How Much Truth Is Too Much?

topic posted Wed, November 15, 2006 - 10:45 PM by  LaDonna Lorcan
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Don't read this if you love Ghandi. I almost wish I hadn't, but I am on a mission these days to learn as much as I can.

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm
posted by:
LaDonna Lorcan
Philadelphia
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

    Thu, November 16, 2006 - 5:49 AM
    I haven't read this yet, but I have heard that Ghandi was a big proponent of the racist caste system, if that's what it's referring to. Just goes to show you the old adage is right, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
    • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

      Thu, November 16, 2006 - 9:47 AM
      Yes, that is what it refers to, but also how the Dalits feel hurt by not being known by African American since they also consider themselves African. They have adopted a lot of our past heroes as people to look up to.
      • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

        Thu, November 16, 2006 - 2:17 PM
        Yes, that is what it refers to, but also how the Dalits feel hurt by not being known by African American since they also consider themselves African. They have adopted a lot of our past heroes as people to look up to.

        These are some complex issues. In some respects I will always respect MK Ghandi for his work toward removing the Raj from India. I further venerate his commitment to using Ahimsa as the underlying precept of his political philosophy and activist paradigm. This respect and veneration in no way excuses him for his racist statements while in South Africa. I do however recognize that during that same period of time he actively worked as a Barrister in the British legal system and further as a recruiter of Indian South Africans for the British Army. I must contrast his role within the British System with his subsequent protest against it. I believe that his change in position reflects a fundamental change in his world view. That he could recruit anyone into any Army demonstrates that he had not as yet evolved his views on non-violence. That he was active as a Barrister in the Colonial Legal System of the British Empire demonstrates that he had not as yet recognized the basic illegitimacy of that entire Imperial world view.

        People change. Times change. When I think of Ghandiji I think of the following statement; from among his last words. It was written 50 years after the quotations of 1908 in South Africa, about Kaffirs.

        "I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?
        Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

        This was the statement of a Mahatma (Great Soul). The words of MK Ghandi of 1908 in South Africa were the words of a "House Nigger" trying to fit in and be accepted. I recognize the tone of his statements from those that many of our Negro "Leaders" made during the days of the Movement. Most of the people here now are too young to remember what our elected officials and Ministers of our largest churches had to say when ML King was encouraging the original bus boycott. He was called a radical troublemaker who was going to set his people back years. I don't doubt that any of these men would speak in a different idiom now; were any of them alive.

        The plight of the Dalits in India is grievous but not much different than that of dark skinned blacks here in America today. If anyone doubts that please take note of the skin tone of the two most prominent African American men today; Barak Obama, and Harold Ford Jr. I seem to recall the "paper bag test" wasn't that long ago.
        • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

          Thu, November 16, 2006 - 8:32 PM
          Well that is something that increasingly concerns me. We are a global village now and apparently, what is going on with us here has been repeated around the world against others who basically are our blood, too. Dark indians, dark asians, dark brazilians. It is a common complaint these days from outside of our community that we are too concerned with ourselves to be taking note of the rest of the world. I would love to meet a black asian or indian that would greet me as sister. Although, thanks to the popularity of hip hop, most likely it would be ' what's up my ni$?@!
          • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

            Fri, November 17, 2006 - 6:20 AM
            >>>It is a common complaint these days from outside of our community that we are too concerned with ourselves to be taking note of the rest of the world.>>>

            It just astounds me that Black Americans still continue to buy diamonds and gold and brag about it in videos.
            • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

              Fri, November 17, 2006 - 11:15 AM
              >>>It just astounds me that Black Americans still continue to buy diamonds and gold and brag about it in videos. >>>

              Well diamonds and gold are hard currancy anywhere on the planet. I'd like to see us as a community buying more for investment purposes rather then just to show off to the world.


              >>>It is a common complaint these days from outside of our community that we are too concerned with ourselves to be taking note of the rest of the world.>>>

              Community? these days with rare exception there is no sense of community with black people. Of course there is no general sense of community in america at large so prehaps we are just looking at our small section of a larger issue. when you care about your neighbors welbeing as much as you are about your own then change can happen.
              Growing up the 70's and early 80's I never felt unsafe in a black neighborhood. I could walk down the street in almost any city and know that unless I was involved in "the game" it wasn't going to affect me. These days it's a different world.
              • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                Fri, November 17, 2006 - 11:50 AM
                >>>It just astounds me that Black Americans still continue to buy diamonds and gold and brag about it in videos. >>>

                Well diamonds and gold are hard currancy anywhere on the planet. I'd like to see us as a community buying more for investment purposes rather then just to show off to the world.


                My Brother,

                With the greatest respect, I must take exception to your above statement. Gold and diamonds are hard currency, tis true. But so are Rubies, Silver, Platinum, Iridium, and a host of other commodities. It (possessing hard currency) only matter; or matters the most in times of war and economic upheaval. And worst of all these hard currency alternatives are strictly INDIVIDUAL modalities in such times. Taking this scenario even further such hard currencies are also easiest to be confiscated by "authorities" (ask any Jew in the Death Camps, "where are you diamonds?") or looted by brigands.

                The second premiss you offered; that we should buy them for investment purposes, fails to recognize that the market price of both diamonds and gold are artificially inflated by the cartels that regulate the flow. Most of us outside the trade are unaware of the vast stockpiles of diamonds held by the Dutch, South Africans, and Russians. Add to this the vast new discoveries of diamonds in Canada. Were it not for the cartel's artifically maintained price structure diamonds would be worth appx. as much as quartz. The reality of "hedge" investing is that you must only invest in commodities that are not controlled by potential competitors and/or market manipulators.

                If we were to determine that we should invest as a community; our best investment strategy (facing the dire future of global warming) would be to purchase land. More specifically land that is strategically located in a position to control a fresh water aquifer. That is why GW Bush and his family have purchased over 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay. Toward the middle to end of this century; we will discover that the control of water is even more important than that of petroleum. This type of investment is not "sexy" and does not offer a rapid cash out or geometric increase in valuation. But for a community it is advisable, since it is stable and secure. Also strategic investment in land will allow for the development of communities that are sustainable during social upheavals. If all of the Blacks born during the "Baby Boom" who are facing retirement now were to cash out the equity in homes they have bought in major cities, add to that investment pool their accumulated savings and that of their "Echo Boom" generation children, we could purchase vast tract of airable land now that will be the basis of our salvation in the dire future.

                This was the paradigm operated by the followers of Guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, in the 1980s. It was very successful. At this time due to the fiscal policies enacted in the Reagan Age, there are 1000s of small to medium sized communities available for purchase. If we adopt a regional strategy based on lands in the Ohio Valley and Northern Tennesse Valley we can organize a cluster of communities that would be able at their inception to house 3 - 5 million of us. The initial injection of community building finances would supply an economic impetus that could be then used to create sustainable small industry as well as self-sufficiency in food production; thus providing employment for the residents.

                These areas that I describe have great intrinsic value and underlying resources. They are in their current economic plight due to the short-sightedness of the local gentry. Much like Spain in the 18th & 19th centuries (as well as the early 20th), these locally wealthy individuals were complacent and viewed their positions within their communities as more important than the survival and ongoing viablilty of the economic infrastructure. We can take advantage of their lack of vision, NOW and provide a much better future for our progeny than simply investing in hard currency and other forms of highly portable wealth.
                • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                  Fri, November 17, 2006 - 1:44 PM
                  Um... I really don't seeing you taking exception to my statement, but rather expanding upon it. I mentioned those items because they were brought up in the conversation.
                  As for things being easily taken away from people. Land is taken away from individuals regularly in this country and we all know those same jews in the death camps had their properties taken away from them as well. Often for no other reason then to be handed over to a developer. My point being: no mater how you invest or what you invest in it can be taken away and/or lost.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    moRe: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                    Fri, November 17, 2006 - 2:43 PM
                    < Land is taken away from individuals regularly in this country ... >

                    Let's not forget what happened to American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII: although Presidential Executive Order 9066 did not actually take people's homes away, people still had to sell their homes because of the relocation process, so the loss of land was de facto: you can be certain that none of those folks got "fair market value" for their property! And it wasn't waiting for them when they got back, either.

                    < Community? these days with rare exception there is no sense of community with black people. Of course there is no general sense of community in america at large so prehaps we are just looking at our small section of a larger issue. when you care about your neighbors welbeing as much as you are about your own then change can happen. Growing up the 70's and early 80's I never felt unsafe in a black neighborhood. I could walk down the street in almost any city and know that unless I was involved in "the game" it wasn't going to affect me. These days it's a different world. >

                    I'm wondering if this could be a new thread, since this is a issue that I recognize and which disheartens me. I remember a day when black people meeting -- strangers -- would nod in recognition when meeting on the street. Nowadays, I not only don't see that happening, but I often encounter hostility in the faces of other black people. What has happened to us?
                    ;(
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                    Fri, November 17, 2006 - 7:30 PM
                    "As for things being easily taken away from people. Land is taken away from individuals regularly in this country"

                    In the spirit of pursuing this discourse, let me say that you are right that individuals reqularly have their properties taken away/condemned/appropriated. And as Pat R pointed out the Neisei did have their rights as citizens abrogated and their homes and properties were lost as a result.

                    History is not a blueprint for the future. Recognizing these patterns in the past we can make plans to prevent them in the future. I did not propose that we as individuals invest in land but rather as a collective. In the guise of a "corporate entity" we can exist within and without the law as do all other corporations. This is not 1942 nor is it 1912, when vast numbers of Blacks were displaced from the land that they had acquired in the aftermath of the Civil War. My perception is that in the coming cataclysm race will be much less of a determinate as is economics. I also am not (despite the constituency of this tribe) suggesting that we become all Black settlements. I believe that the communities that we build should be based upon similarity of thought and commitment to an evolutionary way of life as opposed to simple ethnocentricity.

                    In any respect; the paradigm of consumerism and "bling" is rapidly failing us. It is unsustainable and the basis of the degradation of our sense of community. I am certain that it is time for us to emerge from the urban jungles and create new communities. Where and when and in conjunction with whom is to be determined.
                    • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                      Fri, November 17, 2006 - 7:43 PM
                      Oh, would be beautiful. I have been to a spiritually-based community, where the whole community will gather for meals together and so forth. It doesn't just have to be a white thing. They all have one thing in common tho: a spiritual leader to provide a moral center. There is still freedom, tho.
                      • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                        Sat, November 18, 2006 - 3:33 PM
                        hum.. i'm not so much for a spiritual based community but do believe that any community has to have a belief that each individual is of equal importance. I fell that althought a strong leader can help to found such a community I feel that true direction and leadership needs ato cme from the community itself.
                        History shows us that a strogn leader can get something going just to have it fall apart or be corrupted when the leaader passes or mocves on. And even the best leader can become a tyrant when they are the only one helping to focus direction.
                    • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                      Sat, November 18, 2006 - 3:36 PM
                      I understand whta you are saying. To be honest I think that a community that is exclusive in any fashion is a community that has limited value.
                      Consumerism and "bling" have become the halmark of the currnet downfall of our society. When the pursit of self becomes more important than anything else all is lost.
                      • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                        Sat, November 18, 2006 - 7:33 PM
                        Not when it is done for the purpose of inspiring others to change and higher purpose. It also helps to have a place of incubation to get certain work done. Look at the Piney Woods School in Miss. It was started a long time ago over a tree stump when 2 young black kids asked this black man to teach them to read. From that he grew the idea of a private black school that is still thriving today. Yes, it is Christian-based, but it has a strong set of values in place, the children are not exposed to non-stop bling culture, are out in fresh country air, learning important academic skills, and farming skills to boot. The concept of creating your own reality is not so impossible when you look at examples such as these. When you have time, take a look thru the link on my page aout Hanuman foundation. Mount Maonna is where I went for some training. They do have a spiritual leader, a mute monk from India, but almost everyone in the community is expected to pull their weight and give selfless service. They run an orphanage in India, 2 schools and much more. But it's not about what THEY believe in. It's about the model itself which was built around certain principles they believe in. I think the question for us is..what could be the foundation for you, me, or any of us to build such a community? Considering how many of our children are being overdosed on bling culture, would not something that could save even a few of them be worth it in the long run? A girl can dream, right?
                        • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                          Sun, November 19, 2006 - 3:42 AM
                          I believe we are having a slight misunderstanding here.

                          I said it takes a strong leader to get things going but that the community itself has to take up the responsibility or ultimately it will fail. Piney Woods for example is not run by a single man anymore. It may have started out that way but has grown into something more.

                          The fact that I don't see the importance of the basis being spiritual in nature really does not affect the dynamic. You can have the same basic idea being intellectually based as well. What it needs is a solid foundation and direction. It also needs its followers to take up the cause and help to mold it, evolve the idea so to speak. In both examples you gave I can see this in action. On individual started something but it has grown beyond them.

                          As for us creating our reality, I believe we each do that everyday. The world can be falling apart around us but we still can chose how we view things and also how we react. Your world view ultimately s your responsibility. Is the glass half full or is it half empty. Also, what are you doing to make it all the way full?
                          • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                            Thu, November 23, 2006 - 11:02 AM
                            I wasn't disagreeing with you, which is why I used those examples. Although each started with one person, it took a community of people coming together to support the idea, hence the foundation. I also agree that a community can be intellectually based. But if as insulated as these places are, something that answers to mans' spirit should still be present. A balance of head and heart.
                            • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

                              Fri, November 24, 2006 - 5:50 PM
                              Oh i'm not arguing with you I was just pointing out that the examples you used proved what I was saying.
                              The one thing I don't like about online discourse is that misunderstanding creeps in easily. I'm sorry about my misunderstanding.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

    Thu, December 28, 2006 - 8:38 PM
    That was good. I like to learn more. I love the truth. Here is my comment on the article:

    "Ever since I read about Mother Theresa in middle school I have had a place in my heart for the dark-skinned "untouchables" of India. I am a thinker and I love to learn about PEOPLE. I have a lot of love for all types of people but especially people who are hurting and suffering under oppression. I never looked up to Gandhi but I have heard of a lot of political propaganda about how he was some type of icon of peace or something. I never researched him but I have always admired Mother Theresa.

    Dark-skinned Indians are black just as there are black people in Australia and Melanesian islands of the South Asia Pacific. There are different kinds of black people. They are obviously not the same as the black people in subsaharan Africa because they are not as black in terms of hair texture and body type/facial features. Black Indians are not as different from their oppressors but that's what makes it so difficult because it's really just about skin color. Skin color alone is just that important in human societies.

    It seems that people with light skin (light tan, olive, or white) have some kind of natural disdain or disgust for people with deep brown or black skin. It seems better when these different color ranges are far apart as far as location so that they don't have much contact. It's like we are worlds away and that we actually need our own planets! It seems that skin color is unique to the human condition; the very thing that makes us different from animals and plants. We've got this very sensitive unique pattern of evolution even though we are all very similar in our genetic makeup - we're all the same species. It's that little % that makes us human, with complex political systems and everything else..."

    It's really sad but it's good to know more about how people think in this world. As I have matured I have learned that people are more complex than I could have imagined. There's just so much pain and confusion it's heartbreaking to be human.
    • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

      Thu, December 28, 2006 - 9:15 PM
      Hi Amaka. Thank you for your honest response to my posting. All of it truly is a mess. I would have to disagree on one point, tho. I don't believe honestly, that all light-skinned people feel disdain for darker skinned people. There are a lot of us who have all of the colors of the rainbow right in our own families. My mother and her sisters ranged from inky black with wavy thick hair from our indian ancestry to light bright with a ton of freckles from the plantation white that crept in thru the back door. There is just way too much European influence that has to be overcome. I remember reading James Michener's novel about Hawaii years ago and learning that the first white settlers taught the early Hawaiians that it was not good to be black because God did not like black people; they were not blessed by him. What Michener did not mention in his novel was what the early Hawaiians were mixed with and what they looked like. Black people! Thinking about it now,those settlers must have clearly saw there was a connection and decided to plant a seed of hate for dark skin so that the Hawaiians would never feel any sympathy or kindred spirit with other black people. But that's just my guess. I see pictures of early Hawaiians and they adviously look related to black. I have heard that this same opinion towards black people still lingers in the islands...almost a way of disregarding where they are from. This was the same thing done in India by Aryans. But I also see around me alot of people who have love for others, no matter what skin color they are. We just all have a long way to go.
      • moRe: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

        Fri, December 29, 2006 - 12:19 AM
        < I remember reading James Michener's novel about Hawaii years ago and learning that the first white settlers taught the early Hawaiians that it was not good to be black because God did not like black people; they were not blessed by him. What Michener did not mention in his novel was what the early Hawaiians were mixed with and what they looked like. Black people! Thinking about it now,those settlers must have clearly saw there was a connection and decided to plant a seed of hate for dark skin so that the Hawaiians would never feel any sympathy or kindred spirit with other black people. But that's just my guess. I see pictures of early Hawaiians and they adviously look related to black. I have heard that this same opinion towards black people still lingers in the islands...almost a way of disregarding where they are from. >

        I've done a fair amount of research into Hawaiian culture, and was surprised to read the following in "Nana I Ke Kumu (Look to the Source), Vol. 2," a series of books about Hawaiian beliefs and customs; the books were designed to provide a background for mental health and social workers to understand the dynamics of Hawaiian culture so that they could better serve their patients:

        "Pa'ele, the Black Skin"

        "Whether Hawaiians had seen black skins, and how they felt about them in ancient times, we do not know. We do know that some time before Mrs. Pukui's [a primary resource for the authors] childhood, Hawai'i was already giving the short end of favoritism's stick to the black person.

        "Mrs. Pukui outlines her explanation for this prejudice: Hawaiians had for years known about African slaves. They equated the black man's slave status with their own 'kauwa' [similar to the "untouchables" of India]. When the Gilbertese and the first American Negroes arrived in Hawai'i, both found prejudice ready and waiting for them. Though ' 'ili kou,' dark skin, was thought beautiful, if color scale and hair structure tipped to the Negroid, prejudice arose."

        Other authors have also attributed prejudice against African-American blacks to the influence of Mormon missionaries, not unlike what Michener alluded to in his book. The bottom line, though, or so it seems to me, is that this prejudice has a long history which most prejudiced Hawaiian people today would have a hard time explaining: they don't even remember or even know where it came from.

        The good news, though, is that more recently, some Hawaiian activists have turned away from the divisiveness of "black against black," and are trying to heal the old wounds. The pity of it is that Hawaiians have been subjected to a lot of what African-Americans have suffered, in terms of self-abasement, self-loathing, and diminished expectations. We actually could help each other, if we could ever really got it together ...
  • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

    Fri, January 5, 2007 - 4:51 PM
    I think it's more like how much truth can you handle. I love to hear the truth and don't like when people butter it up,garnish it and then serve it on a platter. I already heard this before about Ghandi and I think it's messed up but am I really surprised. No.
    • om
      om
      offline 66

      Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

      Fri, December 12, 2008 - 10:32 AM
      <<< "This was the same thing done in India by Aryans" >>>

      stupid, you don't even know what you're TALKING about.

      I am a native Sanskrit, Hindi, and Gujarati speaker from INDIA.

      the word "Arya" or "aryan" is a SANSKRIT word which roughly translates to "one who is on the spiritual path"

      The ancient name of India is "Aryavart" (land of the Aryans = spiritually enlightened people)

      India is home to ALL Indians. NONE of us are "outsiders" or "foreign."

      The british created lies to divide and conquer India, especially the common myth that the "natives" are from the south
      and the "non-natives" are from the north so that we fight and kill each other and are easily controllable from an outside force
      (British Imperialism), and on top of that, it also gave the evil bastards a "reason" to set up shop in India, since they say the entire
      Indian culture is stolen from blonde-haired blue eyed anglos from Europe who supposedly "migrated to India" many centuries ago.

      I thought this was the black people tribe. Please don't spread lies about me or my people.

      nishu
      • Re: How Much Truth Is Too Much?

        Sat, December 13, 2008 - 2:43 PM
        Sorry folks(the other people in this Tribe, not the latest poster, who felt the need to drag up an old thread to throw around a little venom) This same person made sure to send me the exact same message in my mailbox to make sure I felt duly chastised. Any of you who are familiar with my postings knows that doesn't work with me At All!
        Anyway, whether you agree with him or not, I have already given him the message to bug off as far as my mail is concerned. We always strive to rspect and really listen to one another here, but when you start your posting calling someone stupid, well...you lost me.

Recent topics in "Black People"