Black Culture Discussion Thread

[gotjz]

MLK's movement DID NOT do more for black folks. Don't mistake concessions in exchange for more efficient control with actual victories for those in the struggle to fight this deliberate plight ours.

That's why MLK is so celebrated. So people can be fooled in thinking MLK had any semblance of success. Do you know who we're dealing with here? You think a display brings out some emotion of sympathy and compassion to those without consciousnesses in search of blood, money, and power? The fact is MLK had a weak stance, period.

I think someone here said it in a post a while back, but the nonviolence thing can be equated to the logic of: "Well if I don't eat the lion, then the lion won't eat me".

Panthers were vilified and dismantled so aggressively/swiftly because they were on to something. They made it to the door and we're knocking. Of course the door wasn't being opened, so the tools were being developed to knock the door down. One tends to be more cautious if there's a potential for a shootout while all of the family is home...

 

[Brownstone]

The Panthers did not use guns as a way to out-violence the united states government. 

When viewed in context with their movement it is very clear that they used guns in accordance with self governance. They provided for their own community with social programs, and they were going to protect their own community. While in the context of legacy, I feel not only did the panthers provide a reasonable model to bring blacks out of state-sanctioned poverty, they also provided some of the greatest social commentary we have seen in post civil-rights discussion. That may be "nothing" to you, but I find it quite impressionable.

 

[smangalang]

I'm starting to enjoy the trolls. The info that is dropped in response to their uncle tomfoolery is appreciated.

 

[1982]

Black culture? What's that?!

 

[bradnsu]

 

[gwap]

MLK's movement DID NOT do more for black folks. Don't mistake concessions in exchange for more efficient control with actual victories for those in the struggle to fight this deliberate plight ours.

That's why MLK is so celebrated. So people can be fooled in thinking MLK had any semblance of success. Do you know who we're dealing with here? You think a display brings out some emotion of sympathy and compassion to those without consciousnesses in search of blood, money, and power? The fact is MLK had a weak stance, period.

I think someone here said it in a post a while back, but the nonviolence thing can be equated to the logic of: "Well if I don't eat the lion, then the lion won't eat me".

Panthers were vilified and dismantled so aggressively/swiftly because they were on to something. They made it to the door and we're knocking. Of course the door wasn't being opened, so the tools were being developed to knock the door down. One tends to be more cautious if there's a potential for a shootout while all of the family is home...

i asked for lasting accomplishments that the panthers gave us....

you didn't name a single one....

you just downplay mlk's work for various reasons....

heres a single accomplishment mlk got: desegregation of the memphis  montgomery bus system...

name a lasting accomplishment the panthers made,

and we'll go back and forth until we figure out who did more....i'll wait.

 
The Panthers did not use guns as a way to out-violence the united states government. 

When viewed in context with their movement it is very clear that they used guns in accordance with self governance. They provided for their own community with social programs, and they were going to protect their own community. While in the context of legacy, I feel not only did the panthers provide a reasonable model to bring blacks out of state-sanctioned poverty, they also provided some of the greatest social commentary we have seen in post civil-rights discussion. That may be "nothing" to you, but I find it quite impressionable.

how can guns be used for government and protection without any implication of violence?

would you think armed police officers patrolling an area are an example of non-violent governance?

how about an armed military force securing an area... would that not be implied violence used as a control mechanism?

I'm not saying that violence is always a bad thing. Being armed for self and community protection is a right and is definitely not immoral...

but when your opposition is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT...armed resistance is futile while political resistence is much more powerful.

but again... I ask for the lasting effects the panthers gave us...

because growing up in oakland I can't recall any black panther social programs helping the community

I've benefited more from the civil rights act than the panthers programs....

but i may be wrong and you should enlighten me on the advances they left us.

 

[gwap]

 
I'm starting to enjoy the trolls. The info that is dropped in response to their uncle tomfoolery is appreciated.

calling somebody an "uncle tom" when there is a rational and informative debate going?

willie lynch syndrome and you don't even recognize it.

 

[layziegunts]

We all could have seen that coming from Common months ago. When was the last time he was really conscious and was talking the truth. Years.

Since he want to be all Hollywood and get in the good graces of white supremacy in recent memory. I am none too surprised by that comment.

 

[victor page]

We all could have seen that coming from Common months ago. When was the last time he was really conscious and was talking the truth. Years.

Since he want to be all Hollywood and get in the good graces of white supremacy in recent memory. I am none too surprised by that comment.

It's all by design.

There's always been "rewards" for blacks in the world of entertainment when they choose to push a particular rhetoric. 

Watch that ***** end up a lead character on Empire or some **** next year

 

[tay1]

Quote:

 
The black panthers were not about violence, they were about social programs. Their ideas were transformational, effective, and way ahead of their time.

Heck, if it wasn't for cointelpro, the movement might have spread throughout the nation. 

 
The Panthers did not use guns as a way to out-violence the united states government. 

When viewed in context with their movement it is very clear that they used guns in accordance with self governance. They provided for their own community with social programs, and they were going to protect their own community. While in the context of legacy, I feel not only did the panthers provide a reasonable model to bring blacks out of state-sanctioned poverty, they also provided some of the greatest social commentary we have seen in post civil-rights discussion. That may be "nothing" to you, but I find it quite impressionable.

 
The second amendment = implied violence? But once again, that was not what led to the downfall of the panthers......Infiltration of the organization through illegal cia and fbi operatives were successful in painting them as thugs, and gang members.

They successfully made their voices weak, not only to whites, but to blacks as well. Not through legal tactics, but rather planned propaganda and murder throughout the organization. Planting drugs, making up rumors and then arresting members on those rumors. To say their decision to arm was radical is fair, but arming themselves was rational and legal.

MLK's movement DID NOT do more for black folks. Don't mistake concessions in exchange for more efficient control with actual victories for those in the struggle to fight this deliberate plight ours.

That's why MLK is so celebrated. So people can be fooled in thinking MLK had any semblance of success. Do you know who we're dealing with here? You think a display brings out some emotion of sympathy and compassion to those without consciousnesses in search of blood, money, and power? The fact is MLK had a weak stance, period.

I think someone here said it in a post a while back, but the nonviolence thing can be equated to the logic of: "Well if I don't eat the lion, then the lion won't eat me".

Panthers were vilified and dismantled so aggressively/swiftly because they were on to something. They made it to the door and we're knocking. Of course the door wasn't being opened, so the tools were being developed to knock the door down. One tends to be more cautious if there's a potential for a shootout while all of the family is home...

 
i asked for lasting accomplishments that the panthers gave us....

you didn't name a single one....

you just downplay mlk's work for various reasons....

heres a single accomplishment mlk got: desegregation of the memphis  montgomery bus system...

name a lasting accomplishment the panthers made,

and we'll go back and forth until we figure out who did more....i'll wait.

how can guns be used for government and protection without any implication of violence?

would you think armed police officers patrolling an area are an example of non-violent governance?

how about an armed military force securing an area... would that not be implied violence used as a control mechanism?

I'm not saying that violence is always a bad thing. Being armed for self and community protection is a right and is definitely not immoral...

but when your opposition is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT...armed resistance is futile while political resistence is much more powerful.

but again... I ask for the lasting effects the panthers gave us...

because growing up in oakland I can't recall any black panther social programs helping the community

I've benefited more from the civil rights act than the panthers programs....

but i may be wrong and you should enlighten me on the advances they left us.

Read above carefully bruh, they already answered that question. There were no lasting effects because they didn't exist long enough for them to last. Now, ask yourself why they didn't last?

 

[gwap]

 
Read above carefully bruh, they already answered that question. There were no lasting effects because they didn't exist long enough for them to last. Now, ask yourself why they didn't last?

because a non-violent and more popular movement was able to permeate more of american society than a shorter lived violent form of resistance that did not permeate society...

it was easier for the police to barge into black panther offices and have a shootout than it was to eliminate non violent protestors....

they did not answer the question at all... they dodged the question i asked about lasting changes...

you answered it by saying there were none..

this realization is something they want to overlook because it contradicts there position that "the black panthers did more for blacks than MLK"

the panthers had a powerful idea... just not a practical one.

 

[tay1]

 
because a non-violent and more popular movement was able to permeate more of american society than a shorter lived violent form of resistance that did not permeate society...

it was easier for the police to barge into black panther offices and have a shootout than it was to eliminate non violent protestors....

they did not answer the question at all... they dodged the question i asked about lasting changes...

you answered it by saying there were none..

this realization is something they want to overlook because it contradicts there position that "the black panthers did more for blacks than MLK"

the panthers had a powerful idea... just not a practical one.

It wasn't just police. It was CIA. If you can't understand that importance on the destruction of the Panthers, then we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[krystyles26]

 
because a non-violent and more popular movement was able to permeate more of american society than a shorter lived violent form of resistance that did not permeate society...

it was easier for the police to barge into black panther offices and have a shootout than it was to eliminate non violent protestors....

they did not answer the question at all... they dodged the question i asked about lasting changes...

you answered it by saying there were none..

this realization is something they want to overlook because it contradicts there position that "the black panthers did more for blacks than MLK"

the panthers had a powerful idea... just not a practical one.

Popularity SMH. The reason why white america and comfortable blacks praise the non violent movements is because there was no resistance to make ppl feel uncomfortable. With the black panther movement for a short time, before infiltration by the CIA, blacks were more sufficient and dedicated into improving their communities, PROTECTING( there is a difference between protection and violence) their communities and practiced group economics. The media produced propaganda that created a negative image to scare whites and make them seem thuggish. If you cant see through that propaganda, i dont know what to tell you and we gone have to agree to disagree like @tay1

 

[gwap]

 Popularity SMH. The reason why white america and comfortable blacks praise the non violent movements is because there was no resistance to make ppl feel uncomfortable. With the black panther movement for a short time, before infiltration by the CIA, blacks were more sufficient and dedicated into improving their communities, PROTECTING( there is a difference between protection and violence) their communities and practiced group economics. The media produced propaganda that created a negative image to scare whites and make them seem thuggish. If you cant see through that propaganda, i dont know what to tell you and we gone have to agree to disagree like @tay1

what are you talking about?

this has nothing to do with being influenced by propaganda...

this is a debate on violent vs non-violent movements and which made more progress....

you guys have already conceded that the black panthers didn't make lasting changes....what else is there to discuss?

we all know about cointel pro... we all know about the iran-contra affair... we know about cia/fbi infiltration...

but all in all... MLK had a more successful movement 

just because you like the panther ideology more and you feel it is a better approach doesn't mean anything because movement was a failure.

It wasn't just police. It was CIA. If you can't understand that importance on the destruction of the Panthers, then we'll just agree to disagree.

the cia infiltration is not being debated...the importance of the destruction of the panthers is not being debated...

non violent movement success vs. violent/militant movement success is the topic... 

the panthers could have had the same social programs without militancy and it would have lasted much longer imo.

 

[krystyles26]

 
what are you talking about?

this has nothing to do with being influenced by propaganda...

this is a debate on violent vs non-violent movements and which made more progress....

you guys have already conceded that the black panthers didn't make lasting changes....what else is there to discuss?

we all know about cointel pro... we all know about the iran-contra affair... we know about cia/fbi infiltration...

but all in all... MLK had a more successful movement 

just because you like the panther ideology more and you feel it is a better approach doesn't mean anything because movement was a failure.

the cia infiltration is not being debated...the importance of the destruction of the panthers is not being debated...

non violent movement success vs. violent/militant movement success is the topic... 

the panthers could have had the same social programs without militancy and it would have lasted much longer imo.

u dont get it im done

 

[victor page]

 
u dont get it im done

He's been doing this for the entire thread.

Son adds NOTHING to thread. Absolutely NOTHING.

I don't see him contributing anything other than nitpicking or trying to discredit what someone else posts.

 

[Quincy McCall]

Dude's really here trying to discredit the panthers smh

 

[luckyluchiano]

Dude's really here trying to discredit the panthers smh

It's wild Mods let Trolls run rampant in here, yet I`m banned from the Fitness Thread and Android thread for disagreeing with people LOL

 

[gwap]

 
Dude's really here trying to discredit the panthers smh

im just asking for what the panthers accomplished.....

and saying that i feel mlk accomplished more.... 

if that is "discrediting" then just name the accomplishments I'm missing and that knowledge will change my view.

I'm born and raised in oakland, my family has seen the panthers grow and fall firsthand.

My pops used to play chess with huey throughout this time.

My view of the panthers has always been that they are the pinnacle of the opposition of white oppression

I held this view until I started to see more of the world and actually realized just how governments, communities, and racial dynamics works in reality.

anybody who claims the black panthers were more successful than mlk should back that up with accomplishments....

Thats all i ask... but nobody is naming anything?

why?

why attack me as a person instead of just saying "well the panthers put these programs in place and they provided us with these results that we can see today"

??

 

[gwap]

 

Dude's really here trying to discredit the panthers smh

It's wild Mods let Trolls run rampant in here, yet I`m banned from the Fitness Thread and Android thread for disagreeing with people LOL

opposite opinions =/= troll

stop trying to willie lynch every black person who doesn 't have the same viewpoint as you

 

[smangalang]

It's wild Mods let Trolls run rampant in here, yet I`m banned from the Fitness Thread and Android thread for disagreeing with people LOL

If we were more "diverse" in here there might be more/better policing. Honestly I'm surprised we haven't been shut down due to the general indifference to the "plight" of homosexuals. They don't love us mane.

 

 

[bradnsu]

opposite opinions =/= troll

stop trying to willie lynch every black person who doesn 't have the same viewpoint as you

This guy's problem seems like he doesn't put race 1st & he wants BLACK FOLKS to take care of "ALL PEOPLES" issues instead of our own & that is poisonous to progress....

 

[Maximus Meridius]

What in the hell is Common talking about?


Saying WE need to show love to white people... That's like a girl that's being raped saying please love and accept me to her abuser. Never thought Common was one of those type of dudes. I knew he was always on some peaceful **** but this?

 

[John00]

What in the hell is Common talking about?


Saying WE need to show love to white people... That's like a girl that's being raped saying please love and accept me to her abuser. Never thought Common was one of those type of dudes.

Common has lost it. I don't know what he's talking about.

 

[smangalang]

What in the hell is Common talking about?


Saying WE need to show love to white people... That's like a girl that's being raped saying please love and accept me to her abuser. Never thought Common was one of those type of dudes. I knew he was always on some peaceful **** but this?

Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome is real out here.