Prometheus 6

You and I both know that kind of rhetoric is rampant in the black community.  That's the exact reason why Whitlock & Co. feel so comfortable saying it.  It's been said so many times, they think it carries some kind of self-evident meaning.  They definitely don't want to put that kind of stuff under examination and have it scrutinized.

They act like black folk were perfect when the KKK was at its peak.  If you let them tell it, there was no significant black crime then and, perhaps, any time prior to the 1960's.  Apparently, there were no black-on-black homicides until the prominence of the KKK declined.

You really do have to step into a time and anti-reality warp to catch their meaning.  And it's white folks who are defining "thugs" as black culture, directly or indirectly.  I know I never gave the reigns of self-definition to no "thugs."  And if all this stuff wasn't playing out in the [white] media and pop cultures circus mirror, negroes wouldn't talk about like this:

I'm tired of the lack of respect, the random violence, the celebration of drug dealers and the insinuation that education is anti-black.

Where I'm from, I don't celebrate drug dealers and there is no sense in even entertaining that "Acting White" silliness.  The only way that "element" defines "who we are" is by the license folks like Whitlock gives them and the interplay in their minds, though often unspoken, of how whites view "thugs."

For some reason, negroes feel compelled to act brave and "courageous" in front of white folk.  But maybe Jason is on the block expressing just how tired his is and actually doing something about it instead of running his mouth with some serious social distance.

I'm hoping he's not just "tired."  So, I'd like to know if anyone has any information that shows how Whitlock is like Jim Brown tired vs. just "tired."   

P6, am I missing something in what you're asking that isn't answered here;

In Black Skin White Masks, he describes how language and being marginalized as a result of an unchanagable attribute - race, can create a pathology in the oppresed simply as a function of assimulation. By doing such, he suggest that black people take on the responsibility of oppressing black people other than themselves, on behalf of whites because they learn that standards of the white/western world are the only stndards of importance. From his perspective, being colonized by a language has a major influence on ones belief orientation for it is the most effective way to assimulate and assume a foreign culture, inclusive of the beliefs of that culture - even that which equates being black with evil and christian sin. As a consequence, we as people of African descent try to dissassociate ourselves from that conception of evil by acting or being white as possible - even to the extent of vilifying others who don't match the same standard of whiteness (Three six in this case). This epidermalization of cultural values according to Fanon, seperates our belief orientation from our body. So to dog three six and their ways for example, is a way we as black folk seperate our personal consciousness from our blackness.

I just wonder will there ever be a day when we take of the white mask.

Maybe.

Focusing on the problematic part

lets them define who we are

This goes way beyond the accommodationism Fanon describes. It doesn't say "how we are seen" or even "how we see ourselves."

I am that I am irrespective of what anyone thinks I am. Anyone. Including me. Maybe there's confusion between ability and constraint, I dunno.

Anyway, I'm still listening. Only piped up to answer the specific question. 

slow down breaking this up into elements..,

Still thinking about "leadership"...but instead of working from definitions to the physical I'm working the other way around...building on anthropology.

Leaders are functionally alpha primates...and we now see the mimetic environment as our primary environment.

can't it be someting as simple as that the old primates put on the white mask for mimetic dap when they know good and gottdamn well that they no longer have direct physical privileges?

In which case it's both a how they see themselves and how they're seen modulus.., pernicious and exploitable as hell when it conduces to lack of continuity, guidance, guardianship and intergenerational cooperation.

Nah. I've seen leadership. That's how I know enough to recognize the alpha primate characteristics of the role.

That doesn't help me understand what being defined by someone else means...or even if it's possible.

These are separate problems...on the conceptual expression of a physical relationship (leadership) and one with no physical aspect at all (being "defined"). That's why they are in separate threads.