Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 18, 2018, 02:08:21 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25681 Posts in 9837 Topics by 982 Members Latest Member: - Ferguson Most online today: 68 (July 03, 2005, 11:25:30 PM)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

 21 
 on: May 10, 2018, 12:35:13 PM 
Started by Tyehimba - Last post by Tyehimba
Why most black people are not wealthy

by Ramdath Jagessar



Photo : Ramdath Jagessar

It seems to be true that blacks in Trinidad are not wealthy, when compared to the Indians, the Syrians, Chinese, French creoles and even the Portuguese all around them.

Now it is true blacks have the vast majority of the jobs paid for by the state, the well paid, permanent, cost of living indexed government jobs for life, but is that wealth?

No, sir, good salary is not wealth, unless a portion of it is saved and used to acquire wealth in other areas than government jobs. Even blacks in the oil industry, the highest paying jobs in the country, are not considered to be wealthy.

Wealth comes from private enterprise where the possible profits are not limited like salary jobs. Wealth comes from setting up your own business companies, even from farming and fishing where accumulation of wealth is possible.

Wealth is acquiring useful education that puts you into well paying jobs, or becoming an independent professional whose salary is not fixed.

To cut it short, wealth comes from taking materials or skills and adding value to the materials, or applying the skills in ways that are not limited to monthly or fortnightly salaries.

The real issue with black people is that they are not applying the paths to wealth in any serious way,  and are stuck in the salary road that makes you comfortable at best, but never wealthy.

A bigger issue is simply that blacks are so stupid they refuse to learn from their own experiences, and even worse, they refuse to learn from the experiences of others in the same environment when it comes to acquiring wealth.

Take the case of the Syrians, whom all agree have managed to become very wealthy in a remarkably short period of some 60 years, starting with no financial assets at all.  We all remember the Syrians from the fifties of the last century, WALKING from house to house with bolts of cloth to sell, later moving to bicycles and hand carts, opening little pathetic hardwares and tiny small businesses.

We knew them, went to school with them, and saw them moving up with lightning speed. Today the Syrians own massive businesses, are known as enterprising business people and educated professionals, and are said to have acquired fabulous property holdings and foreign currency.

What have black people learned from the success of their Syrian fellow citizens? Nothing in my book!  All black people could say is that the Syrians are corrupt, they are selling drugs, they are crooked business people - and that is worse than a bad joke. Why haven't black people imitated the Syrians in becoming very wealthy, without necessarily being corrupt, crooked drug dealers?

No big brainwork is needed to see that the Syrians work really hard, they save money, they don't believe in conspicuous consumption, they work to build up the family as a unit, they preserve their conservative culture, their family life, their way of sacrifice for the long term, their determination to educate themselves, their strategy of helping each other and their community, all the good stuff that black people don't have and have never had in Trinidad.

Even black people working for the Syrians in close contact with them daily appear to have learned nothing. They work for the Syrians their whole lives, then retire and collect a pension! As I said, they have learned nothing.

And by the way, the very qualities the Syrians have used in their rise upwards seem to be the same qualities many Indians have used to empower ourselves and acquire wealth over the last 100 years or so.  Yes, yes, black people have sat in school benches next to us Indians, have played cricket and football with us, have gone to university with us, but no they have not started businesses with us, have not become lawyers and doctors and computer professionals with us.

We Indians don't have to go to a party every Saturday night, our men don't all need to have a deputy, we don't have to spend all our income before the next payday, we don't leave fatherless children all round the block, our mothers sit down by the table each night to make sure the kids do their homework, we don't like the idea of living off credit cards and hire purchase. If we can't afford something we don't buy it, we plan for the rest of the year and next year too, not just until month end.   

But we don't tell those things to black people because they don't listen. They believe they have a better lifestyle than us, a better money style too than us cheapo Indians.

Black people know everything important already, so why do they have to learn anything from anybody?


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r1JFMwbS2RwJ:icdn.today/post/why-most-black-people-are-not-wealthy+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=tt&client=firefox-b-ab

 22 
 on: May 10, 2018, 07:27:22 AM 
Started by News - Last post by News
‘Raw hatred’: why the 'incel' movement targets and terrorises women

By Zoe Williams
Wed 25 Apr 2018
Last modified on Thu 3 May 2018 - theguardian.com


The man accused of carrying out the Toronto van attack has alleged links to ‘involuntary celibate’ online communities. The language they use may be absurd, but the threat they pose could be deadly

When a van was driven on to a Toronto pavement on Tuesday, killing 10 people and injuring 15, police chief Mark Saunders said that, while the incident appeared to be a deliberate act, there was no evidence of terrorism. The public safety minister Ralph Goodale backed this up, deeming the event “not part of an organised terror plot”. Canada has rules about these things: to count as terrorism, the attacker must have a political, religious or social motivation, something beyond “wanting to terrorise”.

Why have the authorities been so fast to reject the idea of terrorism (taking as read that this may change; the tragedy is very fresh)? Shortly before the attack, a post appeared on the suspect’s Facebook profile, hailing the commencement of the “Incel Rebellion”, including the line “Private (Recruit) … Infantry 00010, wishing to speak to Sgt 4chan please. C23249161.” (“4chan is the main organising platform for the ‘alt-right’,” explains Mike Wendling, the author of Alt-Right: from 4Chan to the White House.)

There is a reluctance to ascribe to the “incel” movement anything so lofty as an “ideology” or credit it with any developed, connected thinking, partly because it is so bizarre in conception.

Standing for “involuntarily celibate”, the term was originally invented 20 years ago by a woman known only as Alana, who coined the term as a name for an online support forum for singles, basically a lonely hearts club. “It feels like being the scientist who figured out nuclear fission and then discovers it’s being used as a weapon for war,” she says, describing the feeling of watching it mutate into a Reddit muster point for violent misogyny.

It is part of the “manosphere”, but is distinguished from men’s rights activism by what Wendling – who is also the editor of BBC Trending, the broadcaster’s social media investigation unit – calls its “raw hatred. It is vile. It is just incredibly unhinged and separate from reality and completely raw.” It has some crossover with white supremacism, in the sense that its adherents hang out in the same online spaces and share some of the same terminology, but it is quite distinctive in its hate figures: Stacys (attractive women); Chads (attractive men); and Normies (people who aren’t incels, ie can find partners but aren’t necessarily attractive). Basically, incels cannot get laid and they violently loathe anyone who can.

Full Article : theguardian.com

 23 
 on: May 10, 2018, 01:25:00 AM 
Started by News - Last post by Nakandi
I suspect that every case of extreme actions by a self-identified “incel” has different nuances, but at the core of it all is an unsettling detachment from self.

On one side we have a case of male entitlement,  as males think they are entitled to female bodies. It would thus follow that having sexual relationships with females is well within their human rights. And when denied this right, they are justified in retaliating.

In some cases it is an issue of white entitlement. Many whites do actually believe they are entitled to pretty much anything in this cosmos and beyond. Being white, male and extremely disconnected from self brings about a kind of violent, greedy, impatient entitlement. This has been displayed in history time and time again.

Another aspect in this is envy, which can be seen in how some of the self-identified ‘incels’  have terms for those who fit the white supremacy physical ideal (Chads and Stacys). Looking like “Chad” supposedly makes it easier to have relationships, including sexual ones. And this is true. But this is a result of a very flawed system, and of course, people’s lack of integrity. The “incel” wishes they were a Chad because then they could probably have sexual relations. Never mind that the idea of Chad is itself problematic.

Involuntary celibacy is not necessarily synonymous with lack of suitors. It is sometimes lack of desired suitors. The people deemed attractive within white supremacy - the Stacys. Because few are immune to this socialisation, one will find that the same system that marginalises people is the same system they are fighting to be recognised and approved by. Some people are simply blind to fat, short, non Western-looking people. This in a way makes the celibacy inflicted.

I have come across arguments that we are ‘sexual beings’, aimed to imply that we NEED and MUST have sex for our very basic day-to-day continuity. I was once personally convinced of this. So that even if the person ‘available’ to you is full of crap, one should tolerate it because you are a ‘sexual being’ that needs a sexual partner.

Another angle I think is worth pointing out is the offender’s history. In some of these cases, the offender has shown signs of violence prior to incidents carried out on a large scale. Be it towards themselves, others or both. What tends to happen is that the “loved” one choose not to report these cases. Timely intervention that could have prevented a repeat of similar or bigger magnitude is impeded.

Indeed, I think this is an issue of gross lack of self-knowledge, self-esteem and integrity.

 24 
 on: May 09, 2018, 12:04:09 AM 
Started by News - Last post by Ayinde
What I initially thought was already said.

The article is weak because the writer failed to mention the role classism, sizeism, racism, colorism and other social inequities play in denying even whites sexual partners or their desired sexual partners. Even people’s desires are unfair to themselves, so a wealthy white may desire a certain type of partner and be terribly unhappy and violent because he or she cannot get what they want.

Most people’s desires have been poorly conditioned therefore even those who get sexual partners often remain unsatisfied. Where both males and females are conditioned to view ideal beauty based on a certain Eurocentric appearance, then most would consider some of the same limited number of model-type persons to be their ideal. There isn’t enough of them to go around. Money is a great attraction and since the patriarchal system made females dependant on males, many males are under pressure to demonstrate they are providers to get partners. However, males who are preferred by looks can get females to provide for them.  Generally, people enter relationships settling for others because they could not get who they fantasize. In more indigenous non-white cultures, relationships were based on both parties being able to provide. Beauty had a function.

White people react the worst when faced with societal pressures because of their strong feelings of entitlement. Although Blacks are denied the most, Blacks generally have more experience with these pressures and generally, do not have a sense of entitlement. Blacks are therefore less prone to such extreme behaviours as highlighted in the article (although some can ape poor white conduct). Many Blacks may also not react to societal pressures based on low self-worth. We see Blacks, like Kanye West, behaving rashly after becoming rich because they then crave white privilege and cannot make sense of not being abe to get it.

In the case of Whites who feel they cannot measure up economically, they are taught to first turn their anger on non-whites as the source of their problems. Non-whites, and more so Blacks remain the ultimate victims of White Privilege.

 25 
 on: May 08, 2018, 11:55:40 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Meri
One of the iconic persons in this ‘movement’ was Elliot Rodger, a rich, spoilt brat who used his white privilege to acquire guns, go undetected and perform acts of violence. The introduction of  terms such as ‘Incels’ are mostly about justifying negative white male behaviors. It is common for them to try to hijack sympathy movements which leaves no room for others to consider the most marginalized people .

They turn to movements such as the #metoo slogan but it seems more like  ‘#mealone’ campaigns.

 26 
 on: May 08, 2018, 11:43:46 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Zaynab
While the article has points worth discussing in a general context or quite another context, I am left wondering why all this time was spent attempting to psychoanalyse and excuse the actions of those whites (mentioned in the article and maybe those that may have plans to commit similar acts later on)

I don't think the same consideration would be extended to persons who are most affected by systemic injustices.

 27 
 on: May 08, 2018, 10:41:34 PM 
Started by News - Last post by leslie
Must admit....that was a chore to read. I find the juxtapositioning of the crazed Toronto driver to some theory about sexual dissatisfaction quite weird...but then again, I have not followed the story closely. Anyhow, the idea that males are poorly conditioned is true. But to claim that white males are the greatest "victims" of such is plain ridiculous.

 28 
 on: May 08, 2018, 09:36:22 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Tyehimba
Valid responses.

The article explains the issue in some strange ways though. For example: "Here in America the problem is purely cultural in that entirely too many women of all ages believe most men are just plain bad and therefore of no use romantically or sexually. "

Also strange is his description of "poisonous femininity" which he says is perpetuated by the mothers in the family. The example he gives of this is that "Too many women simultaneously teach their daughters that nice girls don’t “give it up” to a boy"without respect... and this respect is sometimes seen in terms of "dates and gifts". This is a weak argument that puts the blame on mothers.

So while he have a few  parts of the explantation, other parts of the article are suspect, and so  i don't find he nails the analysis, which for me would involve going past sexual/relationship issues.

 29 
 on: May 08, 2018, 08:43:00 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Leanna
I have been following this debate on twitter in the past couple weeks. I agree the incel movement is about white male privilege and feelings of entitlement. As there are many other groups of people who don't have sex not by their own choosing but because of many  prejudices. However they don't go on murder sprees. Some persons have argued that when there is an unequal distribution of other resources (wealth, food etc.) groups and persons argue for redistribution and that is seen as okay. But given the demands of incels who are white heterosexual males this is demanding womens bodies to be used as they please.

As the debate expanded on twitter a point came up that it should not be a question of the redistribution of sex but questioning why certain people are not deemed attractive or persons do not wish to engage with them in a sexual or romantic way. That points to poor socialisation, structutral  notions of attractivenes and sexuality. At the heart of it is layers of discrimination.

 30 
 on: May 08, 2018, 08:04:02 PM 
Started by News - Last post by Dani37
"Girls of the same age are given no clue what their male peers are going through, or how they might sympathize with and help them emotionally as opposed to sexually" this invalidates his argument because he is continuing in the same vein that created the privilege by using the same gender roles and assuming that those said young women aren't grappling with their own "powerful onslaught of directionless lust" and attempting to place the responsibility for giving that male lust direction on their female counterparts.

The problem isn't toxic masculinity or femininity...as I see it...the problem is the commodification of sex which is one of the manifestations of capitalism. It isn't that these guys can't get sex or romantic relationships it is that they cannot get it with who they find valuable and by extension who their 'world' would find value in and reward them for being able to possess. Women are still considered possessions in the Western context (which has spread all over the earth due to enslavement and colonisation)and because of that one of the value positions of men within this society is who they partner with based on the value society has placed on that woman.

They are mad that they are to the top of the 'food chain' but have no access to choice meat those are the same frustrations being felt by poor and middle class whites in this current climate. Therefore they fixate on the object women, blacks, sexuality etc. they believe is their Right to dominate rather than the dream that was sold to them as their birthright according to Hollywood and the Bible. Sadly they are being forced to come to terms with the fact that it isn't their birthright to dominate and instead of dealing with themselves and why it is they believe what they do and admitting that they do unfairly benefit from oppression and it isn't as far removed as they would have us think.

Their frustrations and subsequent response is wanting to sustain the oppressions that gave them that benefit without admitting that they have no issue with subjugating others to fulfill that dream.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!