I have read accounts of our lynchings: I don't believe that the one-man job exists. Do you know otherwise? I know of several mob attacks.
As to whether the European would act alone--he may want to--but it's not in his Philosophy to. A police officer can take a whole building by himself, but he storms in with back-up--because that's his Philosophy.
I can agree about art being about choices, but when these choices go against our philosophy and history, it sets us back. That's all that I am saying. You objected to Rick Ross' language in Ghana--why can't I object to this artist's message? It goes both ways.
Finally, NBA players are better off economically. Believe it or not, our ancestors recommended we find poverty wretched. Maybe [some of] the Bible says otherwise, but one needs to understand why.
One can see in Obara (of the Yoruba faith) that one should be wealthy. Further, Pta-Hotep recommends that we increase what we have. Finally a Somalian proverb reads "Poverty is slavery."
We need to get our Philosophy straight. Our ancestors admit that we should be rich. To pity the NBA stars then pretend that wealth is meaningless misleads us into accepting poverty--an idea imposed upon us by Europeans robbers.
Peace ABSiblings,
.. so, because
you have not come into contact with information that suggests that individual white men lynched black men, that means that it can't be true? Do you actually believe that you know everything?
Everything? because you read
some accounts? Do you really believe that the history of lynching is even recorded in writing? and besides that.. to put all of that in context.. who says that art needs to be backed up with written historical documentation? come on now.. If you put the lynching scene back in the context of the performance piece, you will see that the context you yourself put around it is misapplied. His thesis is not about whether or not white men lynched black men alone or in concert.. and for you to apply that filter to his message is to take what he's saying out of context.. it's like pulling individual verses out of a story and judging them by some criteria foreign to the intent of the story.
Also.. when you say, "
I can agree about art being about choices, but when these choices go against our philosophy and history, it sets us back" That's a noble idea.. but what
"our philosophy" are you talking about? And when were you appointed guardian over it? And your suggestion that "
our history" consists only of things that are written.. and also.. that
you know about and/or believe... is elitist to say the least.. trust me, their are things that you don't know.. truths that have not been revealed to you.. and that will probably never ever be revealed to you.. not while you have this feeling that you already know everything.. and that anyone that presents a perspective contrary to your understanding is somehow automatically misinformed or guilty of some cultural crime against "
us".. as
defined by you. But at some point you will have to recognize that other folks don't speak from your perspective.. only from their own..
So, clearly these are not the choices that you would have made.. but that hardly makes these artists guilty of "setting us back"..
and listen if you want bring my Rick Ross comments into this thread, please bring the whole context that those comments where made within also.. context being everything and all...