Sicilian1's Blog

Expert Opinion and Commentary

sicilian1: Hey, People of Color, Do you even know what you mean?

    There’s been something that’s been sticking in my “craw” for a long time. It was something FOX news pundit Juan Williams said immediately after Obama gave his first “State of the Union” address and before Bobby Jindal gave the Republican rebutall.

     Breathlessly (As it must always be with this statement) Juan Williams said something to the effect:

                               “What a great night for America when two PEOPLE OF COLOR represent their respective parties”

    I have no quarrell with judging the night to be a “great”  night in consideration of the background of the two men. I also have ABSOLUTELY no quarrell with Juan Williams who I find to be an extremely fair and thoughtful commentator and have felt that way since I became aware of him all the way back to when he was on CNN and hosting “Crossfire”.

    My problem is with the “People of Color” statement. I have a problem with that statement no matter who utters it AND especially when white people utter it in “defense” of “People of Color”. I really want to know what is meant by those who utter the statement, what are they trying to imply, to whom are they addressing the statement, what people do they REALLY mean to include in that label, are they reaching their intended audience, do they care how that statement is percieved, do they care which people identify with that statement, do they care which people feel themselves to be included in that statement, do they care if or intend to cause confusion with that statement, do they have a secret agenda, do they even know what they REALLY mean by the statement?

    I do not feel that many people who use that term have any ulterior motives. It’s just a term that has become so common that I feel most just use it as a throwaway term without any idea the significance of what the term means or implies.

DISCLAIMER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

    Obviously as my tag-line implies I am a caucasian of European (Sicilian) ancestry. My wife is a Black-American woman. She is not from the suburbs. She is not a woman trying to run away from her Black identity by marrying a white-guy to become an “uppity” black. If that’s what she wanted then I was the wrong guy for her because my background is your stereotypical Italian background, not some “Lilly white”, sheltered background. That does NOT mean I came from the “Ghetto”, it only means that I was NOT raised with “blinders” on, I did NOT have some kind of “watered-down” upbringing, I saw alot of REAL things and I knew what was expected from me with my heritage. Me and my wife have been together for many years and have several children together. That obviously would make our kids mulatto’s.

    I say all this because I DO NOT want anybody to accuse me of being a racsist. What I’m about to say has validity and I’m coming from a unique perspective. Me and my wife did NOT meet on a college campus where we  think  we’re some kind of “enlightened” thinkers who are the “smartest” people in the room. What I’m talking is REAL people talk. Black people are a part of my family, they are my children so I obviously do NOT want to “KEEP the black man down.”

    Many will not like what I’m going to say. If you have criticism keep it intelligent. Statements that are accusatory or out right rude will not be taken seriously.

Back to the topic.

      In all the years I’ve known my wife and her family and friends some of whom are my own personal friends whom I’ve had close relationships with, I have NEVER once heard any of them refer to themselves as “People of Color”. During my federal prison sentence I was obviously around alot of black guys and I NEVER once heard any of them refer to themselves as “People of Color”. I have asked my wife, some in her family, my friends and many black guys in prison if they consider themselves to be “People of Color” and NOT ONE has ever answered in the affirmative. 99% have always said they consider themselves black.

    Lets analyze the “People of Color” term and try to figure out  what is exactly meant by that. Taken strictly literally the phrase  presents all kinds of problens. Who exactly is a “Person of Color”? Well, my dad is 100% Sicilian, he has the stereotypical Italian features, I can not count the times people have told me, “How Italian looking your dad is”. Now, my dad himself is completely unaware of the impression his appearance makes on other people. My dad doesn’t know “how Italian looking he is”, he is just a person trying to live a life.

      However there is no mistaken that my dad is a VERY “dark” Italian, it is easy to see that he is darker than many people who label themselves “People of Color”. In the summer after a good tan, fugghedaboudit!!! Does my dad’s skin color make him a “Person of Color”? Because taken literally my dad is unquestionably a “Person of Color”. The brown shade of his skin won’t let anyone draw any other conclusion.

     But here’s where we get into the controversy! I’m going to take off my “Mickey-the-Dunce” cap now. We all REALLY know what the term “People of Color” is meant by those who spew it. They mean mainly anyone “Black” or Hispanic and also when the climate favors them anybody else who is NOT “WHITE”.

    So the fact that my dad has European ancestry no matter how “Dark” he is means the “People of Color” crowd don’t want him in their fraternity. OK, that’s fine, my dad’s skin tones can’t erase his European heritage therefore he is not allowed admitance into the “People of Color” club. I’m completely fine with that. BUT if the “People with Color” won’t let my dad in then they can’t have Bobby Jindal either.

     See, what I have just done is establish that “People of Color” is NOT meant to be taken literally because if it was then my brown-skinned Sicilian-American dad would have to be accepted as part of the “People of Color” crowd. But ask anyone that is fond of throwing around the “People of Color” phrase and I guarantee they will ADAMANTLY refuse to include my dad in their “club” because of his European ancestry which technically classifies him as a Caucasian.

    So now that we’ve eliminated the literal meaning of “People of Color” lets talk about the racial meanings. If you mean “People of Color” to mean races that are NOT “White” (I must put  “WHITE”  in quotations because as you can see people that are “white” (caucasian) can most definitely be people with brown-skin (Color)) then you can NOT include Bobby Jindal in your “People of Color” crowd.

     Boby Jindal is an Indian (Hindu) and you can ask any anthropologist/geneticist and they will tell you that the ancestors of Bobby Jindal are classified as Indo-Europeans. These people include ALL Europeans, Slavs, Scandanavians, Saxons, Nords, Gauls, Meditteraneans, Germanics, Gaelics, Persians and Indians. That’s right Persian (Iranians) did NOT have a Semetic progenitor. Likewise the progenitor of the Indian peoples was common with that of the European peoples. The Persians and Indians then mixed with people from the Semetic races which probably accounts for what the “People of Color” crowd would claim to be the Persians and Indians “Color”. So if the Semetic blood mixed with the Caucasian blood is what makes Bobby Jindal a “Person of Color”  to the “People of Color” crowd then that means that crowd would have to include ALL Semites. That’s right “People of Color”, Jews too! Now I can understand their argument for NOT including those of the Mongoloid race, dishonest as it may be considering genetically/anthropologically  speaking this race is related to the (Fiegned horror) the Negriod race, but if you want Bobby Jindal, and your basing the “Color” argument on the mix of Semetic blood because your obviously not basing it on the mix of Indo-European (Caucasian) blood because then you would have to include “brown-skinned” Caucasians (which (Fiegned horror) could NEVER account for the “Color”) then as was said you must include ALL semites because now we’re talking race and NOT “Color”.

NOTE: I’m only conceding this supposition that it must be the Semetic ‘Blood” causing the “Color” because in the dishonest minds of the “People of Color” crowd the Causion “Blood” could never account for it. Truth be told it may in fact be the Caucasion “blood” causing the “Color” because the dominant Caucasion “Type” is NOT the blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned steroetype but rather the darker-haired, darker-skinned Meditteranean “Look”. The evidence suggest that the Semetic mixture in the Indians bloodlines may not even be that strong. Repeated genetic studies have established the Indian peoples closets similarities are with those of Western Eupropeans (Caucasians). There is also some studies that suggest some similarities between Indians and East Asians.

    This begs the question who is responsible for Bobby Jindal’s “Color”? Since it is indisputable that Indians share genetic similarities with Europeans, are part of the Indo-European genetic classification and most likely came from a Caucasion progenitor, could it be (Fiegned outrage: Oh, the horror) his “Color” comes somewhere from his Caucasion “blood”.

   Because the genetic truth (Look it up “People of Color” crowd) is that the Caucasion race is the MOST  variable in terms of skin color. I feel ABSOLUELY comfortable in saying that skin-color is as much determined by CLIMATE as it is by the inherited melanin is ones genes.

     Remember, I took off my “Mickey-the-Dunce” cap. We know those who spew the “People of Color” nonsense are really talking about “Blacks” and Hispanics. But they try to mask what they REALLY mean in some kind of superior intellectual, humane, moral, justifiable and equitable consciousness.It’s nothing more than an unspoken threat to anyone who may point out their hypocracy that any attempt to do so will be shouted down with racists accusations.

    So if the “People of Color” crowd don’t literally mean color and don’t literally mean race then what do they mean? They’ll try to tell you that “People of Color” means anyone not of the “White” (Caucasian I guess?) race who has oppressed, discriminated, prejudiced and committed any other number of transgressions against the “black” and “brown” skinned peoples of the world (Whoever they’re suppossed to be). Well if you mean anyone who’s NOT Caucasian, be very careful because then you have to include the Semetic and Mongoloid races.

    Anthropologists classify the races in basically four (4) categories: Caucasian, Negroid, Semetic and Mongoloid. So if “People of Color” is anyone not of the Caucasian race (As the labeling of Bobby Jindal as a “Person of Color”,  because of suspected Semetic blood, would suggest) then that means the Semites and Mogoloids as well as the Negroids would ALL be “People of Color”. And is that REALLY what you want, leaders of the “People of Color” crowd? Because if you do you not only have to protest and file law suits on behalf of the “mistreatment” of “blacks” and hispanic’s. BUT ALSO for ALL the Asians and Semites which include Jews and Arabs  too.

    Are you sure that’s REALLY what you mean? Are you “Blacks” and Hispanics REALLY going to be quiet when “whitey” starts filling quota’s and affirmative action demands with Asians, Jews and Arabs because they’re “People of Color” too? Is that going to fit the “People of Color’s” agenda? Are they going to like it when “Whitey” starts spreading the affirmative action wealth to the other “People of Color”, the Mongoloids and Semites? Because if you only mean people of Negroid blood then say it. I have no problem with that. The continued fight for equality by “Black” people is not something I’m against and in most cases champion it, especially since my kids are mulatto meaning I  have a vested interest in equality for the “Black” man.

      This whole “People of Color” term is a term used by those with animosity towards the “white” man, who think they’re too intellectual and educated for their own good, and that good old “Lily-white, ivory-towered, harboring white-guilt apologist” crowd. Who think if they “Breathlessly” spout the phrase “People of Color” it absolves them of all their guilt and makes them feel better about themselves.

     This “People of Color” term is ussually spoken “BREATHLESSLY” to fiegn some kind of higher-minded idealism. Those that speak it especially the “white intellects” do it to imply altruism on their part and that anybody who does not “get it” or “objects” in anyway is just a common ignorant. These “Whitey’s” make me sick! Just because you “pat yourself on the back” because you think Halle Berry is “Beautiful” or that Denzel is a “Great Actor” does not mean your not racist. And just because you go around saying “People of Color” does not mean your not racsist either. Likewise all you “intellectualized” blacks, just because you want to brand yourself and your people a “Person of Color” does not mean you are smarter than the rest of us. And I do not appreciate your implied threat that any intellectual concern for the meaning of the phrase will be shouted down as a racsist belief.

     My wife lived what most would consider the “stereotypical” black experience. My friends in federal prison were not sell-out blacks, they knew what time it was. Any time I asked any of the black people in my life what they consider themselves, they always said unhesitatingly, BLACK. All this “People of Color” garbage is just that and it’s done by people with an agenda. But be careful because if anyone starts to wake-up, pay attention or gets some guts to question, a whole lot more people may get included in your “People of Color” club than you were willing to take in.

    And stop with the whole “Black and Brown skinned peoples of the world” nonsense, because it makes even less sense than the “People of Color” phrase. Because there is NO doubt my dad is a brown-skinned man despite his European ancestry. Do you want the quota system and affirmative action to be available to him? And if not why? Are you now guilty of discrimination? And against a brown-skinned man at that?

   If you mean race, say it. If you mean anybody not caucasian, say it. But if so you gotta let in a whole lot more people than you are probably willing. If you mean a specific race, say it. If you mean the Negroid race, say it.

     A Note:

      Do NOT criticize me for using the term Negroid. It is an ACCEPTED acedemic term to distinguish a specific race of people.

     But you see how ridiculous the phrase “People of Color” is? See how it can be interpreted in many different ways? See how it is nearly impossible to pin down what exactly does it mean and who it exactly includes? And how when you do get specific with the phrase it starts to mean things and includes  peoples those who promote the phrase never meant  it to be  nor  includes people those promters never wanted to include.

      The phrase is a dishonest phrase used to promote a political agenda and slience any criticism no matter how interested, concerned or honest that criticism may be.

    And don’t think there isn’t discrimination amongst the “white”. Does anyone think for a second that the W.A.S.P.’s or even the Irish do not consider Italians to be of inferoir bloodlines, even going so far as to label the the N-word? Or even Italians themselves who consider Sicilians to be of a lower class, even calling them the N-word?

    And how does a “fair-skinned” Hispanic get included in the “People of Color” crowd. The Hispanic has the Spaniard surname because of colonizing explorers who were of Caucasian, European, Meditteranean bloodlines. That’s right European Spaniards ARE considered Caucasian! FACT! These Spaniards mixed with other bloodlines on their exploratory expeditions that in many cases were NOT even of Negroid bloodlines. Somehow these Hispanics are now classified with “People of Color” when they probably have NO “People of Color” blood. See ridiculous and dishonest this phrase is? It can mean anything to anybody and manipulated to include anybody to fit a specific agenda.

     Civiliztions have been in existence for over 3,500 years. Did we all come from a common progenitor? Probably. Does it matter from where or from what race that progenitor originated? Not to me. At this point in civilization there has been so much mixing and mingling that there are NO pure blood races left anywhere in the world. We are all a mix of something or the other. Most times the only thing that signifies an ethnicity is the persons last name. I have relatives that have so many mixes they’re Italian in name only. And what difference does it make?

    I think the world is a better place for it’s diversity. The thing that’s killing the world is all this polarization from the “race-baiters” who promote a special interset. They pretend like they’re fighting for the rights of the minority classes but if someone had a magic-wand to wipe out inequality these so-called champions of the “underclass” and disenfranchised” would be the first to try and break that magic-wand because the day there is no more inequality is the day the jig is up for these charlatans. It is they who are the hypocrites as they fan the flames of racial resentment.

     There is NO such thing as an exclusive “People of Color”. Anyone promoting it is dishonest or brainwashed or both.


June 15, 2009 - Posted by | blog, culture, entertainment, history, Life, news, people, personal, philosohy, Politics, random, religion, thoughts


  1. I am a well educated white female grandmother to a mullato “sweet loveable little boy”. My grandchild is the world to me. When he came into the world I did not see a child of color. I saw a child who was healthy, cute, adorable and loved by all. I don’t see people as color I see people as they are. I pride myself in distinguishing people who are sincere and people who play the race card or any other card to receive means or what they view as their “God” given right to receive their freebees. You had me totally convinced on your ethnicity and the mixing of races is by someones last name. Your ideas and ways you back them up is interesting and that the hypocrites fan the flames of racial resentment. However, you lost me when you described your up bringing and that of your wife. I feel you are trying too hard that you came from the “ghetto” therefore, you should be congratulated for living this life.You can’t be questioned for your thoughts or feeling because “look I lived your life”. Also the fact that you spent time in the criminal system, you are entitled to wear the “Red bad of courage”. I feel you are demeaning the “people of color”, after all you lived their life and you certainly want to make that clear to your “people of color” you know where the black brother is coming from. Don’t try so hard to include your background and just write you blog because you are interesting and have material that clearly backup what you are saying. Female Whitey.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 15, 2009 | Reply

    • I did NOT come from the “GHETTO” I came from a middle class background I only put that it is “stereotypical” Italian because I want to make it clear I didn’t come from some rosy-colored Lily-white upbringing where I only had one experience from one black person. Too many “whitey’s” take their watered down experience with black people and try to present that as if it REAL when it’s NOT.

      I will update the blog to make that point clear.

      Comment by sicilian1 | June 15, 2009 | Reply

  2. Dear Friend!
    I have a new blog for modern and contemporary world history – “Nikolaykotev’s Blog” with URL: .If you want, you can see it on this adress!
    Best wishes
    Nikolay Kotev
    NEWS: approximately 1300 photos from the Second World War

    Comment by nikolaykotev | June 15, 2009 | Reply

  3. There’s a lot here, and I’m gonna have to give a real response later. I just wanted you to know that I’ve come back to see what you’re up to….holla back shortly.

    Comment by Sundjata | June 15, 2009 | Reply

  4. Alright, I’ve read this, and I don’t think the issue is nearly as complicated as you seem to think. The category, “people of color” was born as a more politically correct version “minority.” A “minority” designation says a lot about one’s social position and hence, one’s power. Over the years, the term “minority” has come to have so many negative connotations, that a new term was needed and created.

    People of color includes the Afrikan and Asian diasporas. It also includes Middle-Americans. It is understood that the European diaspora is not included within this designation.

    There is no chicanery involved here. Rather than saying minorities or listing each group included within that term one by one, it is easier and more politically correct to say “people of color.” If you asked me how I identify, I would proudly tell you “Black!” However, Black people are peoples of color as well. Nope. That does not include your father because skin color alone is not the primary criterion. Like you said, heritage or genealogy is important here.

    Comment by Sundjata | June 16, 2009 | Reply

  5. I just feel the term “people of Color” is totally dishonest. To me all “politically correct” terminology is dishonest. People should say specifically what they mean without the fear of the assumptions.

    If someone means minority then I have no problem with them saying it.A minority is a minority and to me there are no negative connotationa. If an ignorant individual connotates something negative from that term then they should be allowed to do that then EXPOSED for their ignorance.

    When a politically correct term is created in order to cut the ignorants off at the pass that is only exaccerbating the larger problem and insulting the intelligence of those who know better.

    If “People of Color” means dispersed Afrikan and Asian peoples then that should be said. But the term is applied so loosely that when Juan Williams said it he did so to try to include Bobby Jindal who there is NO possible wat to include in that term by your definition of Afrikan/Asian people of the diasporsa. Any Geneticist or Anthropologist will tell you Indians are UNDOUBTABLY related to the Caucasian race placed in the same Mediteranean sub-branch.

    That was my point from the jump. This is a term used dishonestly by many people to use whatever they want it to mean and to include whoever they want it to include whenever their agenda or the political climate dictates.

    My point was that if you do not want to take my dad then you can not have Bobby Jindal either because you do not really mean color. If they insist Boby Jindal is part of the club and my dad is not and they manipulate his bloodlines to do so in order to DIS-INCLUDE my dad then they are opening themselves up to accepted a whole host of individuals they probably do not want to accept.

    There is nothing but chicanery involved by those who promote the term.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 16, 2009 | Reply

    • Well my friend, you’re not a minority, and so I wouldn’t expect you to take offense to that term anymore than I would be expected to take offense for whatever derogatory or slighting terms that are used to characterize Sicilians.

      Identity politics are very real. They have real implications and real life effects. We cannot address such politics by ignoring them, and many peoples of color are flat out tired of being defined and characterized by outsiders. We all want the ability to have self-determination and self-definition, and that’s what using “people of color” is all about. There are no negatives there.

      Now, we should remember that there is a difference (sometimes a huge difference) between an academically defined term or concept and its common usages. Common usages often lead to misinterpretation–a misinterpretation that is less likely in academia where being precise and stipulative are requirements. That said, the common usage of any term can lead to disagreement regarding meanings.

      You see no problem with “minority,” but many who would be classified as such do. You see a problem with “people of color,” but many who would be classified as such do not.

      Here you exercising a privilege beholden to Whites almost exclusively: you are joining the debate for how groups to which you do not belong shall be characterized. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but be aware of your privileged status, and be aware of the historical implications of that status.

      Again, people of color have a long history of struggle for the ability and right to define themselves for themselves. While you make some interesting points, be sure that you are not invalidating a larger and more important goal.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 16, 2009 | Reply

  6. I do not feel I am endowed with any exclusive privledge over any other people. Everyone at some point in time has been discriminated against. At this point in contemporary society it is advantageous to brand yourself some kind of “minority” no matter who or what you are because if you’re not from some protected class what good is it for you. I’m absolutely positive if I really cared to I could come up with any number of “minority” classes to fit myself into so then I could “own” the higher ground and hurl accusations and intimidate any dissenting opinion into silence.

    If you want to define yourself then define yourself with an intellectually honest label. “People of Color” is NOT intellectually honest. It is nothing but a manipulatory term used to promote whatever adgenda those who invented it and now claim ownership of it want to promote.

    Those who use it still don’t even know what is means. It can’t exclusively mean “Color” because there are plenty of white “People of Color”. It can’t mean race because when you do that it includes people NOT of the “Races” those using the term don’t really want to include. And those races that the “People of Color” brand “People of Color” most times really aren’t “People of Color” (i.e. Indians and many Hispanics.

    There are many white “People of Color”. The blond-hair, blue-eyed, fai-skinned “White” person is NO where near the majority. It’s the dark-haired, dark-skinned, dark-eyed, Meditteranean “Look” that is the predominate “Look” amongst the so-called “White” man.

    If “People of Color” want to define themselves then they should do so honestly NOT with a LOADED term meant to, once again as I’ve said, intimidate, manipulate and use on a moving basis to mean whatever they want and include whoever they want whenever the climate favors them to do so.

    I have a more vested interest in this debate than anyone. My mulatto kids are loved by me more than I love myself or anyone or anything in this world. My kids do NOT see themselves as a distinctive, isolated “People of Color” out to carve their piece of the pie.

    One of my points is all this nonsense about people coming up with terms to define themselves to exclude themselves from others. If that’s what they want to do, then fine they should wear their resentments proudly and point their fingers without fear. NOT hide behind some psuedo-acedemic, pseudo-intellectual buzz words meant to say what they’re afraid to say bluntly.

    I have NO time for “Political correctness” because it’s just a way for the so-called intelligencia to scare everyone into silence and just ram down everyone’s throat what they want to ram down.

    It’s these terms like “People of Color” that causes confusion and creates more dissension and separation of the races which is as I mentioned what these race-baiters really want anyway.

    “People of Color” should really say what they mean by “People of Color” because as a literal term it does NOT cut it and as a racial designation it does NOT cut it either.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 16, 2009 | Reply

    • I’m a little confused here. Are you actually reading what I’m writing here, or are you bent on your point regardless of what you may learn. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” (Keynes)

      I’m wondering what agenda you think is being promoted by me characterizing myself as a person of color?

      Also, you should really read Peggy McIntosh’s ground-breaking and heavily cited article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” If you do a google search for her, the second item is her article.

      Do you really propose to tell people of color that we do not have the right to define ourselves how we see fit? Are you suggesting that you understand the Black experience better than a Black person? If your issue with “people of color” is the “color” part, where is your outrage for “white” and “black?” There are no actual white or black people, yet your friends and family members readily characterize themselves by these colors. I’m assuming that you either don’t see the contradiction in logic, or (more likely) you understand that the colors are convenient classifications used to denote racial groups–classifications that those racial groups do not (typically) contest. Most Black people have no problem being called Black even though none of us have black skin. The same is true for White people, and surely, there are no humans with white skin.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 17, 2009 | Reply

  7. YOU:
    anymore than I would be expected to take offense for whatever derogatory or slighting terms that are used to characterize Sicilians.

    I find that rather insensitive because I myself take offense to ANY type of racial slur uttered by anybody.

    The problem is that “people of Color” are the only ones who feel they have the right to have hurt feelings or resentments for racial transgressions.

    It’s ridiculous. Most times the ones with the resentments are ussually the “educated” “People of Color” or the White intelligencia who NEVER even experienced the racial injustices they rave about. So they come up with these loaded racial buzzwords to scare everyone and justify their own racism and predjudices.

    I keep criticizing this “People of Color” term because the black people in my life have NEVER used it, do NOT identify themselves as such and know it’s a crock only used when it’s to whoever’s advantage it is to use it.

    The REAL black people who aren’t worried about stoking resentments that are in the past and irrelevant to them would never think of using it.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 16, 2009 | Reply

    • “The problem is that “people of Color” are the only ones who feel they have the right to have hurt feelings or resentments for racial transgressions.”

      Perhaps you could explicate this statement further.

      “The REAL black people…”

      Who are these “REAL” Black people you speak of? Are there “real” and “fake” Black people? More importantly, are YOU in a position to decide who fits into which category?

      Comment by Sundjata | June 17, 2009 | Reply

  8. The statement you want me to explicate is that to me everybody at some point in their lives and in the lives of their ancestors has had their feelings hurt and habors resentments over racial transgressions ans insensitivities.

    No one has exclusive ownership over racial transgressions. It’s the “People of Color” crowd that fans the flames. They’re the ones who never want to let go. They dig up any slight, percieved slight or injustice then try to use it to justify their own hate.

    What really insults me is how the “People of Color” crowd take beefs they themselves have NEVER experienced and then transpose them on themselves.You can NOT ever really feel something you yourself have never experienced. Trying to take ownership of some else’s real transgression is dishonest and only causes hatred to be perpetuated. The problem is that it’s all based on a falsehood by the “Person of Color” who has now taken what was never their’s and tried to create feeling that can never really be felt.

    I would never once compare the experience of my immigrant ancestors with that of the descendants of black slaves. My ancestors did have to fight to carve a niche for themselves. And the stereotypical Italian tradition may have helped them achieve greater things. Being stuck in a “ghetto” and having to crawl out isn’t exclusive to any race. But if you did not have first hand experience then to me you can not claim it.

    If you a generation removed from a “ghetto” experience then sure, you can transpose a little of that on youself. But do NOT go back centuries upon centuries of every little transgression by the so-called “white” man and try to take ownership of those resentments. Because I’m not going to give any legitimacy to that.

    The direct ancestors of most of those on the “black” side of my family ARE the decendants of “down-south-blacks” who are coming from an experience fighting for their civil rights. My mother-in-law grew up in a time when blacks could not vote, were lucky to go to school and used some countrified outhouse for a bathroom. Her brothers and sisters know all about segregation because they lived it.

    do they harbor resentments and some hatred because of that? Absolutely. Have they ever transposed those hatreds and resentments for some past transgressions onto me? NEVER!!!

    Do I have some type of Beaver-Cleaver family life. NO WAY! I sometimes have a salty toungue and can be taken as rude as I’m not afraid to speak my mind. Do some in my wives family and extended family dislike me? Do some acquaintences that I’ve come into contact with from her extended family dislike me? You bet to both those questions. Does any of it have to do with my “whiteness”? Absolutely not. They like or dislike me based on a personal judgement NOT any real or percieved hateds or resentments.

    The problem in especially America is that race is a big business. People have become millionaies off it. There can never be a “coming together” or “burying-the-hatchet” for them. All these centuries old beefs are fostered and distorted by all the famous “race-baiters” to keep EVERYONE scared and ignorant so they can keep geeting themselves paid.

    What I find exremely insulting is the “white-guilt” progressive crowd that thinks they’re of some “higher presumed racial tolerance” or the “educated” blacks who’ve been fed this crap mostly from some “white” intelligencia who has NEVER even met a black person that uses and popularizes these “People of Color” terms. It’s all a big scam to make themselves relevant because if it weren’t I’d have heard the term used regularly by the black people I know.

    A REAL black person is a person who judges someone on that persons own individual character and NOT through the prism of resentments which they have no point of reference to and that have been fed to them by those with an agenda. To me REAl black people are like REAL people who are not bogged down and defined by some racial identity to which they have no ownership rights.

    I do feel that I am in a psition to decide who fits in that category. I am a REAL person hung up on REALNESS so I do feel I can spot someone who is REAL.

    Also as is clear my kids are mulatto. I LOVE my kids ABSOLUTELY and UNCONDITIONALLY more than anybody or anything. God forbid, if there ever was a race war and the “black” man won, I would be happy because that would mean my kids won. If I had to choose sides in this God forbid war I’d choose the sides of my kids, if I had to suffer enslavement for the salvation of my children if this God fotbid war ever came to pass, I would happily accept that enslavement. These are NOT outlandish suppositions, they may seem unsound but to me the extreme scenario is someplace I’m willing to go because my Love for them knows NO bounds.

    So do I care about “People of Color”, the “black man specifically? Absolutely. On the surface some of my remarks may seem insensitive but upon deeper analysis, I hope it is plain to see that I HATE racism of all types. And I am NOT so ignorant to see that racsism comes from the “People of Color” also. There is no justification for that. When the “People of Color” feel that “white” neo-nazi’s or KKK dudes make it ok to develop racsist attitudes to all then that is just as wrong. I’m not even saying they do. But I do feel that instigated by the acedemic crowd, mainly the “white” intelligencia who have hidden agenda’s this “People of Color” terminology was developed to impart a “higher degree of morality and racialawareness” when it is subliminally used as a club to subjugate the unaware users and to intimidate anyone else.

    My original point was that there is no such thing as “People of Color”. If Indians and Persians some of THE MOST ANCIENT PEOPLES on the face of the earth have a common genetic link to Western Europeans making them Caucasion by classification then that would mean that the earliest Caucasions were probably of a more “browner” shade of skin. Ya, that’s right to all you “pure” blood “whiteys” and even the “People of Color” crowd, the progenitors of the Caucasion race were probably of a more “Browner” skin tone.

    It only makes sense because “white” couldn’t come from “Black-on-Black” unions and “black couldn’t come from just “white-on-white” unions. The original progenitor’s HAD to MOST likely be “brown” skinned. That is the ONLY way to account for the variability of skin tones in the world.

    To me “race” has nothing to do with “color” that’s why I HATE the “People of Color” term. It means nothing and is mainly used as a ruse by the promoters to intimidate while they’re pretending to be enlightened.

    Does ALL our past’s suck? Yes. Are ALL of our peoples guilty of something? Yes. Are ALL of are peoples victims of something? Yes. Do ALL of us have some legitimate resentments and hurt feelings? Yes.

    The question is, are we going to move on. If we can not overcome our past hurt feelings then the question for me becomes, can we at least shut the door, lock it, never answer it and open it and just accept the present. Because trying to re-live the past or do things over is NOT going to accomplish anything.

    If “People of Color” want the right to define themselves, I have NO quarrell BUT please pick a more honest term. And also pick you’re own term do NOT let the “white” intelligencia make one popular for you.

    I want to sincerely thank, Sundjata for enriching the discussion and engaging me with relevant questions to allow me explicate my views. This is not meant to suck up, I fully welcome all constuctive criticism.

    The problem is that on too many occaassions bloggers use these blog sites to drag disscussions into ignorance and name-calling. It gets impossible to keep the conversation on point because some blogger has a hidden agenda they’re trying to promote so their M.O. becomes to take it off topic or they do so because they’re lacking the intelligence to argue cogently.

    We could all learn a lesson because intelligent discussion makes us all better human beings.

    Don’t et me wrong I can take the gloves off and throw down to. LOL!! LOL!!!!

    You would all do well to check out Sundjata’s blog:

    Soon, I’m going to be writing a blog on the “black” man’s exclusivity to certain benefits/entitlements. It will be a defense of the “black” man’s “right” to certain things.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 17, 2009 | Reply

    • A White man defining the Black experience is laughably egregious.

      Are you aware of how arcane the term “mulatto” is? There is a biracial movement happening around you, and many do not subscribe to that term based upon its historical connotations. Now, I am not biracial, and so I do not propose to tell you how to define yourself, but you may want to be aware of how certain words are understood.

      One thing that White men in your shoes (those upset over a phantom advantage that people of color have) is that you tend to not be well-informed. This is the case for many people in general, and so, to all that you say here, I ask the all important question: WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION SIR?

      I’m assuming that you chose not to read the Peggy McIntosh article right?

      Comment by Sundjata | June 17, 2009 | Reply

  9. To your previous post.

    Yes, I do have a big problem with “People of Color”. The agenda that’s being promoted is “It’s US against THEM”.
    “WE are all over here and all them “racsist” whitey are over there.”

    As I’ve made clear the color argument is invalid. Not all “White” people are racsist and not all “Peole of Color” are “Black” and deserving of what should be available to “Blacks”.

    What should the designation be? Who really knows. But a “black” man shouldn’t be offended by being called “black” anymore than a “white” man should be offended by being called “white”.

    Coming up with classification terminology is a topic for further debate. As I said the “People of Color” term is really impossible to define because it can mean anything. I just feel it’s a way to promote subliminal and accepted racsism.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 17, 2009 | Reply

    • I haven’t said that all people of color are Black. I specifically explained that the term includes other groups of color.

      Again, what gives YOU the right to decide how a Black person should feel about what people call him? You are not in a position to make such a decision anymore than I am in a decision to tell you what you should be called. If I told you that I think all Sicilians should just be called Italians and that they should not be offended by this designation, how wrong would I be? Very.

      HOW does identifying oneself as a person of color “promote subliminal and accepted racism” as you say? How does this happen?

      Comment by Sundjata | June 17, 2009 | Reply

  10. Mulatto, biracial, who cares? My kids are very well adjusted two of them are in their late teens and they have always reffered to themselves as mulatto or mixed. They do not look through the world in a racial prism.

    Sicilian, Italian. I could care the lease. I know who I am and terms do NOT define me. The ONLY time their is distinction made is when we make it amongst ourselves. And in the end it doesn’t matter because we’re all La Stessa Cosa.

    What I find egregious is how the “black” man lets the “ivory-towered progressives “play” them. The Agenda of this crowd is to tie the “black” man down. It is the progressive crowd that fiegns this “higher racial idealism” that are the ones who truly try to enslave the “Black” man. This is the intelligencia establishment with the secret agenda’s to keep themselves in power.

    Even the “educated” black who thinks they came up with all these empowerment and identity ideas is only spewing the garbage that the “Lily” white acedemics devised.

    This is all a plan to incite racial tensions so then the Progressive crowd can manipulate and use to their advantage. All the willing race-baiters follow the lead because they know they can line their pockets.

    Meanwhile there is more divisiveness as everyone stakes their claim to something. The powers that be do not want unity anywhere because they know unity is a threat to their power. (Hell, even God didn’t want unity. Read about the Tower of Babel. God knew people acting in accord was a threat to his omni-potence). So these progressives inflame hatreds to keep people apart.

    How come it’s ok for some “lily” white acedemic to sit in his ivory tower and comment about the “black” experiernce and that’s accepted.

    Someone like me who is “bullet-proof” when it comes to racial commentary gets asked ‘where do I get off’.
    I don’t care to re-hash it but I been in the trenches with the “black” man for REAL so no one can cast dispersions on my opinion.

    I do NOT think the “black” man has any phantom advantage. I am well aware of the racsism out there. I don’t feel I ever imparted that idea. But I’m not going to sit there and let anyone get away with “phantom” resentments.

    Where am I getting my info? From the life I lived. The “black” people in my life have never really subjected me to any form of racsism. It’s always the blacks that come from the ‘burbs and “wished” they had that “hood” experience who are the MOST racsist. They are the ones always posturing and faking and fabricating resentments.

    What gives me the right is that I already explained the “People of Color” term is dishonest. It does NOT pass the test of a racial designation or color designation.

    The term most definitly promotes subliminal racsuim. You’re hearing this from the LEAST racsist person in the world. If I’m saying this imagine what the neo-nazi is saying.The term imparts a line of demarcation that the speaker is proud of. It imparts the feeling that all those not “OF Color” need to stay out. I myself do NOT subscribe to that.

    There are many political agenda’s involved. Once again, the Progressive power that be crowd formulates these terms in there acedemic and intelligencia settings then they disseminate the to “educated” blacks who think they’re being empowered and defing themselves when in fact the powers that be are creating the divisions that suit them.

    The progressives talk a good game but their goal is to tie the black man to the system. The progressives truly hate blacks. They feel they’re superior. The early progressives at the beginning of the 19th century were big into eugenics. These are the wasp types who really have no use for the black man

    A quick example is an organization like “Planned Parenthood”. Good liberal organiztion right? Ya, this “white” run organiztion with it’s black foot soldiers is nothing more than a liberal progressive plot to keep the black population in check.

    Another is Acorn. White owned and operated with it’s black foot soldiers. Organizing the black vote so it can control black people.

    My point is that all these suppossed terms of empowerment and identity are just more conspiracies by the progressive types to tie the black man down and isolate the races.

    I will check out that article by peggy mcintosh

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 17, 2009 | Reply

  11. I’m going to check out the Peggy Mcintosh article. But I pulled up the picture and couldn’t believe it.

    An old White lady.

    I can tell you off the jump that whatever I have to say is more relevant than anything she will say. She doen’t even have black kids. I’ve experienced the “black” experience deeper than many black people.

    I’ll bet she’s coming from some self-induced white-guilt angle where she makes herself feel better because she panders to all the race-baiters out there.

    This is more about what I’m talking about, how the black man lets himself get bamboozeled by the white intelligencia crowd.

    I know, I’ve made some assumptions based on a picture but I hope this old white lady can convince me of something.

    I’ll get back with my report.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 17, 2009 | Reply

  12. I don’t know if you’re still checking out my comments, Sundjata but I did read that Peggy Mcintosh quote.

    It was classic disingenuine white guilt which in my opinion is what all white-guilt is.

    Instead of putting up a long rebutal I just wrote a new post that conveys exactly how I feel.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  13. “I can tell you off the jump that whatever I have to say is more relevant than anything she will say. She doen’t even have black kids. I’ve experienced the “black” experience deeper than many black people.”

    You may find this next statement insulting, but literally, this is the most ignorant (uninformed) statement I have heard in the longest time. You presume to judge this woman purely on how she looks, and I’ve noticed that you made a new post about how you hate racism. Still, you think SHE is not qualified to discuss racial matters, but you somehow are because you’ve slept with a Black woman? You’re gonna lose me with comments like that buddy.

    Let’s try to be more intellectual about these things.

    “how the black man lets himself get bamboozeled by the white intelligencia crowd.”

    YOU ARE WHITE!!! And, as I keep trying to tell you, you don’t have the RIGHT or the moral positioning to tell any Black person how to feel about the Black experience–INCLUDING the mother of your children (I don’t know whether you’re married) OR your biracial children. You may try, and you should, to help them develop their racial identity, but you are excluded in ways, that are apparently beyond you.

    A famous book, “Black Like Me” recounted the true-life experience of a White man who dyed his skin to pass as Black. While he was completely ignorant and racist in his views from the outset, in the end, his experiences (being treated as a Black person) revealed to him that the Black experience can only be understood by Black people. Any cultural anthropologist worth their salt will attest to this for any cultural group.

    Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Alrighty then.

      Please, point me in the direction of the materials you consult. How are you forming your opinions? If you would like, I would be happy to provide you with a long list of social scientific research conducted by members of all racial groups attesting to the privilege of Whiteness as a status. These works are historical and contemporary. They are refereed so as to further legitimate the findings.

      My brotha, if you want the whole story on any topic, you must–with an open mind–consult sources that you may presume to disagree with. This is why I ask you what you’re reading so that I may follow my own advice.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  14. First let me once again state my original position.

    The term “People of Color” is a dishonest term that can mean anything those who use it want it to mean. Those who use it can NOT even give a coherrent definition.

    Who are “People of Color” suppossed to be. Taken as a literal definition or a racial definition it exposes the racsist attitudes of those who use it if a meaning is probed. The term ends up including people who the “People of Color” crowd certainly do NOT want in there club. And it also includes in that club people who do NOT want themselves to be included in that club.

    The turn is used to imply a “higher” degree of racial tolerance. It’s disguised to hide the real meaning which is ,”it’s us and them”.

    What the “People of Color” crowd really mean is anyone that’s NOT of “white” european descent. If that’s what they mean then FINE. But say it. If they want to inflame and harbor past resentments FINE. Then say it. I have no problem. If anyone has racial predjudices then they should wear them on their sleeves NOT hide behind these loaded words meant to endow them with a “higher” moral bearing. The reason why the “People of Color” crowd won’t come out and say what they really mean is because they would lose the higher ground and compromise their agenda.

    If people want the “right” to define themselves then FINE. BUT use an honest term. And if you don’t use one do NOT expect intelligent people to let their intelligence be insulted by having to accept that dishonesty for fear of being called names.

    MY BLACK family and EXTENDED BLACK family has NEVER used that term and do NOT think of themselves by that “Peole of Color” definition. That fact and the illogic of the definition is the starting point of my argument.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  15. As far as to your accusations of my ignorance regarding a statement I made. First let me say I find it very ignorant to that you would think I ever implied my relevance has to do with the fact the I “slept with a black woman”. First off I’ve slept with women of all races and creeds and more than one and I do not nor have I ever implied that that is where my relevance lies.

    My kids are mixed so I come from a perspective that is NOT born of ignorance. My perspective is COMPLETELY relevant and MORE so than many because I have LIVED this life. My relevance NOT only lies with MY CHILDREN but with the many black people who ARE a part of MY FAMILY. My friends on the street and the feds with whom I am bonded for life. I have MORE of a connection than I’d dare say almost anyone and certainly MORE so than any so-called ‘White” person. As I’ve said I’ve been in the trenches. There is NO one who can discredit my experience.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

    • “As far as to your accusations of my ignorance regarding a statement I made. First let me say I find it very ignorant to that you would think I ever implied my relevance has to do with the fact the I “slept with a black woman”. First off I’ve slept with women of all races and creeds and more than one and I do not nor have I ever implied that that is where my relevance lies.”

      Then please, tell me what makes you qualified to tell Black people how they should identify?

      Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  16. So I don’t have the right to tell a black man how to feel about the black experience. BUT Peggy Mcintosh has a right to tell the “white” man how “guilty” they should feel for some kind of “White Privledge”.

    Why are her comments relevant. Because she has degree’s. Well I have a college degree also. I also have a degree in the REAL world from many different disciplines. I’m not sitting around applying acedemic theories. I’m applying the real facts of life to these acedemic theories to show that they do NOT stand the test.

    I think that the “white-guilters” like the Peggy Mcintosh “types” are considered relevant because they say what people with a certain agenda want to hear and can then use to promote their cause.

    Is my language inciteful and vitriolic? Certainly. But that’s because it is truthful and people do NOT like to hear the cold hard truth.

    I am the least racsist person in the world> I HATE all forms of it. But you can be certain that just as I’ll call out the neo-nazi. I’ll call out the “Hate-Whitey” people too.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Sir, you may “hate” all forms of racism, but you don’t seem to realize that the very nature of your arguments here further the cause of racism, which is exactly what I’m trying to reveal to you.

      What you’re attempting to do can be likened unto Christians assuming that they have the right (duty?) to convert all unbelievers; can be likened unto the U.S. assuming that it has the right (duty?) to convert the entire world into our socioeconomic system; can be likened unto a man telling a woman how she should feel about misogynistic hip hop lyrics. None of these groups are in a proper position to make such demands. This is the crux of the issue.

      Every group or culture has the right to define itself for itself, and you, being outside that group, are immediately invalidated in your opinions–not just because you are clearly not a sympathizer. The same is true for those would propose to define the nature of love between gay men and lesbian women. Unless you are a tried sympathizer, your opinions on the matter are viewed as attempts to control a situation that is not yours to be involved in.

      Now, you may resent people of color for whatever your reasons are. You may claim to be anti-racist as so many Whites are quick to do in order to justify racist content in their words. You may not feel that this country owes people of color anything. All of these things are very typical, and I see that no amount of new information will change your view on these subjects, but nevertheless, White people do not have any right to be involved in the conversation for how people of color will identify themselves anymore than heterosexual individuals have the right to define the gay community or anymore than men have the right to define women.

      Do not mistake acerbic comments for truth just because they are called out. People often make hurtful or uninformed comments and call it truth when those words or comments sting. The negative reaction is not proof of truth. It means that we are not being respectful.

      I encourage you to be open to different ideas. Consider how people of color will take to a White person defining what’s really Black or whatever. Imagine, if you would, a Muslim nation trying to impose their beliefs here. How well would you take to that?

      When new information is presented to you, you should make every effort to accept on its merits rather than ignoring it because you don’t like it.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  17. I’m well aware of the Black like me book. I’m not going to get into an analysis of the book because I do not want to get off topic.

    Whatever my skin color or race or whatever, the validity of my argumernt is on point.

    The thing you keep on forgetting is my perspective. I’m NOT the white guy basing his arguments on something he read or some view that was drummed into his head. This topic concerns me because I lived it and do continue to live it. The usual tricks to impune the credibilty of the view I’m expressing will NOT work because my life experience gives me a much more relevant perspective than the usual white bigots and white guilters

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

    • How do you live this? What are you living? What are these tricks you keeping referring to?

      Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  18. I have consulted with many sources I disagree with. You yourself am an example because you obviously do NOT disagree with me.

    Proving yourself right is NOT trying to find as much material as you can to agree with you. I fully admit that my view is controversial and “politically incorrect” but that doesn’t make it wrong. An open mind should be had by all NOT just look to criticize based on a refusal to accept that someone has an opinion that does not tow-the-party-line.

    What I’m talking about is my experience. Much of social science is experiential in nature. Interviews are conducted, individuals are followed, opinions are rcorded, scenario’s are orchestrated to examine a certain outcome. Then all the data is collected and a statement is issued. It is all very subjective and variable because the social aspect of the studies guarantee’s different outcomes and experiences for different people. That does not make the studies invalid they just must be put into perspective.

    I’m giving a real life opinion from my experiences that have caused me to develop a certain perspective. Why would my position not be taken and analyzed in that respect without trying to assault me with this other one and that other one.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  19. As far as the Peggy Mcintosh “white-guilter types”, it IS that progressive crowd that IS the biggest threat to the black man’s freedom. The black man doesn’t want to see it because they think those “types” are on their side.

    The fact is that in a modern, humane, compassionate society there could NEVER be outright enslavement. But these progressive “types” have come up with a much more devious way to keep the black man down. They inflame and excuse hatred and resentments but they do it in the oh so clever way of “assuming” all the blame. These progressives WANT the black man to hate and blame “Whitey” because what better way to justify hatred than to wrap it in some type of “higher” racial morality.

    The progressive gets they’re job done because the finger-pointing on both sides NEVER stops. The black man continues to see himself as a victim and is comfortable in that status because that is what the progressive has brainwashed hiim into thinking. The progressive does not want the black man to realize he has freedom because if the black man buys into the culture of victimization that the progressive has gotten him to believe then the black man will always be kept down which is what the progressive wants.

    The problem is that the black man believes that the “white-guilter’ is honest and on the level when they’re the biggest hypocrites in the world.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 18, 2009 | Reply

    • Okay. I’m nearing a lost for words. But I want to close this thread with these things:

      1) The world of people of color expands far beyond your experiences, and so if you rely on what you experience or what those in your network experience, you will necessarily be myopic in your thinking, as you are missing vast expanse of experience that defines any given people. Read up on groups that you are not in contact with. There is no one Black experience. Black people (no people) are not monolithic. We are composed of many different and divergent factions. You must try take these all in consideration before you speak on matters that directly affect us.

      2) Like it or not, there is a status issue with Whites and their involvement in the matters of peoples of color.

      3) On an intellectual level, we must be constantly aware that we do not know it all–by far. Therefore, we must forever be involved in bettering ourselves and perfecting our knowledge and this requires formal and informal education. We stunt our growth and bind ourselves from doing the diligence of a full citizen whenever we become satisfied with what we currently know.

      4) Lastly, we ought to be aware that there is no one truth, and it is a bifurcated fallacy to believe that things are an either/or. There are almost always at least three options and multiple truths, remembering that truth is often culturally based. As Andre 3000 said, “Sin, all depends, on what you believin’ in; faith is what you make it that’s the hardest shit since MC Ren.” Indeed. What seems morally right to one group is not necessarily so for another group.

      Peace and Blessings!

      Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  20. “The fact is that in a modern, humane, compassionate society there could NEVER be outright enslavement. But these progressive “types” have come up with a much more devious way to keep the black man down. They inflame and excuse hatred and resentments but they do it in the oh so clever way of “assuming” all the blame. These progressives WANT the black man to hate and blame “Whitey” because what better way to justify hatred than to wrap it in some type of “higher” racial morality.”

    Please explain how this happens. Give a real life example or two.

    Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  21. Awesome literature by Afrocentric Scholars:

    “The Falsification of Afrikan Consciousness”–Amos Wilson
    “Afrikan-Centered Consciousness Versus the New World Order”–Amos Wilson

    “Breaking the Chains of Psychological Slavery”–Na’im Akbar
    “Black Skin White Masks”–Frantz Fanon

    Awesome works on racism:

    “Racism Without Racists”–Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
    “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness”–George Lipsitz


    Comment by Sundjata | June 18, 2009 | Reply

  22. My continued point is who is a “Person of Color”. Who specifically do they want to include in the club or reject in the club?

    My initial stance is that if the “People of Color” want Bobby Jindal then they have ti take my brown skinned dad. If they reject my brown skinned dad then they can not have Bobby Jindal. If they want to point to British colonialism for the justification of the inclusion of Bobby Jindal, then FINE, but now they’re saying what they really mean with the term,”People of Color”, they REALLY mean, ‘No “white” Western Europeans allowed’. I’m fine with that BUT they won’t use that term because it takes away their fiegned “higher degree of racial tolerance and morality” and exposes them for holding racial predjuduces themselves. But I’m willing to go along with the classification based on racial resentments if they’re honest about it.

    BUT and this is the BIG BUT because it raises the million dollar question. If we include Bobby Jindal as a “Person of Color”, and that inclusion is NOT based on a literal definition of “Color” because then they would be REQUIRED to include ALL “brown” skinned caucasions like my dad nor is it based on a strict racial definition because if it was then they couldn’t have Bobby Jindal because there is NO doubt that his geneology is of the Indo-European brach of the mankind family tree. Therefore the justification can ONLY be because of discrimination his peoples suffered is the past at the hands of Western European peoples. THAT IS FINE AND I AM FINE WITH THAT, no matter how racsist itself that justification my be.

    BUT and here’s where the million dollar question gets asked; When “whitey” is filling out the quota’s and affirmative action dictates when hiring for the local police department and “whitey” fills them by hiring some Indian’s are the “People of Color” going to be OK with that? I suspect that “They” will NOT be ok with it. The sign’s of protest and speeches of racial preference and predjudices will be heard.

    The “People of Color” term is a very dishonest and loaded phrase disguised to promote a hidden adgenda and intimidate honest debaters into silence. The term is only used to the advantage of those who use it and the definition shifts for it to mean whatever it is they want it to mean when they need it to mean something

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

  23. I do completely agree with what you said in the fourth point of your first comment that you most recently posted.

    Untill my priorities changed (Helped along by the feds! LOL) I could rationalize and justify my ‘sins’ over what I ‘believed’ mainly due to what was instilled in me as a direct inflence of my heritage.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

  24. The progressive crowd is made up of ‘society’, ‘establishment’, ‘old-money wasp’ types. This movement took hold back in the early 1900’s. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were progressives. They believe that the policies of this nation should be set by the ‘intelligencia’ apparatus. The ideology is basically a shifting one depending upon what the ‘intelligencia’ deems to be advantageous for the progressives. They were big into eugenics and they believe in globalization.

    These people do NOT like “people of Color” they ARE the privledged class and they do NOT buy into Peggy Mcintosh’s whole “white-guilt” argument. They would scoff at it.

    But they are NOT stupid. These progressives pretend with their fiegned compassion to be in the “People of Color’s” corner. The progressive crowd is in Obama’s corner because he believes in their “liberal” agenda. To them he is the “ultimate” “manchurian candidate” , who better to have than a “black” man as a front man.

    At this point in history the progressives couldn’t get away with enslaving the black man in chains so they enslave him in other ways.The do it by turning the black man into the “eternal victim”. They play on REAL and deep resentments and then magnify them. They WANT the black man to believe that the white man is and has always been their problem. That the white man is his eternal enemy. They want to drum up these emotions and inflame them.

    What there goal is, is to make the black man even give up trying to do anything they WANT the black man to look to the system for help they WANT the black man to turn to crime then lock him up then keep him trapped in the system in an endless cycle of hopeless recidivism that perpetuates itself through the generations. They WANT the black man to blame it ALL on whitey that IS how they set it up. ALL it does is expand their power in government and keeps the black man tied to that big government system. That IS their social engineering goal.

    Then “whitey” gets sick and tired of hearing the black man blame him for everything. For ‘sins’ of the white man’s ‘fathers’ that the white man now has resentments of his own.

    It is the CLASSIC DIVIDE AND CONQUER method. Even God used it in ‘Babel’. These Power brokers do NOT want the races getting along. Ya, maybe they do have to accept a few blacks raising themselves up or even becoming the president but to them that’s the price of doing business. As long as those the let sneak through tow-their=party line and promote their adgenda.

    If they don’t they get labeled “uncle Tom’s”, like Thomas Sowell. Sowell is a reknowed economist who has written extensively on how economics are used to enslave the black man.

    The Classic unfair “uncle Tom” label was Clarence Thomas. Even black people are taught to HATE Thomas. The liberal/progressive crowd went ALL OUT trying to “lynch” Thomas because he didn’t play by their politics. Thomas came from abject poverty, the kind that most could NEVER even begin to fathom, he is a very thoughtful man with honest opinions. Even if you disagree with Thomas the man is not an ignorant. His conclusions are well thought out. But because he didn’t spew the normal HATE whitey and BLAME him for everything he was of NO use to the liberal progressives who tried to destroy him.Look it up ALL those trying to destroy Thomas were the liberal/progressives and those who do their bidding. NOT the “White” “bigoted” “conservatives”. The simple argument is that’s because Thomas is an ‘uncle Tom’. I wouldn’t classify him as that just because he developed an outlook different than the one the progressives hoped from his experience.

    Here you have the 2nd black man on the Supreme Court. He could really make an impact just with his prescence alone. BUT he has been scared into silence because he knows those who do the bidding of the progressive crowd will murder him even if he pops his head out of the hole they’ve forced him with their vicious treatment to crawl into.

    I know that knee-jerk response is that no one wants that ‘uncle Tom’ as a spokesman. But why NOT this is a man who does NOT buy into the victimization angle who is a SUPREME COURT justice. If people argue that he’s an ‘uncle Tom’, they do NOT realize how they ARE the TRUE uncle “tom’s” doing the progressives bidding.

    Clarence Thomas’ perspective and conclusions developed from his experiences and intelligence are his to own and share. But he should NOT be shouted down and denigrated by those who are mad because he refuses to symbolize their adgenda.

    In the federal sytem the crack laws are racially biased to keep the black man incarcerated. The ratio is 100-to-1.
    Heroin is only a 10-to-1 ratio.
    What that means is if some black kid hustling bags of crack on the corner trying to be a gangster and live the rap lifestyle gets caught with 20 INDIVIDUALLY packaged ONE GRAM bags of crack, he will suffer the same time of imprisonment as the dealer who has 2 kilo’s of POWDER cocaine. So 20 grams of crack equals 2000 grams of powder. This is done because crack is more prevalent in black “ghetto’s”. So they’re nailing these little nobody scrubs with hard time while a significant dealer gets a good break. Is that “white” privledge? I know some will say yes BUT it’s NOT the entire “white” race that engineered this racially biased law. It is the progressive/liberal types who are behind this engineering.

    Since I’ve left the feds they’ve might’ve changed the laws a little. I know FAMM was fighting to change the crack laws. I haven’t stayed up on it. But those laws had been in effect since the Clinton administation.

    Two other examples are Planned Parenthood and Acorn which I previously mentioned. PP is REALLY a ruse to commit genocide on the black race. It’s ussually placed in black communities. And Acorn is the biggest enslavement tool out their right now. Acorn shouts every criticism as racist. But their goal is to monopolize the black vote so they can get their foot soldier poloticians into office to pass their adgenda and inevitably expand control over society. Like I said Obama is the ultimate Manchurian Candidate. 96% of the black vote? Just because he’s black doesn’t mean he represents the view of 96% of the black voting public. He might NOT even know he’s their soldier BUT he certainly is. If the progressive adgenda that Obama is in tune with gets passed then their will be more people tied to the system than ever before.

    Also every “white-guilter” in the Peggy Mcintosh crowd voted for Obama. They ALL felt they were absolving themselves of their racial’sins’ and those of there ‘fathers’. They ALL felt they were exercising their own role in social justice. BUT believe me if things do NOT turn out the way they thought they would, if ALL these social engineering programs further impede their liberties and THEIR finances, believe me when I tell you they’re going to lose their “white-guilt” REAL quick. The next time they go to the voting booth they’re NOT going to be wracked with “white-guilt”, they’re going to feel that they did their social duty in the last election. Oh, they’ll NEVER come out and say it, they’ll always wear their “white-guilt” mask. But when they’re laying in bed next to their spouse their N-WORD resentments will come right to the fore.

    Do you think for one second these progressives like it that ALL their little sons at the prep schools listen to rap music, wear their backward baseball caps and baggy jeans and talk all that “yo” talk?

    It’s all a big conspiracy to manipulate the population and make sure the power stays in the hands of who it’s always been in. Obama and his likes are just foot soldiers to be used to promote the progressive adgenda.The rest of us “black”, “white”, “brown”, “yellow”, “red”, whatever, we are just commoners, plebes, “savages”, pawns to be moved around a chessboard, a means to their ends.

    NOTHING in this world is on the level. Everything is controlled by loosely based conspiracies all with larger hidden adgenda’s that shift their alliances back and forth betwwen the conspirator’s.

    The thing I’m concerned about is people NOT saying what they mean. Or letting themserlves be fooled into thinking they’re running the show when their just assuming an adgenda that been subtley injected into society. That’s my problem with the “People of Color” dishonesty.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

  25. I’ll check out some of that literature.

    Just a question. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of those self-published “black” novels. Ussually with a gangster or a street storyline. They’re BIG in the feds. Everybody reads them, even “white” guys will pick them up from one of their “black” brother’s. It’s classic pulp-fiction.I find it entertaining. It’s like the Godfather novel or any of these true crime mafia novels. I like them. Some things I relate to. I feel that if you put them in perspective and understand that it’s fiction even though they do play off stereotypes it can be enjoyable. I also think that it’s good entrepenorialship on the part of the author’s.

    What do you think about that?

    Have you ever heard of them?

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

    • I have actually. I’ve a bunch of these so-called “hood books.” I know that 50Cent helps to get a bunch of them published. On the whole, they read like gangsta rap songs in prose. They are often the only literature passed around in jails and prisons.

      I read the series on the character “Dutch” not too long ago. I think there is space for this type of literature just like I think there is space for gangsta rap. I just would encourage any person operating in this space to find ways to expand their experiences so that they’re not telling the same story over and over again.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 22, 2009 | Reply

    • On my page, I created a much longer list of some of what’s on my bookshelf. It’s not everything, but I tried to choose the works that get across main ideas in a good way.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 22, 2009 | Reply

  26. I can comment on black people because I have a DEEP concern for them as people considering that they are MY FAMILY. My kids are mixed, I obviously love them and my wife. Beyond that familial connection, I myself I have a unique relevance because I AM bonded to “black” people in a way that is almost impossible to articulate. Maybe part of it has to do with the things we overcame and experienced in my prior life as a criminal. Obviously I’m a proud Italian BUT I also wear my “hood” pass with almost as much pride> I been in the “hood”. I hung in the “hood”. There is no where I can’t go in the “hood” because the “hood” knows how I roll and who I roll with outside the “hood” but in the “hood” too. And although I’ve buried that lifestyle my past still stands.

    REAL knows REAL. That’s why I could go to any pound in the feds and fit right in. I’d get love not only from my Italian brothers but from my black brothers as well. I know that for a fact and I wear that with pride even though I know live as a “civlian”. Because REAL knows REAL, I NEVER had to prove myself in the feds and believe me if weakness is sensed you will be tested.

    There are many Jewish guys who LOVE to hang out with Italians. They LOVE that lifestyle and identify with it. We Italians call them “JEW-SHEENS’. It’s a play on the Italian slang for cousin, “COO-SHEEN”. These Jews know more about the “Italian” experience than many Italians, who we Italians like to call, “wonder-bred-wops”. Those Jew-sheen’s will get more respect from me, will get defended by me and I will identify with them than I would ever some “wonder-bred-wop”. And I know because of my credentials my REAL “black” brothers would treat me the same in turn. They know I’ve been their they know I’ve felt what they’ve felt.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

  27. Two Examples.

    My son got into a fight at school. After talking to him I found out that in the course of the fight the other kid dropped the N-word.

    Who do you think went ballistic? Me or my wife? I did. And when my father found out he himself flipped out. I went straight to the principal and demanded that she address the problem on my terms. I demanded a face-to-face apology not only from the kid but from the kids father.

    After my demand was satified, I approached the kids father and told him to the effect: “If your kid EVER uses a racial slur against ANYBODY, especially the N-word, I’m coming looking for YOU and YOUR the one who’s gonna deal with me.”

    I left him shaking. So you’re telling me I haven’t been in the trenches, don’t know of what I speak and have more relevance than Peggy McIntosh?

    When I was in the feds I was with this big-time gangster who was a white-guy. He was in his 60’s at this point but he had all the credentials and EVERYBODY LOVED this guy partly because of who he was but also because he was a REAL guy.

    One day some little, punk, crack-dealing gangbanger from D.C. got into it with him. (The D.C. blacks are pretty tight in the feds, they roll for real)
    Well, this punk kid disrespected the old-timer. Maybe he was buying into the whole all “whitey’s are weak” myth, obviously he didn’t know this guys rep.
    The old-timer bit his tongue at first but quickly blew his top. This little guy who came up to the “thugs” chin got right in his face and dropped the N-word a # of times amongst some other slurs and also a few dares to do something to him. The “thug” backed off because the old-timer really scared him.

    Prison is a very racial enviroment. You can mix and mingle but when push comes to shove you “clan” up with “your own kind”. Now I’ve told you how the D.C. blacks roll for real. Well, what do you think they did over this racial slur and a dare to act. NOTHING!@!! that’s what. We’re they scared of the old-timer and what he could do? NO. If you got a beef or have to save face you throw down and worry about the consequences and leave the aftermath for your leadership to clean up.
    So why didn’t the feared D.C. blacks do anything? Because even though the old-timer dropped the racial slur, the young punk was wrong from the jump.The D.C. blacks weren’t going to get into a race war over some little crack-dealing punk just because he’s the same race as them and especislly not with a guy who had a well established rep as an honorable guy like the old-timer. Was the old-timer right for using the N-word. Absolutely not. But the blacks weren’t going to start a war with someone REAL and with MORE in common with their leadership than some little punk gangbanger.

    My point of this story is that once again, REAL knows REAL.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

    • I’m not saying that you haven’t been in the trenches, and I’m glad that you are willing to defend your son. Would you defend mine the same way? What do you say to Black people who use “nigga” like it means “Black person?”

      See, I see no difference there, but I recognize that I must pick my battles. I see race relations as a type of war, and we must fight this war on many fronts. While defending the honor of my family is always important, Black people have much bigger issues to tackle, and many of them will have to be addressed in-house.

      In the movie “Malcolm X” a White woman asked Malcolm what she could do to help Malcolm’s cause, and he responded, “Nothing.” Now, after the Hajj, he changed his view on this a bit, but he remained sure (rightly so) that while support from Whites is acceptable and welcomed, Blacks must first run our own organizations and take care of our own people before creating Black-White coalitions.

      I think that sentiment is still very relevant today, and while I commend you for your zeal in issues that concern Black people, I want you to be aware that you should seek to support Black movements and not drive them. You should offer advice if asked, and if not, then support the movement as is. That means that you wouldn’t hold a power position that would allow you to define how Black people identify or how we ought to proceed.

      This is not a negative sanction. This is a step in the direction of self-determination for Black people, and it has nothing to do with any other group.

      We must all be aware that while our experiences are “real” for us, and we may easily “recognize” our experiences in others, our experiences are not universal. What goes on in the hood is not the only or even the most important Black experience that exists. Poor Blacks are no more “real” than wealthy Blacks. They simply represent a different experience–no less valid or important than any other.

      Comment by Sundjata | June 22, 2009 | Reply

  28. Sundjata,

    Check out my new O.J. post

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 19, 2009 | Reply

  29. Man, I’ve been gone a minute, and I see you’ve been busy. Responding to all of this may take me a minute.

    Comment by Sundjata | June 22, 2009 | Reply

  30. I would defend anyone against a racial slur. I do NOT feel anyone ever deserves to be treated like that. If someone was mad at someone they could use every curse word in the book and it would never be worse than a racial slur. I just do NOT excuse anyone for that type of behavior. I even have trouble putting it in words how offensive that language is to me. And believe me I could curse so bad I could make a sailor blush. LOL. But slur’s are unacceptable.

    I hear what you’re saying about Malcolm X. And I hear what you’re saying about not having a leadership role. I would really only want a position of support.

    But I do feel I have a very relevant experience. I am obviously NOT a racsist. I have a deep concern for black people because of my experiences and my reality. I think I can see it from both sides of the coin. Believe me, I know how white-progessive-liberals trick black people. They want to “group” black people to control them. But I also don’t like it when black people segregate themselves. Look, I’m Italian and I play the “guido” part at all times. I never been an Eminem or Vannilla Ice white boy. I am who I am and I always been accepted. I just think people should be themselves be proud of who they are but never feel scared to express themselves.

    I strongly believe that the only way we can come closer as human beings is to just fight these progressive group attitudes that only ends up polarizing everyone.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 23, 2009 | Reply

    • Let me just say that IN NO WAY TO MEAN TO INVALIDATE YOUR EXPERIENCES. If I’ve done that in any way, I sincerely apologize. Our individual experiences help shape how we see the world, and we can expand our understanding by including the experiences of those we are not in regular contact with. That’s all.

      “But I also don’t like it when black people segregate themselves.”

      The verdict is still out for me on the issue of segregation. On the one hand, every racial group self-segregates. It’s natural, and I don’t have any beef with anyone who wants to be with like people. There are benefits to this. Being around your own people strengthens you in your culture and identity. But, segregation also fosters minsunderstandings. I don’t know what it means to be Italian. All I know are a bunch of stereotypes, which may be completely off base. That’s why it’s good for us to communicate with people coming from different points of view. Sometimes we will anger each other, but we must keep in mind that this is a learning process that many simply choose to not engage in. Most people are supremely close-minded.

      What’s a “guido?” Is that like the Italian equivalent for “nigger?”

      Where did you grow up?

      Comment by Sundjata | June 24, 2009 | Reply

  31. These are all valid points.

    I like what you said in the in the last part of your comment. But I would just say that I have always felt that most people are more open-minded when you get to know them.

    You don’t know a “guido”? C’mon? LOL.
    It’s your stereotypical Italian, y’know, muscled-up meathead type, says alot of “youse”, “yo”, “fugghedaboudit”, might sound like Rocky, ussually has a “bent” or “flat” nose, wears alot of gold, dark shades, slicked or gelled hair, likes designer warm-up suits, drives a Cadallac or an S.U.V. You can see what a “guido” is on the Soprano’s

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 24, 2009 | Reply

    • Oh aight. Man I live in Cali. There aren’t any Italians anywhere near my areas. In fact, it’s hard to find White people in my neighborhoods. So a guido is like what Eddie Murphy was making fun of after he saw Rocky in the movie Delirious? (please tell me you’ve seen this movie, or you girl has not done her job acclimating you to Black culture properly)

      Comment by Sundjata | June 26, 2009 | Reply

  32. Oh ya,

    I do NOT think it is black people who segregate themselves. I feel that the liberal, progressive, white-guilters who do it in a devious way to better control them.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 24, 2009 | Reply

  33. I seen Delerious a long time ago when I was a kid. Ya, he was kinda accurate.

    Classic guido’s would be the John Travolta crew in Staurday Night Live. Andrew Dice Clay is the classic “jew-sheen” I was talking about.

    But the real wiseguy guido’s were probably best captured in the Soprano’s, the Paulie Walnuts character. Joe Pesci always nails a good wiseguy guido. The Deniro character in Analyze This, reminded me of my uncle big time. A good old Scoesese movie that depicted street guido’s was Mean Streets. The best guido real gangster was Chazz Palminteri in A Bronx Tale.

    But ya, Eddie Murphy did a good impersenation. That’s one thing about me, I can laugh at ethnic humor even when they’re taking shots at my ethnicity. I gotta check that movie out again, I ain’t seen it in years. A Classic. I can vaugely remember those times I think I was still a pre-teen but I remember Eddie Murphy just coming up then. He was like 20, real young.

    Comment by sicilian1 | June 26, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: