Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Inspiration in the new year of 2013

From what I've read Israel has more of the "welfare state" than does the USA. That is an accomplishment. Too bad America doesn't have it. Still, wrong is wrong. And what was done to those Ethiopian women was wrong. Hey, I'm an admirer of Scandinavian social democracy, as was both Martin L. King and post-Mecca Malcolm X. I wish our system in America was more like it. But if I hear they're abusing immigrants (regardless of the race of those immigrants), then I'm going call them on it. 



The "western media" didn't transport Ethiopian Jews to Israel, nor did that media impose involuntary birth control on Ethiopian women. There's no getting around it. What happened to these women was WRONG. And if you either justify it, then it is you who are guilty of hypocrisy. That the USA has done similar and even worse things don't justify what happened in Israel. If we've learned nothing else from the history of the USA, UK, France and Israel, it is that simply having a democratic state and constitution is (though indispensable)no guarantee against social wrongs and injustices---not even a guarantee against abominations. Ask the survivors of the "trail of tears" who were nearly destroyed in "democratic " America. No unqualified support should be given to any government. Obviously not to a dictatorship, but also not to a republic. Wrong is wrong. Justice is for all or it is for none

I know for a fact that such sterilizations of Black women have happened in the USA. My sister (who knows Spanish) first allerted me years ago to the sterilizations of women in Puerto Rico under US hegemony. I find this abominable; not only when it is done to my black "sistas" , but also when it is done to Puerto Ricans. (Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that such actions have already been done to Mexican or other Latin immigrants. In fact, euthanasia has even been used on poor whites. It is the contempt for human rights and dignity, whether on grounds of race or class or whatever, that disturbs me)



I love it wrote:
Don't play dumb. Anyone that well date a thug does not think to much of herself. So why should I want a women that well lower herself to be with a man like this.
I wasn't playing dumb kiddo, I was just exposing your hypocrisy!

You claimed that you don't bother with people who live in the past but yet on the other-hand, a woman's dating history is seems to be extremely important to you...


-The Revolutionist


rEAL Black wrote:
why can't your black women keep there hands off white me
Maybe for the same reason that your women cannot keep their hands off of BM, and remember that there are 3 times more WW with BM than there are BW with WM so if anyone can't keep their hands to themselves it is WW!!!

Not that I am into IR dating, but it looks like whites are finally admitting to themselves that blacks are much sexier than whites.

-The Revolutionist


LMAO wrote:
Just so you racists know, DEMOCRATS were the party of SLAVERY and against CIVIL RIGHTS. Learn your history. Republicans fought and BLED for you. You have been brain washed and are STILL being used by the racially fueled LEFT.
But in those days the Republicans were the most LIBERAL of the two parties. The CONSERVATIVE party--the party that sought to CONSERVE the status quo--were (at least in the South) the Democrats.
But that was a long time ago. By at least the 1930s, non-Southern Democrats like FDR began to move the Dems to the left.
Southern Democrats, however, remained as reactionary as ever. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in winning over the increasingly liberal Northern Democrats during the Kennedy/Johnson years.
Meanwhile, right wing Northern Repubicans allied with rightwing Dixiecrat segregationists.
For awhile you had liberal and moderate Dems and Reps leaning in favor of civil rights, and right wing Dems and Reps opposed.
But Barry Goldwater made the big push to move the Republicans toward the Right, and against Civil Rights. Already he drew in some o fthe disgruntled Dixiecrats.
Nixon, with his Southern strategy, intentionally appealed to racist sentiments of Dixiecrats to draw them into the Republican Party.
I guess that's why the South is so deeply Republican when it used to be Democrat. And also why Blacks are so overwhelmingly Democrat even though they used to be overwhelmingly Republican.
History's a bitch. Shyt happens.
In the 16th Century the Anabaptists were the most radical or "left" stream within Christianity. Today they (Baptists) are relatively conservative.
The once liberal Republicans are now reactionaries. The once reactionary Democrats are now liberal.
Obviously, the details are more complex. But I think I got the general picture right.



Unique2 wrote:

"I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome while trying to succeed."- Booker T. Washington
TRUE. Being able to adapt is a good way to measure the strength of a PPL. But hardships are usually due too bad decisions or unfortunate circumstances. Our ancestors struggle was due unfortunate circumstances. Had our ancestors came to America & reached the same level of success without racism, I wouldn't view them as less superior. The key behind success is being talented & gifted. Some PPL are indeed more gifted than others but many also do not utilize their gifts, maybe it's because they rather settle for less.

I do believe many of us as a PPL are not willing to settle which explain the civil rights movement & other movements we've had. Some of us have became a little too comfortable tho & thus we have became stuck. We could definitely be doing better because the talent, gift & being able to adapt is all there.



Much love to my black brothers and sisters from other cultures. I will say that even though the western media paints a very negative picture of you all, I am absolutely pleased with the intelligence some of you all exhibit.

I have been to various African countries and enjoyed them as well.

The western media definitely doesn't do you guys justice. The people I met in Africa were very nice and welcoming just like AAs , and the women were beautiful and submissive.

Also to my western black family, you are intelligent men and women and we AAs enjoy your company.

-Agent Smith 9

Toni wrote:
i guess thats why Martin Luther King attended communist courses.its because he was liberal lololololol
"Communist courses"? What are you talking about? Is this kind of like those old rumors about Obama being a "Muslim Communist" from Kenya?

We know that Dr. King's basic philosophical position was Personalism, which is a species of philosophical idealism. But Communism (at least in its Marxist-Leninist form) is a kind of MATERIALISM.
Can you explain how King could have held both positions? He was educated in Philosophy, and so he couldn't have missed the contradiction between these two philosophical perspectives.
In fact, he makes a CRITIQUE of communism in STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM and STRENGTH TO LOVE, and he makes this critique from the standpoint of his own philosophical idealism.
How did you miss that critique when you read King's writings? Unless, of course, you think that Dr. King was a Christian communist then you make no sense.



And many AA's are having the same success as our white counterparts despite our History vs their own in America because no one is more or less superior as far as being able to obtain a degree.

Adaption is NOT bad. If one cannot adapt, their chances of survival deceases. We see the benefits of adaption when we look at The Indians vs The Africans. Obviously The African PPL adapt both physically and mentally otherwise the civil rights movement would have never occurred and physically we would have decreased in numbers.



ProBlackfistModerator4 hours ago
Now,we got spanish people working for the kkk and the racist nazi's.
This is just as bad a brainwashed,slave minded black thugs pulling triggers and robbing other poor'
black people in the hood.

tracy smithModerator3 hours agoin reply to Colton Phillips
No,black people are to happy with their jobs,cars homes and all the other material garbage they have to be concerned about helping and supporting other BLACK.Black people feel now that because their able to hang with date and marry whites that there's nothing else to stand up and fight for.In other words, most black people think they have already reached the promise land,what ever the hell that is.

freelancepimpModerator10 hours ago
Black people, it might be time to reconsider banning assault weapons. 

CourtneyRModerator7 hours agoin reply to freelancepimp
no one is giving up their assaults. if the good ole boys arent. no one else is. thats for sure..

Tishawn FortnerModerator2 hours ago
Whats the surprise here?Hispanics are on their job.No use crying about any of this.Hispanics hating Blacks is old news!
Our Black leaders know this and still they refuse to do anything other than get on tv after a Black person is gunned down by a police officer.This is our own fault for not loving ourselves more and fighting for better conditions and jobs.Now its too late and Hispanics know with their power a Black is the least of their concerns.
It really does no good to go around hating all Hispanics in general.Thats like hating all Whites, Asians or anybody else.All we can do is pull together as a community to try to stop these things..but truthfully without proper guidance from out leaders its not gonna work.You cant have Pookie and Ray Ray from the hood trying to solve all of this.All that does is cause more innocent people from all race groups to become more injured.
We have to think smart, not overly emotional!


chocolatecitycomModerator3 hours agoin reply to BlackHeywood
Well...yes...many who live there already know. You have to remember if a black person is not poor or in low income/working areas they don't know that this stuff happens...or believe.
I remember when LA Times ran the article about race crimes and that 88 % of hate crimes against blacks were by Latinos...and 40% reverse. And they ran that picture of the little 7 year old black girl who was shot and her chest was cut open...it made me cry to see that..... her and her mom lived in one of the projects out there and was told blacks were not allowed. So, we back to that...60 s all over. These blk politicians need there allies(for votes) so they can't do or say nothing. You have to do what's best for you...and that's probably just move....cause the fight..LOL is gonna get you locked up for the rest of your life and that's about it.


Some Considerations RE: {San}Quentin on the QT's 'Django'

IMO Holly-weird only released 'Django' in combo w 'Lincoln' to 'balance' it off. More supposedly historically astute movie-goers can go see the allegedly more 'hisorical' [& serious] 'Lincoln' - which IMO makes 'Lincoln' more insidious than the more obviously non-historical 'Django'. IMO 'Lincoln' which will likely all but sweep the Ocars [IMO only the best-supporting actor spot is a toss-up between "Lincoln's" Tommy Lee Jones, & 'Django's" real-star- Christolph Waltz -&- the CIA pro-torture propaganda film '0-Dark-30's" main character will likely get best actress- otherwise 'Lincoln' will likely win every other major Oscar], perpetuates the myth that the North fought the Civil War to free the slaves [NO it was fought to 'Save the Union' - Lincoln used the emancipation of slavery card as his 'Ace in the Hole'] & that Lincoln was an abolitionist [he most definitely was NOT] & he authored the 13th amendment [NO it was the brain-child of abolitionists like Fredrick Douglass]. Speaking of Fredrick Douglass- the 2nd & most unforgivable sin of 'Lincoln' is that 'liberal' Holly-weird icons Speilberg & Kushner picked their final script after it literally wrote Douglass [let alone his other Black freedom-fighting contemporaries IE: Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Martin Delaney, Robert Smalls, etc] out of it! Why? IMO because they want to perpetuate the 'Ole {dis}Honest Abe Great Emancipator' Myth- that Blacks are so-called 'free' only because of generous white folks IE: Lincoln [aka the 'Great White Hope / White Savior' Myth].
While 'Django' does show Black participation, never-the-less still he's unchained, trained & given license to kill targeted whites- via the white German Dude. Thus he's not actually the lead but kinda in the role of an updated Tonto [w an attitude] to the white German Dude's meaner Lone-Ranger. IMO so-called 'hip & cool' Holly-weird 'liberals' ala {San}Quentin on the QT- have NO problems w a 'fictional' bad-ass n_____r aka Django killing off a bunch of poor white-trash / red-neck / KKKers [surrogates for FOX Noise types - FYI the KKK was started after the Civil War & NOT by some poor white-trash types but by ex-Confederate officers & generals like Nathan Bedford Forrest- the KKK's first Grand Wizard]- YET its note-worthy that Django did NOT even get to kill the film's main villain & enslaver of his wife- DiCaprio's Candie- who instead was killed by the white German Dude [so who's the real star of 'Django' anyway]. Instead QT turned Django's main adversary into the HNIC Uncle-Tom House-N______r [Sam-Jack in black-face]- HUMM! But the historical fact is- Slavery's main controllers & profiteers were NOT a bunch of poor white-trash / red-necks- but guys like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay & even Ole Ben Franklin [FYI: Franklin was from Penn State & Jay was from NY], etc.
IMO the main question is why would Holly-weird pick QT [who dissed 'Roots' in the process] to do its most talked about movie on slavery since 'Amistad' in the first place? Why not Black directors like Spike Lee, John Singleton, the Huges Bros, Bill Duke, Denzel, or that sister from Martinique- Euzhan Palcy, etc? Obviously because Holly-weird knew that QT would do a bloody spoof spaghetti-western / blaxploitation tale using slavery as its back-drop- & pepper it w a very 'liberal' use of nigger in the dialogue [FYI: QT got the idea for Mandingo fighting not from real history but actually from blaxploitation film 'Mandingo' featuring ex-boxer Ken Norton]!
PS: As much as I admire Bro Dick Gregory's legacy in the struggle, IMO he went off the rails a bit when he called Spike a 'punk & thug'- because Spike refuses to see & endorse 'Django'. Thus in effect Gregory insults Spike in defense of white boy QT who dissed 'Roots'- HUMM!!!


Kushite Prince says:
@Trojan Pam Best review I’ve seen on Django Unchained by Cecil Brown. I thought you might like it. It’s titled “Hollywood’s N_-----r Joke”.
In order for a joke to work, Mary Douglas, the eminent British anthropologist, wrote that one had to have a social context for it to operate in. “We must ask what are the social conditions for a joke to be both perceived and permitted,” she asked in her wonderful little essay, “Jokes.”
“My hypothesis,” she writes“is that a joke is seen and allowed when it offers a symbolic pattern of a social pattern occurring at the same time.”
With Django: Unchained, the symbolic pattern–I’d call it historical context–is Hollywood itself. “If there is no joke in the social structure,” Mrs Douglas observed, “no other joke can appear.” In Hollywood, there are lots of jokes in the system!
The social pattern that allows Quentin Tarantino’s “N------- joke” to work is set in the South, two years before the Civil War, but my point is that this is only a pretext for Hollywood itself.
Some critics, like Betsy Sharkey in the Times, think this film is a masterpiece. Sharkey calls it, “the most articulate, intriguing, provoking, appalling, hilarious, exhilarating, scathing and downright entertaining film yet.”
African American critic Wesley Morris hated it. He called it “unrelenting tastelessness — [...] exclamatory kitsch — on a subject as loaded, gruesome, and dishonorable as American slavery.”
Ishmael Reed, the novelist, pointed out how the Weinstein Company promoted an advertising campaign to get a black audience by promoting Jamie Foxx as the star. In fact, Foxx is only one of the stars, along with Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio. As Reed points out, Foxx spends most of his time looking at Mr.Waltz and then looking at Mr. DiCaprio, with a puzzled look on his face, as if to say, What’s dese white folks, talkin ‘bout?
My aim in his essay is to examine the way in which the symbolic system is a reflection of the social system. “What are the social conditions for a joke to be both perceived and permitted,” Mrs Douglass wrote in that little essay, “Jokes.”
What are the social conditions that would permit Django to be the big howling, empty nigger joke that it is?
One of these social conditions, certainly, involves the relationship between black actors and Hollywood as a symbol of the plantation system.
In his review of the film, for example, Mr. Reed said that Sam Jackson, in the role of the conniving, omnipresent, evil slave, is “playing himself.”
If Jackson had not dominated the Hollywood system in such a sly way, then his role as Stephen, the master-worshipping house slave to Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) would not have its loaded, edgy, uncanny realism. The plantation is called CandieLand (Candyland) and is meant to refer to Hollywood itself as a producer of entertainment (Candy). Get it?
If Jamie Foxx is not known in Hollywood as a resourceful hustler, who will play almost any role, then his part as the “bad n-------” Django would not be so compelling (and lubricous). If he was not the “New n---------r on the block,” then the confrontation between him and Sam Jackson’s character, Stephen, the off-the-hook house slave, the scene would not be powerful (and dumb) at the same time.
The dramatis persona forms a homology with the enacted characters on the screen. The key that unlocks Tarantino’s sensationalistic mosaic is that it reveals the inner game of how the Hollywood studio and the plantation slave institution exploited black people.
Unwittingly and unconsciously Tarantino has provided us with a scenario that makes the plantation system the symbolic equivalent of Hollywood. It is a film a clef.
In other words, Hollywood forms a homology with the slave plantations system– in both cases making money is being underlined as the goal, and it does not matter how many people are hurt or offended.
Tarantino approaches Hollywood–that is, the Weinstein Brothers production company as if it were a plantation, and as if he were an aspiring poor white trash overseer trying to get into the closed system by manipulating the slave code.
Instead of presenting the Weinstein Company with a script, Tarantino screened a film– Django (1966.), a Spaghetti Western.
How hard was that? In an age where even Hollywood execs don’t read, Tarantino made it easy for them. As it turns out, Django (1966) was itself a take-off of the Spaghetti Western, Fistful of Dollars, a film (and a genre) invented by the Italian director Sergio Leone.
Tarantino’s task (as he probably explained to the Weinstein Company) was to map characters, incidents, and plot points from the original Django (1966) onto the target, his proposed plantation script, Django:Unchained (2012).
Let us now compare the original Django (1966) directed by Sergio Coerbucci with Tarantino’s Django: Unchained (2012). In mapping, some things are easily transferrable and somethings are not. What Tarantino took from the original films were the characters, plot, and gross details of violent acts. What he added–and what was not in the original–was African American nigger humor, the joke. Tarantino ransacked Black folklore for the Trickster, the slave John, and the Bad Nigger, and the Jezebel. For music, he takes some of the original Italian, but for the most part, he overlays the film with James Brown’s “The Big Pay Back” and hip-hop music.
If we compare the plots with each other, as summarized in the IMDb, we can see what Tarantino transferred over from the original source the target: “A coffin-dragging gunslinger enters a town caught between two feuding factions, the KKK and a gang of Mexican Bandits. Then enters Django, and he is caught between a struggle against both parties.”
The plot of Django:Unchainedis: “With the help of his mentor, a slave-turned bounty hunter sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner.” And: “Former dentist, Dr. King Schultz, buys the freedom of a slave, Django,and trains him with the intent to make him his deputy bounty hunter. Instead, he is led to the site of Django’s wife who is in the hands of Calvin Candie a ruthless plantation owner.”
In the opening scene of the original movie, a beautiful woman (Loredana Nusciak) is rescued from rape by Django (Franco Nero). This female character is mapped over by changing the name and character to Broomhilda Von Shaft (Kerry Washington).
Imitating the original scene of desperation, Tarantino opens his film with a slave coffle. First, a long shot of the slaves chained together. Then, close-up shots of the shackled ankles. Then, overlay of the moanful voices, Aint Nobody Gonna Hold My Body Down. Next, close-ups of raw stripes of blood lashes on a black backs.
It makes for a painful, depressing sight, and it is photographed in a realistic mode. The audience is taken in, because the scene depicts the holocaust for many blacks who sat in the audiences across the country.We see the strips from the whips across the backs of the slaves.
Then, there is an incident: a light in the dark. Who goes there? The owner of the slaves calls out.
“Just a fellow traveler,” returns a Dr. King Schultz (Christop Waltz), a bounty hunter. Dr. Schultz examines the slave , picks out Django (Jamie Foxx), and when the slave owner tries to prevent him from talking to Django, pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. Shooting the white slaver point blank, Dr. Schultz laughs and turns the gun over to Django, who is miraculously transformed from a lowly slave to—Presto!–into a “Bad N-------” with a gun and a mean attitude. Now we are rolling!
As a spokesman for the director, Dr. Schultz is a white Negro. His action and trickster character lift the action out of serious mood ; and suddenly, we hear the pounding music of James Brown’s “The Big Payback!”
We are roaring with laughter at the punchline in an ethnic joke. Some of Django’s lines include, as he shoots a poor white man, “I like the way you die!” When Dr. Schultz offers him a deal of working with him as a bounty hunter, Django exhales the punchline, with panache, “Kill white folks and get paid for it?”
We realize that all that had gone before, the shots of the black slaves, the sad music, the spiritual music and lyrics—all of that was just a set-up, a pretext. The real text, the underlying message was the punchline that Blacks in slavery were fools and cowards.
Throughout the rest of the film, this is Tarantino method: begin with a serious treatment, suck the audience in, and then, he hits you—Bang!–with a punch line that catches you off guard. The problem with the ethnic joke is that the joke is always on the black man, who, has no recourse to respond.
Jamie Foxx as a slave agrees to help him if he will help him go back and get his wife (Kerry Washington ) out of slavery. Tarantino centers on the exotic notion that it beautiful slave’s name Broomhilda and speaks German. Mein Gott!
We know that there was a KKK in the original model. That was easily mapped over to slavery, but Tarantino makes a mistake here. He choses 1858, two years before the Civil War, as the fictional time for his film. But the Ku Klux Klan wasn’t until some 20 years later, in the 1880s, after the Civil War.Just because it was in the original source, Tarantino included it in the target material. He wasn’t following Black history, but rather he was following his original template.
In the original, Django (1966), the hero is a “anti hero, ” but Tarantino mapped him over to the target as the “bad n-----.” Black culture is full of images of the “bad n-----,” including Stagolee, Deadwood Dick, and Dolomite. They all are screaming, “I’m a bad mother---------r and I don’t mind dying!” (And all of them signified by a large brimmed hat.)
Tarantino didn’t limit himself to lifting the characters, incidents, and plot elements from the Spaghetti Western, but the grossness of imagery as well.
In the original Django material, for example, the hero cuts the bandits’s ears off and force them into his mouth. Tarantino has one of the sadistic slaver turn Django turned upside down so he can cut his testicles (symbolic equivalent of ears) off. In another scene, he has dogs eat a black man to death on screen. In yet another scene, DiCaprio’s Calvin Candie is watching his Mandingo fighters kill each other; Calvin offers the winner, a hammer to beat his brains out.
There are 5 or 6 instances where I had to look away from the screen, because it was so violent and and the violence was so gratuitous.
The film is soaked in pretentious drivel. For example, in one scene, Calvin Candie instructs his overseer to set a pack dogs on a black slave and we (the black audience) watch the dogs eat the slave alive (on screen). Dr. King Schultz wonders what Alexander Dumas, the Black French writer, would have said of that scene.
This gross and ludicrous non-sequitur is meant to show how hip Tarantino is to Black history. Here is notion that Tarantino really knows something about French literary history Dumas was black! No s----?
I’m willing to bet that when Jamie Foxx Jamie Foxx read this in the script, he turned to Tarantino and asked, “Who the h------- is Dumas?”
Tarantino proposed to the Weinstein Company to deliver an audience on Christmas Day that would make them a lot of money. An equivalent was the poor Irishman who approached the plantation owners with the proposal to save the plantation money by managing his slaves (through beating them and yielding a profit).
What was this audience that Tarantino promised to deliver to the Weinstein Company?
Where I saw the film, at the AMC theater, in Emeryville California, the audience was the same one that had voted for Obama. When I waited in the long line to see the film, people’s faces were glowing with expectation. The hype about Jamie Foxx and Sam Jackson and Kerry Washington was like voting for a Black man for President.
But after seeing the film, their faces were empty, their eyes were blank. Sure, they had laughed at the scatological humor, had flinched at the gruesome ugly scenes, had been insulted by the self-deprecating humor, and had been lifted up by the antics of the “bad n-----” And don’t forget the ending–with the hero and his slave bride ridding off into the sunset and the glowing flames that consumes the CandyLand Plantation! And all this, with this synched to beat of rebellious hip-hop music. Burn, Hollywood, Burn!
For many of them, Tarantino had delivered. In essence, they had their cathartic laugh, and yet they still felt dirty from the guilty pleasure. Their empty faces were drained understanding. They had been used, and they were beginning to know it. You could see that they had been bamboozled.
In one scene revealing scene, the slave master, Calvin Candie shows his dinner guests the skull of a Black slave, Ben. “Old Ben never revolted against the white man? Why didn’t he? Because when you cut his skull open, you find that there is something in his brain that won’t allow him to rebel against the white man.”
What Tarantino is asking in his meta-language, Why don’t blacks take over Hollywood? Why do they allow the likes of him and the Weinstein Company along with Sam Jackson and Jamie Foxx to run a game on them?
I ask myself the same question. Why do Blacks, who can elect a President, not prevent themselves from being exploited by Hollywood? Why can’t they demand more black directors and better scripts from the likes of the Weinstein Company?
Why do we continue to allow Sam Jackson and Jamie Foxx to clown us?
As I watched the long line of Blacks que up for the movie, and as I listened to their guffaws in the darkened theater, I realized that nobody likes a “-----  joke” more than Black people themselves. Are Black people themselves deeply masochistic? Would a Jewish American audience tolerate a film that makes fun of their history and their holocaust? I doubt it. Would the Weinstein have made a film about the Jewish Holocaust that ridicule and belittled the Jewish experience during Hitler? I doubt it.
Much of the problem has to do with Black people themselves. You would think that Samuel Jackson would have enough clout to produce his own films. Every Hollywood black have their own “company,” but they never produce any films.
Even though we have rich black men, they do not have the intellectual heft to confront Hollywood, which is supported by a culture of literacy. After four hundred years of being told that you can’t write, blacks tend to stay with “acting” and sports. They do not have the respect of their own authors to use their work in films. The literary codes that Hollywood uses depend on a culture that reads books, but for Blacks, literature is not a high priority.
Blacks seem contented to be consumers of the movies and not producers of them. In the past, Blacks attended film schools and produced Spike Lee (New York University) and John Singleton (UCLA), but there are few Blacks attending film schools. This year at UCLA, one of the most important film schools in the country, admitted not one single Black student.
You can’t present a project to a studio about Black Dumas if you never heard of Dumas? How can you talk to a Hollywood producer if all you know is the lyrics from Snoop Doggy Dog?
In reality, both Hollywood (Weinstein Bros) and the plantation system are closed systems, despite the fact that slave-owners say they’re taking good care of the slaves and despite the fact that Hollywood says that the success is based on talent alone.
Another important similarity between Hollywood and the Plantation is that they are both controlled by literacy. On the slave plantations, no black is allowed to leave the plantation without a pass.
In order to get a pass you have to consult the white man since no black can write one, as Blacks are not allowed to read and write. Therefore, literacy controlled the plantation and the enslavement of enslaved Africans–enslaved mainly because the technology of writing was withheld for them. The attending rhetoric was that Blacks were too stupid to learn to read and write.
I read Mick Lasalle’s the review of the film in the San Francisco Chronicle. He loved it, “entertaining” for every minute. While putting down Spike Lee’s “The Red Hook Summer” as one of the worst films of 2012, he puts Django:Unchained at the very top of his best list (second to Lincoln). He didn’t like Roberto Benigni’s Life Is Beautiful, which is about A Jewish man who uses humor to survive a Nazi death camp.
Even if he is a fan of white male racist jokes against blacks, he should have warned African American readers that the film is racially offensive in its exploitation of black humor.
The 4th Estate, in a recent study of American newspapers, “Bleached, Lack of Diversity on the Front Page,” claimed that 98 percent of all newspapers headlines are written by whites. At the San Francisco Chronicle, the study found that there were no Black writers at all. Given the social conditions in Journalism, LaSalle was obliged to tell black readers what was really inside the wrapper.
Whites control the newspapers, like Hollywood, and use their print to keep the public stupid and dumb. Like the blacks ancestors on the plantation, African Americans are held in check so that the pockets of the cultural producers (ruling class) can be filled.

soul60 says:
Overall,glad I did not pay no slave money to go see this non-sense.
It’s real obvious that a vast % of black people have become very desentized and dumb down to co-sign,make excuses and buy into this madness as some type of entertaiment


TrojanPam says:
@ soul60
I agree! I believe blacks collectively are worse off today on a psychological level AFTER 40 years of integration than we were during segregation.
Back then, at least we recognized when we were being disrespected, but now it seems to fly right over most black heads as we gladly purchase and support “black” entertainment that portrays us as ni----, h-----, bitches, freaks, “dawgs,” clowns, buffoons, males in pantyhose, dresses and wigs and homosexuals, etc.
The LACK of collective consciousness and self-respect in the masses of black people is frightening — and reeks of self and group genocide. Which means we all have to work harder to share information — and at the LEAST to not participate in or support those places, people, and things that harm or degrade other black people.


soul60 says:
It’s real cool and serious that a black woman will denounce this trash.
I wonder why so many black’s today have accepted this mental beat down ?
We got all these black people locked up in an updated slave prison,plantation operation and all types of black’s being beat and killed by the police and other brainwashed black face kkk members.
Then we have a group of black’s paying their money to be called a n word over and over in some movie directed by some phony hollyweird white dude.
Guess what ” he is pimping for sure
Pimping misery and ignorance for sure.


No disrespect to the Catholics on here, but the reason why I don't necessarily agree with the church is because in my opinion, the church is a legalistic church It's too much things that they have to do to get salvation I know that Catholics say they don't do this but their admiration of Mary is a bit too much Yes she plays a very important part of Christianity but God chose her to be a vessel for Jesus that's all. I just think the church places too much emphasis on the wrong things that's not scriptural like Saints, the idea of the pope and the lives of nuns and priests not to have personal lives outside of the church I'm not sure where they got their scriptural reasons for denying people to not have that because even the priests in the gospel had families while performing church duties. The idea of having the church determine who is a saint or who isn't is beyond me because once we become believers of Christ, we all become saints in his eyes. I just side eye the church because it seems like its tied to idolatry more than Christianity It's a lot of mixing going on.



TrojanPam says:
@ Kushite Prince,
It’s tragic how little it takes for us to give white people the seal of approval. It can be for something as little as, like you said, listening to rap music, or liking collard greens, etc, and that’s enough to allay all our suspicions.


Kushite Prince says:
Yeah we just love giving out “ghetto passes” to everybody.lol


Kushite Prince says:
Tarantino’s liberal use of the word “n------r” is akin to a child who’s learned to say “poop”, and does, repeatedly, while giggling at the novelty of it. I think it’s a combination of racism and infantilism. Hollywood will always reward those that degrade black folks. In Django Unchained there is a mixture of violent images of slavery and comedy. The “n word” is said over 100 times yet in Inglorious Bastards slur “kike” is not throw around as much. And that film had Nazis in it. It’s obvious that Tarantino is in love with saying n------. I even heard people say Tarantino loves rap music and had a black stepfather at one point. So what? That doesn’t give him a license to throw around “n------” like it’s going out of style. You can tell from this video he has the word in almost all his films. The boy has issues.


What kind of muslim is Cons? Naw for real? A. You are raw d_----- it with a white chick and you're not even married. B. You get the white chick pregnant and you still haven't married her. C. She's not muslim

Here's the thing when white people get mad they love to bring up race to black people. It's their natural instinct. Like she said in the heat of the moment she got caught up. That's how she truly feels. Cons looks like a straight sucker. No respect.

-Amber Gares


Originally Posted by OnMyRaidarView Post
I don't think that some ppl are overlooking the treatment. I think that some ppl don't know or realize the shade that's being thrown at them. I've seen it time and time again on this forum where something racist happens and ppl don't even see it. They come up with some other reasoning and the racism goes right over their head. Ppl are so brainwashed that they don't even see the racism that's happening right in front of their faces. Ppl don't even know when their being disrespectful these days.
Blacks these days sadden me.

My parents, grandparents and aunts/uncles can smell white people's tomfoolery from a mile away. But these kids these days want to be "liked" by whites so badly that they're blind to all types of s_-----. And that's exactly what whites want to here.



People are so blinded by their hatred of Raqi they are defending that racist Jen. Nobody is saying that what Jen said wasn't true. It was the fact that she chose to use it as an insult against a women of color which shows that she is a racist. Yea, Ebro said for them not to flirt, but clearly Raqi was more engaging in that interview than Jen was and Jen was obviously threatened by that. I don't blame Jen for wanting to defend herself against Raqi's tirade, but the insult she chose to use did not only target Raqi but offended an entire race of people. She should be ashamed that her ancestors brutally gained their "white privilege" off the blood, sweat & tears of the oppressed. She shouldn't wear it as a badge of honor. Shameful.



Yea I watch the show periodically but. I will no longer watch it. We didn't need to be reminded how "whites" view themselves as privilege and can get any job or opportunity they want with or without effort. Jen could have handle that situation better. But if she knew homegirl was going to act up why team up with her in the first place? Now she want to clean up her statement and her fake Muslim Uncle Tom husband defending her... SMH