Tariq Nasheed: Slavery Wasn't That Bad For Black Women

5th Letter wrote: »

That's what you said. I'm responding to the bold. As for the part about misinformation I'm talking about this thread as a whole.

Yes, some of you are acting like he can't be criticized. I don't know if he said what the TC claimed or not, but claiming people are just trying to tear him down simply because they express disagreement with what they believe he said is an example of that.

And just look right above your post. This ? @R.D. is still ? for not other reason but because I said I couldn't get into Hidden Colors because of lack of sourcing. You really telling me, that I'm out of line to say what I said when you have multiple people trying to go to war with me over some trivial ? like that? If the dude is doing positive things for blacks, and ya'll want to show him love or defend him, cool. I can respect that, but a few of you ? need to get off his nuts because these reactions are out of control.

Damn, this was some contentious ? . Who would have guessed that a Tommy Sotamayor video would have been posted and he wouldn't be the one getting bashed on here for his ? . Can we all at least agree that that ? is garbage?

Shizlansky wrote: »

StoneColdMikey wrote: »

5th Letter wrote: »

The same ? that want you to ignore Hillary's racism are the same ones ? on a black man trying to give black people good information

? outta here with the delfection

? basically using white ppl stance on ?

Like

What about black on black crime

This has been a BIIIG problem lately with people on twitter, etc.Sane people who want to boycott you for the smallest ? be defending the ? out of people they like using the "what about this?" Excuse.

desertrain10 wrote: »

@JDSTAYWITIT


Hey bew

Ok really what he doing is pushing the tired narrative that Blk women are/were more likely to allign themselves with white men/white supremacy than Blk men. Mainly because Blk women have not had it as bad as Blk men

Everyone is free to have an opinion, cool. I just question how he arrived at that conclusion since most historical record does not support his thesis.

Yes, the experiences of a house slave were different than those of a field slave...same as the experiences/plight of Blk men and women differ...but to suggest Blk women haven't had it "too bad" is different...and again historically inaccurate

You're basing your critique on a bit of a straw man .... it appears YOUR personal non impartial summation of what he is saying is that all black women will align with white men because of xyz... this is your melding of a non existent reality to fit a narrative that allows you to attack him ... but the reality is ...just to add some context here... is that the topic of the actual 30 minute full show that this truncated slander clip is from was about select black women (not the majority nor all but too many) such as Carmen Bryant and "Superhead" who the show was centered around.. who cant wait to expose black men by offering personal possibly fabricated stories to white controlled institutions for some sort of gain whether it be monetary emotional or what have you which both of those young ladies participated in... that was the premise of the show and the premise of his point .... he didn't suggest anything about black women as a collective not having it too bad and throughout the show he would make it clear that he's talking about a particular segment of black women... in fact in the actual full episode he goes on to talk about several black women over this past century who have been extremely instrumental in the fight against white supremacy/oppression among black people ... women such as sis angela davis of course ..ancestor harriet tubman of course ... dr.francis cress welsing (his mentor and contributor to tariqs hidden color series) of course congress woman maxine waters of course etc etc ..he mentions by name and disperses unquestioned adulation towards ...it was actually right before the statement he made about for every harriet we have a bunch of superhead's but if you listen this slanderous garbage clip in the O/P the audio has been edited and that part is deleted by some clown ? thats "beefing" with him and who created this corny ass click bait video ..the real show with the full bit is still on his radio page however ... EPISODE 29 from like 10 years ago

Most importantly slave women had no agency so I fail to really see how their supposed mentality translates to contemporary blk women

I mean ...no black person had agency during slavery of course ... female child or otherwise... however are you stating that because of this there has been 0 generation mental trauma traversed in our community?? like word....?? that's where your disdain and adamant desire on disagreeing with him at every turn is leading you?? Dr.Joy DeGruy (another amazing woman who was also a part of tariq's hidden colors series) and Dr.Rachel Yhuda have both written about the subject so im not sure where your going..

In the past he has also suggested a contemporary ? bed ? would be a blk woman who, through her feminism, her success, and/or her dating options, challenges the institution of black patriarchy. Which is a false equivalency

Challenging blk patriarchy is and was never the same as actively working to uphold white supremacy

Not facts @ bolded ....sounds like more disingenuous reanimating of things he's articulated ... i've never heard him characterize NBW in that way ... what i have heard him say consistently is that women should date who they want ...however... if you're purposely dating someone outside of your race as a way to comfort an inferiority complex this is obviously problematic or if you date outside of your race because you intentionally want to distance yourself from the black community that is obviously problematic ... or if you date outside of your race while knowingly serving as a fetish to your partner that is obviously problematic... which i agree with and i'd look to the things that women such as Sage Steele have boisterously said about black people as a perfect example of what and who he's describing ... like we gotta cut the ? and stop acting like these individuals don't exist ...because they do even in black men too ... which he's gone in at length about ALSO

secondly ...whats black patriarchy in america again??? lol ....lets not rehash that debate

That said, to say for every Harriet Tubman there are thousands of supa heads is not really controversial but rather a roundabout way of saying the majority of Blk women ain't ? ....keep it real

Mehhhh ... thats a stretch ... at the same time he's also talked about black males being ? puppets black males engaging in coonish behavior black males partaking in dusty ? behavior etc etc etc etc etc... lol i mean i could go on and on .. these are critiques on certain segments of the community ..that many of us posting on this very site have also articulated ..but i certainly dont take that to mean he believes black men aint ? .. that presumption is a bit sensationalist IMO but in a vacuum i could see how you'd get to that kind of rationale assuming that you probably haven't engaged too much with the totality of his content

To conclude, misandary and feminism are not one and the same. So for some one to come to the conclusion that I am trying to vilify men with no other evidence than me identifying myself as a feminism would be corny. Same as me saying dude is a ? or misogynist based on him solely referring to a lone Blk woman as a "vindictive ? ". But time and time again he has made these sweeping generalizations largely at the expense of Blk women. It puzzles me how anyone can view him as being this misunderstood freedom fighter. All the criticisms thrown his way are well deserved

And conversely to your commentary on misandry=/=feminism i don't believe delivering a sobering critique of a segment within a group = degradation of the entire group

Funny enough it would only be right for you to close with logical fallacy after opening with one... i don't believe he's misunderstood at all ... i think people are intentionally obtuse and play dumb in regards to a lot of the ? he says ... it's a very delicate duty to be a person who is critical on any swath of a community as of course you always run a risk of individuals taking offense for whatever reason they choose.... legit or not ... my thing is this ..dont sit and dredge up some ? straw man about people thinking he's some misunderstood freedom fighter (which no one said) just because you are getting your opinion challenged... in the same way you have the floor to challenge his views i or anyone else can lay legitimate claim to challenging you contentions ...has nothing to with all the fallacious narratives of him being infallible to people... its simply an inherent part of civil discourse to have ideas challenged BOTH ways not just one way... for example you saying that "ALL CRITICISMS THROWN HIS WAS ARE WELL DESERVED" how can you even arrive at a statement like that unless you knew all the criticism thrown his way? it just seems to be a constant contrived effort by a lot of square ass goofs ...sassy negros... dusty coonish ? and frustrated black fem nazis ...which i find to be weird

JokerzWyld wrote: »

I hate this gender war ? . Everyone got it bad. I'm tired of women acting like they got it worse. I'm tired of men down playing the suffering of women. I'm tired of women complaining about the movement's focus of men's suffering when these issues disproportionately affect men historically. I'm tired of men not assisting women in the formation of their own organizations. I'm tired of women thinking that the needs of men can always wait. I'm tired of men think the same of women.

Men and women are not equal. Until this is understood, there will be no progress. Black women need to stick by their men and let us lead.

5th Letter wrote: »

The same ? that want you to ignore Hillary's racism are the same ones ? on a black man trying to give black people good information

We didn't want you to ignore it as much as we wanted you to prevent ? from being elected president but........yknow whatever. Water under the bridge at this point.

semi-auto-mato wrote: »

This is an interesting thread. Some folks rock with Tariq hard and others don't. Tariq is not a historian. He doesn't speak like a historian and he doesn't research like a historian. he makes statements that are either half true or false. he said there was no successful slave revolt. as a historian I would ask why is the civil war not considered a slave revolt? as far back as Spartacus wars were considered slave revolts. over a 200k blacks fought in the civil war. they won their freedom. there are over 300 slave revolts on record. how is he judging these revolts as successful or unsuccessful. Fredrick douglass fought back and won his freedom. he was successful. plenty folks made their way to the north. they were successful. nat turner wasn't the only revolt.

as a historian we are taught how to research and we are taught to make logical conclusions. u can't always take information make it fit ur narrative and leave it at that. a poster talked about bodhidharma and the black samurai. we don't know if bodhidharma was black or not but as historians we take the evidence and look at that time period and come to a logical conclusion. it makes sense that bodhidharma was from either central or southeast asia. he was dark skinned. that's how Tariq does though. he makes a statement and then leaves it at that. u cant do history justice like that.

here is a link about the black samurai. its by a Runoko Rashidi (a black historian). read the article look at how he reference his sources. this is how we are taught. Tariq is not meeting the standards necessary. im not against what he is doing. he has an audience. more of u know who he is than Runoko Rashidi. I hope that Tariq sparks a curiosity in u that leads u to find folks like Rashidi.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/09/07/the-world-of-sakanouye-no-tamuramaro-black-shogun-of-early-japan/

nah bruh

PRIMARY SOURCES ARE FOR ?

wow

blacktux wrote: »

We are truly lost and hopeless if we are going after brothers and sisters that are TRYING to teach. Even if its not 100% true if it even provokes you to look into it, its done its job.

There is too many more black people to criticize or condemn, yall doing the oppressor job for them.

Just like you negroes that have bad things to say about Castro, yall sick.

Just take care of and promote you and yours. This whole "black community/black empowerment ? is DEAD!!" Black love is forever.

But what if it's leading people down a faulty road? I'll give an example telling black people not to vote. That could be considered doing the work of the "oppressor". They want to neutralize that vote so they can forward their agenda. They say black people dont vote because these people do nothing for you while they obstruct everything they attempt to do and that statement isnt completely accurate any way when you really think about it. Then they sure vote themselves and laugh how easy that was.
Thats where discernment comes in. If someone says something questionable it should be considered as such. If they say something objectionable or untrue then likewise it should be considered as such Instead of "they are doing something" what are they doing and who does it really benefit?

Im sure it must hurt to have followed someone like this and now have to confront the undeniable flaws. Many of which could have been detected going in with critical thinking skills. And realize there are actual consequences. But on a sidenote you can agree with one thing someone says and not agree with something else. Blindly following is rarely if ever a good idea.

blackrain wrote: »

kzzl wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

tittyman wrote: »

The funny thing is, he doesn't say anything about "slavery was better for black women" in that video. This was click bait, but no one here seemed to bother to actual watch the video. The title is fake and it's troll material click bait.

Literally within the first 3 minutes of the video he says there's never been a successful revolt in this country because black women would sell out black men because "master fed them clothed and ? them every now and again which wasn't so bad" then says a few of them had it easy. He actually said black women didn't mind being ? by slave masters...I know this ? is some of y'all Savior but your boy K Flexx aka Tariq is on some ? with this one

Youre ignoring that he mentioned slave men would snitch as well. Youre also ignoring that he made it clear he was not talking about all slave women. Your abandoning the logic that hes speaking of the instances where the generalization applies and never spoke in absolutes. And your also acting as if such a situation during slavery could not happen, which is also false.

I'm not abandoning logic by using his own words. I never even said slave revolts weren't quelled by other slaves who told...I'm talking about this ? making it seem like black women were just busting it open for master with no problem. Black women were being ? by slave masters and this ? gonna try to say they didn't mind it? You really want to defend that ? ?

Yeah..they're called bed wenches.