EUROPE: How do YOU view AMERICANS?

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2976 Sep 1, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>Interestingly enough, the argument of the Barbary pirates cited by Jefferson are the SAME KINDF OF ARGUMENT pilgrims used to justify the destruction of the Pequods. Only they cited the Bible rather than the Qu'ran. It is the same kind of arguments used by genocidal Conquistadors. The\ same kind of arguments used to defend Christian enslavment of others is little different from the arguments by Muslims. Same arguments used by murderous Christianizers and civilizers of the Congo. Islam is VEERY analogous to Christianity and Judaism. And let us recall that BEFORE the rise of Islam, the destruction of Hellenic culture--shutting down pagan schools of philosophy and burning of pagan books--began with the CHRISTIANS, once Christianity became the state religion. Hypathia was killed by Christians. So, there's not that much difference. To hell with ALL obscurantism, regadless of the label.
The same arguments you make about cultures must change / cultural enrichment, blah, blah, blah, is the same kind of argument European powers used to justify colonialism. You know, the white man's burden, colonialism "enriching" the people. I have long suspected that that kind of mendacious rhetoric is sometimes motivated out of pure spite. Your using it helps to back that up.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2977 Sep 2, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Appeals to nationalism have occurred from right and left. This is quite natural.
Nationalism is not necessarily rightwing. For example, there are movements called “revitalization movements” by anthropologists, during which people of an ethnic group attempt to revive their culture, usually following domination by another group or power which has caused cultural erosion. We see this now among the Amazigh in the Maghreb, though they are still operating under great threat of violence from the Arab oppressor.
AA's in the 60's created a revitalization movement. This was in the speeches of Malcolm, explaining how the whites had screwed your minds, it was in the visible manifestations of dashikis and African hairstyles, and in the myriad of ways blacks reasserted their humanity against the legacy of generations of white racism trying to rob it from them.
Marches for the UFW often involved the following chants:¡Viva la Unión!¡Viva César Chávez!¡Viva México! What? This is a Union fighting for contracts for its workers, so whence the nationalism?
Carrying a picture of Dr. King, if I do it, is a statement about his ideas, of support for his struggle. If a black person does it, is it nationalist? Could be. But that isn't bad, is it? I hate the culture-nationalism of Us Org and assorted other Afronazis, but a revolutionary nationalism, such as that of the Panthers, is a good thing, I maintain, whether for blacks or any group.
I support nationalism, but none of my support is rightwing. Zionism---the zionism I support is that of Histadraut, of Haganah. IRA. Amazigh movement. Celtic movements. Indigenism in Latin America. The Chicano movement in the USA. AIM.
As for Martel... as the Soviets used the image of Novgorod fighting off invading Goths to inspire modern Russians against the Nazis, I see no reason why in France the image of Martel fighting off invading imperialist oppressor Moors (Muslims) is not valid in inspiring modern resistance to the current Muslim invasion of France. Viva la France!
You as a black Yank find in France a refuge of sorts. Are there any Arab countries which AA's see as a refuge? Care to go and relax in Morocco? Iraq? I think you'd prefer France. Et viva la France! N'est-ce pas?
We have clearly seen the negative potential of nationalism as a cover for fascism, not to mention genocide, but revolutionary nationalism is made necessary by that... by the fact that racism and nationalist prejudices have damaged people, and asserting their own nationalism is the only remedy, culturally and often politically as well.
I know that ALL nationalism is not reactionary. The Italian nationalism of Mazzini is one thing, and the nationalism of Il Duce is another. The nationalism of Lumumba or even Fanon is progressive. That of Mobotu is another matter. And, of cousre, the revolutionary nationalism of MalcolmX, the African Blood Brotherhood or the ORIGINAL Black Panther Party is each a different creaature than the conservative nationalism of NOI or US.
Now both Bobby Seale and Ron Karenga invoked the image of Malcolm X--Seale for revolutionary purposes, and Karenga for reactionary ones.
Now to what use is the memory of Charles Martel put by a seemingly fasacistic group like "generation identitaire"
?. And their assaults on the office of the Socialist Party? But not on the National Front. I'm no expert on that group but I think I can make an educated guess what they're up to.
As for places of refuge? Depends on time and circumstances. Some AA revolutionaries DID seen refge during the 1960s in the predominantly Muslim Arab country of Algeria. Of course, Algeria's revolution, despite betrayal, was still young and the revolutionary spirit still existed. A more conservative Arab regime would be a different matter. And, of course, Algeria today is far different than in the 1960s

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2978 Sep 2, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
Our "narrative?" That's what you people have, "narratives." I deal with reality.
Your statements about "reality" are part of a narrative, a nattative of rightwing and national chauvinist discourse.
And your assumption that my people have only narratives while you have some privileged acess to the truth about realitiey, is itself an expression of your racial arrogance---and an implicit of assertion of the very white privilege that you pretend does not exist.

Level 8

Since: Oct 09

Paris France

#2979 Sep 2, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that ALL nationalism is not reactionary. The Italian nationalism of Mazzini is one thing, and the nationalism of Il Duce is another. The nationalism of Lumumba or even Fanon is progressive. That of Mobotu is another matter. And, of cousre, the revolutionary nationalism of MalcolmX, the African Blood Brotherhood or the ORIGINAL Black Panther Party is each a different creaature than the conservative nationalism of NOI or US.
Now both Bobby Seale and Ron Karenga invoked the image of Malcolm X--Seale for revolutionary purposes, and Karenga for reactionary ones.
Now to what use is the memory of Charles Martel put by a seemingly fasacistic group like "generation identitaire"
?. And their assaults on the office of the Socialist Party? But not on the National Front. I'm no expert on that group but I think I can make an educated guess what they're up to.
As for places of refuge? Depends on time and circumstances. Some AA revolutionaries DID seen refge during the 1960s in the predominantly Muslim Arab country of Algeria. Of course, Algeria's revolution, despite betrayal, was still young and the revolutionary spirit still existed. A more conservative Arab regime would be a different matter. And, of course, Algeria today is far different than in the 1960s
Very true sir. Even Algerians today barely consider to live in their country, only when they have no other option.
Morocco has become much more pleasant and developed today than decrepit Algeria.

a whiteboi

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2980 Sep 2, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statements about "reality" are part of a narrative, a nattative of rightwing and national chauvinist discourse.
And your assumption that my people have only narratives while you have some privileged acess to the truth about realitiey, is itself an expression of your racial arrogance---and an implicit of assertion of the very white privilege that you pretend does not exist.
I have no more privilege to access the truth about reality than you do.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2981 Sep 2, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that ALL nationalism is not reactionary. The Italian nationalism of Mazzini is one thing, and the nationalism of Il Duce is another. The nationalism of Lumumba or even Fanon is progressive. That of Mobotu is another matter. And, of cousre, the revolutionary nationalism of MalcolmX, the African Blood Brotherhood or the ORIGINAL Black Panther Party is each a different creaature than the conservative nationalism of NOI or US.
Now both Bobby Seale and Ron Karenga invoked the image of Malcolm X--Seale for revolutionary purposes, and Karenga for reactionary ones.
Now to what use is the memory of Charles Martel put by a seemingly fasacistic group like "generation identitaire"
?. And their assaults on the office of the Socialist Party? But not on the National Front. I'm no expert on that group but I think I can make an educated guess what they're up to.
As for places of refuge? Depends on time and circumstances. Some AA revolutionaries DID seen refge during the 1960s in the predominantly Muslim Arab country of Algeria. Of course, Algeria's revolution, despite betrayal, was still young and the revolutionary spirit still existed. A more conservative Arab regime would be a different matter. And, of course, Algeria today is far different than in the 1960s
A sad case indeed. I have to wonder if it were not only reactionary Algerian elements but outside interference which derailed Algeria's social progress.

Seemingly on a good path, naturally the powers that be couldn't allow that...

I don't believe in the paranoid claims that al Qaeda is CIA and so on, but nonetheless there is often a convenient convergence of interests between islamicists and the global evil empire.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2982 Sep 2, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
Our "narrative?" That's what you people have, "narratives." I deal with reality.
I am aware of history and how it is reconstructed from evidence, and I also know an ideological-driven screed when I hear it. You're trying to make history suit connedservative rhetoric, but it doesn't work.

History has to be perceived as narrative, because it is written. It is in sentences and paragraphs, and in chronological order, each element building on prior ones. In the West, History is usually a Humanities department, rather than Social Science, but the Marxist view was that History subsumed social science, was science.

Whether that is true only depends on how many facts we have by which to establish the veracity of any particular historical narrative, not on whether we like Marx or not, or are a connedservative.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2983 Sep 2, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no more privilege to access the truth about reality than you do.
Oh but you do. At least you believe that you do. Your cynical view of history has some sort of mystical (apparently, as I see no facts supporting it) validity, whereas Savant's is invalid narrative. I'm not sure what you think "narrative" means.

But I read your statement and was struck by it it would seem the same as Savant was. It seemed racist and elitist. That sort of 4hit really pisses me off, boy. Makes me want to slap you until your swastika tattoo is crooked.

Level 5

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2984 Sep 3, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no more privilege to access the truth about reality than you do.
You're about as delusional as they come! You think you know everything but your reality is just that, yours alone! You're so stupid and believe the bs that's been handed down to you with all your hateful, arrogant and self-entitled heart.

I feel sorry for people like you.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2985 Sep 3, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no more privilege to access the truth about reality than you do.
You certainly implied that you had some privileged acess to truth by claiming that "your people" (Blacks) have only narraitves while you deal only with reality.
Your assumption that you know reality while others don't implies a privileged knowledge of truth which otherw lack,

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2986 Sep 3, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>You certainly implied that you had some privileged acess to truth by claiming that "your people" (Blacks) have only narraitves while you deal only with reality.
Your assumption that you know reality while others don't implies a privileged knowledge of truth which otherw lack,
When I said "you people" I meant leftists, or those who call themselves liberals today -- the word "liberal" being a symantic theft, which might be partially the reason why the term "libertarian" had to be invented and/or is used so much. You are an uber leftist, talking about revolution, denouncing capitalism. You are a cultural Marxist, espousing critical theory, embracing attai1 the "white boi", attacking "whiteness," and trying to make race a proxy for class (as a part of your "narrative"). That's what I meant by "you people." And although not black, Barros is one of "you people." Thomas Sowell is not.
Kess

Winston Salem, NC

#2987 Sep 3, 2013
Let me break it down for you:

The reason many Europeans dislike Americans is because of the stupidity often protrayed by Americans. For example trying define the entire world based on America's own culture & stigmas. It only shows how clueless Americans are about the world outside of their nation, and it makes them appear arrogant.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2988 Sep 5, 2013
attai1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Marx explained what your Indian speaker "failed" to see. "Free trade" is good for the big companies and detrimental for the small economies.
It's insane and ignorant to say that the French cinema industry and the American cinema industry are equally competing and that the French market is closed to American movies.
Here are the last stats by the official office that is monitoring the cinema in France.
"La part de marché des films français est estimée à 35,2 % sur les sept premiers mois de 2013 (41,3 % sur janvier-juillet 2012) et celle des films américains à 54,2 %(45,4 % sur janvier-juillet 2012). Sur les 12 derniers mois, la part de marché des films français est estimée à 37,5 %, celle des films américains à 47,4 % et celle des autres films à 15,1 %."
In the last 7 months : French movie share : 35.2%
American movie share : 54.2%!!!
In the past 12 months, French movies get 37.5% of the market, US movies take 47.4% and other nations (including your clueless Indian Bollywood) 15.1%.
Have a look on the American market and find us the various shares of foreign cinema ... In fact, the USA is the most closed market in the West, the arch-protective because theaters never put foreign movies in their programs.
The diversity policy is made to maintain an open market and prevent the US monopolistic cinema companies. In many fields, free trade is not "free" at all and only a new face of monopolistic capitalism, imperialism and destruction of local cultures.
We keep up cultural diversity in France without switching to xenophobia or US types of veiled protective policies.
a whiteboi
Speaking of cinema--one of the modern arts I most enjoy--I noticed while I was in your country the pervasiveness of American films. I got the impression that there were at least as many American films playing in Paris as French ones. And you French cats seemed to be passionately in love with Woody Allen, or at least was at that time. One French columnist in Le Monde even spoke of Spike Lee as (if I remember the phrase correctly" "Le Woody Allen Afro-Americain." From the context he apparently felt that this was a compliment, especially since he was ecstatically praising the film SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT.
Do you guys still have this fascination with Woody Allen?

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2989 Sep 5, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
When I said "you people" I meant leftists, or those who call themselves liberals today -- the word "liberal" being a symantic theft, which might be partially the reason why the term "libertarian" had to be invented and/or is used so much. You are an uber leftist, talking about revolution, denouncing capitalism. You are a cultural Marxist, espousing critical theory, embracing attai1 the "white boi", attacking "whiteness," and trying to make race a proxy for class (as a part of your "narrative"). That's what I meant by "you people." And although not black, Barros is one of "you people." Thomas Sowell is not.
I noticed that you didn't use the word "you people" in reply to ANYONE but me. You didn't use that expression in reply to Attai, whom you obviously disagree with. Nor did you use that expression in reply to Sinajuaivi, whom you clearly disagree with here---and who, unlike myself, clearly does self-identity as a Marxist (albeit a "Jeffersonian Marxist"). No, I got your meaning quite correctly. There isn't a black person in America--not even your beloved Thomas Sowell--who doesn't know that is meant when a white man talks about "you people" when speaking to a Black person.
Your dishonest dodge doesn't work. Black people don't survive in ths dangerous land without being able to see through your white frame of reference. And I wasn't born yesterday.
Masud_S_Hoghughi __

London, UK

#2990 Sep 5, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed that you didn't use the word "you people" in reply to ANYONE but me. You didn't use that expression in reply to Attai, whom you obviously disagree with. Nor did you use that expression in reply to Sinajuaivi, whom you clearly disagree with here---and who, unlike myself, clearly does self-identity as a Marxist (albeit a "Jeffersonian Marxist"). No, I got your meaning quite correctly. There isn't a black person in America--not even your beloved Thomas Sowell--who doesn't know that is meant when a white man talks about "you people" when speaking to a Black person.
Your dishonest dodge doesn't work. Black people don't survive in ths dangerous land without being able to see through your white frame of reference. And I wasn't born yesterday.
ohh man......wot a bunch of baboon babble..........

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2991 Sep 5, 2013
Masud_S_Hoghughi__ wrote:
<quoted text>ohh man......wot a bunch of baboon babble..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =5Jj3wZVc7nwXX
I'm beginning to think that the difference between a buffoon like Masud and Walt Hendrickson is that the latter person is just a bit more sophisticated.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2992 Sep 5, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm beginning to think that the difference between a buffoon like Masud and Walt Hendrickson is that the latter person is just a bit more sophisticated.
Everyone remembers those math problems, a formula written in complicated form, and the assignment is to reduce it to it's simplest terms...

Walter's rap can in like manner be reduced to it's simplest terms. I have done this simpification and can produce the final essential most direct expression of what Walt is saying:

“NNNNNNNNNNNNN----------RRRR”

If he would only post that repeatedly, he'd save us the trouble of reading his idiotic rambling BS posts.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2993 Sep 5, 2013
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
When I said "you people" I meant leftists, or those who call themselves liberals today -- the word "liberal" being a symantic theft, which might be partially the reason why the term "libertarian" had to be invented and/or is used so much. You are an uber leftist, talking about revolution, denouncing capitalism. You are a cultural Marxist, espousing critical theory, embracing attai1 the "white boi", attacking "whiteness," and trying to make race a proxy for class (as a part of your "narrative"). That's what I meant by "you people." And although not black, Barros is one of "you people." Thomas Sowell is not.
Cut the crap, boy.

Your type, often hiding behind the label “libertarian”, is in fact best identified with the word FASCIST.

Your pretense that “liberals” today aren't really liberals, that somehow Jefferson would have agreed with you rightwing sociopathic misfits, is just another of the BIG LIES you connedservatives tell.

Boy.

We could go around all day about the real meaning of “liberal” or “Marxist”. Sometimes I claim those terms, sometimes I don't. It depends on the context. I am not a Marxist in the sense of Leninist. I am anarchist. My knowledge is informed by Marxist analysis. I do not follow Marx's praxis, as, again, I am an anarchist.

Liberal? In the Jeffersonian, the classic sense, yes. Not like you connedservatives mean it, to mean govt laissez-faire approach to capital! LOL... that's what you think is true liberalism.

You deluded racist and fascist fart, you are a walking atrocity as you go about betraying the Constitution, freedom and the people.

I'm "you people"? Wow for a moment I thought you were making me an honorary black person! Cool...

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Level 8

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2994 Sep 5, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
A sad case indeed. I have to wonder if it were not only reactionary Algerian elements but outside interference which derailed Algeria's social progress.
Seemingly on a good path, naturally the powers that be couldn't allow that...
I don't believe in the paranoid claims that al Qaeda is CIA and so on, but nonetheless there is often a convenient convergence of interests between islamicists and the global evil empire.
Well I read that in Afghanistan, during the resistance against the USSR occupation, the CIA actually went so far as to help disseminate the Qu'ran themselves. Noe even the Afghan insurgents had done that. Perhaps the resistance thare, like the anti-French resistance in Algeria, might have retained the character of a national liberation movement. Islam naturally would have some influence in a majority Muslim country, but did not have to constitute the banner of the movement nor the ideology of the new government. Even where militant Islamicism hadn't yet emerged it seems the CIA encourgaged it to strengthen resistance to the atheistic Communists, and to arouse the masses.
And it does seem that the CIA had some underhanded dealings with Osama. But I guess that THOSE Muslims, and THAT form of militant Islam (unlike the anti-American Islamicism in Iran) was more acceptable. It's ok against the Communists. They may have been SOBS, but they were OUR sobs. Only problem is that once religious zeal is aroused it doesn't simply go away at your convenience.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2995 Sep 5, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I read that in Afghanistan, during the resistance against the USSR occupation, the CIA actually went so far as to help disseminate the Qu'ran themselves. Noe even the Afghan insurgents had done that. Perhaps the resistance thare, like the anti-French resistance in Algeria, might have retained the character of a national liberation movement. Islam naturally would have some influence in a majority Muslim country, but did not have to constitute the banner of the movement nor the ideology of the new government. Even where militant Islamicism hadn't yet emerged it seems the CIA encourgaged it to strengthen resistance to the atheistic Communists, and to arouse the masses.
And it does seem that the CIA had some underhanded dealings with Osama. But I guess that THOSE Muslims, and THAT form of militant Islam (unlike the anti-American Islamicism in Iran) was more acceptable. It's ok against the Communists. They may have been SOBS, but they were OUR sobs. Only problem is that once religious zeal is aroused it doesn't simply go away at your convenience.
Yes. I think we can conclude that the Western policy is anti-Communist, and so Ïslamicists though sometimes also an enemy are always preferable to leftists.

The Reagan Administration notoriously refused to assist the Iranian Mujehedin against the Revolutionary govt (Ayatollah). Did not the USA hate the Iranian Revolutionaries? Ah, but the Iranian mujehedin was LEFTIST, not Islamicist, despite their name.

And in Iraq the West assisted in the takeover from a socialist-leaning govt by the fascist Ba'athists. In Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration armed, trained and funded al Qaeda and the Taliban.

It seems that Islamic fanatics, fascists... NOBODY is too low or crazy to be used against any REAL revolutionary movement which would support workers' rights!

As you say, this is a dangerous game, of course, not only for the suffering entailed by having Islamicists or fascists in power. It also risks that the Islamicists will use Western aid to maneuvre into power and actually create their desired Caliphate, which then would indeed pose a threat to the world far greater than any posed by the former USSR.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min OBAMANATION 1,568,134
How has Africa from the begining of time influe... (May '13) 10 min Trollslayer 4,049
My Message To The White Man 15 min The Power Of Mast... 9
Buck accidentally makes himself good after tryi... 18 min SWTT PUNKED OUT 2
Is the black man a living, walking penis? 21 min Ugly monkeys 2
This young black man has officially returned. 21 min The Amused Axe 37
Pointless 25 min The Amused Axe 6
Another video of a ww racially abusing a bm. C... 1 hr Whateveryo 30
News Anti-racist author Tim Wise: White America desp... 1 hr Paul 936
New evidence of non human DNA found in black Af... 3 hr Paul 73
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 5 hr luvher 1,555
More from around the web