rasi said: "the points raised, are very similar to the idea that dark skin is more imporatant when leading african-centered orgainizations. both ideas focus on skin color as a primary factor when determining suitability for a job/position"

* Conscious dark-skin Black leadership does not give dark-skin blacks privileges, so they do not contribute to the problem by being the leadership. However, white and light-skin folks, no matter how well intended they are in leadership positions, allow for more white and light-skin privileges. There will never be a case that on the basis of merit a white or light-skin person will be more knowledgeable about the ills in the system than a dark-skin kinky-hair Black person who is conscious of systematic racism and colorism among other ills.

People do not call it racism when Blacks say that whites do not know of Black experiences when addressing racism. So in a similar manner, if I stated that I am addressing racism and colorism in which light-skin folks are the beneficiaries of material advantages, then it stands to reason that who feels it the MOST knows it the MOST. Keeping with that correct line of reasoning, those who experience the brunt of the negative effects of both racism and colorism on a systematic basis, along with being conscious of themselves, ARE best suited to articulate and lead the struggle for reform.

I feel that some of you who are friends with gman should reason with him about his comments instead of ignoring his comments and appearing to be only targeting operators of this website and a selected few who agree with us.

Here is a link to gman's post that was largely ignored:

Re: What is "Leadership"?
http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/archive1/config.pl?noframes;read=73864