theories, & constructs become
"universal" ones?

In other words, what methods/mechanisms
were/are used to propagate Eurocentric
thought as absolute and universal?

How is one able to distinguish such supposed
"truths"?

Are there alternatives to such phenomena?

...imperial power or the construction of empires allowed "missionaries" and colonists to divide the world up and get native and indigenous peoples to accept absolute and universal European ideas and ideals.

I am reminded of "The Mission" and "Rabbit-Proof Fence", two movies based on true stories that are examples of how colonialism, modernity, etc. broke down other cultures to create a "global village" based on European concepts.

In "The Mission" the Jesuits are challenged to convert the Guarani Indians of South America and then decide to unite to prevent the destruction of the tribe by 18th century colonial empires. In "Rabbit-Proof Fence" three aboriginal girls are separated from their mothers and transported to a distant training school, where they are prepared for assimilation into white society by a racist government policy (set by European colonists). I am also reminded of "Roots" that tells the tale of Kunta Kinte, a young African boy who is stolen from his home, survives Middle Passage and start a life & family in the U.S. He is forced to change his name and accept a different way of life.

At the core of all of these stories/events is colonialism and imperialism. By 1900, European and U.S. powers controlled 90% of Africa, 99% of Polynesia, 56% of Asia, 100% of Australia, and 27% of the Americas (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/colonies.htm). European colonial expansion had much to do with the creation of core or universal ideas and ideals. Also, by 1815 the world had known four hundred years of continuous European imperialism. This was an outward expansion of European power over other continents. Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, British colonial empires had followed one another throughout these four centuries. Always these extensions of control over non-European territories had involved, in varying proportions, trading, missionizing, adventure, settlement, loot, national pride, conquests, and wars between rival powers.

Once you have control you can then control the indoctrination and domestication of the people. The U.S., as a global power from 1898-present, is currently portrayed as the biggest bad guy and the big question in dominant U.S. foreign policy circles has been whether the country should assume leadership in a "one-superpower world" or subordinate itself to the decisions of international organizations like the United Nations.

The big problem is how these elite circles maintain the status quo by controlling foreign policy and related interests. Many countries struggle to get out from under this situation and some are called terrorists. This is not to say that terrorism is the answer to ending imperialism but I do think it is one reaction to the phenomenon.

An alternative is to reject imperialism (what Lenin called the highest form of capitalism) but how to regain control? This is something no one has been able to make happen successfully. People would need to be self-sufficient and cut all ties to foreign powers but that seems like a step into the past, not moving forward to a new future.

In Rabbit-Proof Fence, the two of the three Aboriginal children successfully escape and return to their mothers. They reject the assimilation process but with time the government's policies and ideals spread to indoctrinate and/or assimilate their children, grandchildren and so on.

.

Example: In Australia, the Aborigines did not fight or resist European colonists, they did not sign treaties and they were not legal subjects. In contrast, in New Zealand, the Maori’s united and violently resisted the colonists.

However, in both cases colonists and Aboriginal or native settlers learned to co-exist. In the process, much was lost and much was gained, as well. The Australian Aborigines chose non-resistance and many were soon assimilated while the Maori's chose resistance, thus, treaties were signed and they were given legal subjecthood. This doesn't mean that the Maori's were not affected by colonialism. They, too, assimilated to a degree. Imperialism may be a form of cultural intersection, with the people in power able to control the masses.

"Imperialism is the fundamental. It is the 'master’s house' while the remaining three — history, writing and theory — are the 'master’s tools'." - Linda Tuhiwa Smith

So it seems as if no matter what choice people make (resistance or nonresistance), the idea of progress is that people learn to co-exist. We stand by our own ideas and ideals, teach our own what is important to the survival of our communities and struggle when necessary. From hunter-gatherer, to agriculturalist, to technologist, there seems to be a path that human kind is on that suggests a purpose and that is to live out the rest of our existence on the planet, relying more and more on post-colonial, post-modern tools and thought as a foundation...even as it destroys lives and causes suffering.

If the shoe (so to speak) were on the other foot, I don't see the result being any different. It's cause and effect, someone is in power and someone else suffers. The only real alternative is to start again and I don't see this happening for a while.

Singapore, Japan, Chiang Kai Sheck's Nationalist China, Turkey, and the myriad nations that have overturned their countries specifically to absorb western production powers and modes of interaction?

...of colonialism/imperialism? The fact is that without the introduction of "western" power and imperialism some other kind of historical events would have occurred. Somehow, these countries were infiltrated and thus found the need to absorb the an outside culture.

>Singapore, Japan, Chiang Kai Sheck's Nationalist China,
>Turkey, and the myriad nations that have overturned their
>countries specifically to absorb western production powers
>and modes of interaction?

Check out the new movie entitled THE LAST SAMURAI starring Tom Cruise. The movie clearly shows how European culture wiped out the NATIVE AMERICANS and started to effect Japan. Also notice how EUROPEAN clothing started to replace the traditional clothing of the Japs.

I am still trying to figure out how Tom Cruise manage to live through hundreds of bullets that killed everyone else fighting with him at the end. Leave it to a white man to save the Japs from the Americans. hahahaha....

.

>Check out the new movie entitled THE LAST SAMURAI starring
>Tom Cruise. The movie clearly shows how European culture
>wiped out the NATIVE AMERICANS and started to effect Japan.
>Also notice how EUROPEAN clothing started to replace the
>traditional clothing of the Japs.
>
>I am still trying to figure out how Tom Cruise manage to
>live through hundreds of bullets that killed everyone else
>fighting with him at the end. Leave it to a white man to
>save the Japs from the Americans. hahahaha....

?

sheesh...

peace,
2th.

word.

twas great!

I remember seeing "Once Upon a Time in China" starring Jet Li that held strong "resistance" theme in it.

?

They had the means for making their words 'truths' by putting them in mass produced books...

Not sure what that is, but in 2000, I know that Johannes Gutenberg was considered one of the most influential people of the millenium.


"we missed a lot of church so the music is our confessional"
BB

Cultural Hegemony & African American Development by Dr. Clovis Semmes....blows your mind


****A1DER'S MENTAL LAXATIVE: RELAX YA MIND AND LET THAT SHIT GO****
*
A1der - Pimp slappin them punk bitches since '99 (TM) (c)ChuckFoPrez
*
My notes on Bush: A village in Texas is missing their idiot
*
We need workers, not leaders. Such workers will solve the problems which race leaders talk about.~Carter G.Woodson
*
You've been loving me a long time...I'll bet you always will
*
Show you much understanding...I wouldn't complain at all
***

YA AZZ NEEDS TO BE HERE...

I'll check it out.

go ahead and try it, there's a reason so many oppressed cultures employed non-violent resistance (read: can't win!). while i realize the vast majority of the world is non-white, if you think there can be any unification of all non-whites against whites or that numbers would surely beat massive weaponry, you got another thing coming. I am all for insurrection, resistance, etc, but violence is a very short-sighted means in terms of this problem.

as for the initial post, the dominant write the world's history, it is as simple and unfortunate as that although I will check out that Dr Clovis Semmes joint.

As Kennedy once said...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible only make violent revolution inevitable."

.

> The solution is the destruction of white people/power

Hitler thought that the destruction of the jewish populace would cure his perceived social ills in Germany. Would you become what you hate through the destruction of another race.

If you get a cold i bet you blame whitey too.

>If you get a cold i bet you blame whitey too.


>Would you
>become what you hate through the destruction of another
>race.

No I would not become a whiteman/European...
This is just more rationalizations for avoiding
training/preparations for war.

It is what it is...

If it is low, what are some
alternative solutions?

Imperialism and the world system it has created must run it's course like all things. We will not be alive to see what will be the next step in social evolution(well maybe my clone)but the Europeans international chickens are coming home to rest and seeds they planted will eventually destroy their grip infact I feel like the reason the US indorsed NAFTA and other market opening strategies is because the market was become so stagnent at home that we where headed for crisis but now trade is being dicussed and scrutnized more closely.

Bottom line the worlds equilibrium was upset but things tend to get ballanced out through attrition or all systems crumble in time.

His-story has accurately illustrated
himself as being completely unagreeable
on 196,940,000 sq. miles of the planet
earth.

Thusly...

there are no other alternatives, he must
be removed.

I HAVEN'T LAUGHED THAT HARD ALL WEEK.

yer the best, 95.

i cant imagine a better misnomer for this cat...Intelligence? I think not...simply blaming everything on YT has obviously not gotten him anywhere in life so far, but maybe if he continues it will.....

How exactly can you make the statement that only white people have spread out around the globe in conquest...He must have skipped that section in the "His-tory" books that he obviously never read in the first place..I love how colored skin gives entire populations a free pass when it comes to looking back at history

somebody please feel sorry for this guy.. he needs people to feel sorry for him to progress in this world. bloody liberals

everybody is a victim of something but I think the whole imperialism thing has effected the world in such harsh ways and these realities will soon effect us in the form of terrorist and disease etc... so you must understand the root of a problem (but not harp on it) to address it in future standings and promote some form of social evolution.

there is such a thing as absolute truths... certainly not saying everything eurocentric is to be considered an absolute truth.. but what if.. what if there are things that are universally morally wrong.. not just a product of culture and cultural relativism.

like that...

the wise man would place those examples ahead of time..."IF" they exist.

there's a thing called "presuppositions" meaning that the WAY you ask a query almost dictates the parameters and TYPE of response. a question like this will cause the mind to generate and synthesize answers that fit an affirmative answer. this is sometimes flawed (as in this case).

better to just point out anything that IS universal.

just to name a few are inherently evil acts.. universally! don't try to talk about warfare and murder as if they are equivalent either..

to keep their populations low because of their limited resources. a lot of people practice a more subdued version of infanticide these days.

great.. so it must be okay then

sad.

i'd suggest reading about EVERY group of pepole in the history of man...you'll run into MANY that state the contrary. trust that. actually...DON'T trust me, but ask why you said that they are evil "universally" withOUT having read or studied EVERY group in mankind's history.

think about that for a sec and you'll understand the begininnings of universalizing itself.

did I say all cultures throughout history view murder and rape as evil.. did I?.. hold up maybe I did.. naw..

I said:

"murder and rape are inherently evil acts.. universally!"

my perspective - certain things are absolutely true regardless of cultural beliefs

example: Even though the government says infanticide is legal, infanticide is inherently evil.. it is wrong.

your effed up perspective - things are only absolutely true when all cultures thoughout history are in agreement on the issue. Otherwise, everything is relative to each culture.

example: Because the culture says infanticide is okay, it must be okay within the context of that culture.

you jokers never take your arguments to their logical conclusion..

>there is such a thing as absolute truths... certainly not
>saying everything eurocentric is to be considered an
>absolute truth.. but what if.. what if there are things that
>are universally morally wrong.. not just a product of
>culture and cultural relativism.

That query would make for
a good post, but not here.
I don't want to stray from
the beaten path.

Christianity.

PEACE

I find a lot of these discussions to be very non-rigorous, so I'm gathering the non-rigor starts @ the source of these various ideas.

way to contribute to the forum

a Eurocentric concept?

get lumped together to form one GIANT concept? could it be from the very same stereo-types we're supposedly trying to get away from? what the hell does "European" even mean? The answer is nothing, which means that something Eurocentric means an even greater nothing. peace,

Y'know. Caucasians. Blue-eyed devils (is there a gradient? i got brown eyes - am I LESS devilish than your average teuton?). Honkeys. We're all the same, more or less. Whereas every individual in every other ethnic group is nuanced and independent of the next.

>get lumped together to form one GIANT concept?

Here's the concept:

"To put it simply, the Elizabethans believed that there was and should be a place for everything and everything was and should be in its place. Even today, in these supposedly modern times, it feels good to belong, to find your niche, your place in life, your vocation, your calling." - http://guildofstgeorge.com/chain.htm

"
The bottom of the chain represents the least possible perfection, which is nothingness (as opposed to evil).
Descartes, Meditations 110.4.
Spinoza, Ethics 37-38 (I.11.3d proof), 38.7 (I.11 sch)

The being at the top of the chain is utterly independent or self-sufficient or absolute.
Descartes, Meditations 104.3, 106.3.
Spinoza, Ethics 31 (I defs 1, 3, 6), 44.2 (I.17), 56.5 (I.33 sch.2).
Leibniz, Monadology § 40." - http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/re/chain.htm

"This is a rough-hand but modern version of The Great Chain of Being, a concept first voiced by Aristotle. It's a depiction of ladderlike steps in the supposed complexity of living things. Lesser creatures occupy the bottom rungs; the human is (well, of course!) at the very top." - http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-fall96/mcshea.html

I find it interesting that this one main idea or concept goes back to Artistotle and finds it way through several known philosophers and thinkers in several European countries and even to the sciences (Darwinism) and colonialism. If Black people or people of color are placed at the bottom of the chain then it would make sense that they needed to be infiltrated and maybe destroyed or subjugated.

I've been reading up on the "great chain" concept since my senior year of high school when I attempted to find the origins of racism. Back then and now it seems as if this European concept that crosses country boarders and times in history has formed the very basis of imperialism and other "isms" that we know about today.

I remember studying it in high school also (British Literature). The cultural vanity wasn't unique to Europe (what culture doesn't think it's the pinnacle of human creation?) but the effects of that vanity have probably reverberated farther than any before.

The cultural vanity wasn't unique to Europe
>(what culture doesn't think it's the pinnacle of human
>creation?) but the effects of that vanity have probably
>reverberated farther than any before.

Agreed for the most part, although this is still a bit general. I would consider cultural vanity the result of the mindset of nationalism, therefore making "European" an incorrect label. When you think about Europe, there are European countries that continually fight other European contries. There isn't one giant white culture. This is a myth. peace,

>I find it interesting that this one main idea or concept
>goes back to Artistotle and finds it way through several
>known philosophers and thinkers in several European
>countries and even to the sciences (Darwinism) and
>colonialism.

Indeed, but the point of my post was that concepts such as these were absolutely NOT embraced by all of Europe, thus rendering the term "European concept" meaningless. To label something as a European concept is to lump 44 countries together. This is a GREEK concept, and new concepts are generally viewed and judged by other cultures--some accepting, some rejecting.

If Black people or people of color are placed
>at the bottom of the chain then it would make sense that
>they needed to be infiltrated and maybe destroyed or
>subjugated.

The concept of the great chain was used improperly first and foremost for the feudal system, and its SIMILAR (not the concept itself) ideologies were used to justify racism. This being said, the fact that, under this overall notion, racism exists, does not make racism a European concept. There were whites who owned white slaves, and blacks who owned black slaves, so the concept itself was never implemented for race. It was the expansion of the concept (similarly to American slave owners using the Bible to justify their actions) that leads to such an illusion. Slavery was the economic foundation for ancient civilizations. They didn't know any better. There were countless whites who were indentured servants who were expelled from Europe. I am quite confident they didn't believe they were simply a lower link on a chain.

>I've been reading up on the "great chain" concept since my
>senior year of high school when I attempted to find the
>origins of racism. Back then and now it seems as if this
>European concept that crosses country boarders and times in
>history has formed the very basis of imperialism and other
>"isms" that we know about today.

The expansion and bastardization of the concept did, in fact, create racism, but it is absurd and offensive to assert that racism is a European concept, because that is exactly what you're implying. Civilizations conquered other civilizations all the time, each one trying to implement their own imperialist standards. It just so happens that western whites found the right formula, bastardizing a number of fixations, including religion, patrioticism, and racism. peace,

...are different things, sort of like "if you are not striving for a solution...". Being aware and acting on principles is something every individual and group can choose to do. Let's say that 20 European countries did not support imperialism (even 44) but, yet, it still spreads to take over the globe and cause all kinds of suffering for natives and folks of color. What to do? Close ranks, close your eyes and act as if it has nothing to do with you? Sounds like post-WWI Germany to me.

I don't buy it. Global domination of European OR Western culture happened and people accepted it all over Europe and elsewhere.

In high school I was concerned with origins but now I am in the present: What can I do in the present? That means not just looking backwards or carrying other people's baggage. It's my own manifest destiny, of sorts.

>The concept of the great chain was used improperly first and
>foremost for the feudal system, and its SIMILAR (not the
>concept itself) ideologies were used to justify racism.

This concept, regardless of its origins, spread throughout the world. It's this fact that matters to me and if you think that this system is not linked to caplitalism, racism, etc. then you may not see the flow of the universe like I do. To me, it's all connected.

>It was the expansion of the concept
>(similarly to American slave owners using the Bible to
>justify their actions) that leads to such an illusion.

Slavery, specifically chattel slavery, was justified by many institutions and it was supported by the system itself. You have to view oneself as over all others to justify the domination and destruction of others. Conceptually, this is a idea/illusion that spread from Europe, throughout the world. It led to the Middle Passage that stands out in my mind (as well as the Trail of Tears). We are talking about mass enslavement (or destruction) of a people, not individuals...based on the color of their skin. Whole groups or tribes of white people were never enslaved, taking from their families, stripped of their language, their culture, religion, etc.

>Civilizations conquered other
>civilizations all the time, each one trying to implement
>their own imperialist standards.

Sometime ago tribes were surviving and then, suddenly, civilizations were conquering others? When did this happen and where? Why? It's start with an idea, a seed that is planted and grows. In order for the growth to spread it has to have a foundation and lots of nurturing (like hundreds of years). In order to remove the growth you have to kill the root(s). Where those roots are is open for interpretation but necessary if discussing alternatives.

>It just so happens that
>western whites found the right formula, bastardizing a
>number of fixations, including religion, patrioticism, and
>racism.

But this is not arbitrary, some unplanned happening that took place over hundreds of years. Again, a seed was planted...took root and spread.

>...are different things, sort of like "if you are not
>striving for a solution...". Being aware and acting on
>principles is something every individual and group can
>choose to do.

I feel you.

Let's say that 20 European countries did not
>support imperialism (even 44) but, yet, it still spreads to
>take over the globe and cause all kinds of suffering for
>natives and folks of color.

Thing is, imperialism causes suffering for many people other than natives and people of color.

What to do? Close ranks, close
>your eyes and act as if it has nothing to do with you?
>Sounds like post-WWI Germany to me.

This is a myth. Every time there is a terrible atrocity against mankind, there are countless people who stand up against it, only to be muted by the powers that be. Let's think about post WWI Germany for a second. Yes, there was an attempted genocide going on and yes, many people turned their heads. However, when the US became involved and freed people from the camps, only about 1/5 of the people were Jews (Cohen, The Holocaust in American Life). There were many, many non-Jewish people who spoke out against Nazism and died because of it.

>I don't buy it. Global domination of European OR Western
>culture happened and people accepted it all over Europe and
>elsewhere.

I never disputed this. My point was that there were many, many people who did not. Imperialism is the result of ONE country imposing its culture on MANY others (Project for the New American Century), not a countless group of cultures coming together to form a super, world dominant culture.

>In high school I was concerned with origins but now I am in
>the present: What can I do in the present? That means not
>just looking backwards or carrying other people's baggage.
>It's my own manifest destiny, of sorts.

I am in total agreement.

>>The concept of the great chain was used improperly first and
>>foremost for the feudal system, and its SIMILAR (not the
>>concept itself) ideologies were used to justify racism.
>
>This concept, regardless of its origins, spread throughout
>the world. It's this fact that matters to me and if you
>think that this system is not linked to caplitalism, racism,
>etc. then you may not see the flow of the universe like I
>do. To me, it's all connected.

No, it certainly is, but there is no need to accuse its creators of racism. That's all I was trying to correct. The concept, ITSELF, isn't flawed. Someone took it and ran with $$$ in their eyes.

>>It was the expansion of the concept
>>(similarly to American slave owners using the Bible to
>>justify their actions) that leads to such an illusion.
>
>Slavery, specifically chattel slavery, was justified by many
>institutions and it was supported by the system itself. You
>have to view oneself as over all others to justify the
>domination and destruction of others. Conceptually, this is
>a idea/illusion that spread from Europe, throughout the
>world.

Ah, but its orgins are absolutely not European, but pre-European. We're talking about the very first Mesopatamians, Africans, and Natives, all of whom had slavery for economic purposes. It was from these orgins (all people, basically) that slavery spread. The fact that a few (yes, a few) European countries generated enough money to impose such a system through imperialism means nothing except an expanded franchise. You do have to view yourself as above the others to impose a system, but this didn't spread from Europe (44 countries), throughout the world. It was here from the beginning.

It led to the Middle Passage that stands out in my
>mind (as well as the Trail of Tears).

Many of my Cherokee ancestors died here.

We are talking about
>mass enslavement (or destruction) of a people, not
>individuals...based on the color of their skin.

I'm not denying that slavery, based on racism, happened.

Whole
>groups or tribes of white people were never enslaved, taking
>from their families, stripped of their language, their
>culture, religion, etc.

I'm sure the Slavs who resided in the heart of central Europe would strongly disagree.

>Sometime ago tribes were surviving and then, suddenly,
>civilizations were conquering others?

No. Tribes attacked other tribes continually in war... that's just a fact of life.

When did this happen
>and where?

From the beginning, everywhere.

Why? It's start with an idea, a seed that is
>planted and grows.

It is the result of greed, and greed is a sin that can strike millions who don't defend themselves against it.

In order for the growth to spread it has
>to have a foundation and lots of nurturing (like hundreds of
>years).

No, you don't. You have to see something and immediately want it.

In order to remove the growth you have to kill the
>root(s). Where those roots are is open for interpretation
>but necessary if discussing alternatives.

The roots are everywhere, bottom line. What is always relevant is who is imposing such actions today. Right now, it is the US and Britain...

>>It just so happens that
>>western whites found the right formula, bastardizing a
>>number of fixations, including religion, patrioticism, and
>>racism.
>
>But this is not arbitrary, some unplanned happening that
>took place over hundreds of years. Again, a seed was
>planted...took root and spread.

Greed... that's it. Man has it. peace,

Didnt you know that you dare not refer to "Africans" as a general sweeping term, because as everyone knows, Africa is made up of many different cultures, morals etc...But when it comes to Europeans,its just dirty disease stricken white devils who all think the exact same way, "Lets oppress everyone and conquer the world"
Some of the fools on this board really do bring plenty of laughter to my day

peace

and you forgot to add the disclaimer "for the time being"..because although I probably won't be here to see it..

"Eurocentric" values won't always dominate world culture. Change is iminent.

I'll tell you what Euro's have managed to do "right". They've managed to TAKE CREDIT for bringing to the world the IDEA of basic civil liberties. (ironic, right? well, just consider American ideology vs. reality...what matters is how people see themselves) Anyone in DIRECT opposition to Eurocentricism seems backward thinking--fascist, and adverse/hostile towards change.

The mistake WE make (people of color) is allowing them to CLAIM
patent over what is common sense and basic respect for humanity. When we romanticize our origins as being pure, perfect and better we shortchange ourselves.

And by NOT accepting the fact that WE are forever CHANGED makes matters worse.

I can't think of a single culture of people that had been oppressed in some way or fashion that did not RETAIN some of the values of their oppressors.

It's that murky gray area that few like to venture. It stinks, but such is life. It's complicated...even beyond the influence of economics..people of color everywhere are CHOOSING eurocentric cultural values--prime example, Christianity.

In my humbled opinion, one goal should be to incorporate the values of our various cultures that minimize human suffering.
And thrown away the detrimental shit. <--(but it's all relative, isn't it?)*shrugs*

No, I'm not seeking the "Garden of Eden". It was a fictional place to begin with...






<~~~~~~~Go-Go Yubari is gangsta!!!
.
.
~~~~~~OKP SIGS OF THE MONTH~~~~~~~

"i guess i'm lucky to have busted a bagillion times before losing my virginity." © OKP- illadelphgurl

If you're out there you're vulnerable. People prefer to disappear in life to repress their personality. That's not living. It's dying. I see them all over the place, the walking dead. --Grace Jones

>and you forgot to add the disclaimer "for the time
>being"..because although I probably won't be here to see
>it..
>
>"Eurocentric" values won't always dominate world culture.
>Change is iminent.

This is true! Like all civilizations, they have a beginning and an ending.
>
>I'll tell you what Euro's have managed to do "right".
>They've managed to TAKE CREDIT for bringing to the world the
>IDEA of basic civil liberties. (ironic, right? well, just
>consider American ideology vs. reality...what matters is how
>people see themselves) Anyone in DIRECT opposition to
>Eurocentricism seems backward thinking--fascist, and
>adverse/hostile towards change.

Because Eurocentric thought has colonized and dictated information about people of African descent and others for quite a long time. That is why "Afrocentricity" scares the fuck outta the "white academic syndicate". It's mission is political, cultural, economic and intellectual and spiritual in "re-aligning" the African being from the "demonic" possession of European thought and behavior.


>
>The mistake WE make (people of color) is allowing them to
>CLAIM
>patent over what is common sense and basic respect for
>humanity.

Also, we have let them "define" who we "were", who we "are" and who we "are" evolving as a group of people. The power of deifinition.


When we romanticize our origins as being pure,
>perfect and better we shortchange ourselves.
>

No one in here is "romanticizing" any origins of being. We are trying to "reconstruct" a reality that is "centered" within oursleves. You're attacking African centered thought again just by the "use" and "tone" of your statement!!! We(people of African descent) realize that like all people of the human families and civilization, are indeed "not perfect". That is not even an arguement.



>And by NOT accepting the fact that WE are forever CHANGED
>makes matters worse.

Forever changed meaning what??


>
>I can't think of a single culture of people that had been
>oppressed in some way or fashion that did not RETAIN some of
>the values of their oppressors.
>
>It's that murky gray area that few like to venture. It
>stinks, but such is life. It's complicated...even beyond
>the influence of economics..people of color everywhere are
>CHOOSING eurocentric cultural values--prime example,
>Christianity.
>
>In my humbled opinion, one goal should be to incorporate the
>values of our various cultures that minimize human
>suffering.

Where in American culture do you see this?

Many of the Italian mafia families who came to U.S. in the early 19th century, used so-called "American" pragmatism, effiency, murder and exhortion to build "highly" organized criminal enterprises. Are these "truly" part of American cultural ethos?


>And thrown away the detrimental shit. <--(but it's all
>relative, isn't it?)*shrugs*
>
>No, I'm not seeking the "Garden of Eden". It was a
>fictional place to begin with...
>
>
>
>
> okp Men calendar
>2004_coming soon.>
>
><~~~~~~~Go-Go Yubari is gangsta!!!
>.
>.
>~~~~~~OKP SIGS OF THE MONTH~~~~~~~
>
>"i guess i'm lucky to have busted a bagillion times before
>losing my virginity." © OKP- illadelphgurl
>
>If you're out there you're vulnerable. People prefer to
>disappear in life to repress their personality. That's not
>living. It's dying. I see them all over the place, the
>walking dead. --Grace Jones

>>When we romanticize our origins as being pure, perfect and better we shortchange ourselves.

Not so much shortchange. More just sounding completely ignorant and foolish....

what norms, values, or ideas are you speaking of?


from the question it is obvious that you do not feel some of these supposed norms are truth, so what facets of "european ideology" do you disagree with?

a lot of people may be able to give an extremely shallow answer, no malicious intent here, such as imperialism/colonialism, or war, or maybe some might say the oppressed themselves. but until you come up with an extensive system to replace the supposedly false one-how do we know if it is not true? the reality we experience doesnt allow us to participate in the other possibilities at least for me, i live in the states-i dont see the point in acting as if the "european ideology" is not true. the atrocities it has committed doesnt take away from the positive steps forward it has taken. now mind you, im not white. so before you anyone gets off a some racist b.s., chill out.

just like somone else posted in this thread, the way you ask a question will give you certain responses, of course, and it just seems to me like the question assumes that all "european" ideas, norms are inherently bad when reality has proven otherwise. if we look at science, hell, the move from an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe had far reaching ramifications that stretched outside of the science box-social, cultural, religious.

basically, im just curious as to what you would have replace some of the norms you consider false? im not bein a smart ass or an ass period, simply curious. my friends call me whiskers (ferrell).

if we look at science, hell, the move
>from an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered universe
>had far reaching ramifications that stretched outside of the
>science box-social, cultural, religious.

this statement infers that the rennaissance and enlightment thinkers in europe were the first to come up with these concepts, the fact is that the majority of cultures outside europe already knew this, and more so many cultures knew that the sun was not at the center of the universe but at the center of our solar system, this was known in europe as well but was lost and suppressed during the dark ages, the european thinkers rediscovered these concepts due to cultural exchange with the islamic world

~~~~~~Diciembre is DJ Paul Month Bitch!!!~~~~~~~
(oh well one of these months belongs to the scarecrow)

See I'm a cold hearted killa like murderer Al Kapone
Strong as thousand mile winds quick to break ya bones
A glock 1995 i cause ya early death
Ya walkin' Triple 6 streets so foo watch ya step
We all about makin' that cheese we gotta stay straight mane
Robbin' and workin' these hoes foo it aint no thang
-"Mystic Stylez" a blast from da past ho

----------------------------------------------------------

the words of wisdom:

show me someone who doesn't like boobies and I'll show you someone who doesn't like life. -the mammary troof according to okp VonClay

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." -Alice Walker

All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer. --Homer Simpson

.

what cultures? an african culture, a middle eastern culture, the chinese? a north american culture? you cant generalize without giving examples(evidence). europeans supposedly rediscovered these concepts, i dont know that id call the heliocentric model a concept though, through the islamic world? correct me if im wrong, but europeans werent exactly buddy, buddy with islam during the time of copernicus, the renaissance. so what makes you think europeans would go to the islamic world to get any scholarly information? what you have written is EXTREMELY general; absolutely no specifics. come on mr grimm, how can you say "big up for the info" when no info has been provided? im not tryin to start a fight, just that i expected more. i usually agree with everything you say, but come on man.

as for copernicus, he was the man to challenge--and eventually win the debate--the earth-centered view of the world. copernicus was a conservative, Polish cleric who came from an obscure East Prussian town. Where did he get the information from which he would change the view of the natural order of the universe? ptolemy, a man from egypt. so yes, a man from a region not called europe had the universe aligned correctly, supposedly. ptolemys view was considered the 'truth' by any educated man of the period, european or african vis-a-vis christian or muslim, if you want. now whether or not china had it correct before these men, i will not attempt to act as if i know this information. even if it is true, chinese values do not dominate the globe as of this moment, so it does not matter.

continuing, copernicus did not have any quarrels with ptolemys calculations and began his revision of ptolemys geocentric theory of celestial motion as nothing more than that, a revision.
but by the time he finished his revision, copernicus had something on his hands that would have far reaching ramifications.

basically, what i am saying is that until you give me a name as to who had the universe aligned correctly before copernicus, i will stick with what i know. so as it stands, ive given an example of someone who supposedly had the universe aligned correctly that was not from 'europe', namely ptolemy, but you havent given me the name or names of the scientist from these other cultures who had it right. if the islamic culture youre speaking of are the turks, they had their fun in the sun. i dont say this as a slap in the face to them, it is simply the truth. the turks devastating loss to austria, kara mustafas fault, during the war of 1683-1699 basically ended their chance at being the culture to dominate social, cultural, political thought for hundreds of years to come.

now, does all that i have said have any relevance to the question? i dont think so. maybe it does a bit. but nit-picking at the fact that other cultures knew the sun was at the center of the universe does nothing to answer mr grimms question or those that i have posed. its been intellectual masturbation at its best.


also, no one has replied with an alternative system. dont get me wrong, im a liberal--so yes you may draw whatever conclusions about me you want, i obviously want you to since i told you--but simply complaining about this big ole corrupt system solves nothing unless action is taken. of course you already know this. its just that the whole intellectual masturbation that occurs on these boards appears to do nothing but let a lot of self-styled intellectuals shoot their load into a condom, no growth occurs from the release.

unless you don't know the answer yourself, here are some authors you should look for: Nietzsche & Foucault

btw, does anyone know Hugh MacLennan and his masterpiece "Return of the Sphinx"? In this book he gives a simple but correct answer: "Simplicity".

Need more like this....