Why do civil rights groups keep sticking up for Michael Vick?

This is a reply to the dialog that Slippy Capalini and whitey is having:

If you do the research which I see that Slippy Capalini has done, you can tell that African and the Americans has an extensive shared history. It was vastly peaceful. Entire cultures were exchanged and shared 100's of years B.C.E. They shared a common value of respect and harmony, not to say that there wasn't any blood letting. For the most part it was peace. For example, Native Americans and Africans had counsels of the elders, were matriarical, similar chieftain structures, similar religious ideals, similar (shared) astrological consepts and tools, etc. When the European came on the scene things changed. They came from a completely different cultural norm. I'm not going to go into specifics but check the history, it speaks for itself.

I maintain that the Native American's major downfall was not realizing that they had a common enemy sooner than most of them did. Plus, most of us so-called African Americans are actually aboriginal Americans, and I ain't talking about so-called mongoloid aboriginals.

The human family history is deep. It has many different perspectives and intersecting paradigms. I love studying and living it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackwisdom

This is a reply to the dialog that Slippy Capalini and whitey is having:

If you do the research which I see that Slippy Capalini has done, you can tell that African and the Americans has an extensive shared history. It was vastly peaceful. Entire cultures were exchanged and shared 100's of years B.C.E. They shared a common value of respect and harmony, not to say that there wasn't any blood letting. For the most part it was peace. For example, Native Americans and Africans had counsels of the elders, were matriarical, similar chieftain structures, similar religious ideals, similar (shared) astrological consepts and tools, etc. When the European came on the scene things changed. They came from a completely different cultural norm. I'm not going to go into specifics but check the history, it speaks for itself.

I maintain that the Native American's major downfall was not realizing that they had a common enemy sooner than most of them did. Plus, most of us so-called African Americans are actually aboriginal Americans, and I ain't talking about so-called mongoloid aboriginals.

The human family history is deep. It has many different perspectives and intersecting paradigms. I love studying and living it.

---

Blackwisdom, have you studied or do you know anything about anceint african religious practices? I'm just curious if you came across anything in your travels/study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini

Blackwisdom, have you studied or do you know anything about anceint african religious practices? I'm just curious if you came across anything in your travels/study.

---

Quite a lot actually. To me they were operating on common sense and responding to nature while trying to kill their ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackwisdom

Quite a lot actually. To me they were operating on common sense and responding to nature while trying to kill their ego.

---

Care to enlighten us in a thread? Or perhaps we can build via messanger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini

Care to enlighten us in a thread? Or perhaps we can build via messanger.

---

Send me a message or something to do so tomorrow. I'm about to retire. We can go into Ausar Auset, Oshun, Amenta/Nammo, ba/ka/kaba, the mystery system, etc. Lets do a thread to make it interesting. I want feedback from positive folks on our culture.

I'm through for tonight, take care,
peace

if european people were at war more frequently than native americans and africans it'd be difficult to argue that it's because the former were simply predisposed to violent behavior. typically, as population density increases so does violence. you see it today if you compare violent crime rates in urban centers to the countryside. well the same held true in the past. europe's population was in much closer contact with each other throughout most of history than the native american and african populations, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the european nation-states frequently engaged in (and eventually excelled at) war. had native americans been able to develop an agricultural industry to rival europe's in the classical period and support the resulting population explosion, we all might instead be speaking iroquois, blaming all of life's problems on the red man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini

Germ warfare isn't an example of evolution, it's an example of living dirty with disease. I'm sorry i'm not trying to be offensive, i'm just being honest.

---

again, it has more to do with population density than any kind of predispostion towards poor hygiene. the first cases of the bubonic plague occured in ethiopia, but it didn't become a pandemic until it hit europe. you think that's because africans always remembered to wipe with their non-eating hand? no it's cos the number of people living in africa's largest cities were a fraction of the size and number of those in europe at the time. go study your facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini

How was writing an advantage?

---

lol you're staring right at the answer. writing facilitates the spread of knowledge. and what's more advantageous in life than having the wisdom of those who have lived before us?

oh and one last thing: vick's guilty but not cos he's black m'out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

typically, as population density increases so does violence.

---

That's true especially when those in close proximity have not. We lash out at who's in front of us, even when that person isn't the blame for out pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

had native americans been able to develop an agricultural industry to rival europe's in the classical period and support the resulting population explosion, we all might instead be speaking iroquois, blaming all of life's problems on the red man.

---

Everything that the Natives had eventually was taken away. Many tribes possessed rich lands but ego and greed destroyed it. It's odviously more complex than that but I won't give the time to it now. After studying my ancestor's culture I'd much rather take my chances with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

lol you're staring right at the answer. writing facilitates the spread of knowledge. and what's more advantageous in life than having the wisdom of those who have lived before us?

---

Oh so true but mostly all Native American cultures has rich oral traditions. The historians, story tellers and medacine men abided by strict codes. If any were to tell lies or render false medication, they would be banished or put to death. Straight talking was life and death and word was everything. It was the same for their mirror society overseas. Knowledge was spread but odviously not as efficiently as written word. Don't take that as less advanced and civilized though. I've heard of so many indians being relied upon to be translators for multi-languages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

oh and one last thing: vick's guilty but not cos he's black m'out.

---

Guilt never has and never will have a color, it only has character. Our uncultivated minds focus on differences and confuse truth due to our ignorance. Sometimes we rise above the smoke and mirrors and when we do I appreciate the victory of spirit.

Very well put together argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whitey

What you dont get is the ''black america'' that you think is the opposite of white america was/is molded by what you call white america. Slavery, converting real africans to christian religions, giving them nothing when slavery was ended, segregation, poor schools, all of this has molded "black america" into what it is today. They were all terrible things, and it was ment to keep the black man down, so why do you want to revel in that?

---

Let's face it, when u go on a job interview who is doing the interview? When you go to the store, who is waiting on u.................I mean, in order to survive u have to live as they do....................

wow this grew out of topic haha

As far as the "civil rights" groups defending him, they're just trying to get attention. For them, no one with dark skin can do any wrong and that's just plain stupid.

Vick f**ked up big-time and I hope he gets everything they throw at him. I've always loved animals way more than people and for him and everyone in his camp do to things like that do those animals is just flat out barbaric.

If I was the judge, I'd round up his whole faggot-ass crew, put 'em in a cage two at a time with one bowie knife a piece and whoever lost would get a hand and a foot chopped off on opposite sides.

Motherf**kers get money and lose their damn minds. Thinkin' their invincible and s**t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackwisdom

Everything that the Natives had eventually was taken away. Many tribes possessed rich lands but ego and greed destroyed it...After studying my ancestor's culture I'd much rather take my chances with them.

Knowledge was spread but odviously not as efficiently as written word. Don't take that as less advanced and civilized though. I've heard of so many indians being relied upon to be translators for multi-languages.

---

well if we're talking about the ability to resist an invasion of foreigners with vastly superior technology (thanks in part to the prevalence of the written word), then sorry but yes, that does mean they were less advanced. of course we can look back and study these societies and admire some aspects of their culture, or even note how preferable their way of life is to the bleak, meaninglessness of modern living, but that's not how the game of life works! life ruthlessly favors the more powerful, not the more peaceful... just like vick's dog fights.

(sorry this is way off topic but it's because arguments from other threads have spilled over.)

Quote:

---

if european people were at war more frequently than native americans and africans it'd be difficult to argue that it's because the former were simply predisposed to violent behavior. typically, as population density increases so does violence. you see it today if you compare violent crime rates in urban centers to the countryside. well the same held true in the past. europe's population was in much closer contact with each other throughout most of history than the native american and african populations, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the european nation-states frequently engaged in (and eventually excelled at) war. had native americans been able to develop an agricultural industry to rival europe's in the classical period and support the resulting population explosion, we all might instead be speaking iroquois, blaming all of life's problems on the red man.

---

The white settlers excelled at terrorism, not war. The early american government handed out medals for slaughtering women and children. Let's not forget, these are the same people that enslaved other human beings because they were to lazy to work themselves.

Who's says the country would have the same problems?

Quote:

---

again, it has more to do with population density than any kind of predispostion towards poor hygiene. the first cases of the bubonic plague occured in ethiopia, but it didn't become a pandemic until it hit europe. you think that's because africans always remembered to wipe with their non-eating hand? no it's cos the number of people living in africa's largest cities were a fraction of the size and number of those in europe at the time. go study your facts

---

Why did it become pandemic when it hit europe? Because of how they understood science. It affected their hygiene, the way their communities were set up, and the whole culture and lifestyle. Dumping chamber pots out into the street, it was a dirty way to live.

Quote:

---

lol you're staring right at the answer. writing facilitates the spread of knowledge. and what's more advantageous in life than having the wisdom of those who have lived before us?

---

Blackwisdom already spoke on this:

Strict oral traditions.

But also, just because many tribes didn't have a written langauge, doesn't mean they didn't keep a written record of history for generations to come. Wasn't it the pilgrims that wanted knowledge from the indians on how to survive in this "new world?"

slippy you miss my point completely. everytime i state an objective fact, you go and infuse a moral judgment into my observation. listen man, you're preaching to the choir. my moral compass is in line with yours: i'm horrified by what happened to the natives, living with rats and cockroaches is dirty, and living in nature with some hot girls' titties hanging out all the time would be fucking great.

but we knew all that in 2nd grade. so let's drop the simple-minded sermonizing and start thinking about why things are the way they are without having to invoke morality. that's next level thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

well if we're talking about the ability to resist an invasion of foreigners with vastly superior technology (thanks in part to the prevalence of the written word), then sorry but yes, that does mean they were less advanced. of course we can look back and study these societies and admire some aspects of their culture, or even note how preferable their way of life is to the bleak, meaninglessness of modern living, but that's not how the game of life works! life ruthlessly favors the more powerful, not the more peaceful... just like vick's dog fights.

(sorry this is way off topic but it's because arguments from other threads have spilled over.)

---

Your definition of advance is different from mines. Ancient cultures had technology and civilization that vastly surpassed what we have now. They had a different heart and mind from the current rulers today. It's the heart of man that defines the actions of man. Due to the savages that run this world today we gain the illusion that brute force is right and the opposite is wrong. Truth be told, the Natives could have destroyed the Europeans at the out set if they wanted to, but they didn't. Now who's more advanced; the man that says come and eat at my table or the man that says give me your table I don't want to share?

Writing didn't make the Europeans more advanced it made them more capable of savagery.

Our mother Earth is getting tired of us not doing the job so she's going to do it for us. A cleansing will occur. Then we'll see what's more advanced. Peace or war. Any one can clinch a fist to strike but you must dig deeper to open your hand and share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

slippy you miss my point completely. everytime i state an objective fact, you go and infuse a moral judgment into my observation. listen man, you're preaching to the choir. my moral compass is in line with yours: i'm horrified by what happened to the natives, living with rats and cockroaches is dirty, and living in nature with some hot girls' titties hanging out all the time would be fucking great.

but we knew all that in 2nd grade. so let's drop the simple-minded sermonizing and start thinking about why things are the way they are without having to invoke morality. that's next level thinking.

---

I'm injecting the other side of the story. How is it a moral judgement when i'm only speaking the truth? If you infused some of these views when giving history lessons, you wouldn't hear that much out of me. But you know as much as I do that your version of history get's more credentials amongst the Anglo-saxon culture that everyone here is accustomed to. If I stand still and let you speak on in it your way, people reading this will only have a one sided view. Please don't kid yourself, your replies are hardly objective.

But we all didn't have the other side of the story in 2nd grade.

So you want some next level thinking?

How does this text book version of history:

Powerful and Advanced European Conquerors vs. The Wild Pimitive Savage Natives


Effect the phychology of a native child in school?


How does this text book version of history:

Powerful, Advanced European Conquerors vs. Zebra chasing spear chucking Black slave

Effect the phychology of a black youth in school?