Blood Diamonds: How women fund the enslavement of black men and boys

Nice post. I like it.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

Let me sum it up for all those people not interested in reading the whole thing:

It's all those damn white peoples fault - especially jews
Capitalist pigs - We love Karl Marx
Africa was the Bastian of peace, love, tranquility and just this great utopia until the 1840s
Because some Diamonds are blood Diamonds they all are

MrReality - I'm not sure about you sometimes

Deleted

Ease up a bit, don't blame all women for what a few women and even fewer men do. You'll stress less, and live longer.

It really does sound like you hate women, which would make you no better than a feminist.

Please prove us wrong in the future.

I'm not saying black men don't matter and only white men are important at all. I think ALL men of all races, religions, and cultures should be a part of setting the course of the future in the men's movement.

I just found that particular article you linked to for this story extremely racist AGAINST whites, jews, and europeans.

Hell, Canada is currently sitting at 8% of the worlds total diamond production and is expected to reach 25% within 20 years. There are no slaves here.

Africa is only a small percentage of the total diamond picture. Yes, what's going on in Africa with regards to diamonds - and many other things - is not good. But to say all is bad because some is is not the kind of approach that will ever solve anything. That's exactly the kind of thinking I am opposed to. That's exactly the kind of thinking that created all the problems that you are so angry about in the first place.

Before implying all white men are racist and the men's movement is a whites only club, take a look in the mirror - I am assuming you are black - and ask your self where the source of the perceived racism against YOU -not all black people - is coming from. Did you know there were also over a million white slaves in Africa? Did you know that the British Empire ended slavery against black people BEFORE white slavery came to an end in Africa? Slavery and oppression are UNIVERSAL. NO RACE is exempt from either side in history. You cannot find one group of humans in all of history that did not both buy and sell slaves or support slavery in one form or another. Black, white, Indian, South American, Asian (Slavery was huge in Asia for thousands of years and arguably still common in China today)

Read this book:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2681
http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Gold-Extraordinary-Africas-European/dp/1840329602

The PC bullshit that blacks are somehow perpetual victims is just that - BULLSHIT. Hell, I live 6 km from one of the locations of under ground railroad tunnels across the Niagara River. You know why those rail roads existed? Because Canada did not have black slavery. We were incorporated as a British colony AFTER the end of black slavery in the British empire. Not to say Canada never had atrocities in its past, but we didn't own blacks. Hell, slavery in the United States was predominantly restricted to the southern States. Yes, I know, I've lived through enough Black History Months (that for some reason we even celebrate in Canada - I guess out of guilt for a crime we didn't commit) to know that all white people are responsible for what a few did. But I guess that would make all black people responsible for the white slave trade in Africa wouldn't it?

You see where I am going with this? This circular thinking gets us NOWHERE. You enslaved my people from date X to date Y! But your people enslaved my people from date V to date W... and so on and so on and so on. It never ends because human history is a brutal place where if you go back far enough not one living human being is exempt from both committing and having committed against them the most unimaginably cruel atrocities.

The color of your skin makes you no more entitled and no less entitled then me. It makes you no more the victim and no more the perpetrator then me.

You are not owed anything - nor am I - for the crimes of history.

If we want to dictate the course of the future we cannot live in the past.

If you really want to make a difference lose the hate. You cannot fight hate with more hate. You hate women, you seem to have a thing against whites, you promote murder and torture against those you hate. How does that make you different from those you hate? It doesn't, it makes you exactly what you claim to be fighting against. Why would I want to trade feminism for some one who makes every claim feminists have ever made about men true? Some one who advocates murder for and gang justice against those who have not murdered anyone?

You may say, you don't really mean it. That you would never actually slaughter women who've injured young boys, but seriously, how can you even advocate for that when you claim that you are a victim and a slave? You don't want equality, you just want to be the slave master instead of the slave.

Deleted

...is "sugarcoated" then I guess you're right about us. Thanks anyhow, but I don't do hate.

Whenever I see MRAs discuss racial issues, I cringe. This is a pretty tender topic and the feminazis just wait to stick men with the 'angry white male' crap.
For decades, women have compared themselves to blacks in a shameless attempt to cash in on affirmative action. Well, it worked. Gender trumps race every time.
Being an MRA is NOT about defending a privledged place in society, and to compare blacks (in the US anyway) to overprivledged North American women is just damned insulting and dehumanizing to blacks.
As a white male, I will in no way try to say that I fully understand what blacks have gone through. But white men do go through enough of the persecution, the slandering and the basic denial of civil rights (think VAWA) to get a small taste of black life in America, maybe more so in the past, but it still happens today.
I don't see how any woman could possibly understand.
Men have been exploited in society since day one, and that has been a hundred times worse for black men.
I understand (to a small degree) black anger, in contrast to women who just use blacks for their own gain. And the fact that black issues have been completely swamped out by grandstanding, self-serving feminists is freaking unbelievable.
Men have to be sensitive to black issues, because women sure as hell are not.

...are in the absolute worst possible position in North American society, Scottie. Men's activism is about all men, but as you said, we do need to pay attention to issues of race when men are suffering more because of their race. Feminists often try to exploit the suffering of minorities to claim victim status for themselves and to demonize men. I say that we MRAs should do everything in our power to assist people who are having more difficulty than average because of their race, religion, nationality or whatever else. Men's rights are human rights, and human rights are men's rights.

I'm always amused when I hear someone say that they're interested in "women's rights" AND "human rights". Are women not human? ;)

There are plenty of programs aimed at minority women that have helped them achieve all sorts of great things, but there's almost nothing to help minority men. I understand that a young black man in America is about as likely to be imprisoned as he is to be working full-time. That has to change, and it's very much a men's rights issue. If men's activists had any public funding or government recognition (they've recently achieved recognition in New Hampshire), we could start to design and fund intervention programs intended to help minority men obtain decent educations and find meaningful work. Many such programs exist for minority women, largely because there are publicly funded offices looking out for their interests. Men deserve nothing less.

As you pointed out, feminists have tried to usurp the suffering of every single minority group on the face of the Earth. I've always found it incredibly offensive when they steal symbols or clothing styles from Native Americans to try and over-identify with that group's troubles. All they're doing is diverting attention and resources away from real minorities to feather their own nests. What idiot decided that 51% of the population of every race and nation constituted a minority anyhow?

So, I'm agreeing with you and I'm also suggesting that we as men's activists should pay special attention to the difficulties facing minority men. Pushing for government recognition and funding is an important effort because those things would allow us to direct resources to the men who need it the most. Unlike feminists who delight in stealing the funding and attention that should be used to address actual minority issues, we MRA's should aim to assist minority men in achieving a more equitable state in our societies. Race DOES still result in difficulties for many men and women, and changing that fact should be one of our goals. Race issues ARE human rights issues, and since men are humans they're also men's issues.

I don't think I made the claim that black women suffer as much as black men - that's why I pointed out the differences, i.e. special programs that benefit black women while black men are almost as likely to be in prison as they are to be in full-time jobs. I was saying that we need make it a priority to focus some resources on minority men.

MrReality, are you talking about your Yahoo group or is this article in another location?

That's good advice MrReality. Will do.

Gag indeed!

Have you read that e-book, "If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules"? It's a good overview of some of this kind of stuff and it's available online for free here.

One of the worst media outlets for misandry lately has been the Japanese service of MSNBC (it's intended for Japan, but posted in English). All sorts of articles about how funny it is that wives are assaulting their husbands, etc. I'll see if I can find a few links.

Incidentally, I didn't intend to threadjack this discussion. I should have focused on the issue of black men being enslaved to dig up diamonds for white women - that's a very big deal and it certainly merits the attention of ALL MRA's. It's just that I kind of got stuck on the language you chose in your post (as I explained above). Didn't mean to make it seem like I was dismissing the issue.

...to have contributed something that people find valuable.

I think feminist propaganda has definitely alienated white men from black men because of the -forced- association of women with blacks.
Been a long day and I have to hit the sack, but...
I really hope to hear more from blacks on this forum about their perspective on men's issues. Do most blacks buy into the feminist rhetoric, or are they resentful for being put on the back burner? There's not much of a black community where I live, and even if there were, men's issues are rarely a popular topic.

I hope more gets posted about issues regarding minority men. I think discussing them would make us better people as well as better MRAs.

Deleted

...lay off the heavy handedness. You're a smart guy and you definitely are passionate about mens issues, but you do come off as a spiteful ass when you get heavyhanded.

We'll disagree too. In this thread because I'm not American and the whole minority thing is not only not as big a deal in Canada (again we never had slavery) but it's going to become the case by the year 2030 according to Statistics Canada that white people will be the minority in Canada as declining birth rates have created a situation where we must rely wholly on immigration (I know, the USA HATES that about Canada - haven for terrorists, gotta have passports to come here now and all that bullshit) for population growth.

Since the current groups of Global Migrants are not originating from European Nations - though many are from African Nations - the ethnic landscape in Canada is already becoming very diverse and will continue to change for the foreseeable future.

The same thing is happening in the USA actually, but since we have only 1/10 the population of the USA its changing much more rapidly here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay the minority issues in the USA, I'm just bringing up the fact that the racial issues in Canada are different then those in the USA.

I didn't say white people will be slaves in modern times. I just said in Canada - the country I call home, people of European decent AKA white people will not be the majority of the population of this country by the year 2030 according to Statistics Canada. Generational Canadians - of all races - are not having children at a sufficient rate to even maintain the current population of the country. To ensure growth the government of Canada - unlike the United States - has instituted immigration policies that allow unlimited amounts of new Canadians to come to this country as long as they meet the criteria for resident status. Unlike the 19th century, very few of the people seeking resident status in Canada are from European Nations.

I don't have a problem with that. There has to be workers to pay taxes to support the needs of an aging population. I'd rather my country allow new residents then allow old folks to die on the street because there's not enough new money coming into the system to pay for their care when they can no longer work.

You missed my point. My point was simple, any group can be a minority depending on your perspective and your geographical location.

You are the one who brings race into everything. You say you are a hard working self made business man. Good for you. But you come in here trumpeting the suffering of the poor black man. How about instead of crying 'us poor black men' you teach your son to be a hard working self made business man like his dad. You want to solve problems, solve them, don't cry discrimination to me because I can't find a single person here who's discriminated against you because of your race. The article you linked to in this story is brimming to overflowing with racism and hate. I didn't write it. I don't agree with it. But you're calling me a racist and hypersensitive about race and fearful of losing my white privilege.

There are people here of many different races, religions and cultures. They are all welcome, they are all encouraged to speak their minds and they all encouraged to be a part of the men's movement.

If you ask me, the best example we can set for the world is to truly be colour blind. To actually accept men an women no matter the colour of their skin, or religion, or culture as simply men and women. People.

You are the one who cares about race - I don't.

Check it out. Glenn Sacks commented on this article. I went over there to set the record straight, but I don't know what made him comment on the one article that had the respected members out in arms decrying MrReality.
The Feminists Are Right This Time

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

A lot of black men I know hang out with white guys and even call them cous' (cousin, for short), bro,' and other terms of endearment just like they would members of their own race. Only some of the stupid ones like Al Sharpton go all to pieces over frivolous things. I think black women are more prejudice against whites than black men are. In fact, when I was in high school my English teacher (a woman) made us watch a film on how blacks were oppressed during slavery during Black History Month. Surprisingly, a black boy in my class who was sitting beside me asked me if I could draw pictures for a comic book he was writing. It was as if he didn't even care at all about the slavery bit being shown in class. He must have been bored with it because he wasn't even paying attention to the film. Later, when I saw him in another class I told him that I was worried he would probably want to beat me down after looking at the slavery film in English. He said he didn't believe in "hatin' on a dude for stuff he ain't had nothing to do with." We ended up becoming best friends.

...I think is often used a bit too colloquially. Relating it to what you said about choice, colour blindness would mean that the options you have available to you would not depend on your race (or gender, which is where I get uptight at Usher's ideas of traditional marriage). But ensuring that everyone has equal options available to them would entail a society having enough appreciation and respect for cultural individuality to ensure that there is equal freedom to pursue a lifestyle suited to one's ethnicity.
Its a bit of a circular arguement, because colour blindness (in this sense) can only be achieved once those *equal choices* are available. Currently, they aren't. Not for blacks, not for men. Especially not for black men.
Its all about choices. That's what women think they don't have, but do. And its what men think they have, but don't.

Again, this is why I think its so important for men to identify with blacks and other minorities, because the role (and the ability) of feminism is to remove *choices* from pretty much every other group, all for the gratification of women. Men, to a much larger extent, want to provide equal choices for all. If the particulars of how to achieve this are currently misguided (DEFINITELY not to say that I am the one to judge), then its only because men have not the opportunity to develop them.

Got a question for everyone out there...

Would men's views of race relations be different today IF feminists had not so successfully insinuated women with blacks?

They WILL be held responsible for what they do in this world and not you, Glenn, or any other male doormat will be allowed to excuse one single woman from her horrid actions by dogging me online. Black men see the world differently than white men.

Unless of course their bashing gay boys huh? Then you think they should be allowed to go about their business.

It's a stepping stool for THOSE WHO NEED IT.

I'm 100% in support of this idea. Just take out the Blacks first condition, make it assessed based on individual circumstances and no "Oh, you're this colour, step right up sir, we've got some programs for you" when at the same time, "Oh, you're Chinese. You must be brilliant so you don't need our help"

Ok. I'll concede a tiny bit - race can play a part, but somewhere way down the list. You think Barak Obama needs to get a bump on the subsidized housing waiting list 'cause he's black?

Race can't be NUMBER ONE.

By colour blind, I'm by no means imply that we are all the same and should fit one mold. But I'm also not saying all Blacks are the same, and all whites are the same and all Jews are the same and all of any other race is the same. So there shouldn't be automatic sympathy for some one because of the colour of their skin. Just like there should not be automatic sympathy because a person has a vagina.

Like I said, a person in need should be helped. Assess based on the need, not the race.

If as you say, blacks on average have more people in need, then they proportionally will receive more help.

I'm still not going to say affirmative action is a good thing. I simply don't agree with it.

I think you can accomplish the same thing without it if like I said, you assessed people for help based on their situation - their need - not the colour of their skin.

Of course you like the idea of blacks first, but thats a bias you have, not a bias of mine. So don't force it on me.

I'm not saying ignore those damn lazy black people. I'm saying help people in need - regardless of what colour they are.

You're a business man who owns three businesses right?

So should you get a housing placement or food stamps before a guy who's homeless, penniless East Indian because you're black?

Take race out, leave individual need in, and guess what, you get better results because no one's trying to shoe horn race quotas into special needs programs inevitably resulting in people in greater need getting passed over for some one in less need because they fill some one's race quota.

Maybe I'm to much of an idealist to imagine that could work in out in reality. And maybe you're to angry to think it can't.

The reality is no one's ever tried it so no one can claim it's impossible

By the way, what's with the personal attacks? Pansy? Door mat?

You sound more like a "fem-bot" then me with your personal attacks.

You keep trying to shoe horn me into a racist white supremest mold but you keep claiming 'blacks first!' every time I say let's not value any person more then another because of their race. Let's listen to each and every person's situation and determine how to best serve that person based on what they need, not what blacks need, not what Arabs need, not what whites need, not what American Indians need... just what that person needs.

I'm not going to give a man who owns three businesses a helping hand because he's black before I help a homeless white man.

I'm not going to ignore a Chinese kid in need because he's Chinese - and maybe then 32 people will not have to die.

Making RACE the number one priority factor creates more problems then it solves. How do I have to explain it for you to get it?

about Fags and black people being different. I fully agree, but you're only looking from one side. Look from the other side, not everyone is willing to admit being wrong, myself and yourself being one of them. Most of my fag friends complain about how the Straight man is opressing him, but few care about what blacks go through, as you seem to be the opposite. I tell them what I tell you. SHUT THE F**K UP, A**WIPE. Put yourself in our shoes, doing something everyone calls yucky, disgusting, and wrong. You say that the black struggle is worse than the gay one, and you may be right, but you're doing what my friends do, just throwing something "yucky/not your problem" out because you believe you're worse. Now calling us white supremacists holds no water and is just as racist as you accuse us of being.

the comment I made involving gay people was simply to call out Mr(un)Reality when he said he's hold every single woman responsible for the awful things they do but yet in the thread about the two girls charged with hate crimes for attacking a gay boy he's was defending the girls. That's all I was referring to there.

By the way, did anyone read the article he linked to for this thread? Can anyone tell me they don't find it at least as racist and hateful as anything the Klan or feminists ever put out? If you agree with that article's positions MrReality you are most definitely a racist.

By the way, I'm going to get back on the topic of the thread now and ask Mr(un)Reality what he thinks about the hundreds and hundred of black role models in America who wear more diamonds then a few thousand engagement rings? Is that ok with you MrReality? Is it ok that prominent black role models - celebrities in music, acting, pro sports etc - appear regularly on Television and in print ads and in public wearing more diamonds then a small city worth of brides to be?

How is it womens fault when black men with money seem to be much more veracious consumers of diamonds then women or men of any other race.

Or do you think that's one of those things where cause black men died to mine them, it's ok for other black men to buy them?

By the way, the only one throwing racist comments around is you. EVERY comment I have made I made absolutely sure to be inclusive of ALL races, not white, not black - ALL races.

But since you are the one who can't seem to see outside your little bubble, I guess you failed to notice that.

Plus MrReality, why on every post that in any way involves gays you have to through the jab "I don't approve of that lifestyle..."

Honestly, who gives a shit that you don't approve? What's the point in bringing it up constantly other then to either hide in the closet or discreetly make a jab at gays?

There are lifestyles that I don't approve of, but you don't hear me raising my hand to vote against them every time some one mentions them. If I don't approve, I keep my fucking mouth shut 'cause it ain't my business. I don't throw little half disguised jabs.

MrReality, Paragon, allow me to interject something here. I started a new thread so we weren't squashed into the margins.

I think that we MRAs need to focus some additional resources on the needs of black men because they're having more trouble than other men in western society.

Sounds noble, right?

But ultimately that idea is intended to produce "equality of outcomes".

Hmm.

Isn't that what we're fighting against? For the most part, the MRAs around here support the idea that we should provide everyone with equality of opportunity and leave it at that. The outcomes will be the result of an individual's efforts and capabilities.

It's an interesting conflict: feminists claim to need "equality of outcomes", and demand preferred treatment for already-advantaged women. The only way to shut them down seems to be to argue against equality of outcomes. However, in so doing, we neglect the neediest men and women in our societies. We would have to follow a doctrine leading to equality of outcomes in order to dedicate resources to specifically assist minority men.

The solution to this conflict seems deceptively simple: seeking equality of outcomes is a noble and worthwhile goal, provided the individuals targeted by interventions are truly at risk or suffering, and are truly part of a minority (i.e. not 51% of society). The problem is that women are NOT suffering as a group in our society today but men (particularly black men) are. The reason this solution is "deceptively" simple is that it is for all practical purposes impossible to operate such interventions at the individual level, so they inevitably end up causing more harm than good because they're applied to groups instead of individual people.

I know this will be a highly contentious issue for all of us, I know it's the basis of Paragon and MrReality's conflict, and I'm curious what you think. Do we support "equality of outcomes" as a doctrine if it's applied sparingly to individuals (i.e. not groups), and only when it's truly necessary to overcome some tangible barrier to equality? That would inevitably result in the sort of misuse that we see being committed by feminists on behalf of a majority of the population as a group. Or do we reject equality of outcomes entirely and leave minority men (and women) to fend for themselves? Is there an acceptable middle ground?

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who likened a true democracy to two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. It's just a fact that the most democratic government still needs to protect the rights of minorities from abuse at the hands of majorities.

Everyone's an individual and we all have different capabilities. Therefore, true equality of outcomes is impossible without rampant discrimination and it is impossible for a government-administered doctrine of this kind to operate at the individual level, so some people would receive help they didn't need while others who needed help would be neglected.

This isn't a right or wrong kind of question, and I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the right way to proceed. As I said, personally I favor an approach where we individualize interventions as much as possible, and where we as a society only act in a discriminatory manner when it is clearly warranted, and then only for a limited period of time. Feminists insist on permanently applying discriminatory practices to all men to benefit all women on the clearly false premise that all women are somehow disadvantaged in society, and I reject that asinine notion out-of-hand. But we cannot simply reject the idea of "equality of outcomes" without neglecting those who have a real need for these kinds of measures.

Your thoughts?

Well,

first I want to thank MrReality for contributing an interesting debate that he was passionate about. Second, I want to appologise for the lengthy response.

For me this was a thought provoking thread. Although I personally thought that MrR tended to exaggerate quite a bit in his use of language, I think he made some great points. I also agree with Paragon and others here that mentioned that race is another factor of discrimination, separate from gender; and that there are others as well such as sexual orientation, religion, etc.

As I wrote in another article thread... all of these divisions are orthogonal. They all cut across each other. If you could make a list of them all, and categorize people by all of them, you'd end up with all possible permutations of people that have ever existed or could ever exist each in their own individual categories. Just look at what happens if you go from one factor to 3 factors....

m/f
b+m/b-m/b+f/b-f
b+g+m/b+g-m/b-g+m/b-g-m/b+g+f/b+g-f/b-g+f/b-g-f

m=male, f=female, b+=black, b- = not black, g+ = gay, g-=not gay

each of these factors has merit to be looking at how they live relative to the other group. However anyone that has any experience managing big projects knows that the key is scope and focus. And MRA is a big project.

Even MrR said in another thread that we were too divided and that men's issues had to come first.

Personally, I believe that the male/female factor is the most compelling and fundamental and distinct division to be looking at as a major societal division, because it is

1) biological
2) is encouraged most directly by instinct and evolution, and is therefore necessary in the most fundamental sense
3) affects every part of human anatomy, including brain function
4) is roughly an even 50% split through humanity
6) both sides(m/f) are represented and a factor for every human's development
7) the innate differences are not likely to blur over time as things like race, culture or religious beliefs could.

It's also important because it has been corrupted with bad science and politics almost unabated

So I don't think that the solution for a mens rights group is to be looking at each and every possible subgroup and comparing them. Rather see the subgroups as men collectively and allow your definition of manhood to be broad enough to include them. Black men are men. White men are men. Gay men are men. If we really want to represent MENs rights, then we should make sure that we represent men as a whole.

Should different subgroups of men be given different rights or privileges? No.

Should some subgroups of men be treated with contempt or ridicule? Possibly... that depends on a moral code, and whether that subgroup can reasonably be held responsible for their classification.

Should some subgroups that are more advantaged than others be disadvantaged to promote other subgroups? Yes and no. If the advantage comes naturally, either innately, or through perseverance then NO (that's life). If the advantage comes through a violation of rights and responsibilities or morality, then yes.

Should some subgroups that are disadvantaged be assisted?
Again two answers, if the men in the group are classified in the group by their own choices; then assistance should be simply in the form of education to correct those choices.

If it's not due to choice? This is the clincher. The one that causes all the trouble, and the one that forms the basis of society... Yes, they should.... Who determines who's disadvantaged, how they should be assisted and how much is enough; is an art that no one has been able to perfect, and I doubt anyone will be able to in the future. The only thing I can say here is that ethically we should try, but not to the significant detriment of the subgroup that is naturally advantaged; and preferably with their consent. Assistance should be strictly temporary. But that's the tough one for sure. Everyone always wants more. It's human nature.

That's the way I see it anyway.
Put a fair and equitable system in place. Try not to give special treatment. Look at actions, determine culpability/reward. In the case of someone that's in a rough spot an can't help it; help him out to the point here he CAN help it. Help him to get on his feet, but let him make the choices he can from there to change his situation for the better.