Reply #147: Thanks for giving me more to work with, trying to figure out what you were talking about.

[LooseWilly]

Tracing the conversation back... I find this evolution.

Post #86 had been talking about 87 years being brief in the context of World History (in response to post #55, in response to post #52, in response to post #25)

You then responded in post #94 by saying that 87 years wasn't a long time...

So, when you say: "Yes, shifting the context of the discussion away from (my comments on) African American history, which is not "brief." The word and the tactic are both dismissive -- including dismissive of whatever point I tried to share." I can't help but feel that you've gotten lost in your own swirling posts... because it is you who decided to change the context back to US History- and now you turn around and accuse imdjh of having shifted the context away from your comments? You can't be serious?... you are in fact accusing imdjh of doing what you are actually guilty of!

As for your oppression olympics taunt... you might recall that I said this:
"Your reaction "Aside from parsing the African American experience of slavery in order to dismiss it by calling it "brief," " is in and of itself a round of "Oppression Olympics". (As, yes, the gist of the conversation you jumped into had degenerated into... which all goes back to post 25, which seems to have disappeared... but was an accidental beginning to the sport.)"
Which is an acknowledgement that it was a spot of oppression olympic slugfesting that you'd wandered into. Maybe you should read a little closer before you recycle ideas the next time.

As far as I can tell, this is the gist of your response to the question I actually asked... about what SPECIFIC comparison you were talking about:
"Other SPECIFIC imagery and terms that are unique to AA history, yet have been used as watered down "metaphors" are what I'm referring to. "House Negro" is a volatile one to pick up. Esp. as our current POTUS is a black man. And American gays never wore chains or cages."

Hmm... "And American gays never wore chains or cages." ??? Really? Don't you remember the sanctimonious tone 4 paragraphs earlier about "oppression olympics"??? I'll just go ahead and dismiss this part of your answer with similar sanctimony.
-->" "House Negro" is a volatile one to pick up. Esp. as our current POTUS is a black man." Well well... here it sounds to me like what you're admitting is that you and others don't feel comfortable with allegorical comparisons to Civil Rights, and especially Slavery, because of some sort of suspicion that, since Obama is black, that there is some sort of subtle attempt to cast him, allegorically, in with the "House Negroes"... and since Malcolm X has done such a masterful job of turning the black community against "House Negroes", I suspect you and others are interpolating an attempt to split the black community away from Obama. At least, that is the conclusion I draw from the nervousness about the term "House Negro" specifically, and the highlighting of the "Esp. as our current POTUS is a black man."

The irony is that, in the little allegorical comparison that we are talking about today... Obama is not being associated with the "House Negroes"!! Obama is being associated, allegorically, with the Slave Masters. You know, "the Man". And, in any case... the comparison was between the tactics of maintenance of power, not the SPECIFIC example of slavery.

So... if you would take a little more time, stop accusing others of rhetorical devices that you are actually guilty of, stop trying to score rhetorical points over proofs that have been previously stipulated, stop engaging in activities that you have previously tried to score rhetorical points on 4 paragraphs earlier... and kindly take the time to map out the allegorical implications and assignations that logically follow a comparison before jumping to criticize said comparison... I think your posts will be far more lucid in the future.