>In the 'Do you guys hate the white man?' forum you propose that we >should not ask the black man this but rather we should ask if the > white man if he hates the black man.
You justify this on the >grounds that you would never ask the victimiser if he hated the >victim.
I'm not saying this. Maybe you just typed it wrong. I'm saying if you are a victim you are going to feel a certain way about the person who victimized you, you can call it hate or whatever. But if you like detective shows, you look at the person who commits the crime, figure out that person's motive. Like if you start a fire, you have to expect smoke, why was the fire set is the more important question.
> In this sense you suggest that the way to address black >issues is in part via a white account and subsequent understanding > of white supremacy.
I believe if you don't understand white supremacy then any understanding of its effects will be specious.
>Notwithstanding the diametric crudeness of this idea, at what point > do you seek to silence the individual you choose to quiz in the > first place?
Not sure I understand the question. How about this, if the question, do Blacks hate whites can be answered with the assumption because of racism then we should naturally understand why whites are racist. I think to look at it any other way is racist, because it protects the criminal institution of white supremacy.
How about this. During slavery, the slaves that ran away was diagnosed as being mentally deranged for leaving the plantation. All the attention was placed on the slave, and if he ran away it should be obvious because he/she wanted freedom. The real question is, why are you enslaving someone, and how do you become so racist to think something is wrong with someone because they want freedom.
***** Gina is out of control I'm out of control the whole--damn--party --is--out--of control! (c) White Bob *****