Damn brehs another brother killed by Houston police shot 10 times R.I.P Alva Braziel

thernbroom

thernbroom

Superstar
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
17,021
Reputation
1,705
Daps
44,794
Saw this on my FB today :snoop:

A dictionary definition of Racism: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race.

A dictionary definition of Prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

So, when a non-black police officer shoots a black man and there is public uproar and many groups (not all) define this as a racist incident, without possessing all of the facts of the incident itself, you are not helping the cause against racism, you are part of the problem. ‪#‎blacklivesmatter‬‪#‎alllivesmatter‬ ‪#‎seekthefacts‬ ‪#‎dontbeprejudice‬ ‪#‎theresabetterway‬
Click to expand...
 
Professor Emeritus

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,613
Reputation
19,531
Daps
201,529
Reppin
the ether
Sage said:
I have seen you before,

The agenda here is to keep the "black" docile and feeble, yes. Take heed now, you facking parasite. The "black" community dictates in which manners to go about this matter. Not you, nor any other pretentious "cac". Be grateful about the fact that I'm not one of the moderator in this site - you would have been banished...
Click to expand...

And you called yourself "sage". :lolbron:

I, who have posted on our need to take action STRONGLY for the past year plus, am catching feelings from a newbie.

I, who have actually BEEN on the street in the struggle doing something, am getting flack from an internet warrior. What have you actually done to use violence to further the cause? Where are the news stories?

NO ONE in power wants us actually disrupting the system, opting out of their ways, bringing the kind of force on their heads that MLK brought. The FBI is out there with files a mile long doing everything they can to try to get him to kill himself and possibly having a hand in his assassination, and you call that kind of action, "docile and feeble"? No way you know anything about what the struggle is like.

The feds wanted Martin to fail just as much as they wanted the Panthers to fail. It was just that it was EASY to take the Panthers apart - they were in disarray less than five years after they got founded - and much, much harder to bring Martin down until after he'd changed the entire landscape of America. And the BPP wasn't even a very violent group - they just did the bare minimum that the government needed to justify a massive violent response and get away with it. Violence begets violence - if you're a big violent group, that means tens of thousands or even millions of causalities before you maybe get your objective. If you're a small violent group, it means you just get yourselves wasted.




Vincenzo_Corleone said:
The Indians also VASTLY outnumbered the Brits, so Britain really had no option but to give in. It's not comparable to the plight of AA's at all.
Click to expand...

Which part of the fact that I gave more than a dozen of examples, INCLUDING one involving our own history just 60 years ago, do you not understand?

Yeah, the Indians outnumbering the Brits made it a different situation. But they were trying to win total independence - we don't need to aim as high as they were.

And as I already posted, history shows that violent movements take JUST as many people to succeed as nonviolent movements do. If you can get at least 3.5% of the population actively participating in revolution, you will probably win. It's just WAY harder to get that number with a violent movement, which is why they only succeed half as often.

You think you're going to get 12-15 million Americans taking up arms behind you? Not a chance you'll even get 1% of that. But even if only 20% of the Black community started practicing nonviolent resistance, then we'd already be up to 10 million right there. Add in 5 million from the other communities and we'd change the nation forever.

Ghandi pulled off a similar goal to what we're looking at in South Africa first, starting from even further behind, and they were way outnumbered there. And, of course, examples like our own Civil Rights movement.




Patrick Kane said:
In addition to WWII ending and the British dominance weakening throughout the world, they really couldn't hold on to their colonies anymore. Context matters..
Click to expand...

Nah, you don't have your history straight there. India basically was playing the endgame from 1937 on. WWII actually delayed Indian independence -there was division within the movement, especially during the early years of the war, because a lot of them wanted to support the British war effort as they didn't want the Nazis to win. Gandhi even had them stand down from massive movements in 1940 because it really looked like a combined Germany-Italy-Russia-Japan effort could take out that world, and Japan steaming through India would have been even worse than Britain.

Why did Britain suddenly start losing all of their colonies AFTER Gandhi did what he did? India led the storm, and others had been paying attention. Also, while the other nations (France especially) went to war to keep their colonies, with millions dying in the process, Britain generally just gave theirs up without killing anyone else - likely in large part because of what India had done to them.

This was from the last thread on a similar subject:


Although there were variations of technique and method over time and space, the “name of Gandhi has had repercussions” across Africa.... That Gandhiji’s philosophy and half-a-century long nonviolent and mass-based struggles against racial discrimination in South Africa and against colonial rule in India acted as an inspiration in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa is indicated also by the history of the collapse of colonial rule in various countries in Africa after India attained freedom. African leaders like Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Albert Luthuli, Desmond Tutu, Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, among others, have in some form or another, acknowledged Gandhiji as an inspiration. Even a leader like Joshua Nkomo of Zimbabwe, who found Gandhiji’s methods “not appropriate” to the “special national situation” in his country, nevertheless observes that Gandhiji’s movements were “an inspiration to us, showing that independence need not remain a dream”. [Nkomo (Joshua), The Story of My Life, Methuen, London, 1984, p. 73].

As one writer has put it: “Of all the Asian independence movements, the Indian movement has undoubtedly stirred the imagination of African nationalists the most. And it is not difficult to see why. First, there was the personality of Mahatma Gandhi. The message cabled by the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) on his death expressed the sentiments of all African nationalists, for whom Gandhi was the ‘bearer of the torch of liberty of oppressed peoples’ and whose life had been ‘an inspiration to colonials everywhere’.”

Gandhi’s influence in Africa, such as it was, appeared to cut across nations, races, linguistic areas and religions. Among his most ardent students, for example, was Nigeria’s Aminu Kano. A devout Muslim, Aminu Kano, according to his biographer, “analysed Gandhi’s success in lifting millions of Indians to a high level of dedication and endeavoured to adapt Gandhi’s non-violent techniques to Northern Nigeria”. (Alan Feinstein, African Revolutionary: The Life and Times of Nigeria’s Aminu Kano, Davison Publishing House, Devizes, Wiltshire, 1973, pp. 143-144) Kano came, at least according to one source, to be referred to as the “Gandhi of Nigeria” (Idem). A progressive Muslim, Aminu Kano took several initiatives for social reform.
Click to expand...


I'm not gonna say that Gandhi was the inventor of nonviolent revolution or independence movements. Ya'all are focusing on him WAY too much. There have been dozens of other successful movements in the last century. But he did pull off a massive victory in a time when people (even moreso than now) were mostly unaware of what it could do. Gandhi got to reading the Bible and Tolstoy, and he showed Christians the power of what could happen if they actually acted their faith. You ever been to MLK's birthplace in Atlanta? Like 1/3 of the museum there is dominated by MLK's obsession with Gandhi. MLK was pure Black Baptist living out the Gospel, yet the methods were the same, and they worked in both scenarios and dozens more.
 
@OffHalsted

@OffHalsted

The 100s LochNess
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
17,907
Reputation
1,850
Daps
65,410
Reppin
60628
He fired a few rockets into the air about 5 seconds before police arrived. When they did, he immediately raised his hands air and turned around to show he had no other weapons - with his hands in the air, then out of nowhere the cop unloaded on him.

MaleBigIndianhare-size_restricted.gif


ImpureEducatedFossa-size_restricted.gif


Full sized

Click to expand...
 
S

Sage

Rookie
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
38
Reputation
-50
Daps
8
The Dankster said:
And you called yourself "sage". :lolbron:

I, who have posted on our need to take action STRONGLY for the past year plus, am catching feelings from a newbie.

I, who have actually BEEN on the street in the struggle doing something, am getting flack from an internet warrior. What have you actually done to use violence to further the cause? Where are the news stories?

NO ONE in power wants us actually disrupting the system, opting out of their ways, bringing the kind of force on their heads that MLK brought. The FBI is out there with files a mile long doing everything they can to try to get him to kill himself and possibly having a hand in his assassination, and you call that kind of action, "docile and feeble"? No way you know anything about what the struggle is like.

The feds wanted Martin to fail just as much as they wanted the Panthers to fail. It was just that it was EASY to take the Panthers apart - they were in disarray less than five years after they got founded - and much, much harder to bring Martin down until after he'd changed the entire landscape of America. And the BPP wasn't even a very violent group - they just did the bare minimum that the government needed to justify a massive violent response and get away with it. Violence begets violence - if you're a big violent group, that means tens of thousands or even millions of causalities before you maybe get your objective. If you're a small violent group, it means you just get yourselves wasted.


Which part of the fact that I gave more than a dozen of examples, INCLUDING one involving our own history just 60 years ago, do you not understand?

Yeah, the Indians outnumbering the Brits made it a different situation. But they were trying to win total independence - we don't need to aim as high as they were.

And as I already posted, history shows that violent movements take JUST as many people to succeed as nonviolent movements do. If you can get at least 3.5% of the population actively participating in revolution, you will probably win. It's just WAY harder to get that number with a violent movement, which is why they only succeed half as often.

You think you're going to get 12-15 million Americans taking up arms behind you? Not a chance you'll even get 1% of that. But even if only 20% of the Black community started practicing nonviolent resistance, then we'd already be up to 10 million right there. Add in 5 million from the other communities and we'd change the nation forever.

Ghandi pulled off a similar goal to what we're looking at in South Africa first, starting from even further behind, and they were way outnumbered there. And, of course, examples like our own Civil Rights movement.


Nah, you don't have your history straight there. India basically was playing the endgame from 1937 on. WWII actually delayed Indian independence -there was division within the movement, especially during the early years of the war, because a lot of them wanted to support the British war effort as they didn't want the Nazis to win. Gandhi even had them stand down from massive movements in 1940 because it really looked like a combined Germany-Italy-Russia-Japan effort could take out that world, and Japan steaming through India would have been even worse than Britain.

Why did Britain suddenly start losing all of their colonies AFTER Gandhi did what he did? India led the storm, and others had been paying attention. Also, while the other nations (France especially) went to war to keep their colonies, with millions dying in the process, Britain generally just gave theirs up without killing anyone else - likely in large part because of what India had done to them.

This was from the last thread on a similar subject:


I'm not gonna say that Gandhi was the inventor of nonviolent revolution or independence movements. Ya'all are focusing on him WAY too much. There have been dozens of other successful movements in the last century. But he did pull off a massive victory in a time when people (even moreso than now) were mostly unaware of what it could do. Gandhi got to reading the Bible and Tolstoy, and he showed Christians the power of what could happen if they actually acted their faith. You ever been to MLK's birthplace in Atlanta? Like 1/3 of the museum there is dominated by MLK's obsession with Gandhi. MLK was pure Black Baptist living out the Gospel, yet the methods were the same, and they worked in both scenarios and dozens more.
Click to expand...

Look here, the intent of my input was not so much a invitation to commence a chit-chat with you - a "cac" (I.e. a bloody cockroach). You don't fool me, I see you for what you are, a descendant of evil in disguise. Laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top