rdhull said:

Dear god.

rdhull said:

How come there ain’t no brothas on the sticky, Sal!?(c) Buggin Out/Do The Right Thing

Brotha here, and all one needs to do is view "Yo Make My Sunshine" to realize that Prince is a brotha throough and through, and always has been. It's the epitome of male blackness. He says it all in this video.

Can ya feel me?

Latin said:

Thanks for your contributions to this thread 1725topp.

Many on the org appreciate it.

Wow. I thought this thread was gone 2 weeks ago!


Good discussion. Good stuff 1725topp.


bonatoc loves to post wordy, learned-sounding monologues -- with an extra helping of assumptions and generalizations. I'm sure he means well, though.

Might read it.

pdiddy2011 said:

Wow. I thought this thread was gone 2 weeks ago!


Good discussion. Good stuff 1725topp.


bonatoc loves to post wordy, learned-sounding monologues -- with an extra helping of assumptions and generalizations. I'm sure he means well, though.

snip

ABro said:

1725topp is one of the most eloquent and insightful orgers.

ABro said:

RJOrion said:

ABro said:

snip

-snip

[Snip - luv4u]

Stop assuming you know what happened. It's none of your business. Don't do things to get this thread locked. All of you, especially those using 'new' ids have been around long enough to know better. And stop being so dramatic. This is not a vigil.

Attacking the site will never end well.

.

Moderators have final say.
prince.org administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit, relocate and/or remove any message, at any time, for any reason. Consider all editing decisions final. If you don't agree with a decision, you may discuss it with the moderator who made the judgment in private.

Under no circumstance attempt to start a 'debate' about specific moderation decisions in a public forum.

The prince.org discussion forums are moderated by a group of volunteers who have to make difficult decisions, read a lot of messages they aren't necessarily interested in, and deal with complaints, on a daily basis. The Moderators are not babysitters. If your actions make the Moderators' job more difficult, it hurts the community. Participating in this site is a privilege, not a right—and everyone's cooperation and adherence to the above rules is an absolute necessity.

pdiddy2011 said:

Wow. I thought this thread was gone 2 weeks ago!


Good discussion. Good stuff 1725topp.


1. bonatoc loves to post wordy, learned-sounding monologues

2. -- with an extra helping of assumptions and generalizations.

3. I'm sure he means well, though.

1. Touché. I have chronic logorrhoea.
2. Touché again, arrrgh.
3. Of course I do(h).

Yep, 1725topp put things in (a transatlantic) fresh perspective.
Keep in sight I have very little, except an empathy from a broad.

I can still picture the CCTV of Tamir Rice (and I only watched the damned thing once).
After such barbary in a uniform, what is there left for me but blabbering?
This is heavy, I sure wish healing the world was as simple as singing "Baltimore".
In some way, I hope it is.

It's a very different violence in The Land Of The Free, Home Of The Graves. Honestly, right after that I was expecting Civil War, but it was a Civil Movement that mattered instead.

But no wonder opioids are taking over, Dear God: The american flag is striped with blood, and its stars are falling. Everybody must get stoned to dream à l'américaine.
Obama, where art thou? Imperfect is always gonna be better than this wreck.

Meanwhile, over here, every day is a yellow day.
I'm sure you'll stop the Orange before he gets you in the red.
We got a long a way to go, I guess we'd better hang in there.

purplefam99 said:

The truth ^^^and spoke with love. thx!

LOL^^^ Isn't that like a bible verse or something lol

Ephesians 4:15 KJV - But ...h in love,

lol

peggyon said:

onlyforaminute said:

I read the article – it reminded me of a rather good natured conversation that I had with member of the org some time ago.

I’ll start by saying that I admire sedition and forceful sociopolitical critique wherever I find it. I agree with the author on many points – there’s a troubling predominance of white thinkers in academia (formal education isn’t immune from broader social forces after all). The lack of representation along class and gender lines is equally problematic, and I agree that a diverse set of viewpoints and experiences should be represented and properly weighted in these debates. That’s not to say that a person is incapable of accurately critiquing subjects beyond their immediate experience – that’s clearly untrue – but each of us should be wary of the unconscious preconceptions that we bring to the debate.

I have no issue with emphasising the extent of Prince’s black musical heritage – quite the opposite in fact, it’s always been the most appealing aspect of his work to me. Indeed, I largely credit Prince for my musical education – following the threads of his influences led me to discover the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Son House, Robert Johnson, Charlie Patton etc. As I type I’m listening to a collection of old academic recordings of traditional Congolese music, and this whole musical journey started with Prince in my early teens. So yes, I understand that music is a continuum and that Prince didn’t emerge sui generis.

Equally, I never felt that Prince actually rejected his ethnicity and he clearly developed an increasing public solidarity with the black community in his politics and his philanthropy. Anyone who claims that Prince’s key influences were predominately white has seriously misunderstood him, but I’m not sure that many people actually do – the claim is that moronic. Also, I’ve always felt that the decision of the young Prince to muddy the waters with regard to his immediate heritage was deeply misguided.

That said, I take issue with the tendency that I’ve noticed among certain black critics/fans to negate, misrepresent or underplay those aspects of Prince’s persona that do not fit neatly into their specific agenda. As I said – I admire forceful political positions, including those related to questions of race and societal racism. It doesn’t threaten me – I consider such movements and the individuals engaged in them to be ideological kin (fundamentally), but if you want to reclaim Prince then you need to do so in his entirety, taking particular care not to misinterpret his singular will to individuality. I noticed that the author remained rather terse in his analysis of the reasons why black audiences distanced themselves from Prince (if in fact they did).

I agree entirely with the author that white people are rarely confronted with the subject of their race, whereas in a structurally and ideologically racist society a black individual is confronted with it constantly. Any community which finds itself delineated by oppressive external forces necessarily develops a more acute sense of collective identity, collective responsibility and collective defiance. This is largely positive and absolutely necessary, but to what extent does it allow the true individuals amongst them to genuinely stand alone? It’s like some terrible double-bind in which the only path to freedom is to constantly subsume and misrepresent the individual for the betterment of the group. And so it comes to pass that a community as a whole can begin to resent an individual for not reflecting the proper image, for not being proactive enough or for acting in a manner that’s perceived to be a betrayal. Of course, no individual fully escapes the multifarious bounds into which they are born, but the pursuit of true independence, the affirmation of individuality over the group is the end-game of freedom in my view. A white artist, writer or thinker wouldn’t be subject to these expectations, or burdened by this sense of responsibility, at least not to the same extent.

More broadly, any debate on the subject of equality and freedom needs to start with a rigorous analysis of what generic terms such as “black” or “female” actually represent. “One is not born, but rather becomes, a women” as Simone de Beauvoir once wrote, and I believe that this is equally true of racial designations. This is not an attempt to efface notions of race, but to render them in their proper context. Is race a clear-cut genetic and biological state? Science would suggest not, there’s no concrete basis for race in science. Given then that they’re complex cultural symbols then (albeit ones with very real material consequences), are these notions of identity absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned? If the latter is true, how should a creative individual who perceives them as such properly relate to them? I understand that a sense of cultural identity and collective unity can be very rich – but equally, every group will harbour restrictive and oppressive behavioural norms and ideas, simply because groups by their very nature are defined by notions of similarity rather than difference. Let’s not forget that Prince was wholly and rather cruelly rejected by his family for following his instincts at a young age. Psychologically, that’s bound prompt a profound shift in how a person relates to others, since the family represents the original archetype of broader communal bonds.

My point is that any true eccentric and outsider is likely to be feel partially or wholly incompatible with their designated group (ethnic or otherwise), simply because they exist beyond the periphery of broadly accepted norms. In my view, Prince’s instinctual preoccupations were largely existential and individualist, at least as a young man. That’s not to say that he didn’t engage with subjects of race and politics, but the creative world that he created was peculiarly idiosyncratic and these themes were always filtered through his own ego and imagination – he was the archetypal artist-recluse. It seems awfully reductive to pass this all off as little more than a cunning tactic to win white attention. I remember reading an interview (can’t recall the source) in which he said something along the lines of:

“I willed this whole trip. Not many people tune into the Universe in this way, but I did.”

To me that speaks of a rather profound shift of perspective, one in which the world and the self reveals itself to be something malleable, but also rather distant and unreal. It’s all conjecture of course, and conjecture no doubt coloured by my own preoccupations and experiences, but I’m not convinced that Prince was rooted in reality in quite the same way that his many “biographers” are. I’ll say no more than that.

In any case, each of us as individuals represent a complex patchwork of contradictory forces which often conflict with these broad categories of identity. Take for example the avowed feminist who finds herself innately aroused by masochistic sexual acts, proclaiming her transgressions to be expressions of sexual liberation, exploration and individuality. Her feminist contemporaries accuse her of merely internalising the forces of misogyny and male aggression. Who is correct? Reality is often more complicated than our avowed political agendas, and this complexity reveals itself through the individual who represents the true vanguard of freedom.

It’s difficult to argue against the statement that Prince’s subversive experimentations with notions of identity were little more than a clever strategic ploy – none of us can know his most intimate motivations. He did so across multiple fronts, so if you question the authenticity of one you’d probably have to question them all. Moreover, the young Prince clearly wasn’t a rigorous intellectual in this regard – like a lot of artists, he took a Dionysian approach to life and creativity.

What 1725top eloquently but rather disparagingly refers to as the myth of the “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” may well be just that, but it was a myth that Prince himself created as an artistic act. The only real question is why? As I said, I never felt that Prince rejected his ethnicity and indeed forcefully celebrated many parts of it, but I genuinely think that he was an individualist who didn’t want to be limited by the expectations of any given group (black or white). By claiming that all of this was little more than a clever capitalist ploy, you’re at risk of demoting Prince from an interesting and authentic artist to a cunning and gifted peddler. And for what reason? I have no doubt that he understood the power of subversion and spectacle, but I find it difficult to accept that his art wasn’t an expression of his genuine instincts as a young man, at least in part. After all, there are much easier ways of gaining mainstream acceptance than by offending everyone.

More than this, the claim that Prince was simply a master strategist manipulating white people has a rather convenient side effect: it allows you to align him squarely within a specific agenda (however noble) while negating those aspects of his persona that you may find distasteful or inconvenient (“Yeah, that side of Prince had nothing to do with his blackness… that guy who writhed on the floor with three deeply uncomfortable looking male dancers in arse-less pants… that was for white folks.” ). This doesn’t offend me as a “white” person in the slightest, but it offends me as an individualist. It’s what groups always do (minorities included) – they attempt to efface difference and eccentricity in the exceptional individual and appropriate them in the service of the collective. As I said, in my view individualism and the right to distance oneself from or subvert external designations is the logical end state of freedom… it has to be. Now, not everyone will agree with my rather extreme and perhaps idealistic form of individualism, so that’s my personal prejudice. To what extent this relates to Prince is open to debate, but to claim that posing such questions is a manifestation of racism is merely simplistic and blinkered. Again, I’ll pose the question: are our notions of identity as we experience them today absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned, and where should the lucid, impatient and truly creative individual, the grand ego in the highest sense of the word, situate themselves in this context? I don’t know the answer, but the fact that we can pose such questions in relation to Prince is part of what makes him an interesting cultural icon – let's not lose him, his peculiar singularity, in our clamour to claim ownership.

[Edited 12/6/18 6:12am]

Just as a compliment to what I said above, this In Living Color sketch is worth considering. There’s no question that Jamie Foxx adored Prince and this is clearly a lovingly made sketch – indeed, I’m sure that Prince found it hilarious – but does it say anything about the difficulty that the community had fully appropriating Prince? I’m not sure whether the object of the joke are the guys in the sketch, whether it’s poking fun at the oddball eccentric for the amusement of the herd or indeed a little of both. It's just a comedy sketch, but things generally aren’t funny unless they contain an element of truth (note the reaction of the guys at the end ).

fen said:

I read the article – it reminded me of a rather good natured conversation that I had with member of the org some time ago.

I’ll start by saying that I admire sedition and forceful sociopolitical critique wherever I find it. I agree with the author on many points – there’s a troubling predominance of white thinkers in academia (formal education isn’t immune from broader social forces after all). The lack of representation along class and gender lines is equally problematic, and I agree that a diverse set of viewpoints and experiences should be represented and properly weighted in these debates. That’s not to say that a person is incapable of accurately critiquing subjects beyond their immediate experience – that’s clearly untrue – but each of us should be wary of the unconscious preconceptions that we bring to the debate.

I have no issue with emphasising the extent of Prince’s black musical heritage – quite the opposite in fact, it’s always been the most appealing aspect of his work to me. Indeed, I largely credit Prince for my musical education – following the threads of his influences led me to discover the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Son House, Robert Johnson, Charlie Patton etc. As I type I’m listening to a collection of old academic recordings of traditional Congolese music, and this whole musical journey started with Prince in my early teens. So yes, I understand that music is a continuum and that Prince didn’t emerge sui generis.

Equally, I never felt that Prince actually rejected his ethnicity and he clearly developed an increasing public solidarity with the black community in his politics and his philanthropy. Anyone who claims that Prince’s key influences were predominately white has seriously misunderstood him, but I’m not sure that many people actually do – the claim is that moronic. Also, I’ve always felt that the decision of the young Prince to muddy the waters with regard to his immediate heritage was deeply misguided.

That said, I take issue with the tendency that I’ve noticed among certain black critics/fans to negate, misrepresent or underplay those aspects of Prince’s persona that do not fit neatly into their specific agenda. As I said – I admire forceful political positions, including those related to questions of race and societal racism. It doesn’t threaten me – I consider such movements and the individuals engaged in them to be ideological kin (fundamentally), but if you want to reclaim Prince then you need to do so in his entirety, taking particular care not to misinterpret his singular will to individuality. I noticed that the author remained rather terse in his analysis of the reasons why black audiences distanced themselves from Prince (if in fact they did).

I agree entirely with the author that white people are rarely confronted with the subject of their race, whereas in a structurally and ideologically racist society a black individual is confronted with it constantly. Any community which finds itself delineated by oppressive external forces necessarily develops a more acute sense of collective identity, collective responsibility and collective defiance. This is largely positive and absolutely necessary, but to what extent does it allow the true individuals amongst them to genuinely stand alone? It’s like some terrible double-bind in which the only path to freedom is to constantly subsume and misrepresent the individual for the betterment of the group. And so it comes to pass that a community as a whole can begin to resent an individual for not reflecting the proper image, for not being proactive enough or for acting in a manner that’s perceived to be a betrayal. Of course, no individual fully escapes the multifarious bounds into which they are born, but the pursuit of true independence, the affirmation of individuality over the group is the end-game of freedom in my view. A white artist, writer or thinker wouldn’t be subject to these expectations, or burdened by this sense of responsibility, at least not to the same extent.

More broadly, any debate on the subject of equality and freedom needs to start with a rigorous analysis of what generic terms such as “black” or “female” actually represent. “One is not born, but rather becomes, a women” as Simone de Beauvoir once wrote, and I believe that this is equally true of racial designations. This is not an attempt to efface notions of race, but to render them in their proper context. Is race a clear-cut genetic and biological state? Science would suggest not, there’s no concrete basis for race in science. Given then that they’re complex cultural symbols then (albeit ones with very real material consequences), are these notions of identity absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned? If the latter is true, how should a creative individual who perceives them as such properly relate to them? I understand that a sense of cultural identity and collective unity can be very rich – but equally, every group will harbour restrictive and oppressive behavioural norms and ideas, simply because groups by their very nature are defined by notions of similarity rather than difference. Let’s not forget that Prince was wholly and rather cruelly rejected by his family for following his instincts at a young age. Psychologically, that’s bound prompt a profound shift in how a person relates to others, since the family represents the original archetype of broader communal bonds.

My point is that any true eccentric and outsider is likely to be feel partially or wholly incompatible with their designated group (ethnic or otherwise), simply because they exist beyond the periphery of broadly accepted norms. In my view, Prince’s instinctual preoccupations were largely existential and individualist, at least as a young man. That’s not to say that he didn’t engage with subjects of race and politics, but the creative world that he created was peculiarly idiosyncratic and these themes were always filtered through his own ego and imagination – he was the archetypal artist-recluse. It seems awfully reductive to pass this all off as little more than a cunning tactic to win white attention. I remember reading an interview (can’t recall the source) in which he said something along the lines of:

“I willed this whole trip. Not many people tune into the Universe in this way, but I did.”

To me that speaks of a rather profound shift of perspective, one in which the world and the self reveals itself to be something malleable, but also rather distant and unreal. It’s all conjecture of course, and conjecture no doubt coloured by my own preoccupations and experiences, but I’m not convinced that Prince was rooted in reality in quite the same way that his many “biographers” are. I’ll say no more than that.

In any case, each of us as individuals represent a complex patchwork of contradictory forces which often conflict with these broad categories of identity. Take for example the avowed feminist who finds herself innately aroused by masochistic sexual acts, proclaiming her transgressions to be expressions of sexual liberation, exploration and individuality. Her feminist contemporaries accuse her of merely internalising the forces of misogyny and male aggression. Who is correct? Reality is often more complicated than our avowed political agendas, and this complexity reveals itself through the individual who represents the true vanguard of freedom.

It’s difficult to argue against the statement that Prince’s subversive experimentations with notions of identity were little more than a clever strategic ploy – none of us can know his most intimate motivations. He did so across multiple fronts, so if you question the authenticity of one you’d probably have to question them all. Moreover, the young Prince clearly wasn’t a rigorous intellectual in this regard – like a lot of artists, he took a Dionysian approach to life and creativity.

What 1725top eloquently but rather disparagingly refers to as the myth of the “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” may well be just that, but it was a myth that Prince himself created as an artistic act. The only real question is why? As I said, I never felt that Prince rejected his ethnicity and indeed forcefully celebrated many parts of it, but I genuinely think that he was an individualist who didn’t want to be limited by the expectations of any given group (black or white). By claiming that all of this was little more than a clever capitalist ploy, you’re at risk of demoting Prince from an interesting and authentic artist to a cunning and gifted peddler. And for what reason? I have no doubt that he understood the power of subversion and spectacle, but I find it difficult to accept that his art wasn’t an expression of his genuine instincts as a young man, at least in part. After all, there are much easier ways of gaining mainstream acceptance than by offending everyone.

More than this, the claim that Prince was simply a master strategist manipulating white people has a rather convenient side effect: it allows you to align him squarely within a specific agenda (however noble) while negating those aspects of his persona that you may find distasteful or inconvenient (“Yeah, that side of Prince had nothing to do with his blackness… that guy who writhed on the floor with three deeply uncomfortable looking male dancers in arse-less pants… that was for white folks.” ). This doesn’t offend me as a “white” person in the slightest, but it offends me as an individualist. It’s what groups always do (minorities included) – they attempt to efface difference and eccentricity in the exceptional individual and appropriate them in the service of the collective. As I said, in my view individualism and the right to distance oneself from or subvert external designations is the logical end state of freedom… it has to be. Now, not everyone will agree with my rather extreme and perhaps idealistic form of individualism, so that’s my personal prejudice. To what extent this relates to Prince is open to debate, but to claim that posing such questions is a manifestation of racism is merely simplistic and blinkered. Again, I’ll pose the question: are our notions of identity as we experience them today absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned, and where should the lucid, impatient and truly creative individual, the grand ego in the highest sense of the word, situate themselves in this context? I don’t know the answer, but the fact that we can pose such questions in relation to Prince is part of what makes him an interesting cultural icon – let's not lose him, his peculiar singularity, in our clamour to claim ownership.

[Edited 12/6/18 6:12am]

i think to be an individualist, may render a person free externally, it does not serve their inner

well being. Individuality to that extent can be isolating and lonely and depressing. things people

have noted about prince and themes people like to make note that he wrote about in his work.

- to the bolded up above, can you really speak to the level of his treatment as "cruel"?

- thank you for being clear and open enough to say that what you wrote is "IN YOUR VIEW"

but i will say that it is written from a "white is right" slant and serves to denounce, again, what, in part, the

black community is trying to communicate. That your view (the white one) of prince is right.

and because your white most whites will listen to you first and thus we remain always on this topic

of racism. it will not , in my view, be by the mouths of blacks and that we convince whites

of the reality of racism still existing and the ways (cunning and all) that we have had to navigate

it. it will be from white mouths to white ears, because by and large you will only really receive

that info as truly credible. and when Deep deep down a white man can truly say he would

be willing to be black and white women willing to be the deepest ebony will it be done with. when

the willingness to trade places be without hesitation in the deepest place in their heart.

- and if you read the article you would know that in our community he wasn't peculiar.

he was but "that uncle" his ways of being and communicating weren't an anomoly in the

black community. the only difference was he had white peoples attention.

purplefam99 said:

fen said:

I read the article – it reminded me of a rather good natured conversation that I had with member of the org some time ago.

I’ll start by saying that I admire sedition and forceful sociopolitical critique wherever I find it. I agree with the author on many points – there’s a troubling predominance of white thinkers in academia (formal education isn’t immune from broader social forces after all). The lack of representation along class and gender lines is equally problematic, and I agree that a diverse set of viewpoints and experiences should be represented and properly weighted in these debates. That’s not to say that a person is incapable of accurately critiquing subjects beyond their immediate experience – that’s clearly untrue – but each of us should be wary of the unconscious preconceptions that we bring to the debate.

I have no issue with emphasising the extent of Prince’s black musical heritage – quite the opposite in fact, it’s always been the most appealing aspect of his work to me. Indeed, I largely credit Prince for my musical education – following the threads of his influences led me to discover the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Son House, Robert Johnson, Charlie Patton etc. As I type I’m listening to a collection of old academic recordings of traditional Congolese music, and this whole musical journey started with Prince in my early teens. So yes, I understand that music is a continuum and that Prince didn’t emerge sui generis.

Equally, I never felt that Prince actually rejected his ethnicity and he clearly developed an increasing public solidarity with the black community in his politics and his philanthropy. Anyone who claims that Prince’s key influences were predominately white has seriously misunderstood him, but I’m not sure that many people actually do – the claim is that moronic. Also, I’ve always felt that the decision of the young Prince to muddy the waters with regard to his immediate heritage was deeply misguided.

That said, I take issue with the tendency that I’ve noticed among certain black critics/fans to negate, misrepresent or underplay those aspects of Prince’s persona that do not fit neatly into their specific agenda. As I said – I admire forceful political positions, including those related to questions of race and societal racism. It doesn’t threaten me – I consider such movements and the individuals engaged in them to be ideological kin (fundamentally), but if you want to reclaim Prince then you need to do so in his entirety, taking particular care not to misinterpret his singular will to individuality. I noticed that the author remained rather terse in his analysis of the reasons why black audiences distanced themselves from Prince (if in fact they did).

I agree entirely with the author that white people are rarely confronted with the subject of their race, whereas in a structurally and ideologically racist society a black individual is confronted with it constantly. Any community which finds itself delineated by oppressive external forces necessarily develops a more acute sense of collective identity, collective responsibility and collective defiance. This is largely positive and absolutely necessary, but to what extent does it allow the true individuals amongst them to genuinely stand alone? It’s like some terrible double-bind in which the only path to freedom is to constantly subsume and misrepresent the individual for the betterment of the group. And so it comes to pass that a community as a whole can begin to resent an individual for not reflecting the proper image, for not being proactive enough or for acting in a manner that’s perceived to be a betrayal. Of course, no individual fully escapes the multifarious bounds into which they are born, but the pursuit of true independence, the affirmation of individuality over the group is the end-game of freedom in my view. A white artist, writer or thinker wouldn’t be subject to these expectations, or burdened by this sense of responsibility, at least not to the same extent.

More broadly, any debate on the subject of equality and freedom needs to start with a rigorous analysis of what generic terms such as “black” or “female” actually represent. “One is not born, but rather becomes, a women” as Simone de Beauvoir once wrote, and I believe that this is equally true of racial designations. This is not an attempt to efface notions of race, but to render them in their proper context. Is race a clear-cut genetic and biological state? Science would suggest not, there’s no concrete basis for race in science. Given then that they’re complex cultural symbols then (albeit ones with very real material consequences), are these notions of identity absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned? If the latter is true, how should a creative individual who perceives them as such properly relate to them? I understand that a sense of cultural identity and collective unity can be very rich – but equally, every group will harbour restrictive and oppressive behavioural norms and ideas, simply because groups by their very nature are defined by notions of similarity rather than difference. Let’s not forget that Prince was wholly and rather cruelly rejected by his family for following his instincts at a young age. Psychologically, that’s bound prompt a profound shift in how a person relates to others, since the family represents the original archetype of broader communal bonds.

My point is that any true eccentric and outsider is likely to be feel partially or wholly incompatible with their designated group (ethnic or otherwise), simply because they exist beyond the periphery of broadly accepted norms. In my view, Prince’s instinctual preoccupations were largely existential and individualist, at least as a young man. That’s not to say that he didn’t engage with subjects of race and politics, but the creative world that he created was peculiarly idiosyncratic and these themes were always filtered through his own ego and imagination – he was the archetypal artist-recluse. It seems awfully reductive to pass this all off as little more than a cunning tactic to win white attention. I remember reading an interview (can’t recall the source) in which he said something along the lines of:

“I willed this whole trip. Not many people tune into the Universe in this way, but I did.”

To me that speaks of a rather profound shift of perspective, one in which the world and the self reveals itself to be something malleable, but also rather distant and unreal. It’s all conjecture of course, and conjecture no doubt coloured by my own preoccupations and experiences, but I’m not convinced that Prince was rooted in reality in quite the same way that his many “biographers” are. I’ll say no more than that.

In any case, each of us as individuals represent a complex patchwork of contradictory forces which often conflict with these broad categories of identity. Take for example the avowed feminist who finds herself innately aroused by masochistic sexual acts, proclaiming her transgressions to be expressions of sexual liberation, exploration and individuality. Her feminist contemporaries accuse her of merely internalising the forces of misogyny and male aggression. Who is correct? Reality is often more complicated than our avowed political agendas, and this complexity reveals itself through the individual who represents the true vanguard of freedom.

It’s difficult to argue against the statement that Prince’s subversive experimentations with notions of identity were little more than a clever strategic ploy – none of us can know his most intimate motivations. He did so across multiple fronts, so if you question the authenticity of one you’d probably have to question them all. Moreover, the young Prince clearly wasn’t a rigorous intellectual in this regard – like a lot of artists, he took a Dionysian approach to life and creativity.

What 1725top eloquently but rather disparagingly refers to as the myth of the “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” may well be just that, but it was a myth that Prince himself created as an artistic act. The only real question is why? As I said, I never felt that Prince rejected his ethnicity and indeed forcefully celebrated many parts of it, but I genuinely think that he was an individualist who didn’t want to be limited by the expectations of any given group (black or white). By claiming that all of this was little more than a clever capitalist ploy, you’re at risk of demoting Prince from an interesting and authentic artist to a cunning and gifted peddler. And for what reason? I have no doubt that he understood the power of subversion and spectacle, but I find it difficult to accept that his art wasn’t an expression of his genuine instincts as a young man, at least in part. After all, there are much easier ways of gaining mainstream acceptance than by offending everyone.

More than this, the claim that Prince was simply a master strategist manipulating white people has a rather convenient side effect: it allows you to align him squarely within a specific agenda (however noble) while negating those aspects of his persona that you may find distasteful or inconvenient (“Yeah, that side of Prince had nothing to do with his blackness… that guy who writhed on the floor with three deeply uncomfortable looking male dancers in arse-less pants… that was for white folks.” ). This doesn’t offend me as a “white” person in the slightest, but it offends me as an individualist. It’s what groups always do (minorities included) – they attempt to efface difference and eccentricity in the exceptional individual and appropriate them in the service of the collective. As I said, in my view individualism and the right to distance oneself from or subvert external designations is the logical end state of freedom… it has to be. Now, not everyone will agree with my rather extreme and perhaps idealistic form of individualism, so that’s my personal prejudice. To what extent this relates to Prince is open to debate, but to claim that posing such questions is a manifestation of racism is merely simplistic and blinkered. Again, I’ll pose the question: are our notions of identity as we experience them today absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned, and where should the lucid, impatient and truly creative individual, the grand ego in the highest sense of the word, situate themselves in this context? I don’t know the answer, but the fact that we can pose such questions in relation to Prince is part of what makes him an interesting cultural icon – let's not lose him, his peculiar singularity, in our clamour to claim ownership.

[Edited 12/6/18 6:12am]

i think to be an individualist, may render a person free externally, it does not serve their inner

well being. Individuality to that extent can be isolating and lonely and depressing. things people

have noted about prince and themes people like to make note that he wrote about in his work.

- to the bolded up above, can you really speak to the level of his treatment as "cruel"?

- thank you for being clear and open enough to say that what you wrote is "IN YOUR VIEW"

but i will say that it is written from a "white is right" slant and serves to denounce, again, what, in part, the

black community is trying to communicate. That your view (the white one) of prince is right.

and because your white most whites will listen to you first and thus we remain always on this topic

of racism. it will not , in my view, be by the mouths of blacks and that we convince whites

of the reality of racism still existing and the ways (cunning and all) that we have had to navigate

it. it will be from white mouths to white ears, because by and large you will only really receive

that info as truly credible. and when Deep deep down a white man can truly say he would

be willing to be black and white women willing to be the deepest ebony will it be done with. when

the willingness to trade places be without hesitation in the deepest place in their heart.

- and if you read the article you would know that in our community he wasn't peculiar.

he was but "that uncle" his ways of being and communicating weren't an anomoly in the

black community. the only difference was he had white peoples attention.

If Prince wasn't peculiar, and like every other person we would not even be on a site called Prince.org.

To look at his catalog of music, styles, choices of language ideas of time God and express and say it was much different from all other people of color, is in my opinion very limiting and downgrading of who Prince was and became. Assumptions that his character, mannerisms and such were an act to crossover... People need to learn the man in his fullness because the 'he wasn't any different' theme I've been coming across is not respectful of the man. I'm still and even more in awe of Prince. He was spectacular. He gave me a culture I never would have expected. Nothing regular or common about Prince Rogers Nelson.

fen said:

I read the article – it reminded me of a rather good natured conversation that I had with member of the org some time ago.

I’ll start by saying that I admire sedition and forceful sociopolitical critique wherever I find it. I agree with the author on many points – there’s a troubling predominance of white thinkers in academia (formal education isn’t immune from broader social forces after all). The lack of representation along class and gender lines is equally problematic, and I agree that a diverse set of viewpoints and experiences should be represented and properly weighted in these debates. That’s not to say that a person is incapable of accurately critiquing subjects beyond their immediate experience – that’s clearly untrue – but each of us should be wary of the unconscious preconceptions that we bring to the debate.

I have no issue with emphasising the extent of Prince’s black musical heritage – quite the opposite in fact, it’s always been the most appealing aspect of his work to me. Indeed, I largely credit Prince for my musical education – following the threads of his influences led me to discover the likes of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Son House, Robert Johnson, Charlie Patton etc. As I type I’m listening to a collection of old academic recordings of traditional Congolese music, and this whole musical journey started with Prince in my early teens. So yes, I understand that music is a continuum and that Prince didn’t emerge sui generis.

Equally, I never felt that Prince actually rejected his ethnicity and he clearly developed an increasing public solidarity with the black community in his politics and his philanthropy. Anyone who claims that Prince’s key influences were predominately white has seriously misunderstood him, but I’m not sure that many people actually do – the claim is that moronic. Also, I’ve always felt that the decision of the young Prince to muddy the waters with regard to his immediate heritage was deeply misguided.

That said, I take issue with the tendency that I’ve noticed among certain black critics/fans to negate, misrepresent or underplay those aspects of Prince’s persona that do not fit neatly into their specific agenda. As I said – I admire forceful political positions, including those related to questions of race and societal racism. It doesn’t threaten me – I consider such movements and the individuals engaged in them to be ideological kin (fundamentally), but if you want to reclaim Prince then you need to do so in his entirety, taking particular care not to misinterpret his singular will to individuality. I noticed that the author remained rather terse in his analysis of the reasons why black audiences distanced themselves from Prince (if in fact they did).

I agree entirely with the author that white people are rarely confronted with the subject of their race, whereas in a structurally and ideologically racist society a black individual is confronted with it constantly. Any community which finds itself delineated by oppressive external forces necessarily develops a more acute sense of collective identity, collective responsibility and collective defiance. This is largely positive and absolutely necessary, but to what extent does it allow the true individuals amongst them to genuinely stand alone? It’s like some terrible double-bind in which the only path to freedom is to constantly subsume and misrepresent the individual for the betterment of the group. And so it comes to pass that a community as a whole can begin to resent an individual for not reflecting the proper image, for not being proactive enough or for acting in a manner that’s perceived to be a betrayal. Of course, no individual fully escapes the multifarious bounds into which they are born, but the pursuit of true independence, the affirmation of individuality over the group is the end-game of freedom in my view. A white artist, writer or thinker wouldn’t be subject to these expectations, or burdened by this sense of responsibility, at least not to the same extent.

More broadly, any debate on the subject of equality and freedom needs to start with a rigorous analysis of what generic terms such as “black” or “female” actually represent. “One is not born, but rather becomes, a women” as Simone de Beauvoir once wrote, and I believe that this is equally true of racial designations. This is not an attempt to efface notions of race, but to render them in their proper context. Is race a clear-cut genetic and biological state? Science would suggest not, there’s no concrete basis for race in science. Given then that they’re complex cultural symbols then (albeit ones with very real material consequences), are these notions of identity absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned? If the latter is true, how should a creative individual who perceives them as such properly relate to them? I understand that a sense of cultural identity and collective unity can be very rich – but equally, every group will harbour restrictive and oppressive behavioural norms and ideas, simply because groups by their very nature are defined by notions of similarity rather than difference. Let’s not forget that Prince was wholly and rather cruelly rejected by his family for following his instincts at a young age. Psychologically, that’s bound prompt a profound shift in how a person relates to others, since the family represents the original archetype of broader communal bonds.

My point is that any true eccentric and outsider is likely to be feel partially or wholly incompatible with their designated group (ethnic or otherwise), simply because they exist beyond the periphery of broadly accepted norms. In my view, Prince’s instinctual preoccupations were largely existential and individualist, at least as a young man. That’s not to say that he didn’t engage with subjects of race and politics, but the creative world that he created was peculiarly idiosyncratic and these themes were always filtered through his own ego and imagination – he was the archetypal artist-recluse. It seems awfully reductive to pass this all off as little more than a cunning tactic to win white attention. I remember reading an interview (can’t recall the source) in which he said something along the lines of:

“I willed this whole trip. Not many people tune into the Universe in this way, but I did.”

To me that speaks of a rather profound shift of perspective, one in which the world and the self reveals itself to be something malleable, but also rather distant and unreal. It’s all conjecture of course, and conjecture no doubt coloured by my own preoccupations and experiences, but I’m not convinced that Prince was rooted in reality in quite the same way that his many “biographers” are. I’ll say no more than that.

In any case, each of us as individuals represent a complex patchwork of contradictory forces which often conflict with these broad categories of identity. Take for example the avowed feminist who finds herself innately aroused by masochistic sexual acts, proclaiming her transgressions to be expressions of sexual liberation, exploration and individuality. Her feminist contemporaries accuse her of merely internalising the forces of misogyny and male aggression. Who is correct? Reality is often more complicated than our avowed political agendas, and this complexity reveals itself through the individual who represents the true vanguard of freedom.

It’s difficult to argue against the statement that Prince’s subversive experimentations with notions of identity were little more than a clever strategic ploy – none of us can know his most intimate motivations. He did so across multiple fronts, so if you question the authenticity of one you’d probably have to question them all. Moreover, the young Prince clearly wasn’t a rigorous intellectual in this regard – like a lot of artists, he took a Dionysian approach to life and creativity.

What 1725top eloquently but rather disparagingly refers to as the myth of the “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” may well be just that, but it was a myth that Prince himself created as an artistic act. The only real question is why? As I said, I never felt that Prince rejected his ethnicity and indeed forcefully celebrated many parts of it, but I genuinely think that he was an individualist who didn’t want to be limited by the expectations of any given group (black or white). By claiming that all of this was little more than a clever capitalist ploy, you’re at risk of demoting Prince from an interesting and authentic artist to a cunning and gifted peddler. And for what reason? I have no doubt that he understood the power of subversion and spectacle, but I find it difficult to accept that his art wasn’t an expression of his genuine instincts as a young man, at least in part. After all, there are much easier ways of gaining mainstream acceptance than by offending everyone.

More than this, the claim that Prince was simply a master strategist manipulating white people has a rather convenient side effect: it allows you to align him squarely within a specific agenda (however noble) while negating those aspects of his persona that you may find distasteful or inconvenient (“Yeah, that side of Prince had nothing to do with his blackness… that guy who writhed on the floor with three deeply uncomfortable looking male dancers in arse-less pants… that was for white folks.” ). This doesn’t offend me as a “white” person in the slightest, but it offends me as an individualist. It’s what groups always do (minorities included) – they attempt to efface difference and eccentricity in the exceptional individual and appropriate them in the service of the collective. As I said, in my view individualism and the right to distance oneself from or subvert external designations is the logical end state of freedom… it has to be. Now, not everyone will agree with my rather extreme and perhaps idealistic form of individualism, so that’s my personal prejudice. To what extent this relates to Prince is open to debate, but to claim that posing such questions is a manifestation of racism is merely simplistic and blinkered. Again, I’ll pose the question: are our notions of identity as we experience them today absolute and unchanging, or transitory and historically conditioned, and where should the lucid, impatient and truly creative individual, the grand ego in the highest sense of the word, situate themselves in this context? I don’t know the answer, but the fact that we can pose such questions in relation to Prince is part of what makes him an interesting cultural icon – let's not lose him, his peculiar singularity, in our clamour to claim ownership.

[Edited 12/6/18 6:12am]

Fantastic reading.

purplefam99 said:

fen said:

[Edited 12/6/18 6:12am]

i think to be an individualist, may render a person free externally, it does not serve their inner

well being. Individuality to that extent can be isolating and lonely and depressing. things people

have noted about prince and themes people like to make note that he wrote about in his work.

- to the bolded up above, can you really speak to the level of his treatment as "cruel"?

- thank you for being clear and open enough to say that what you wrote is "IN YOUR VIEW"

but i will say that it is written from a "white is right" slant and serves to denounce, again, what, in part, the

black community is trying to communicate. That your view (the white one) of prince is right.

and because your white most whites will listen to you first and thus we remain always on this topic

of racism. it will not , in my view, be by the mouths of blacks and that we convince whites

of the reality of racism still existing and the ways (cunning and all) that we have had to navigate

it. it will be from white mouths to white ears, because by and large you will only really receive

that info as truly credible. and when Deep deep down a white man can truly say he would

be willing to be black and white women willing to be the deepest ebony will it be done with. when

the willingness to trade places be without hesitation in the deepest place in their heart.

- and if you read the article you would know that in our community he wasn't peculiar.

he was but "that uncle" his ways of being and communicating weren't an anomoly in the

black community. the only difference was he had white peoples attention.

I’m deeply sorry that this is what you took from what I wrote. As I said, I acknowledge that I’m not immune from white preconceptions and ignorance, but I’m struggling to understand how my points negate the black perspective. I was quite clear that neither I or in my view Prince denied his ethnicity, or it’s importance. What I object to is the implication that much of what Prince did in his blurring of identity, particularly along gender and sexual lines, was little more than a way to navigate the white power structure for his own personal gain. That wasn’t explicitly stated in the article per se, but it’s implied by some of the contributions to this thread. As I said, there’s much in the article that I agree with. If anything, my prejudice has little to do with my whiteness and everything to do with my status as a misanthropic manic depressive recluse with an obsessive preoccupation with individualism over group politics (and you’re correct - this isn’t always healthy ). That said, I was careful to stress the importance of group politics and collective endeavour in the pursuit of meaningful, material change.

Just to put what I’m trying to express into a clearer context and seeing as we’re talking about music and politics, one of my favourite albums is Max Roach’s “We Insist: Freedom Now Suite”. Here we have a group of artists with a clear sense of racial solidarity and a sophisticated and determined political agenda that transcends each of them as individuals.



For me, the young Prince differed in that his emphasis was on exploring the potentialities of the individual, first and foremost. I'm just wary of losing sight of that.

Regarding your last point, I wasn’t suggesting that eccentricity was any less common in the black community than any other - but equally nor are the challenges that such people face finding their place. To be honest, I stopped taking the author seriously when he equated “If I Was Your Girlfriend” with homosexuality.

From his first album, there was no discussing it.
Prince presents himself as black on the sleeve. He literally emerges from the black.
The afro, the gospel intro...

Just put a white folk in front of the brownish For You sleeve,
and then confront him. But also show him the inner sleeve,
where Prince is all superexposed, turned white and gone are the curls.
Also "Don't make me black" to Lennie Waronker.
Controversy on the matter of identity was there from the very start.
It seems in retrospect crucial to Prince to not fall into a camp or the other,
just out of integrity, not for some commercial purposes.
He truly believed music could be the greatest pacificator.
It's any creative mind's greatest hope that his creations can somehow shake the world.

I'm standing with my idea that Prince, like MJ later,
was somehow going for the Übermensch, a black musician who would bring
black music to be sung in all homes, to be diffused in the mass conscience
(the white supremacy if you will — or rather, their kids).
And beyond race, who would seduce girls and boys alike.
The one able to do anything. The King Lizard. The Überfuckingmensch.

But Prince was never going to be whitewashed while doing it. Michael did.
It still baffles me how much of the cast in Purple Rain is black, and the understated social discourse of the movie:
Right from the opening credits, they're all stuck in DIY mode, meaning they're not black Reagania™.
They're not the Cosby. They have crooked teeth, they can't afford the dentist.
They're ethnic rebels without a dime in the middle of nowhere, ignored by both coasts.

Purple Rain is a movie that, without a warning,
suddenly turns and gets bluntly to "being black under Reagan can make you commit suicide".
From all the suburbia middle-class mediocrity, the inequalities of chances, the sixties (the father's twenties) broken dreams.
An eighties American social castaway archetype, filled with violence, who heroically turns the gun towards himself.
The (Black) Father Figure is always there in the background in PR, like a social curse, the loser heritage,
still he's the one left saying "I would die for you". Can't get any more Black Jesus than that.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the US kids didn't notice,
at a time when being sucessful AND black meant you got yourself a nose job (or you are a sitcom rich dentist).
I think Purple Rain has changed the perception of many kids about afro americans,
who would never have gone to see a musical blaxpoitation movie if it wasn't for the music
that won (most) everyone heart and soul. The artists win where the politician fails.
They get to the kids when they're still malleable. They win with love, not war.

A black pulse that holds white harmonies so tight (or the other way around) until both melt,
and the result sounds alien.The musical DMZ, where things can start anew.
Politics by music. "My songs speak for me". No kidding, SKipper.

[Edited 12/6/18 15:35pm]

fen said:

purplefam99 said:

i think to be an individualist, may render a person free externally, it does not serve their inner

well being. Individuality to that extent can be isolating and lonely and depressing. things people

have noted about prince and themes people like to make note that he wrote about in his work.

- to the bolded up above, can you really speak to the level of his treatment as "cruel"?

- thank you for being clear and open enough to say that what you wrote is "IN YOUR VIEW"

but i will say that it is written from a "white is right" slant and serves to denounce, again, what, in part, the

black community is trying to communicate. That your view (the white one) of prince is right.

and because your white most whites will listen to you first and thus we remain always on this topic

of racism. it will not , in my view, be by the mouths of blacks and that we convince whites

of the reality of racism still existing and the ways (cunning and all) that we have had to navigate

it. it will be from white mouths to white ears, because by and large you will only really receive

that info as truly credible. and when Deep deep down a white man can truly say he would

be willing to be black and white women willing to be the deepest ebony will it be done with. when

the willingness to trade places be without hesitation in the deepest place in their heart.

- and if you read the article you would know that in our community he wasn't peculiar.

he was but "that uncle" his ways of being and communicating weren't an anomoly in the

black community. the only difference was he had white peoples attention.

I’m deeply sorry that this is what you took from what I wrote. As I said, I acknowledge that I’m not immune from white preconceptions and ignorance, but I’m struggling to understand how my points negate the black perspective. I was quite clear that neither I or in my view Prince denied his ethnicity, or it’s importance. What I object to is the implication that much of what Prince did in his blurring of identity, particularly along gender and sexual lines, was little more than a way to navigate the white power structure for his own personal gain. That wasn’t explicitly stated in the article per se, but it’s implied by some of the contributions to this thread. As I said, there’s much in the article that I agree with. If anything, my prejudice has little to do with my whiteness and everything to do with my status as a misanthropic manic depressive recluse with an obsessive preoccupation with individualism over group politics (and you’re correct - this isn’t always healthy ). That said, I was careful to stress the importance of group politics and collective endeavour in the pursuit of meaningful, material change.

Just to put what I’m trying to express into a clearer context and seeing as we’re talking about music and politics, one of my favourite albums is Max Roach’s “We Insist: Freedom Now Suite”. Here we have a group of artists with a clear sense of racial solidarity and a sophisticated and determined political agenda that transcends each of them as individuals.



For me, the young Prince differed in that his emphasis was on exploring the potentialities of the individual, first and foremost. I'm just wary of losing sight of that.

Regarding your last point, I wasn’t suggesting that eccentricity was any less common in the black community than any other - but equally nor are the challenges that such people face finding their place. To be honest, I stopped taking the author seriously when he equated “If I Was Your Girlfriend” with homosexuality.

Fen, i felt it was only "slanted" and that your words of agreement with the authors points would

be drowned down by the mearest of a "white slant" because that seems, at times, that is all that

is needed to perpetuate the "white is right" perspective. Even You at the end of your post say

"i stopped taking the author seriously when he equated "if i was your girlfriend" with homesexuality"

So even tho you said initially that you agreed with a lot of the authors points you denounce

him over one point. and end on that point. so to answer your question that you said your struggling with," how your points

negate the black perspective?", you said, "i stopped taking him seriously".

-i am sorry about your status as you put it, but glad to see you know extreme individualism

is not the healthiest of options for humans.

purplefam99 said:

fen said:

I’m deeply sorry that this is what you took from what I wrote. As I said, I acknowledge that I’m not immune from white preconceptions and ignorance, but I’m struggling to understand how my points negate the black perspective. I was quite clear that neither I or in my view Prince denied his ethnicity, or it’s importance. What I object to is the implication that much of what Prince did in his blurring of identity, particularly along gender and sexual lines, was little more than a way to navigate the white power structure for his own personal gain. That wasn’t explicitly stated in the article per se, but it’s implied by some of the contributions to this thread. As I said, there’s much in the article that I agree with. If anything, my prejudice has little to do with my whiteness and everything to do with my status as a misanthropic manic depressive recluse with an obsessive preoccupation with individualism over group politics (and you’re correct - this isn’t always healthy ). That said, I was careful to stress the importance of group politics and collective endeavour in the pursuit of meaningful, material change.

Just to put what I’m trying to express into a clearer context and seeing as we’re talking about music and politics, one of my favourite albums is Max Roach’s “We Insist: Freedom Now Suite”. Here we have a group of artists with a clear sense of racial solidarity and a sophisticated and determined political agenda that transcends each of them as individuals.



For me, the young Prince differed in that his emphasis was on exploring the potentialities of the individual, first and foremost. I'm just wary of losing sight of that.

Regarding your last point, I wasn’t suggesting that eccentricity was any less common in the black community than any other - but equally nor are the challenges that such people face finding their place. To be honest, I stopped taking the author seriously when he equated “If I Was Your Girlfriend” with homosexuality.

Fen, i felt it was only "slanted" and that your words of agreement with the authors points would

be drowned down by the mearest of a "white slant" because that seems, at times, that is all that

is needed to perpetuate the "white is right" perspective. Even You at the end of your post say

"i stopped taking the author seriously when he equated "if i was your girlfriend" with homesexuality"

So even tho you said initially that you agreed with a lot of the authors points you denounce

him over one point. and end on that point. so to answer your question that you said your struggling with," how your points

negate the black perspective?", you said, "i stopped taking him seriously".

-i am sorry about your status as you put it, but glad to see you know extreme individualism

is not the healthiest of options for humans.

I see what you mean, that was flippant of me - but it seems rather secondary to the main points that I was trying to make, and I was referring to my initial post when I posed the question. But you're right, a moment's silliness doesn't undermine the whole article.

And thank you for your sympathies, but I wouldn’t have it any other way – there’s no helping some people.

I also stopped taking the author seriously after the IIWYG thing.
Not on the matter of black culture integrity, but on the matter of Prince.
Hence my suspicion he writes with a narrow view of Prince an tries to reconcile him with his agenda.
I don't have a problem with the agenda, but with Prince as an uncle.
Do black uncles have something specific white uncles don't have?
The guy lost me right there. Just when I thought it was relevant.

bonatoc said:

I also stopped taking the author seriously after the IIWYG thing.
Not on the matter of black culture integrity, but on the matter of Prince.
Hence my suspicion he writes with a narrow view of Prince an tries to reconcile him with his agenda.
I don't have a problem with the agenda, but with Prince as an uncle.
Do black uncles have something specific white uncles don't have?
The guy lost me right there. Just when I thought it was relevant.

To be fair bonatoc, I think that the "black uncle" list was intended to humorous, and that purplefam99 was right to call me out for focusing on that. It's a terrible joke if that's what it is, but it's a rather petty criticism in the broad scheme of things.

I agree though, much of that list could apply to a family from any ethnic group - but as I said, I'm not sure that it's meant to be taken entirely seriously as an argument.

fen said: