Views expressed on this website are those of the person or persons posting the message and does not reflect the views of Gogouyave.com
Rules Of this Talk Shop
Do not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, obscene, vulgar, hateful, abusive, threatening, or an invasion of a person's privacy, or otherwise a violation of any laws.
So please! please! try to keep your posts clean. Webmaster
>>Change. So I put forth a few questions, who have the moral authority to tell people to Change?<<
That anyone would be brave enough to ask that question shows the level of philosophical sophistication of the people who choose to grace this Talkshop with their posts. Bravo to you!
So who on earth has the moral authority to tell people to change? A very tough question indeed to answer, but if you believe the story of Jesus, then you have to agree that in his case that moral authority came from above. According to the many priests who served in Gouyave as well as my own understanding of the story, Jesus came to change and save the world. That being the case, who are we therefore to question that kind of change? Should we blame Jesus for all the religious wars that followed between Christians and just about every other religion, and are continuing to this day?
I am absolutely certain that I do not know who gave White people the belief that they are the ones assigned to change the world, or carry the "White man's burden" as they termed it. In that change we saw boatloads and boatloads of kidnapped Africans being transported from their African homes across the seas to the New World and dropped off at various spots throughout the Caribbean and North and South America. Their transformation was so total that we their descendants can barely trace our original African roots. We are no longer Kinta Kuntes but instead we are left to be contented with names like Toby, Washington, Jefferson, DeCoteau, Louison, DeRiggs, L'Ouverture, Duncan, Santos, Becton, etc that they forced upon us to wear with pride.
In the name of change, the forces of economic reality according to CAPITLAISM AND SLAVERY by Dr. Eric Williams, combined with men of good consciences forced the establishments to realize that there was no longer a place for slavery. Had it not been for that recognition of the changing times, those slave ships would still be plying the waters of the Great Triangle which means that you and I could not be free to be writing our posts as I am doing now. Very likely we would be on massa's trading block to be sold to the highest bidder.
Determined as they were to resist those changes, Southerners went as far as devising Jim Crow laws to ensure that Black folks "knew their place" even though they were no longer legally slaves. Why should I give a hoot about who gave the moral authority to those who dismantled Jim Crow laws? For if they didn't dismantle Jim Crow, Merle could not have walked freely around the streets of Greensboro, NC, to show my wife and me the building and artifacts of what remained of the old Woolworth store where one of the major sit-ins took place during the Civil Rights movement. Unlike Emmett Till I felt no fear whatsoever in looking white women in the eye as I spoke with a few during my sojourn in Greensboro.
Let those who want to be philosophical about the morality of change continue on their quest, but I know that today my family is far less likely to find me lynched, tarred and feathered and left hanging from a tree branch with a noose around my neck. That's because of change.
Just as one of the unfortunate results of the spread of Christianity is the constant stupid religious wars that we have been burdened with, so too are some of the unfortunate developments that are off-shoots of a changing world. That we should require moral authority from someone or somewhere before changes are made translates right back to "the good old days" of slavery where people of my color would still be considered "chattel" as if we were no different from cattle, horses and sheep.
Should we be afraid of change? You be the judge!
Tony you have two much of this white and black thing in you. Racism is not a one way street man, every time people think about racism they think about white people, but some blacks are just as racist towards the white man, just as some whites are racist towards blacks and minorities. I can go as far as to call you a racist based on a statement you made a few years ago on this Talkshop, when you said " yes, i am voting for Obama just because he is black" sure you remember that lol.
Even you and others on the talkshop probably were prejudice back in your days in Grenada. Do you remember all the names blacks use to call the Indian people in Grenada, coolie Kankadan, Ramgoathan, lol and the songs they made up and use to sing,coolie come for Roti, coolie is nation, smell ah Perspiration and all the rest lol. Sure some of you participated in that.
Even today the word is still there and still used. It affected these people so much that every Indian woman ended up with a black man and every Indian man was looking for a black woman,hence some many Duglass in Grenada. Has there ever been an Apology to these people no? has it changed? not really.
Have a black guy on my job whom i saw crying the other because his girl friend left him, he was crying not because she left him, but because she went with a white guy, he said she disrespected him because she went with a white guy, if it was a brother it would have been ok. Just made this point to show you that in every one of us, there is a little prejudice.
America today is not about white and black anymore, is about who have money and who don't. You think kanye and jay-z and these guys will hang out with you, no? they will hang with people that have money like them no matter what color they are. Take a look at all these rich black athletes and see who their wives are?lol
The social mix of Grenada must not be compared with that of he US, especially the Southern States, where racism was part of the laws of the land almost. In Grenada, all kinds of people lived in the same tiwn, and went to school together. There were no "White Only" signs hanging on bathrooms and restaurants doors; no riding in the back on public buses. There were no groups like the Klu Klux Kang, chasing and destroying things that the Indians owned. And, no beatings of anyone, because of the color of their skin, or for being in the right, not wrong, place at the wrong time. There were no one like the late Rosa Parks; nor Dr. Martin Luther King, and most recently, Rev. Al Sharpton, fighting for social justice and freedom for the Indian people in Grenada. So, in a way, racism wasn't a much heard-about sermon that was preached in Grenada.
However, there is prejudice in every human being, as well as in animals. That's because prejudice is something that all of us was born with. Still, racism isn't something that starts during the younger days of anyone's life. It is something that is learned as years go by.
Racism is the idea of one feeling superior over the other. Hardly would I come to believe that this wasthe case of the black in Grenada. The Indians were called names by the blacks, as well as most of the people from Mt. Mortiz; They were called,"Mon-Mons" (sp). But, the Indians as well as the Mon-Mons, had names for the black people also. I've heard it with my own ears! Although as discriminating as it was, it was more the way of life, rather the the institutionalized, well, sort of, kind of racism that had existed in the United States of America. Many innocent folks lost their lives, and their homes, and their right to exist because of it. It left a last scar on all those who were affected by it in more than one way.
But, times have changed. Not much for the way black folks are seen by some white people, but because the blacks have for the last two decades, or so, stood up for their right to exist. The Indian right to exist in Grenada had never be attacked by a black person. In fact, there were a perfect harmony between them!
And as for change, to stay ahead of it, one has to constantly remember one thing. That is it begins with y you. And, protecting it is your job!
I wouldn't have gotten to know the the word "racism" was such a strong word, if I didn't read about it, or moved out of Grenada.
I don't see how you could even compare the Indian/Black relationships in Grenada with the Black/White relationship in the US. But if you must, Daniel seems to have a good grip of what I've been saying, so Observer at this point I'll bow out and let him continue with you if he wishes.
Actually, I wasn't comparing it. It was more of a contrast to draw a point on how prejudices is aligned with every human being.
In every country, there are differences between people of the different races. I'd experienced it in Venezuela. Although it wasn't as strong in Venezuela as it was in America, still, human nature directs people to treat those who aren't of the same ethnic background unequally, as they would treat someone of the same background that they belonged to. For me, the Indian/black scenario in Grenada was more of a teasing habit, rather than a sense of superiority. In most cases, the Indian didn't mind being called "Collie", as much as the blacks were called the 'N' word, by whites in America. This is what Observer's take on the "predijice" of the Indians/black in Grenada that he spoke about.
If I had strayed from the debate, which I don't think I did, well, excuse me for going the wrong way with it.
Since that there's nothing from America that could be compared with any part of the West Indies, one would have to take a lesser view of it. However, whatever is the difference between life in Ameria and Grenada, the effects of it is almost the same. Pain is pain! It hurts every one who had it come to them needlessly.
I am happy that my post was based mostly on what you'd outlinedin your post. I sincerely believed that it was the strength of the debate.
NB: I wanted to write, Klu Klux Khan, instead of "Klu Klux Kang".
why can't you compare them? the only difference is that in America the whites went to the extreme, by killing, torturing, raping ect. But the underlying principle in both cases are the same, which is the demeaning or to belittle a race/class of people. Hitler even went further by trying to wipe out the Jews all together.
You're so right because, on second thought, it can be compared!
One of the reasons why the Black/Indian prejudice in Grenada didn't excel those that existed in America was because of the size of Grenada. Not much crimes went unsolved in Grenada, because everybody knew everybody there. With no place to run nor hide, the law caught up with the alleged suspects quickly, because someone was there to notify them about your whereabouts. Even if you came from behind God's back, skmeone knew who you were, and whereyou were from. You see me?
The prejudice that existed in America was based on how the government for the most part saw the black people. They supported the white on black crime, because they saw the black people as one-fifth of a human being. Bkack people were called "monkeys", after they were brought here, not by free will, but as captives. Their voices nor their cries were heard, because most of the white folks heads were in one to treat them a animals. The blacks couldn't even worship God in peace! Their churches were torched, and stoned. People even lost their lives in the some of the blaze. And, it was white folks who were doing it, because they knew that they were going to be spared by the court of law for their crimes.
Many black folks were hurt, their homes were destroyed, some were hung, beaten, tied and dragged like an old utensil was dragged on Carnival Day in the West Indies, behind a motor vehicle, for doing nothing wrong at all. The Indian people in Grenada wasn't raped, killed, or nothing of this sort, but they were torn apart from the name calling, that made them feel less than who they were.
So, it is not the magnitude of the crime, but the mark it leaves behind. Especially when people are not treated for who they are, but what the pigmentation of the skin is.
I agreed with you on everything you pointed out in you post. Because, six and one half dozen is indistinguishable.