Hey Medjay

[Ishmael]

Come to mind as what?

It's a pretty straightforward question - what is the difference between "a black man" and "a man that happens to be black?"

You got your answer. Not my fault if you're incapable of understanding the answer.

OK here's another. Al Sharpton and Shaka Zulu.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

You got your answer. Not my fault if you're incapable of understanding the answer.

OK here's another. Al Sharpton and Shaka Zulu.

Ishmael

LOL, so it's my fault you can't answer a simple question? you provided names without even identifying which of the two groups you identified you thought they belonged to.

Why can't you articulate a simple sentence or two which discusses the difference between the two groups?

 

[Ishmael]

LOL, so it's my fault you can't answer a simple question? you provided names without even identifying which of the two groups you identified you thought they belonged to.

Why can't you articulate a simple sentence or two which discusses the difference between the two groups?

Pardon me for giving you credit for being able to discern, or at least having the ability to recognize ordering as important.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Pardon me for giving you credit for being able to discern, or at least having the ability to recognize ordering as important.

Ishmael

I don't see what your problem is here. You made a statement and I just asked you to clarify what you meant. If you don't want to do that or are unable to do that then just say so.

I find it amusing that you feel the need to fall back on hints and clues rather than simply stating what you meant in clear, simple language using sentences.

Perhaps I gave was the one who gave you too much credit.

 

[Weevil]

LOL, so it's my fault you can't answer a simple question? you provided names without even identifying which of the two groups you identified you thought they belonged to.

Why can't you articulate a simple sentence or two which discusses the difference between the two groups?

Isn't it obvious? Ishmael gets to decide what the difference is and measures it however he wants.

But it seems to me pretty obvious. A black man is someone Ish wants to see shipped back to Africa, a man who happens to be black is someone Ish might let carry his golf clubs.

 

[Ishmael]

Isn't it obvious? Ishmael gets to decide what the difference is and measures it however he wants.

But it seems to me pretty obvious. A black man is someone Ish wants to see shipped back to Africa, a man who happens to be black is someone Ish might let carry his golf clubs.

That's because you're a fucking idiot weevil.

King measured a man by the content of his character. I have no idea what measure Shaka used, but I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sit around obsescing about his 'blackness'.

All Jesse and AL can see is color differences. Racial parasites.

Ishmael

 

[Weevil]

That's because you're a fucking idiot weevil.

King measured a man by the content of his character. I have no idea what measure Shaka used, but I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sit around obsescing about his 'blackness'.

I'd get better at spelling before I started calling other people stupid.

But that's me I suppose. I guess I have a problem with people looking at me like a pathetic loser.

Whatever works for you though.

 

[zipman]

That's because you're a fucking idiot weevil.

King measured a man by the content of his character. I have no idea what measure Shaka used, but I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sit around obsescing about his 'blackness'.

All Jesse and AL can see is color differences. Racial parasites.

Ishmael

Now I understand why you were hesitant use sentences.

 

[Ishmael]

Now I understand why you were hesitant use sentences.

Is that right? Nothing I haven't discussed before Zip.

If you admire Jesse and AL, more power to you. My opinion of them both hasn't changed in years. You can add Julian Bond and Calypso Louie Farakan to that list as well.

I used to feel the same about Infume as well but he's shown some real character lately. Still don't agree with his politics, but he has shown some character.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

so do you have to be "a black man" and "a man that happens to be black" to be pulled over for "driving while black"?

*edit: ahhh - conjunction and not disjunction. make that read: "so do you have to be 'a black man' or 'a man that happens to be black' to be pulled over for "driving while black"?

damn my proofreading

 

[Ishmael]

so do you have to be "a black man" and "a man that happens to be black" to be pulled over for "driving while black"?

That's about a stupid statement. I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Is that right? Nothing I haven't discussed before Zip.

If you admire Jesse and AL, more power to you. My opinion of them both hasn't changed in years. You can add Julian Bond and Calypso Louie Farakan to that list as well.

I used to feel the same about Infume as well but he's shown some real character lately. Still don't agree with his politics, but he has shown some character.

Ishmael

LOL, whether I like them or not is irrelevant. What I was trying to understand is the basis for which you categorized someone as "a black man" or "a man who happens to be black."

It sounds as if you are using how they measure "character" in others as your criteria for assigning them either group which is problematic to say the least for being measureable criteria.

Personally I see no difference whatsoever between "a black man" and "a man who happens to be black."

 

[cjh]

being pulled over for nothing more than being black is a statistically significant event. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb01.htm . if i am following your distinction clearly, medjay has no business sharing anecdotal evidence of that with me. instead, i must to speak to someone with the "heft" of martin luther king, jr.

i disagree with your assessment. i believe that the comments of the individual -- of a common man -- are significant in ascertaining the common experience of men. i don't believe that i am alone in that belief. studs terkel made a living doing just that.

 

[sigh]

LOL, whether I like them or not is irrelevant. What I was trying to understand is the basis for which you categorized someone as "a black man" or "a man who happens to be black."

It sounds as if you are using how they measure "character" in others as your criteria for assigning them either group which is problematic to say the least for being measureable criteria.

Personally I see no difference whatsoever between "a black man" and "a man who happens to be black."

He's got me confused too, zip. I think in Ish's world, a "black man" is "a man who happens to be black", who also has character (as defined by Ishmael). I'm not sure, though. It's my best guess.

I wonder if he uses the same differentiation with asians. Or whites.

 

[Byron In Exile]

He's got me confused too, zip. I think in Ish's world, a "black man" is "a man who happens to be black", who also has character (as defined by Ishmael). I'm not sure, though. It's my best guess.

I wonder if he uses the same differentiation with asians. Or whites.

From his examples, it seems he's attempting to separate men who think of themselves as blacks first, and men second, from men who think of themselves as men first, and blacks second. But while the second phrase, "a man who happens to be black," does emphasize the fact that one is a man over the fact that one is black, the phrase "black man" is commonly accepted as having no emphasis on either term. So I think, to avoid being confusing, Ishmael needs to find some other phrase to use for that case.

 

[Minkey Boodle]

I would appear as though he finds 'a black man' somewhat less of a man (human?) than 'a man who happens to be black.'

Maybe...?

 

[Pookie]

He's got me confused too, zip. I think in Ish's world, a "black man" is "a man who happens to be black", who also has character (as defined by Ishmael). I'm not sure, though. It's my best guess.

I wonder if he uses the same differentiation with asians. Or whites.

I suspect what prompted this thread is more about how Ish wants to define black men that don't meet his standards for black men.

Medjay's thread has been around for many months now. I have to wonder what prompted this thread all of a sudden. Too many white chicas paying him too much attention lately possibly? His own insecurities showing? Hard to tell. But this thread sure does remind me of another Lit user's reaction to a black man not meeting his "standard."

 

[Byron In Exile]

But this thread sure does remind me of another Lit user's reaction to a black man not meeting his "standard."

Is this another Killswitch thread?

 

[Ishmael]

LOL, whether I like them or not is irrelevant. What I was trying to understand is the basis for which you categorized someone as "a black man" or "a man who happens to be black."

It sounds as if you are using how they measure "character" in others as your criteria for assigning them either group which is problematic to say the least for being measureable criteria.

Personally I see no difference whatsoever between "a black man" and "a man who happens to be black."

Hehe, you're funny Zip.

I don't categorize groups Zip, neither do you. Groups categorize themselves. All you have to do is listen. And even that can be misleading.

If you come to me and say, "As a ______(fill in the blank)-American, ............." I'm going to shut down and stop listening at that first sentence. First of all you've set yourself up as the spokesman for a group for which I know damn well you couldn't gather 20 of in a room and come out with an agreement on a brand of deodorant.

And that was the difference betwen King and someone like Jackson. King spoke for himself and people followed, Jackson presumes to speak for a group. A group that consists of a great many people that disagree with him. But Med and I have had that discussion years ago.

There are people, like MedJay, that think for themselves regardless of their race, religion, or place of national origin, and their are people that subscribe to a "pack menatlity" not unlike that of any gang banger or rabid party line follower. <shrug>

But the 'packers' identify themselves if you care to listen and refrain from putting words in their mouths.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Hehe, you're funny Zip.

I don't categorize groups Zip, neither do you. Groups categorize themselves. All you have to do is listen. And even that can be misleading.

If you come to me and say, "As a ______(fill in the blank)-American, ............." I'm going to shut down and stop listening at that first sentence. First of all you've set yourself up as the spokesman for a group for which I know damn well you couldn't gather 20 of in a room and come out with an agreement on a brand of deodorant.

And that was the difference betwen King and someone like Jackson. King spoke for himself and people followed, Jackson presumes to speak for a group. A group that consists of a great many people that disagree with him. But Med and I have had that discussion years ago.

There are people, like MedJay, that think for themselves regardless of their race, religion, or place of national origin, and their are people that subscribe to a "pack menatlity" not unlike that of any gang banger or rabid party line follower. <shrug>

But the 'packers' identify themselves if you care to listen and refrain from putting words in their mouths.

Ishmael

Actually you are chategorizing them using a distinction where none seems to exist. Whatever reason you have for doing so doesn't change the fact that you are.

You're longstanding issue about hyphenated americans is besides the point as is your distinction between the two. CrackerjackHrt struck to the heart of the issue when he used the driving analogy.

Whether you say "black man" or "man who happens to be black" the only two criteria used for either are gender and skin color. Character and acting like a role model are additional criteria to you, but obviously not to Medjay. Personally, I'll go with his definition on this one.

 

[Ishmael]

Actually you are chategorizing them using a distinction where none seems to exist. Whatever reason you have for doing so doesn't change the fact that you are.

You're longstanding issue about hyphenated americans is besides the point as is your distinction between the two. CrackerjackHrt struck to the heart of the issue when he used the driving analogy.

Whether you say "black man" or "man who happens to be black" the only two criteria used for either are gender and skin color. Character and acting like a role model are additional criteria to you, but obviously not to Medjay. Personally, I'll go with his definition on this one.

Only in your mind Zip.

Shallow end runs on the part of you, and Pooks, and a few others to get to take a few cheap shots no matter how obtuse the justification.

Like I said, shallow and really, really cheap.

I guess if categorizing someone as a man is a condemnation, I'll just have to stand condemned. Now see if you can pick the "phobia".

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Only in your mind Zip.

Shallow end runs on the part of you, and Pooks, and a few others to get to take a few cheap shots no matter how obtuse the justification.

Like I said, shallow and really, really cheap.

I guess if categorizing someone as a man is a condemnation, I'll just have to stand condemned. Now see if you can pick the "phobia".

Ishmael

How am I shallow or cheap?

I responded to your post asking you to clarify your views. You danced around the issue for a while and finally came up with something to try and explain your position which I feel is without merit as a classification.

I specifically didn't attribute any intentions to your post and just discussed what you actually posted.

But if acting as if I've attacked you makes you feel better about not being able to make a case for your classification system, so be it.

 

[Ishmael]

How am I shallow or cheap?

I responded to your post asking you to clarify your views. You danced around the issue for a while and finally came up with something to try and explain your position which I feel is without merit as a classification.

I specifically didn't attribute any intentions to your post and just discussed what you actually posted.

But if acting as if I've attacked you makes you feel better about not being able to make a case for your classification system, so be it.

You've attempted to be manipulative Zip. Turning this thread into something it's not. <shrug>

If MedJay had a beef he could have, and undoubtedly would have, piped up.

Succinctly, there are people who may be identified as part of a group based on superficial characteristics but rise above the superficial as individuals. I believe MedJay to be one of these people.

And there are others that find refuge in their self identified group. They wear their identifiable characteristic, whatever that may be, as a sheild, or a chip on their shoulder. They take offense at slights never made if for no other reason than to put the other party on the defensive. It's the survival tactic of the 'herd animal'. A reaction born of fear.

Ishmael

 

[medjay]

If MedJay had a beef he could have, and undoubtedly would have, piped up.

I was wondering if someone was going to comment on my lack of participation in a thread bearing my name.

 

[GirlMidnite]

I was wondering if someone was going to comment on my lack of participation in a thread bearing my name.

You don't either care about Ishmael as he as a grasshopper in the meadow of the estate that is life, or you are Ishmael (Scooby Doo awaits.) Or maybe you were waiting for the moment to ask someone to comment on your lack of participation