Where do we draw the line? Topical comedy always walks the edge of trouble and if it has any hopes of being funny. Unfortunately, what is funny to some people is considered offensive to others. Recently, Cedric the Entertainer, came under fire for his character's comments in the hit movie "Barber Shop." Cedric plays "JD" the elder barber who talks a lot but never cuts any hair.

In the movie "JD" cracks that Martin Luther King was a "whoremonger," that all Rosa Parks did was "sit down" and that OJ "did it." Apparrently, those remarks upset a few people and among them were morning radio star Tom Joyner, who said he would not support the movie. I found Tom's reaction interesting in that it reminded in some ways of what happened when the movie "The Color Purple" came out.

Many people were offended by the way black men were portrayed in the movie and in the end a movie that was nominated for 13 Academy Awards did not win a single thing. Nothing! Nada! Zip! Danny Glover, Oprah Winfrey and Whoopee Goldberg all gave award winning performances, but because of the protest of the NAACP, the Academy lost the lead in their pencils and backed down. Even Quincy Jones who scored the music did not win.

What made that moment in history so fascinating is that it didn't distort the truth. It happened and still happens. Now, we have a national celebrity boycotting a movie for a comedic interpretation. Now the tough question. Did Martin Luther King Jr. fool around on his wife? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Does that make him what he did for the Civil Right movement any less important? No! Does it lessen his impact in American history? No. What about Rosa Parks? She is a national icon in the black community, but did she do anything more than any other black man or woman of that time hadn't all ready done? Again, the answer is no. What she did was courageous, but she wasn't the first. However, proximity, time and circumstance and came together in one place to forever make her name treasured. Finally, there is OJ. There was no complaint about that.

Whether Rosa Parks just sat down and became famous or Martin Luther King Jr. was a whoremonger is not the issue. The issie is whether there is anyone or anything that cannot be examined, criticized or even ridiculed? At what point do we draw the line. Is there some point of maliciousness that must be achieved? Or,do we react as the tribe reacts? Are we individuals first or or we a group first?

Just some questions to stir the pot. Personally, I enjoyed the movie and would watch it again.

Ra

:cool:

Are we not permitted to say anything about Martin Luther King Jr? The fact is that he did do what was alluded to in the movie. Is it because of the public disclosure? Are they too sacred?

Ra

:)

as in the instance of the movie, "A colour purple"..media plays a powerful role in making or breaking because it has the power to sway the masses into a certain mode of thought....

K

It is true that sacred cows make the best hamburgers--the last time I checked thesepeople aren't saints, no matter how important they are to our history--we don't make a question go away because we don't answer it--I love MLK, ut I cannot deny that he did things that weren't in the best interest of his image, but it made him no less great--just human. Poor Sister Parks--she is almost an invalid now, but she hasn't reached sainthood either--truly an icon of the Civil Rights era--but she is also available for commet just by being a public figure--because we choose not to talk about doesn't mean that no one has noticed--besides, if we recall the scene from the movie, everyone in the shop shouted Cedric's character down after he made the remarks--Jesse and Al need to stick to real issues--Ra

:toast:

All I know that I am tired of someone always trying to speak for the everyday people. Even in our own communities we have a class war. The rich aganist the poor. If Our so called Black leaders was really interested in helping to lift us up, they would stay out of the white media and walk the walk instead of talking all the time. Also thay would encourage our people with the little money that we have atleast put our money in our local black banks if we can't do this simple step we will always be in trouble:(

They enjoyed the movie and despite what others may think, the pocketbooks said it loud and clear that Barbershop is a funny movie. As far as poor Coretta Scott King and her children go--that's the way of the world--people don't stop their interest in a leader because their family is still around--that's why people in the public light should consider what they do before it comes public because once it becomes public it not affects them, but all of their families, associates and friends--when any of us choose to take a path that may cause embarassment, we must be aware that more than likey our families will be affected even more--when crimminals go to jail, they take their entire families with them and affect all of their lives--Love to Sister Rosa, brother Martin, Rodney King and even OJ Simpson, but a public figure gets no mercy and shouldn't--Sister Parks may be a special case because she didn't choose to be a public figure, but neither did she turn away the accolades that came her way--no that she is old and feeble certainly affects our hearts, but for comedic material--roll out the sacred cows and golden geese so that the banquet may begin--of course as a comedian, we must also recognize that not everyone is going to like our material and that is the danger, but to hold off--forget it! Malcolm X was and still is one of my personal heroes, but he was once a petty thug, thief and pimp. It may not be what I like to hear about him, but it is also part of his life and I cannot deny it, just as he can't--neither can his wife nor child. The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton are best when they are focused on issues that affect the black community on an institutional basis. However, when I hear either of them speaking of what is proper behavior for other blacks, I remind myself of the Tawana Brawley case which turned out to be a farce and the "love child" scandal that hit the news. I like Jesse a lot because of his willingness to stand and take the barbs and arrows, but as far as Jesse telling me what I can laugh at and what is funny--I take "Eddie's" response from the movie which if you saw it is "f" Jesse!

Ra

;)

:lol: at "f" Jesse...

i'm disappointed at the hypercritical reactions to a simple comedy by the "N double A C C P" as "JD" (Cedric's role) put it.

Jesse and Al need to get them some business--much as I love MLK--he did it and he did it knowing Coretta was at home--still, he was a great man and no one can take that away--Amun-Ra

:)

I cut no public figure any slack--none! Martin was a womanizer and that is fact. Poor Rosa maybe she is the least pickable, but comedy rolls on the edge. Just like President Kennedy-- great man--and a womanizer. There are many other public figures black and white who werepart of the struggle and just as many of them led lives that didn't match with their public personna--we should be aware they weren't saints so we aren't ambushed by someone who knows just a little more. Does this detract from their greatness--some would say so, but I contend that a man's good deeds far exceeds their human failings.

Ra

:)

Everyone in the black community knows that Martin Luther King, Jr. was unfaithful. This is a disgrace. However the movie Barbershop became a problem when Cedric The Entertainer displays our "private business" to the white community. I remember sitting in the movie theater, the racial make up was about half black, half white. When "JD" calls MLK a whoremonger, it was only whites who laugh. Blacks have a hard enough time keeping MLK and other black patriots in school curriculum, so why disrespect them in front of the very people who want to discard them. As blacks we understand the importance of MLK and Rosa Parks because we understand somewhat of the struggle. However whites do not, so as the affection we have towards the leaders may not be destroyed, the little affection the white community is being destroyed. After the movie I heard many white moviegoers referring to that derogatory line. Why as black people must we disgrace our race to be sucessful. No other race does this to the extent that we do. The jews do not come out calling Netenyahu, a warmonger. Though we are still oppressed by the American gov't, we are only making our fate and situation worst with lines like the ones in barbershop. Barbershop would have been just as funny and entertaining without the two lines about MLK and Rosa Parks

how do you see the next one and the funny stuff that's displayed
in barbershop 2 coming out soon ??

i feel the view of both sides of this coin

I hate to be the one to tell folks, but there are few secrets left in the black community if any--television, radio and our own shows haved made sure of that--we are not airing dirty laundry--we are speaking common knowledge--if you put your dirty doings in pulic, then they are subject to public discussion--besides this is comedy--anything is a topic including cripples, babies, old folks, poor folks, God, Jesus, the president, the pope, and almost all heros. and by the way "f" Jesse!

Ra

:jawdrop:

I joined this forum about a month ago. Taking note of what appears to be voice chat only I backed away. To this time I haven't bothered to add a mic to my CPU, perhaps I will in the near future. In the meantime I'll survey the scene and comment where a discussion draws my attention. Concerning this thread I'm not quite clear whether the talk of MLK's indiscretions are cast in a comedic context or are iframed as firm criticims of his character. Either way I'd like to share a few words as one who has engaged in a number of serious civil rights struggles. As Ralph Abernathy and other men who worked in immediate contact with men, who like MLK are now icons of the struggle I also served as a "right hand man" of a civil rights icon in Los Angeles, Celes King. Working directly with Celes, like those who've worked with Martin, Elijah Muhammad, Huey Newton and other icons are all aware any icon's, except Jesus Christ, achievements can be detracted from by taking note of failings in their character. While Martin has been put on public display in a film whose merits as an artistic expression is not subject to any serious discussion, in the most serious context men like Elijah Muhammad is as liable for criticism for sexual impropriety as Martin. This is along with a host of others, without regard to ethnic derivation or any other superficial factor that men have worn thin in their efforts to differentiate their humanity from the man next door. In my own life are matters I am ashamed of, notwithstanding I, a flawed man have also served to forge a path making possible the betterment of other's lives. Having been up close and personal with other "leaders", I've had opportunity to have personal talks on issues of this kind, of nights where there've been tossing and turning in anguish at the thought of the contradiction of being a respected person who was as flawed as any who were disposed to admiring.

Being a man working at the forefront of any meaningful work is a heavy burden, because those same men have their sins. However, in the eyes of the populace their sins are of a grander proportion, more disappointing or difficult to comprehend in light of their accomplishments and words. Nevertheless, bearing the burden of living a contradictiion, for those whose lives have been enhanced by these flawed characters the love and respect for their efforts is no less appreciated. Nevertheless, because it's been made profitable, a minstrel can become famous by mocking these men.

I like a good joke as much as anyone, but always I am mindful of there being a need for being humble in our conversations concerning others. There's no issue to make with a word made in good taste. The question we have today is what is good taste and are there any standards to observe before we open our mouths to cast aspersions on those who've given all they had to make things better for us. Scripture indicates a time would come when what was good would be evil spoken of and evil spoken of as good. This isn't to say womanizing is not to be taken into account, only to keep in mind that, in the calling be certain we afford the individual the honor and dignity they deserve, otherwise we'll soon be looking in the mirror and telling jokes about ourselves we won't take kindly to hearing. I figure we owe something in giving back to men like MLK, if not there's no reason to expect others to give regard to us when we aren't in the business of giving regard to ourselves.

Welcome to Destee Astro...well to the forums anyway, and excellent post.

I think the bottom line in this discussion is respect. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Walter White, Stokely Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and countless others during the civil rights era, even Jesse Jackson (who is also has been unfairly tarnished in recent years). All these people made sacrificies which made it possible today for African Americans to live whereever they wished, go to practically any school they want, to vote in elections, to work for any company they are qualified (well technically), even to become CEO of white controlled companies. We can NEVER do enough to honor them.

The second part of this issue is understanding, because if you understood the Civil Rights Movement, you couldn't help but respect it. The sacrificies of these individuals made it possible for Cedric to have, and enjoy his current success. Cedric used a public medium to cast negative light not only on Dr. King...but sister Rosa Parks as well. To the average person Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is all they know of the Civil Rights Movement. They are the Civil Rights Movement, and Cedric not only called to question the integrity of the people leading it (Dr. King's infidelity), but the brillitant planning of it (Sister Parks being tired). The civil rights movement was the result of decades of legal planning: In 1917 Buccanen V. Warley determined that housing discrimination was illegal, this established the legal precident for Brown v. the Board of ED. In the 1930s a series of legal cases brought by the NAACP struck down the all white primaries in Texas, which established precident for the Voting Rights Act, in 1941 A. Phillip Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest discrimination in the workplace, which served as the inspiration Dr. Kings 1963 march on washington. The NAACP was looking for a case to challenge the 1986 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which established Jim Crow. A young sista named Claudette Clover refused to give up her seat on the bus years before Sister Parks did; however, the conditions weren't favorable to challenge the law. Rosa Park's case was though. Sista Parks did not sit down in the white section (which is popular belief), she was sitting in the COLORED section, and was asked to move because all the white seats were filled. This was a violation of separate but equal, it was the perfect case to bring down Jim Crow. It most certainly was not an accident, which is what Cedric was suggesting (either knowingly or unknowingly). This is view that is championed by many white historians, and segregationist. It takes away from the brilliant planning of the movement. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement was not an accident, but the result of years of brilliant planning.

Even though Africans-Americans have always "pleased" whites with acting a fool. How much joy would Cedric have if he had money, but couldn't live where he wanted or put his children in the school he wished? Whether he knows it or not, Cedric owes a debt to Dr. King & Sister Parks....one that only can be paid with respect....his comment was ignorant. Although he may not be completely at fault, because I don't know if he wrote that comment, also this history is not taught in most schools. Still the comments were ignorant, and I only hope Cedric realizes one day exactly how ignorant they were. :bazooka:

Panafrica,

Your comments are appreciated. The range and content of the historical spoke in terms of commitment, tenacity and strategy. These were sustaiined over decades of time, one generation of Blacks passing the baton to their successors with a particular goal in mind.

The work of many Civil Rights visionaries and activists did not manifest their objectives within their lifetimes. As you point out much of what African Americans have benefitted from in social progress rests on the shoulders of individuals who invested blood, sweat and tears that others might live. These were often not weekend warriors or engaged in the struggle only when it was convenient. I figure, while I enjoy good comedy, music, etc. nothing that we honor should be demeaned. Sometimes, demeaning can be perceived where there was no intent. In telling jokes, sometimes a comedian is not the best judge of their own material. MLK, as others who achieved significant inroads in the struggle have a legacy remaining. Mr. King's wife still lives, his children and grandchildren are exposed to how their loved one's name is being handled.

While we need to be the opinions struggle has children who, although they are full grown have children of heir own. MLK has a legacy in the world, which, if he and others have sarificed in behalf of the many it would appear the many would reciprocate by honoring the source from whence our place in society was gained. As indicated, it is not unseemly to be truthful, however your intent has everything to do with how you impress others about other people's failings and business. We'll do much better when we remove an intention to malign an individual in our comedy and outlining of history. What failings there were to MLK are worthy t be noted, however not to be used as a device to demean and dishonor. We need to have princples in mind when conversating about others and our God. When we lose sight of a sense of decency and respect, then our conversations will descend into the depths of darkness where every filth and vain imagination will be acceptable to express. In turn, our conscious experience will be adapted to include these as aspects of our day to day cultural experience, which, as it stands, is already in a fairly pitiful condition.

Welcome to Destee Astro...well to the forums anyway, and excellent post.

I think the bottom line in this discussion is respect. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Walter White, Stokely Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and countless others during the civil rights era, even Jesse Jackson (who is also has been unfairly tarnished in recent years). All these people made sacrificies which made it possible today for African Americans to live whereever they wished, go to practically any school they want, to vote in elections, to work for any company they are qualified (well technically), even to become CEO of white controlled companies. We can NEVER do enough to honor them.

The second part of this issue is understanding, because if you understood the Civil Rights Movement, you couldn't help but respect it. The sacrificies of these individuals made it possible for Cedric to have, and enjoy his current success. Cedric used a public medium to cast negative light not only on Dr. King...but sister Rosa Parks as well. To the average person Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is all they know of the Civil Rights Movement. They are the Civil Rights Movement, and Cedric not only called to question the integrity of the people leading it (Dr. King's infidelity), but the brillitant planning of it (Sister Parks being tired). The civil rights movement was the result of decades of legal planning: In 1917 Buccanen V. Warley determined that housing discrimination was illegal, this established the legal precident for Brown v. the Board of ED. In the 1930s a series of legal cases brought by the NAACP struck down the all white primaries in Texas, which established precident for the Voting Rights Act, in 1941 A. Phillip Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest discrimination in the workplace, which served as the inspiration Dr. Kings 1963 march on washington. The NAACP was looking for a case to challenge the 1986 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which established Jim Crow. A young sista named Claudette Clover refused to give up her seat on the bus years before Sister Parks did; however, the conditions weren't favorable to challenge the law. Rosa Park's case was though. Sista Parks did not sit down in the white section (which is popular belief), she was sitting in the COLORED section, and was asked to move because all the white seats were filled. This was a violation of separate but equal, it was the perfect case to bring down Jim Crow. It most certainly was not an accident, which is what Cedric was suggesting (either knowingly or unknowingly). This is view that is championed by many white historians, and segregationist. It takes away from the brilliant planning of the movement. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement was not an accident, but the result of years of brilliant planning.

Even though Africans-Americans have always "pleased" whites with acting a fool. How much joy would Cedric have if he had money, but couldn't live where he wanted or put his children in the school he wished? Whether he knows it or not, Cedric owes a debt to Dr. King & Sister Parks....one that only can be paid with respect....his comment was ignorant. Although he may not be completely at fault, because I don't know if he wrote that comment, also this history is not taught in most schools. Still the comments were ignorant, and I only hope Cedric realizes one day exactly how ignorant they were. :bazooka:

Panafrica,

Your comments are appreciated. The range and content of the historical spoke in terms of commitment, tenacity and strategy. These were sustaiined over decades of time, one generation of Blacks passing the baton to their successors with a particular goal in mind.

The work of many Civil Rights visionaries and activists did not manifest their objectives within their lifetimes. As you point out much of what African Americans have benefitted from in social progress rests on the shoulders of individuals who invested blood, sweat and tears that others might live. These were often not weekend warriors or engaged in the struggle only when it was convenient. I figure, while I enjoy good comedy, music, etc. nothing that we honor should be demeaned. Sometimes, demeaning can be perceived where there was no intent. In telling jokes, sometimes a comedian is not the best judge of their own material. MLK, as others who achieved significant inroads in the struggle have a legacy remaining. Mr. King's wife still lives, his children and grandchildren are exposed to how their loved one's name is being handled.

While we need to be the opinions struggle has children who, although they are full grown have children of heir own. MLK has a legacy in the world, which, if he and others have sarificed in behalf of the many it would appear the many would reciprocate by honoring the source from whence our place in society was gained. As indicated, it is not unseemly to be truthful, however your intent has everything to do with how you impress others about other people's failings and business. We'll do much better when we remove an intention to malign an individual in our comedy and outlining of history. What failings there were to MLK are worthy t be noted, however not to be used as a device to demean and dishonor. We need to have princples in mind when conversating about others and our God. When we lose sight of a sense of decency and respect, then our conversations will descend into the depths of darkness where every filth and vain imagination will be acceptable to express. In turn, our conscious experience will be adapted to include these as aspects of our day to day cultural experience, which, as it stands, is already in a fairly pitiful condition.

Welcome to Destee Astro...well to the forums anyway, and excellent post.

I think the bottom line in this discussion is respect. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Walter White, Stokely Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Thurgood Marshall, and countless others during the civil rights era, even Jesse Jackson (who is also has been unfairly tarnished in recent years). All these people made sacrificies which made it possible today for African Americans to live whereever they wished, go to practically any school they want, to vote in elections, to work for any company they are qualified (well technically), even to become CEO of white controlled companies. We can NEVER do enough to honor them.

The second part of this issue is understanding, because if you understood the Civil Rights Movement, you couldn't help but respect it. The sacrificies of these individuals made it possible for Cedric to have, and enjoy his current success. Cedric used a public medium to cast negative light not only on Dr. King...but sister Rosa Parks as well. To the average person Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King is all they know of the Civil Rights Movement. They are the Civil Rights Movement, and Cedric not only called to question the integrity of the people leading it (Dr. King's infidelity), but the brillitant planning of it (Sister Parks being tired). The civil rights movement was the result of decades of legal planning: In 1917 Buccanen V. Warley determined that housing discrimination was illegal, this established the legal precident for Brown v. the Board of ED. In the 1930s a series of legal cases brought by the NAACP struck down the all white primaries in Texas, which established precident for the Voting Rights Act, in 1941 A. Phillip Randolph proposed a march on Washington to protest discrimination in the workplace, which served as the inspiration Dr. Kings 1963 march on washington. The NAACP was looking for a case to challenge the 1986 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which established Jim Crow. A young sista named Claudette Clover refused to give up her seat on the bus years before Sister Parks did; however, the conditions weren't favorable to challenge the law. Rosa Park's case was though. Sista Parks did not sit down in the white section (which is popular belief), she was sitting in the COLORED section, and was asked to move because all the white seats were filled. This was a violation of separate but equal, it was the perfect case to bring down Jim Crow. It most certainly was not an accident, which is what Cedric was suggesting (either knowingly or unknowingly). This is view that is championed by many white historians, and segregationist. It takes away from the brilliant planning of the movement. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement was not an accident, but the result of years of brilliant planning.

Even though Africans-Americans have always "pleased" whites with acting a fool. How much joy would Cedric have if he had money, but couldn't live where he wanted or put his children in the school he wished? Whether he knows it or not, Cedric owes a debt to Dr. King & Sister Parks....one that only can be paid with respect....his comment was ignorant. Although he may not be completely at fault, because I don't know if he wrote that comment, also this history is not taught in most schools. Still the comments were ignorant, and I only hope Cedric realizes one day exactly how ignorant they were. :bazooka:

I agree completely

Not long ago a commentary appeared in the now defunct Emerge Magazine that talked about the Negro Thought Police who were described as the self-appointed gatekeepers of “correct” black thinking and action. It was an interesting commentary claiming that one does not easily go against the grain in the black community without risking serious consequences and penalties, including being expelled from blackness.

Who makes the rules? Who determines the essential formula? No one knows for sure, but if one should happen to go against the grain of popular black thought, they will undoubtedly meet the Negro Thought Police and the movie brought them out in droves. Curiously, it is a form of Orwellian thought policing that only comes to the surface after the fact and apparently is only detectable by the self-appointed commissioners of the Negro Thought Police.

The Rev Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton picked up their badges to bring a hot spotlight on the hit movie “Barbershop.” The Right Reverends rushed to condemn the public flaying of the sainted Civil Rights icons, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., and called for the offending scene to be removed from the movie.

This is just a recent instance when popular entertainment has come under negative scrutiny from others who feel they are the self-appointed defenders of blackness. The same thing happened with the movie “The Color Purple.” The movie, which had an almost all black cast, was nominated for 13 Academy Awards, but it won none after the NAACP denounced it as portraying black men in a bad light.

In a Machiavellian sense, it is much easier to succeed dressed in popular clothes giving others the comfort of their illusions or self-deceptions rather than going about in the nakedness of nature, which in this case is controversial topics. Clearly, in the realms of politics, business and certain social situations, radical stances are neither wanted nor appreciated.

There is a wealth of African American thought that is given short shrift because it goes against the grain of popular thinking and that is sad, because there are many who have much to contribute, but mistrust and stereotypes keep many away. The truth is that many of black America’s most revered icons were battered and bruised by divisive rhetoric that came from within the black community itself.

Malcolm X was not immediately welcomed into the community of the Civil Rights movement where many vilified him as a troublemaker and agitator. Neither were black power advocates Stokley Carmichael, Huey P. Newton, or Bobby Seale because they were a new generation that wanted action—now. Even Martin Luther King Jr. met with harsh criticism when he ventured into protests against human rights abuses and the Vietnam war.

Without recounting the various rifts that have taken place in the black community, the one element that continues to surface is the disapproval for those of those who shun the status quo and thus we have the Negro Thought Police.

It is a matter of free speech. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it. Those who are offended, should speak out with their wallets as well as mouths. Those who weren't offended should laugh until their hearts are content. I will not agree with anyone simply because someone says that is the thing to do. That kind of group thinking led to the "Final Solution" in Germany during World War II.

If comedians stuck only to what didn't offend anyone in the audience there wouldn't be much comedy. There would be lame jokes but not much comedy. The untouchable is the realm of the comedian. They go where others fear to tread. Comedians walk the fine edge of insult or hilarity and are natural targets for the Negro Thought Police because they speak what they think.

Although we are joined by a common heritage and skin color, our thoughts are our own and anyone claiming to speak for the group is operating at the height of human arrogance. No one speaks for me, but me.

"f" Jesse

Ra

There is a wealth of African American thought that is given short shrift because it goes against the grain of popular thinking and that is sad, because there are many who have much to contribute, but mistrust and stereotypes keep many away. The truth is that many of black America’s most revered icons were battered and bruised by divisive rhetoric that came from within the black community itself.

Malcolm X was not immediately welcomed into the community of the Civil Rights movement where many vilified him as a troublemaker and agitator. Neither were black power advocates Stokley Carmichael, Huey P. Newton, or Bobby Seale because they were a new generation that wanted action—now. Even Martin Luther King Jr. met with harsh criticism when he ventured into protests against human rights abuses and the Vietnam war.

This is all true; however, none of this applies to Cedric the Entertainer. As Malcolm, Stokley, & the Black Panthers sought a different technique to a common goal (black self-determination). They had noble goals, trying to make their communities better, even though people disagreed with their methods. Whereas Cedric is simply trying to make people laugh. His comments were not socially relevant, they were not pointing out societal flaws. They did not attempt to teach through humor, as some comedians like Chris Rock are able to do. This comment, "MLK was a whoremonger" was a comment to make people laugh at him. It was solely done for "shock value", with little other purpose. It was wrong!

Social accountability should not be a dirty word, nor does it have to be the arch-nemesis of free speech. If this is the job of the Negro Thought Police I applaud them. When you are an under-classed, under-priviledged, and under-achieving group, you can't afford to be like everyone else. American society was not established with black people in mind, we have to be of a higher moral character to be successful. We literally have to be twice as good to get half as far. Whether or not this is fair....it is reality.

You think the 1st amendment was created for us? If black comedians, rappers, athletes, and other celebs said a quarter of the stuff they current speak about before the Civil Rights Movement, whites would have used their "freedom of speech" to string them up to the nearest tree (how's that for expression). African Americans do not owe their rights to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin......we owe them to Frederick Douglass, WEB Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells, Walter White, Martin Luther King, etc. This is our America, these are our heroes, this is our reality. As long as we live in a racist society we have to be thoughtful of the images we portray, especially ones we put out by ourselves. As a result, it isn't an unreasonable request to ask public figures to considerate about what they say.

I'd love to think I live in a vacuum, and my actions effect & reflect on no one else but me. I'd love to drive down the highway in a nice car and not get pulled over for DWB. I'd also love to win the lottery.......but ain't none of these things gonna happen in my lifetime. We have to face reality no matter how bleak it is. We are not everybody else, and we need to stop trying to be.

thank you panafrica..
"when you are an underclassed, underprivileged and under-achieving group you can't afford to be like everyone else"...."We are not everbody else and we should stop trying to be"
truth...a reality we must , must really come to understand.
Your words were so clear , precise and I have nothing else to say except..I agree..and thanks for them

thank you panafrica..
"when you are an underclassed, underprivileged and under-achieving group you can't afford to be like everyone else"...."We are not everbody else and we should stop trying to be"
truth...a reality we must , must really come to understand.
Your words were so clear , precise and I have nothing else to say except..I agree..and thanks for them

Thank you Deepy....but I have to admit, I am a card carrying member of the Negro Thought Police. :D

"Negro thought police".....AAH Once Upon A Time When We Were Colored..

"Negro thought police".....AAH Once Upon A Time When We Were Colored..
I thought I'd add a few words to this string. This phenomena plagues all mankind, there have and appear will always be forces aligned to assure conformity to a particular ideal. In certain areas this is perfectly defensible, we don't allow our children to do and say anything nor are accepting of certain frames of mind as viable for developing a healthy society/world. Therefore, with thought police we are as much needing to take into consideration what a protestor is protesting in context of what standards we've embraced to define ourselves as a people. In that regard, we also need to consider our standards, I do not subscribe to cannibalistic values, along with a host of other ideals some people embrace in the world.

Ultimately, where thought police are concerned I have no problem with people serving to voice conscience. My job is to be knowledgeable and wise enough to discern their failings, to realize that they, as I happen to be, are human beings. Icons are often absolved of being viewed in equal terms, therefore when they speak, a magical quality is associated to their words. This is symptomatic of a culture that's gone whole hog into celebrity worship. Oprah Winfrey can mention a book and, all of a sudden, it's worth reading, etc. You or I, having no ready means to exhibit our opinions are voices that are never heard. Nevertheless, where the concept of thought police is concerned I figure it a good thing we live in a country where such can occur. We always have the option of disagreeing and criticizing other folks criticizing. We don't live in a society where thought policing is a one dimensional phenomena, we can speak up to counter other's opinions. The problem is that there are hardly any venues available to counter what individuals having celebrity status has to say. Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc. are celebrities, so they're publicized. Thanking God however, the world doesn't spin on what these individuals project, at the same time, I do acknowledge they do have influence. The power of their influence rests in the lack of education and cultivation of our conscious minds. This is where the problem lays, not in thought policing, but in cultivating young people to grow and develop their minds with as much fervor as they invest in playing video games and sports. A strong mind can endure everything a thought policeman can suggest and remain on point at all times in all situations.

"Negro thought police".....AAH Once Upon A Time When We Were Colored..
I thought I'd add a few words to this string. This phenomena plagues all mankind, there have and appear will always be forces aligned to assure conformity to a particular ideal. In certain areas this is perfectly defensible, we don't allow our children to do and say anything nor are accepting of certain frames of mind as viable for developing a healthy society/world. Therefore, with thought police we are as much needing to take into consideration what a protestor is protesting in context of what standards we've embraced to define ourselves as a people. In that regard, we also need to consider our standards, I do not subscribe to cannibalistic values, along with a host of other ideals some people embrace in the world.

Ultimately, where thought police are concerned I have no problem with people serving to voice conscience. My job is to be knowledgeable and wise enough to discern their failings, to realize that they, as I happen to be, are human beings. Icons are often absolved of being viewed in equal terms, therefore when they speak, a magical quality is associated to their words. This is symptomatic of a culture that's gone whole hog into celebrity worship. Oprah Winfrey can mention a book and, all of a sudden, it's worth reading, etc. You or I, having no ready means to exhibit our opinions are voices that are never heard. Nevertheless, where the concept of thought police is concerned I figure it a good thing we live in a country where such can occur. We always have the option of disagreeing and criticizing other folks criticizing. We don't live in a society where thought policing is a one dimensional phenomena, we can speak up to counter other's opinions. The problem is that there are hardly any venues available to counter what individuals having celebrity status has to say. Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc. are celebrities, so they're publicized. Thanking God however, the world doesn't spin on what these individuals project, at the same time, I do acknowledge they do have influence. The power of their influence rests in the lack of education and cultivation of our conscious minds. This is where the problem lays, not in thought policing, but in cultivating young people to grow and develop their minds with as much fervor as they invest in playing video games and sports. A strong mind can endure everything a thought policeman can suggest and remain on point at all times in all situations.

astro
the term "negro thought police" was new to me...and in fact i took it from
Amun Ra's seeing it in Emerge Magazine. I have no problem with the termand I , most probably, am a member as well (to quote panafrica)
I was really playing on the term when I said once upon a time when we were colored...which I was when I was growing up..and most probably still see myself that way...

As I was reading through you stirred a thought about how public figures have a venue to be heard, but we as average people don't and you are right. I've been surprised to hear on the radio about my "black leader" or see my new "black leader" on television. Did they hold an election for this position and I missed it. Their are many in the black commnity who are qualified to speak of the dispora and as a memeber of the ilder generation, I think it is past time for Jesse and Al to find themselves some honest work instead of being "professional negroes." There are young men and women out there who actually have new ideas and new ways of doing things. I would say it is time for the torch to be passed, but they've carried it so long that it burnt out! I am waiting for some of the younger generation to stir the pot. I've seen them and I am waiting, smiling. They can do the job and they may be even better at it than their esteem prdecessors. Unfortunately, the older "professional negroes" have become politically senile. Jesse is still rhyming, only now his verse is tired--we know all the punch lines and we've come to see that the only person who seems to get helped lately is Jesse. Bring the young folks forward! Young men and women, take your place and let these aging icons rest,

Ra

:shades: