HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atomic_dog@nunyaz (The Atomic Dog)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:53:48 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: The Society of The Mind
Originator: demo@psycho

In article <1992Nov9.203317.9531@cbnewse.cb.att.com> ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis) writes:

>anyway, as far as your "hypothetical" black female shortage.  since you went to mit
>[unless things have changed greatly since i went there when there were 3 black
>men to each woman] you should know that mit is a microcosm where this really does
>occur; and there was a lot of that "jumping through hoops" stuff going on as you
>mentioned.  i suspect that some of them made the mistake of believing their own
>bullshit and didn't reel in the bites [as far as marriage] when the situation was
>to their advantage so when they got out in the real world they found out that they
>weren't the hot items that they thought they were.  too bad...

You read my mind brother. I graduated in 1987 and when I was there even
an ugly black woman could pull at least a couple of dudes. An average looking 
woman had her pick. I knew one babe who just knew she was the shit, one time
she showed me a list of guys names and numbers. This little black book of hers
had about 50 names on it!! She was on a major ego trip. Ironically, a few months
ago a friend of mine found out from her old girlfriends that she really had trouble
finding a decent guy after graduation and has ended up "settling" for a guy we went
to school with. This is the same guy she would have NEVER considered dating back in 
school. I have also heard the same story over and over again about other women I knew
from MIT. They all had a very rude awakening when they hit the real world. The reverse
seems to be true for the black guys I knew. Fortunately, I was smart enough to go off 
campus looking for women (e.g. at women's colleges like Wellsley and Simmons, or big 
party schools like Boston U.).

Bow Wow Wow Yippy Yo Yippy Yay
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,alt.politics.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Thank God for Ron Brown
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:10:51 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Distribution: usa
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov6.193236.9278@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) writes...
>In article <Bx9HKC.FH3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> locker@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Locker) writes:
>>[sensible things deleted]
>>listen.  Ron Brown deserves a lot of credit for the convention, and in
>>turn, the victory.
>>[more sensible things deleted]
> 
>What's remarkable is that Brown's selection in 1988 was a concession by
>the Dukakis forces to the Jackson forces in the course of keeping the
>convention together.  It seems to have been a "Only Nixon can go to China"
>thing -- only a (superbly talented) member of the "left" could unite the
>party behind a "center-right" candidate.  Thank God (and Brown himself)
>that it worked!
> 

Actually I thought that one of the reasons Brown was elected as chairman,
was the fact that he was moderate. Or at least that's how he protrays himself.
He does have some connections to the moderate Democratic Leadership Counsel.
In fact, in interviews he says the party began moving toward the center
since he became chairman.  Were you refering to Clinton as "center-right"?  
In my opinion, he's very much "center-left", i.e. a centrist that leans left.
As opposed to Bush whose a centrist that leans right ("center-right").

-Chris
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Malcolm on "Entertainment Tonight"
Summary: aught to be a scream
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:33:50 GMT


I just heard that "Entertainment Tonight", in either (1) the true spirit of
enlightenment, or (2) the true spirit of making some ratings, and therefore
bucks, (you decide :-) is doing a piece on Malcolm X (tomorrow? Tues 11/10?).

I can hardly wait to see what *they've* got to say.

To give you some idea what the tone will be like, guess who've they've got
as special commentator: 

Arsenio Hall.

This ought to be worth a few laughs and misinformation. I'll set the VCR.

	-Kenny

-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:13:13 GMT

In article <1dn5udINNdfb@morrow.stanford.edu>
HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:

>As far as some man loving a woman who has already had a child or
>children by other men (married or otherwise), he would have to be an
>understanding, loving individual.

If that's what he wants. I mourn what appears to be a lack of available women
without children (in Eastern Mass.).

>So, whatever has happened to family? Extended family?

At this stage of my life, I sure don't need it, and especially not an
extended one. Right now, I positively hate children. My life has just started
coming into vogue recently. I need to live a little first.

>You certainly haven't seen enough, and I'm certified 10 years older.

Regardless, I've seen a lot (and I'm curious to know how you know otherwise?).
I just don't choose to be with everything I see.
(FWIW, I 2 yrs ago I used to date someone 38...no kids either. Perfection!)

	-Kenny

-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:14:44 GMT

Thank you, Warren, for the warning.

My last words to you, White man, are that we do not need you for  
shit.  We simply do not need another White man who thinks he's  
doing us a favor.  We need more of our people patting each other  
on the back, because God knows that there's a  White man waiting  
outside just waiting to put us down.  Just go away.

Damn, I feel sorry for your children ...

Donald - Nigger Stompin' African!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette)
Subject: Re: Rage, ranting and race
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:58:34 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Summary: The individual vs. collective identity problem, once again...

In article <2362@usna.NAVY.MIL>
wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers) writes:

>In article <BxAz5E.I85@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
>kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (kauta) writes:
>>What makes *you* assume that whites as a _group_ are powerless??

>Let's consider civil rights legislation as an example.  In the 60's
>a group of legislators (mostly white, mind you) passed laws aimed at
>making equal opportunity a reality (fair housing laws, fair lending laws,
>voting-rights laws, equal-employment regulations, and more).  Other
>white people opposed these, some out of plain racism, others because
>they agreed with the chosen ends but not with the means.  Now, 25 years
>later, we find a large segment of the black population is in worse
>shape than before the laws were passed.  Which group of white people
>do you expect to feel `powerful' now?  Which are the villains and which
>are the heroes?

There seems to be a mistaken assumption here that group power comes from
the *actions* of the government. Actually, I would argue that it is the
*inaction* of the government that gives a lot of power to whites as a
group. As is pointed out, its true that fair housing/lending, voting rights,
and equal employment laws were passed, but they have not been *enforced*.
Because of this, "we find a large segment of the black population is in
worse shape than before" -- through various institutions in society, whites
as a group have been able to deny fair housing/lending and equal opportunity
to Blacks as a group -- meanwhile the government (yet another institution)
essentially turned a blind eye.

>Find some white people and ask them whether the government does what they
>want it to.

Of course if you poll individual whites, you'd be hard pressed to find one
who feels the government does what he/she wants. But if you consider the
trends, policies, rules, and regulations (written and unwritten) of the
major institutions, you'd be dealing with the true source of white group
power. These institutions in many ways have taken on racist lives of their
own, and its very effective because it shields individual whites from
taking any blame (it also hinders progress, for replacing obviously racist 
individuals with apparently non-racist individuals within such institutions 
doesn't do any good).

I know talking about "whites as a group" gets a lot of folks upset, but
its something I've thought long and hard about: in order to reconcile the
persistence of racism in society with the widely-heard denunciations of 
racism from white individuals, eventually you must either believe 1) the 
vast majority of white individuals are really racist, or 2) there's a 
collective dynamic of white racism that exists separately from the feelings
of individual whites. In "days of optimism" I embrace #2, but I admit there
are often "days of pessimism".
	Darryle
From: rdumain@igc.apc.org (Ralph Dumain)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: BLACK ATHEISM
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:04:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1471600050:000:1786
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!rdumain    Nov  4 21:04:00 1992


From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain>
Subject: BLACK ATHEISM

My participation in the USENET conference SOC.CULT.AF.AM, topic 5
-- PRIESTS AND PEDOPHILIA (response 1) brings up an important
issue: the role of religion in retarding the development of
Africans and Black Americans.  It is time to break the taboo in
the black community against this issue once and for all.  Here are
some points for discussion.  Negative responses are not welcome.

(1) I (and some of my colleagues on local echoes) would like to
hear from Black atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics,
anticlericalists, secular humanists, and others inclined or
sympathetic to such views, regarding your thoughts and personal
experiences regarding religion and unbelief.

(2) There is a new organization (the first of its kind) called
AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM, dedicated to promoting black
secular humanism and uncovering the suppressed history of black
freethought.  There is a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER.  For
further information, you can contact: Norm R. Allen, Jr.; African
Americans for Humanism; P.O. Box 664; Buffalo, NY 14226.  You may
also be interested in his book AFRICAN AMERICAN HUMANISM: AN
ANTHOLOGY, also the first of its kind.  (I have no proprietary
interest in this enterprise whatever.)

(3) The history of black freethought is extraordinarily difficult
to research, since it is the one area of black history effectively
suppressed by blacks themselves.  (You crybabies out there can't
pin this one on whites.)  We need to supplement the scanty list of
noted black freethinkers found in the anthology mentioned above.
I can add to this list the Black Americans Lorraine Hansberry and
most likely Paul Robeson, and the Trinidadian C.L.R. James.  Those
of you with information please respond.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: President Bill Clinton
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:26:34 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <oXcwTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes...
>[...stuff deleted...]
>Smooth sailing with Congress? Not necessarily:
>In my lifetime, the only President who had that was Lyndon Johnson. Every 
>other one, without exception, found himself locking horns with Congress, 
>even when it was dominated by his own party.

LBJ didn't have smooth sailing, or at least it just may have appeared as such.
He had plenty of disagreements with congress, even though it was dominated
by democrats. The reason he had success with congress, was that he was a 
master at getting congressmen to do what he wanted.  He would personally go 
around and coax and push, and twist the arms of congressmen to go along with 
him.  My point is, LBJ was the last president that had the ability to do this.  
Up until now. Clinton use exactly the same method with his legislature in
Arkansas, and he'll do the same with congress.

>  Now that it no longer has to worry about George "read-my-veto" Bush, 
>Congress may try to get a flood of previously rejected bills passed. Some 
>of them may be good. Others may be more expensive than we can afford 
>right now.  If Bill sticks to his guns on this, expect his honeymoon with 
>Capitol Hill to be *very* short. If he doesn't, expect the federal 
>deficit to get worse and the Republicans to take advantage.

I look at it this way:  The Democrats in congress know that if they start
squabling with Clinton and screw up the next 4 years, that pretty much will
be the tombstone for the Democrats and the presidency for the next couple of 
decades.  So I really think they will do everything possible to avoid what
happened with Carter and the democratic congress.  

-Chris
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: President Bill Clinton
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 17:35:23 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Glad to see Clinton not waiting til after Inauguration Day to start 
getting his team and his game plan together.  If ever a President needed 
to hit the ground running, he's it.

For the sake of provoking discussion/flames/whatever, here's one voter's 
opinion of what we can expect from a Clinton presidency:

Higher taxes? Yes:
I've been paying taxes since LBJ was President. Every Preisdent since LBJ 
has raised taxes, including Reagan, as well as the soon-to-be-departed 
Mr. Read My Lips. No one should delude themselves on this score. The best 
we can hope for is that the tax money raised will be more wisely spent.

Spending cut? Maybe:
Defnse spending almost surely will be cut. For Democrats, myself 
included, that's the easy part. Things will get tougher all around when 
we see that defense cuts alone aren't enough...and they probably won't 
be. That's the point that will separate the men from the boys in 
Congress...and could separate Clinton from a friendly majority in the
legislature. Will Bill be able to bite the bullet?  Will Congress let 
him?  Stay tuned...

Smooth sailing with Congress? Not necessarily:
In my lifetime, the only President who had that was Lyndon Johnson. Every 
other one, without exception, found himself locking horns with Congress, 
even when it was dominated by his own party.
  Now that it no longer has to worry about George "read-my-veto" Bush, 
Congress may try to get a flood of previously rejected bills passed. Some 
of them may be good. Others may be more expensive than we can afford 
right now.  If Bill sticks to his guns on this, expect his honeymoon with 
Capitol Hill to be *very* short. If he doesn't, expect the federal 
deficit to get worse and the Republicans to take advantage.

A new and better tone set from the White House? No question:
No more code-worded race-baiting. No more Us vs. Them politics. No more 
national direction being set by the likes of Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, 
Robert Dornan, Rich Bond and Henry Hyde. No more "We are the real 
America...and *those people* aren't." That can't do anything but help.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 00:35:58 PST
Distribution: world

        >Donald African! writes:
        >My last words to you, White man, are that we do not need 
        >you for shit.                             ^^  
        
You're living proof that black people CAN be racists, just like anyone
of any other skin color.

Are you a multiple personality?  Most people say "I" instead of  
"we" when referring to themselves.
        
        >We simply do not need another White man who thinks he's  
        >doing us a favor.  
        
I wouldn't give you the time of day, much less a favor.  I don't
pretend otherwise, either.  What did I say that gave you the 
impression that I was "doing you a favor"?  If you're talking
about my marriage, DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!  I didn't do it for any
reasons other than for selfish interests.
        
        >We need more of our people patting each other on the back, 
        >because God knows that there's a White man waiting outside 
        >just waiting to put us down.  
        
Funny, when Ross Perot says "your people", he was called racist.  The 
pendulum swings both ways.  You'd do well to tone down your rhetoric
and try to present some lucid and cogent arguments, rather than trying
to be macho to scare me, because you make me laugh.

        >Just go away.

If it would make you feel better if I go away...I'll stay, just to
torment YOU, Donald.  Perhaps alt.tedious.hackneyed.insults would
better appreciate someone with your writing and reasoning ability.

        >Damn, I feel sorry for your children ...

What's REALLY sorry is that you don't even know WHY.  

--Philip Stromer (peewee@infoserv.com)
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:44:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Reggea Not Jamaican?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american

In soc.culture.african.american, (Paul M Mweene) writes:
>In article <9412@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, (Paul M Mweene) writes:
>>...deleted
>>Hey, yo dude! Acknowledge and enjoy, dont expropriate. Reggea IS jamaican
>>music. Even all the off-shoots you have mentioned are Jamaican. Reggea is as
>>Jamaican as apple pie is American, and perhaps more than english is English.
>>
> Regg*ae* is NOT Jamaican music.  To say that would mean (IMO) that only
> Jamaican people listen to it and only Jamaican people create it, and that just
> simply is not the case.  I am not Jamaican, and I listen to reggae music, and
> all the artists that create it are not Jamaican. IMO, that is just a term that
> was put on reggae by people who know little about the music to label it for
> their own use or personal benefit, the same way some mail order music clubs
> used to(and perhaps some still do) put R&B and rap under the label "Black
> Music".  
> 
>>The fact that other people have come to like it cannot and wont diminish or
>>alter this fact. I don't know why it is so difficult yo the Jamaican music stylewhen referring to Reggea. 
>>
>>I suspect that this is the way Rock Music was lost. I observed this awhile ago
>>on another newsgroup where the common denominator was a love for Reggea music.
>>There the posters were beleagured to acknowledge the Jamaican nature of Reggea
>>When I brought this up they chose to dwell on the fact that since the music is
>>loved and played by many people of all races, it can no longer be narrowly 
>> credited to one country or culture.
> 
> If this is what you believe, you are contradicting what you said earlier about
> reggae being Jamaican music. As far as the parallel between this being the way
> rock music was lost, with all the underground artists that make reggae what it
> is, I doubt it will ever be lost.
>>
>>I realize the love that many people have for this music. The truth is that it
>>is and will remain a distinctively black Jamaican thing. And we would be well
>>advised to love and play it as such.
> 
> Take out that word "Jamaican" and I agree with that statement 100%
> 
		and what of all the reggae performers in south
		america, and here in north america who are brown,
		yellow and white?!  first you chide the man for
		calling it a *jamaican* thing and then you jump
		on the *black* thing...  recognize reggae for what
		it IS--  an excellent musical expression developed
		in JAMAICA ergo a *JAMAICAN* thing.

'nuff said.  peace.
pjm.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:18:51 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Nation of Islam and AIDS

This week's Prime Time Live (ABC) promises an expose on an alleged scam
the Nation of Islam is running. Apparently they're selling a purported
cure for AIDS. I believe the programme runs on Tuesday.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
From: wattsww@ntmtv.UUCP (Warren Watts)
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Reply-To: wattsww@ntmtv.UUCP (Warren Watts)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:42:35 GMT

lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat) writes:
In response to Pee Wee's vast ignorance about Malcolm X - 

>Maybe you should read the book first.  Maybe you should try to  
>learn more about African culture.  There is no denying that your  
>children are part African.  You seem very imcompetent in regards  
>to passing that heritage and history down to them.  We already  
>have enough damn Oreos in this country who don't know who they  
>are and/or are trying to be something they are not and will  
>never be.
>
>Donald - Nigger Stompin' African!

Not likely Donald, when Pee Wee first came on the net about a year
ago, he was pumping all this ignorant bullshit about Malcolm because
he just read some book about it. I offered to loan him my of the
autobiography so he could get the real deal, but he just wasn't
interested. Last time he was on the net I got so fucking tired of his
ego driven bullshit, that I gave up on stomping him. It is a just a
waste of time, he is not here to LEARN anything but to stir up shit
and make himself feel important. Well I guess all the new people on
the net will have to learn about Pee Wee again. Just wait until you
find out about his views on gays. He got his ass fired for some of the
shit he posted on soc.mots. Have fun stompin', but Pee Wee is one
cracker that keeps coming back like the undead.

Peace,
	 Warren Watts

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re:  Re: Interracial Dating
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:26:46 GMT

># These things you gain because the white people who came before you
># enslaved and all but extinguished the Natives who had nations here
># before and by enslaving the people of Africa to continue the work.
>>
>>It's true that the colonists stole this land and its resources from
>>the Native Americans.  But it's also true that whatever benefits came
>>from that theft accrue to *everyone* living here now -- including
>>Indians alive today.
>

Which Natice Americans are being discussed here?  There were multiple
waves of immigration from Asia.  Did the Native Americans that Whites
stole from first steal from the earlier groups?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:11006 talk.politics.misc:59835 triangle.politics:141