Black Relationships : The History of the Institution of Marriage [Archive] - Black People | African Americans

uplift19

03-22-2006, 12:10 PM

What was the original definition of marriage and where did it come from?

Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry: maar?riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

The word, "Wedding" comes from the Anglo-Saxon word "wedd" that meant a man would marry a woman and pay the Bride's father.

Obviously from its etymology the word marriage itself is European in origin.

"Since the 12th century, marriage or holy matrimony has been a sacrament in the Catholic Church, as well as other Orthodoxies, where it is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. The Protestant Reformation reformulated marriage as a life-long covenant. In the Christian tradition, a "one man one woman" model for the Christian marriage was advocated by Saint Augustine (354-439 AD). In the West the nuclear family emerged after 1100." (wikipedia.org)

Did most (if not all) ancient and modern cultures have some form of "marriage" ritual incorporated into their social structure? Let's select two cultural entities and compare them...an African one and European one. Can anyone show origins and political or religious shifts in each over time?

At what point in the history of mankind and in which cultures was polygamy and other forms of marital unions socially permissible?

According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format (Montague, p. 240). The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. “Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).

With the development of agriculture, women were organized and dominated tribal life. Women produced and maintained the staple foods of the tribe and owned both the fields and the crops produced. These matriarchal clans dissolved marriage in its earliest form giving women more freedom, status and authority. The tribe predominates in matriarchy while marriage and family are insignificant. Examples of matriarchal clans were widespread throughout the world, persisting into modern times. Many of the North American indigenous tribes were matriarchal. Marriages were generally arranged by the mothers and chief women. The husband only visited his wife's home (lodge or long house) occasionally. He was obligated to bring game or fish, and if he did not, she could divorce him. Married couples had the right to divorce whenever they wished to. Generally, if they had children, this was discouraged by the tribe. The women also dominated the ruling council. The women decided on war and peace and the disposition of prisoners. Inheritances were strictly passed from women to their children.

Over time, men began to develop crafts and commerce with other tribes. Some were able to accumulate wealth. These men no longer had to serve to attain a wife, they could purchase one, or more than one if their means permitted. This is probably how matriarchy gave way to patriarchy. Men not only ruled women, but the wealthiest men ruled society- i.e. the State was established. These men-rulers also subjugated other men, who became their slaves. The "State," or ruling men, became concerned primarily with war: conquering other peoples, securing both their wealth and servitude.

For women, marriage was institutionalized slavery where a woman was property, sold to a man chosen by her father. Think about what it was like in this land of the free and home of the brave for married women around thirty years ago:

* Married women, even if they had a job, could not set up a bank account or buy purchase merchandise on time without the written consent of their husbands.

* Husbands were "head of household" by law.

* In most states, it was legal for husbands to rape their wives.

* Married women in some states were not allowed to own their own property. The home and everything in it was the property of their husband. In many states, even if married women were permitted to own property, husbands had the right to "manage" or control the assets belonging to the woman or the "marital estate," or they required their husband's consent to deal with the property,

* Divorce was difficult to obtain and even then a married woman usually could lose her children or even if she didn't would have no claim to the property.

* If a married woman had a job (with her husband's permission, of course), her pay was the property of her husband. The I.R.S. considered all business owned and worked by a husband and wife to belong to the husband.

* Medicines given to women were based on doses found to be efficacious to men. There was little medical research on women because it was believed their "illnesses" were just emotional and so were mostly ignored.

What social phenomenon occurred to change society's preference to a monogamous union only and during what period in history did this phenomenon occur?

It seems to vary with the society. In China it was noted to be a communious revolution. In general, industrialization and urbanization made the notion of polygamy more expensive.

What would be the premise given by anyone who supports the notion that gay marriages must be accepted IF polygamy was accepted?

I heard this argument made by comedian Bill Maher. He was dealing strictly with the legal definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. He argued that if we are willing to accept polygamy, which violates that defition, then gay marriage should be fair game. Technically, two women and one men being involed in a marriage does raise questions about permissable sexual relationships and the like. Although, in his sick opinion he was for lesbian marriage just for this reason.

Links:
Wedding traditons (http://www.marriagemissions.com/premarriage/wedding_traditions.php)

Eight types of marriages (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm)

African Wedding Traditions (http://www.worldweddingtraditions.com/locations/african_traditions.html)

Lobola is a century-old tradition, still common throughout Africa. This system requires that a price be paid for the right to marry a women. This practice is still used extensively in contemporary African society and has raised both critical and supportive voices.

Lobola is an age-old African custom that is as alive today as it was 100 years ago. Both the families of the bride and groom would be scandalized if they did not adhere to this custom. On the surface, Lobola is a complex and very formal process of negotiation between the two families to come to a mutual agreement of the price that the groom has to pay in order to marry the bride. This may seem like a purchase and a sale, but this custom is the very opposite of a commercial transaction.

What makes Lobola so important for marriage is that it is based on a process that brings the two families together. Mutual respect and dignity are woven into the process, and the love between the man and woman is expanded to include the immediate and extended families. But, like all traditional customs, it is open to abuse and distortion in the modern world.

MARRIAGE AMONG THE IGBO OF NIGERIA

I. Concept and Social Significance of marriage
Inu nwunye (marriage) states Dr. Basden, "has a foremost place in Igbo social economy. It looms upon the horizon of every maid and youth as an indispensable function to be fulfilled with as little delay as possible after reaching the age of puberty". Since the Igbo are a patriarchal people, marriage is deemed an indispensable factor for the continuation of the family line of descent Children occupy the central point in Igbo marriage. The first and foremost consideration is the fertility of the couple. Parents long for this and the father of the family requests this every morning in his kolanut prayer. The mother begs for it while giving cult to her chi during annual festival. In other words, if you ask the ordinary Igbo man or woman why he desires to marry, the spontaneous answer will be: "I want to marry in order to beget my own children, to get a family like my parents".

We are not here concerned with the learned definitions by law students. Rather our problem is: How would two local people getting married define the step they are about to take? What does Igbo custom or tradition call marriage? The present author put the question to several people of different walks of life. Surprisingly enough, some did not consider it necessary to answer the question. An old farmer called it a union of a man and a woman leading to that of the two extended families. Another informant said it is a lasting union between a man and a woman.

Dr. Obi defines it as: "... the union between a man and a woman for the duration of the woman's life, being normally the gist of a wider association between two families or sets of families" (8). This learned definition repeated what my informants who are simple people, have said and added more specification, with regards to the length of time and its social import for the woman.

For the ordinary Igbo, marriage is the lawful living together of man and woman of different families for the purpose of begetting children after some rites have been performed. It is regarded as a mite-stone in the life of a man and a woman, which will enable them to immortalize their remembrance through their children. They regard consent as the most important element.

NNQueen

03-22-2006, 07:22 PM

EXCELLENT :welldone:

Uplift...it took me quite a while to read through it all, but it was well worth the effort. You did an OUTSTANDING job laying that out for us. :terrific:

There are all kinds of sub-topics within the content that we can branch off to different conversations about. I hardly know where to begin.

I think I'll take a little more time to read through it again, gather my thoughts, and launch into it. Maybe by that time, Bro. Samurai will have posted his information.

The links are great too. I checked them all out and learned stuff I never knew was layered underneath my original questions.

Uplift19, may I ask if you're a sister or a brother? You definitely deserve more respectful acknowledgment from this point forward.

Can't wait to see the discussion that springboards from here.

Queenie :heart:

uplift19

03-23-2006, 12:05 AM

I know it was pretty long but there is so much information out there, it's not that cut and dry. I'm glad you were actually able to read through it all :)

Oh, and to answer your question, I am female.

NNQueen

03-23-2006, 06:49 AM

I read through the information that Sister Uplift19 provided...and it caused me to wonder what "equally yoked" really means.

I gather that in the beginning, at least as far as humans go, people didn't marry for "love" as is so often the reason given in these modern times.

It also seems that marriages weren't quick decisions and took time to arrange and to actually occur.

It was a profitable venture on a variety of levels...bridged two families (in a monogamous union)...expanded families through the birth of children...accumulation of wealth...

Fascinating stuff to explain the traditions that people today don't have a clue about but still incorporate into their "weddings" or marriage ceremonies.

Does anyone also have historical information about wedding vows ?

Queenie :spinstar:

NNQueen

03-24-2006, 10:31 AM

Dear Brother, did you forget about us? You have us holding our breath waiting until you post. We are waiting to receive your knowledge and wisdom in this thread. Please share it with us.

Queenie :bowdown:

SAMURAI36

03-24-2006, 05:22 PM

PEACE NN QUEEN and everyone:

As you all know, I have been compiling info to post here for the past several days, in attempts to satisfying the questions posed here, in relation to this subject.

I am currently out of town, but having looked over the info that I had compiled prior to my departure, I will attempt to post as much of it as I can, that I have committed to memory.

It is my sincerest hope that this info will at least to some degree satiate your collective request for this knowledge, and that your patience here was not too much of a let down. :coffee:

As such, I am going to base my responses here, upon Sister QUEEN's rather eloquent questions, as I think that they serve as a perfect segue for putting this knowledge into perspective.

So here goes......

Does anyone know where the concept of marriage stems from? How far back does it go and how/when did it become a social expectation, including a prerequisite for having children? The existence of humans pre-dates marriage ceremonies, right? Why and when did someone decide it was a necessary custom to instill into a social regimen?

Queenie :spinstar:

What was the original definition of marriage and where did it come from?

The pathos of human exsistence does indeed supercede marriage and any other custom that we as humans have developed.

Let me preface my statements here, by saying that man, as with most higher-formed mammals, are and have always been largely and instinctively monogamous by nature, even amidst concepts such as polygamy and polyandry.

The most primitive form of marriage can perhaps be traced back to the paleolithic age, when humans (Black people essentially and initially) began developing the system known as agriculture.

Agriculture in earliest times, was a practice that was largely governed and maintained by women. As men were largely shepherd, hunters and fishermen, women maintained the land, which allowed them to remain closer to the household, which they also maintained domestically in the males' absence. This was the beginning of matriarchy and matrilenny, as the power of the woman (in this case, the Black woman) was realized on an implicit, and in some cases explicit level.

During this same age of human development, there was only a small portion of the population of humans that there is now; barely over several hundred million scattered all about the world. Humanity lived in equilibrium with the rest of the world, and this was reflected in his mindset and overall actions with the environment, and of course his fellow humans. Thus, the mating ritual was less strengent and less defined, because there was very little need for it to be so.

However, as the various populations began to increase (along with all that this entailed), various aspects of social order had to be established, for the sake of maintaining over all harmony.
As the interaction between Man and Woman was and still is the most quintessential and primordial of all human interaction, that was one of the primary customs that saw a more solid regiment in undertaking.

It is evidenced that largely agricultural societies, such as that in Africa proper, Southeast Asia, and Central/South America saw the greatest change, since these (our) people developed systems of belief that not only reflected their ideals of social order (marriage including), but also in some cases centered around it.

In most of the earliest religions, we see Woman as the divine mother of all that is surveyed, while Man is the father and Keeper (Protector) of all that she creates.

This is highly reflective of how social order was established, again especially in proto-agricultural societies and even beyond.

At some point during this time, male/female interaction begins to shift from being an oftentimes implicit understanding of harmonial balance, to a stated agreement, whether explicit or implicit, between all parties involved.

People then began to measure their worth based upon their innate ability to accomplish things......I'd advise the reader here, to not look at this as necessarily a bad thing; in order to establish an order of social harmony, there must be a guage of value with respect to persons. If you can't cook, how are we going to eat? If I can build a house, where are we going to live?

At what point in the history of mankind and in which cultures was polygamy and other forms of marital unions socially permissible?

Roughly at the same time, or at the very least a short time after.

It must be understood, that because of a populace in which women have always outnumbered men, and the stated domain that was naturally woman's as far as domestic endeavors went, matriarchy and matrilenny were a very natural result of developmental course.

Unlike today, a woman's worth and value was instantly recognized. Back then, to say "this is a good woman" would have ultimately a redundant statement; likewise, to say "this is NOT a good woman" was to make an exception to the rule.

As individual worth and value were developed, standards of measurements for these values were also brought into play. This was the development of assets. If a woman can cook, perform domestic endeavors, knew the land well enough to farm it, and was viewed as fertile, then all that she needed was a man who was suitable to protect her and her assets, as well help her to use those assets to further their own prosperity, as well as that of the entire social order, to which they belonged.

This was shortly after when the dowry custom was brought into practice; men, who ate more and took up more space than women did, needed to prove his "worth/value" to the woman that he was capable of procuring "assets" of his own.

It must be understood that man's (males) rulership was formally established to this end and this end only.

However, for a man, in his duty of "protection" to be able to do this in a society where women outnumbered him, sometimes grossly so, he would have had to take on more than one wife, i.e. enter into more than one "agreement" with more than one woman.

Thus, the birth of polygamy: the marriage of one man to more than one woman.

It must be explicitly understood, that contrary to the popular belief that is widely held today, polygamy was not a custom that is abused for the benefit of the male's satisfaction. :nono:

In fact, proper polygamy sees the male has having very little benefit whatsoever; if a man has 3 wives, then this means that he has 3 agreements in which he must uphold (each woman betrothed to him only has one), he has3 independent sets of assets that he must protect and maintain, and, if it is decided within the agreement, he has 3 sets of families to procreate and raise.

This is the equivolent to someone have 3 40+-hour-per-week full time jobs.

What social phenomenon occurred to change society's preference to a monogamous union only and during what period in history did this phenomenon occur?

In societies where men were drastically outnumbered by women almost 5:1 or 7:1, men were being raised with the understanding that he was going to eventually have to enter into a polygamous arrangement for the good of all (given the circumstances as explained here, we can begin to see where post-modern males get their phobia of marriage from :eeek:. This only further solidified the shift of marriage as a natural part of life, to an "institution".

Fast-forward to 10 to 6,000 years ago......

The coming of the White man and his rigid "ideas" changed alot of the social mindsets of people (our people in particular). Societies became nations, as geographical borders were erected. What was once the male's responsibility of protecting domestic assets on a social level, has now become a quasi-military campaign to protect his nation.

In RA UN NEFER AMEN'S "AN AFROCENTRIC GUIDE TO A SPIRITUAL UNION", the course of humanity is outlined chronlogically in regards to the shift of "heavenly matrimony" (note: the word MATRIMONY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/matrimony.html) itself etymologically means "to pay homage or tribute to the woman").

Historically, the shift in how marriages were exacted amongst people of color (Africans in particular) was reflected in how we interacted with white people on a political level.

Let's select two cultural entities and compare them...an African one and European one. Can anyone show origins and political or religious shifts in each over time?

The White Man (male), being the brutal beast that he is, is essentially the father of Patriarchy. It needs to be explicitly understood, that Matriarchy and Patriarchy are not diametrically opposing theorem. :nono: Matriarchy and matrilenny has always fostered balance and harmony betwixt the sexes, whilst Patriarchy has also represented oppression at varying degrees, usually of women.

Taking Kemet and Sumer, 2 ancient Black societies/nations for example, both were Matriarchial, and matrilennial. This means, that a Queen is a Queen by birth (so long as she was born of the womb of a preceding Queen or woman of royalty). However, this is not so for a King, who was only a King because the Queen had chosen him to be so. In remembering that a man's sole job within a marriage was to protect the assets that women represented, it was/is the King's job to protect the ultimate asset: the entire society and nation and all that it entails, from this woman of royalty that he has married.

The invading White Man, knowing this about these 2 very expansive Black nations, along with the surrounding smaller nations at that time, saw this as a subversive means of gaining a foothold into the plush and prosperous Black societies.

Whereas he had always taken what he wanted (every thing from land to women) by force, now the White man need only marry or fraternize with a Black Queen, for the purpose of asserting himself to the throne himself, or siring a child with legal rights to it. This ensures at least a generation of birthright claim to this legacy.

The above was acted out precisely in this manner, when the rogue Pharoah ANKHEN-ATEN married a Mitanni Hittite (aka: EURASIAN) Princess named Tadukhipa, whose name ATEN changed into one of the most famous in all of history:

NEFERTITI. That's right, NEFER-NEFERU ATEN (or NEFERTITI for short) was not a Black woman :nono: She was a Eurasian Semite who was sent to Kemet by ATEN's father, AMENHOTEP III. Their son, TUTANKHAMEN (commonly known as "KING TUT") was a bi-racial child from his Black father (ATEN) and White mother (NEFERTITI). This interest that ATEN and his father had for white women was no doubt a throw-back notion from the Invasion of the Hyksos (the predecessors of the Hittites) some century or so prior.

This allowed numerous coups upon the throne of Kemet, as other Pharoahs from dynasty resumed their white lust, and "Queens" like TAUSERTI, MERET-AMEN, and other white women were tossed on the throne.....Even eventually CLEOPATRA, a white Macedonian (GREEK) sat on a crumbling throne of a shadow of what once was this Great African Society.

This is why the world always shows us these White or bi-racial kings and Queens, in attempts to solidify their campaign of Europeanizing Kemet in the eyes of the world: "Their great royalty was "white", so the whole nation must have been white as well".

It's no coincidence, that we always here about NEFERTITI and CLEOPATRA as being the symbols of "Egypt", yet most people can't even name 5 other Queens besides them. That's because the other 100+ Queens were BLACK (re: African/Negroid) women, and their images simply cannot be reconciled with their racist agenda to reinvent Kemet (Egypt, as they continuously yet erroneously call it) as a Mediterranean, or Eurasian or Semitic (all just fanciful words for saying "WHITE") kingdom.

It is all the more belabored, when we learn that many of the African/Black Queens of Kemet, ruled without the assistance of a King. While there are numerous occasions where we learn of a Black woman holding down the throne all by herself, NEVER is it seen where a Black king is ruling alone without the Assistance of a Queen. The latter was most unheard of, like a Polar Bear in the dessert.

Did most (if not all) ancient and modern cultures have some form of "marriage" ritual incorporated into their social structure?

Originally, most marriages, especially during the start of the Paleolithic times, were the equivolent of a "common-law" marriage. It was said, that if a man entered a woman's dwellings (or vice-versa) and stayed there for 30 days, then they were seen as married in the eyes of the rest of the society.

However, as the "value system" became more and more prevelant, with intellectual and spiritual ideals being served as the standard of measurement for such values, so too did the rise of "ceremony" also become prevelant. Marriage went from being just a natural transition to a "Blessed Event", and especially so, when the concept of "royalty" became introduced to societies. The more important individuals became, the more significant the ceremonies in their honor were.

But this did not take away from the "common law" concept, especially since the notion of heirarchy clearly defined people, but also because the balance within most indigenous societies continued to allow for such natural transitions.

What would be the premise given by anyone who supports the notion that gay marriages must be accepted IF polygamy was accepted?

Since I do not support anything remotely connected with homosexuality, I mayhaps not be the best person to answer this.

However it is extremely important to differentiate the notion of Polygamy, from that of homosexual unions.

In junction with what has been mentioned earlier about polygamy, it should be known and understood that the proper purpose for polygamy was for women with established value/worth assets, whom mostly out numbered men nearly all throughout history, to have a chance at having a family of her own, having her assets protected, and having those assets expounded and made prosperous via a union with a man.

Thus, polygamy in its proper perspective, is all about necessity, as the woman reaps far more benefits from such a union than the man ever would.

The same cannot be said of a homosexual union, which is not based on necessity--certainly not in comparison to the proper purpose polygamy, or any other marriage for that matter, under the criteria of what marriage meant/means historically.

A homosexual couple is not going to give birth to children (not naturally anyways), nor are they seen as having worth/value in the eyes of their society.

Most likely, a homosexual couple would have been killed (stoned to death) in ancient times for such a notion of marriage, before such a notion was even litigated upon by the society in question.

Whose model are you (African Americans) using today and are the vows you take consistent with your cultural or any other pertinent beliefs?

We as Black people the world over, but especially in the West, are undergoing alot of weird transitions, that could ultimately prove to be beneficial for us in the long run. It seems that in the midst of our tumultuous times, we are coming full circle in alot of our value systems, simply by means of intertia.

Families that are suffering because the absense of a father figure, could be viewed as the social evolution back to matriarchy and matrilenny, as Black women are having to reassert herself and her power (re: value/worth) in our communities.

The concept of marriage as a whole, seems to be taking a rennaissance turn, as Blacks are seeming to opt more and more for the "common law" approach, instead of the conventional institutional method.

I think that the only setback to this, is that this new era we seem to be heading towards, is being done so with more "growing pains" than is necessary. Our lack of understanding of our history, is what I theorize is hindering us from making a smoother transition back to our ancient ways. But, rest assured that, come hell or high-tide, this change will happen, even if it kills (alot of) us.

I'm curious to discover whether the culturally and spiritually enlightened among us practice a "marriage" ritual that is more consistent with their afrocentric sense of purpose and beliefs.

Queenie :spinstar:

Since I myself am not married, nor am no where near the point of entering into such an arrangement (due to the fact that I do not have a Queen :crying: ), cannot speak accurately and anecdotally about this. However, I think that my ideal scenario would be the "common law" approach, as it alleviates the hassel of establishing my and her (my potential Queen's) individual worth to a society that has trouble establishing what value and worth is to begin with. However, part of this decision would be left up to my potential Queen, of course.

Anyways, that's my $0.02 (more like $100,000.02, but whose keeping track? :D ).......I truly hope it has been sufficient.

PEACE

NNQueen

03-24-2006, 07:00 PM

Brother Samurai, you did not disappoint me and the historical information that you shared here was well worth the wait.

I must admit that you told us far more than I ever anticipated, especially about Nefertiti, King Tut and Cleopatra. There's a lot to be absorbed here and I just hope that it serves as a spark for some powerful dialogue. It certainly has me thinking, particularly about western marriages versus common law unions.

:thanks: :thanks:

Queenie :spinstar:

PurpleMoons

03-24-2006, 07:44 PM

Wowwww! I have to agree with NNQueen. That was very enlightening and well worth the wait. This information just blew away and the presentation painted such a vivid picture of how this process transgressed.

Whew! It really makes me think about a variety of things pertaining to marriage and beyond.

Thank you for opening my mind! Looking forward to learning more!:smooch:

NNQueen

03-24-2006, 09:05 PM

MINISTER:

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God – and in the face of this company – to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all men; and therefore – is not by any – to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly – but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Marriage is the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind. It is intended for their mutual joy – and for the help and comfort given on another in prosperity and adversity. But more importantly – it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.

Through marriage, GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME make a commitment together to face their disappointments – embrace their dreams – realize their hopes – and accept each other’s failures. GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME will promise one another to aspire to these ideals throughout their lives together – through mutual understanding – openness – and sensitivity to each other.

We are here today – before God – because marriage is one of His most sacred wishes – to witness the joining in marriage of GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME. This occasion marks the celebration of love and commitment with which this man and this woman begin their life together. And now – through me – He joins you together in one of the holiest bonds.

Who gives this woman in marriage to this man?

BRIDE’S FATHER OR ESCORT:

Her family and friends gathered here today do.

MINISTER:

This is a beginning and a continuation of their growth as individuals. With mutual care, respect, responsibility and knowledge comes the affirmation of each one’s own life happiness, growth and freedom. With respect for individual boundaries comes the freedom to love unconditionally. Within the emotional safety of a loving relationship – the knowledge self-offered one another becomes the fertile soil for continued growth. With care and responsibility towards self and one another comes the potential for full and happy lives.

By gathering together all the wishes of happiness and our fondest hopes for GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME from all present here, we assure them that our hearts are in tune with theirs. These moments are so meaningful to all of us, for “what greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined together – to strengthen each other in all labor – to minister to each other in all sorrow – to share with each other in all gladness.

This relationship stands for love, loyalty, honesty and trust, but most of all for friendship. Before they knew love, they were friends, and it was from this seed of friendship that is their destiny. Do not think that you can direct the course of love – for love, if it finds you worthy, shall direct you.

Marriage is an act of faith and a personal commitment as well as a moral and physical union between two people. Marriage has been described as the best and most important relationship that can exist between them. It is the construction of their love and trust into a single growing energy of spiritual life. It is amoral commitment that requires and deserves daily attention. Marriage should be a life long consecration of the ideal of loving kindness – backed with the will to make it last.

Exchange of Vows

MINISTER TO GROOM:

Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife – to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?

GROOM:

I will.

MINISTER TO BRIDE:

Do you BRIDE'S NAME) take GROOM'S NAME to be your husband – to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon him your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto him as long as you both shall live?

BRIDE:

I will.

Exchange of Wedding Rings

MINISTER:

What token of your love do you offer? Would you place the ring(s) in my hand?

May this/these ring(s) be blessed as the symbol of this affectionate unity. These two lives are now joined in one unbroken circle. Wherever they go – may they always return to one another. May these two find in each other the love for which all men and women year. May they grow in understanding and in compassion. May the home which they establish together be such a place that many will find there a friend. May this/these ring(s) on her/their finger(s) symbolize the touch of the spirit of love in their hearts.

Handing ring to the Groom

MINISTER TO GROOM:

GROOM'S NAME, in placing this ring on BRIDE'S NAME finger, repeat after me: BRIDE'S NAME), you are now consecrated to me as my wife from this day forward and I give you this ring as the pledge of my love and as the symbol of our unity and with this ring, I thee wed.

Handing ring to the Bride

MINISTER TO BRIDE:

BRIDE'S NAME, in placing this ring on GROOM'S NAME finger, repeat after me: GROOM'S NAME, you are now consecrate to me as my husband from this day forward and I give you this ring as the pledge of my love and as the symbol of our unity and with this ring, I thee wed.

Pronouncement

MINISTER:

May you always share with each other the gifts of love – be one in heart and in mind – may you always create a home together that puts in your hearts – love – generosity and kindness.

In as much as GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME have consented together in marriage before this company of friends and family and have pledged their faith – and declared their unity by giving and receiving a ring – are now joined.

You have pronounced yourselves husband and wife but remember to always be each other’s best friend.

What – therefore – God has joined together – let no man put asunder.

And so, by the power vested in me by the State of ______ and Almighty God, I now pronounce you man and wife – and may your days be good and long upon the earth.

You may now kiss the bride.

PurpleMoons

03-24-2006, 09:09 PM

Pardon my thoughtlessness!:oops:

I want to also say Thank you to Sister uplift for providing the information that opened the door, and Sister NNQueen for askin the right questions. :slobber::blowkiss:

You've both made this thread a powerful source of information.:welldone: :thinking:

cursed heart

03-25-2006, 11:24 AM

PEACE NN QUEEN and everyone:

As you all know, I have been compiling info to post here for the past several days, in attempts to satisfying the questions posed here, in relation to this subject.

I am currently out of town, but having looked over the info that I had compiled prior to my departure, I will attempt to post as much of it as I can, that I have committed to memory.

It is my sincerest hope that this info will at least to some degree satiate your collective request for this knowledge, and that your patience here was not too much of a let down. :coffee:

As such, I am going to base my responses here, upon Sister QUEEN's rather eloquent questions, as I think that they serve as a perfect segue for putting this knowledge into perspective.

So here goes......

The pathos of human exsistence does indeed supercede marriage and any other custom that we as humans have developed.

Let me preface my statements here, by saying that man, as with most higher-formed mammals, are and have always been largely and instinctively monogamous by nature, even amidst concepts such as polygamy and polyandry.

The most primitive form of marriage can perhaps be traced back to the paleolithic age, when humans (Black people essentially and initially) began developing the system known as agriculture.

Agriculture in earliest times, was a practice that was largely governed and maintained by women. As men were largely shepherd, hunters and fishermen, women maintained the land, which allowed them to remain closer to the household, which they also maintained domestically in the males' absence. This was the beginning of matriarchy and matrilenny, as the power of the woman (in this case, the Black woman) was realized on an implicit, and in some cases explicit level.

During this same age of human development, there was only a small portion of the population of humans that there is now; barely over several hundred million scattered all about the world. Humanity lived in equilibrium with the rest of the world, and this was reflected in his mindset and overall actions with the environment, and of course his fellow humans. Thus, the mating ritual was less strengent and less defined, because there was very little need for it to be so.

However, as the various populations began to increase (along with all that this entailed), various aspects of social order had to be established, for the sake of maintaining over all harmony.
As the interaction between Man and Woman was and still is the most quintessential and primordial of all human interaction, that was one of the primary customs that saw a more solid regiment in undertaking.

It is evidenced that largely agricultural societies, such as that in Africa proper, Southeast Asia, and Central/South America saw the greatest change, since these (our) people developed systems of belief that not only reflected their ideals of social order (marriage including), but also in some cases centered around it.

In most of the earliest religions, we see Woman as the divine mother of all that is surveyed, while Man is the father and Keeper (Protector) of all that she creates.

This is highly reflective of how social order was established, again especially in proto-agricultural societies and even beyond.

At some point during this time, male/female interaction begins to shift from being an oftentimes implicit understanding of harmonial balance, to a stated agreement, whether explicit or implicit, between all parties involved.

People then began to measure their worth based upon their innate ability to accomplish things......I'd advise the reader here, to not look at this as necessarily a bad thing; in order to establish an order of social harmony, there must be a guage of value with respect to persons. If you can't cook, how are we going to eat? If I can build a house, where are we going to live?

Roughly at the same time, or at the very least a short time after.

It must be understood, that because of a populace in which women have always outnumbered men, and the stated domain that was naturally woman's as far as domestic endeavors went, matriarchy and matrilenny were a very natural result of developmental course.

Unlike today, a woman's worth and value was instantly recognized. Back then, to say "this is a good woman" would have ultimately a redundant statement; likewise, to say "this is NOT a good woman" was to make an exception to the rule.

As individual worth and value were developed, standards of measurements for these values were also brought into play. This was the development of assets. If a woman can cook, perform domestic endeavors, knew the land well enough to farm it, and was viewed as fertile, then all that she needed was a man who was suitable to protect her and her assets, as well help her to use those assets to further their own prosperity, as well as that of the entire social order, to which they belonged.

This was shortly after when the dowry custom was brought into practice; men, who ate more and took up more space than women did, needed to prove his "worth/value" to the woman that he was capable of procuring "assets" of his own.

It must be understood that man's (males) rulership was formally established to this end and this end only.

However, for a man, in his duty of "protection" to be able to do this in a society where women outnumbered him, sometimes grossly so, he would have had to take on more than one wife, i.e. enter into more than one "agreement" with more than one woman.

Thus, the birth of polygamy: the marriage of one man to more than one woman.

It must be explicitly understood, that contrary to the popular belief that is widely held today, polygamy was not a custom that is abused for the benefit of the male's satisfaction. :nono:

In fact, proper polygamy sees the male has having very little benefit whatsoever; if a man has 3 wives, then this means that he has 3 agreements in which he must uphold (each woman betrothed to him only has one), he has3 independent sets of assets that he must protect and maintain, and, if it is decided within the agreement, he has 3 sets of families to procreate and raise.

This is the equivolent to someone have 3 40+-hour-per-week full time jobs.

In societies where men were drastically outnumbered by women almost 5:1 or 7:1, men were being raised with the understanding that he was going to eventually have to enter into a polygamous arrangement for the good of all (given the circumstances as explained here, we can begin to see where post-modern males get their phobia of marriage from :eeek:. This only further solidified the shift of marriage as a natural part of life, to an "institution".

Fast-forward to 10 to 6,000 years ago......

The coming of the White man and his rigid "ideas" changed alot of the social mindsets of people (our people in particular). Societies became nations, as geographical borders were erected. What was once the male's responsibility of protecting domestic assets on a social level, has now become a quasi-military campaign to protect his nation.

In RA UN NEFER AMEN'S "AN AFROCENTRIC GUIDE TO A SPIRITUAL UNION", the course of humanity is outlined chronlogically in regards to the shift of "heavenly matrimony" (note: the word MATRIMONY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/matrimony.html) itself etymologically means "to pay homage or tribute to the woman").

Historically, the shift in how marriages were exacted amongst people of color (Africans in particular) was reflected in how we interacted with white people on a political level.

The White Man (male), being the brutal beast that he is, is essentially the father of Patriarchy. It needs to be explicitly understood, that Matriarchy and Patriarchy are not diametrically opposing theorem. :nono: Matriarchy and matrilenny has always fostered balance and harmony betwixt the sexes, whilst Patriarchy has also represented oppression at varying degrees, usually of women.

Taking Kemet and Sumer, 2 ancient Black societies/nations for example, both were Matriarchial, and matrilennial. This means, that a Queen is a Queen by birth (so long as she was born of the womb of a preceding Queen or woman of royalty). However, this is not so for a King, who was only a King because the Queen had chosen him to be so. In remembering that a man's sole job within a marriage was to protect the assets that women represented, it was/is the King's job to protect the ultimate asset: the entire society and nation and all that it entails, from this woman of royalty that he has married.

The invading White Man, knowing this about these 2 very expansive Black nations, along with the surrounding smaller nations at that time, saw this as a subversive means of gaining a foothold into the plush and prosperous Black societies.

Whereas he had always taken what he wanted (every thing from land to women) by force, now the White man need only marry or fraternize with a Black Queen, for the purpose of asserting himself to the throne himself, or siring a child with legal rights to it. This ensures at least a generation of birthright claim to this legacy.

The above was acted out precisely in this manner, when the rogue Pharoah ANKHEN-ATEN married a Mitanni Hittite (aka: EURASIAN) Princess named Tadukhipa, whose name ATEN changed into one of the most famous in all of history:

NEFERTITI. That's right, NEFER-NEFERU ATEN (or NEFERTITI for short) was not a Black woman :nono: She was a Eurasian Semite who was sent to Kemet by ATEN's father, AMENHOTEP III. Their son, TUTANKHAMEN (commonly known as "KING TUT") was a bi-racial child from his Black father (ATEN) and White mother (NEFERTITI). This interest that ATEN and his father had for white women was no doubt a throw-back notion from the Invasion of the Hyksos (the predecessors of the Hittites) some century or so prior.

This allowed numerous coups upon the throne of Kemet, as other Pharoahs from dynasty resumed their white lust, and "Queens" like TAUSERTI, MERET-AMEN, and other white women were tossed on the throne.....Even eventually CLEOPATRA, a white Macedonian (GREEK) sat on a crumbling throne of a shadow of what once was this Great African Society.

This is why the world always shows us these White or bi-racial kings and Queens, in attempts to solidify their campaign of Europeanizing Kemet in the eyes of the world: "Their great royalty was "white", so the whole nation must have been white as well".

It's no coincidence, that we always here about NEFERTITI and CLEOPATRA as being the symbols of "Egypt", yet most people can't even name 5 other Queens besides them. That's because the other 100+ Queens were BLACK (re: African/Negroid) women, and their images simply cannot be reconciled with their racist agenda to reinvent Kemet (Egypt, as they continuously yet erroneously call it) as a Mediterranean, or Eurasian or Semitic (all just fanciful words for saying "WHITE") kingdom.

It is all the more belabored, when we learn that many of the African/Black Queens of Kemet, ruled without the assistance of a King. While there are numerous occasions where we learn of a Black woman holding down the throne all by herself, NEVER is it seen where a Black king is ruling alone without the Assistance of a Queen. The latter was most unheard of, like a Polar Bear in the dessert.

Originally, most marriages, especially during the start of the Paleolithic times, were the equivolent of a "common-law" marriage. It was said, that if a man entered a woman's dwellings (or vice-versa) and stayed there for 30 days, then they were seen as married in the eyes of the rest of the society.

However, as the "value system" became more and more prevelant, with intellectual and spiritual ideals being served as the standard of measurement for such values, so too did the rise of "ceremony" also become prevelant. Marriage went from being just a natural transition to a "Blessed Event", and especially so, when the concept of "royalty" became introduced to societies. The more important individuals became, the more significant the ceremonies in their honor were.

But this did not take away from the "common law" concept, especially since the notion of heirarchy clearly defined people, but also because the balance within most indigenous societies continued to allow for such natural transitions.

Since I do not support anything remotely connected with homosexuality, I mayhaps not be the best person to answer this.

However it is extremely important to differentiate the notion of Polygamy, from that of homosexual unions.

In junction with what has been mentioned earlier about polygamy, it should be known and understood that the proper purpose for polygamy was for women with established value/worth assets, whom mostly out numbered men nearly all throughout history, to have a chance at having a family of her own, having her assets protected, and having those assets expounded and made prosperous via a union with a man.

Thus, polygamy in its proper perspective, is all about necessity, as the woman reaps far more benefits from such a union than the man ever would.

The same cannot be said of a homosexual union, which is not based on necessity--certainly not in comparison to the proper purpose polygamy, or any other marriage for that matter, under the criteria of what marriage meant/means historically.

A homosexual couple is not going to give birth to children (not naturally anyways), nor are they seen as having worth/value in the eyes of their society.

Most likely, a homosexual couple would have been killed (stoned to death) in ancient times for such a notion of marriage, before such a notion was even litigated upon by the society in question.

We as Black people the world over, but especially in the West, are undergoing alot of weird transitions, that could ultimately prove to be beneficial for us in the long run. It seems that in the midst of our tumultuous times, we are coming full circle in alot of our value systems, simply by means of intertia.

Families that are suffering because the absense of a father figure, could be viewed as the social evolution back to matriarchy and matrilenny, as Black women are having to reassert herself and her power (re: value/worth) in our communities.

The concept of marriage as a whole, seems to be taking a rennaissance turn, as Blacks are seeming to opt more and more for the "common law" approach, instead of the conventional institutional method.

I think that the only setback to this, is that this new era we seem to be heading towards, is being done so with more "growing pains" than is necessary. Our lack of understanding of our history, is what I theorize is hindering us from making a smoother transition back to our ancient ways. But, rest assured that, come hell or high-tide, this change will happen, even if it kills (alot of) us.

Since I myself am not married, nor am no where near the point of entering into such an arrangement (due to the fact that I do not have a Queen :crying: ), cannot speak accurately and anecdotally about this. However, I think that my ideal scenario would be the "common law" approach, as it alleviates the hassel of establishing my and her (my potential Queen's) individual worth to a society that has trouble establishing what value and worth is to begin with. However, part of this decision would be left up to my potential Queen, of course.

Anyways, that's my $0.02 (more like $100,000.02, but whose keeping track? :D ).......I truly hope it has been sufficient.

PEACE

Excellent information!

uplift19

03-25-2006, 11:35 AM

Whose "tradition" is reflected in these vows?

Mainly Judeo-Christian western civilization.

NNQueen

03-25-2006, 12:03 PM

It must be understood, that because of a populace in which women have always outnumbered men, and the stated domain that was naturally woman's as far as domestic endeavors went, matriarchy and matrilenny were a very natural result of developmental course.

We as Black people the world over, but especially in the West, are undergoing alot of weird transitions, that could ultimately prove to be beneficial for us in the long run. It seems that in the midst of our tumultuous times, we are coming full circle in alot of our value systems, simply by means of intertia.

Families that are suffering because the absense of a father figure, could be viewed as the social evolution back to matriarchy and matrilenny, as Black women are having to reassert herself and her power (re: value/worth) in our communities.

The concept of marriage as a whole, seems to be taking a rennaissance turn, as Blacks are seeming to opt more and more for the "common law" approach, instead of the conventional institutional method.

I think that the only setback to this, is that this new era we seem to be heading towards, is being done so with more "growing pains" than is necessary. Our lack of understanding of our history, is what I theorize is hindering us from making a smoother transition back to our ancient ways. But, rest assured that, come hell or high-tide, this change will happen, even if it kills (alot of) us.

I find these points very interesting Brother Samurai and worth more thought and discussion. Do you think many of us are too far gone in our conditioning by American values and customs and are we too fragmented as a people that we can't see value in this information?

Queenie :spinstar:

kemetkind

03-25-2006, 12:34 PM

I find these points very interesting Brother Samurai and worth more thought and discussion. Do you think many of us are too far gone in our conditioning by American values and customs and are we too fragmented as a people that we can't see value in this information?

Queenie :spinstar:

Sister NNQueen, can you elucidate what you see as the value in this information?

Specifically, what viable strategies do YOU see following from it?

It is the first I have time I have seen any verbiage putting a positive spin on woman only family units and common law marriages. It seems to me, rather akin to putting lipstick on a pig.

SAMURAI36

03-25-2006, 07:03 PM

Sister NNQueen, can you elucidate what you see as the value in this information?

Specifically, what viable strategies do YOU see following from it?

It is the first I have time I have seen any verbiage putting a positive spin on woman only family units and common law marriages. It seems to me, rather akin to putting lipstick on a pig.

While we await her response, may I ask you to elaborate and elucidate upon yours?

Whom is the proverbial "pig" in this instacne, that you speak of? Also, what ideal is the proverbial "lipstick"?

PEACE

Sun Ship

03-25-2006, 07:55 PM

First of all Brother Samurai I commend you for extensively exploring in detail many of the historical and social constructs of marriage; excellent piece brother! :D I might want to debate or explore the actual ethnicity or better yet “Africanicity” of Nefertiti, but that moves beyond this threads subject matter. Peace!

Does anyone know where the concept of marriage stems from? How far back does it go and how/when did it become a social expectation, including a prerequisite for having children? The existence of humans pre-dates marriage ceremonies, right? Why and when did someone decide it was a necessary custom to instill into a social regimen?

Queenie :spinstar:

As you know Sister Queenie, I have exhausted the question of polygamy or more correctly polygyny in other threads here (and in other forums), so I will try not to be too redundant or argumentative, but the history of marriage I think is something that is rarely understood or explored by most people who blindly defend or support this modern day western version of the institution. I believe marriage like most social and spiritual institutions was originally designed to create a civil order to further the prosperity of a society. All beliefs should be directly applicable to the needs of the people and in congruence with the betterment of their actual lifestyle, philosophical mores, spirituality and economic realities.

The hunter/gatherer and agrarian societies, which are at the foundations of many of our social norms and cultural proclivities, are now literally things of the past for most of us; these ancient archetypes are responsible for the development of communities and family structures over the millenniums and left an indelible impression on our collective subconscious mind when it comes to why or how we should pair up or marry as people (male/female). I believe from the beginning of industrialization to the present technological driven society traditional marriage has been unable to make the proper social adjustments to comply with these most recent colossal shifts in the human experience. We need to find something that speaks directly to our present day needs and dilemma. Our ancestors developed an arrangement that reflected their reality; it came from their intimate understanding of nature, metaphysics, community and spirituality. It was they who developed their own cultural paradigms. Industrialization and technologization are more so designed from without (and not within) and are usually disconnected from the intimacies of life innate to most early socio-cultural community arrangements and practices. There has become very little need for the traditional family unit in this matrix-like techno-society or better yet “plantation”. We are no more than enumerated worker-drones, end-users and consumers to the ruling class. We are living in a very interesting time in the human experience, we are functioning in a social order that has deracinated itself from thousands of year’s of spiritual cultures and the communal nature imbued in the interdependency of the traditional family structure.

I just like to say this about the institution of monogamy; most scholars agree, if we take an honest look at monogamy when practiced and ordained as the “absolute and exclusive” (these are important distinctions) form of marriage by law or religio-cultural mandate, it is was almost always supplemented with some socially sanctioned form of accessibility to divorce, prostitution, and concubinage; many of these societies were/are plagued with serial monogamy, the exploitation of single motherhood, so-called illegitimacy, adultery, misogyny, chauvinism, and other maladies of individualism or the absolutisms of patriarchalism.

In the ancient world polygyny usually went hand in hand with matristic or matrifocal societies (not matriarchal). Patriarchal Hebraism and Islam redeemed polygyny from existing and ancient matristic societies they usurped and supplanted, along with other advanced ideological, spiritual and scholarly practices or disciplines.

Matristic societies saw the whole society as a complete wholisitc organism where the well being of ALL women and children was first and foremost, and paramount; this type of thinking is and was antithetical to western ideology. I'm sure the evidence will reveal that polygyny was sanctioned and developed in matristic communal societies in accordance with a belief system based on female fecundity, female-centered spirituality, unity of women, enlightened sisterhood, and culturally-based collectivism. Because patriarchal invaders have hijacked polygyny and imbued it with their misogynistic and dimorphic understanding of femininity, it will take a literal rebooting of the female (and male) mind to return to their original designs. Remember, “institutionalized patriarchy” is a very oppressive and rather new phenomenon, and has to be believed in by women (the majority) more than men to survive.

Peace :cool:

kemetkind

03-25-2006, 08:00 PM

While we await her response, may I ask you to elaborate and elucidate upon yours?

Whom is the proverbial "pig" in this instacne, that you speak of? Also, what ideal is the proverbial "lipstick"?

PEACE

What I see as the value? A pleasant read and shining example of the eloquence of some of our enlightened brothers. Your literary talents are impressive brother, and I imagine if you so chose you could mount an equally compelling defense of marriage.

But beyond that, I'm not certain of the value, for you seem to attempt historical validation for current trends that are widely recognized as destroying our community....You imply the recent proliferation of single parent black households equates to black women asserting their power/worth in our communities and further imply this "inertia" is somehow a worthy return to our ancient family structure.

That characterization is the "lipstick" for the "pig" that is the very obvious devastation wrought upon us by the recent disintegration of two-parent black families.

kemetkind

03-25-2006, 08:16 PM

There has become very little need for the traditional family unit in this matrix-like techno-society or better yet “plantation”.

What empirical or anecdotal evidence supports this assertion? Do we not see those groups with the strongest "traditional" family units exerting the most power, influence, control or status elevation the world over? Do we not see those groups with the most dysfunctional family units struggling?

Matristic societies saw the whole society as a complete wholisitc organism where the well being of ALL women and children was first and foremost, and paramount; this type of thinking is and was antithetical to western ideology.

How is this notion appreciably different than black family values 30 years ago?

SAMURAI36

03-25-2006, 08:20 PM

What I see as the value? A pleasant read and shining example of the eloquence of some of our enlightened brothers. Your literary talents are impressive brother, and I imagine if you so chose you could mount an equally compelling defense of marriage.

You humbly have my thanks. :blush:

But beyond that, I'm not certain of the value, for you seem to attempt historical validation for current trends that are widely recognized as destroying our community....

You seem to have misunderstood not only my statements here, but also my intentions behind them. Such as it is, allow me to say that this is certainly most incorrect on your part.

You imply the recent proliferation of single parent black households equates to black women asserting their power/worth in our communities and further imply this "inertia" is somehow a worthy return to our ancient family structure.

Not "equates to", but rather "results in".

What I speak of here, is the universal mechanism of how all ecosystems work.

For that matter, you seemed to have also overlooked my statements about the unneccesary growing pains:

I think that the only setback to this, is that this new era we seem to be heading towards, is being done so with more "growing pains" than is necessary. Our lack of understanding of our history, is what I theorize is hindering us from making a smoother transition back to our ancient ways. But, rest assured that, come hell or high-tide, this change will happen, even if it kills (alot of) us.

Even as you applaud me for my literary skills, surely you would not think me so careless as to assert a point, without simultaneously substantiating it?

But moving beyond digression:

Are you not of the frame of mind, that the best results can come from the worst of circumstances? Even nature herself shows us this: the sut waste of the earth in the form of goal, becomes a diamond in its raw, yet compressed form.

The very same is true, in its liquified version of petroleum. These are 2 of the most valued resources on this planet currently.

Though the Black family is at its worst point right now, what good (if any) would you theorize can come of it? And how, if at all, would this come about?

Women ruled the world in the very beginning, just as Black people of color did.

Those positions were shifted violently and oppressively. Now, Blacks are in the lowest position, striving for the re-inheritance of what is rightfully theirs.

How else would you catergorize it, other than, as you stated:

".....The recent proliferation of [the Black race]equates to [black people] asserting their power/worth in our communities and further imply this "inertia" is somehow a worthy return to our ancient [social and global] structure......"?

That characterization is the "lipstick" for the "pig" that is the very obvious devastation wrought upon us by the recent disintegration of two-parent black families.

I'm sure you implicitly know that all things disintergrate. But what is perhaps the unknown, is what they disintergrate into, and even moreso, what they reintergrate into.

I bid you respond, what else positive can come this disintergration, outside of Matriarchy and Matrilenny (or rather, as our Brother Sun Ship aptly termed it: MATRISM..........By the way, welcome back brother)?

Besides, it was explicitly stated that this was my Theory on this subject. Since thus far, you have not offered any theory to usurp mine, outside of the "pig and lipstick" colloquialism, I humbly ask what your perspectives are on this matter.

Matristic societies saw the whole society as a complete wholisitc organism where the well being of ALL women and children was first and foremost, and paramount; this type of thinking is and was antithetical to western ideology.

How is this notion appreciably different than black family values 30 years ago?

Because the Black family was not based on Matrism back then, but rather strict Patriarchy. Weren't "Black family values" back then based on the principles of the Bible (poorly understood as they were/are)?

If that was such the great thing, why then did those value not persist? What, in your perspective, caused the disintergration?

PEACE

SAMURAI36

03-25-2006, 08:43 PM

First of all Brother Samurai I commend you for extensively exploring in detail many of the historical and social constructs of marriage; excellent piece brother! :D I might want to debate or explore the actual ethnicity or better yet “Africanicity” of Nefertiti, but that moves beyond this threads subject matter. Peace!

My thanks to you, and the debate is most welcomed; I'm looking forward.

As you know Sister Queenie, I have exhausted the question of polygamy or more correctly polygyny

You are most correct: Polygyny is the more accurate alternative to what I have been speaking of here, rather than the more general (and oftentimes generic) Polygamy.

POLYGAMY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/polygamy.html) is the general term to denote the marriage of one person of either sex to multiple spouses, which divides into either POLYGYNY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/polygyny.html) or POLYANDRY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/polyandry.html).

The former is what I have been speaking about here, as (vehemently) opposed to the latter.

The hunter/gatherer and agrarian societies, which are at the foundations of many of our social norms and cultural proclivities, are now literally things of the past for most of us; these ancient archetypes are responsible for the development of communities and family structures over the millenniums and left an indelible impression on our collective subconscious mind when it comes to why or how we should pair up or marry as people (male/female). I believe from the beginning of industrialization to the present technological driven society traditional marriage has been unable to make the proper social adjustments to comply with these most recent colossal shifts in the human experience. We need to find something that speaks directly to our present day needs and dilemma. Our ancestors developed an arrangement that reflected their reality; it came from their intimate understanding of nature, metaphysics, community and spirituality. It was they who developed their own cultural paradigms. Industrialization and technologization are more so designed from without (and not within) and are usually disconnected from the intimacies of life innate to most early socio-cultural community arrangements and practices. There has become very little need for the traditional family unit in this matrix-like techno-society or better yet “plantation”. We are no more than enumerated worker-drones, end-users and consumers to the ruling class. We are living in a very interesting time in the human experience, we are functioning in a social order that has deracinated itself from thousands of year’s of spiritual cultures and the communal nature imbued in the interdependency of the traditional family structure.

True indeed.

I just like to say this about the institution of monogamy; most scholars agree, if we take an honest look at monogamy when practiced and ordained as the “absolute and exclusive” (these are important distinctions) form of marriage by law or religio-cultural mandate, it is was almost always supplemented with some socially sanctioned form of accessibility to divorce, prostitution, and concubinage; many of these societies were/are plagued with serial monogamy, the exploitation of single motherhood, so-called illegitimacy, adultery, misogyny, chauvinism, and other maladies of individualism or the absolutisms of patriarchalism.

In the ancient world polygyny usually went hand in hand with matristic or matrifocal societies (not matriarchal). Patriarchal Hebraism and Islam redeemed polygyny from existing and ancient matristic societies they usurped and supplanted, along with other advanced ideological, spiritual and scholarly practices or disciplines.

Matristic societies saw the whole society as a complete wholisitc organism where the well being of ALL women and children was first and foremost, and paramount; this type of thinking is and was antithetical to western ideology. I'm sure the evidence will reveal that polygyny was sanctioned and developed in matristic communal societies in accordance with a belief system based on female fecundity, female-centered spirituality, unity of women, enlightened sisterhood, and culturally-based collectivism. Because patriarchal invaders have hijacked polygyny and imbued it with their misogynistic and dimorphic understanding of femininity, it will take a literal rebooting of the female (and male) mind to return to their original designs. Remember, “institutionalized patriarchy” is a very oppressive and rather new phenomenon, and has to be believed in by women (the majority) more than men to survive.

Again, we are on one accord (as we often are :D)

I realize, that just with the whole Poly-gyny/gamy/andry scenario, it would behoove me to clarify my position on Matriarchy, as you have done here.

It was always my perspective that Matriarchy was not the diametric opposition to Patriarchy (the exception being the Amazons), but rather the balance as you have eloquently demonstrated in the above emboldened statements of yours.

However, I think it would be to my own behest to cease and desist using this term "MATRIARCHY" as a means of exclusively denoting this set of ideas and values.

This is no different than the movement of "FEMINISM" asserting itself as the direct opposition to modern "masculinism".

What should have been taking place was a call for Matrism, as you have stated earlier. In fact, this feminist movement would have been the perfect time for a call for balance........Though I think the males of the world at that time would not have stood for such a thing, especially when they brutally lorded their power over women.

Let it be known, though, that technically, Matriarchy as a term is not always inaccurate :nono: If and when a Queen, the likes of HATSHEPSUT or BILQUIS ruled as they did, would that not be deemed "matriarchial", even though it was under the auspices of the principles of matrism that you have outlined here?

PEACE

kemetkind

03-25-2006, 09:20 PM

You humbly have my thanks. :blush:

You're certainly welcome brother

You seem to have misunderstood not only my statements here, but also my intentions behind them. Such as it is, allow me to say that this is certainly most incorrect on your part.

...Not "equates to", but rather "results in".

Of course you're allowed to say what you wish, but simply asserting a comprehension failure on my part does not make it so.

Whether "equates to" was an incorrect paraphrase of your intended meaning of "results in" is a hair-splitting semantic distinction and wholly tangential to whether I failed to comprehend your central message....that the destruction of two parent household is actually a positive for our community. By your own elaboration in response, you reveal my initial assesment accurate.

Are you not of the frame of mind, that the best results can come from the worst of circumstances? Even nature herself shows us this: the sut waste of the earth in the form of goal, becomes a diamond in its raw, yet compressed form.

The very same is true, in its liquified version of petroleum. These are 2 of the most valued resources on this planet currently.

Wonderful metaphor and would have a dramatic effect no doubt were you preaching to the choir. But I'd see the state of our families with a different metaphor...i.e. we have a sickness, a cancer formed by embracing of American materialism, and new-age notions of family. Should we excise and treat our cancer we may return to health, otherwise, we die.

There will be no diamonds to mine if the coal itself ceases to exist.

Though the Black family is at its worst point right now, what good (if any) would you theorize can come of it? And how, if at all, would this come about?

Women ruled the world in the very beginning, just as Black people of color did.

Those positions were shifted violently and oppressively. Now, Blacks are in the lowest position, striving for the re-inheritance of what is rightfully theirs.

When we survive this, it will be because we created independent solutions, and reclaimed our collective culture.

I do not imagine that throwing our hands up and assuming families composed of women and children only constitutes a solution, no matter how much we'd like to draw parallels with some ancient cultures led by black women.

I also do not fathom, that these "growing pains" you speak of, are only present because of our failure to recognize the historical validity of these new family structures we are reintegrating into. If that were the case, all we'd need is a history lesson and all the single parent households would begin turning out healthy children.

I'm sure you implicitly know that all things disintergrate. But what is perhaps the unknown, is what they disintergrate into, and even moreso, what they reintergrate into.

No, I don't know that all things disintegrate. But for the sake of this discussion, your point is valid; it is unknown if the current trends in our family units will eventually "result in" a return to our ancient status. Lacking any supporting rationale other than a few selective historical references, I'd venture not only unknown, but unlikely.

I bid you respond, what else positive can come this disintergration, outside of Matriarchy and Matrilenny (or rather, as our Brother Sun Ship aptly termed it: MATRISM..........By the way, welcome back brother)?

Besides, it was explicitly stated that this was my Theory on this subject. Since thus far, you have not offered any theory to usurp mine, outside of the "pig and lipstick" colloquialism, I humbly ask what your perspectives are on this matter.

I am not so sure black families in this country have ever been anything but Matriarchies. Black women have always exercised significant power in the black community. Our version of christianity has never been the same as the europeans.

I'm not interested in "usurping" your theories, brother. I don't view this as a contest.

I'm interested in viable strategies. Which is specifically why I posed a question to NNQueen. If you were to cull your presentation down into a strategy what would it be?

My perspective is black families cannot be allowed to disintegrate unchecked while using history's brush to paint it in a positive light.

But that is just my perspective.

panafrica

03-25-2006, 09:37 PM

My perspective is black families cannot be allowed to disintegrate unchecked while using history's brush to paint it in a positive light. But that is just my perspective.

It isn't just your perspective, I agree with this opinion wholeheartedly. The disintegration of the black family and the stagnation of black progress go hand in hand. The latter will not improve until the former is restored. The reality is that the natural order of the black family is to have a mother and father (the biological mother and father) in a house, raising their children together. Any other belief is not only misguided and misinformed, it is genocidal!

Sun Ship

03-25-2006, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sun Ship
There has become very little need for the traditional family unit in this matrix-like techno-society or better yet “plantation”.

What empirical or anecdotal evidence supports this assertion? Do we not see those groups with the strongest "traditional" family units exerting the most power, influence, control or status elevation the world over? Do we not see those groups with the most dysfunctional family units struggling?

Brother I think you may be slightly misunderstanding my position, first of all I’m not just attacking the construct known as the traditional family in my statement, but I am pointing out the fact that the ruling oligarchies of this techno-industrial complex have no need for the communal or traditional family structure.

The Techno socio-culture was not developed in congruence with man and woman’s historical and archetypical need for family structures that were originally conceived as a response to accentuate our innate and practical understanding of communal cohesiveness or our innate relationship with the primordial fecundity imbued in nature and spirituality. And even that which was known as the most recent traditional Black family (by western standards) was purposely designed over the years, that’s why since when the first European capitalist explored, invaded and subjugated Africa they immediately started destroying and devaluing all empowered collectives and communal structures, and imbued the colonized with other values conducive to exploitation.

This socio-cultural hegemony has been advanced into the modern world with anti-family concepts such as welfare, fast food, the marketing of individualism, redefining generational cohesiveness, and defining a more consumer oriented family structure easily manipulated and compartmentalized (the nuclear/techno family). A single Black woman (especially with children) as an end-using consumer is easily exploited in a patriarchal system, and if the Black woman is exploited, than the Black nation as a whole is exploited. But as a whole, the most disenfranchised, marginalized, and oppressed are usually the ones affected the most.

A large, powerful and cohesive family with communal values is a threat to the profits and marketing manipulations of the Techno-carpetbaggers. Again I’m not advocating the destruction of the family, but I suggest increasing our understanding of the family unit as it relates the viability of the whole community, especially in this alien techno-modernist culture. The communal aspects of family must return, not just in superfluous socio-cultural concepts and programs that are rewarding in part, but that which is directed at redeeming all aspects of life and living.

We need actual African families (bigger and bolder than ever) that prosper and eat from the same pot, with no need for social programs, mentorship, role models and artificial fill-ins to replace a balanced and fully functional family unit.

Sun Ship

03-25-2006, 10:49 PM

Again, we are on one accord (as we often are :D)

I realize, that just with the whole Poly-gyny/gamy/andry scenario, it would behoove me to clarify my position on Matriarchy, as you have done here.

It was always my perspective that Matriarchy was not the diametric opposition to Patriarchy (the exception being the Amazons), but rather the balance as you have eloquently demonstrated in the above emboldened statements of yours.

However, I think it would be to my own behest to cease and desist using this term "MATRIARCHY" as a means of exclusively denoting this set of ideas and values.

This is no different than the movement of "FEMINISM" asserting itself as the direct opposition to modern "masculinism".

What should have been taking place was a call for Matrism, as you have stated earlier. In fact, this feminist movement would have been the perfect time for a call for balance........Though I think the males of the world at that time would not have stood for such a thing, especially when they brutally lorded their power over women.

Let it be known, though, that technically, Matriarchy as a term is not always inaccurate :nono: If and when a Queen, the likes of HATSHEPSUT or BILQUIS ruled as they did, would that not be deemed "matriarchial", even though it was under the auspices of the principles of matrism that you have outlined here?

PEACE

Brother Samurai, I don’t think we are too much at odds, but matriarchy is a word that was an afterthought to patriarchy, which as a historically defined exclusionary institution is imbalanced and distorted, and it also many times deracinated, castigated, devalued and misogynistically distorted all that was feminine. Because socially defined and institutionalized patriarchy is such a unique anomaly, today many scholars are now seeking to properly define societies where women were at the center, or feminine metaphysical and philosophical principles were significant or balanced with the male counterpart, this is why terms such as matristic, matrifocal and gynocratic have been added to the scholarly discourse.

In reference to matriarchy as a possibility, the Amazon woman-ruled society has never been totally proven to have existed, and at the least very debatable. And if a very powerful woman society such as the Amazons existed, did it really surmount to an all out matriarchal rule (as it relates to patriarchy)? And in the case of women rulers, there is no evidence that the societies they ruled over were given over to the type of absolutism and exclusive dominance of one gender, as we see in institutional patriarchalism. Even when African kings ruled or led their people, the socio-cultural structure of these societies were still matristic, (in Kemet the throne was in the lap of Aset). In some ancient African Asiatic societies, a king could not rule until he was given that authority in ritual with the temple high priestess, for she represented the Mother Goddess on earth.

Peace

kemetkind

03-25-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

We need actual African families (bigger and bolder than ever) that prosper and eat from the same pot, with no need for social programs, mentorship, role models and artificial fill-ins to replace a balanced and fully functional family unit.

Brother Sun Ship, I could not agree more with this!

But for clarity's sake, could you further define this fully functional family unit?

Is it women and children only with tertiary relationships with a small number of males, or something else?

Sun Ship

03-26-2006, 10:14 AM

Brother Sun Ship, I could not agree more with this!

But for clarity's sake, could you further define this fully functional family unit?

Is it women and children only with tertiary relationships with a small number of males, or something else?
I’m talking about the African concept of family that has existed successfully for hundreds of thousands outside of the influences of Indo-Europeans. Even Africans have lost some of their more conducive and civil understanding that is still at the ideological core of the African socio-cultural construct. Africa has had to deal with the distorted values of outsiders since the Ptolemaic Greeks and the invasive Indo-European Asiatic, let alone the Arabs and European colonist. I do believe there are working concepts worth analysis, that will bring the Black family back to its feet, but I believe it takes bold thinking. I’m not trying to copy anything; I just want find what works for our present conditions and change the causalities.

If you really explore what was described as a matristic system, which is more civil and functional than the nondescript matriarchy that is practiced ineffectively by default in our community, you will see that there is NO way Black women and children would have a lower ranking in the dynamics of family or nation building. The male’s role of effective leadership should always be an elective in the paradigm of basically a woman’s rule. This is not about the dominance of man or woman, but balance with a defined and divine purpose congruent with the nature of each, applicable to the overall prosperity or gains of the community as a whole. The role of male leadership should a naturally occurring elective role, for we know that even today women by nature (even with our societies present distortions) still selectively choose whom they will couple with, copulate with, as well as who will father their children. This part of their nature needs to be repaired and reevaluated by our Black women themselves, and this takes study, introspection, observation, intuition and wisdom.

Women and children obviously were seen as a very solidified natural organism in most matristic aboriginal societies, they were a cohesive entity. Female bonding (sisterhood) and mothering was the majority status. No single mothers or fatherless children (illegitimacy) were allowed in polygynous-based cultures; single motherhood is a new culturally accepted concept, and is being upheld by both Black men and women.

African marriage system was not really polygynous or monogamous (both modern terms), it was a marital system that exemplified balance and made sure “the circle was always unbroken”. It was like most first world cultures, it was all-inclusive and not promoting one exclusive social caste over another, refusing the basic needs of life to one group, as opposed to the fortunate as we have today; the rich vs. the poor, the employed vs. the unemployed, the working mom vs. the house-wife, the homeless vs. the housed, the single woman vs. the married woman, so forth and so on. Eventually one is defined as good, and the other seemingly lesser or even bad. If our society were philosophically, communally and spiritually balanced none of these social stratums would for the most part exist to have negativity attached to them.

Among the progressive and revolutionary-thinking Black community how far will some of us go to mend the circle and be on the vanguard of properly defining or redefining the New African family? Is there any ancestral knowledge or cultures that can guide us? Can we expand our minds beyond our individualism, negroisms, hang-ups and personal capitalisms, or Europeanisms to think for ourselves and risk the possibility of change, something different and possibly more productive? Can Africans be allowed to be futuristic thinkers? I’m talking bold applicable knowledge and action, not rhetorical and theoretical ideology.

The modern African family must redefine their objectives to counterbalance the onslaught Techno-modernism, which is creating an illusive cyber-vision of life. The more disjointed and parasitical the Black community is, someone else prospers and gains from this rapid spiraling towards a genocidal implosion. Even the welfare state makes other rich.

NNQueen

03-26-2006, 10:46 AM

kemetkind

03-26-2006, 10:55 AM

Brother sunship,

The working concepts worthy of analysis you speak of, can you provide a few references? I'm interested in learning more on this.

kemetkind

03-26-2006, 11:03 AM

Brother Kemetkind, the value that I find in the points that I highlighted for further exploration is exactly what is happening now. They served to ignite some deeper discussion from different perspectives in an intellectual way. Maybe I didn't word my intent clearly enough but that was my purpose for writing what I did.

Peace,
Queenie :spinstar:

Right, I agree the analysis here is a necessary and positive one thus your intent of igniting discussion was realized.

But my question to you was what strategies you saw following from Samurai's presentation.

I am not a sociologist nor an expert in this area but am genuinely interested in strategies.

Aqil

03-26-2006, 11:32 AM

'Marriage Is for White People'

By Joy Jones
Washington Post

I grew up in a time when two-parent families were still the norm, in both black and white America. Then, as an adult, I saw divorce become more commonplace, then almost a rite of passage. Today it would appear that many - particularly in the black community - have dispensed with marriage altogether.

But as a black woman, I have witnessed the outrage of girlfriends when the ex failed to show up for his weekend with the kids, and I've seen the disappointment of children who missed having a dad around. Having enjoyed a close relationship with my own father, I made a conscious decision that I wanted a husband, not a live-in boyfriend and not a "baby's daddy," when it came my time to mate and marry. My time never came. For years, I wondered why not. And then some 12-year-olds enlightened me. "Marriage is for white people."

That's what one of my students told me some years back when I taught a career exploration class for sixth-graders at an elementary school in Southeast Washington. I was pleasantly surprised when the boys in the class stated that being a good father was a very important goal to them, more meaningful than making money or having a fancy title. "That's wonderful!" I told my class. "I think I'll invite some couples in to talk about being married and rearing children." "Oh no," objected one student. "We're not interested in the part about marriage. Only about how to be good fathers." And that's when the other boy chimed in, speaking as if the words left a nasty taste in his mouth: "Marriage is for white people."

He's right. At least statistically. The marriage rate for African-Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3% of black men and 41.9% of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4% and 20.7% respectively for whites. African-American women are the least-likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17%; but for blacks, it fell by 34%. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African-Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country.

How have we gotten here? What has shifted in African-American customs, in our community, in our consciousness, that has made marriage seem unnecessary or unattainable?

Although slavery was an atrocious social system, men and women back then nonetheless often succeeded in establishing working families. In his account of slave life and culture, Roll, Jordan, Roll, historian Eugene D. Genovese wrote: "A slave in Georgia prevailed on his master to sell him to Jamaica so that he could find his wife, despite warnings that his chances of finding her on so large an island were remote. Another slave in Virginia chopped his left hand off with a hatchet to prevent being sold away from his son." I was stunned to learn that a black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he/she is today, according to sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin.

Traditional notions of family, especially the extended family network, endure. But working mothers, unmarried couples living together, out-of-wedlock births, birth control, divorce and remarriage have transformed the social landscape. And no one seems to feel this more than African-American women. One told me that with today's changing mores, it's hard to know "what normal looks like" when it comes to courtship, marriage and parenthood. Sex, love and child-bearing have become "a la carte" choices rather than a package deal that comes with marriage. Moreover, in an era of brothers on the "down low," the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases and the decline of the stable blue-collar jobs that black men used to hold, linking one's fate to a man makes marriage a risky business for a black woman. "A woman who takes that step is bold and brave," one young single mother told me. "Women don't want to marry because they don't want to lose their freedom."

Among African-Americans, the desire for marriage seems to have a different trajectory for women and men. My observation is that black women in their twenties and early thirties want to marry and commit at a time when black men their age are more likely to enjoy playing the field. As the woman realizes that a good marriage may not be as possible or sustainable as she would like, her focus turns to having a baby, or possibly improving her job status, perhaps by returning to school or investing more energy in her career.

As men mature, and begin to recognize the benefits of having a roost and roots (and to feel the consequences of their risky bachelor behavior), they are more willing to marry and settle down. By this time, however, many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage to a man who doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed, he may bring too much to the table: children and their mothers from previous relationships, limited earning power, and the fallout from years of drug use, poor health care, sexual promiscuity. In other words, for the circumspect black woman, marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment.

In the past, marriage was primarily just such a business deal. Among wealthy families, it solidified political alliances or expanded land holdings. For poorer people, it was a means of managing the farm or operating a household. Today, people have become economically self-sufficient as individuals, no longer requiring a spouse for survival. African-American women have always had a high rate of labor-force participation. "Why should well-salaried women marry?" asked black feminist and author Alice Dunbar-Nelson as early as 1895. But now, instead of access only to low-paying jobs, we can earn a breadwinner's wage, which has changed what we want in a husband. "Women's expectations have changed dramatically while men's have not changed much at all," said one well-paid working wife and mother. "Women now say, 'Providing is not enough. I need more partnership.'"

The turning point in my own thinking about marriage came when a long-time friend proposed about five years ago. He and I had attended college together, dated briefly, then kept in touch through the years. We built a solid friendship, which I believe is a good foundation for a successful marriage. But...if we had married, I would have had to relocate to the Midwest. Been there, done that, didn't like it. I would have had to become a stepmother and, although I felt an easy camaraderie with his son, stepmotherhood is usually a bumpy ride. I wanted a house and couldn't afford one alone. But I knew that if I was willing to make some changes, I eventually could.

As I reviewed the situation, I realized that all the things I expected marriage to confer - male companionship, close family ties, a house - I already had, or were within reach, and with exponentially less drama. I can do bad by myself, I used to say as I exited a relationship. But the truth is, I can do pretty good by myself, too.

Most single black women over the age of 30 whom I know would not mind getting married, but acknowledge that the kind of man and the quality of marriage they would like to have may not be likely, and they are not desperate enough to simply accept any situation just to have a man. A number of my married friends complain that taking care of their husbands feels like having an additional child to raise. Then there's the fact that marriage apparently can be hazardous to the health of black women. A recent study by the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think-tank in New York City, indicates that married African-American women are less healthy than their single sisters.

By design or by default, black women cultivate those skills that allow them to maintain themselves (or sometimes even to prosper) without a mate. "If Jesus Christ bought me an engagement ring, I wouldn't take it," a separated thirty-something friend told me. "I'd tell Jesus we could date, but we couldn't marry."

And here's the new twist. African-American women aren't the only ones deciding that they can make do alone. Often what happens in black America is a sign of what the rest of America can eventually expect. In his 2003 book, Mismatch: The Growing Gulf between Women and Men, Andrew Hacker noted that the structure of white families is evolving in the direction of that of black families of the 1960s. In 1960, 67% of black families were headed by a husband and wife, compared to 90.9% for whites. By 2000, the figure for white families had dropped to 79.8%. Births to unwed white mothers were 22.5% in 2001, compared to 2.3% in 1960. So my student who thought marriage is for white people may have to rethink that in the future.

Still, does this mean that marriage is going the way of the phonograph and the typewriter ribbon? "I hope it isn't," said one friend who's been married for seven years. "The divorce rate is 50%, but people remarry. People want to be married. I don't think it's going out of style." A black male acquaintance had a different prediction. "I don't believe marriage is going to be extinct, but I think you'll see fewer people married," he said. "It's a bad thing. I believe it takes the traditional family - a man and a woman - to raise kids." He has worked with troubled adolescents, and has observed that "the girls who are in the most trouble and who are abused the most - the father is absent. And the same is true for the boys, too." He believes that his presence and example in the home is why both his sons decided to marry when their girlfriends became pregnant.

But human nature, being what it is, if marriage is to flourish - in black or white America - it will have to offer an individual woman something more than a business alliance, a panacea for what ails the community, or an incubator for rearing children. As one woman said, "If it weren't for the intangibles, the allure of the lovey-dovey stuff, I wouldn't have gotten married. The benefits of marriage are his character and his caring. If not for that, why bother?"

(Joy Jones, a Washington writer, is the author of Between Black Women: Listening With the Third Ear. E-mail: joythink@aol.com)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500029.html?sub=AR

SAMURAI36

03-27-2006, 10:13 AM

Of course you're allowed to say what you wish, but simply asserting a comprehension failure on my part does not make it so.

Likewise, making such a counterassertion does not in and of itself substantiate.

Whether "equates to" was an incorrect paraphrase of your intended meaning of "results in" is a hair-splitting semantic distinction and wholly tangential to whether I failed to comprehend your central message....

The fact that you would seek to "split hairs" over words that are in no way synonymous, only serves to substantiate my assertion that you mayhaps do not fully comprehend what I am saying. What I had stated, was in fact what I had intended to state. I maintain that my statements were not lost in translation, but rather in comprehension.

The "result of" something, is in no way the same as something "equating to" something else.

In your speaking of cancer later in your response, having cancer is the "result of" a bad diet, poor living, etc. It's does not "equate to" these things.

that the destruction of two parent household is actually a positive for our community. By your own elaboration in response, you reveal my initial assesment accurate.

Here, you are further evincing that you do not fully comprehend what I have said, be it implicit or explicit.

Thus, I will remove the any implicit notions, and replace them with strictly explicit ones:

I do not think that the current state of the Black family is "positive" (never did I use that word, nor any word remotely synonymous). In fact, I think it is tumultuous, arduous, and downright horrid.

Wonderful metaphor and would have a dramatic effect no doubt were you preaching to the choir.

Perhaps indeed, if I had used a metaphor to start with, which I did not. Just like your statement about cancer, I used an ANALOGY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/analogy.html), not a METAPHOR (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/metaphor.html). Not to take anything away from your obvious acumen, this misunderstand could serve as a pathology, leading to why you still misperceive my statements here.

And, in speaking of pathologies:

But I'd see the state of our families with a different metaphor...i.e. we have a sickness, a cancer formed by embracing of American materialism, and new-age notions of family. Should we excise and treat our cancer we may return to health, otherwise, we die.

There will be no diamonds to mine if the coal itself ceases to exist.

Please know, that your statement was the metaphor, while mine was not.

Digression aside, in the medical field, dealing with pathologies is the key to discovering how diseases play themselves out.

In both the realms of medicine and sociology, the Black Man possesses an acute and uncanny resiliency, closely resembling, and perhaps even surpassing even that of the Cockroach. We have been able to bounce back from the worst of scenarios, emerging stronger than we were previously prior. And just like the Roach, spray us with chemicals, drop bombs on us, burn us, spray waterhoses on us, stomp us nearly to death, and we'll just keep coming.

Cancer is the worst (natural occuring) physiological disease in the history of humanity. However, if left unchecked (especially be default, since there is no viable "cure" for this disease), we will eventually expunge this disease from us entirely.

Why cannot the same thing be said of the condition of the Black family? Remember, this condition is only a few decades old; barely an entire generation.

The cure lies in the pathology, not in the diagnosis.

Moreto besides, whether analogy or metaphor, you still did not comprehend my point with it.

Your 2 statements:

Should we excise and treat our cancer we may return to health, otherwise, we die.

And...

There will be no diamonds to mine if the coal itself ceases to exist.

Are bereft of your understanding of their intrinsic connection. All long as something is dying, there will always be coal, as evinced in my earlier statement about the coal:

Even nature herself shows us this: the sut waste of the earth in the form of coal, becomes a diamond in its raw, yet compressed form.

When "we die" (certainly you don't think all of us will die from this? You don't think Darwin's Theory will prevail?), we will become the coal that gets pressed into diamond.

When we survive this, it will be because we created independent solutions, and reclaimed our collective culture.

I agree totally, that this is most certainly an assertive means of curing our ills. However, since neither you nor anyone else has offered a viable means of accomplishing this ("reclaiming our collective culture" is a vague generalism, in which it could be argued has already been tried), I'm opting that our only alternative to creating these "independent solutions" will be to let evolution run it's course, as it usually and always has.

As I've stated before, the Universe moves in cycles, and not in a straight line. Where we are, is because of where we have been, and where we have been, is where we are going.

I do not imagine that throwing our hands up and assuming families composed of women and children only constitutes a solution, no matter how much we'd like to draw parallels with some ancient cultures led by black women.

Neither do I, and neither have I asserted any such thing, implicitly or otherwise.

However, it's interesting, how irreverently you speak of "some ancient cultures led by black women", yet you claim that "reclaiming our collective culture" is the solution for our predicament.

This is why I said that your offers for solutions were vague generalisms, because it doesn't appear to me, that you have a keen understanding of these "colletive cultures" in question, and how they might or might not relate to us.

I also do not fathom, that these "growing pains" you speak of, are only present because of our failure to recognize the historical validity of these new family structures we are reintegrating into.

This lack of fathoming, in my view, is only because you do not have the keenest understanding of all the constituents that play a part in such a reintergration.

Out of curiosity, how much of your own understanding of Matriarchy, Matrilenny, and Matrism proper, as it relates to "our collective culture" do/did you have, prior to myself and others speaking of it here?

If that were the case, all we'd need is a history lesson and all the single parent households would begin turning out healthy children.

Once again then, I'm questioning how you feel our "collective culture" is to be implemented in correcting our condition as a people?

Would you mind submitting your purposal for your detailed solution to this matter? How are we to reclaim this "collective culture" of ours, if doing so does not begin with a "simple history lesson"?

No, I don't know that all things disintegrate.

That had become apparent, in your spurning of my "coal" analogy. However, I'm inclinded to ask: is this lack of knowing on your part, incidental, or a refusal to know it, because you disagree?

But for the sake of this discussion, your point is valid; it is unknown if the current trends in our family units will eventually "result in" a return to our ancient status.

Fair enough; as I'd stated, this was but a theory of mine.

Lacking any supporting rationale other than a few selective historical references, I'd venture not only unknown, but unlikely.

Why? You made the assertion to refute my theory, yet did not include any substantial info, revealing why or how you refute it.

I am not so sure black families in this country have ever been anything but Matriarchies. Black women have always exercised significant power in the black community. Our version of christianity has never been the same as the europeans.

Our Brother SUN SHIP's explanation about Matriarchy, et-al not withstanding, would you mind giving examples of Matriarchy/Matrilenny/Matrism in the traditional Black family in this society (single-parent scenarios notwithstanding)?

I agree that our version of Christianity is different from the White man's but that is not to say that they are not connected. The white man worships a white Jesus, the same as he had us do. His Bible speaks of Patriarchy, the same as the one he gave us did.

I'm not interested in "usurping" your theories, brother. I don't view this as a contest.

Fair enough, and neither do I; perhaps "supplant" was the better term. Either way, it is your intent to replace an incorrect notion with a more correct and applicable one, yes?

I'm interested in viable strategies. Which is specifically why I posed a question to NNQueen. If you were to cull your presentation down into a strategy what would it be?

My strategy would be to let nature/evolution run its course, with those of the elite of us, exercising the practice of damage control along the way.

I'm sure you do not see this as an amiable alternative, so I'm inclined to ask what your strategy would be in lieu of mine.

My perspective is black families cannot be allowed to disintegrate unchecked while using history's brush to paint it in a positive light.

But that is just my perspective.

With your perspective, I most certainly agree, but please know that your persepective does not constitute a strategy, and I yet await yours.

PEACE

SAMURAI36

03-27-2006, 10:16 AM

Brother Samurai, I don’t think we are too much at odds, but matriarchy is a word that was an afterthought to patriarchy, which as a historically defined exclusionary institution is imbalanced and distorted, and it also many times deracinated, castigated, devalued and misogynistically distorted all that was feminine. Because socially defined and institutionalized patriarchy is such a unique anomaly, today many scholars are now seeking to properly define societies where women were at the center, or feminine metaphysical and philosophical principles were significant or balanced with the male counterpart, this is why terms such as matristic, matrifocal and gynocratic have been added to the scholarly discourse.

In reference to matriarchy as a possibility, the Amazon woman-ruled society has never been totally proven to have existed, and at the least very debatable. And if a very powerful woman society such as the Amazons existed, did it really surmount to an all out matriarchal rule (as it relates to patriarchy)? And in the case of women rulers, there is no evidence that the societies they ruled over were given over to the type of absolutism and exclusive dominance of one gender, as we see in institutional patriarchalism. Even when African kings ruled or led their people, the socio-cultural structure of these societies were still matristic, (in Kemet the throne was in the lap of Aset). In some ancient African Asiatic societies, a king could not rule until he was given that authority in ritual with the temple high priestess, for she represented the Mother Goddess on earth.

Peace

Wow, I honestly don't feel like I have anything to add here. You have said all that I have strived to say here myself. :bowdown:

PEACE

uplift19

03-27-2006, 03:43 PM

Wow, I honestly don't feel like I have anything to add here. You have said all that I have strived to say here myself. :bowdown: PEACE

:jawdrop: :)

SAMURAI36

03-27-2006, 03:51 PM

HA, HA.......very funny. :pie: :D

kemetkind

03-28-2006, 02:27 AM

The fact that you would seek to "split hairs" over words that are in no way synonymous, only serves to substantiate my assertion that you mayhaps do not fully comprehend what I am saying. What I had stated, was in fact what I had intended to state. I maintain that my statements were not lost in translation, but rather in comprehension.

The "result of" something, is in no way the same as something "equating to" something else.

In your speaking of cancer later in your response, having cancer is the "result of" a bad diet, poor living, etc. It's does not "equate to" these things.

Here, you are further evincing that you do not fully comprehend what I have said, be it implicit or explicit.

Thus, I will remove the any implicit notions, and replace them with strictly explicit ones:

Wow, I suppose I shouldn't expect less from an English major. You are trained to find significant the distinction between such phrases as "equates to" and "results in". As one trained in scientific and analytical disciplines, I find that distinction trivial.

For purposes of informal communication, MOST would comprehend 2+2 "equates to" 4, just as 2+2 "results in" 4. MOST non-English majors would agree, colloquially, those phrases are indeed synonymous.

You scoring 50% on your Chaucer exam equates to a failing grade. You scoring 50% on your Chaucer exam results in a failing grade. The final meaning is the same; you failed Chaucer.

It is a rather common tactic here to question comprehension, intelligence, or knowledge of those who disagree (I've noticed you deploy it frequently), but it is nevertheless a revealing and tired smokescreen providing cover for a limp argument.

I do not think that the current state of the Black family is "positive" (never did I use that word, nor any word remotely synonymous). In fact, I think it is tumultuous, arduous, and downright horrid.

You may not have used a single word synonymous with "positive", but the final solution of your presentation does indeed imply the current black family trends are positive.

If it is your position black families SHOULD disintegrate, so that they can later magically "reintegrate" into their historical splendor, and we're all aware OUR FAMILIES ARE DISINTEGRATING, doesn't that "equate to" you characterizing our current state as positive, since in your eyes it is actually our precursor to progress?

pos·i·tive Audio pronunciation of "positive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pz-tv)
adj.

1. Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation: a positive answer; positive criticism.
2. Measured or moving forward or in a direction of increase or progress.

In fact you used phrases such as "renaissance", "coming full circle" and "ultimately may prove to be beneficial" in describing our current state of affairs.

Unfortunately the English major in you bids you to mince words rather than conceed those are "positive" characterizations.

Perhaps indeed, if I had used a metaphor to start with, which I did not. Just like your statement about cancer, I used an ANALOGY (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/analogy.html), not a METAPHOR (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/metaphor.html). Not to take anything away from your obvious acumen, this misunderstand could serve as a pathology, leading to why you still misperceive my statements here....

Please know, that your statement was the metaphor, while mine was not.

Again, your linguistic training serves as crutch in place of legitimate argument.

Definitely, I incorrectly classified your analogy as metaphor.

Thank you for the correction brother, but really now, what has that to do with the price of tea in china?

And you move further to propose this mistake could serve as "pathology!"

As an english major, I'm sure you know what that word means, and surely you can see the ridiculous conclusion you have drawn by using it.

But again, back to the topic, since my pathology diagnosed by using metaphor in place of analogy equates to and results in me having little confidence in your willingness to converse honestly (or adequately reason) in that regard.

Digression aside, in the medical field, dealing with pathologies is the key to discovering how diseases play themselves out.

In both the realms of medicine and sociology, the Black Man possesses an acute and uncanny resiliency, closely resembling, and perhaps even surpassing even that of the Cockroach. We have been able to bounce back from the worst of scenarios, emerging stronger than we were previously prior. And just like the Roach, spray us with chemicals, drop bombs on us, burn us, spray waterhoses on us, stomp us nearly to death, and we'll just keep coming.

While I got a good chuckle from this, and have seen others use the cockroach as a proud symbol of resiliency, it smacks of naivete in the context of this discussion, a condition I had not previously associated with you.

I have complete faith in our ability to bounce back from our current plight, but it will not be because we are like the cockroach (which survives a decapitation and dies days later only from dehydration, can produce 400,000 descendants per year, and adapts to any food source including its own feces).

I imagine with such advantages this thread would be unnecessary.

Cancer is the worst (natural occuring) physiological disease in the history of humanity. However, if left unchecked (especially be default, since there is no viable "cure" for this disease), we will eventually expunge this disease from us entirely.

Why cannot the same thing be said of the condition of the Black family? Remember, this condition is only a few decades old; barely an entire generation.

Your rhetoric again outpaces your logic.

Cancer has been around since the history of humanity....it's illogical to imagine we do nothing about a disease that has plagued us for thousands of years and magically one day, by attrition alone, it goes away, just as it's illogical to imagine we do nothing about the deterioration of our families and, magically, we "reintergrate" into something better.

When "we die" (certainly you don't think all of us will die from this? You don't think Darwin's Theory will prevail?), we will become the coal that gets pressed into diamond.

Hmmm...it appears, english major though you may be, you have failed to comprehend MY metaphor.

Oh well.

Some believe the stakes for failed strategy are extinction; some don't.

I'm certain our enemy does.

I'm opting that our only alternative to creating these "independent solutions" will be to let evolution run it's course, as it usually and always has.

I dunno brother English Major, earlier you question me about Darwin's theories prevailing, but your ultimate solution for black folks is "let evolution run it's course":cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Now I am surprised a mincer of words confuses a posessive pronoun with a contraction (http://englishlanguage.allinfoabout.com/difficulties/its.html) and further butchers his witty presentation with redundant phrases like "usually and always has." However, like "equates to" or "results in" or metaphor vs. analogy, it's not relevant.

Despite your commendable and studied "consciousness", your strategy of let us do nothing and die so that we may one day live sounds too much like promises of the chicken-eatin Sunday preacher for my comfort...

Out of curiosity, how much of your own understanding of Matriarchy, Matrilenny, and Matrism proper, as it relates to "our collective culture" do/did you have, prior to myself and others speaking of it here?

Honestly, most of my understanding of African Matriarchy/Matrilenny, other than my own experience of how my own family works, came only recently as a result of doing some study after engaging SunShip in another thread on another board about another topic.

Prior to that, I indeed believed patriarchy played a more prominent role in black families historically. I've learned some, and having an interest in this area, intend to study it more.

But my primary focus has never been sociology, which is why I came into this thread querying for strategy rather than offering solutions.

I'm here to learn.

But I don't have to be a pilot to know if you ask me to get on your plane with one wing, no rudder, and you yourself aren't sure it flies, I'd be best served telling you to go head on with that bruh....I'll find the next flight.

SAMURAI36

03-28-2006, 01:22 PM

Wow, I suppose I shouldn't expect less from an English major. You are trained to find significant the distinction between such phrases as "equates to" and "results in". As one trained in scientific and analytical disciplines, I find that distinction trivial.

For purposes of informal communication, MOST would comprehend 2+2 "equates to" 4, just as 2+2 "results in" 4. MOST non-English majors would agree, colloquially, those phrases are indeed synonymous.

You scoring 50% on your Chaucer exam equates to a failing grade. You scoring 50% on your Chaucer exam results in a failing grade. The final meaning is the same; you failed Chaucer.

All you have established here, is that we are of 2 different, though mutually respected disciplines. The wrongness in what I have, and am saying, however, has not been established.

Since you are indeed a student of science, I'm sure you can confirm that sexual intercourse betwixt a man and woman can "result in" conception (though not in all cases), but it certainly does not "equate to" such (especially in all cases).

This is simply faulty syllogysm, since we are talking 2 disciplines that are not always congruent with each other.

However, for future reference, please know that while English is indeed my main field, it's not my only field.

I am at least slightly versed in the realm of Science as well (though perhaps not as versed as you are).

A wise man is he who knows something about everything, not everything about one thing.

But I digress.......

It is a rather common tactic here to question comprehension, intelligence, or knowledge of those who disagree (I've noticed you deploy it frequently), but it is nevertheless a revealing and tired smokescreen providing cover for a limp argument.

Brother, I'd much rather refrain from such critiquing, as it can only "result in" insulting one another, as it need not "equate to" that. I would much rather maintain the spirit in which the Sister originally intended for this thread, that being one of civl discourse. I had strived to overlook your "Miss Piggy" comment from earlier, in attempts to maintain such a Spirit.

As a student of science yourself, I would think that you would appreciate such a gesture.

Nonetheless, please know that not once have I questioned your intelligence or knowledge. As you and I have engaged in discussion before, I am well aware of your level of intelligence and knowledge, and I'm quite impressed by it.

However, with regards to your comprehension, you are at least partially correct; I did indeed question it, but only as it pertains to what I have been saying here and now (which is my right to do so), and not in general :nono:

You may not have used a single word synonymous with "positive", but the final solution of your presentation does indeed imply the current black family trends are positive.

Do you not think that nothing "positive" can come of something "negative"? If so, then I'm not sure why this is being seen and made as an issue.

If it is your position black families SHOULD disintegrate, so that they can later magically "reintegrate" into their historical splendor, and we're all aware OUR FAMILIES ARE DISINTEGRATING, doesn't that "equate to" you characterizing our current state as positive, since in your eyes it is actually our precursor to progress?

You are #1) oversimplifying my perspective, as well as #2) over-exaggerating it.
And even though you seem annoyed by my questioning your comprehension of what I'm saying, you continuously give me cause to do so.

For one, I never said that the Black family SHOULD disintegrate, nor do I want it to. But what I think it "should" do, has no bearing nor effect on what it IS doing.

Unless you or someone else has a pragmatic solution to stop it from occuring, then it won't take a scientist (no pun intended) to see that the disintergration--nay, the DESTRUCTION of the Black family is inevitible.

Secondly, no one has said anything about any reintegration "magically" occuring. That is a gross miscomprehension of what I have been saying here.

Does coal "magically" turn into a diamond?

And speaking of progress, the means do not always equate to the ends. Though the even of child birth is a joyous event, does that somehow mean that child labor is "pleasurable" for a woman?

Do you not recall me speaking of growing pains, in my original post? Are growing pains (or pain of any kind, for that matter), in your view, considered to be "fun" or "positive"?

Moreover, I had even sought to clarify my point in my previous post, by saying that we are going through tumultuous, arduous, and horrid times.......Do these terms, in your view, "equate to" being positive?

Brother, you ask me not to question your comprehension, yet you have given me sufficient reason to honor this.

pos·i·tive Audio pronunciation of "positive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pz-tv)
adj.

1. Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation: a positive answer; positive criticism.
2. Measured or moving forward or in a direction of increase or progress.

Certainly, these are some definitions for "positive", but certainly not the only definitions:

pos·i·tive [ pózzətiv ]

adjective

Definitions:

1. sure: certain and not in doubt

2. law irrefutable: conclusive and beyond doubt or question
positive identification of the suspect

3. optimistic: confident, optimistic, and focusing on good things rather than bad
a positive attitude about work

4. beneficial: producing good results because of having an innately beneficial character
a very positive experience

5. encouraging good behavior: encouraging behavior, especially in the young, that is considered morally good
a positive role model

6. affirmative: indicating agreement or affirmation
positive feedback

The emboldened statements are the context in which I utilize this term.

In fact you used phrases such as "renaissance", "coming full circle" and "ultimately may prove to be beneficial" in describing our current state of affairs.

None of which "equates to" "positive", at least not in the context in which I am speaking.

Unfortunately the English major in you bids you to mince words rather than conceed those are "positive" characterizations.

Actually, the English major within me bids me to clarify the meanings of the words that I use for the purpose of clear understanding. The term "mincing words" is a layman's one; used by a person who does not have the patience nor appreciation for this process of clarification.

It's no different than how I was told by a certain Brother on here, that I am in the habit of "over-intellectualizing"......Only a non-intellectual would see it as such, just as a non-English Major would think that I am merely "mincing words".

As English and Grammar are in fact sciences (though not always exact ones), I would think that the Scientist within you (especially with such an analytical perspective) would appreciate such a labor.

Again, your linguistic training serves as crutch in place of legitimate argument.

Apparently thus far, my only "argument" here, is that you do not understand what I am saying. Beyond this, I really don't see what is being argued.

Definitely, I incorrectly classified your analogy as metaphor.

Fair enough.

Thank you for the correction brother, but really now, what has that to do with the price of tea in china?

Apparently nothing, as it was only a digression, as I had made it my business to mention therewith.

And you move further to propose this mistake could serve as "pathology!"

As an english major, I'm sure you know what that word means, and surely you can see the ridiculous conclusion you have drawn by using it.

Must I post the definition of "pathology" as well, to indicate its context in which I use it?

It doesn't take an English major to see your pathology--one that you continue to perpetuate--both in that and because you continue to not understand what I am saying.

But again, back to the topic, since my pathology diagnosed by using metaphor in place of analogy equates to and results in me having little confidence in your willingness to converse honestly (or adequately reason) in that regard.

Uhmm, that's not the pathology that I speak of. But indeed, let's return to the discussion just the same.

While I got a good chuckle from this, and have seen others use the cockroach as a proud symbol of resiliency, it smacks of naivete in the context of this discussion, a condition I had not previously associated with you.

Would you care to clarify why you would conclude such a condition on my part?

I have complete faith in our ability to bounce back from our current plight, but it will not be because we are like the cockroach (which survives a decapitation and dies days later only from dehydration, can produce 400,000 descendants per year, and adapts to any food source including its own feces).

Hmmm, ironic, that this is not very unlike our own condition.

According to you, we are barely surviving decapitation (the loss of the "head" of the Black family unit), not to mention that we are over producing children, and are eating all sorts of material that passes for "food".

Yet, you speak to me of naivete.....?

I imagine with such advantages this thread would be unnecessary.

Weren't you the one who just stated:

I have complete faith in our ability to bounce back from our current plight,

?? :confused: ??

If so, then what precisely is the necessity of this thread?

Your rhetoric again outpaces your logic.

And your condescension and irreverence outpaces yours.

Cancer has been around since the history of humanity....it's illogical to imagine we do nothing about a disease that has plagued us for thousands of years and magically one day, by attrition alone, it goes away, just as it's illogical to imagine we do nothing about the deterioration of our families and, magically, we "reintergrate" into something better.

Wow........Well, it's a good thing that I have neither said, nor the slightest bit implied any of this.

Lest my "logic be outpaced" indeed. :?:

Hmmm...it appears, english major though you may be, you have failed to comprehend MY metaphor.

Oh well.

Yours is the free opport to explain it, as I have sought more than onceto do for you (yet to no avail). Assuming of course that I miscomprehended your metaphor to begin with (actually, I only expanded it with my own, but implicit within this was my understanding of yours).

Some believe the stakes for failed strategy are extinction; some don't.

I'm certain our enemy does.

I'm sure he does as well, since he is scientifically and historically known not to possess our resiliency.

I dunno brother English Major,

OK, this to me, is going beyond the realm of compliment, into the realm of patronizing......Please tell me that I am reading that wrongly.

earlier you question me about Darwin's theories prevailing, but your ultimate solution for black folks is "let evolution run it's course":cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

What does the cockroach assertively or actively do, to withstand its opposition? It hasn't "evolved" in the past million years that it's been in exsistence.

Is it smarter? Obviously not, as it will just stand there and let you spray it. Is it faster? Not hardly, because I can step on it, before it reaches safety.

So how does it survive?

Do you actually understand how Darwin's theory works? I'm sorry, but I have to question this, just to ensure that we are at least partially on the same page here.

Now I am surprised a mincer of words

OK, so this is patronizing......Thanks for clarifying.

confuses a posessive pronoun with a contraction (http://englishlanguage.allinfoabout.com/difficulties/its.html) and further butchers his witty presentation with redundant phrases like "usually and always has." However, like "equates to" or "results in" or metaphor vs. analogy, it's not relevant.

So, you're ranting here about my typo? I could see if I had consistently done this.

Yet, you speak to me about "lame arguments"???

I thought we were getting back to the topic....??? :confused:

Despite your commendable and studied "consciousness", your strategy of let us do nothing and die so that we may one day live sounds too much like promises of the chicken-eatin Sunday preacher for my comfort...

Where on earth do you get these @$$-umptions? No where in my posts have I said that my strategy amounts to "letting us do nothing and die". That is nothing, save your gross misinterpretation of all that I have said.

I implore you to substantiate any of your claims, by QUOTING my exact words, and rebutting them as you quote.

Otherwise, it's (was that correct for you?) as if you are having a conversation with the wrong person.

Honestly, most of my understanding of African Matriarchy/Matrilenny, other than my own experience of how my own family works, came only recently as a result of doing some study after engaging SunShip in another thread on another board about another topic.

Prior to that, I indeed believed patriarchy played a more prominent role in black families historically. I've learned some, and having an interest in this area, intend to study it more.

Then, I bid you return, when your understanding is to the degree to see how it all plays out......Could it possibly be that some of the notions I've laid forth here, might be on the mark, given that I've more of a solid foundation on Matriarchy, et-al, than you do?

Not to toot my own horn (you've been doing that for me all this time), but what sense does it make, to argue brain surgery with a neurologist?

But my primary focus has never been sociology, which is why I came into this thread querying for strategy rather than offering solutions.

I'm here to learn.

Fair enough, except that you've been shooting down all that I've been saying, dare I say whilst not truly understanding it, but certainly not having enough information to rebut it........But doing so just the same.

May I ask, why?

But I don't have to be a pilot to know if you ask me to get on your plane with one wing, no rudder, and you yourself aren't sure it flies, I'd be best served telling you to go head on with that bruh....I'll find the next flight.

Colorful analogy....Or was it a metaphor? :?:

Here's me expanding it once again:

There are plenty of aerospatial machines that very successfully operate without wings. I would ask that you not be so fixated on judging them all based on your perception of "planes", and mayhaps your flight might be just as safe and successful.

PEACE

uplift19

03-28-2006, 02:10 PM

Whereas he had always taken what he wanted (every thing from land to women) by force, now the White man need only marry or fraternize with a Black Queen, for the purpose of asserting himself to the throne himself,

Let us be mindful, he is still trying to do the same thing today so he can stay in power, because he sees his world is declining. (As a side note, I would NEVER go see that Sanaa Latham movie "Something New" :puke2: )

Families that are suffering because the absense of a father figure, could be viewed as the social evolution back to matriarchy and matrilenny, as Black women are having to reassert herself and her power (re: value/worth) in our communities.

The problem with this equation is that it is still unbalanced, because even in the matriarchy you spoke of the man needs to be there for protection. I think this has a negative effect on Black womem, because we have to be protector, provider, and nourisher. I find this an unnatural state to be in as a woman, I myself being the stereotypical product of a single-family household run by a woman. While the woman reasserting herself may in theory bring back balance, it seems to me it is more detrimental because it makes the woman even more imbalanced.

Regardless of how you frame the family equation, the absence of men will not necessarily get us back to matriarchy. For the children it can become more like anarchy :), as this generation is supposedly the most rebellious yet.

Unless you or someone else has a pragmatic solution to stop it from occuring, then it won't take a scientist (no pun intended) to see that the disintergration--nay, the DESTRUCTION of the Black family is inevitible.

Why is it inevitable? Just because the problems of the world cannot be solved in this forum does not mean there is no progress being made. The pragmatic solution starts with us in our own families.

However, I think that my ideal scenario would be the "common law" approach, as it alleviates the hassel of establishing my and her (my potential Queen's) individual worth to a society that has trouble establishing what value and worth is to begin with. However, part of this decision would be left up to my potential Queen, of course.

Just part? Yes, you must be single :laugh:

What if you met the ideal person and she wanted a traditional, more institutionalized wedding--would that be a deal breaker for you? As conscious as one might be, there are many sisters who still hold a fairy tale in their minds of what they want their weddings to be. These fantasies were shaped in the minds of young girls who wanted ponies and barbie dolls (I guess, I wasn't one of those types :)) and are hard to break. Many women already have their dream wedding in mind and just need a man in the equation. These dreams are not politicized and have nothing to do with our state as a people or anything like that. How would you bring balance to that type of mindset?

river

03-28-2006, 02:13 PM

I will boo, I love learning especially from an intelligent brother:love: :love: :love:
Isn't he?

Just like me
They long to be
Close to you

SAMURAI36

03-28-2006, 03:45 PM

Let us be mindful, he is still trying to do the same thing today so he can stay in power, because he sees his world is declining. (As a side note, I would NEVER go see that Sanaa Latham movie "Something New" :puke2: )

True indeed!!

As for the movie, I was equally disappointed in SANAA for doing this. If it's not Black men dressing up like a woman to get White Folks to laugh, then it's Black women being in love with White men.

All in the name of "entertainment".......What a sad people we are right now.

The problem with this equation is that it is still unbalanced, because even in the matriarchy you spoke of the man needs to be there for protection. I think this has a negative effect on Black womem, because we have to be protector, provider, and nourisher. I find this an unnatural state to be in as a woman, I myself being the stereotypical product of a single-family household run by a woman. While the woman reasserting herself may in theory bring back balance, it seems to me it is more detrimental because it makes the woman even more imbalanced.

Perhaps what our Brother KemetKind was looking for from me, is further explanation of my perspective. Perhaps had he not been so set on critiquing my debating style, focusing more on what I was saying, instead of how I was saying it, I might have seen that.

Just the same, your perspective here (both in content and form) has allowed me to realize as much, and I can now clarify:

I think that one of the benefits from this dire situation, is that Black women will now have to create fixed, immovable criteria for their mates, and not the conditional, meaningless, flaky stuff that I hear Sisters saying that they want these days.......And they'll have to stick to it.

I've asked Sisters many, many times, what are the qualities that they are looking for in a mate.....

I've heard everything from "somebody that's......well, you know........nice" to "I'm looking for a man that can keep it real" to "I want a REAL man who can handle a REAL woman like me" and all sorts of outlandishness in between.

Even Ray Charles can see that these women don't have a clue what they want, let alone what a good man is. More the pity, that these Sisters are a reflection of what's going on in the world at large.

Now, please don't think I said this, to turn this into another "Blame the Black woman" discussion. :nono:

I only mentioned this, so that I could point out the difference in the Modern Black woman, and her ancient predecessor.

Speaking again of the Royal Queens who ruled their various and respective lands, she did not have the luxury of choosing her potential mate (KING) based on such flaky criteria......For she knew that to do so meant the fall of her kingdom. Thus, she knew that she only had one choice, and that she had to get it right the first time.

I think that if/when more Sisters (whom hold Matrilennial and Matrifocal power, whereas the man holds NONE) take their choice in mates more seriously, by adopting this ancient perspective that we once had, then the solution will perhaps, unfurl in and of itself.

When I have been saying numerous times on this site, that women have more power than they give themselves credit for, Matriarchy/Matrilenny/Matrism is what I have been speaking about.

Regardless of how you frame the family equation, the absence of men will not necessarily get us back to matriarchy. For the children it can become more like anarchy :), as this generation is supposedly the most rebellious yet.

These are the growing pains that I have been speaking of.

Still, if, as you said, women are becoming the "protector, provider, and nourisher" by default of the absense of Brothers, what then is this to be classified as, if not Matriarchy?

I think the problem people are having here, is that people are not being made to face the fact that the Black woman is being made (forced) by circumstances to re-inherit her power.

She doesn't have the luxury of being "swept off her feet" at this point, like the White woman was taught by way of the fairy tales that you allude to later in your response.

I'll be the first to admit, that I would much rather not have it occur in this fashion, because this transition is borne of coersion......However, in going back to my analogy, is it not pressure that turns coal into a diamond?

Otherwise, as this was simply a theory birthed through my own sociological observation, I'm open to other theories--which I have yet to hear, even as mine are being shot down.

Why is it inevitable? Just because the problems of the world cannot be solved in this forum does not mean there is no progress being made.

Fair enough, but since the goal (re: from that other thread) is to become global in thinking, and because Black people in America are so very provential in our mode(s) of thinking, where do you see this "progress" occuring, outside of a very individual level?

2 parts per million is not significant enough to catalogue as "progress".

The pragmatic solution starts with us in our own families.

How though? Solutions are not a "what", they are a "how". Otherwise, to say that it starts in our own families, is both a moot and redundant point, simultaneously.

And quite honestly, I think that Black women really don't realize the severity of this issue, because of our generally provential and myopic mindset. The Black community is not a reflection of the rest of the world. Our realization of this, will not only kill 2 birds with 1 stone, but it will also have whole flocks of birds setting themselves up for us to take a whack at them. :bazooka:

Just part? Yes, you must be single :laugh:

:lol:

What if you met the ideal person and she wanted a traditional, more institutionalized wedding--would that be a deal breaker for you?

As a "traditional, more institutionalized wedding" is tantamount to a "traditional, more institutionalized" marriage, then I'd have to question whether or not this person was in fact "ideal" for me.

As conscious as one might be, there are many sisters who still hold a fairy tale in their minds of what they want their weddings to be.

All the more belaboring the problem.

These fantasies were shaped in the minds of young girls who wanted ponies and barbie dolls (I guess, I wasn't one of those types :)) and are hard to break.

But not impossible. These same fantasies spawned little boys who ran around with toy machine guns, yelling "YO JOE!!"......These same little boys, who grow up to be men who beat up those little pony-wanting girls, after they have their "traditional, more institutionalized wedding".

At some point, we are going to have to divorce ourselves from the non-sense.

Just like we can't expect to eat swine and other garbage and have optimal health, we can't expect to have a healthy family life, while we have that Western Romantic (re: "Roman Antics") garbage in chained to our psyche(s).

Many women already have their dream wedding in mind and just need a man in the equation.

Matrilenny and Matrifocalism at it's finest....Or should I say worst, because it's being brought about under the wrong circumstances.

These dreams are not politicized and have nothing to do with our state as a people or anything like that.

Uhhmmm, are you absolutely sure about that? :?:

How would you bring balance to that type of mindset?

I wouldn't. Why would you wish to bring sickness into balance with being healthy? :confused:

This "Repunsel, Repunsel, let down your hair" mindset that you speak of, is not only an illusion (the key word you used, is "FANTASY"), but it's also a sickness........One that was never meant to work or come true for Black women, of all people, lest you would have seen a Black face on Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Red Riding Hood, Repunsel, and all the other white chicks, to and for whom these stories were written.

What I am proposing, is the White Blood Cell to this sickness.

PEACE

uplift19

03-28-2006, 04:09 PM

I've asked Sisters many, many times, what are the qualities that they are looking for in a mate.....
I agree that we as a people do not understand the nature of courtship or how to choose a mate. We are looking for boyfriends and girlfriends instead of mates to build families with.

Still, if, as you said, women are becoming the "protector, provider, and nourisher" by default of the absense of Brothers, what then is this to be classified as, if not Matriarchy?
I classify this as imbalance. You mentioned the role of the man remains protector regardless, and his absence keeps the equation imbalanced.

She doesn't have the luxury of being "swept off her feet" at this point, like the White woman was taught by way of the fairy tales that you allude to later in your response.
But maybe she wants to be. I don't by into the notion that all romance belongs to white people.

where do you see this "progress" occuring, outside of a very individual level?......How though? Solutions are not a "what", they are a "how". Otherwise, to say that it starts in our own families, is both a moot and redundant point, simultaneously.
I was really answering the question you asked about progress taking place at an individual level, as moot and redundant as you might find it. I don't know the how, as I do not have a family of my own yet and haven't even begun to seriously ponder all of the issues that come along with that. My own family is already broken to a degree, and I don't think I can fix it all by my lonesome.

I wouldn't. Why would you wish to bring sickness into balance with being healthy? :confused:
A better question would have been the cure you speak of. When you cure something of its sickness don't you return it to balance anyway?

This "Repunsel, Repunsel, let down your hair" mindset that you speak of, is not only an illusion (the key word you used, is "FANTASY"), but it's also a sickness........
As a female, I cannot pretend that I don't like fantasy. Of course, we have to deal with reality (I have been accused of being a short-sighted realist already) and make our choices accordingly, but we cannot be soldiers of this war within our relationships. Yes, it's about fulfilling a purpose but it's also about being happy. Romance does not belong to the white man, and if that takes place within a relationship with a properly selected mate (not boyfriend/girlfriend), then I think it's healthy.

PurpleMoons

03-28-2006, 08:21 PM

Brother Samurai, help me to understand. The priority of women choosing a mate should be, whether he can bring gains to the family and if he can secure/protect the assests?

I can understand why this is important in substaining and increasing the wealth of the family unit. However, I can also see how this could still initiate imbalance. If women began choosing mates soley for what the s/o could bring to a family, what happens to the complementary aspects of the male and female relationship to each other? I imagine there wouldn't be many who could say they have both. In return, you have alot of wealthy people without passion for each other. As you can see, I'm having a hard time seperating love from the equation. It seems that people would be more mechanical than natural.

What steps could men and women take to insure that both would be present?
Or does it matter if love for one another isn't there?

kemetkind

03-28-2006, 09:43 PM

Peace Brother Samurai...

I pondered how to continue this discussion for a minute.

I could return volley with another point-for-point refutation, drawing out a few obvious fallacies in your verbiage while overlooking your "positive" points, only to do it all over again after you respond in kind.

But what would I or any others gain from it?

I am married, with a (stunningly beautiful) wife and mother watching me post with an amused expression (she finds it comical I continue to engage on this).

So not only am I biased in my support of black marriage I've no personal interest in my eloquence serving as honey attracting a potential mate.

Though I've tried to convince them otherwise, the circles I move in care not to engage here. I gain no personal status or notoriety by "winning" a personal exchange, which given the inclinations of the present audience, i'm not at all confident I could do even if I decided my time was well-spent in trying.

As far as your tactic of diverting the focus of the discussion from the merits of your proposed strategy unto my "pathologic" misunderstanding of it, if there is such a thing, well, I must admit, that too, is comical much moreso than "annoying".

Given that my "comprehension" is already validated many times over via the fruit of my life pursuits, I've no reward or justification in entertaining your suggestions otherwise.

I said all that to say I should take the advice I've oferred to others; it's better to leave personal disagreements behind and focus on the topic at hand.

So let me back up a bit.

The catalyst for this exchange was obviously your taking offense to my using the expression "putting lipstick on a pig" to characterize your assesment of the trends in black families...

For communication purposes, my use of this metaphor failed.

I could've simply said "Hey, aren't you putting a positive spin on a bad situation when you say current trends could 'ultimately prove beneficial'.

You then may have chosen to elaborate on your position rather than take offense to the metaphor.

Lesson learned (maybe) :).

However, the fact remains, I've already invested time in this thread, and lest it not be wasted, I'd like to learn more about viable solutions.

You have presented yourself as knowledgeable on this topic, capable of devising such solutions, and when I specifically pressed you to state your strategy for black people pertaining to this topic, your response was "let evolution run its course."

You've since elucidated you're really talking about black women choosing their mates more wisely, being more firm in those choices, recognizing their true matrilinneal power, etc. etc.

Those are all necessary things, but should every eligible black woman become 100-fold more circumspect in her mate choices OVERNIGHT, what, in a practical sense, has really changed about her options?

How specifically does this "strategy" reverse current trends, or is your position still that current trends represent a return to something ancient and better?

What of the men? What is our role and purpose in your strategy?

You mentioned absent fathers, but your solution doesn't appear to account for them, other than to state their very absence forces black women into reclaiming their lost power/worth, which some may argue, hasn't truly been lost at all...

Are you hesitating to reveal the remaining portion of your strategy on this?

In your scenario, are women going to implement polygynous "common law" arrangements, since their firm and improved mate choices are increasingly scoped to a shrinking pool, or do you intend all the women with firm criteria but no qualified applicants remain barren?

My limited understanding of African matriarchy involves linneage and heredity tracing through the woman, who wields significant political and economic power, all things that exist in american black society already. But how do trends of absent fathers and women becoming their own "protectors,
nourishers AND providers" constitute a return to traditional African matriarchy or matrism?

Families that are suffering because the absense of a father figure, could be viewed as the social evolution back to matriarchy and matrilenny, as Black women are having to reassert herself and her power (re: value/worth) in our communities.

Is this a new definition of matriarchy? Were fathers absent in traditional African family units?

Other than women choosing their mates better, and realizing their matrilinneal power, what is the practical implementation of your strategy for men, women and children?

Considering the following context of SunShip's words, what is your notion of "family unit":

We need actual African families (bigger and bolder than ever) that prosper and eat from the same pot, with no need for social programs, mentorship, role models and artificial fill-ins to replace a balanced and fully functional family unit.

SAMURAI36

03-28-2006, 09:51 PM

I agree that we as a people do not understand the nature of courtship or how to choose a mate. We are looking for boyfriends and girlfriends instead of mates to build families with.

With the notion of "courtship", that's a subsequent issue.....As far as mates to build families with, you are most certainly correct.

I remember Farrakhan, in his "last speech for a while" speech :rolleyes: saying that "While the rest of the world chooses a mate from the neck up, we tend to choose a mate from the neck down".

We have grown Black folks, choosing mates based on some bubble-gum popping criteria that middle school kids do. This is a direct result of basing our entire reality on how we FEEL about things, instead of what we KNOW.

I classify this as imbalance. You mentioned the role of the man remains protector regardless, and his absence keeps the equation imbalanced.

I agree.

But maybe she wants to be. I don't by into the notion that all romance belongs to white people.

Then we need to find a new word to connotate that aspect that doesn't, because "ROMANCE" is strictly European in etymology.

That having said, I agree that being loving to your mate is not European in origin. However, we are going to have to learn to prioritize our criteria for mate selection.

Nonetheless, I'm going to have to make a separate thread, that deals with the origins of "Romance", to give everyone a clearer perspective on what we are working with historically (or rather, what is working against us).

I was really answering the question you asked about progress taking place at an individual level, as moot and redundant as you might find it. I don't know the how, as I do not have a family of my own yet and haven't even begun to seriously ponder all of the issues that come along with that. My own family is already broken to a degree, and I don't think I can fix it all by my lonesome.

That's my point; our issues as a people are systematic by design, and cannot be fixed individually. This stuff stems back generations, and thus it's not going to go away that easily or quickly. When you have a generation of Black women who went without fathers, and are raising sons without fathers as well, who in turn become the very men that these and other women claim to abhor (yet flock to continuously), you can begin to see how this plays out, in the form of Pathology.

Pathology is extremely important, in the curing or correcting of any disease or problem.

A better question would have been the cure you speak of. When you cure something of its sickness don't you return it to balance anyway?

You can't return a "sickness to balance". That's not how the curative process works. Now, if you are trying to say that you bring that which caused the disease in the first place back into balance, then I'd say that you are most correct.

As a female, I cannot pretend that I don't like fantasy.

As long as you are aware of how this "fantasy" detrimentally effects us, then what can I say to this?

Of course, we have to deal with reality (I have been accused of being a short-sighted realist already) and make our choices accordingly, but we cannot be soldiers of this war within our relationships.

The alternative, being...What? Being fairy-tale Believers? We might as well believe that the White Jesus will "send us a good man" (more outlandish non-sense that Sisters are known for saying :rolleyes: ).

Yes, it's about fulfilling a purpose but it's also about being happy. Romance does not belong to the white man, and if that takes place within a relationship with a properly selected mate (not boyfriend/girlfriend), then I think it's healthy.

I agree, but that's a separate phenomenon than the "fanstasy" that you speak of.

PEACE

uplift19

03-28-2006, 10:04 PM

Then we need to find a new word to connotate that aspect that doesn't, because "ROMANCE" is strictly European in etymology.Well we are speaking English here, so I'm not sure what else you would have me call it. Romance means to court or woo.

As long as you are aware of how this "fantasy" detrimentally effects us, then what can I say to this?.....I agree, but that's a separate phenomenon than the "fanstasy" that you speak of.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "fantasy" in the first place. If a brother is interested in a sister, he should be trying to "sweep her off her feet" while he is learning about her and her background to see if she qualifies as a good mate. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is balanced. When I said we cannot be soldiers within our own relationships, I was saying we cannot treat each other as if we are engaging in warfare. Our mates are our place of refuge.

SAMURAI36

03-30-2006, 08:50 AM

Well we are speaking English here, so I'm not sure what else you would have me call it.

Being that Modern English is less of a language and more of system consisting of stolen colloquialisms, and neologisms, it's very important to keep etymology in mind when using certain words and phrases.

For example:

Romance means to court or woo.

That may be its current definition, but that is why I said "etymology of" and not "definition of", when referencing this word earlier. There is a huge difference.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/romance.html

[13th century. < Old French romanz "(work composed) in French" < assumed Vulgar Latin romanice "in the vernacular," form of Latin romanicus "Roman" < Roma "Rome"]

There is nothing positive or promising about this term.

For instance, I'm sure you are familiar with the term "wining and dining", as it related to "romance" and courting, yes?

Well, originally (as in, in Rome, the place of origin for "Romance") when a man was "wining and dining" a woman, his intent was to get her so drunk and gluttoned, that she was too incoherent and subdued to resist him, as he had his way with her sexually.

And that was pretty much the extent of Romance. It was a deceptive means of getting into a woman's pants (or under her girdle, in reference to that time period). It was based on guile and cunning, and the goal was not to form a solid, loving, respectful relationship.

This shows me all the more, that a thread about Romance is in order here, to put the historical origins of this notion into perspective--especially as it relates to Black people.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "fantasy" in the first place. If a brother is interested in a sister, he should be trying to "sweep her off her feet" while he is learning about her and her background to see if she qualifies as a good mate. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is balanced.

Uhmmm, if you say so. :?: These days and as a Brother, I'm so less inclined to do all that "sweeping", when it comes to women--simply because I see the fallacy in it all. To get caught up in all that fantasy, we might as well complete the deal, and give birth to children and teach them about Santa Claus and the White Jesus.

I'm much more inclined to incorporate the path of Matrifocalism, as a means of procuring a solid relationship.

When I said we cannot be soldiers within our own relationships, I was saying we cannot treat each other as if we are engaging in warfare. Our mates are our place of refuge.

Understood.

However, rather than being soldiers against each other, I think we should be soldiering for and with each other.

We are going to have to approach this relationship state of emergency that we are in, with a keenly strategized, precisely executed method of attack, if we are to expect successful results.

We can no longer afford to wait for "the Lord to send us a Good man", or "My Queen to come along", or any other such fantastical and equally outlandish ideas.

PEACE

SAMURAI36

03-30-2006, 11:20 AM

Peace Brother Samurai...

I pondered how to continue this discussion for a minute.

PEACE BROTHER KEMETKIND:

As have I; and as such, please do not think I was ignoring your message.

I could return volley with another point-for-point refutation, drawing out a few obvious fallacies in your verbiage while overlooking your "positive" points, only to do it all over again after you respond in kind.

Yes, a viscious cycle, that you could have avoided from the very beginning.

But what would I or any others gain from it?

Excellent question.....Which is why I could not understand why you sought to engage in such behavior in the first place.

I am married, with a (stunningly beautiful) wife and mother watching me post with an amused expression (she finds it comical I continue to engage on this).

So not only am I biased in my support of black marriage I've no personal interest in my eloquence serving as honey attracting a potential mate.

Though I've tried to convince them otherwise, the circles I move in care not to engage here.

What was the relevance of mentioning your wife and mother here? Though I'm sure that they are fine people, their presence in this discussion bears no relevance whatsoever, especially since they are not participating in this discussion to begin with.

I gain no personal status or notoriety by "winning" a personal exchange, which given the inclinations of the present audience, i'm not at all confident I could do even if I decided my time was well-spent in trying.

I would be inclined to agree, that you would not "win" in such an endeavor. Except that such a failed endeavor would have nothing to do with the audience, but rather your being bereft of a proper method of attack, coupled with your not having a clearly established perspective to attack with.

Further, your bias about this "audience" is tantamount to underestimating them, but also quite unbecoming.

In the meantime, it is no disgrace to accept defeat. As a disciple of both Chess and Swordfighting, I have been taught by my Enlighteners of both disciplines, that the loser of a contest has more to gain from it than the winner does.

As far as your tactic of diverting the focus of the discussion from the merits of your proposed strategy unto my "pathologic" misunderstanding of it, if there is such a thing, well, I must admit, that too, is comical much moreso than "annoying".

I'm sure it would be, if that was in fact what I was doing, or had done. It's easy to make all sorts of assertions, when one opts not to substantiate them. Please feel free to prove wherein I had done any such thing here.

Given that my "comprehension" is already validated many times over via the fruit of my life pursuits, I've no reward or justification in entertaining your suggestions otherwise.

That's great, but once again, just like mentioning your wife and mother, that has absolutely no bearing or relevance in this discussion.

And yet, you accuse me of "diverting the focus of the discussion"?? Your meanderings of hypocrisy are borderlining the insultive.

I said all that to say I should take the advice I've oferred to others; it's better to leave personal disagreements behind and focus on the topic at hand.

Excellent.

So let me back up a bit.

The catalyst for this exchange was obviously your taking offense to my using the expression "putting lipstick on a pig" to characterize your assesment of the trends in black families...

The only "offense" that I took to that statement, is that you have yet to clarify its relevance, in reference to my assertions here.

Your "Miss Piggy" sentiment, if I understood it correctly, was akin to basically saying that my perspective was unfit, despite it being well presented vernacularly.

While I don't take personal offense to some shooting down my theories, what I do have grievance with, is doing so while not offering an alternative in kind.

Proof of this, lies in the fact that my very first response to you in this thread, was in the form of a request to clarify your perspective, which, despite your offering of a response, you had nonetheless failed to tender.

I.E., telling someone that they are wrong, but not telling someone how they are wrong, is utterly pointless.

For communication purposes, my use of this metaphor failed.

True indeed.

I could've simply said "Hey, aren't you putting a positive spin on a bad situation when you say current trends could 'ultimately prove beneficial'.

You then may have chosen to elaborate on your position rather than take offense to the metaphor.

Lesson learned (maybe) :).

I certainly hope so.

However, the fact remains, I've already invested time in this thread, and lest it not be wasted, I'd like to learn more about viable solutions.

You have presented yourself as knowledgeable on this topic, capable of devising such solutions, and when I specifically pressed you to state your strategy for black people pertaining to this topic, your response was "let evolution run its course."

You are continuing to show and prove that you have not comprehended a single thing that I've said, especially as you continued to oversimplify my statements, and the sentiments behind them.

Have you actually thoroughly read this entire thread--more specifically, my responses herein?

You've since elucidated you're really talking about black women choosing their mates more wisely, being more firm in those choices, recognizing their true matrilinneal power, etc. etc.

Those are all necessary things, but should every eligible black woman become 100-fold more circumspect in her mate choices OVERNIGHT, what, in a practical sense, has really changed about her options?

Firstly, as I've also "elucidated" that this situation is not going to be fixed overnight (you are clearly not comprehending here), then your choice of "OVERNIGHT" as verbage was pointless. You continue to attribute statements and notions that are/were not mine to me. Why?

Anyways, more to the question: Regarding the Black woman's refinement of discernment, your question implies that she is choosing over inaminate objects like shoes or cars.

The reality is, that if Black men want to have a quality Black woman in his/our lives, then he is going to have to step up to the plate, by striving to match the more refined criteria that she would at some point learn to set forth.

You mentioned the Chaucer earlier....... if that test was not as difficult as it is, then you would have every mediocre Negro walking around talking about "Yo, I'm a Scientist". I'm sure, that as a scientist yourself, you would take offense to such a thing.

How specifically does this "strategy" reverse current trends, or is your position still that current trends represent a return to something ancient and better?

My perspective has not changed. You're more than free to disagree with it, if you like. But for the sake of discussion, I ask that you do 2 things:

#1) Please fully understand what you are disagreeing with, as thus far you have not indicated that you do.

#2) Please offer a viable alternative to my perspective, as you opt to shoot mine down.

What of the men? What is our role and purpose in your strategy?

Without being offensive to you, this question clearly indicates that you do not have the keenest understanding of what Matriarchy, et-al. really is.

Perhaps a separate discussion about this custom is in order, and mayhaps Brother Sun Ship could assist me in constructing a separate thread.

Otherwise, it seems that much of this discussion is at an impasse, since the base of my perspectives is based on my knowledge of said custom, whilst yours seems to be based on the lack thereof.

But to the satisfaction of your question, the role and purpose of the man/male is as accorded within the customs in question.

You mentioned absent fathers, but your solution doesn't appear to account for them, other than to state their very absence forces black women into reclaiming their lost power/worth, which some may argue, hasn't truly been lost at all...

Please indicate evidence of such an argument. True the woman has a inherent power, but it's one that she either readily tries to hand over to men, or that she wrecklessly and aimlessly flouts towards no good end.

Besides, if this power was not "lost" (lost does not always imply absense), then why are not better decisions for a mate not being seen? I just had a conversation with a sister about the notions of Romance and what not. People (especially women, and even moreso especially Sisters) still wish to buy into faulty European and Biblical notions such as "Romance" and the "Proverbs 31 woman", while not understanding the origins of these faulty practices.

In the meantime, the result is a nation/society with the highest divorce rate in comparison to the entire world put together, the highest STD rate, the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest domestic violence rate.......Need I go on? All of which is a result of the "fantasy" that we (and women in particular) subscribe to.

Are you hesitating to reveal the remaining portion of your strategy on this?

In your scenario, are women going to implement polygynous "common law" arrangements, since their firm and improved mate choices are increasingly scoped to a shrinking pool, or do you intend all the women with firm criteria but no qualified applicants remain barren?

My limited understanding of African matriarchy involves linneage and heredity tracing through the woman, who wields significant political and economic power, all things that exist in american black society already. But how do trends of absent fathers and women becoming their own "protectors,
nourishers AND providers" constitute a return to traditional African matriarchy or matrism?

Brother, your "limited understanding of African Matriarchy" is the root of your lack of understanding of my perspective here. While waiting for myself and (hopefully) Brother Sun Ship to give more info, I would greatly recommend that you take the time to learn more about this subject, to see how my offers of solutions and theories otherwise would play out under its auspices.

The topic of Matriarchy, etc-al is not an obscure one, and is easily researchable. There are numerous pieces of literature on the subject, such as the book that I mentioned in my first post here: AN AFROCENTRIC GUIDE TO A SPIRITUAL UNION. In nearly a week's time since I first posted my initial information, did you bother to look into this book, perhaps procuring it for yourself?

Nevertheless, Matriarchy is not a concept that is in anyway synonymous or relative to how we as Black people in these modern times live. Factually, this current "lifestyle" that we live now is an affront to it.

Further, contrary to what your (and others') statements imply, we cannot paint over this current lifestyle, with what we (scarcely) think Matriarchy, et-al is. That would be tantamount to "putting lipstick on a swine" as you so aptly designated earlier.

That is also the reason that you need to have the keenest understanding of what Matriarchy, et-al is; not to have this, and to pretend that you do while arguing the point, is pointless for both of us, and insulting for at least one of us.

Matriarchy, et-al is a lifestyle that finds itself manifested in every aspect of society, just as any other ubiquitous custom does (or at least, is supposed to).

You admitted earlier, that sociology is not one of your strongest fields of science. Well, it would need to be, in order to keenly understand Matriarchy, et-al and my theories behind/about it.

Matriarchy is both founded upon, as well as serves to foundate the practice of socialism. Socialism as a practice, is the antithesis to Capitalism that this society (and our people especially) have been duped into trying to live. Hence, the problem with most modern-day marriages and relationships. They are based on capitalism ("what you can do for me"), and not socialism ("what I can do for us").

Furthermore, Matriarchy, et-al finds itself manifested in the religion(s), politics, and science arts, as they are practiced by said society.

Contrary to your notion (a notion based on limited knowledge and understanding), Our women are legally powerless in this society. Women who strive to alter their appearance just to get and keep the attention of a man, is not the example of a woman possessing and expressing power.

You don't see Matriarchy, et-al in this society--at least, not within its proper form.

You yourself also admitted that African history was based on Patriarchy, not Matriarchy. That much is obvious, even now as you (and others) tend to color your perspectives based on that false and obsolete notion.

Is this a new definition of matriarchy? Were fathers absent in traditional African family units?

Not at all. But given the fact that you still lack a sufficient knowledge of Matriarchy proper, you're really not in the best position to question any definition, until you do acquire a better base of knowledge.

Why do you think women were worshipped as God(dess) in ancient times? Why do many of our people the world over worship the White Jesus now? What does this do to the psychology of a person?

Do you understand what I am asking? Where this question will lead you to?

Other than women choosing their mates better, and realizing their matrilinneal power, what is the practical implementation of your strategy for men, women and children?

This is a redundant question, no different from, "after you have lunch, what are you going to eat"?

The answer is keenly instrinsic. THE POWER LIES WITH THE WOMAN.

Considering the following context of SunShip's words, what is your notion of "family unit":

Most likely what it is for yours: Man, Woman and Child, living in harmony with one another, in accordance to, but not limited by, their respective roles.

However, that is not what is at issue here. That is the goal, but the goal does not "equate to" the path by which we get there. However, the latter does "result in" the former.

Which was my point all along. It is most unfortunate that you missed it (and continue to do so.....?).

PEACE

uplift19

03-30-2006, 12:36 PM

Being that Modern English is less of a language and more of system consisting of stolen colloquialisms, and neologisms, it's very important to keep etymology in mind when using certain words and phrases.I'm well aware of English's bastard history, but my point in providing a defintion is so you would understand what I meant when I used the word. Delving into the history of the word does not erase its present-day meaning that most folks think of when they say "romance."

Uhmmm, if you say so. :?: These days and as a Brother, I'm so less inclined to do all that "sweeping", All the more reason for being single ;)

we might as well complete the deal, and give birth to children and teach them about Santa Claus and the White Jesus.Maybe a thread about LOVE is in order, not ROMANCE. If getting flowers and going out to dinner and a movie equates to worshiping a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus then something is seriously wrong with how we view relationships.

I'm much more inclined to incorporate the path of Matrifocalism, as a means of procuring a solid relationship.I am not sure what one (being amorous--I dare not say romantic :)) has to do with the other (matriarchy, patriarchy, or matrifocalism). Can you clarify this for me?

Since I had no idea what "matrifocalism" meant, I looked it up online. This was all I was able to find (for the benefit of anyone trying to follow this discussion and also doesn't know what it means):

Theoretically, a matriarchal society would be the mirror image of a patriarchal society: women would rule, and exert some degree of control over men's reproductive lives. Most anthropologists, however, agree that a matriarchal society in those terms does not exist and has NEVER existed. The reason will become clear in a moment.

What do exist are matrifocal societies, which are defined as focusing (obviously) on the maternal role, and matrilineal societies, which are defined as counting descent through the female line. These two things don't have to go together. There are plenty of societies which have preserved matrilineal descent, but which have become "androcentric" (male-centered) with the balance of power given over to men. Matrifocal societies are less common and generally a little fuzzier to define -- but where they do exist they seem to go along with matriliny.

So let's talk about a matrifocal, matrilineal socieity -- like the Minangkabau -- which is about as estrogen-maxed as you'll get. What happens when descent is reckoned through the female line and the mother-child role is central, is that the sexes become almost equal. Masculine control over women, and especially the obsession with controlling women's reproductive behavior that is the hallmark of patriarchy, disappears. The obverse -- women trying to control men -- does NOT arise.
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/11/a_note_about_fr.html

However, rather than being soldiers against each other, I think we should be soldiering for and with each other.This was my point, but we can't be with each other if we're all uptight about it. :)

SAMURAI36

03-30-2006, 01:30 PM

I'm well aware of English's bastard history, but my point in providing a defintion is so you would understand what I meant when I used the word. Delving into the history of the word does not erase its present-day meaning that most folks think of when they say "romance."

All the more serving the purpose of confusion. English is not a Bastard tongue by happenstance. The more we subscribe to the Tricknowledge, the more wrapped in darkness we will remain.

It is the same lie of language that has us looking to a White "EGYPT" instead of a Black "KEMET".

This is a dire pathology that was birthed via a sinister agenda. Did you know, that many neologistic terms in English were created by way of acronyms, in the 10th through 13th centuries?

This "language" we speak, is not even a language, it's a code.

All the more reason for being single ;)

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that perhaps my predicament serves my best interest. Especially considering the tumultuous predicament that our people are in at present.

What you mayhaps not realize here, is that I've chosen to divorce myself as much as is possible, from this culture, and all that it entails. I'm looking to establish an avante-garde, nuveaux, progressive interpretation of the ancient ways......One that will appropriately balance the ways of this world, while not being overcome by it.

As such, I thoroughly realize that I most likely will remain single, unless or until such an event begins to happen, or unless/until I happen upon someone whose perspectives and goals as they pertain to relationships matches mine.

Maybe a thread about LOVE is in order, not ROMANCE.

No.

A thread about "ROMANCE" is definitely in order, since that is the word that is being continuously used and returned to.

I'm looking to expose the origins of "romance", to show how they have served to lead us on this downward spiral of family and relationship hell.

This origina is well-documented, and thus easily referenceable. To attempt to catalogue the origin of "LOVE", is to attempt to do the very same for GOD herself.

Such a task is not only ultimately arduous, but also quite irrelevant to this discussion, the reasons being:

If getting flowers and going out to dinner and a movie equates to worshiping a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus then something is seriously wrong with how we view relationships.

....Getting flowers and going to movies has nothing to do with LOVE. You can have those things with a total stranger, or even your worst enemy.

However, more specific to your last point, it's rather unfortunate that you cannot see the connection here.

Where did you get all your notions of "LOVE, ROMANCE", etc? Notice, I did not ask "who" you got them from, but "where". Where and when were they created? And why? From whence doest your ideas about femininity and womanhood come?

We as Black people, who have been tagged as "God-Fearing", can easily point to the origins of alot of our notions, ideas and beliefs.

So indeed, there is something very wrong with our relationships. That is all but an astute observation. But, what would be astute, is us tracing the cure from its pathology.

I am not sure what one (being amorous--I dare not say romantic :)) has to do with the other (matriarchy, patriarchy, or matrifocalism). Can you clarify this for me?

In the minimal space of this thread, I cannot--at least not right now. However, intrinsic to my responses, both to you, and Brother Kemetkind, lies the answer to this.

We, who once built Pyramids and Ziggurats, cannot continue to have this segregative Western mode of thinking, that prevents us from seeing how all parts equal the whole.

Since I had no idea what "matrifocalism" meant, I looked it up online. This was all I was able to find (for the benefit of anyone trying to follow this discussion and also doesn't know what it means):

Theoretically, a matriarchal society would be the mirror image of a patriarchal society: women would rule, and exert some degree of control over men's reproductive lives. Most anthropologists, however, agree that a matriarchal society in those terms does not exist and has NEVER existed. The reason will become clear in a moment.

What do exist are matrifocal societies, which are defined as focusing (obviously) on the maternal role, and matrilineal societies, which are defined as counting descent through the female line. These two things don't have to go together. There are plenty of societies which have preserved matrilineal descent, but which have become "androcentric" (male-centered) with the balance of power given over to men. Matrifocal societies are less common and generally a little fuzzier to define -- but where they do exist they seem to go along with matriliny.

So let's talk about a matrifocal, matrilineal socieity -- like the Minangkabau -- which is about as estrogen-maxed as you'll get. What happens when descent is reckoned through the female line and the mother-child role is central, is that the sexes become almost equal. Masculine control over women, and especially the obsession with controlling women's reproductive behavior that is the hallmark of patriarchy, disappears. The obverse -- women trying to control men -- does NOT arise.
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/11/a_note_about_fr.html

Wow, what genius said all that? :?: :D

This was my point, but we can't be with each other if we're all uptight about it. :)

Spoken like someone who is still indoctrinated with the "fantasy" ;)

Please understand, that I'm not insinuating that we should not be amorous and loving towards one another.

What I am saying, however, is that we cannot let our notions of "LOVE" (a FEELING) cloud and overturn our criteria (KNOWLEDGE) for choosing a mate.

Up to this point, this mandate is not being carried out. We are far more overly concerned with the former, while neglegent of the latter.

This, as you say, is not "balance".

It all starts with KNOWLEDGE (the foundation for all things in exsistence), and not FEELINGS (our response to all things in exsistence).

PEACE

uplift19

03-30-2006, 02:29 PM

This "language" we speak, is not even a language, it's a code.
Yet you seem to have mastered it so well and persistently use it to communicate. You brought up the etymology of the word romance, while all I was attempting to do was fully explain my intention behind using it.

But, what would be astute, is us tracing the cure from its pathology.
...
I'm looking to establish an avante-garde, nuveaux, progressive interpretation of the ancient ways..As such, I thoroughly realize that I most likely will remain singleThat's not a solution/cure either. While we are focusing on women, maybe it is the Black man that needs to return to his rightful place also. In theory (thoughts), we can be as rigid as we would like; however, I think it's best to have a balanced approach to things in life (practice).

unless/until I happen upon someone whose perspectives and goals as they pertain to relationships matches mine.
. . .
Wow, what genius said all that?
....a progressive, left-wing Brit living in California...possibly your ideal mate LOL :)

....Getting flowers and going to movies has nothing to do with LOVE.Sure it does, if that's what two people who express love for each other like to do together.

You can have those things with a total stranger, or even your worst enemy.Just as you can have sex, relationships, fights, and families with all of the above. This is also irrelevant.

Please understand, that I'm not insinuating that we should not be amorous and loving towards one another.It seems you are, since you are attacking the very notion of such, when as I recall was my point in using the word romance in the first place...the word that caused so much confusion.

What I am saying, however, is that we cannot let our notions of "LOVE" (a FEELING) cloud and overturn our criteria (KNOWLEDGE) for choosing a mate.Which is also the point I was trying to make in the first place, before romance got all in the mix of it. Further, I do not think love is a feeling. This is why I suggested this may be more worthwile to explore than the European roots of romantic notions.

SAMURAI36

03-30-2006, 03:40 PM

Yet you seem to have mastered it so well and persistently use it to communicate. You brought up the etymology of the word romance, while all I was attempting to do was fully explain my intention behind using it.

The point that I think that you're missing here, is how language as a whole, and certain words and phrases in particular, shape and influence the mentality of a people.

Look at how the words "B1tch" and "N1gga" have adversely effected us, as we have erroneously attempted to glean positive connotations from them......The list is endless.

Perhaps that is what is meant from that passage in the Bible, about "confounding the languages"....... :?:

Regarding etymologies and definitions, without the former, we would not have the latter.

Also, definitions change over time (ref: "B1tch and N1gga"), but etymology is carved in stone.

That's not a solution/cure either. While we are focusing on women, maybe it is the Black man that needs to return to his rightful place also. In theory (thoughts), we can be as rigid as we would like; however, I think it's best to have a balanced approach to things in life (practice).

People talk about balance, without having the keenest understanding of how balancing something works.

I humbly request that you verbalize how you would intend or set out to balance something. Anything.

Please give me an example.

....a progressive, left-wing Brit living in California...possibly your ideal mate LOL :)

If she is not a Black woman, then fahgeddaboutit. :D

Sure it does, if that's what two people who express love for each other like to do together.

You're missing the point; in borrowing from out Brother KemetKind (where is he, anyways? :?: ), these acts do not "equate to", nor do they necessarily "result in" the principle of love.

I've gone out with several women under those circumstances.......I don't "love" any of them (not in the "romantic" sense, anyway). I've also went to the movies and had dinner with MEN........Am I supposed to "Love" for them "romantically" as well, based on this "logic"?

I've even done the very same things with white people.......Do you suppose that I "love" them (in any fashion)?

Just as you can have sex, relationships, fights, and families with all of the above. This is also irrelevant.

You are remiss with acknowledging the point I'm trying to establish: "Romance" and all the acts that pertain to it, do not equate to love.......Never have, and never will. Not historically (especially in reference to etymology), and not even presently.

It seems you are, since you are attacking the very notion of such, when as I recall was my point in using the word romance in the first place...the word that caused so much confusion.

A confusion that I have been striving to correct here.

I don't use the word "ROMANCE", along with a host of other words, and there are very specific reasons for my not doing so......Mainly because I know both the etymology as well as the definitions of various words, and that knowledge also affords me the understanding that the latter is not synonymous with the former, though pathology of the latter can definitely lead one back to the latter.

You'd be surprised to learn what terms like "lady, gentleman, nice, common, smart," and a host of other words mean.

It's no different than ceasing to continue to eat Swine Flesh, after learning all that there is to know about this filthy animal.

KNOWLEDGE FIRST, FEELINGS SECOND.

Which is also the point I was trying to make in the first place, before romance got all in the mix of it. Further, I do not think love is a feeling. This is why I suggested this may be more worthwile to explore than the European roots of romantic notions.

You're more than welcome to do so; perhaps while you do that, and I do the "romantic" breakdown, we might intersect somewhere in the middle.

However, you are correct, in that I don't think that LOVE (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/love.html) is just a feeling either. That's certainly not all that love is, but being that that is part of what it is, that is the context in which I referred to it, for the sake of that part of the discussion.

PEACE

uplift19

03-30-2006, 04:04 PM

The point that I think that you're missing here, is how language as a whole, and certain words and phrases in particular, shape and influence the mentality of a people.I do understand. You not using the word romance is akin to why I will never "piggy back" off of anyone for any reason, but that does not negate my point. This is why I changed the word.

People talk about balance, without having the keenest understanding of how balancing something works.And what might this have to do with me?

I humbly request that you verbalize how you would intend or set out to balance something. Anything. Please give me an example.By being more universal in one's understanding about a thing. Anything. You know, like how Fox news is fair and balanced. :uhoh: :) But really, I would like to offer a quote from Min. Farrakhan regarding balance in response to your question.

The Earth is not perfectly round; it has a wobble. Allah (God compensates for this imbalance by the imposition of a law regulating motion. Pursuant to that law, the Earth possesses a natural inclination to the plane of its own orbit. This enables us to live on the Earth's surface without being disturbed by its imbalance.

Thus, we see in Creation that in order to achieve balance, it is not necessary that the weight of a thing be equal on each side; Allah (God) shows us that balance can be achieved or brought about by placing the fulcrum (support) at that point which will bring it about. That is, the center of gravity can be placed in such a way as to make a balance where imbalance previously existed.
http://www.noineworleans.org/study/studyguides.html

You're missing the point;Am I? I find it difficult to agree with you as it seems diction is more important than meaning or intent.

You are remiss with acknowledging the point I'm trying to establish: "Romance" and all the acts that pertain to it, do not equate to loveI did not use those words, but I believe what I posted previously was in agreement with that. If not, certainly not in conflict.

SAMURAI36

03-30-2006, 04:39 PM

I do understand. You not using the word romance is akin to why I will never "piggy back" off of anyone for any reason, but that does not negate my point. This is why I changed the word.

Understood, but that does not change the fact that people still base their notions of love, marriage and relationships, etc on "ROMANCE". At this point, that part of the discussion transcends you and I.

And what might this have to do with me?

See above.

By being more universal in one's understanding about a thing. Anything. You know, like how Fox news is fair and balanced. :uhoh: :) But really, I would like to offer a quote from Min. Farrakhan regarding balance in response to your question.

The Earth is not perfectly round; *truncated*

I am inclined to agree with Farrakhan's notion. I'm also familiar with that speech. :fyi:

However, it actually doesn't serve to answer how balance is achieved between one thing and another.

I'm asking you how you would achieve balance, in the same respect as I would ask you how you would make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

How precisely would you do it? Step by step? How is anything done? There is a specific reason for my asking this......Mainly because we as a people are not very pragmatic and meticulous. Alot of our efforts and accomplishments are haphazard at best. We fly by the seats of our pants so much, that rarely can we duplicate our successes consistently and consecutively.

We are a people who have gone from building some of the most complex pieces of architecture on earth, to barely being able to procure jobs for ourselves. We rarely ever seem to know how to do anything.

Thus, I ask, how do you bring balance? How would you make a PBJ? How do you create the universe? How do you intend to procure a mate?

Am I? I find it difficult to agree with you as it seems diction is more important than meaning or intent.

Not necessarily diction, but rather etymology. The latter gives birth to the former.

I did not use those words, but I believe what I posted previously was in agreement with that. If not, certainly not in conflict.

Just trying to pinpoint a trajectory, is all. In that, I ask you to humor me. :)

The concept and origin of "romance", is intrinsic to the history and origin of the institution of marriage. And since the institution of marriage--certainly as it is at present--has very little to do with the history and origin of "love", that is why I see little reason of relevance in discussing the latter.

PEACE

uplift19

03-30-2006, 05:12 PM

However, it actually doesn't serve to answer how balance is achieved between one thing and another. I'm asking you how you would achieve balance, in the same respect as I would ask you how you would make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. How precisely would you do it? Step by step?... How would you make a PBJ?It does, in a general sense, but I see you want specifics so here you go (note, I do not eat peanut butter so I had to seek an outside source for this one):

How to Make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich (http://www.ehow.com/how_1323_make-peanut-butter.html)

Steps:
1. Using a knife, spread a generous layer of peanut butter on one slice of bread.
2. Clean the knife with a napkin or use another knife so the peanut butter and jelly don't mix in their containers.
3. Spread jelly or jam on the other slice of bread. Use slightly less jelly than peanut butter.
4. Put the two pieces of bread together with the peanut butter and jelly sides facing one another. Cut the sandwich in half for easier eating.

This way, I will not be accused of not answering the question. :laugh:

Mainly because we as a people are not very pragmatic and meticulous.The same sort of pragmatic answer you seek from me has not been provided regarding your theory on restoring us to our "ancient" way of life.

We are a people who have gone from building some of the most complex pieces of architecture on earth, to barely being able to procure jobs for ourselves. I would have us focus on building something for oursevles instead of procuring jobs, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Thus, I ask, how do you bring balance?You have to identify what is causing the imbalance and seek to correct it.

How do you create the universe? How do you intend to procure a mate?I have no intentions of doing either, esp. since there's already a universe in existence and procure means "to obtain sexual partners for others." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure) :eeek:

Not necessarily diction, but rather etymology. The latter gives birth to the former.:hammer2: This again illustrates my point. Diction is word choice--you did not like my choice of words for a number of reasons you already stated.

I do not think someone has to bring me flowers to be considered a mate.
All I was saying is :flowers: and :massage: wouldn't hurt, nor cloud my judgment when it comes to deciding on if a person is right for me.
If someone liked me (I mean, was interested in procuring me as a mate), maybe they wouldn't mind doing either.

SAMURAI36

03-30-2006, 05:49 PM

It does, in a general sense, but I see you want specifics so here you go (note, I do not eat peanut butter so I had to seek an outside source for this one):

How to Make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich (http://www.ehow.com/how_1323_make-peanut-butter.html)

Steps:
1. Using a knife, spread a generous layer of peanut butter on one slice of bread.
2. Clean the knife with a napkin or use another knife so the peanut butter and jelly don't mix in their containers.
3. Spread jelly or jam on the other slice of bread. Use slightly less jelly than peanut butter.
4. Put the two pieces of bread together with the peanut butter and jelly sides facing one another. Cut the sandwich in half for easier eating.

This way, I will not be accused of not answering the question. :laugh:

Uhmm, OK....... But I'm not sure if my point was really driven home, since you stated later.....

You have to identify what is causing the imbalance and seek to correct it.

This started off well, and then trailed off into the obscure realm of haphazardness. How does one "correct" it?

I have no intentions of doing either,

Knowing how to do something bears little cause or effect on one's intention of doing it.

esp. since there's already a universe in existence

Actually, the creation of the universe is a perpetual event, and not a static one. The universe is constantly being created.

and procure means "to obtain sexual partners for others." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure) :eeek:

A perfect example of my point, regarding etymology vs definition.

Originally, "PROCURE" (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/PROCURE.html) had nothing to do with sexuality:

[13th century. Via French < Latin procurare "take care of, manage" < curare "care for"]

Nevertheless, if you've ever introduced someone to someone else for the purpose and intent of "setting them up", then indeed you have "procured" in this sense.

Just a little FYI :fyi:

The same sort of pragmatic answer you seek from me has not been provided regarding your theory on restoring us to our "ancient" way of life.

Of this, I am well aware, though it has not been for the lack of trying. :) It's just that I think that a foundation of other information is necessary before doing so.

Why on earth would I give a child a gun, and then give him/her a pragmatic explanation of how to use it, without explaining a host of other relevant info to them?

I would have us focus on building something for oursevles instead of procuring jobs, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Another story indeed, but your statement still bears relevance here; if you can't do something as basic as "procure" employment, how then can you build anything independent of such an endeavor.

Certain things precede other things. It seems that everyone in the world inherently understands this........All except our people, that is.

:hammer2: This again illustrates my point. Diction is word choice--you did not like my choice of words for a number of reasons you already stated.

LOL, point taken. But again, it's the reasons (KNOWLEDGE) and not the "liking" (FEELINGS) that should be focused on.

I do not think someone has to bring me flowers to be considered a mate.
All I was saying is :flowers: and :massage: wouldn't hurt, nor cloud my judgment when it comes to deciding on if a person is right for me.
If someone liked me (I mean, was interested in procuring me as a mate), maybe they wouldn't mind doing either.

The emboldened statement is the one I'm most interested in:

Given the context and focus of this discussion, could you see yourself procuring a mate for yourself (neologism of the word notwithstanding)? Or is it that your only means of having a mate, for him to procure you?

PEACE

uplift19

03-30-2006, 06:08 PM

Uhmm, OK.......Well, you asked...

This started off well, and then trailed off into the obscure realm of haphazardness. How does one "correct" it?If this was school, I would say erase the incorrect answer and mark the right one. If salt is causing an imbalance in my diet, which ultimately affects my health, then I'll check the sodium content before eating something.

Knowing how to do something bears little cause or effect on one's intention of doing it. But it does relate to one's interest, or in this case, lack therof.

Actually, the creation of the universe is a perpetual event, and not a static one. The universe is constantly being created.How is this so if energy is never created or destroyed? Again, this is straying from the topic (what was this thread about again :?: )

A perfect example of my point, regarding etymology vs definition. :hammer2: :hammer2: :hammer2:

Nevertheless, if you've ever introduced someone to someone else for the purpose and intent of "setting them up", then indeed you have "procured" in this sense.Not if you consider the etymology of the word vs. its definition :uhoh: :D But I haven't done that anyway, so I suppose there is no procurement happeneing in my life.

Of this, I am well aware, though it has not been for the lack of trying. :) It's just that I think that a foundation of other information is necessary before doing so....information you have said you do not have the space to provide. I suppose we'll have to wait for the matriarchy and romance threads to have a proper foundation before fully contemplating the depth of the SAMURAI36 theory on love, relationships, and marriage.

Another story indeed, but your statement still bears relevance here; if you can't do something as basic as "procure" employment, how then can you build anything independent of such an endeavor.Very easily, it starts with your intention, but again--another topic all together.

Certain things precede other things. It seems that everyone in the world inherently understands this........All except our people, that is.Saying this about having a job before starting your own institution is almost like saying slavery precedes freedom.

Given the context and focus of this discussion, could you see yourself procuring a mate for yourself (neologism of the word notwithstanding)? Or is it that your only means of having a mate, for him to procure you?I think both people have to be involved in the process, which is why I wouldn't call it procurement or anything similar to that.

NNQueen

03-30-2006, 07:29 PM

If love is not an emotion, then what is it? (Forgive me if I missed it)

Why/where did the notion "fall IN love" come from and what does it mean?

Is "love" a capitalist concept? Nothing more than a commercialized product?

How/why did "love" become the central focus of marriage?

Queenie :spinstar:

Keita Kenyatta

03-30-2006, 10:18 PM

It came from Europeans. Even the word "ROMAN-CE. It's so ROMAN-TIC and ROMAN-TICIZE. African relationships were always based on RESPECT. Since you ask what is this feeling we call LOVE, let me speak on it. First rule of knowledge is; "What is EMOTION?" Emotion is the vibrational waves of "thought coursing through the body", whether conscious or subconscious.

What does this mean? It means that ther is "no such "seperate" entity as emotion. Behind EVERY EMOTION IS A THOUGHT. When a person says: "I did it cause I felt like it," that is a lie. If that person takes the time to do some introspection, they will discover the "thought behind their feelings that actually made them do what they did." To give you another example is to use the piano. You go to the piano and you take one finger and strike the "G" note. The hammer inside the piano raises up and comes down on the strings producing vibrations which in turn produces the sound.

If the piano were the human body, the hammer raising up would have been the thought. The piano itself is the body. When the hammer (thought) came down on the strings it would produce a vibration in the piano (body). That vibration in the piano (body is what we call "EMOTION".)

Take that reality along with the reality of chemical affinity (law of attraction) and you would have what people call love. However, in reality it is the thought that produces the vibration or emotion that we take as being "something seperate" because the majority of us are not taught to ALWAYS LOOK WITHIN FOR THE ANSWER TO THEIR QUESTIONS.

HOPE I WAS HELPFUL. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT LONGER BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO THERE.

kemetkind

03-30-2006, 11:06 PM

PEACE BROTHER KEMETKIND:

As have I; and as such, please do not think I was ignoring your message.

Yes, a viscious cycle, that you could have avoided from the very beginning.

Excellent question.....Which is why I could not understand why you sought to engage in such behavior in the first place.

What was the relevance of mentioning your wife and mother here? Though I'm sure that they are fine people, their presence in this discussion bears no relevance whatsoever, especially since they are not participating in this discussion to begin with.

I would be inclined to agree, that you would not "win" in such an endeavor. Except that such a failed endeavor would have nothing to do with the audience, but rather your being bereft of a proper method of attack, coupled with your not having a clearly established perspective to attack with.

Further, your bias about this "audience" is tantamount to underestimating them, but also quite unbecoming.

In the meantime, it is no disgrace to accept defeat. As a disciple of both Chess and Swordfighting, I have been taught by my Enlighteners of both disciplines, that the loser of a contest has more to gain from it than the winner does.

I'm sure it would be, if that was in fact what I was doing, or had done. It's easy to make all sorts of assertions, when one opts not to substantiate them. Please feel free to prove wherein I had done any such thing here.

That's great, but once again, just like mentioning your wife and mother, that has absolutely no bearing or relevance in this discussion.

And yet, you accuse me of "diverting the focus of the discussion"?? Your meanderings of hypocrisy are borderlining the insultive.

Excellent.

The only "offense" that I took to that statement, is that you have yet to clarify its relevance, in reference to my assertions here.

Your "Miss Piggy" sentiment, if I understood it correctly, was akin to basically saying that my perspective was unfit, despite it being well presented vernacularly.

While I don't take personal offense to some shooting down my theories, what I do have grievance with, is doing so while not offering an alternative in kind.

Proof of this, lies in the fact that my very first response to you in this thread, was in the form of a request to clarify your perspective, which, despite your offering of a response, you had nonetheless failed to tender.

I.E., telling someone that they are wrong, but not telling someone how they are wrong, is utterly pointless.

True indeed.

I certainly hope so.

You are continuing to show and prove that you have not comprehended a single thing that I've said, especially as you continued to oversimplify my statements, and the sentiments behind them.

Have you actually thoroughly read this entire thread--more specifically, my responses herein?

Firstly, as I've also "elucidated" that this situation is not going to be fixed overnight (you are clearly not comprehending here), then your choice of "OVERNIGHT" as verbage was pointless. You continue to attribute statements and notions that are/were not mine to me. Why?

Anyways, more to the question: Regarding the Black woman's refinement of discernment, your question implies that she is choosing over inaminate objects like shoes or cars.

The reality is, that if Black men want to have a quality Black woman in his/our lives, then he is going to have to step up to the plate, by striving to match the more refined criteria that she would at some point learn to set forth.

You mentioned the Chaucer earlier....... if that test was not as difficult as it is, then you would have every mediocre Negro walking around talking about "Yo, I'm a Scientist". I'm sure, that as a scientist yourself, you would take offense to such a thing.

My perspective has not changed. You're more than free to disagree with it, if you like. But for the sake of discussion, I ask that you do 2 things:

#1) Please fully understand what you are disagreeing with, as thus far you have not indicated that you do.

#2) Please offer a viable alternative to my perspective, as you opt to shoot mine down.

Without being offensive to you, this question clearly indicates that you do not have the keenest understanding of what Matriarchy, et-al. really is.

Perhaps a separate discussion about this custom is in order, and mayhaps Brother Sun Ship could assist me in constructing a separate thread.

Otherwise, it seems that much of this discussion is at an impasse, since the base of my perspectives is based on my knowledge of said custom, whilst yours seems to be based on the lack thereof.

But to the satisfaction of your question, the role and purpose of the man/male is as accorded within the customs in question.

Please indicate evidence of such an argument. True the woman has a inherent power, but it's one that she either readily tries to hand over to men, or that she wrecklessly and aimlessly flouts towards no good end.

Besides, if this power was not "lost" (lost does not always imply absense), then why are not better decisions for a mate not being seen? I just had a conversation with a sister about the notions of Romance and what not. People (especially women, and even moreso especially Sisters) still wish to buy into faulty European and Biblical notions such as "Romance" and the "Proverbs 31 woman", while not understanding the origins of these faulty practices.

In the meantime, the result is a nation/society with the highest divorce rate in comparison to the entire world put together, the highest STD rate, the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest domestic violence rate.......Need I go on? All of which is a result of the "fantasy" that we (and women in particular) subscribe to.

Brother, your "limited understanding of African Matriarchy" is the root of your lack of understanding of my perspective here. While waiting for myself and (hopefully) Brother Sun Ship to give more info, I would greatly recommend that you take the time to learn more about this subject, to see how my offers of solutions and theories otherwise would play out under its auspices.

The topic of Matriarchy, etc-al is not an obscure one, and is easily researchable. There are numerous pieces of literature on the subject, such as the book that I mentioned in my first post here: AN AFROCENTRIC GUIDE TO A SPIRITUAL UNION. In nearly a week's time since I first posted my initial information, did you bother to look into this book, perhaps procuring it for yourself?

Nevertheless, Matriarchy is not a concept that is in anyway synonymous or relative to how we as Black people in these modern times live. Factually, this current "lifestyle" that we live now is an affront to it.

Further, contrary to what your (and others') statements imply, we cannot paint over this current lifestyle, with what we (scarcely) think Matriarchy, et-al is. That would be tantamount to "putting lipstick on a swine" as you so aptly designated earlier.

That is also the reason that you need to have the keenest understanding of what Matriarchy, et-al is; not to have this, and to pretend that you do while arguing the point, is pointless for both of us, and insulting for at least one of us.

Matriarchy, et-al is a lifestyle that finds itself manifested in every aspect of society, just as any other ubiquitous custom does (or at least, is supposed to).

You admitted earlier, that sociology is not one of your strongest fields of science. Well, it would need to be, in order to keenly understand Matriarchy, et-al and my theories behind/about it.

Matriarchy is both founded upon, as well as serves to foundate the practice of socialism. Socialism as a practice, is the antithesis to Capitalism that this society (and our people especially) have been duped into trying to live. Hence, the problem with most modern-day marriages and relationships. They are based on capitalism ("what you can do for me"), and not socialism ("what I can do for us").

Furthermore, Matriarchy, et-al finds itself manifested in the religion(s), politics, and science arts, as they are practiced by said society.

Contrary to your notion (a notion based on limited knowledge and understanding), Our women are legally powerless in this society. Women who strive to alter their appearance just to get and keep the attention of a man, is not the example of a woman possessing and expressing power.

You don't see Matriarchy, et-al in this society--at least, not within its proper form.

You yourself also admitted that African history was based on Patriarchy, not Matriarchy. That much is obvious, even now as you (and others) tend to color your perspectives based on that false and obsolete notion.

Not at all. But given the fact that you still lack a sufficient knowledge of Matriarchy proper, you're really not in the best position to question any definition, until you do acquire a better base of knowledge.

Why do you think women were worshipped as God(dess) in ancient times? Why do many of our people the world over worship the White Jesus now? What does this do to the psychology of a person?

Do you understand what I am asking? Where this question will lead you to?

This is a redundant question, no different from, "after you have lunch, what are you going to eat"?

The answer is keenly instrinsic. THE POWER LIES WITH THE WOMAN.

Most likely what it is for yours: Man, Woman and Child, living in harmony with one another, in accordance to, but not limited by, their respective roles.

However, that is not what is at issue here. That is the goal, but the goal does not "equate to" the path by which we get there. However, the latter does "result in" the former.

Which was my point all along. It is most unfortunate that you missed it (and continue to do so.....?).

PEACE

lol.

Ok. You "win," since my desire to revert to the topic at hand equates to defeat (in your reality).

On Chess, I believe there is momentum growing for a chess league here between Destee members.

It would be enlightening for many here to truly test their technical skill and will against others trained in the sport, myself included, so I'm certainly looking forward to it.

But with regards to discussing this topic, I'd given you more credit than warranted for you'd much rather grandstand and display your tail feathers than deal seriously with it.

So now I have undoubtedly wasted time in this thread, and to prevent throwing good money after bad, I will promptly part from it with a single admonition:

My wife, who is the mother of my seed, was mentioned to differentiate both my intent and potential gain in continueing this discussion (as in, I don't display tail feathers anymore)....But with all due respect Brother Samurai36, I will bestow kind words upon her any place I please, for the relevance of her presence ANYWHERE is not determined by you.:nono:

One day, when your Queen has selected you, hopefully, you will be able to comprehend as much for yourself.:idea:

Peace.

Black People | African Americans | Online Community

Black Chat - Black Poetry - Black Discussions - Destee