you're not hearing me. i'm arguing for CONSCIOUS RESISTANCE. decolonization is difficult and there's no point where you can say, "okay, now i'm decolonized." it's a process and a struggle that requires commitment. a constant struggle.

solidarity is fostered and maintained not blind acceptance.

i'm arguing that romantic love, as we have been conditioned to understand, articulate, and practice it, supports and upholds western hegemony. so in order to defy or resist western hegemony, individuals in turn CANNOT sling to romantic love.

the revolution is based on love. not romantic BS but sincere commitment.

>Really you don't believe in romantic love? you don't tell
>this to women do you?

whoa buddy, you trending into the politics of attraction (and that's why off topic..LOL). i'd be the first to admit that i struggle with my colonization but struggle with and adhere to are two different things. you can hold a revolutionary philosophy yet be equipped to navigate the system that you seek to destroy. by consciously resisting i always seek to use western concepts/institutions to my/our advantage political. its much like how you have radical Black faculty members teaching at white universities, you use their desire to create pseudo-diversity to agitate and spark more Black revolutionary thought.

you play your position. you don't adhere to it, you use it to gain politically and otherwise.

>okay i can see the whole romantic ideal as western and even
>possibly bad. but i like to think that one can balance that
>with the hard work that goes into a good relationship. my
parents were black nationalists to the bone. but they were
>romantic.

see i think you're confusing romance with Black love. they are to seperate things.

i've never said that romance can't be the springboard for a relationship but in a relationship that matures it needs to be duly politicized and desposed of. and once it deposed of it should then be the springboard for other relationships.

peace.