Letter To BET

To Whom It May Concern: Board of Directors,
President, and/or CEO of
Black Entertainment Television

My name is Curtis Gordon, and I am writing this letter to your company in an effort to address an issue I'd like to call your attention to. As a representative of the Black Music entertainment industry, it is of my opinion that BET share's equally in the responsibility our black musicians seem to lack. BET programs their music, show their videos, and promote their albums, all under the banner of black empowerment.

BET programming is almost exclusively black oriented, the company black controlled, all visible personalities are representative of the current black mainstream. The history and success of BET is commendable, but it is the future that concerns me. The financial success of BET pales in comparison to visible efforts to mentally empower the black people, and this is the issue I write to address.

From what I gather, not a single one of the shows in your programming is focused exclusively on black upliftment. Not a single one. Some of the videos you play, as well as artists you feature are recognized advocates for black unity and empowerment, but none of your shows are exclusively geared to promote these types of musicians and their messages. I lay the responsibility for this failure at the feet of BET because 'black entertainment' has been the company's sole focus, and with current trends in music to promote 'pimping' or promiscuous sex, violence, and material wealth, your Black Entertainment philosophy appears to promote the same principles.

I do not wish to use this as an opportunity to verbally attack BET as irresponsible, but to challenge BET to act in the capacity it has coveted for itself: a leadership role. This is not about censure or a judgmental 'moral' perspective. It is about elevating the minds of the black people, and there is no company better able to promote black enlightenment by example than an empire as visible as BET.

For example, I witnessed Alien Ant Farm's red carpet rendition of their song 'These Days' during the BET Awards. I use this example specifically because of the title song AAF sang by way of 'crashing' the event. The chorus of the song is as follows:

These Days aren't great.
There's work to do.
Would you like to work with me?
I'd love to. Would you?

These Days are depraved.
And so are you.
I think it's something positive
and negative too.

My personal opinion concerning the lyrics, the band, or the reason 'why' they chose the BET Awards has no relevance in the issue I address whatsoever. The issue is that we black people should be more aware of the words in this song than the 'whites' who are singing it. But this is not the case, the depravity of the world has to be brought to our attention, and not only this, at the biggest, most prominent, black social event this side of the equator. It serves to call attention to the failure of BET to address the issues raised by the event, mainly the negative contrast between black decadence in our music and white practicality in theirs.

Our black musicians are singing about material wealth, promoting materialism wherever they go, and representing the lascivious lifestyle money can provide. BET is at the forefront of this immature trend as the musicians who advocate such lifestyles are frequently featured in your programming. In further contrast, 'white' music videos on the whole are less lewd, less materialistic, and more mentally edifying than black music videos. I'd be willing to wager that no fewer than 90% of all your video content is of this type: scantily clad women, 'musicians' in extravagant cars and clothes, embodying the very worse in us. Because sex sells, because 'blinging' is hot, and pimping is the 'thing' now. And this is what BET is now because this is the music of BET.

As I said, I did not write this as merely an opportunity to bash BET, but to upbraid and offer a suggestion that would show a good faith effort of BET's focus on the future of black people. With the sheer number of music videos and musicians who promote sound moral values, changing the video lineup of one of your shows to promote these ideals, these musicians, and to get their message out and across to the leaders of the future, our kids, would be no significant sacrifice on the behalf of BET. But it would be a significant investment in the minds of our youth and our people.

Just as BET must take the heat for the moral decay represented in its music programming, BET can fully enjoy the honor such a responsible undertaking would undoubtedly grant. Not only this, it presents opportunity that could increase revenue and cut costs at the same time. A live show could have members from the audience performing Q&A with featured musicians, or even 'VJ for a day' at no cost to BET, or both. Marketing would have a field day. But this is a business perspective, BET's business perspective, and not my personal one. It shouldn't be about revenue in the first place, as revenue is what is obviously driving the programming structure of BET now, noting the careless disregard for moral implications by way of featured videos.

In closing, I would like to impress upon you my vigilance concerning this effort. I will be posting this letter in its entirety on the Internet under the heading 'Letter to BET', in the hopes that there are those willing to step forward in support of my effort by informing you of their agreement. I am not demanding BET act on impulse to avoid negative press, but I am beseeching you, and beseeching the black people, to to invest in the future of our children by actively contributing a positive message, by active participation in positive reinforcement. Mentally, spiritually, and hopefully musically.

I fully expect nothing less than careful consideration concerning this letter and its content by the management and leadership of BET. Furthermore, I will not accept anything less than affirmative action on the behalf of BET by way of public endorsement or visible example. I recognize and comprehend the nature of the business environment of BET, and do not expect such procedure to be disregarded. But neither do I expect this letter or myself to be disregarded because of business procedure. I place the value of people above that of self and wealth, including corporations and shareholders, public or private.

The future of our people and the minds of our youth have long been disregarded by our leadership and our government by way of inaction. 'Ghetto' and 'poverty' go hand in hand with 'black' and our government and leadership have led and governed from the inception of 'black emancipation'. The black people have endured their trifling excuses, and both hands are still held out.

Excuses from those who do not have the best interests of the black American at heart is one thing. But excuses from a company that is Black America at its very heart is no less than a betrayal of the black people themselves. The executives and employees of BET are every day black men and women with the same concerns of the black men and women who watch BET everyday. If they are not watching and waiting for an official opinion on this, I will be.

I will not be ignored, disregarded, or discounted as an insignificant voice. I will bring the full force of my convictions to bear in an effort to motivate your network from complacency if complacent you remain, and not as friend, but foe.

And you can B.E.T. that on everything I Love, and I Love my people.

Your friend,
Curtis J. Gordon.

0 Replies

I think BET is a rascist organization. I would think any organization which would hire, show, and promote only a certain skin color or gender was wrong.

0 Replies

Did you know: Viacom owns BET?
Did you know: Viacom is 'white' owned?
Are you Able2Know?

I didn't know it myself. Just found out.

0 Replies

I believe you, and if Viacom's owners are intentionally only light skinned, that is wrong. If it just happened that way, then I don't care. BET is intentionally dark skin employing only, which is wrong.

0 Replies

lol @ portal star

'light-skinned'?

0 Replies

What, is white a race? Think about how many ethnic cultures, nations, backrounds, and skin variations this encompases. Irish, Russian, American, Spanish... Think about how many skin colors that is. The skin isn't actually "white." Neither is the skin actually "Black." And people who are not necessarily descendants from the country Africa are considered "black" who have dark skin. There are also drastically different cultural variations within countries and ethnic groups. This is why I refer to it the way it is percieved: Light skinned and dark skinned. You know, melanin, baby.

Who really knows racial backround in America, beyond skin color anyways? I prefer not to group based on skin color, but others do, such as (possibly) Viacom and BET, and many American institutions. It's rascist, and it's wrong.

0 Replies

That's a good point. Any idea they call *us* African Americans, while 'lightskinned' citzens are just called 'Americans'? Do you think that is racist? I do. It's segregationist. From way back.

What you really have are cultured divided by region:
Whites: European
Blacks: Africa
Lightskinned': Asian
Reds: The Americas:Latino/Mexican/American Indian
Darkskinned: Middle East or dead center. Pretty good mix of all colors.

North/South/East/West.

Most colored folk stayed where they come from. Whites, on the otherhand, went all over the place, and so we have what we have now. A world ruled by 'whites'. Europeans, and not lightskinned' people at all.

0 Replies

I heard asians were yellow, YOu don't think the folks like Mongolian Dynasties didn't get around?

0 Replies

soul_doctor73 wrote:

That's a good point. Any idea they call *us* African Americans, while 'lightskinned' citzens are just called 'Americans'? Do you think that is racist? I do. It's segregationist. From way back.

I completely agree with you.

soul_doctor73 wrote:

What you really have are cultured divided by region:
Whites: European
Blacks: Africa
Lightskinned': Asian
Reds: The Americas:Latino/Mexican/American Indian
Darkskinned: Middle East or dead center. Pretty good mix of all colors.

Yes, but when you take a second to think of internal religions, cultures, even visual differences of people living in these countries, the divisions make no sense.

soul_doctor73 wrote:

Most colored folk stayed where they come from. Whites, on the otherhand, went all over the place, and so we have what we have now. A world ruled by 'whites'. Europeans, and not lightskinned' people at all.

I don't know what "Colored" folk are, but the Africans were sent all over the world in the slave trade, as were Native American Indians and Indians at one point in time. Portugal and Spain were essential in "discovering," dividing and conquering the Americas (which were already full of people), although they didn't get to keep
what is now considered north america in the long run.

Not all Europeans did this. Your major "white" ruling countries were Germany, England, Spain (you can call this one either way), and France. There are a lot more dominantly light skinned European countries than those, and the Slaviks (Russia, Bulgaria, etc.), and don't forget the Irish who were discriminated against for nearly as long as ex-slaves were for their catholicism. So no, I wouldn't say the world is ruled by "Whites."
Take a good look at a globe, or here is a good site:

"white" is as much a ridiculous term as "african american" or "black."CIA World Factbook
This doesn't go deep into detail of the country's history, but gives you a general idea.

And "whites" don't rule the world. Take a look at the factbook. There are many other countries besides England, France, and America. Heck, look up Scandiavia, Iceland, Swaziland, cambodia... Nicaragua and Cuba's political histories are doozies.

0 Replies

So: "blinging," flashy cars, sex, ect is what sells on BET, meaning that's what appeals most to it's target audience. Right? However, you don't want them to promote that lifestyle...so...they should promote a new image, because you don't like it? Change the channel, or go start your own black television station that portrays an image any way you like. It's one frickin' tv station, that's been around for a long time.

Whatever. Things like BET promote segregation anyway.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

soul_doctor73 wrote:
That's a good point. Any idea they call *us* African Americans, while 'lightskinned' citzens are just called 'Americans'? Do you think that is racist? I do. It's segregationist. From way back.

I completely agree with you.

soul_doctor73 wrote:

What you really have are cultured divided by region:
Whites: European
Blacks: Africa
Lightskinned': Asian
Reds: The Americas:Latino/Mexican/American Indian
Darkskinned: Middle East or dead center. Pretty good mix of all colors.

Yes, but when you take a second to think of internal religions, cultures, even visual differences of people living in these countries, the divisions make no sense.

soul_doctor73 wrote:

Most colored folk stayed where they come from. Whites, on the otherhand, went all over the place, and so we have what we have now. A world ruled by 'whites'. Europeans, and not lightskinned' people at all.

I don't know what "Colored" folk are, but the Africans were sent all over the world in the slave trade, as were Native American Indians and Indians at one point in time. Portugal and Spain were essential in "discovering," dividing and conquering the Americas (which were already full of people), although they didn't get to keep
what is now considered north america in the long run.

Not all Europeans did this. Your major "white" ruling countries were Germany, England, Spain (you can call this one either way), and France. There are a lot more dominantly light skinned European countries than those, and the Slaviks (Russia, Bulgaria, etc.), and don't forget the Irish who were discriminated against for nearly as long as ex-slaves were for their catholicism. So no, I wouldn't say the world is ruled by "Whites."
Take a good look at a globe, or here is a good site:

"white" is as much a ridiculous term as "african american" or "black."CIA World Factbook
This doesn't go deep into detail of the country's history, but gives you a general idea.

And "whites" don't rule the world. Take a look at the factbook. There are many other countries besides England, France, and America. Heck, look up Scandiavia, Iceland, Swaziland, cambodia... Nicaragua and Cuba's political histories are doozies.

You forgot Ancient Rome. Smile

As for ruling capacity, American weilds the greatest bulk, and the president is seen as the 'leader of the free world'. Now I see that as a ruler. I see that the countries that fall under America in order of relevance have white leaders too.

You are also correct about the slave trade, mainly in that where you find blacks and other dark-skinned non-whites, they have been transported there. Every where whites have gone, they have overpowered the natives and claimed the land for themselves. That is what happened here in America. It happened in Australia and many other places.

The point is, whites are the power rulers. Our world was shaped by white leadership. Simple as that. Many of the problems we suffer from today are the results.

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

So: "blinging," flashy cars, sex, ect is what sells on BET, meaning that's what appeals most to it's target audience. Right? However, you don't want them to promote that lifestyle...so...they should promote a new image, because you don't like it? Change the channel, or go start your own black television station that portrays an image any way you like. It's one frickin' tv station, that's been around for a long time.

Whatever. Things like BET promote segregation anyway.

Sort of like our American power structure.

0 Replies

So move.

0 Replies

Yes, the greeks did have slavery. Their slaves were usually prisoners of war. In the early colonies of America they had indentured servitude, in which people often died. The Egyptians had slaves who built their palaces and pyramids. In parts of India and Africa they do things that enslave thier women. Do you consider them "white"? If so, why? Did you know that there was a slave trade between tribes of Africa before Europe got involved, and the African Tribes sold the men of other tribes to the Europeans?

soul_doctor73 wrote:

The point is, whites are the power rulers. Our world was shaped by white leadership. Simple as that. Many of the problems we suffer from today are the results.

Aren't you being rascist by summing up a power structure you dislike into a skin tone? When you say "white" that refers to a lot of people. It's just as rascist as "black." Don't polarize white and black and make stereyotypes about good and evil, power and lack thereof. People have problems for all kinds of reasons, in all different places. Lumping people's problems into into their skin colors is an incorrect simplistic way of looking at the world.
Rely on facts, not abstract unfounded generalizations. Back up your thoughts and statements with facts, with examples. Be logical.

I think the US is one of the best places to live in the world right now, for a number of reasons. My allowed dissent and disagreement with many actions of the government is evidence of this. I can't say if it will still hold more personal liberties for me in the future, but right now I feel very lucky to have been born in this time period under this system. I'm sure this is somthing you can identify with - as a woman, I would not have had much choice about what to do with my life before this decade, or in most other countries. But I didn't live then and don't harp on the past, I study the past, and focus on the future.

May I also ask why you "love the black people?" Have you met all of the people who are dark skinned in the world? Do you love only people with dark skin and not other people? What do you think of the statement "I love the white people?" or, "I love the purple people?" or "I love the Brown people?" As if all members of a group were lovable because their skin had a certain pigmentation. Are those not equally strange?

0 Replies

Just a typical attitude of a lot of people to blame their problems on how (they think) society limits them. It's a loser's way of looking at things.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Yes, the greeks did have slavery. Their slaves were usually prisoners of war. In the early colonies of America they had indentured servitude, in which people often died. The Egyptians had slaves who built their palaces and pyramids. In parts of India and Africa they do things that enslave thier women. Do you consider them "white"? If so, why? Did you know that there was a slave trade between tribes of Africa before Europe got involved, and the African Tribes sold the men of other tribes to the Europeans?

Now we engauge in dialogue instead of snippets of tort remarks. Yes, I am well aware of all of the above, I am somewhat enthused by your knowledge of them. Before the europeans got involved, even slaves where treated like people and not animals. This is the stigma of european slave owners and traders, not African or Egytpian or any other race or nationality. In this day and age, every single person who must work for money is a slave, in my opinion. It just so happens that 'whites' corner the modern market.

Quote:

Aren't you being rascist by summing up a power structure you dislike into a skin tone? When you say "white" that refers to a lot of people. It's just as rascist as "black." Don't polarize white and black and make stereyotypes about good and evil, power and lack thereof. People have problems for all kinds of reasons, in all different places. Lumping people's problems into into their skin colors is an incorrect simplistic way of looking at the world. Rely on facts, not abstract unfounded generalizations. Back up your thoughts and statements with facts, with examples. Be logical.

Yes, it is somewhat racist, but it is useful to simplify the subject of my argument. I say 'whites' and 'blacks' because that is the mentality now. I am black, and these are terms I grew up with. I call everyone else Mexican or Hatian or Cuban or Jamaican because that is what *they* are. We black americans aren't really 'americans' but 'AFRICAN' Americans. Whereas 'European' Americans are simply 'Americans'. It is not the power structure I devised, I am just using what was presented to me.

Quote:

I think the US is one of the best places to live in the world right now, for a number of reasons. My allowed dissent and disagreement with many actions of the government is evidence of this. I can't say if it will still hold more personal liberties for me in the future, but right now I feel very lucky to have been born in this time period under this system. I'm sure this is somthing you can identify with - as a woman, I would not have had much choice about what to do with my life before this decade, or in most other countries. But I didn't live then and don't harp on the past, I study the past, and focus on the future.

This is where we find most of our agreement and from this we can build a lasting friendship based on understanding. Though black and male, I do not orient myself based on appearances. Skin color qualifies as an 'appearance', as it is something that one 'sees'. My focus on 'blacks' is because, as of today, 'black americans' are the decendants of slaves, and as such, are united by reason of being 'americans' at all. Black americans suffer the most from need and enjoy prosperity the least as minorities simply because they are black. Just as women suffered oppression for centuries simply because they were women. My entire point, and the goal of my effort is to remove the pretense of appearances, and unite black americans in a common goal: Spiritual Unity.

Quote:

May I also ask why you "love the black people?" Have you met all of the people who are dark skinned in the world? Do you love only people with dark skin and not other people? What do you think of the statement "I love the white people?" or, "I love the purple people?" or "I love the Brown people?" As if all members of a group were lovable because their skin had a certain pigmentation. Are those not equally strange?

I said I love 'my people'. And my people have no color. My people suffer because they need money, because they are obligated to work for their entire lives for basic necessities, because there is no equality in justice or life because of disproportionate wealth. *My* 'people' have no 'color'. They have problems like poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

Now, it is true that a large percentage of those suffering from these problems are black, and that is no coincidence considering the power structure I mentioned. This is the only way I *can* look at the world, because this is the way the world is.

0 Replies

soul_doctor73 wrote:

Now we engauge in dialogue instead of snippets of tort remarks. Yes, I am well aware of all of the above, I am somewhat enthused by your knowledge of them. Before the europeans got involved, even slaves where treated like people and not animals. This is the stigma of european slave owners and traders, not African or Egytpian or any other race or nationality. In this day and age, every single person who must work for money is a slave, in my opinion. It just so happens that 'whites' corner the modern market.

" Before the europeans got involved, even slaves where treated like people and not animals." Completely untrue. I don't know where you got this information. Read more history. "In this day and age, every single person who must work for money is a slave, in my opinion." That's the same as saying everyone who has to gather food to eat is a slave. I have freedom of what I want to work at, movement (where I live), marriage (who I want to reproduce with), religion, education, and I can own property. These are the things the former African American slaves agreed would make them total free men, once they had Property, freedom of movement, and education.
(note that I say African Americans for slaves and recent ex-slaves, because they were brought directly from Africa, and were not American citizens [or were sort of 3/5 of one].)

soul_doctor73 wrote:

Yes, it is somewhat racist, but it is useful to simplify the subject of my argument. I say 'whites' and 'blacks' because that is the mentality now. I am black, and these are terms I grew up with. I call everyone else Mexican or Hatian or Cuban or Jamaican because that is what *they* are. We black americans aren't really 'americans' but 'AFRICAN' Americans. Whereas 'European' Americans are simply 'Americans'. It is not the power structure I devised, I am just using what was presented to me.

"I say 'whites' and 'blacks' because that is the mentality now." Does that make it the correct mentality? Do you wnat to help perpetuate this mentality? "Black Americans" are Americans, you have equal rights as a citizen, and in many cases more than equal because of guilt still left over from the civil rights movement (i.e. affirmative action). Not all "black" men are from Africa in origin. What if a man lives 6 generations in london, and moves to America? People still call him "African American." This is a result of the black nationalist movement started by Malcolm X and the nation of islam- they tried to tie men with dark skin to Africa as a way of arguing they should have rights in America - sort of like diplomacy. This way the dark skinned people of America who were at the time being discrimiated against could claim they had rights under African law. Why would you want to be African, when you are not necessarily from Africa and are given more than equal rights in America as an American? Does your skin color really prevent you as a person (not your ancestors) from being an American citizen?

soul_doctor73 wrote:

This is where we find most of our agreement and from this we can build a lasting friendship based on understanding. Though black and male, I do not orient myself based on appearances. Skin color qualifies as an 'appearance', as it is something that one 'sees'. My focus on 'blacks' is because, as of today, 'black americans' are the decendants of slaves, and as such, are united by reason of being 'americans' at all. Black americans suffer the most from need and enjoy prosperity the least as minorities simply because they are black. Just as women suffered oppression for centuries simply because they were women. My entire point, and the goal of my effort is to remove the pretense of appearances, and unite black americans in a common goal: Spiritual Unity.

"My focus on 'blacks' is because, as of today, 'black americans' are the decendants of slaves, and as such, are united by reason of being 'americans' at all." You are not your ancestors. I am not my ancestors. I do not feel this is a valid argument.
"Black americans suffer the most from need and enjoy prosperity the least as minorities simply because they are black." This is an unfounded argument. I want to see data in comparison to other things. According to census and national laws that I have seen, I feel you are incorrect in this assumption. There is nothing preventing a person in America from things because of their skin tone, except for recently re-accepted affirmative action (which is rascist.)

I can't say spiritual unity is a goal I would want, being a firm agnostic. I prefer independent thought.

soul_doctor73 wrote:

I said I love 'my people'. And my people have no color. My people suffer because they need money, because they are obligated to work for their entire lives for basic necessities, because there is no equality in justice or life because of disproportionate wealth. *My* 'people' have no 'color'. They have problems like poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

Then you are focusing on the wrong groups, man. Look around the world. The American people who have dark skin are not where you need to be focusing your efforts. Take a look at the poor of Africa, Russia, India. Brutal forced female circumcision rituals. What about the caste system in India? The untouchables? What about prisoners of war? Think bigger.

soul_doctor73 wrote:

Now, it is true that a large percentage of those suffering from these problems are black, and that is no coincidence considering the power structure I mentioned. This is the only way I *can* look at the world, because this is the way the world is.

No, it's not. You need to do some more looking. The largest percentage of poor uneducated people in America lies in it's "trailer trash" the rural, mostly "white" communities. You were probably raised thinking these thoughts, probably in a community who fought hard for civil rights and justly so. Civil rights are equal now, stop fighting a ghost war for your ancestors and people of the past. Help things that need helping. Educate the uneducated, give medical care to those without... But don't do it discriminately - this makes you one of the bad guys. The poor are the poor. The sick are the sick, The hungry are the hungry. It is unnecessary to tie on generalizations beyond need.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

"Before the europeans got involved, even slaves where treated like people and not animals." Completely untrue. I don't know where you got this information. Read more history. "In this day and age, every single person who must work for money is a slave, in my opinion." That's the same as saying everyone who has to gather food to eat is a slave. I have freedom of what I want to work at, movement (where I live), marriage (who I want to reproduce with), religion, education, and I can own property. These are the things the former African American slaves agreed would make them total free men, once they had Property, freedom of movement, and education.
(note that I say African Americans for slaves and recent ex-slaves, because they were brought directly from Africa, and were not American citizens [or were sort of 3/5 of one].)

Which is exactly what a materialist point of view will give you. Now if you were not so 'lucky' to have such opportunity, I do not believe you would be so quict to list your 'freedoms'. Not everyone has the same 'freedoms' that you perceive yourself to have. Lose your money, lose your life, then speak to me of freedom.

Also, you said: 'These are the things the former African American slaves agreed would make them total free men, once they had Property, freedom of movement, and education.'

Agreed? When did we negotiate? Once we 'had' property? And education?Obtained *how*? Maybe you see many shades of gray here, but I do not.

Quote:

"I say 'whites' and 'blacks' because that is the mentality now." Does that make it the correct mentality? Do you wnat to help perpetuate this mentality? "Black Americans" are Americans, you have equal rights as a citizen, and in many cases more than equal because of guilt still left over from the civil rights movement (i.e. affirmative action). Not all "black" men are from Africa in origin. What if a man lives 6 generations in london, and moves to America? People still call him "African American." This is a result of the black nationalist movement started by Malcolm X and the nation of islam- they tried to tie men with dark skin to Africa as a way of arguing they should have rights in America - sort of like diplomacy. This way the dark skinned people of America who were at the time being discrimiated against could claim they had rights under African law. Why would you want to be African, when you are not necessarily from Africa and are given more than equal rights in America as an American? Does your skin color really prevent you as a person (not your ancestors) from being an American citizen?

Do I want to help perpetuate the mentality? DO I need to help? Are you suggesting that if I used your advice, that everyone else's mentality will change to match it? That, of a sudden, the mentality will no longer be a reality of our society? The semantics you argue are based upon the pretense of all thing being equal. They are not. Don't fool yourself.

Quote:

"My focus on 'blacks' is because, as of today, 'black americans' are the decendants of slaves, and as such, are united by reason of being 'americans' at all." You are not your ancestors. I am not my ancestors. I do not feel this is a valid argument.
"Black americans suffer the most from need and enjoy prosperity the least as minorities simply because they are black." This is an unfounded argument. I want to see data in comparison to other things. According to census and national laws that I have seen, I feel you are incorrect in this assumption. There is nothing preventing a person in America from things because of their skin tone, except for recently re-accepted affirmative action (which is rascist.)

I agree with you, affirmative action is racist. But who came up with it? Who made it law? Not blacks. Now, have you ever seen a 'ghetto'? Do you know why it is a 'ghetto'? The people who live there can tell you. Have you ever lived in a ghetto? Have you ever suffered poverty? Have you ever had to go without, having been born into poverty, before realizing as you grew older that everyone *didn't* live the way you did? There are people who haven't the slightest clue what going to bed starving is like. Maybe you've never been there, but I have. And I know there are people living like that now, and being born into it every day. So I'd rather not debate semantics with you.

Quote:

I can't say spiritual unity is a goal I would want, being a firm agnostic. I prefer independent thought. Then you are focusing on the wrong groups, man. Look around the world. The American people who have dark skin are not where you need to be focusing your efforts. Take a look at the poor of Africa, Russia, India. Brutal forced female circumcision rituals. What about the caste system in India? The untouchables? What about prisoners of war? Think bigger.

Thinking such as this is the very reason why these things exist. What, is African poverty worse than American poverty? Are indian women more worthy of attention than African women? Is ritual religion somehow different from orthodox? The poor of russia are the result of russian policy. The poor of India are the result of Indian policy. The black american poor are the result of american policy. Notice the similarities? The sufferers suffer because of leadership, and the indifferent people who segregate between 'good' poverty and 'bad' poverty.

Quote:

No, it's not. You need to do some more looking. The largest percentage of poor uneducated people in America lies in it's "trailer trash" the rural, mostly "white" communities. You were probably raised thinking these thoughts, probably in a community who fought hard for civil rights and justly so. Civil rights are equal now, stop fighting a ghost war for your ancestors and people of the past. Help things that need helping. Educate the uneducated, give medical care to those without... But don't do it discriminately - this makes you one of the bad guys. The poor are the poor. The sick are the sick, The hungry are the hungry. It is unnecessary to tie on generalizations beyond need.

'Educate the uneducated'. This is exactly what I do. But did you notice it was you who put 'color' in 'trash'. I didn't specify skin tone, I specified living conditions. Trailer trash are people too. And 'civil' 'rights' are an afterthought for something that should have been present from the beggining. But it wasn't. The American constitution is a testment to their prejudice in policy and leadership. The document was written with an exclusive race in mind, andonly modified to include others, namely former non-white slaves.

As for generalizations, the poor are the poor, which is why they are colorless. But if there was something of spiritual unity, then there would be no poor because you wouldn't let your family go hungry would you? But since you are agnostic, and of independant thought, they are not *your* family.

The leaders of the world must be agnostic. Certainly they are 'independent thinkers' too, according to you.

0 Replies

1. sure, I'm a materialist. It's a material world, I require physical things for sustinance. "Lose your money, lose your life, then speak to me of freedom." I couldn't, because I would be dead. I don't know what answer you are looking for here. Liberty means not being dead? Anyway, I could probably survive in the wild because I know which plants are edible, how to collect water, and I can shoot.

2. Read the Autobiograpy of Frederic Douglass Frederic Douglass, or The Classic Slave Narrativesclassic slave narratives. Self-educated African Americans were a large part of the ani-slavery movement. For a short time after the civil war, African Americans were granted property by the gov't, but this was short lived. There were many free African Americans in the North (and about 14 in the south) long beofre the civil war. Part of what caused a rebirth in segregation after the civil war was the conflict caused by former slaves heading north willing to work factory jobs for less - leading to the unemployment of many immigrants. These immigrants found unity in their anger against African Americans, and things like mmm (what's the word? Bamboozled was about it... Theatre making fun of African Americans) became popular again.

3. "Do I want to help perpetuate the mentality? DO I need to help? Are you suggesting that if I used your advice, that everyone else's mentality will change to match it? That, of a sudden, the mentality will no longer be a reality of our society? The semantics you argue are based upon the pretense of all thing being equal. They are not. Don't fool yourself."

The most surefire way to change the world is to change yourself. Don't be part of the problem. Make a difference in -your- life. and in the lives of people you come into contact with.

4. "I agree with you, affirmative action is racist. But who came up with it? Who made it law? Not blacks. Now, have you ever seen a 'ghetto'? Do you know why it is a 'ghetto'? The people who live there can tell you. Have you ever lived in a ghetto? Have you ever suffered poverty? Have you ever had to go without, having been born into poverty, before realizing as you grew older that everyone *didn't* live the way you did? There are people who haven't the slightest clue what going to bed starving is like. Maybe you've never been there, but I have. And I know there are people living like that now, and being born into it every day. So I'd rather not debate semantics with you."

Again, black people aren't the only people who have lived in "ghettos". My ancestors did, and many european ancestors did (look up "the industral revolution"). Sure, there are starving people. But they aren't all "black," nor are most of them, which is the problem with your argument. Having dark skin is not synonomous with poverty or living in bad conditions, although many people with dark skin do, it is not a symptom of having dark skin. Nor is a life of ease a symptom of having light skin. You are simplifying world problems into a 70's equal rights movement mentality.

Sure, affirmative action is rascist and wrong. Again, don't care who made it, it's wrong. Interesting to hear you agree with me on that.

5. "Thinking such as this is the very reason why these things exist. What, is African poverty worse than American poverty? Are indian women more worthy of attention than African women? Is ritual religion somehow different from orthodox? The poor of russia are the result of russian policy. The poor of India are the result of Indian policy. The black american poor are the result of american policy. Notice the similarities? The sufferers suffer because of leadership, and the indifferent people who segregate between 'good' poverty and 'bad' poverty."

Yes, African poverty is far worse than American poverty. Look it up in that CIA link I gave you. They have many more starving, many more mutilated people, and the depth of the poverty is more. America has a very low poverty rate compared to most of the world.

Poverty is not always a result of bad leadership. It can be a result of all kinds of problems like: drought, disease, overpopulation, overconsumption, maldistribution, cultural trends, bad economic management, bad weather, etc. Ever heard of the Irish Potato famine? The dust bowl? Socialism started out with good leadership - under Lenin. It's interesting that you mention russia, because their poverty is a result of the cold climate and socialism, which is somthing you seem to believe in.

6.
"'Educate the uneducated'. This is exactly what I do. But did you notice it was you who put 'color' in 'trash'. I didn't specify skin tone, I specified living conditions. Trailer trash are people too. And 'civil' 'rights' are an afterthought for something that should have been present from the beggining. But it wasn't. The American constitution is a testment to their prejudice in policy and leadership. The document was written with an exclusive race in mind, andonly modified to include others, namely former non-white slaves. "
I specified color because you did in the previous statement, saying most poverty in the u.s. was "black" not "white," which I pointed out was untrue.
There were great struggles over the constitution, and there were some antislavery advocates, but the people of America wouldn't have ratified it if it gave slaves or women rights. Think contextually. It has served us well for 200 years, and both you and I have freedom now, so I am pretty happy with it.

"As for generalizations, the poor are the poor, which is why they are colorless. But if there was something of spiritual unity, then there would be no poor because you wouldn't let your family go hungry would you? But since you are agnostic, and of independant thought, they are not *your* family."

Sure, so don't imply color into poverty. Why would I need spirituality to have morals and a social conciousness? That's absurd. Look at the crusades, some good spirituality does. I am agnostic because it is the logical choice, and I have faith in Science and Reason as life living guidelines. If you know enough about science, there are biological advantages to having a good social community, and it makes a person feel good.

"The leaders of the world must be agnostic. Certainly they are 'independent thinkers' too, according to you.[/quote]"

This really doesn't make any sense, 73.

7. Before trying to educate others, make sure you know well your arguments. Read books, they're free at the library. If you can, take classes. Here's a book that seems like it might interest you: The Autobiography of Malcolm X [be sure to read all the way to the end, there is progression] Malcolm X

If you read these books I will be interested in discussing them with you.

0 Replies

Letter To BET

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know