Black People : Combating the European claim to "universalism": according to Marimba Ani

Question: Do you have anymore of that stuff you're smoking? Once you accept the European concept of "OBJECT-TIVITY", that means that everything must be placed OUTSIDE of yourself in order to study and examine it. The object is a THING....something that can be seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched. For Europeans, if it does not fall within that arena, it doesn't exist. That was one side. The other side is that, Objectivity is impossible because we are all a product of the cultures from which we all come

Furthermore, there are three species on this earth. Species one is MAN. This represents only black people. Species two is HUMANS. This represents white people. Species Three is MANKIND. Mankind is a hybrid of Man and Human mixing. More on that later.


Objectivity may be difficult, but it is not impossible. We come from different cultures but are the same species with the same homonid nature, and the natural world in which we exist is the same regardless of our cultural constructs.

If indeed you wish to suggest that there exists some reality outside that which can be empirically examined with our senses........ you must ironiclly provide proof of this in order for the hypothesis to have any validity.

Oh and there is only ONE sapient species currently on this earth, not three. And you may call it Man, Mankind, Human or whatever else, its still the same animal. And to suggest that there are true "hybrids", one would have to first establish racial differenetness. And again, regarding the manmade "race" concept, scientific objectivity does not confim this tribal/political construct
 
Objectivity may be difficult, but it is not impossible. We come from different cultures but are the same species with the same homonid nature, and the natural world in which we exist is the same regardless of our cultural constructs.

Even in your own paradigm, for certain important aspects of human existence, objectivity is impossible. For instance, is it objective to say, and hold others to a social arrangement, of male-dominated houses? Is it objective to say, and hold others to a social arrangement, of one man to one woman? These incredibly important social arrangements can't be universally objective, so with these, among others, being disqualified from objectivity, what are you trying to argue should be objective? More importantly, isn't it the case that the Black Family in America is held to a White standard that is propagated as objective? Do not forget that the European colonized other people and imposed upon them systems which were objectively negative for those colonized people. Perhaps that's not all Ani meant, but it's a start for you to grasp the errors of your argument.
 
Even in your own paradigm, for certain important aspects of human existence, objectivity is impossible. For instance, is it objective to say, and hold others to a social arrangement, of male-dominated houses? Is it objective to say, and hold others to a social arrangement, of one man to one woman? These incredibly important social arrangements can't be universally objective,


The question of ideal family structure and social arrangements can to a certain extent be objectively analyzed based on the nature of humans. In order to suggest that male-dominated homes ought be the ideal for example, it must first be established some genetic gender basis for such a proposition.
This goes for any social arrangement. The reason that social arrangements and gender roles in modern society have evolved and allowed for greater eqaulity is that traditions (which favored male domination and tribal bigotry in every culture) were not consistent with reason and scientific verifiability. This is why rational modern cutures have deconstructed and modified these traditional arrangments.

Regarding polygamy, it is a practice that has historically been male centered. If indeed you wish to advocate this structure as it has traditionally been practiced(males with multiple wives, but not vice-versa) then you must present scientifically based rational
justification for why femals with multiple husbands should not be allowed but the reverse allowed.
Mere invocation of african traditionalism will not suffice

What can and should be legally enforced regarding family structure, and social preferrences is a more complex matter, as it takes into consideration issues of personal liberty and the right of individuals to freely pursue arrangements, including that may be unwise.
 
The question of ideal family structure and social arrangements can to a certain extent be objectively analyzed based on the nature of humans. In order to suggest that male-dominated homes ought be the ideal for example, it must first be established some genetic gender basis for such a proposition.
This goes for any social arrangement. The reason that social arrangements and gender roles in modern society have evolved and allowed for greater eqaulity is that traditions (which favored male domination and tribal bigotry in every culture) were not consistent with reason and scientific verifiability. This is why rational modern cutures have deconstructed and modified these traditional arrangments.

Regarding polygamy, it is a practice that has historically been male centered. If indeed you wish to advocate this structure as it has traditionally been practiced(males with multiple wives, but not vice-versa) then you must present scientifically based rational
justification for why femals with multiple husbands should not be allowed but the reverse allowed.
Mere invocation of african traditionalism will not suffice

What can and should be legally enforced regarding family structure, and social preferrences is a more complex matter, as it takes into consideration issues of personal liberty and the right of individuals to freely pursue arrangements, including that may be unwise.


Then maybe you need to study more history since polyandry existed BEFORE POLYGAMY. Furthermore, people lack the ability for this objectivity based upon culture. I would not want to lose what makes me special just for the purpose of "going along to get along". Secondly, since people see and react to another person phenotypically and not genetically, what you propose has no weight or reality in the minds of the masses throughout the world. Thirdly, since it was Afrakan people who TAUGHT all other so called people about spirituality, (which obviously can not be put under a microscope and examined) why would we want to bend or change our paradigm for the sake that OTHERS WHO ARE NOT US WILL GRASP AND UNDERSTAND IT?

We've been here for millions of years compared to the measly time frame of others. Therefore we have THINGS THAT ARE CULTURALLY AND GENETICALLY ENCODED IN US AS A PEOPLE THAT OTHERS DO NOT HAVE DUE TO THEIR NEW-NESS on the planet. 500 years ago there was no such thing as a puerto rican, which is a hybrid of what? I say this to say that hybrids do exist!! Anytime you take two of anything and mix it to produce something else, what is that called?...that's right, a hybrid. Black people aren't even from EARTH but everyone else is. If we say aliens made us then we are not from here. If we say that a Supreme Being made us, then we are still not from here...but everyone else is because they came through us in one way or another. Your argument isn't logical and is basically structured to get black people to do what?...and for who?...and why? I'm done with this. Thank you anyway. Htp!!
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top