Not quite. I am arguing that if the constitution clearly states something, then that should be followed, regardless of what the intent was. And what relevance this has to this topic I do not see. Suppose the constitution said “All religions shall be treated equally. Even the scourge upon our fair land, the dirty papists, shall be accorded equal respect to decent Christian folks”. I would conclude that:
The constitution demands religious tolerance.
The writers of the constitution were religiously intolerant.
I see no contradiction between those two conclusions.
Good Heavens, Jersey Diamond, I see you are in need of some information, education, enlightenment, horizon-broadening, call it what you will.
Your posts appear to invite the assumption that your attitude towards homosexuality is along the lines of: “Oh, I don’t have any problem with what consenting adults want to do in bed with each other, but why do they haave to call attention to it?” Superficially, this may aspire to be an attitude of tolerance, but as has been pointed out in numerous places on this message board, such an attitude is simplistic, patronizing, and probably a whole lot of other things that mean “not really tolerant.”
It may benefit your education for you to visit (for a start) any of the “Ask the Gay Guy” threads. In the meantime, assuming that you are heterosexual, and have both a boyfriend and a job, imagine that your boyfriend arrives at your job at the end of your work day, bearing gifts (flowers and chocolate). Do you give him a hug and a kiss? If he sends the flowers to you at work, do you dislpay them proudly to your coworkers? How do you suppose a gay man or a lesbian would be likely to answer these questions? This is what “Pretend You’re Not Gay Day” means.
What’s wrong with “I think it is”? Am I supposed to ignore my feelings? The overall way that Kwanzaa is presented makes me feel that it is exclusionary. If I had recorded every single thing I have heard about Kwanzaa, perhaps I could recreate how I came to this conclusion. However, I can’t memorize every thing I experience.
Gee, it’s really easy to argue against someone’s position when you’re the one making up their position, isn’t?
As a matter of fact, that has happened. At an old job of mine, I worked with and was friends with a gay guy. We all got along great. I remember asking him for a suggestion on what to get my now ex boyfriend for his birthday. Thats when I realized he was gay, because it just so happened that his boyfriends birthday was 2 weeks after my ex’s, and he told me what he was getting him. I just think its so much nicer learning about people through conversations with them, rather then be all defensive displaying their rainbows and parade banners. We don’t need to have parades to learn about someones sexuality, do we? When his boyfriend was around, it was just another day and another couple. It doesn’t have to be LOUD!
I don’t think that any ethnic group creating a holiday is equal to its being anti-white, and I don’t want to imply that this is the case. I don’t believe, as The Ryan posted, that because “It was conceived with the purpose of giving black something to share,” which is true, that that is equivalent to “denying whites that something.”
Biggirl and others have argued, though, that Kwanzaa is not exclusive. That is true insofar as nobody is prevented from celebrating Kwanzaa. However, while nobody is locking the doors, not everyone really is invited to the dance. It’s an ethnic celebration. They all have an element of exclusivity to them by their very nature. And there’s nothing wrong with that so long as they are not officially and actively exclusionary.
People have also argued that Kwanzaa is not related to Christmas. The reason I posted in this thread at all was because this strikes me as completely disingenuous, along the lines of arguing that the Catholics did not intend Christmas to impact on the pagan traditions when they scheduled it. Given that Kwanzaa was created by a Black Studies professor in 1966, when there was a vocal black separtist movement, as well as a movement to turn from Christianity to Islam, I see scheduling Kwanzaa to begin the day after Christmas as a shrewd bit of social engineering. It allows black Christians to still celebrate Christmas while at the same time offering an alternative holiday that blacks who are looking for new traditions. Its suggestion to fast for a week between sunup and sundown is also perfectly in keeping with the Islamic observance of Ramadan, which sometimes coincides with the season.
This certainly seems to me to indicate that the creator of Kwanzaa had a few problems with Christmas. And I think that the evidence would suggest that December 26th is far from accidental placement for his new holiday.
Do I care if Kwanzaa steals some of Christmas’ thunder? No! I am not Christian, and I have no fear that Commerce Day is going to dry up during my lifetime. However, when people say that Kwanzaa is not intended to be a possible alternative to Christmas, I think they are arguing the wrong side of what’s what, at least from the way the evidence looks to me.
As for my motives for my last post, I’d have dropped the thing if Biggirl hadn’t at first said that I was paranoid (in all fairness to her, it was before I explained why I thought the scheduling was far from accidental) or posted that line about the “anti-Christmas theme” being dropped, mostly the second one. So for the record:
I don’t think Kwanzaa is anti-white.
I do think that Kwanzaa is by and for black Americans.
I don’t think that Kwanzaa is anti-Christmas in the sense that it is out to destroy the holiday or keep blacks from celebrating it. That is a losing battle from the get-go.
I do think that Kwanzaa was scheduled right after Christmas to serve as a possible alternative to that holiday for those that were inclined to reject it for the reasons above.
The Ryan, you posed the rhetorical question and then asserted that a “rejection” of Christmas was racist. This despite providing no evidence that Kwanzaa was a rejection of Christmas. Complaining, now, that you are not being allowed to express an opinion is, at best, disingenuous. In what GD discussion have you ever participated where opinions were not expected to be supported by facts?
As to the “replacing Christmas” notion: The statement made in the 1960s was that they felt that they had been rejected by the celebrants of Christmas, not that they were deliberately choosing to avoid it. Note that they did not choose a date that conflicted with Christmas, but chose a period adjacent to it that allowed for consecutive celebrations.
Even if you want to invert (their view that) American society rejected them to claiming that they reject American society, it is still not an expression of racism on their part: it is an attempt to respond to the racism inflicted on them. They did not demand that all (or any) blacks reject Christmas; they created a cultural celebration to lift up their own experience.
For you to insist that they are acting in a racist manner is “imposing a meaning on it.” The comparison to the KKK falls flat as soon as (ta DAA) you provide evidence. The KKK has participated in specific violent acts against blacks, Jews, and Catholics. They have even been found guilty in courts of law for doing the same. Where is the evidence that any supporter of or particpant in Kwanzaa has ever rejected the participation of a white person? Where is the statement that indicates that they reject “white” Christmas (as opposed to the statement that they feel they have been ignored by the majority society)?
As to the ad hominem “attack,” it was not an attack on anyone. It was a general cry of sorrow that every two or three weeks we see one more (or several more) thread(s) pop up on this MB bewailing the poor persecuted white people suffering at the hands of all those unruly minorities. It was not aimed at anyone–but there is a proverb about shoes that fit.
You only think that because you see Christmas or whatever, being straight, all of your little “straight white guy” packages as normal or neutral. If you weren’t a straight white guy, you’d see the average American public school history class as parade of white guys. I was noticing this, actually, watching Turner Classic Movies the other day. They had a montage of scenes from classic movies, King Kong, Star Wars, the Ten Commandments, all of that good stuff. I doubt this was done intentionally, you know, but you could watch the clips and go “white guy, white guy, dog, white guy, white guy, white woman, white guy, white woman, white guy, white guy, shark, black guy.” To me, minority pride seems to be about “despite obstacles to entry, we managed to achieve,” and white pride is more “don’t forget, we’re better than you are.”
There’s a tricky little thing called “context,” you have to consider, and it generally trumps symmetry.
Anyway, you’re not invited to Hanukah, either, or any of a gang of other holidays. Non catholics cannot take communion at catholic mass. Are these exclusive celebrations anti- something else, or do they simply help form an identity for the participants? I really don’t know how inclusive Kwaanza can be, anyway. We’ve been comparing it to St. Pat’s, when everyone pretends to be Irish. Would you go to a bar with a button that said “Kiss Me, I’m Black!”?
But seriously, do you think Passover isn’t fair, becuase it’s not for Christians? Do you get it yet?
Dude, you nailed it. Being “by blacks, for blacks” is not anti-white. But the lack of a “No Honkeys Allowed” clause in the Rules o’ Kwaanza does NOT make it an inclusive holiday.
Here’s my analogy, YMMV. One day, my sister was sick, so she asked me to go to the liquor store and buy her Seventeen magazine. This magazine, while necessarily not written BY teenage girls, is definitely FOR teenage girls. There is nothing in the magazine that says, “If you’re male and are reading this, you will be subjected to criminal prosecution.” So, by Biggirl et al.'s definition, Seventeen is NOT an exclusive magazine.
So, riddle me this–why the hell was I given such a look by the cashier? I mean, picture buying a giant box of condoms, a turkey baster, and a tub of Crisco from a cashier who happens to be your sister, and is going to join a convent next month. The look of sheer “whatthefuckareyoudoingbuyingthis” was almost overwhelming.
Stating that Seventeen magazine, or Kwaanza, is “inclusive” because it lacks a “No [blank] allowed” clause is ridiculous.
Oh, and this is Great Debates. We debate shit here. That doesn’t mean it has to be an earthshattering debate. So, all of the “Aww, poor white boys scared of Kwaanza” attacks are baseless. As many have said, no one is threatened by Kwaanza. Well, probably a few people, but I’m certainly not threatened by Kwaanza. The “big deal” I’m making is about the ridiculous claim that Kwaanza is “inclusive,” simply because it isn’t overtly exclusive.
heh, are you kidding? I tried to wear a kilt and kit and was sent home for it to change. This is at a company with no dress code and people wearing T-Shirts with booze slogans and big tittied devil women on them, but if you are in a managerial position you have to be conservative. And since I can’t claim Scottish ancestry to justify the garb I had to change. I have a tye dyed yarmulke I wear sometimes and they know better than to say anything about it, and I still have my talits that i could wear but you don’t really get any of the pimp gear unless you are married and orthodox. peace: My grandfather has it and I had to get tested for it when I was a kid. My own tests and everyone else in my family thus far have been negative so I have not done a huge amount of research on it but what I have read suggests that the reasons for people of Middle-Eastern and Meddeteranian descent specifically peoples descended from Hebrews is that there was intermingling of genes amongst these people historically. Certainly my ancestors spent sufficient time in Egypt and just like most American descendants of slaves there was bound to be prolonged intermingling with the slave masters but other speculation credits the genetic mixing to even further back to times when people were of a more nomadic nature. Other things I had read on the disease and other diseases specific to people of Hebrew descent (Tay Sachs is another one but specifically that has been traced to cultural rahter then genetic heritage) related to stuff a bit more on the trivial side. The “Lost Jews” phenomenon is somewhat overblown and at the same time a real thing. Tradition and law allows for a Jew to convert or to assume the local religeon if his life is in danger. Because of this and some other lesser impetus there have been people who found out that they were probably of Hebrew or African origins because they got sick and then were diagnosed with sickle cell. There was actually an episode of some popular medical drama that I remember being about the same time I got tested and I always remember that being kinda’ neat/weird. Thats pretty much the extent of what I know about it without delving into the mundane. Any more you can go look up.
Alessan: Of course you are right. But I don’t like being labelled or lumped into a race that I do not identify with either culturally or historically. White people do things like own slaves and have pogroms. White people do things to Jews because we are not white. Of course, to be fair white people probably would have stopped after 10 years in the desert and asked directions and they would have remembered to pack some yeast too. The majority of my genotype does not come frome Europe, but even if it did I would identify my genes with the people that I held comfort with. If your family started of in the Med and moved on then you are still a Hebraic Jew somewhere. So your aren’t a 100% European (aren’t Russians Asian?). Just like Tiger Woods (and most of us to some degree) you are mixed with possibly dominant features that adhere to one genotype and possibly not (Tiger is such a good example with his Asiatic eyes and dark skin), it is up to you like all people who know they are mixed to determine your ethnicity and to violently reject moronic Goyim from trying to bind you to their self serving concepts. Any self-identified white who blankly claims that Jews are white too and rejects any other possibility would do well to think of the Bedouin people who are a race and a culture unto themselves and know no nationality because they wander across borders. And if people wish to claim that because I am mixed then I must be white then the logic is so strained as to be ignored completely.
What is the definition of “inclusive” here? There seems to be different criteria being used for different holidays.
Christmas is inclusive because everybody can celebrate it if they want. St. Patrick’s Day is inclusive because everybody can celebrate it if they want. Chinese New Years is inclusive because everybody can celebrate it if they want. No matter that Christmas is christian, St. Patrick’s day is Irish and Chinese New Years is Chinese.
But Kwanzaa is not inclusive, even though anyone can celebrate it if they want. Because it’s black. It was invented by a black man. It celebrates what was hoped would become good priciples to live by. It is exclusive.
Any holiday can be said to be exlusive if we are going to use these criteria. Labor Day is only for people who work. It is anti-stay-at-home-mom and anti-children. Memorial Day is only for people who died in a war and perhaps their families. It is anti-everyone else.
The debate is whether or not Kwanzaa is anti-white. Some posters have expressed the opinion that it is because it exludes white. And I say one of the biggest reasons we are having this debate at all is because some white people fear a black holiday.
Races are purely culturally determined and the scientists (both the 19th century racist ethnologists and the 20th century anthropologists) have always placed Jews (and North Africans with some minor exceptions on the far west coast) into the white/Caucasian category. The only people who have ever put Jews in a non-white column have been Country Club membership committees, realtors, and the Aryan Brotherhood and friends. Not being eligible to join a country club, myself, not enjoying sales well enough to take up realty, and not even liking the company of the Aryan Whatevers, I will follow the anthropologists by including Jews in the white column.
If you want to claim that “white = persecutor” and declare yourself out, that’s fine, (and I’m sure that you can find support with brother Louis), but I am simply following the general cultural categories laid out by the scientific community.
I’m not sure why you would drag the Bedouins into this. Race and nationality are not related in any way and the anthropologists (and even the ethnologists) would generally throw the Bedouins into the white pile, too. You appear to be using a definition of “race” (as fuzzy a concept as that is) that is not commonly found in American English.
No, I think I remember that episode of Doogie but that isn’t the show I’m thinking of. The show I’m thinking of was either Trapper John or St Elsewhere (I’m think).
Sorry but this just does not float. First off there are few if any cultural similarities between Northern Europeans and North Africans. Secondly which “white” may be a word used to describe a skin pigmentation do you actually believe that it applies to an Egyptian no matter what branch of the sciences you want to bring to bear on this. And while there may be some blending of physical features due to intermixing and intermingling which I specifically mentioned before.
Look you want to make cites all day long that may be from scientists that you agree with simply for the purpose of attempting to validate a non-point or do you want to make not of some easily observable facts?
Hell in the 60’s Montague argued that there was no such thing as “race”,(see Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race) he’s a scientist too and his argument does not favor either of us. His point is valid in it’s own way. You and I are probably both humans and in so many ways identical that there is no “race” between us. But we are not talking this kind of idealized view on “race”, we are talking ethno/cultural here. Claiming that my ethnicity and culture is the same as the generic “white” person’s which most people see as the Northern European rather than the middle-Eastern Jewish traddition I identify with has no basis in the reality of the argument at hand.
Using the formal definition of race, humanity has been divided into varying numbers of races ranging from 3 to several hundred.
Cuvier, the same person who advocated the theory of catastrophism split humanity into 3 major races: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. In America we give this
racial division almost sacred importance. We think it’s “natural” or scientifically valid.
The point is that there is no racial classification that has any more scientific merit than any other. This is a difference from the sociological concept of race, where
racial labels are thought of as having some validity, both to the persons doing the classification and to the people being classified.
Of course this whole argument has it’s basis in the importance of self-identity. Some people would argue against racial classification as a basis for ehtnic identification because when we seperate or classify ourselves we set ourselves up for persecution, and to some extent I agree with this quote “…that present-day inequalities between human groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance; rather, these inequalities are products of
historical and contemporary social, economic, educational and political circumstances.” (Anthropology Newsletter Septemper 1997).
But I would say that for me ehtnic self identification poses no great threat so long as it is done for reasons of self worth and pride and so long as we do not allow others to define us or to readily accept a label that is handed to us simply because it comes from a tradditionally accepted source.
Your argument seems to relate to those who think that there are only the three races mentioned before, caucasion, negro, asian. Since I am not dark brown and I do not have slanted eyes I must be caucasian to you. This is an oversimplification that may well be based in sweetness and light but does not really apply. That is the same sort of classification system that makes the Native American peoples Asian and confuses people from Eastern Russia. Please sir, do me the courtesy of allowing me to choose who I am when there is a possibility that your beliefs are not absolute.
Several of us just got done fighting in several threads with peace that race had no biological reality.
I am not fond of the term “race” for several reasons, however, when someone declares “white” or something else, I prefer to stick with established stuff from the scientific community. The current anthropological definitions appear to favor the six groups I noted on this thread on 12-27-2000 01:34 PM (where I inadvertantly typed “five” instead of “six”).
If you want to equate “white” with European, that’s OK with me. Throwing out the statement that you are “not white” without any explanation that you have your own code of categories, however, is simply confusing to the reading public.
As I noted, the only people I have encountered claiming North Africans are not white, tend to claim Italians are not white, so I generally dismiss their views.
I’m perfectly willing to let you be whatever you want, now that I understand what it is you want.
You clearly you saying that since my opinion was wrong, I had no right to express it.
When have I done so?
That is completely irrelevant to my analogy. My point was that it is clear, just from what the KKK says, that they are racists, and it is not necessary to look for an explicit declaration of such, whether in words or in deeds, to conclude this.
In that case, I would like to express my disappointment in the assholes that have been unable to discuss this topic politely, who have taken every disagreement with their closeminded, idiotic views as an attack on minorities, who have repeatedly shown themselves to be dishonest pricks by claiming that the other people have made claims that they in fact did not make, who have taken every post that is not in complete accordance with their liberal PC bullshit as a plea for sympathy for the whites, and have in general acted in a manner not befitting a member of the human race, let alone this board. Not that I’m talking about anyone in particular. But hey, if the shoe fits…
I would leave it to those of Italian descent to determine that for themselves. I have read and been lectured that the people of that region were at one time predominantly fair haired and light complected until being overrun by Moors, and thereafter having darker complexion and hair. They are certainly geographically European but then if you believe in Pangea so was Maine at one time. The enigma in this argument is that borders and skin tone do not a race make.
I would also take exception to your aquiescence in the same paragraph where you make a point of stating that you prefer to stick with “established stuff” which I take to mean that if a respected ethnobiologist or anthropologist differs from you in opinion then they must not be “established”. While I am willing to lend some credence to your statements and have gone to read the thread relating to genetics and the inheritance of race and would tend to agree with your points there, you seem to either ignore or gloss over the cruxt of my point which is that race as defined by my statements is an amalgam of ethos and physical heritage in whatever proportion the imposed party holds to be of value.
Certainly there are people in America who call themselves “black” that can claim less pure black African ancestry than I can middle eastern ancestry and yet they are black and accepted as such, and no one would dare to refute that.
Of equal certainty is that the term “race” is ambiguous in the minds of some people who use it and/or read it as used by others. I find the term interchangeable with ethnicity and of near value to “culture” in many cases. But do not read that as a lessening of the import of the term. True race is in many ways a non-term for the purposes of genetics and almost impossible to determine by gene sampling (I recently read you needed something like a 85% match to even define someones racial background and that with the amount of intermixing in most people today that such a match was extreemly difficult to get in any developed region), it is still important as a tool for self definition. Now perhaps I have given the impression that I am easily offended by being called “white”. Well mayhaps it is the presumption of the word “wite” itself and some prof I had never met who decided that I fit into a category he was allowed to set the parameters for that offends me. Perhaps also it is that I am not pale in color, a Frenchman may look like a German and a Swede may look like a Scott but I look like none of them unless they like to spend an unhealthy amount of time tanning.
Finally the problem may be that your definitions are a bit more modern than my own. Certainly children of Anglo Saxon parents are born in Tunis every so often and maybe you could say they were Tunisian for that reason, but my derivation comes from a time when the Anglos were in their place of origin and the Semites were in the desert and there wasn’t so much of the intermingling of genotypes that seems to be confusing the issue in modern times.
You tell tell just by looking at them? Without the context of their words or deeds? (“whether in words or deeds”)
Su-u-u-u-re you can.
I’d say that your repeated rhetorical questions on the subject indicate a pretty strong insistence that “they are acting in a racist manner.” You rejected the possibility that there were other explanations by opposing “might” with “does” and (apparently) used your ability to just know something by looking at it (without looking beyond any appearances) to support that position. I’m sorry if you are then offended when someone “just knows” that you are accusing supporters of Kwanzaa of racism when it a point you bring up with a certain frequency.
Your claims during your attempt to act the martyr are not borne out by a review of the thread. In your very first post, here, you made the unsubstantiated (and, actually, false) claim that supporters of Kwanzaa were “going out of their way to reject Christmas.” You them claimed that what celebrants of Kwanzaa were doing (in the privacy of their own homes) was analogous to “loudly singing the British national anthem while everyone else is singing the American one.” Since that time, you have made repeated assertions, never supported by facts. Now, if you want to claim that you have never acted in a hostile fashion on this thread, you are free to believe that, but I say the evidence is against you.
St Patrick’s Day and Christmas are both Christian holidays, and St. Patty’s is Irish to boot. Yet I maintain that neither of these holidays are exclusive. A federal employee doesn’t work on Christmas, regardless of their religious affiliation. If a Chinese person goes into Toys 'R Us and buys a video game and tells the cashier “It’s a Christmas present,” the cashier isn’t going to think to herself, “Why the hell are you celebrating Christmas?” Christmas, while conceived as a Christian holiday, is now a secular holiday–although not totally such. I’m an atheist, and I celebrate Christmas. I don’t go to Mass or anything like that, but my family exchanges gifts. No one in my family feels like they shouldn’t be celebrating Christmas.
St. Patrick’s Day–hell, back in elementary school, EVERYONE wore green or risked getting pinched. The Irish, Hispanics, blacks, you name it… if you didn’t wear green, you got pinched. No one was allowed to say, “But I’m not Irish!” It didn’t matter. Similarly, if a black person wants to get totally smashed in a bar on St. Patrick’s Day, no one is going to look at him funny. That’s why St. Patrick’s Day isn’t exclusive. If you want to start talking about gays not being allowed to march in the parades, then that argument has merit. But by and large, St. Patrick’s Day, although originally Irish and Christian, isn’t totally Irish and Christian anymore.
Now we come to Kwanzaa. Suppose I went to a Kwanzaa service and started saying, “Woo! Let’s hear it for cooperative economics!” Would I receive funny looks? You betcha. No, I don’t have any “cites” for this, I don’t have any testimonials, I don’t have any studies showing 79% of white men who attended Kwanzaa services were discriminated against. I do have a similar experience, and that’s the best I can offer as proof. I went to an American Baptist service once, and was the only white person there. Yes, I did receive stares, and felt uncomfortable. Even though Christianity doesn’t contain any “Hate the white man” clauses, I felt discriminated against in this church.
**
Yes, it is exclusive–and I don’t even think that the race of the creator has anything to do with it. If Kwanzaa were started by a Chinese man from Kenya, and still celebrated African culture, it’d still be exclusive. It is exclusive, oddly enough, because certain people (i.e., non-blacks) are excluded.
I’m making a distinction between de facto exclusion and de juris exclusion. Kwanzaa does not have anything in its “laws” that makes it exclusionary. However, in practice, in real life, de facto, Kwanzaa IS exclusionary.
**
No. Obviously, neither of these holidays is de juris exclusionary. There is nothing in the rules saying, “If you have a relative who fought in a war, you don’t have to come in to work on Monday, because you’re eligible for Memorial Day.” However, ask yourself–are these holidays de facto exclusionary? Does a boss say, “Johnson, you’re a freak and a pacifist, and it bugs me that you get Veteran’s Day off work”? No, that’s a ridiculous situation. There is no de facto segregation in either of these holidays.
**
And I disagree with these posters. Kwanzaa isn’t necessarily anti-white. However, it is pro-black, and smacks of segregation.
**
Great, keep playing that race card. No no, don’t evaluate the arguments against your position on the basis of merit. Just assume that everyone who thinks differently than you is doing so because they’re racist.
I reiterate–I don’t give two shits about Kwanzaa. This is Great Debates. I debate stuff. I don’t protest Black Entertainment Television (hell, I watch it. Some of those comedians are fucking FUNNY). And I don’t protest Kwanzaa either. If you want to celebrate Kwanzaa, knock yourself out. Just don’t try to say, “Hey, it’s inclusive because there is no rules saying whites can’t participate!”
If it helps, pretend I’m Chinese. Hell, pretend I’m a black man. Then look at my points.
For over a day nobody answered my question: ”what is celebrated on Kwanzaa day and how?”. So, I went on the Kwanza site and found this: KWANZAA, the African-American spiritual celebration, was conceived and developed by Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga on December 26, 1966. The foundation of Kwanzaa is based on the cultural principles of a theory called Kawaida, which maintains that social revolutionary change for Black Americans can be achieved by fully realizing our cultural heritage.
I could not find any mention of what is celebrated. Or how. If Dr. Karenga meant to celebrate “the social revolutionary change”, it was a blank shot: I never heard of any ‘social revolution’ in this country, by the Blacks, or anyone else, after 1776. Perhaps I missed it:). Nor have I ever heard of the Black’s intention to revolt.
So, I am absolutely lost. What is celebrated?
All the intellectuals here prefer to debate race. The mods do not mind. Anyone knows about Kwanzaa?