:

1725topp said:

Oh, one last point about the offended Muslim sister.

[Edited 5/10/16 19:36pm]

I think it was less about her not knowing her own faith, and not realizing that JW's don't believe in Christ the way other Christians do. She took his statement to mean that if you don't acknowledge Christ as your God, you should be "banished." I think JW's believe that Christ is the son and not actual God.

The point is, many felt the lyrics were divisive, and it was hard to take from a man who before preached about inclusion and being free.

Shit, he was asking Wendy to denounce her homosexuality AND her Judaism.

I don't think it's difficult to understand why people were upset. I think they had a right to be. Just as Prince had the right to his beliefs.

*

JW's have a more definite line between God and Jesus than other Christians, but the "exegesis" of that distinction is so "academic" that most, as Paul writes about not allowing "rituals" and "meaningless debates about doctrine to separate Christians," wonder what the "real" difference is. Be that as it may, my point is that even if the sister felt Prince's personal invitation was a bit creepy, she should have known enough about Jesus' role in her faith to ask Prince, who seemingly wanted to have a conversation/debate, how she could be deemed unworthy if both their faiths presents Jesus as an excellent example of how to live. Of course, they would have disagreed about the notion of Messiah, but they both would have been forced to agree that their faiths present Jesus as the ideal life. Various people, such as Tavis Smiley and others, have told similar stories in which they were able to hold their own with what they believed, which led to Prince and them merely agreeing to disagree. Additionally, if Prince was guilty of anything, it was of not being clear/honest/transparent about the nature of the album and the nature of the meeting/discussion. Had Prince been more clear/honest/transparent about the nature of the album and the nature of the meeting/discussion, those who chose to come would have been better prepared for the discussion he wanted to have.

*

As far as the lyrics being divisive, that's a two-fold point. Those who state that the lyrics are "racially divisive" are usually those who are upset that Prince is refusing to be their "special" or "non" Negro not connected to and not interested in the socio-political issues of African Americans. How can a record that merely tells the truth be divisive? Did Africans have their names forcibly changed? Yes, they did. Was American slavery as evil as the Holocaust? Yes, it was. Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? He stated that he was not interested in ending slavery and that the physical differences between the races would keep them from being equal. Based on these and many more statements from Lincoln, yes, he was a racist. So, how is telling this truth divisive? The moment that Prince began engaging/discussing issues that are specific to socio-political condition of African Americans, many white fans began acting like Prince had betrayed them.

*

As far as the religious aspect of the lyrics, my point is that Prince had always worked within the Judeo-Christian narrative. As such, TRC should not have been that shocking. As far as the divisive nature of the religious themes, while being a Christian meant that he saw homosexuality as a sin, there is nothing on TRC or in any interview to which I've been exposed in which Prince stated that members of the LGBT community should suffer legal discrimination. I identify as Christian, but I also signed a widely circulated petition opposing a law in my state that made it legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual origin. While most people who identify as Christian do view homosexuality as a sin, not each of those persons support the legal discrimination of the LGBT community. Many Christians embrace Paul's notion that "just because something is legal doesn't make it right and just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong." They often add to that Jesus' advice to "render unto God what is God's and unto man what is man's." As such, many Christians can believe something to be a sin while not needing to castigate someone for that issue. That is--proclaiming certain behavior as sinful is not tantamount to saying that all people who practice this behavior should be legally punished or segregated.

*

As for Prince's discussion/debate with Wendy about her sexual orientation and religion, it didn't seem to divide them as they worked together after their discussion or debate or whatever we want to call it. Having different views does not always mean that one is being divisive, especially if one is not calling for the legal subjugation of someone based on that difference. Prince and Wendy had a debate/discussion about sexual orientation and religion, and they seemed to continue a relationship after that debate/discussion. So, if it didn't divide them, how was it divisive?

*

If you read my post, the issue for me is not whether or not people have a "right" to be "upset." My three points are that TRC is not any more preachy than his other works, that the ideas on TRC are a logical extension or progression of someone who had spent the previous twenty years working within the Judeo-Christian framework, and that the ideas on TRC are not racist. Just because I may disagree with someone's position does not mean that either position is divisive.

KingSausage said:

1725topp said:

*

I'm not defending what AyonymousFan said. My question is what did Prince say about the Holocaust other than to compare it to the enslavement of Africans and ask why don't people view the enslavement of Africans as equal to the Holocaust? How is asking that question a bad thing? The lyric never states that the Holocaust isn't important. The lyric never minimizes the Holocaust. So, how is what he says about the Holocaust so bad when, again, all the lyric does is compare it to the enslavement of African people? I find it interesting that people have a problem with Prince saying that the enslavement of African people is the same as the Holocaust. Can you explain how asking that question is racist or a bad thing? I'm not trying to be rhetorical. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I don't understand how using the Holocaust to shed light on the horror of the African slave trade and American slavery is a bad thing, unless, somehow, people don't think that the African slave trade and American slavery were a bad event or that they weren't equal to the evil of the Holocaust. And, this seems to be the whole point of the lyric, to make people aware of the fact that the African slave trade and American slavery was just as bad as the Holocaust and that it continues to have lingering effects. So, when Prince states, "Would you rather be dead or sold?," people do know that there were thousands of Africans who choose death over enslavement? People do know that hundreds of Africans threw themselves overboard during the middle passage rather than be transported as chattel? People do know that thousands of African and African American slaves chose death once they arrived to America than to remain as slaves? Thus, the question or lyric that Prince provides is very much rhetorical, attempting to raise awareness that American slavery was so brutal that thousands of Africans and African Americans chose death over slavery. As such, one must also understand the lingering effects of slavery as America was founded on the enslavement and the later subjugation of African peoples. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, how is Prince's use of the Holocaust racist or demeaning if he uses it as a watermark of evil to show just how evil American slavery was? I'd like for someone to answer that question rather than just state the glittering generality that "his Holocaust lyric is racist."

*

Oh, one last point about the offended Muslim sister. Since Jesus is believed by most Muslims as the highest of all the prophets--not the Messiah--but the highest of all the prophets, it would seem to me that the Muslim woman didn't understand her own faith or the faith that she claimed to practice. So, possibly, Prince's invitation to the woman was to explain to her that in the Quran, which is the book that she would read if she is a Muslim, Jesus is taught as the highest of all the prophets as Muhammad is viewed as the Messiah. To add more, if the Muslim sister was truly schooled in her faith, she would know that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, with each citing Abraham as the father of their religion. So, it seems that this woman, and I mean no disrespect to her, did not know the faith or religion that she claimed, and, possibly, Prince wanted to discuss with her the role or place that Jesus has in Islam.

[Edited 5/10/16 19:36pm]

No need to get into any of that. I was just pointing out the legitimacy of people's feelings who were hurt by TRC, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their rationale. I thought Anonymous's post was dismissive and shortsighted.

*

That's cool. I don't want to be dismissive or shortsighted of folks notions, but I just wanted to show that on the other side a lot of folks were being quite dismissive and shortsighted, especially regarding the historical narrative/context of TRC.

Kacey725 said:

I'd be lying if I said that "The Rainbow Children" was one of the Prince albums I listened to most frequently, and like a lot of you, the lyrical content seems to be a bit of a hang-up for me, too. But having said that, I had to jump on this thread and say that in the wake of Prince's death, it was "The Last December" that I gravitated to the most. Yes, even more than "Sometimes it Snows in April." The lyrics are largely a series of questions and as I sat blindsided by the tragic news, I found myself considering those questions and contemplated how - whether I liked it or not - Prince might have accomplished what he was sent to accomplish. Certainly we can agree on the lyric: "In your life did you give just a little, or did you give all that you had?"

Musically, TRC is cohesive and organic. I'm able to absorb the lyrics with the same curiosity that I consume any of his other lyrics with and find interest in them as relics of a phase in his career. I don't find myself offended by them. But that's just me. In any case, just for "The Last December Alone," I'm back to listening to the album. And that's not the only good song on it.

Agree 100 percent!

babynoz said:

I think that TRC is brilliant. I'm pretty sure there has never been, nor will there ever be such a creative interpretation of JW doctrine with other elements mixed in. Prince mythologized the experience of his conversion as well as his courtship of Mani masterfully.

Just as he created a whole Egyptian infuenced mythology around Mayte when he was courting her.

One day people are going to realize what an extraordinary mind Prince possessed.

Exactly.

GirlBrother said:

leecaldon said:

I seriously don't recall that being there. There is a bit of a Martin Luther King speech though - "Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last..."

I just had to Google the lyrics...

God damned, white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics We'll be able to join hands in the words of the old Negro spiritual Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last

I think after the previous verses, it's clear that the "we'll" in "we'll be able to join hands" are the people of colour, excluding the "God damned, white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics". I don't even see it as being ambiguous.

Wherever google sent you got the words wrong, they aren't even lyrics, they are a clip from Martin Luther King's famous speach. I'm not sure how someone transcribed that part wrong.

I love The Rainbow Children. The music is amazing. There are a couple of questionalbe lyrics, but that's certainly not it.

The Rainbow Children is amazing She Loves Me 4 Me and The Everlasting Now are my favs

SchlomoThaHomo said:

1725topp said:

There is a fan made version of TRC floating around that has the darth vader voice edited out quite nicely. It improves the listening experience no end. As for the lyrics, ive never really been one to focus on the meaning of many of Prince's songs. Me is like da music... But isnt it amazing how the same guy made Bob George?

KingSausage said:

1725topp said:

That's cool. I don't want to be dismissive or shortsighted of folks notions, but I just wanted to show that on the other side a lot of folks were being quite dismissive and shortsighted, especially regarding the historical narrative/context of TRC.

Not sure if I edited the HTML on my phone correctly, so shit....Anyway, yeah. I agree. A lot of people wrote off what P was talking about on TRC like it had no basis in the experience of millions of people. That was totally wrong too. You raise a great point. TRC is an album with powerful and charged lyrics. It was meant to be taken seriously. Plus, with some lyrics that were a bit (a lot) cryptic, it just raised the stakes for a wide spectrum of interpretation. When people heard the lyrics and thought (right or wrong) that Prince was saying something about their own religion or fundamental values, there was bound to be friction. For me, it was his statements on TRC and in interviews/articles around this time about women being subservient to men that turned me off. I couldn't, can't, and won't abide by that. As much as I love TRC and many of the issues P explores, those particular lyrics make me cringe.

*

I completely understand and agree that with TRC or with any Prince album there is bound to be lyrics or ideas or positions with which we all disagree. For me, the notions in "Race" about not wanting to know or understand history made me cringe, but I still enjoy the album. For that matter, "Race" itself is still funky and has, for the most part, great ideas; I just disagree that ignoring history can help anyone.

*

I also understand your issue with "women being subservient to men." We could go back and forth on what's actually written in the Bible about that, but we'd problably just spend meaningless posts turning the point back and forth. I'll just say that nowhere in the Bible does it state that men have the right to abuse or oppress women. However, if Prince or anyone poorly articulates that message, that's on them, not the receiver.

1725topp said:

As for Prince's discussion/debate with Wendy about her sexual orientation and religion, it didn't seem to divide them as they worked together after their discussion or debate or whatever we want to call it. Having different views does not always mean that one is being divisive, especially if one is not calling for the legal subjugation of someone based on that difference. Prince and Wendy had a debate/discussion about sexual orientation and religion, and they seemed to continue a relationship after that debate/discussion. So, if it didn't divide them, how was it divisive?

Well, this particular situation was divisive because he issued those proposals as a part of the requirements to get the Revolution back together. Wendy basically said, "Fuck you," to the terms, and the reunion never happened. She didn't hook back up with him for another 4 years.

If you read my post, the issue for me is not whether or not people have a "right" to be "upset." My three points are that TRC is not any more preachy than his other works

I disagree. I think it's his absolute most preachy work, without a doubt. Maybe followed by Lovesexy, and then the song Thunder.

, that the ideas on TRC are a logical extension or progression of someone who had spent the previous twenty years working within the Judeo-Christian framework

I disagree. Most people in the Judeo-Christian framework do not end up a Jehovah's Witness.

and that the ideas on TRC are not racist. Just because I may disagree with someone's position does not mean that either position is divisive.

Unless the artist comes out and explains exactly what he or she was trying to say in their work, we can only interpret it. You don't know that it wasn't racist, just as others don't know that it was. We're not in Prince's head. The point is that it was received that way by some.

KingSausage said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Wow, after all these years, you're the first person I've found here who was actually in the room.

I was the one who challenged him on the topic of him not liking people covering his songs, referencing the 4 covers on Emancipation, and the fact that the first single was a cover. "It's okay when YOU do it?" I'm glad I didn't get kicked out.

Whoa. You asked him THAT?!? Good lord. You got nerves of steel, man! Hahaha.

He was going on and on about hating people covering his songs. I was looking around like, "Is he fucking serious right now?" I felt like it was such an elephant in the room, and it had to be addressed. I did receive what looked like the very start of a glare, but it quickly vanished. Probably because we were in a room full of people. His response was, "Well, I hit 'em back when I do it." I wasn't sure what he meant.

Rabbutt is right though, in that Prince was pretty nice and open. At one point he hopped off his pool table, where he was talking from originally, and sat on the floor with us.

LOL..in my session I made a few comments that didnt sit right........if Prince looks could kill....

Seriously wish I could take it all back since it he probable thought it was rude and I was a guest in his friggin' house.

KingSausage said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Wow, after all these years, you're the first person I've found here who was actually in the room.

I was the one who challenged him on the topic of him not liking people covering his songs, referencing the 4 covers on Emancipation, and the fact that the first single was a cover. "It's okay when YOU do it?" I'm glad I didn't get kicked out.

Whoa. You asked him THAT?!? Good lord. You got nerves of steel, man! Hahaha.

SchlomoThaHomo said:

1725topp said:

Oh, one last point about the offended Muslim sister.

[Edited 5/10/16 19:36pm]

I think it was less about her not knowing her own faith, and not realizing that JW's don't believe in Christ the way other Christians do. She took his statement to mean that if you don't acknowledge Christ as your God, you should be "banished." I think JW's believe that Christ is the son and not actual God.

The point is, many felt the lyrics were divisive, and it was hard to take from a man who before preached about inclusion and being free.

Shit, he was asking Wendy to denounce her homosexuality AND her Judaism.

I don't think it's difficult to understand why people were upset. I think they had a right to be. Just as Prince had the right to his beliefs.

Isn't that weird. She is of Jewish heritage, ie Jehovah and she has to deny it and accept Jehovah lol

Bobby Z, Matt Fink are Jewish too

Thanks to both of you for your work in this thread this is EXACTLY what I was hoping for when I started this thread.

As for me, I dont have a problem with Prince's journey on race. I think he started out an idealist (perhaps naive just like me. we all grew up with the same Seseame Street/Electric Company dreams) and when confronted with some actual history late in life (remember this is a dude who only thought about music and women from the age of 15 to 39 so essentially no High School or College), he, in my eyes, took a bit of a too hard a turn. I like to tell myself he in the last couple of years was gravitating back to his earlier ideas (two white girls in his band??WHAT?) while at the same time supporting BLM and artist rights. He was really hitting the right balance for me.

I'm all for "When we wil be paid" (and lets have that coversation about Reparations) and all that and I do agree that whites more often than not mistake taking a stand for yourself as "reverse racism" (ie all the idiots who dont understand BLM and respond with "all lives matter" smh), but when your most hardcore fans run out of listening room in tears and people who followed you for decades allathesudden get an icky feeling when listening your music, well...I'm just hoping something was lost in the translation. Thats on Prince for not explaining himself at the time (or worse actually meaning the worst bits of it but taking in "code" the same way some the political bigots talk).

I just think it all got screwed up in his head. The JW, the Internet, Larry Graham etc... JFC at times it seemed that Prince was Martin Lawrence in Boomerang (https://www.youtube.com/w...1dZe-yFjI_ .

I think I've made my peace with the the album. I love Everywhere, She Loves Me, Last December, Everlasting Now and think Family Name has something very important to say (altough could have used less of the jew-baiting).

Thanks

1725topp said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

I think it was less about her not knowing her own faith, and not realizing that JW's don't believe in Christ the way other Christians do. She took his statement to mean that if you don't acknowledge Christ as your God, you should be "banished." I think JW's believe that Christ is the son and not actual God.

The point is, many felt the lyrics were divisive, and it was hard to take from a man who before preached about inclusion and being free.

Shit, he was asking Wendy to denounce her homosexuality AND her Judaism.

I don't think it's difficult to understand why people were upset. I think they had a right to be. Just as Prince had the right to his beliefs.

*

JW's have a more definite line between God and Jesus than other Christians, but the "exegesis" of that distinction is so "academic" that most, as Paul writes about not allowing "rituals" and "meaningless debates about doctrine to separate Christians," wonder what the "real" difference is. Be that as it may, my point is that even if the sister felt Prince's personal invitation was a bit creepy, she should have known enough about Jesus' role in her faith to ask Prince, who seemingly wanted to have a conversation/debate, how she could be deemed unworthy if both their faiths presents Jesus as an excellent example of how to live. Of course, they would have disagreed about the notion of Messiah, but they both would have been forced to agree that their faiths present Jesus as the ideal life. Various people, such as Tavis Smiley and others, have told similar stories in which they were able to hold their own with what they believed, which led to Prince and them merely agreeing to disagree. Additionally, if Prince was guilty of anything, it was of not being clear/honest/transparent about the nature of the album and the nature of the meeting/discussion. Had Prince been more clear/honest/transparent about the nature of the album and the nature of the meeting/discussion, those who chose to come would have been better prepared for the discussion he wanted to have.

*

As far as the lyrics being divisive, that's a two-fold point. Those who state that the lyrics are "racially divisive" are usually those who are upset that Prince is refusing to be their "special" or "non" Negro not connected to and not interested in the socio-political issues of African Americans. How can a record that merely tells the truth be divisive? Did Africans have their names forcibly changed? Yes, they did. Was American slavery as evil as the Holocaust? Yes, it was. Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? He stated that he was not interested in ending slavery and that the physical differences between the races would keep them from being equal. Based on these and many more statements from Lincoln, yes, he was a racist. So, how is telling this truth divisive? The moment that Prince began engaging/discussing issues that are specific to socio-political condition of African Americans, many white fans began acting like Prince had betrayed them.

*

As far as the religious aspect of the lyrics, my point is that Prince had always worked within the Judeo-Christian narrative. As such, TRC should not have been that shocking. As far as the divisive nature of the religious themes, while being a Christian meant that he saw homosexuality as a sin, there is nothing on TRC or in any interview to which I've been exposed in which Prince stated that members of the LGBT community should suffer legal discrimination. I identify as Christian, but I also signed a widely circulated petition opposing a law in my state that made it legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual origin. While most people who identify as Christian do view homosexuality as a sin, not each of those persons support the legal discrimination of the LGBT community. Many Christians embrace Paul's notion that "just because something is legal doesn't make it right and just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong." They often add to that Jesus' advice to "render unto God what is God's and unto man what is man's." As such, many Christians can believe something to be a sin while not needing to castigate someone for that issue. That is--proclaiming certain behavior as sinful is not tantamount to saying that all people who practice this behavior should be legally punished or segregated.

*

As for Prince's discussion/debate with Wendy about her sexual orientation and religion, it didn't seem to divide them as they worked together after their discussion or debate or whatever we want to call it. Having different views does not always mean that one is being divisive, especially if one is not calling for the legal subjugation of someone based on that difference. Prince and Wendy had a debate/discussion about sexual orientation and religion, and they seemed to continue a relationship after that debate/discussion. So, if it didn't divide them, how was it divisive?

*

If you read my post, the issue for me is not whether or not people have a "right" to be "upset." My three points are that TRC is not any more preachy than his other works, that the ideas on TRC are a logical extension or progression of someone who had spent the previous twenty years working within the Judeo-Christian framework, and that the ideas on TRC are not racist. Just because I may disagree with someone's position does not mean that either position is divisive.

[Edited 5/11/16 6:47am]

Rebeljuice said:

Never question the tribe. God's chosen people are above the Goyim.

I love that Prince mentioned the tribe still having their names. Of course they do, they have no history of persuction like black people do.

JW is a cult, created by a WHITE FREEMASON.

KingSausage said:

No need to get into any of that. I was just pointing out the legitimacy of people's feelings who were hurt by TRC, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their rationale. I thought Anonymous's post was dismissive and shortsighted.

That's the thing. People's feelings about the album are ILLEGITIMATE when the album wasn't meant to please you in the first place. Your feelings are hurt by lyrics? Fine, get over it. You have no right to try and act like Prince needed to seek your approval and kowtow to your feelings over TRC. He wrote what he liked and what he believed. If you don't like that, then it sucks for you. But, when we're talking about your opinion of someone's art - especially if it's negative, then yes, the opinion is irrelevant and right to be dismissed.

AnonymousFan said:

KingSausage said:

No need to get into any of that. I was just pointing out the legitimacy of people's feelings who were hurt by TRC, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their rationale. I thought Anonymous's post was dismissive and shortsighted.

That's the thing. People's feelings about the album are ILLEGITIMATE when the album wasn't meant to please you in the first place. Your feelings are hurt by lyrics? Fine, get over it. You have no right to try and act like Prince needed to seek your approval and kowtow to your feelings over TRC. He wrote what he liked and what he believed. If you don't like that, then it sucks for you. But, when we're talking about your opinion of someone's art - especially if it's negative, then yes, the opinion is irrelevant and right to be dismissed.

I disagree. Art is meant to be interpreted, and to elicit a response. If Prince didn't want his art to be interpreted, he wouldn't have released it.

1725topp said:

KingSausage said:

AnonymousFan said: Hmm. Did you read the testimonials about people meeting with Prince and crying about the Holocaust lyrics? Or being Muslims who felt uncomfortable with the hardline religious dogma on TRC? I'd say these issues touch legitimate concerns that people had back in the day and go much further than "Prince isn't writing for you." I've read lots of dumb posts on the Org over the years, and I'm gonna need to add yours to the list.

*

I'm not defending what AyonymousFan said. My question is what did Prince say about the Holocaust other than to compare it to the enslavement of Africans and ask why don't people view the enslavement of Africans as equal to the Holocaust? How is asking that question a bad thing? The lyric never states that the Holocaust isn't important. The lyric never minimizes the Holocaust. So, how is what he says about the Holocaust so bad when, again, all the lyric does is compare it to the enslavement of African people? I find it interesting that people have a problem with Prince saying that the enslavement of African people is the same as the Holocaust. Can you explain how asking that question is racist or a bad thing? I'm not trying to be rhetorical. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I don't understand how using the Holocaust to shed light on the horror of the African slave trade and American slavery is a bad thing, unless, somehow, people don't think that the African slave trade and American slavery were a bad event or that they weren't equal to the evil of the Holocaust. And, this seems to be the whole point of the lyric, to make people aware of the fact that the African slave trade and American slavery was just as bad as the Holocaust and that it continues to have lingering effects. So, when Prince states, "Would you rather be dead or sold?," people do know that there were thousands of Africans who choose death over enslavement? People do know that hundreds of Africans threw themselves overboard during the middle passage rather than be transported as chattel? People do know that thousands of African and African American slaves chose death once they arrived to America than to remain as slaves? Thus, the question or lyric that Prince provides is very much rhetorical, attempting to raise awareness that American slavery was so brutal that thousands of Africans and African Americans chose death over slavery. As such, one must also understand the lingering effects of slavery as America was founded on the enslavement and the later subjugation of African peoples. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, how is Prince's use of the Holocaust racist or demeaning if he uses it as a watermark of evil to show just how evil American slavery was? I'd like for someone to answer that question rather than just state the glittering generality that "his Holocaust lyric is racist."

*

Oh, one last point about the offended Muslim sister. Since Jesus is believed by most Muslims as the highest of all the prophets--not the Messiah--but the highest of all the prophets, it would seem to me that the Muslim woman didn't understand her own faith or the faith that she claimed to practice. So, possibly, Prince's invitation to the woman was to explain to her that in the Quran, which is the book that she would read if she is a Muslim, Jesus is taught as the highest of all the prophets as Muhammad is viewed as the Messiah. To add more, if the Muslim sister was truly schooled in her faith, she would know that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, with each citing Abraham as the father of their religion. So, it seems that this woman, and I mean no disrespect to her, did not know the faith or religion that she claimed, and, possibly, Prince wanted to discuss with her the role or place that Jesus has in Islam.

[Edited 5/10/16 19:36pm]

SNIP -OF4S
-the P&R forum will open again, until then let's just keep the discussion around The Rainbow Children

1725topp said:

KingSausage said:

AnonymousFan said: Hmm. Did you read the testimonials about people meeting with Prince and crying about the Holocaust lyrics? Or being Muslims who felt uncomfortable with the hardline religious dogma on TRC? I'd say these issues touch legitimate concerns that people had back in the day and go much further than "Prince isn't writing for you." I've read lots of dumb posts on the Org over the years, and I'm gonna need to add yours to the list.

*

I'm not defending what AyonymousFan said. My question is what did Prince say about the Holocaust other than to compare it to the enslavement of Africans and ask why don't people view the enslavement of Africans as equal to the Holocaust? How is asking that question a bad thing? The lyric never states that the Holocaust isn't important. The lyric never minimizes the Holocaust. So, how is what he says about the Holocaust so bad when, again, all the lyric does is compare it to the enslavement of African people? I find it interesting that people have a problem with Prince saying that the enslavement of African people is the same as the Holocaust. Can you explain how asking that question is racist or a bad thing? I'm not trying to be rhetorical. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I don't understand how using the Holocaust to shed light on the horror of the African slave trade and American slavery is a bad thing, unless, somehow, people don't think that the African slave trade and American slavery were a bad event or that they weren't equal to the evil of the Holocaust. And, this seems to be the whole point of the lyric, to make people aware of the fact that the African slave trade and American slavery was just as bad as the Holocaust and that it continues to have lingering effects. So, when Prince states, "Would you rather be dead or sold?," people do know that there were thousands of Africans who choose death over enslavement? People do know that hundreds of Africans threw themselves overboard during the middle passage rather than be transported as chattel? People do know that thousands of African and African American slaves chose death once they arrived to America than to remain as slaves? Thus, the question or lyric that Prince provides is very much rhetorical, attempting to raise awareness that American slavery was so brutal that thousands of Africans and African Americans chose death over slavery. As such, one must also understand the lingering effects of slavery as America was founded on the enslavement and the later subjugation of African peoples. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, how is Prince's use of the Holocaust racist or demeaning if he uses it as a watermark of evil to show just how evil American slavery was? I'd like for someone to answer that question rather than just state the glittering generality that "his Holocaust lyric is racist."

*

Oh, one last point about the offended Muslim sister. Since Jesus is believed by most Muslims as the highest of all the prophets--not the Messiah--but the highest of all the prophets, it would seem to me that the Muslim woman didn't understand her own faith or the faith that she claimed to practice. So, possibly, Prince's invitation to the woman was to explain to her that in the Quran, which is the book that she would read if she is a Muslim, Jesus is taught as the highest of all the prophets as Muhammad is viewed as the Messiah. To add more, if the Muslim sister was truly schooled in her faith, she would know that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions, with each citing Abraham as the father of their religion. So, it seems that this woman, and I mean no disrespect to her, did not know the faith or religion that she claimed, and, possibly, Prince wanted to discuss with her the role or place that Jesus has in Islam.

[Edited 5/10/16 19:36pm]

Absolutely. I don´t really understand that situation either, but then again I wasn´t there when it happened, so I can´t really say much but your post makes a lot of sense. If anything, she would actually agree with some of the things that the JWs and Prince said because of the similarities mentioned by you (Jesus´s importance for Muslims) and things like a theocracy and patriarchy (1+1+1=3) , or that phase when he did not believe in the crucifixion (Muslims don´t really believe in it either, nor do they regard Jesus as the son of God. To Muslims, he is a very important religious figure, one of the most important prophets but definitely not the son of God because that would be considered blasphemy.

Makes me wonder what Prince and Larry said to her.

AnonymousFan said:

keenly said:

Never question the tribe. God's chosen people are above the Goyim.

I love that Prince mentioned the tribe still having their names. Of course they do, they have no history of persuction like black people do.

JW is a cult, created by a WHITE FREEMASON.

Prince is wrong about those Jewish sounding family names like Rosenbloom and Goldberg. They may sound nice but they were actually meant to discriminate against Jews.

When you say the tribe does not have a history of persecution, are you trying to say Jews have never been discriminated against?

What makes you say that? Jews have been persecuted for a very long time, from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany. They found some peace under Muslim rule under the Moors in Spain and the Ottoman Turks (though that tolerance later changed) but to say that they have never been persecuted is incorrect. I´m actually surprised to see you write what you wrote.

Or are you comparing it to black people and their persecution and saying that blacks had it worse?