Amun-Ra : Martin Luther King!

$$RICH$$

Lyon King Admin.
STAFF
how do you see the next one and the funny stuff that's displayed
in barbershop 2 coming out soon ??

i feel the view of both sides of this coin
 

Amun-Ra

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
The Messenger

I hate to be the one to tell folks, but there are few secrets left in the black community if any--television, radio and our own shows haved made sure of that--we are not airing dirty laundry--we are speaking common knowledge--if you put your dirty doings in pulic, then they are subject to public discussion--besides this is comedy--anything is a topic including cripples, babies, old folks, poor folks, God, Jesus, the president, the pope, and almost all heros. and by the way "f" Jesse!

Ra

:jawdrop:
 

Astro

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Making light of MLK

I joined this forum about a month ago. Taking note of what appears to be voice chat only I backed away. To this time I haven't bothered to add a mic to my CPU, perhaps I will in the near future. In the meantime I'll survey the scene and comment where a discussion draws my attention. Concerning this thread I'm not quite clear whether the talk of MLK's indiscretions are cast in a comedic context or are iframed as firm criticims of his character. Either way I'd like to share a few words as one who has engaged in a number of serious civil rights struggles. As Ralph Abernathy and other men who worked in immediate contact with men, who like MLK are now icons of the struggle I also served as a "right hand man" of a civil rights icon in Los Angeles, Celes King. Working directly with Celes, like those who've worked with Martin, Elijah Muhammad, Huey Newton and other icons are all aware any icon's, except Jesus Christ, achievements can be detracted from by taking note of failings in their character. While Martin has been put on public display in a film whose merits as an artistic expression is not subject to any serious discussion, in the most serious context men like Elijah Muhammad is as liable for criticism for sexual impropriety as Martin. This is along with a host of others, without regard to ethnic derivation or any other superficial factor that men have worn thin in their efforts to differentiate their humanity from the man next door. In my own life are matters I am ashamed of, notwithstanding I, a flawed man have also served to forge a path making possible the betterment of other's lives. Having been up close and personal with other "leaders", I've had opportunity to have personal talks on issues of this kind, of nights where there've been tossing and turning in anguish at the thought of the contradiction of being a respected person who was as flawed as any who were disposed to admiring.

Being a man working at the forefront of any meaningful work is a heavy burden, because those same men have their sins. However, in the eyes of the populace their sins are of a grander proportion, more disappointing or difficult to comprehend in light of their accomplishments and words. Nevertheless, bearing the burden of living a contradictiion, for those whose lives have been enhanced by these flawed characters the love and respect for their efforts is no less appreciated. Nevertheless, because it's been made profitable, a minstrel can become famous by mocking these men.

I like a good joke as much as anyone, but always I am mindful of there being a need for being humble in our conversations concerning others. There's no issue to make with a word made in good taste. The question we have today is what is good taste and are there any standards to observe before we open our mouths to cast aspersions on those who've given all they had to make things better for us. Scripture indicates a time would come when what was good would be evil spoken of and evil spoken of as good. This isn't to say womanizing is not to be taken into account, only to keep in mind that, in the calling be certain we afford the individual the honor and dignity they deserve, otherwise we'll soon be looking in the mirror and telling jokes about ourselves we won't take kindly to hearing. I figure we owe something in giving back to men like MLK, if not there's no reason to expect others to give regard to us when we aren't in the business of giving regard to ourselves.
 

panafrica

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Welcome to Destee Astro...well to the forums anyway, and excellent post.

I think the bottom line in this discussion is respect. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Walter White, Stokely Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and countless others during the civil rights era, even Jesse Jackson (who is also has been unfairly tarnished in recent years). All these people made sacrificies which made it possible today for African Americans to live whereever they wished, go to practically any school they want, to vote in elections, to work for any company they are qualified (well technically), even to become CEO of white controlled companies. We can NEVER do enough to honor them.

The second part of this issue is understanding, because if you understood the Civil Rights Movement, you couldn't help but respect it. The sacrificies of these individuals made it possible for Cedric to have, and enjoy his current success. Cedric used a public medium to cast negative light not only on Dr. King...but sister Rosa Parks as well. To the average person Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is all they know of the Civil Rights Movement. They are the Civil Rights Movement, and Cedric not only called to question the integrity of the people leading it (Dr. King's infidelity), but the brillitant planning of it (Sister Parks being tired). The civil rights movement was the result of decades of legal planning: In 1917 Buccanen V. Warley determined that housing discrimination was illegal, this established the legal precident for Brown v. the Board of ED. In the 1930s a series of legal cases brought by the NAACP struck down the all white primaries in Texas, which established precident for the Voting Rights Act, in 1941 A. Phillip Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest discrimination in the workplace, which served as the inspiration Dr. Kings 1963 march on washington. The NAACP was looking for a case to challenge the 1986 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which established Jim Crow. A young sista named Claudette Clover refused to give up her seat on the bus years before Sister Parks did; however, the conditions weren't favorable to challenge the law. Rosa Park's case was though. Sista Parks did not sit down in the white section (which is popular belief), she was sitting in the COLORED section, and was asked to move because all the white seats were filled. This was a violation of separate but equal, it was the perfect case to bring down Jim Crow. It most certainly was not an accident, which is what Cedric was suggesting (either knowingly or unknowingly). This is view that is championed by many white historians, and segregationist. It takes away from the brilliant planning of the movement. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement was not an accident, but the result of years of brilliant planning.

Even though Africans-Americans have always "pleased" whites with acting a fool. How much joy would Cedric have if he had money, but couldn't live where he wanted or put his children in the school he wished? Whether he knows it or not, Cedric owes a debt to Dr. King & Sister Parks....one that only can be paid with respect....his comment was ignorant. Although he may not be completely at fault, because I don't know if he wrote that comment, also this history is not taught in most schools. Still the comments were ignorant, and I only hope Cedric realizes one day exactly how ignorant they were. :bazooka:
 

Astro

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Panafrica,

Your comments are appreciated. The range and content of the historical spoke in terms of commitment, tenacity and strategy. These were sustaiined over decades of time, one generation of Blacks passing the baton to their successors with a particular goal in mind.

The work of many Civil Rights visionaries and activists did not manifest their objectives within their lifetimes. As you point out much of what African Americans have benefitted from in social progress rests on the shoulders of individuals who invested blood, sweat and tears that others might live. These were often not weekend warriors or engaged in the struggle only when it was convenient. I figure, while I enjoy good comedy, music, etc. nothing that we honor should be demeaned. Sometimes, demeaning can be perceived where there was no intent. In telling jokes, sometimes a comedian is not the best judge of their own material. MLK, as others who achieved significant inroads in the struggle have a legacy remaining. Mr. King's wife still lives, his children and grandchildren are exposed to how their loved one's name is being handled.

While we need to be the opinions struggle has children who, although they are full grown have children of heir own. MLK has a legacy in the world, which, if he and others have sarificed in behalf of the many it would appear the many would reciprocate by honoring the source from whence our place in society was gained. As indicated, it is not unseemly to be truthful, however your intent has everything to do with how you impress others about other people's failings and business. We'll do much better when we remove an intention to malign an individual in our comedy and outlining of history. What failings there were to MLK are worthy t be noted, however not to be used as a device to demean and dishonor. We need to have princples in mind when conversating about others and our God. When we lose sight of a sense of decency and respect, then our conversations will descend into the depths of darkness where every filth and vain imagination will be acceptable to express. In turn, our conscious experience will be adapted to include these as aspects of our day to day cultural experience, which, as it stands, is already in a fairly pitiful condition.

panafrica said:
Welcome to Destee Astro...well to the forums anyway, and excellent post.

I think the bottom line in this discussion is respect. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Walter White, Stokely Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and countless others during the civil rights era, even Jesse Jackson (who is also has been unfairly tarnished in recent years). All these people made sacrificies which made it possible today for African Americans to live whereever they wished, go to practically any school they want, to vote in elections, to work for any company they are qualified (well technically), even to become CEO of white controlled companies. We can NEVER do enough to honor them.

The second part of this issue is understanding, because if you understood the Civil Rights Movement, you couldn't help but respect it. The sacrificies of these individuals made it possible for Cedric to have, and enjoy his current success. Cedric used a public medium to cast negative light not only on Dr. King...but sister Rosa Parks as well. To the average person Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is all they know of the Civil Rights Movement. They are the Civil Rights Movement, and Cedric not only called to question the integrity of the people leading it (Dr. King's infidelity), but the brillitant planning of it (Sister Parks being tired). The civil rights movement was the result of decades of legal planning: In 1917 Buccanen V. Warley determined that housing discrimination was illegal, this established the legal precident for Brown v. the Board of ED. In the 1930s a series of legal cases brought by the NAACP struck down the all white primaries in Texas, which established precident for the Voting Rights Act, in 1941 A. Phillip Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest discrimination in the workplace, which served as the inspiration Dr. Kings 1963 march on washington. The NAACP was looking for a case to challenge the 1986 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which established Jim Crow. A young sista named Claudette Clover refused to give up her seat on the bus years before Sister Parks did; however, the conditions weren't favorable to challenge the law. Rosa Park's case was though. Sista Parks did not sit down in the white section (which is popular belief), she was sitting in the COLORED section, and was asked to move because all the white seats were filled. This was a violation of separate but equal, it was the perfect case to bring down Jim Crow. It most certainly was not an accident, which is what Cedric was suggesting (either knowingly or unknowingly). This is view that is championed by many white historians, and segregationist. It takes away from the brilliant planning of the movement. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement was not an accident, but the result of years of brilliant planning.

Even though Africans-Americans have always "pleased" whites with acting a fool. How much joy would Cedric have if he had money, but couldn't live where he wanted or put his children in the school he wished? Whether he knows it or not, Cedric owes a debt to Dr. King & Sister Parks....one that only can be paid with respect....his comment was ignorant. Although he may not be completely at fault, because I don't know if he wrote that comment, also this history is not taught in most schools. Still the comments were ignorant, and I only hope Cedric realizes one day exactly how ignorant they were. :bazooka:
 

Astro

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Martin Luther King

Panafrica,

Your comments are appreciated. The range and content of the historical spoke in terms of commitment, tenacity and strategy. These were sustaiined over decades of time, one generation of Blacks passing the baton to their successors with a particular goal in mind.

The work of many Civil Rights visionaries and activists did not manifest their objectives within their lifetimes. As you point out much of what African Americans have benefitted from in social progress rests on the shoulders of individuals who invested blood, sweat and tears that others might live. These were often not weekend warriors or engaged in the struggle only when it was convenient. I figure, while I enjoy good comedy, music, etc. nothing that we honor should be demeaned. Sometimes, demeaning can be perceived where there was no intent. In telling jokes, sometimes a comedian is not the best judge of their own material. MLK, as others who achieved significant inroads in the struggle have a legacy remaining. Mr. King's wife still lives, his children and grandchildren are exposed to how their loved one's name is being handled.

While we need to be the opinions struggle has children who, although they are full grown have children of heir own. MLK has a legacy in the world, which, if he and others have sarificed in behalf of the many it would appear the many would reciprocate by honoring the source from whence our place in society was gained. As indicated, it is not unseemly to be truthful, however your intent has everything to do with how you impress others about other people's failings and business. We'll do much better when we remove an intention to malign an individual in our comedy and outlining of history. What failings there were to MLK are worthy t be noted, however not to be used as a device to demean and dishonor. We need to have princples in mind when conversating about others and our God. When we lose sight of a sense of decency and respect, then our conversations will descend into the depths of darkness where every filth and vain imagination will be acceptable to express. In turn, our conscious experience will be adapted to include these as aspects of our day to day cultural experience, which, as it stands, is already in a fairly pitiful condition.

panafrica said:
Welcome to Destee Astro...well to the forums anyway, and excellent post.

I think the bottom line in this discussion is respect. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Walter White, Stokely Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and countless others during the civil rights era, even Jesse Jackson (who is also has been unfairly tarnished in recent years). All these people made sacrificies which made it possible today for African Americans to live whereever they wished, go to practically any school they want, to vote in elections, to work for any company they are qualified (well technically), even to become CEO of white controlled companies. We can NEVER do enough to honor them.

The second part of this issue is understanding, because if you understood the Civil Rights Movement, you couldn't help but respect it. The sacrificies of these individuals made it possible for Cedric to have, and enjoy his current success. Cedric used a public medium to cast negative light not only on Dr. King...but sister Rosa Parks as well. To the average person Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is all they know of the Civil Rights Movement. They are the Civil Rights Movement, and Cedric not only called to question the integrity of the people leading it (Dr. King's infidelity), but the brillitant planning of it (Sister Parks being tired). The civil rights movement was the result of decades of legal planning: In 1917 Buccanen V. Warley determined that housing discrimination was illegal, this established the legal precident for Brown v. the Board of ED. In the 1930s a series of legal cases brought by the NAACP struck down the all white primaries in Texas, which established precident for the Voting Rights Act, in 1941 A. Phillip Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest discrimination in the workplace, which served as the inspiration Dr. Kings 1963 march on washington. The NAACP was looking for a case to challenge the 1986 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which established Jim Crow. A young sista named Claudette Clover refused to give up her seat on the bus years before Sister Parks did; however, the conditions weren't favorable to challenge the law. Rosa Park's case was though. Sista Parks did not sit down in the white section (which is popular belief), she was sitting in the COLORED section, and was asked to move because all the white seats were filled. This was a violation of separate but equal, it was the perfect case to bring down Jim Crow. It most certainly was not an accident, which is what Cedric was suggesting (either knowingly or unknowingly). This is view that is championed by many white historians, and segregationist. It takes away from the brilliant planning of the movement. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement was not an accident, but the result of years of brilliant planning.

Even though Africans-Americans have always "pleased" whites with acting a fool. How much joy would Cedric have if he had money, but couldn't live where he wanted or put his children in the school he wished? Whether he knows it or not, Cedric owes a debt to Dr. King & Sister Parks....one that only can be paid with respect....his comment was ignorant. Although he may not be completely at fault, because I don't know if he wrote that comment, also this history is not taught in most schools. Still the comments were ignorant, and I only hope Cedric realizes one day exactly how ignorant they were. :bazooka:
 

Amun-Ra

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Negro Thought Police

Not long ago a commentary appeared in the now defunct Emerge Magazine that talked about the Negro Thought Police who were described as the self-appointed gatekeepers of “correct” black thinking and action. It was an interesting commentary claiming that one does not easily go against the grain in the black community without risking serious consequences and penalties, including being expelled from blackness.

Who makes the rules? Who determines the essential formula? No one knows for sure, but if one should happen to go against the grain of popular black thought, they will undoubtedly meet the Negro Thought Police and the movie brought them out in droves. Curiously, it is a form of Orwellian thought policing that only comes to the surface after the fact and apparently is only detectable by the self-appointed commissioners of the Negro Thought Police.

The Rev Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton picked up their badges to bring a hot spotlight on the hit movie “Barbershop.” The Right Reverends rushed to condemn the public flaying of the sainted Civil Rights icons, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., and called for the offending scene to be removed from the movie.

This is just a recent instance when popular entertainment has come under negative scrutiny from others who feel they are the self-appointed defenders of blackness. The same thing happened with the movie “The Color Purple.” The movie, which had an almost all black cast, was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, but it won none after the NAACP denounced it as portraying black men in a bad light.

In a Machiavellian sense, it is much easier to succeed dressed in popular clothes giving others the comfort of their illusions or self-deceptions rather than going about in the nakedness of nature, which in this case is controversial topics. Clearly, in the realms of politics, business and certain social situations, radical stances are neither wanted nor appreciated.

There is a wealth of African American thought that is given short shrift because it goes against the grain of popular thinking and that is sad, because there are many who have much to contribute, but mistrust and stereotypes keep many away. The truth is that many of black America’s most revered icons were battered and bruised by divisive rhetoric that came from within the black community itself.

Malcolm X was not immediately welcomed into the community of the Civil Rights movement where many vilified him as a troublemaker and agitator. Neither were black power advocates Stokley Carmichael, Huey P. Newton, or Bobby Seale because they were a new generation that wanted action—now. Even Martin Luther King Jr. met with harsh criticism when he ventured into protests against human rights abuses and the Vietnam war.

Without recounting the various rifts that have taken place in the black community, the one element that continues to surface is the disapproval for those of those who shun the status quo and thus we have the Negro Thought Police.

It is a matter of free speech. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it. Those who are offended, should speak out with their wallets as well as mouths. Those who weren't offended should laugh until their hearts are content. I will not agree with anyone simply because someone says that is the thing to do. That kind of group thinking led to the "Final Solution" in Germany during World War II.

If comedians stuck only to what didn't offend anyone in the audience there wouldn't be much comedy. There would be lame jokes but not much comedy. The untouchable is the realm of the comedian. They go where others fear to tread. Comedians walk the fine edge of insult or hilarity and are natural targets for the Negro Thought Police because they speak what they think.

Although we are joined by a common heritage and skin color, our thoughts are our own and anyone claiming to speak for the group is operating at the height of human arrogance. No one speaks for me, but me.

"f" Jesse

Ra
 

panafrica

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
There is a wealth of African American thought that is given short shrift because it goes against the grain of popular thinking and that is sad, because there are many who have much to contribute, but mistrust and stereotypes keep many away. The truth is that many of black America’s most revered icons were battered and bruised by divisive rhetoric that came from within the black community itself.

Malcolm X was not immediately welcomed into the community of the Civil Rights movement where many vilified him as a troublemaker and agitator. Neither were black power advocates Stokley Carmichael, Huey P. Newton, or Bobby Seale because they were a new generation that wanted action—now. Even Martin Luther King Jr. met with harsh criticism when he ventured into protests against human rights abuses and the Vietnam war.
This is all true; however, none of this applies to Cedric the Entertainer. As Malcolm, Stokley, & the Black Panthers sought a different technique to a common goal (black self-determination). They had noble goals, trying to make their communities better, even though people disagreed with their methods. Whereas Cedric is simply trying to make people laugh. His comments were not socially relevant, they were not pointing out societal flaws. They did not attempt to teach through humor, as some comedians like Chris Rock are able to do. This comment, "MLK was a whoremonger" was a comment to make people laugh at him. It was solely done for "shock value", with little other purpose. It was wrong!

Social accountability should not be a dirty word, nor does it have to be the arch-nemesis of free speech. If this is the job of the Negro Thought Police I applaud them. When you are an under-classed, under-priviledged, and under-achieving group, you can't afford to be like everyone else. American society was not established with black people in mind, we have to be of a higher moral character to be successful. We literally have to be twice as good to get half as far. Whether or not this is fair....it is reality.

You think the 1st amendment was created for us? If black comedians, rappers, athletes, and other celebs said a quarter of the stuff they current speak about before the Civil Rights Movement, whites would have used their "freedom of speech" to string them up to the nearest tree (how's that for expression). African Americans do not owe their rights to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin......we owe them to Frederick Douglass, WEB Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells, Walter White, Martin Luther King, etc. This is our America, these are our heroes, this is our reality. As long as we live in a racist society we have to be thoughtful of the images we portray, especially ones we put out by ourselves. As a result, it isn't an unreasonable request to ask public figures to considerate about what they say.

I'd love to think I live in a vacuum, and my actions effect & reflect on no one else but me. I'd love to drive down the highway in a nice car and not get pulled over for DWB. I'd also love to win the lottery.......but ain't none of these things gonna happen in my lifetime. We have to face reality no matter how bleak it is. We are not everybody else, and we need to stop trying to be.
 

deepy

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
thank you panafrica..
"when you are an underclassed, underprivileged and under-achieving group you can't afford to be like everyone else"...."We are not everbody else and we should stop trying to be"
truth...a reality we must , must really come to understand.
Your words were so clear , precise and I have nothing else to say except..I agree..and thanks for them
 
Top