Politics.be - Los bericht bekijken

Egmond Codfried · 5 september 2011, 16:56

Dear Mike111,

You and I are talking in order to forge a vision to liberate Blacks from white supremacy.
It needs to be clear and practical, and we do not wait for approval by the very people we want to liberate Blacks from. We reject their ways and their means of approbation. I have noticed that all the noted Black American researchers today receive the highest accolades from white universities.

This should tell us something about their ideas of how to get Blacks out of this racist hell, and more importantly: how whites perceive their methods to bring about a change. Their methods will not bring a change because they are based in eurocentricity. Many studies are ideologically racist, so of little use to you and me. So I suggest we are not going to emulate those Black American professors, as well. As a researcher you know how biased science can be; sometimes it should be read as some weird fairytale by a professor who was masturbating himself while he wrote something down or banging a student or two. It sucks, its stupid. Yet he is assured of getting his monthly pay check and all the young hopefuls to fornicate with on campus.

I do not know what you mean by proof? Especially while you have already all the necessary facts at your disposal to put two and two together. Reading Jane Austen and analysing her work is a means to an end. She was living in a period when things were changing and she commented on those changes. Just like a writer might write about things which are happening today. Not as a scientist, but as an artist, although he, just like Austen, might consult works of science. I have pointed out in my two articles about Austen that the white scholars as one body ignore the black and browness in Austens novels. That is a combination of sources creating knew knowledge.

When you are consulting classical writers its just the same. They are no more or less objective then Jane Austen, and they had their own reasons, based on the needs and the moods of their times, to write things down as they did. I myself favour the more recent writers because I cannot see how things from 1000 years ago are influencing our politics today.

I have noted in another thread that Dr.Nell Irvin Painter used a wrong source to conclude that Madame de Staël was transparently, super white, while many other sources say she was very black of complexion. Austen was invited to meet De Staël but declined. The reasons are lost because her loving sister slashed all her letters.

The pre-historic European nations had all complexions and had all possible peoples of the world among their multitude. Perhaps a certain tribe consisted of more members of a certain colour or descent then others, perhaps some had more ‘race-mixing’ then others.

But what we need to do is decide on a model in order to be able to move on and built a theory. The fact that they were German speaks about geography, culture, language, history, not especially about their complexion. Yet the first Germans who arrived in the US came from areas where the people were brown and black from complexion.

The Eurocentric way of approaching ethnicity is always to forge a link between looks and mentality and behaviour. There are writers who make a connection between Alessandro de Medici’s blackness and his wildness. Or that Charlotte Sophie Mecklenburg had such a nasty personality because she was Black. Now I read how evil Turks are, and how they hate Blacks. Or I read that mulattoes are bad people. I cannot understand for the live of me why a educated, intelligent person will say these things.

Black is foremost an identity, not a sum of biometry, and I feel that American Blacks have been eating this whiteman shit for too long not to fall and remain in this trap. Did not you notice that biometry and cranio-metry are only used to define Blacks? I never heard of them measuring whites. The Black man, the first human, is the interloper, not the whites. You have taught me that whites came from Asia, so lets stick to that, they came to Europe and encountered Blacks and browns, who later came to dominate them.

5 september 2011, 16:56	#37
Egmond Codfried Banneling Geregistreerd: 15 april 2009 Berichten: 4.566	Dear Mike111, You and I are talking in order to forge a vision to liberate Blacks from white supremacy. It needs to be clear and practical, and we do not wait for approval by the very people we want to liberate Blacks from. We reject their ways and their means of approbation. I have noticed that all the noted Black American researchers today receive the highest accolades from white universities. This should tell us something about their ideas of how to get Blacks out of this racist hell, and more importantly: how whites perceive their methods to bring about a change. Their methods will not bring a change because they are based in eurocentricity. Many studies are ideologically racist, so of little use to you and me. So I suggest we are not going to emulate those Black American professors, as well. As a researcher you know how biased science can be; sometimes it should be read as some weird fairytale by a professor who was masturbating himself while he wrote something down or banging a student or two. It sucks, its stupid. Yet he is assured of getting his monthly pay check and all the young hopefuls to fornicate with on campus. I do not know what you mean by proof? Especially while you have already all the necessary facts at your disposal to put two and two together. Reading Jane Austen and analysing her work is a means to an end. She was living in a period when things were changing and she commented on those changes. Just like a writer might write about things which are happening today. Not as a scientist, but as an artist, although he, just like Austen, might consult works of science. I have pointed out in my two articles about Austen that the white scholars as one body ignore the black and browness in Austens novels. That is a combination of sources creating knew knowledge. When you are consulting classical writers its just the same. They are no more or less objective then Jane Austen, and they had their own reasons, based on the needs and the moods of their times, to write things down as they did. I myself favour the more recent writers because I cannot see how things from 1000 years ago are influencing our politics today. I have noted in another thread that Dr.Nell Irvin Painter used a wrong source to conclude that Madame de Staël was transparently, super white, while many other sources say she was very black of complexion. Austen was invited to meet De Staël but declined. The reasons are lost because her loving sister slashed all her letters. The pre-historic European nations had all complexions and had all possible peoples of the world among their multitude. Perhaps a certain tribe consisted of more members of a certain colour or descent then others, perhaps some had more ‘race-mixing’ then others. But what we need to do is decide on a model in order to be able to move on and built a theory. The fact that they were German speaks about geography, culture, language, history, not especially about their complexion. Yet the first Germans who arrived in the US came from areas where the people were brown and black from complexion. The Eurocentric way of approaching ethnicity is always to forge a link between looks and mentality and behaviour. There are writers who make a connection between Alessandro de Medici’s blackness and his wildness. Or that Charlotte Sophie Mecklenburg had such a nasty personality because she was Black. Now I read how evil Turks are, and how they hate Blacks. Or I read that mulattoes are bad people. I cannot understand for the live of me why a educated, intelligent person will say these things. Black is foremost an identity, not a sum of biometry, and I feel that American Blacks have been eating this whiteman shit for too long not to fall and remain in this trap. Did not you notice that biometry and cranio-metry are only used to define Blacks? I never heard of them measuring whites. The Black man, the first human, is the interloper, not the whites. You have taught me that whites came from Asia, so lets stick to that, they came to Europe and encountered Blacks and browns, who later came to dominate them.