- Oct 8, 2005
- 1,599
- 65
So the bottom line is you define race differently than Biko, yet you're claiming your ideology is similar to his.OmowaleX said:There is a difference between recognizing that "race" is a social factor that exists and "ascribing to the notion of race". I not not have to believe in a concept to know that it exists. Just as Steve Biko states that all "blacks" are Oin-whites, but not all non-whites are "blacks". Again, If I do so incorrectly, I define "Blacks" in the context of CULTURE not RACE or "genetic phenotype".
Which means that as far as I am concerned, what is important to be is SHARED IDEOLOGY...rather than SHARED SKIN COLOR.
If you define race as only shared ideology, than a blonde haired blue eyed pale skinned hook nosed dude who shares the same ideology as a black man could be considered black.
Please show me where that is supported in Biko's thinking.
We need to focus on them both, but the internal enemy is the MOST dangerous, since they are cloaked,and move among us creating disruption and confusion, and subterfuge. IMO they deserve an even more exact justice.OmowaleX said:IF Dr. Nkrumah identifies "the enemy" as the "African bourgeoisie" why should I then deny his description in favor of the African bourgeoisie who defines the enemy as "the white man". Why focus on the external (white man-enemy) instead of the internal (african bourgeoisie)...
I'm interested to know how you're classifying this "African Bourgeoisie."
Who does that entail?