peace and hotep,

gman, in the link cited here, i just needed to know this:

"seen... good point... also seshata sefekht's point is taken.
The ideal to me would be collective leadership, or rule by consensus: issues being hashed out amongst the broadest possible section of people who are affected by the issues, until a common approach can be agreed upon. In practice I don't think this could work for all situations. (Though it could work for many; the next best approach would be direct democracy, with the rights of dissenting minorities being respected). "

as for the rest of this remember that the links that i cited "have been removed". did i distort the fact that Dr. Frances Cress Welsing is a 'dark african female' or ayinde's comment:

"I do not accept Dr. Frances Cress Welsing’s theory on its own as the cause of the psychology of White people.

I will wait until Whites put forward their own theory about white behavior before I share what I think is a more complex set of circumstances than what is theorized by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing.

As is evident today, the brutal characteristics that Blacks dislike about Whites are also being perpetuated by Blacks, which shows that brutality is a learnt behaviour and not simply the genetic trait of one type of people. "

now, everyone knows that karibkween and eja cite the brutality of 'whites' are genetic traits(neanderthal/rhesus)

Re: What babylon Wants

Posted By: Ayinde
Date: Monday, 28 August 2006, at 5:48 p.m.

In Response To: What babylon Wants (InIdrumma)

I have observed that ones on this board are deliberately targeting and distorting the views and positions of those here who they perceive to be dark-skin Black African who share our position on colorism. And when they are not overtly distorting, they are very dismissive of the views put forward by those same people who they perceive to be dark-skin Black African.

What is amazing to me is the fact that when these same views were put forward by another poster who said that he is light skin, all distracters/distorters remained silent or toned down their tempers when dealing with him. Is it that the truth when said by White/light is more valid than when spoken by dark skinned ones? Or is it that there is another agenda here?

The example that comes to mind is the “What is "Leadership"?” thread:

http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/archive1/config.pl?noframes;read=73816

It is not freedom of speech to lie or deliberately mislead people. Such actions are attempts to take away freedom from others. It is also quite disrespectful to all people.

Some of the conduct on this board is flamebaiting and trolling (please see terms of use for definitions).
http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/config.pl?noframes;read=75939

If people feel that the debate on colorism is unimportant or that it is being discussed too much, then they are free not to engage in those discussions. Deliberately distorting and misrepresenting views and positions, is partly why these discussions are ongoing.

freedomisahapislave