Why does the United Negro College fund feel the need to lie so egregiously?

[Cisco]

@Fantome

What was it that Carol Stream said that makes you suspect that? How did you conclude that I want to “read something nefarious by the blacks”?

The fact that she was pretty insistent that African Americans had nothing to do with the hair brush without even bothering to check for herself.

@Fantome

It’s telling when one has to resort to name calling and make charges of racism rather than tell them what was supposedly stupid about their argument.

Let’s talk when you can read the ad in a way other than the most negative way possible, and without resorting to Clintonian semantic acrobatics.

@stpauler

Are you serious?

How is that relevant?

[stpauler]

@Cisco

How is that relevant?

Ahh, nevermind. If you want to be deliberately obtuse, count me out.

[runcible_spoon]

@Cisco

“Your” a fucking moron, who just wants to read something nefarious by the blacks. This is the height of :rolleyes:.

Something nefarious by the blacks? What, like Blacula?

Seriously, though, no one’s arguing that black people never invented anything, ever. But to say that an African-American mind is responsible for the hairbrush is misleading at best.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Professor Shabazz K. Morton

Hello, my name is Professor Shabazz K. Morton. In 1895, at the Tuskagee Institute in Alabama, a black man named George Washington Carver developed a new method of soil improvement through crop rotation to end the South African cultural dependence on cotton alone. As a result, Carver came up with hundreds of industrial uses for the peanut. Sure, industrial uses.

Meanwhile, one night, he’s having a few friends over to his house for dinner. And one of them leans over and says to Dr. Carver, “Excuse me, George? What’s that your putting on your bread?” Carver says, “Oh, that’s nothing but a butter substitute that I made from peanuts. I can’t digest all that animal fat, you know.” So the other fellow tasted it, and he says, “Hmm… this pastes pretty good, man. Mind if we take a peek at the recipe?” And Dr. Carver says, “Take a peek? Man, you can have it. Who’s gonna eat butter made out of peanuts? No, I’m working on a method to compress peanuts into phonograph needles.”

So, Professor Carver’s two dinner guests, Edward “Skippy” Williamson and Frederick “Jif” Armstrong–two white men–stole George Washington Carver’s recipe for peanut butter, copyrighted it, and reaped untold fortunes from it. While Dr. Carver died penniless and insane, still trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut.

This has been “Black History Minute”. I’m Professor Shabazz K. Morton. Good night.

Stranger

[Cisco]

@stpauler

Ahh, nevermind. If you want to be deliberately obtuse, count me out.

Seriously, that article talks about something that happened 45 years ago and has nothing to do with NY Times editors not looking at their ad copy today. What am I missing? Tell me.

[Cisco]

@runcible_spoon

Seriously, though, no one’s arguing that black people never invented anything, ever. But to say that an African-American mind is responsible for the hairbrush is misleading at best.

No it’s not, IMO. An African American woman made the first synthetic hair brush along with other innovations. She is responsible for innovations that resulted in the hair brush as we know it today.

[stpauler]

@Cisco

Seriously, that article talks about something that happened 45 years ago and has nothing to do with NY Times editors not looking at their ad copy today. What am I missing? Tell me.

@Cisco

But I be done seen about everything, when I see someone claim the editors of the New York fucking Times don’t even look at the ads they place.

My fault, I didn’t see that the goalposts were constantly moving.

[Fantome]

@Cisco

The fact that she was pretty insistent that African Americans had nothing to do with the hair brush without even bothering to check for herself.

She insisted no such thing.

Let’s talk when you can read the ad in a way other than the most negative way possible, and without resorting to Clintonian semantic acrobatics.

I’m reading what it plainly says and what message is plainly conveyed. No acrobatics on my part and I have a feeling you’re aware of it and don’t like to admit when you’re wrong. That’s why you refuse to show me what’s stupid about my argument but just claim that it is, call me a moron for a spelling mistake and imply that I’m a racist . Calling an ad by the United Negro College fund like I see it does not make one a racist- but I have a feeling you know that too.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

Well, technically, I guess all Americans can be construed as “African-Americans.”

[Fantome]

@Cisco

Seriously, that article talks about something that happened 45 years ago and has nothing to do with NY Times editors not looking at their ad copy today. What am I missing? Tell me.

Do you have a good reason to believe that the NY Times editors “look at their ads” any more closely today than 45 years ago?

[Cisco]

@stpauler

My fault, I didn’t see that the goalposts were constantly moving.

Please explain the difference between the two quotes you posted. I am not getting it.

Edit: And just go the fuck away if you’re not going to explain yourself this time, stpauler. You’re being obtuse.

[Fantome]

@Cisco

Please explain the difference between the two quotes you posted. I am not getting it.

Fucking moron.

[Cisco]

@Fantome

Fucking moron.

:rolleyes: Go away, you’re not contributing anything except your malice for an ad that doesn’t say what you think it says.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@runcible_spoon

Something nefarious by the blacks? What, like Blacula?

Seriously, though, no one’s arguing that black people never invented anything, ever. But to say that an African-American mind is responsible for the hairbrush is misleading at best.

Especially since it would have been an afro-pick, and not a brush at all.

[Carol_Stream]

@Cisco

Here, dildo. Since you obviously didn’t even look, I almost suspect you don’t want any of this stuff to be true.

That’s a rather self-serving cite, don’t you think? women inventors . com, indeed. How about an objective one?

P.S. are we allowed to call fellow posters a “dildo” now?

[Cisco]

@Carol_Stream

That’s a rather self-serving cite, don’t you think? women inventors . com, indeed. How about an objective one?

P.S. are we allowed to call fellow posters a “dildo” now?

MIT too biased for you? :rolleyes:

And we’re in the BBQ pit, sweetie pie.

[Fantome]

@Cisco

:rolleyes: Go away, you’re not contributing anything except your malice for an ad that doesn’t say what you think it says.

I broke it down for you twice. Show me where I went wrong. It’s obvious to the reader who’s not contributing anything.

[Kobal2]

@Cisco

No it’s not, IMO. An African American woman made the first synthetic hair brush along with other innovations. She is responsible for innovations that resulted in the hair brush as we know it today.

So you keep telling us. And so we keep telling you it’s not what the ad says. There’s no “that resulted in these items as we know them today” quantifier of any kind, neither stated nor implied.

And if you argue that “oh, but c’mon, the ads are paid by the word !”, I’ll counter with : so ? Leave out a couple innovations if you have to for the ad to say something factual instead of something ridiculous and/or misleading. I’m sure the African-American community can feel proud about its contribution to modern technology without needing to know a black guy came up with a new mop.

[Cisco]

Is this little nugget of brilliance your “breakdown”, Fantome?

@Fantome

You skipped over my post. I’ll break it down for you again:

*"A mind is responsible for the traffic light…

hairbrush…

the fact that each and every one of the wonderful innovations mentioned here came from the mind. The mind of an African-American."*

A mind is responsible for the hairbrush. The hairbrush is a wonderful innovation. The wonderful innovation - “the hairbrush” - came from the mind of an African-American. An African American invented the hairbrush.

It’s stupid because it says African Americans made innovations to these items, not that they were THE SOLE ORIGINAL SOURCE, COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK FUCKEVERYBODYELSE™

You’re reading it as literally and as antagonistically as possible, because you just want to argue. I’m sorry I questioned your motives for wanting to argue, but that you just want to argue is clear.

Say you believe the converse: that black people didn’t contribute to the way these things are today. So would it be fair to write this same article about white people (or whoever you think invented all this stuff)? Or is it fair to say lots of people contributed to most of the inventions we use today, and listing one item among the accomplishments of several different people is perfectly reasonable?

[Nzinga_Seated]

@The_Second_Stone

What’s more Negroes invented people! In Africa! Whitey is a defective model adapted to poorer sunlight climates. Whitey is so not wanting to pay royalties that Whitey made up a fictitious Jew God as a “creator” and then charges Negroes royalties to worship this Jew God in order get elected to any political office.

If I were innovative enough to figure out how to have a sig line without feeling like a cornball…this would be my sig line.

As for the OP, I hate such lists. Black people (sigh, or AA) are as smart and worthy as any other people. There has to be a better way of teaching the black people that may not believe that, than making these silly lists.