I could listen to NH-J talk ALL day long. I have listened to quite a few of her talks she has done and continue to learn so much about my history from each one.
Around 13:24 Hannah-Jones spoke about the need to take a lesson, from those who sacrificed their lives, for our rights. The reality is, that a significant number of us did not care much or enough about the rights and opportunities, that many gave their lives for us to have. They are a minority among us, be we have allowed them to do disproportionate harm to us as a group. A subculture of self-defeating and destructive thinking and behavior, has been normalized. Part of it has become one of the faces of what is projected to the world as 'Black culture". It has become part to the entertainment appetite for many Americans. Some even play at aspects of it, but don't engage in the reality of it, because they know it is counter to the values they have. They revert back to their true selves, when it is necessary, when not in the eye of the public. The question of culture is seldom applied by us to our problems - Afrocentric people of course do this, but they are a vast minority among us. The Right has always said it is a problem, but most of us don't want to except that fact. Too many of us for various reasons don't value even many of the basic ways of thinking and doing of the overall American culture, most likely, significantly, because they see it as foreign, and because we were denied participation in and access to much of it. In doing this in the situation we are in, we must make our way of thinking and doing things work as good for us, as do their way of thinking and doing works for them. This is our reality, that we refuse to honestly accept. When Hannah-Jones said that Black children would benefit from having White children in their classrooms and that gentrification is not necessarily a bad thing for Black people in the youtube video - 'Color Of Education', I think this is basically what she is saying- doing things exclusively our way, has not worked nearly well enough. But, I have heard no discussion of these controversial comments she has made, unlike all the attention she has gotten for her work on the 1619 Project. The question she seems to be raising is true integration. Is not it, the only possible way, to truly achieve diversity equity and inclusion, but can people of not just different backgrounds, but of different income levels also, live amongst each other? The most common desire in my mind is peace. How many reality prefer fighting, of any kind, to it? It is one of the greatest commonalities we have. There is also the concept of a 'peace-dividend'. It was once, if not first proposed, to the nations of the world, by the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the late President George H.W. Bush, in the late 80's or early 90's. They asked the nations of the world, to consider drastically cutting their military spending, so those funds could be used to help their people, and so develop their nations. I don't know how many nations saw merit, in this appeal, but it surely is common sense. It makes sense for us to at least apply this, on the domestic level. Isn't the best way to defund anything - to make it largely not needed? Will 'Common Power' call for us to give ourselves a 'domestic peace dividend'? Will any other organization do the same? How about you spreading the idea? If so many can foolishly call for the abolishment of police and prisons, why can't anyone or any organization, call for this practical thing to do? Isn't this an easy way for people to make their wishes known, and yet is such a powerful thing to do?
The host used the phrase "you're killing it" in regard to the work Hannah-Jones has been doing. Why is it necessary to use a phrase with such a negative connotation to it, for something positive? Do we really believe trauma is a serious problem in the world, especially among us? Are we really as spiritual as we say, when we must make these kind of associations?
The phrase alludes to someone who did something so well, the person rendered similar success impossible or “killed” the chance that someone else can follow with equal performance. We also use terms like “making a killing” to describe making large sums of money. I understand your point on a literal level, but idioms such as “killing it” or “break a leg” or “play the devil’s advocate” or “burn a bridge” are, by design, not meant to be taken literally. Most people find such terms acceptable although I understand your point.
@@shermangillumsjr Those terms were created by people who didn't see themselves as harmed to a significant degree, greater than what most people are, by the normal negative experiences, that life often brings one's way. Why make a big deal of things like epigenetics, if we are not going to take them into consideration? You say you understand my point, but your comment suggest to me otherwise, but I certainly appreciate you responding to it. I t shows at least you are considerate, and just don't dismiss ideas, that are not consistence with the popular thinking of the day. Black people have said we are a people of the oral tradition, and have suggested that we value words. Christianity even puts "the word" as paramount to our being. Do we really take words as seriously as we say? Don't too many of us take certain words much more seriously than they should? Despite the old saying that "sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me", don't too many let words get the best of them? My point is that until we prove that we are mature enough to handle certain types of words, maybe it is best we not use them, since we have for over a long time, seen the evidence of the harm they do. It also is a question of priority of values. Why is the n-word so valued by so many of us? Is it really worth the value, it has to so many? What does that say about those who value it?
@@siriuslyspeaking9720 I was offering a more objective “defense” of the use of idioms in the English tradition. I do understand your point on the broader issue of our native ways of knowing and communication. Frankly, we speak the King’s English because Britain had the most powerful Navy. Most of us have had to master the language while understanding the complicated relationship we have with the American monoculture. I know you know this so I’m really just thinking in writing. Many words we use today are hyperlinked to deeper meanings that are hostile to our interests. One can quickly find herself drowning in trying to fight that tide. I do appreciate you for provoking this intellectual exercise though.
If teachers are teaching about social justice, and it is not part of the curriculum, then that is a dumb thing to do. What grades are they teaching this, and what exactly are they teaching? You can't have a productive conversation about issues like this, if you don't present the specifics that are in question. This is a major fundamental flaw/down right conscious omission, being committed by woke individuals, on the Left. The idea of wokeness is a joke, it will soon enough be replace by a an upcoming generation, just as all the terms. similar to it, like keeping it real, conscious,, right on, and down for the cause, were. The same patterns keep being repeated, and the problems get worst, because we no longer ask nor expect must of anything, from ourselves or those whose lives need improvement the most. The notion that all of our problems are the external causes of racism, in all its forms, has been making the lives of those with the lowest quality of living worse. The woke among us won't even acknowledge the high rate of violence among is real. They say Black on Black crime is "not a thing" basically because people kill people they live near. People like Michael Eric Dyson and D.L Hughley speak of the "proximity factor in crimes. They look at the physical proximity, but ignore the proximity of the relationship between the victim and perpetrator. When that angle of proximity is considered, it makes it an even greater wrong/harm committed. When is harming a family member ever okay among any people? The woke among us, who are speaking as if they represent the feelings and thinking of all or most Black people must, retract this and other blatantly contradictory and backward thinking ideas, that they are propagating. We as a group must demand they do this. This rhetoric can never help bring about the desired end, they are said to be used for. Will you demand they do this?
I could listen to NH-J talk ALL day long. I have listened to quite a few of her talks she has done and continue to learn so much about my history from each one.
thank you Common Power, always NHJ we keep marching
Listening from Detroit 🎶 Great Job!
This was awesome 😊 !
❤❤❤❤❤
Around 13:24 Hannah-Jones spoke about the need to take a lesson, from those who sacrificed their lives, for our rights. The reality is, that a significant number of us did not care much or enough about the rights and opportunities, that many gave their lives for us to have. They are a minority among us, be we have allowed them to do disproportionate harm to us as a group. A subculture of self-defeating and destructive thinking and behavior, has been normalized. Part of it has become one of the faces of what is projected to the world as 'Black culture". It has become part to the entertainment appetite for many Americans. Some even play at aspects of it, but don't engage in the reality of it, because they know it is counter to the values they have. They revert back to their true selves, when it is necessary, when not in the eye of the public.
The question of culture is seldom applied by us to our problems - Afrocentric people of course do this, but they are a vast minority among us. The Right has always said it is a problem, but most of us don't want to except that fact. Too many of us for various reasons don't value even many of the basic ways of thinking and doing of the overall American culture, most likely, significantly, because they see it as foreign, and because we were denied participation in and access to much of it. In doing this in the situation we are in, we must make our way of thinking and doing things work as good for us, as do their way of thinking and doing works for them.
This is our reality, that we refuse to honestly accept. When Hannah-Jones said that Black children would benefit from having White children in their classrooms and that gentrification is not necessarily a bad thing for Black people in the youtube video - 'Color Of Education', I think this is basically what she is saying- doing things exclusively our way, has not worked nearly well enough. But, I have heard no discussion of these controversial comments she has made, unlike all the attention she has gotten for her work on the 1619 Project. The question she seems to be raising is true integration. Is not it, the only possible way, to truly achieve diversity equity and inclusion, but can people of not just different backgrounds, but of different income levels also, live amongst each other?
The most common desire in my mind is peace. How many reality prefer fighting, of any kind, to it? It is one of the greatest commonalities we have. There is also the concept of a 'peace-dividend'. It was once, if not first proposed, to the nations of the world, by the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the late President George H.W. Bush, in the late 80's or early 90's. They asked the nations of the world, to consider drastically cutting their military spending, so those funds could be used to help their people, and so develop their nations.
I don't know how many nations saw merit, in this appeal, but it surely is common sense. It makes sense for us to at least apply this, on the domestic level. Isn't the best way to defund anything - to make it largely not needed? Will 'Common Power' call for us to give ourselves a 'domestic peace dividend'? Will any other organization do the same? How about you spreading the idea? If so many can foolishly call for the abolishment of police and prisons, why can't anyone or any organization, call for this practical thing to do? Isn't this an easy way for people to make their wishes known, and yet is such a powerful thing to do?
The host used the phrase "you're killing it" in regard to the work Hannah-Jones has been doing. Why is it necessary to use a phrase with such a negative connotation to it, for something positive? Do we really believe trauma is a serious problem in the world, especially among us? Are we really as spiritual as we say, when we must make these kind of associations?
The phrase alludes to someone who did something so well, the person rendered similar success impossible or “killed” the chance that someone else can follow with equal performance. We also use terms like “making a killing” to describe making large sums of money. I understand your point on a literal level, but idioms such as “killing it” or “break a leg” or “play the devil’s advocate” or “burn a bridge” are, by design, not meant to be taken literally. Most people find such terms acceptable although I understand your point.
@@shermangillumsjr Those terms were created by people who didn't see themselves as harmed to a significant degree, greater than what most people are, by the normal negative experiences, that life often brings one's way.
Why make a big deal of things like epigenetics, if we are not going to take them into consideration?
You say you understand my point, but your comment suggest to me otherwise, but I certainly appreciate you responding to it. I t shows at least you are considerate, and just don't dismiss ideas, that are not consistence with the popular thinking of the day.
Black people have said we are a people of the oral tradition, and have suggested that we value words. Christianity even puts "the word" as paramount to our being.
Do we really take words as seriously as we say? Don't too many of us take certain words much more seriously than they should? Despite the old saying that "sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me", don't too many let words get the best of them?
My point is that until we prove that we are mature enough to handle certain types of words, maybe it is best we not use them, since we have for over a long time, seen the evidence of the harm they do.
It also is a question of priority of values. Why is the n-word so valued by so many of us? Is it really worth the value, it has to so many? What does that say about those who value it?
@@siriuslyspeaking9720 I was offering a more objective “defense” of the use of idioms in the English tradition. I do understand your point on the broader issue of our native ways of knowing and communication. Frankly, we speak the King’s English because Britain had the most powerful Navy. Most of us have had to master the language while understanding the complicated relationship we have with the American monoculture. I know you know this so I’m really just thinking in writing. Many words we use today are hyperlinked to deeper meanings that are hostile to our interests. One can quickly find herself drowning in trying to fight that tide. I do appreciate you for provoking this intellectual exercise though.
If teachers are teaching about social justice, and it is not part of the curriculum, then that is a dumb thing to do. What grades are they teaching this, and what exactly are they teaching? You can't have a productive conversation about issues like this, if you don't present the specifics that are in question. This is a major fundamental flaw/down right conscious omission, being committed by woke individuals, on the Left. The idea of wokeness is a joke, it will soon enough be replace by a an upcoming generation, just as all the terms. similar to it, like keeping it real, conscious,, right on, and down for the cause, were. The same patterns keep being repeated, and the problems get worst, because we no longer ask nor expect must of anything, from ourselves or those whose lives need improvement the most.
The notion that all of our problems are the external causes of racism, in all its forms, has been making the lives of those with the lowest quality of living worse. The woke among us won't even acknowledge the high rate of violence among is real. They say Black on Black crime is "not a thing" basically because people kill people they live near.
People like Michael Eric Dyson and D.L Hughley speak of the "proximity factor in crimes. They look at the physical proximity, but ignore the proximity of the relationship between the victim and perpetrator. When that angle of proximity is considered, it makes it an even greater wrong/harm committed. When is harming a family member ever okay among any people?
The woke among us, who are speaking as if they represent the feelings and thinking of all or most Black people must, retract this and other blatantly contradictory and backward thinking ideas, that they are propagating. We as a group must demand they do this. This rhetoric can never help bring about the desired end, they are said to be used for. Will you demand they do this?