Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
Locked
User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 23rd, 2009, 1:23 pm

Concerning black folks using automatic weapons and creating the driveby reference in my above post, I should've said something akin to: "black folks were the first to use automatic weapons and the practice of the driveby, as apart of L.A. gang culture."

You see, even I ain't foolish enough to believe that black folks created, or invented the driveby, or were the first to use automatic weapons in the country.

~J~
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1193
Joined: November 20th, 2006, 7:11 pm
Country: Canada
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: 408

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by ~J~ » July 23rd, 2009, 6:25 pm

TheReal wrote:
perongregory wrote:Damn u messin up ur argument by giving out false info, and not reading up on history mayuga. Tatoo culture in America is not a Chicano invention, freaks, sailors and other outcast oddball white people were immersed in the tatto culture, (which by the way always had tats of ladies) before olde english Mexican gang tatooing -so ya #%@& up on that one.

If ur going to say b's and c's got their bandanas from mexicans simply becuz modern mexican gangs are older then b's and c's we can argue that mexicans got their tradition of bandanas from black slaves then who've been wearing shit like that since the 18th century. Gangs have had bandanas, from outlaw whites, the old ass gangs in Chicago, etc. That's a stupid argument.

Good points. I wish I thought of that.
I'll leave that Bandanna argument alone since I don't know enough of the history of it, at the moment.

But,

To be be fair, I don't believe Mayuga was implying that Chicanos invented tattoos, and in fact, he mentioned it was the Polynesians. I think what he was trying to say and I feel is true, is that, Chicanos have influences some Black folks in the Street gang/Celeb domains with their style of tattooing, just look at: The Game, 50 Cent, Exhibit, Dre etc. they all got Chicano influenced tattoos but with a flavor befitting for them.

~J~
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1193
Joined: November 20th, 2006, 7:11 pm
Country: Canada
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: 408

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by ~J~ » July 23rd, 2009, 6:56 pm

TheReal wrote:"black folks were the first to use automatic weapons and the practice of the driveby, as apart of L.A. gang culture."
This is also true, Cholos have a long tradition, they (were) bind by many rules. Bloods and Crips didn't have the rules of the Cholo homeboy. doing drive-bys and especially on Churches is about the worse thing a Cholo could ever have do. now, the modernization of Surenos is a different story, partaking in things their processors would look down on, a sign of the times, I guess.

MMRbkaRudog
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3546
Joined: April 4th, 2004, 6:07 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ
Location: WWW

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by MMRbkaRudog » July 23rd, 2009, 7:25 pm

I've seen some dumb ass shit in this thread. I'm not even going to bother getting into it tho, cuzz it's just way too much for me.

Jupebox
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 269
Joined: June 17th, 2006, 12:22 am
What city do you live in now?: San Jo

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by Jupebox » July 23rd, 2009, 10:46 pm

No wonder yall mathafuckas cant stand each other....

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 24th, 2009, 5:17 am

~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote:
perongregory wrote:Damn u messin up ur argument by giving out false info, and not reading up on history mayuga. Tatoo culture in America is not a Chicano invention, freaks, sailors and other outcast oddball white people were immersed in the tatto culture, (which by the way always had tats of ladies) before olde english Mexican gang tatooing -so ya #%@& up on that one.

If ur going to say b's and c's got their bandanas from mexicans simply becuz modern mexican gangs are older then b's and c's we can argue that mexicans got their tradition of bandanas from black slaves then who've been wearing shit like that since the 18th century. Gangs have had bandanas, from outlaw whites, the old ass gangs in Chicago, etc. That's a stupid argument.

Good points. I wish I thought of that.
I'll leave that Bandanna argument alone since I don't know enough of the history of it, at the moment.

But,

To be be fair, I don't believe Mayuga was implying that Chicanos invented tattoos, and in fact, he mentioned it was the Polynesians. I think what he was trying to say and I feel is true, is that, Chicanos have influences some Black folks in the Street gang/Celeb domains with their style of tattooing, just look at: The Game, 50 Cent, Exhibit, Dre etc. they all got Chicano influenced tattoos but with a flavor befitting for them.
Yeah, but I think what peron was saying, is that it was white people who first hit the states with tattoos, that influenced chicanos, and then blacks. Did tat influence upon black folks come from chicanos solely, maybe so.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 24th, 2009, 5:20 am

~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote:"black folks were the first to use automatic weapons and the practice of the driveby, as apart of L.A. gang culture."
This is also true, Cholos have a long tradition, they (were) bind by many rules. Bloods and Crips didn't have the rules of the Cholo homeboy. doing drive-bys and especially on Churches is about the worse thing a Cholo could ever have do. now, the modernization of Surenos is a different story, partaking in things their processors would look down on, a sign of the times, I guess.
I knew that in the 70's and much of the 80's, cholos/surs/eses in general who were in gangs, weren't known for doing drivebys until like the mid to late 80's rolled around, but I didn't know that was the reason. Interesting...

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 24th, 2009, 5:52 am

~J~ wrote: doing drive-bys and especially on Churches is about the worse thing a Cholo could ever have do. now, the modernization of Surenos is a different story, partaking in things their processors would look down on, a sign of the times, I guess.
Not to totally revisit this point, but upon further inspection, can you now see what I mean when I say that much (okay, I'll be gracious and say not all) of modern day sur culture has been influenced by black L.A. gang culture-within the last 20 years-when it comes to dress (being togged down in blue, and dressing like crips from the 90's), posturing, attitude, gestures and mannerisms, music, and now indiscriminate DRIVEBYS?

Ese surs have been living around blacks, striving with blacks, listening to black music, and imbibing the aesthetics and soul of black folks, for a long while now-to where many of them have adopted their street gang cultural practices. Much of it is due, despite what many of them will say (e.g. L.A. Riots, etc.), to the fact that they’ve been influenced and exposed to the 90’s west coast, black gangsta rap culture, and black south central gang culture, with its own distinct funk and flavor, which is different from East Los cholo flavor-which they thought, and still do think is cool (black south central gang culture from the mid 80’s and 90’s); even though the majority of them will not admit to this (they’d rather say that they invented everything about black south central gang culture, including the music, than admit to being heavily influenced by it).

Now mind you, I'm not necessarily trying to put down black gangs when I bring this up, but we all know that shooting into homes, targeting innocent civilians (especially the intentional targeting of children, which is a behavior that black gangs-truth be told-really don't practice as a general rule, with few exceptions; most children are killed by black gang bangers, via stray bullets) and churches is despicable. I'm just highlighting this quote of yours in order to find alignment in what I've been saying all along.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 24th, 2009, 8:33 am

Oh, and on the clothes tip, as I said before, so say I now and again, and that is-eses have indeed influenced black gang styles of dressing, throughout L.A., HOWEVER, the way black folks accessorized their gear (clothes), and the emphasis they put on certain types of gear, was by and large different than pure ese/sur cholo style.

If you study the movie "Colors," from the late 80's, you will notice similarities between the black gangs and Chicano gangs, but if you look closely, there were plenty of differences; especially how their layouts were accessorized, and again, what was being emphasized. Then again, there was some gear that black gangs wore back in the day that eses didn't wear at all. (For instance, hard core cholos back in the day-not to be confused with your rank and file Mexican-didn’t rock blue sports team jerseys, or other sports clothing items; that was taken from black gangs.)

I personally remember certain bloods back in the day (regardless of what some old head may want to pop up and claim), wearing French Foreign Legion type of head gear. If you watch the movie "Colors," you may see that amongst the bloods.

You can even check out early 90's west coast rap videos, and again, even though there are similarities, there are also some differences, especially as it relates to, AGAIN, how the clothing items were accessorized, and/or what emphasis was placed on certain clothing items.

One pertinent example is the bandanna. As I've always said about the wearing of bandannas-THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TRADITIONAL CHOLO APPROACHES, AND THE BLACK GANG BANGER APPROACH. Traditional cholos would either wear their bandannas similar to how Japanese kamikaze pilots would wear their head kerchiefs, emblazoned with the rising sun, or how southwestern native american tribes wore theirs by wrapping them around the sides of their heads, with the top of the heads being exposed, with a knot tied in the back. Or, some would wear their rags similar to bikers, in that the bandannas would totally cover the whole head, with a knot tied up in the back.

Traditionally speaking, black gangs in L.A. mainly wore their bandannas, so that it covered the entire head, with a knot tied on their forehead. Or they'd wear it to where their heads were exposed, but yet, the knot was still tied on the forehead portion of their head.

Other thing black gang bangers traditionally did with the bandanna, that eses from the 70's, 80's, and much of the 90's never did, or hardly ever did, and that is wear their bandannas tied around their necks, so that they were readily accessible as masks. Nowadays you see modern day contemporary surs sporting rags in this fashion (especially amongst the youth), but back in the day, cholos from both the north and the south, NEVER sported their rags that way, and if they did, IT WAS VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY rare.

Just some closing thoughts on the bandanna, as well as highlighting the similarities, yet differences-whether they be subtle or overt-between traditional cholo/ese/surs, and traditional black L.A. gang bangers from the 70's, and throughout the 90's.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 24th, 2009, 8:53 am

Another thing black gangs in L.A., and black folks across this country in general would do, that eses never did until recently, and that is-WEAR DOO RAGS, OR STOCKING CAPS! And why would eses/cholos wear stocking caps and doo rags-THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO GET WAVES, OR NURTURE A TEXTURIZER, OR PROCESS. But yet, I've seen within this century, one or two surs wearing this type of head gear, whereas before-ESES WEREN'T DOING THIS. And the nerve of many of them, would allow some of these contemporary surs, to smugly claim that black folks STOLE the idea of wearing these head gear items FROM THEM!

I’m like what the phuuuuuuuug? Need I go further with this?

The closest thing that eses would wear, back in the day that was similar to what black folks were wearing on their heads, back in the day-WAS THE HAIR NET! Black folks wore hair nets to protect their processes, whereas eses would wear their nets to maintain their hair styles.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 24th, 2009, 11:23 am

One other thing black gang bangers did, and in some cases still do, with the bandanna, that old school cholos never did, and that is-TIE THEIR BANDANNAS AROUND THEIR WRIST.

~J~
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1193
Joined: November 20th, 2006, 7:11 pm
Country: Canada
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: 408

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by ~J~ » July 24th, 2009, 4:34 pm

Not to totally revisit this point, but upon further inspection, can you now see what I mean when I say that much (okay, I'll be gracious and say not all) of modern day sur culture has been influenced by black L.A. gang culture-within the last 20 years-when it comes to dress (being togged down in blue, and dressing like crips from the 90's), posturing, attitude, gestures and mannerisms, music, and now indiscriminate DRIVEBYS?
Definitely agree this this ^^^

For example, Chino Grande, that guy is preaching some b.s, partaking in an element of Black culture, even some of his slang and his pose I seen on an album cover, where he was twisting that front leg like Crips use to. this guy has got it all backward and you can said the same for many, many other Surenos in some way or other.
Anyway, I can't help myself but to think Blacks in someway influenced Surenos with the bald head thing, even if they like to display tattoos on their head. Cholos didn't have bald heads in the 80's or prior. but as far as jerseys go, I believe some Cholos (and others) were wearing those since the 70's, them old school ringer jerseys with the numbers on it, then nice two tone ones, you know the ones.
And yes,the main differences apart from some of the clothing and like you said were the accessories, Bloods and Crips like to play up on the extras where as the Cholos prefered the simple clean look...

perongregory
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5147
Joined: February 12th, 2004, 9:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by perongregory » July 24th, 2009, 10:04 pm

a small thing but what happened to eses riding the olde schools now I see them with suv's with fat ass rims, high priced locs etc. jewelery. see alot of this shit comes from the east coast, blacks in the west adopt it, and it filters to the mexicans around blacks.

Jupebox
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 269
Joined: June 17th, 2006, 12:22 am
What city do you live in now?: San Jo

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by Jupebox » July 25th, 2009, 8:24 pm

I blame all that on HIP HOP.......HIP HOP is taking over all the cultures,fr Diseney Channel thru Porno Movies,HIP HOP flavor is alive and kicking....

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 26th, 2009, 1:50 pm

TheReal wrote:In one of the above posts, I said I never stated that black folks codified the old English letter writing practice. What I should've said was: "I never said black folks were the first to codify the practice of using old English letters."



I picked your shortest quote to get back to you since you rant and rave and lose focus on what we are discussing .DO BLACKS DISPUTE MEXICANS ORIGINATED LA GANG CULTURE?.We can get into blacks wearing a bandana back since the times of slavery, Which I will agree and acknowledge --there is definetly photos of slaves with them tied on their heads. I would also like to point out that ALL RACES at this juncture -late 1890s- even the 1950s, customarily wore a kerchief or bandana in their suit front pockets , or in their back pocket.HOWEVER--does this take away from my point --that SURS and NORTES wore them as gang identifiers and as a war flag before blacks in the pen?You mention that SURS never wore the blue from head to toe LIKE THEY DO NOW ! I countered that I have still presently never seen them do such.....the streets of LA are 100% SUR , there is no need to look for or gang bang against an enemy you will never see! the rags do not take on the significance for chicanos until they hit the pen, the rag is STILL NOT as big a deal to the vast majority to them. You do kow many SUR gangs actually sport their own gang rag while still holding the blue for sur>??? CYPRESS AVENUES wears the red, Barrio Small town wears Green, Florencia wears brown.etc...etc.The rag is doesnt hold the importance the crips and bloods place on them ----and I HAVE NEVER WITNESSED TOGGED DOWN SURS LIKE YOUR TALKING ABOUT !!.......but who it means more to wasnt what I was arguing , it was who sported it first as a gang identifier.........crips or bloods or SUR and NORTE?? and the answer is the latter. BEing as they both are older then MODERN BLACK GANGS IN LA, the norte is considered young in age compared to the history of the SUR. And they both used the rags at their inception as differentures. You bypassed my very creditable argument that the history of black gangs you mention goes to the 1920s , I will give you this. Now I left open the idea that they existed this long --never discounting such. YET despite this my argument countered that the oldest mexican gang can be traced back to at least this juncture. That that gang is here today. And that the oldest mexican gang in LA can be traced to the oldest black gang. This gang claims a history to the 1900s and says it started in the early 1900s. WHITE FENCE. You keep glossing over this!IF black gangs started in the 1920s , they were already established mexican gangs that would carry on to present day at the times of the oldest black gangs!!The only way to keep a gang alive is by a vast membership. This is one gang in EAST LA. Most other mexican gangs in that area claim a longer history then the WHITE FENCE, the veteranos from EL JARDIN and MARAVILLA say that they came before WF. MY grandfather told me about mexican gangs being very prevalent in the 1930s when he grew up . He also stated that black gangs were not around very much and that alot of the blacks in EAST LA were doing and wearing alot of the stuff mexicans were. He said that blacks were very discriminated against and that alot of the blacks moving into EAST LOS were redneck blacks from the sticks in the south, dudes who had no teeth and wore farm hand clothes --would call people mista' maam and the like.To these mexican city slickers of EAST LOS they looked like BUMKINS farm hands and small town kids.MUCH the way immigrant mexicans must look to blacks ,today. His over arching theme was that blacks were 1. religious, pious and humble. 2. small town , out of touch and backwards as all immigrant populations are! The racism at this time was exasperated by the amount of blacks moving into white comunities, and mexican ones. His storys on compton were about it being a white city. Imagine cotton picking , reneck blacks moving in , in numbers unheard of>? These mexicans and whites must of felt the same way , south central blacks felt during the 1980s invasion by central american and mexican immigrants. I do not discount that blacks contributed alot to gang culture --but this culture in LA is primarily mexican american originated. The oldest, still standing, gangs in AMERICA are right here in LA. These gangs go back to the 1900s and they are mexican. These gangs still exist now. You think by calling me racist your going to discount my arguments based on facts and very valid at their core??By saying I am racist your actually saying his views are clouded --his poinion biased and his facts are lies to back up his diostorted racist view. Yet I can say the same of you --you are seriously a racist more so then most anyone I know. I can defiently say that I am not racist. Because I know racist people , and have heard racist people talk, and my thinking and logic and how I see things is not even on the same planet as theirs.When I hear racists like you speak it justs confuses me , because I am using facts and firsthand knowledge to back up my argument when I thought that EVERYONE knew certain things like gangbanging and tattoing were primarily mexican originated. Then I hear you speak and realize that irregardless of how I feel ---not only am i always going to have to deal with racist whites , occassionally i will battle racist blacks. It just sseem a shame to me that you seem to have a rallying cry were you put mexicans and white racist in the same book, we are thievers , imitators and evil. As ive heard you state as much . But then in the same breathe, you just broadstroke painted us , you turn around and claim I am racist for holding onto one of our only original cultural (MEXICAN AMERICAN) products. Its like your saying that me arguing the truth is racist at its core. You blacks have a ton of cultural products , yet you want one of the few we have too! You are so blinded by what you read on here that ALL of us are the same and that the ones who arent racist are at the minuim agents of solidarity seeing as how they do nothing to check the racism of their brethren. Your opinions should be banned from this discussion since you eyes see what your heart feels and your heart is definetly racist at its core -

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 27th, 2009, 3:57 am

perongregory wrote:a small thing but what happened to eses riding the olde schools now I see them with suv's with fat ass rims, high priced locs etc. jewelery. see alot of this shit comes from the east coast, blacks in the west adopt it, and it filters to the mexicans around blacks.

yuppers, even myself --I drive a 2008 ALTIMA COUPE . Times change, but the real them PAISA ass fools were smashing SUVs back in the day and I always thought they looked messed up with the 4x4 broncos and the bullhorns on the side panel door!!The USA is very differnt for blacks and mexicans,perongregory. Blacks number about the same as hispanics,the difference is pretty small but blacks have alot of history in states were mexicans dont touch down like the south and deep south.East coast and new england ,chitown and the midwest. Lousiana was 1/3 black and places like ATL and DC are black at their core.Mexicans and other hispanics are so different that -this broad coalition of hispanics aint nothing but a myth.I been alot of places and Texas mexicans and Arizona mexicans were like weeniefied , they dressed like preppy ass abercrombie, polo and multi colored hair --the mexican gangs out there outside the pen were just weak.They change up all the time I dont even think they got real gangs out in those spots cuz new lil gangs replace them all the time.In Florida the puerto ricans are so confused about what they are they act black ,dress black ,talk spanish and hate Niggas from HAITI and the brothas! So they look black alot of times and get pissed off when anyone mentions it. Nicaraguans and Cubans are some whitewashed americanized follow the leader,bust your own people self hating latinos. Irregardless of how much black blood the cubans in Florida have they hate blacks bigtime, and they marry whites like no one else. Alot are completely white themselves,except for being born in Cuba aint alot of difference between them and any white I ever met.There is a big difference between a light colored latino and a white latino and these cubans have the white bone structure and facial features and blonde hair like any white person.I myself look light , and have always been told i must be italian as my bone structure and nose are white,looking so I can see this world from both sides. I always got the WAZ UP head nod from the brothas , as they see my lght skin but give credit to my brown core as my entire getdown is latino.So I know what blacks have gone thru in this country and the struggles they have had and continue to have .It is so amusing to me when I get white people talking about brothers in front of me ,thinking that since i look as white as them I probably feel the same way.So when I let loose on how I feel about them they get really shocked. I was at this job once and purposelly would say WAZ UP to every black dude I saw, I used to have every brother on the job walking by my area giving me daps and backslaps and a heads up , every time these crackas saw it, they knew I KNEW WAZ UP with their lying devious ways.That hey man we are cool sucker ass way white boys got but ass soon as you not around they bad mouthing and back talking.As ive gotten older I realize that alot of brothers have seen it and dealt with it their whole lives and know what time it is ----and that that head salute they give me is alot more then a friendly hello.....its about that struggle they know we are going thru ---not as hard as them but on that same tip . Its like whites want you to sellout and hate blacks or forget your culture and assimilate ,and if you dont then your the same as a black.

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 27th, 2009, 4:44 am

TheReal wrote:One other thing black gang bangers did, and in some cases still do, with the bandanna, that old school cholos never did, and that is-TIE THEIR BANDANNAS AROUND THEIR WRIST.



one more thing , we arent arguing about who is taking what from whom....cuz id just have to say that we both took from eachother ---but I will say that the oldest gangs in America ,the gangs with the most history ,the longest living gangs ,are mexican and are from east la.That tattooing irregardless of what you say about it being white is not the same as chicano tattoos, and that chicano tattoos are extremely influential throughout the whole of America.Shit throughout the entire world as I just recently saw a show on tattoing in JAPAN and CHINA and they are getting all the style of tatts we invented out there.I dont know what you consider important in gang life , what holds the most significace. But to me tattoing is definetly the top one , and that is distinctly mexican-american.Nationwide brothers are getting tatted in the manner of mexicans --the sleeves and neckline shots and stomache shots.The teardrops on the face , when i was growing up ONLY mexicans got tatted like that , its a fact that the best artists in Cali tattoo shops are ESEs.That tattooing and gang life go hand in hand.White boys get different shit like demons and satan tatted on them ---they dont get the old english on the stomache ,gang shots on the neck,face, bitches on the arm ,christ,virgin mary, numbers as gang identifiers, block letters ,rip tattoos, angels, street shots, head shots, peacocks,cholas,aztec shields,sand man ,time pieces,clocks and calenders, roses, stars (norte was doing this before anyone!),guns ,bullets ,death heads with the sombreros,west side,east side , blah blah blah side, entire back pieces,murals,.....................are you gonna say EVERYONE isnt doing this now ??sure white girls get roses in color and butterflies in color but the ideas are 100% chicano!!The game --50 cent --ice cube --dre--eminem, if you look at there work its off the hook mexican , matter of fact dude who did dre and the game was mexican from 18street, eminems artists was mexican also .We put that shit on the map and now everyone is opening tattoo shops throughout the USA -since you were around in the 70s are you seriously gonna tell me about white boys getting tatted like us??cuza I aint lying when i say I really cant remeber anyone of any race getting tatted like we did. My time in the juvenile kids 15 and under were hit up from their faces to their necks and almost never were blacks tatted like that.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 27th, 2009, 7:09 am

First of all, you are a racist, because all you keep doing is ignoring the tons of evidence I give in regards to black gang contributions to L.A. and gang culture in general, by constantly throwing up as a refrain that Mexicans in L.A. are the oldest gangs, therefore AAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL gang culture originated with the eses, which implies that black folks haven’t contributed shit. Here I am acknowledging what eses have contributed to L.A. gang culture, but yet you view me as a racist, simply because I will come back hard and defend and highlight what black folks contributed to gang culture-WHICH IS HIGHLY INCONSISTENT AND HYPOCRITICAL ON YOUR PART!

What it is, with surs like you-you want us black folks to just lay down, and let your side tell your side of the story- which contains truths, half-truths, and damn lies-ike good little house negroes. Man you are so far into this type of mindset, to where you would even dare that my speech be stifled on this site, simply because you at the core, really don’t want to hear shit coming from black folks side, concerning what we contributed to this L.A. street gang culture. You guys want the total floor, and if you don’t get it, you will whine like the little racist baby that you are, and accuse black folks of stealing the entire spotlight, seeing as how some of us will rise up and take a stand and defend our shit.

And as far your racist accusation:

I haven’t been racist on this thread in the least bit, or at the very least-I HAVEN’T BEEN RACIST WITH YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE! What? Just because I defend black shiit, but yet acknowledge your people’s shit, and don’t let your side get away with a total running away of the historical contributions of L.A. gang culture-I’m now being racist. This is what’s so hypocritical about many Mexicans like you. Mexicans like you can pump up your own people, and talk about Mexican pride, and how your people are better than other people, in certain areas, but yet you probably wouldn’t view that as being racist, but as a thing of pride and beauty, whereas if black folks were to do the same damn thing, in return-WE ARE CONSIDERED RACIST!

Racists like you go so far as to say that any black person defending their own history and cultural shit, is racist, and not only that-THEY OUGHT TO BE BANNED FROM ALL DISCUSSIONS! Man, I see what type of society you would want, if you had the opportunity to rule the world.

But that’s beside the point, let’s continue…

You talk about old Mexican heads you know of who discussed black folks migration in L.A. during the 1930’s, and whatnot, especially the 40’s, and what sorts of black folks they encountered; and true enough, like in all metropolises across this country where black folks migrated to, YOU HAD YOUR COUNTRY BUMPKIN TYPES, LIVING AMONGST THE “city slicker” or urbanized residents of the city. HOWEVER, this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an urbanized black community in L.A. already in the 30’s, seeing as how black folks were arriving in L.A. since the early part of the last century, establishing their own communities, and their own cultural milieus. Regardless of Mexican residents living in L.A. and formulating gangs in L.A., the fact of the matter is, black culture eventually seeped through into the ese population, by way of the music, the walk, the gesture and mannerisms, the slang, as well as forms of dress, via zoot suits, highwaisted pants, wide fedoras and the like.

Remember, the black population contained two strains: THE COUNTRY BUMPKIN TYPES, AND THE ESTABLISHED URBANIZED TYPE (i.e. city slicker), AND THOSE, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE, WHO BROUGHT ASPECTS OF BLACK CULTURE FROM THE MIDWEST, AND EAST COAST, and even from the south, to a great extent.

Again, what was that culture that black folks brought out west, from the east coast, Midwest, and even parts of the urbanized south? ZOOT SUITS, THE WAY OF DRESS, GESTURES AND MANNERISMS, DAP, THE MUSIC, AND THE SWAGGER! This is what inundated the eses, especially in the late 30’s and 40’s. Central Ave., when it was predominantly black, during the 30’s and 40’s, was a jazz and black entertainment hub, similar to other black entertainment hubs across this country, like Harlem, Kansas City, and Beale Street (Beale Street primarily dealt with the blues). Tons of black Jazz musicians and other black artists, in their clubs and dance halls, would deluge L.A. culture with black Midwest, and especially east coast black culture, in the form of music, fashion, slang and swagger.

Your ancestors from your gramps generation, whether they will admit to this or not, for whatever reason, use to frequent black club establishments, and imbibe all of this black culture, in the form of the music, the dress, the slang, the gestures and mannerism, daps and so forth, and added onto it, certain peculiar chicano cultural attributes, which led rise to the pachuco class within the late 30’s and 40’s.

Do the research, for it is out there. And grant it, your elders may be giving you a lot of insight into some shit, but THERE ONLY TELLING YOU ONE SIDE! NOT EVERY BLACK PERSON RESIDING IN L.A. BACK IN THE DAY, WERE COUNTRY BUMPKINS, OR BLACK VERSIONS OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, PLAYING AND SINGING THE BLUES, WITH BANJOS ON THEIR KNEES. (Besides, just because these ese old heads were living in East Los, doesn’t mean they totally knew about the ins and outs of black culture, or black folks, during those days; you do know that black folks were living in other areas of L.A. besides East Los?)

Grant it, this may have represented a large portion of the blacks they ran across in East L.A., but if you were to even go back to the 20’s, especially 30’s, black folks in L.A. already had an established hip culture, that was rooted in black mid west, but especially, east coast culture, WHEREBY ESES AT THE TIME, WEARY OF THEIR PARENTS TRADITIONAL MEXICAN CULTURE, ATTACHED THEMSELVES ONTO IT (black culture).

This is similar to ese gangs of today, attaching themselves onto east coast hip hop culture, via black west coast gang culture, and street culture, of the late 80’s and 90’s. Just as black hip culture of the 30’s, gave eses back in the day a boost and a face lift, so did black west coast gang and street culture of the 80’s and 90’s, give eses a face lift and a boost.
In other words, if it weren’t for certain aspects of black street gang culture from the 80’s and 90’s, eses would still look like those cats from the movies “Colors,” and “Boulevard Nights,” mainly listening to oldies, and not sporting baldheads, as well as not being togged down in blue, while holding up the blue rag as their banner, the way they do nowadays.
The same goes for your ancestors back in the 30’s, and 40’s, with the advent of black culture, due to the ever increasing black populace entering into L.A.

Now mind you, you can call what I said racist all you want to, but it is indeed the truth. Oh but I see, you can hamper on the tat thing, and the bandanna thing, but yet you’re not a racist, but when I defend black folks cultural contributions to L.A., while explaining what your peeps took from black folks, then I’m the racist, even though I’m constantly acknowledging what your peeps contributed? You go figure.

Anyway, let’s move on…

As far as the bandanna thing, I’m sorry, I’m not letting that one go, because explicit in your remarks is that black folks took the wearing and donning of the bandanna, and using it as an emblem, from eses, which again, is patently false and untrue. As I said before, so say I now and again, and that is, black folks come from a headkerchief, and/or bandanna wearing tradition. I’ve even given you information, from my own family, as well as highlighted a photo from back in the day from my friends research on black gangs in the 50’s, where black folks would utilize bandanas, or other types of headkerchiefs. But I guess that just flew over your head, because it doesn’t cater to your apocryphal tale of surs originating the bandanna as gang signifiers and banners.

As I said before, back in the day, surs weren’t going around being togged down in blue, and upholding the blue banner, or red banner, for that matter, as a gang emblem, the way many of them do today. They got all of that shiit from black gangs, namely the crips and the bloods. And you claim that you’ve never met surs being drenched in blue gear nowadays, well where have you been? I’ve seen plenty of surs, in real life, as well as in cyberspace, as well as on their sur rap cd covers, being drenched in blue from head to toe-JUST LIKE CRIPS.
Furthermore, about the bandanna-there are two streams of sources that discuss the bandannas being used as gang identifiers by ese gangs. One source says it was the late 60’s, whereas the other source says it was the late 70’s. I remember back in the 80’s, old school surs putting down black gangs for going all crazy over a color. According to this one sur (he was in his 40’s at the time, so you can imagine his age now), the color of the rag didn’t matter to eses, but the “varrio.” Now granted, he didn’t give me your tale of the blue rag being a banner, or a gang identifier for eses back when he was coming along, or what have you, seeing as how this cat-WAS ALWAYS SPORTING EITHER A BROWN, OR OLIVE GREEN BANDANNA, NEVER A BLUE BANDANNA. Oh don’t get me wrong, I would spot eses sporting blue bandannas in L.A. back in the day, but guess what-I’M FROM OAKLAND, AND WHILE LIVING IN OAKLAND (norte territory), I WOULD SEE ESES SPORTING EITHER RED, OR BLUE BANDANNAS, BACK IN THE DAY! When I lived in Delano during the mid 80’s, which I would imagine to be a norte stronghold, I WOULD SEE THE FEW ESES WHO WORE BANDANNAS, SPORT EITHER BLUE OR RED.

Now I will admit that in L.A., even going back to the 70’s, the younger eses would sport mainly blue bandannas, as oppose to the older cats who seemed not to place great emphasis on them, but these ese cats wouldn’t be all togged down in blue, as many surs are nowadays, or uphold the blue as gang banners. Not only were surs not going around back in the day talking about the blue banner, and the blue gang identifier, which was imparted to them by way of the California Penal system, as they do today, but again-THEY WEREN’T TALKING ABOUT BLACK FOLKS GETTING THE IDEA OF THE BLUE AND RED BANNER FROM ESES.

Even many of them back in the day were mature enough to realize that despite the color blue being representative of the surs- BLACK GANGS IN L.A. WHO SPORTED THE BLUE, OR THE RED, HAD A DIFFERENT TRAJECTORY IN WHY THEY DID SO, BASED ON THEIR OWN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL MILIEU, WHICH IS SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND APART FROM WHY ESES DID SO.

This is highly evident in black gangs from L.A., greatly dividing over the colors, whereas surs and nortes divided over the colors, based on geographical locations, based on the north and the south. Truth be told, not even eses back in the day were thinking about the blue and the red, as heavily as black folks were, which is something you admitted to, but yet you claim that black gangs patterned their red and blue scuffle based on surs and nortes. Research already highlights how the crips and the bloods chose the respective blue and red colors, based on the colors of the high schools that were located in the founding areas of these gangs. Research also provides why the bloods chose the color red, thus the red bandanna, for the term “blood”, which was a term black folks used to greet and acknowledge one another, thus the color red, which emblemizes BLOOD.

Again, eses from both the north and the south, had a different trajectory on why they eventually landed on the color blue and the red, which had nothing to do with black folks, nor black folks having anything to do with eses, on why they eventually landed on the blue and the red.

With that being said, just because ese gangs may can go back beyond the black gangs of the 1920’s, don’t mean that ese gangs didn’t receive cultural facelifts from black L.A. culture during the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Again, you can talk about tats all you want to (which I already admitted to the possible codification by Mexican gangs, even though Mexicans by no means originated the tats), but the fact of the matter is, with all of the talk about what eses gave black folks in regards to L.A. gang culture, black folks also gave to eses, much of their modern day sur gang culture, overall street culture, as well as pachuco culture.

Being original, doesn’t mean you created everything you see out there in the streets. Some shit was added onto. Let’s say that ese gangs were the foundation, ONLY IN L.A., well-BLACK FOLKS WERE THE SEASONING SALT AND HOT SAUCE, THAT GAVE IT, IT’S FLAVOR, VIA ADDITIONAL SEASONINGS, TO WHERE THAT WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY CREATED FROM THIS BREW, PUT L.A. GANG CULTURE ON THE MAP, AND SHOOK UP THE WORLD. Sur gang culture couldn’t do this alone, and wasn’t going to do this.

I realize as an ese, with sur proclivities and sympathies, you reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaallly don’t want to acknowledge this, but hey-too bad. The history is what it is.

Moreover, as I said before, so say I now and again, and that is, contrary to sur folklore and myths, black gangs in L.A. didn’t form, or come into existence, because they were trying to arrogate off of ese gangs. As evidenced by the history, black gangs had their own separate sociological, psychological, and historical reasons, for why they formed their own gangs, which is separate from surenos. The problem with surenos, and sur sympathizers, is that they’re always trying to insert themselves into black family shit, and why black gangs did, what they did, BY COMING INTO EXISTENCE AND EXISTING. They worry about black shiit too much. Here this cat’s going to talk about black folks wearing tats, even to the point of discussing darker skinned black folks wearing tats, and how they wear them, as if that’s reeeeeeeeeeaaaallly something that deserves that much consideration.

What-you want every black person sporting a tat to always think about Mexicans? Now how does that sound? It’s like me saying that every time I see an ese doing the cholo walk, using black slang, listening to, and performing black music, etc.-I WANT THEM TO THINK OF BLACK FOLKS. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

I’m sorry man, but I hear what you’re saying, but forgive me if I don’t totally drink the sur kool-aid you’re trying to dish out. No one’s trying to take your culture from you, but I do realize that you don’t even want black folks to even acknowledge their own culture, and the unique brand we brought to the L.A. street gang mystique, simply because you are running off the fumes of racial chauvinism.

Again, you want me to be a good negro, and just set aside any attempts I may put forth, to defend black contributions to L.A. street culture, even if I give eses their credit. In your racist world, you want black folks to bow down, and always be in a prostrate like position, when it comes to eses and what they contributed.

Well, I’m sorry, but this is one black cat that hasn’t received that memo. If eses can always talk about what black folks “stole” from them, then I as a black person in return, can reciprocate in discussing what eses took from black folks. Right now you have a whole generation of young surs coming on the scene, believing that black folks have stolen Mexican/chicano culture, and that everything we got in regards to street and gang culture, or culture in general (according to the extreme racist types) we all got from eses-WHICH IS BULLSHIIIT!

You know I’m telling the truth. And you also know that if black folks were to acknowledge some shiit they got from eses, that this wouldn’t be enough, because surs want to claim EVERYTHING ABOUT BLACK L.A. STREET CULTURE. Many of them foolishly believe that just because they were first, that mean they created everything, which is illogical and anti-intellectual. This is like claiming that just because the Kentucky Rifle was before the AK-47, or M16, there hadn’t been any advancements in the structure of the rifle, and that the AK-47 and M16, are dead on replicas of the Kentucky Rifle, in how it fires and operates-which is BULLLLLLLLSSSSSHHHIIT!

Simply put, eses like you want to take credit for everything, as it relates to L.A. gang culture, and you’re frustrated that certain black folks who defend what black folks contributed to L.A. gang and street culture, won’t let you guys get away with it; by constantly hiding behind the tired and worn out argument that just because you guys were the first, therefore everything in regards to L.A. street culture, including west coast gangsta rap culture of the late 80’s and 90’s, and other cultural nuances I’ve mentioned- comes from eses.

In other words, according to your logic, and what you, and those who think like you are really saying is- if it were created within the confines of L.A. county, eses will claim it, because in the end, they were the first, and might equals right. This is a way of thinking, and looking at the facts, that’s not estimable.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 27th, 2009, 7:41 am

Another thing Mayuga, later for your racism accusation. Just because I defend black folks shit with a passion, doesn't make me a racist. As I said before, so say I now and again, and that is-I HAVEN'T BEEN RACIST WITH YOU IN THE LEAST BIT, AND HAVE GIVEN OUT AS GOOD AS YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME.

Now, I can resort to some racist shiit if I want to, but I haven't done so with you in this dialectic of ours; so again-later for this racist accusation of yours. Remember, it was you who referred to black folks as "nigs" and referred to me as being "crazy" and "self-delusional," so what the phugg? You expect me to just sit back and eat grits and cotton candy like a good negro saying: "Thankee massa!"

I've already acknowledged ese/chicano contributions to L.A. street culture, and how it imparted to black folks, but I see that shit's not enough-you want to claim it all, or at the very least, you really don't want me to talk about black shiit, and how it contributed to L.A. street gang culture.

Simply put, you want the conversation to be one-sided, with the advantage going to your side, to where black folks don't say shiit. That's the game I see being ran down on black folks. Folks are always hearing about how eses created this, or that, in regards to AAAAAAAAAAALLLLL of L.A. gang culture, to where you even have white boys, asians, and young surs, claiming that all of black gang culture, including the crip walk (one white guy tells me that black gangs got that from the "sur" walk; MAN GET OUT OF HERE), and rap music (an ese sur in the early part of this century claimed that "gangsta beats," and west coast rap music, was created by the eses).

I even remember one ese sur saying that he hates black folks because, "They kill raza, and stole all of their culture from mexicans." One 15 year old ese (I don't think he was sur affiliated, insofar as being a gang member) told me to my face, in 2005, that in 2012, black folks are going to get wiped out in L.A., because we're parasitical, and all we do is steal mexican culture.

Hell if you leave it to certain mexicans, going full strong off of sur mythology-black folks got the wearing of hoodies, army jackets, chucks, timberlands, doo rags, tank tops, and wave caps, from mexicans. And trust me, I've heard mexicans claim this shit.

Mind you, this is the propaganda that many of your young surs believe nowadays. I mean they believe EVERYTHING came from mexicans, when it comes to street and underground culture. Hell, even Chino Grande can't admit that black folks created rap music-he has to cite some mythological aztec god of rap music. You go figure.

As a matter of fact, I had to get on your boy Wicked Minds, a confused rican sur-for promoting that Chino Grande BS.

So in the end, you can call me a racist all you want to, but I tell others to only consider the source.

pistolslanga
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1342
Joined: May 5th, 2006, 2:04 pm
Location: oakland

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by pistolslanga » July 27th, 2009, 12:33 pm

paragraphs ontop of paragraphs up in this b!tch

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 27th, 2009, 12:50 pm

Another thing Mayuga, as I intimated earlier, I DON'T REMEMBER ESE SURS FROM BACK IN THE DAYS ACCUSING BLACK FOLKS OF TAKING THE BLUE AND RED BANDANNA/BANNER, FROM THEM, NOR CLAIM THAT BLACK GANGS ONLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE, SO AS TO ARROGATE OFF OF SUR/ESE GANGS! As a matter of fact, as was stated in an earlier post of mine, which is what I’m able to; recollect-surs use to kinda put down black gang members for fighting over colors. Again, with the fear of sounding redundant, I must repeat myself and say that not once did I ever hear an old school sur, or norte, back in the day, claim that black folks arrogated the red and blue bandanna thing from off of them, and that black gangs are an arrogation of ese sur gangs, only because they respected the separate history of how black gangs in L.A., eventually arrived at upholding these banners, as well as existing.

The only time I really began to hear surs talk about black folks stealing their shiit, was in the mid 90's, right after the advent of black west coast gangsta rap (around the mid 90's), when a lot of sur eses began to get into the rap game, more so than before. Now mind you, it may have happened earlier, for various reasons, but I'm just telling you when I first became subjected to these accusations of thievery leveled at black folks.

Well anyway, this was during the time when ese surs began to make bogus claims that mexicans created west coast gangsta rap, and that the stories found in black west coast pioneers rap songs of gangsterdom, were actually taken from the lives of mexican bangers (grant it, mexican bangers may have had similar experiences, but isn't it possible that both black and brown were experiencing the same thing; is that too much of a stretch?); all fashion in L.A. and across the country, that black folks donned, come from mexicans, even the sporting of gold or platinum chains, chucks, and adidas footwear; blacks have no culture other than what they stole from mexicans and white folks; blacks took dap from eses; blacks took gangsta beats from eses; blacks took deejaying from eses; took pimpin' women from eses; and on, and on, and on, and on.

And these surs began to spread these lies all over L.A., the classrooms, the internet, and any one that was willing to listen. When I got into it with Wicked Minds about some of that falsehood being pumped out there by surs (he's originally a Chicago Rican who claims 18th St.), which he was preaching in his defense of Chino Grande, all he could say was: "I'm just going off of what I was told."

Hell man, if it weren't for black folks, folks in Japan wouldn't even know what a lowrider is. Back in the mid 90's, you had the Majestic Lowrider club, which was predominantly black, have their lowriders impounded by the gov, and auctioned off in Japan. Many of the early Japanese lowriders had a majestic emblem dead in the back window, whereas these cats were dressing like west coast gang bangers, which they arrogated from watching black gangsta rap videos. Same thing with Hawaii, in the early 90's. As a service man, I witnessed native polynesians, dressing and acting like west coast gangstas, blasting Snoop Dogg and Dre.

I only mention that to emphasize, that true enough, black gangs borrowed some aspects of your peeps culture, just like your peeps did with black gang culture, and black culture in general, but that it was black folks, who added their own funk, flavor and swagger, to your peeps influence, via their slang, gestures and mannerisms, dances, and west coast gangsta rap, amongst other things-THAT ADVERTISED YOUR SOME OF YOUR PEEPS CULTURE, WORLDWIDE. But instead of being thankful, and acknowledging that in L.A., the black and brown have had a symbiotic relationship, in regards appropriating one another's cultural nuances, MANY OF YOUR BRETHREN BEGAN TO LIE TO THE WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE WORLD, AND PROCLAIM THAT EVERYTHING THEY SEE IN BLACK CULTURE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SHOES ON THEIR FEET, CAME FROM MEXICAN/CHICANO CULTURE, AND THAT BLACK FOLKS REALLY HAVE NO OVERALL CULTURE TO SPEAK OF, LET ALONE BLACK L.A. STREET CULTURE.

This is what I, as well as many blacks have been subjected to, again, not only in real life, but in cyberspace, and all over the place, to where you even have white boys, and asian-preaching this nonsense.

This is why I come down so hard on defending black folks street shiit, because even though it's gang shit I'm defending, my defense of it from racist surs have deeper ramifications.

Again man, many of your people are lying on black folks, all over the world, trying to rob us of our street credibility, and collective self-esteem, while posturing us as the ultimate of thieves, while mexicans are being portrayed as being totally original in everything that they do. As a matter of fact, it get so bad, to where I was on this one chicano website, where this one sur from Compton was complaining about how this one black cat, cruising in his lowrider was trying to act like a mexican, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS PLAYING MARVIN GAYE IN HIS VEHICLE! Imagine that, a black man trying to act like a mexican, simply because he's listening to an "oldie" song from another black man.

Damn, you mean to tell me that we can't even enjoy ourselves without some new fangled contemporary sur coming on the scene and "checking" our activity?

And you can totally deny what I'm saying, but there are mexicans reading my words, as well as black folks reading my words, who know I'm telling the truth, regardless of what you claim, or protest to the contrary.

Silencioso
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1865
Joined: August 8th, 2003, 2:27 pm
What city do you live in now?: West Los

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by Silencioso » July 27th, 2009, 1:53 pm

I'm one of the older regulars on this board so let me throw in some first hand observations I have about the origins of street gang styles in L.A.

Bandanas as fashion and gang signifiers:

When I first encountered black gangs in the late seventies they were wearing bandanas/rags. They usually displayed them out of their back pockets or front coat pockets, they rarely wore them on their heads in any style. They used rag color to represent gang affiliations: blue for Crips, red for Bloods/Brims, black for Black P. Stones etc.

Cholos at this time wore bandanas as a style, usually wide over the forehead "apache style" or over the whole head "pirate style". In West LA several cholo gangs used bandanna color to rep the gang, for example brown for Sotel, blue for Venice 13, red or Culver City etc. In most parts of L.A. cholos did not use color to rep the gang, however, and bandannas were simply part of the cholo/ese style along with khakis, pendletons, hair nets etc.. The most common color bandanna worn by cholos back then was red, followed by blue.

Old English letter:

In the late seventies black L.A. gangs often wore "BKA" jackets which were thin wind breaker type jackets with personlized lettering on the back. Occasionally you'd see t-shirts with gang names. The lettering used back then was a type of round font popular in the disco era and rarely seen today. Cholos were already using old english letters on jackets, football shirts etc. I noticed black gangs first using old english around '81, at least on the West Side.

Repping with color:

Black gangs in the late seventies were wearing colored clothing to rep their gangs, most commonly bandanas/rags, jackets, flannel shirts and sometimes hats. Cholos did not rep this way, even gangs like Sotel that had an official gang color did not make a point of wearing brown shirts, brown jackets etc.

Graffiti:

What's thought of today as "L.A. Style" gang graffiti is of cholo origin. PERIOD. Black gangs in the late seventies had a completely different graffiti style that used straight forward print lettering and featured creative use of words and gangster poetry. The earlier black gangs like the Slausons did not use cholo lettering either, based on what I've seen in old photos from that period. In the early 80's I noticed black gangs starting to pick up on the cholo graff style and modifying it somewhat. This modified cholo style eventually became the standard for all L.A. gangs and is what you see on the walls today.

Gang umbrella alliances:

The idea of big umbrella alliances/nations like Crips, Bloods, Sur, Folks etc. is more a black thing than a Mexican thing. It is something you see in black gangs throughout the US and through the years, for example Vice Lords, Stones and Disciples in Chicago. Folks and People in later years (both started by blacks). When I was involved in gang banging (early-mid 80's), "Sureno" was a loose regional based identity, it was not a gang alliance in the sence of Bloods, Crips, Folks...The idea of Sureno as an official designation with connections to la EME came later.

Misc. clothing:

White t-shirts were not common with black gangs in the late 70's, where as they were the most important part of the cholo style, something guys wore every day basically. I started seeing black gangs wearing white t's in the early to mid eighties.

Baggy khakis were not part of the black gang uniform of the late 70's. They usually wore regular fitting slacks or dress pants. Cholos wore baggy khakis, county style denim pants, dress pants, chords and even army surplus pants. I reacll black gangs starting to wear khakis in the early 80's. I also first saw "sagging" at this time and it was 100% black. Nobody else did it.

The fashion of wearing the top two or three button fastened with rest open was a major part of L.A. gang style back in the day that has pretty much died out. I recall seeing black gangs doing it around 80 or 81. Cholos had been doing it for years.

Several aspects of the traditional cholo dress style were incorporated into the black gang style around 81 or so. This would include "Charlie Brown" shits, sweat shirts, army belts and web/stretch belts. I'm not saying no black people ever wore this type of clothing but in the context of L.A. gang culture, these items were a part of the cholo style before the black gang style.

The period when black gangs borrowed from cholos was fairly brief, basically the early to mid 1980's. After that the influences on L.A. gang culture (black, cholo and pretty much everybody else) were mostly from hip hop sources. First from the classic b-boy style and then later the gangster style.

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 27th, 2009, 4:37 pm

pistolslanga wrote:paragraphs ontop of paragraphs up in this b!tch


I am at war with the real ---and slowy but surely I have gotten him to backstance on his accusations and beliefs-----he has backtracked on the timing of black gangs and who came first ----something that took at least three seperate correspondences to get him to do ---the entire argument on my side was based on that simple notion, and he gave it up ! I am not done with him yet ---and if he is consistent enough to stick the arguments without the racial accusations then eventually I will get him to admit to every point I made ----I surely have not admitted to or taken a step back on anything I have said in the least bit for I am not interested in halfway marks or peace treatys, or draws were no winner is acknowledged.

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 27th, 2009, 5:37 pm

TheReal wrote:Another thing Mayuga, as I intimated earlier, I DON'T REMEMBER ESE SURS FROM BACK IN THE DAYS ACCUSING BLACK FOLKS OF TAKING THE BLUE AND RED BANDANNA/BANNER, FROM THEM, NOR CLAIM THAT BLACK GANGS ONLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE, SO AS TO ARROGATE OFF OF SUR/ESE GANGS! As a matter of fact, as was stated in an earlier post of mine, which is what I’m able to; recollect-surs use to kinda put down black gang members for fighting over colors. Again, with the fear of sounding redundant, I must repeat myself and say that not once did I ever hear an old school sur, or norte, back in the day, claim that black folks arrogated the red and blue bandanna thing from off of them, and that black gangs are an arrogation of ese sur gangs, only because they respected the separate history of how black gangs in L.A., eventually arrived at upholding these banners, as well as existing.

The only time I really began to hear surs talk about black folks stealing their shiit, was in the mid 90's, right after the advent of black west coast gangsta rap (around the mid 90's), when a lot of sur eses began to get into the rap game, more so than before. Now mind you, it may have happened earlier, for various reasons, but I'm just telling you when I first became subjected to these accusations of thievery leveled at black folks.

Well anyway, this was during the time when ese surs began to make bogus claims that mexicans created west coast gangsta rap, and that the stories found in black west coast pioneers rap songs of gangsterdom, were actually taken from the lives of mexican bangers (grant it, mexican bangers may have had similar experiences, but isn't it possible that both black and brown were experiencing the same thing; is that too much of a stretch?); all fashion in L.A. and across the country, that black folks donned, come from mexicans, even the sporting of gold or platinum chains, chucks, and adidas footwear; blacks have no culture other than what they stole from mexicans and white folks; blacks took dap from eses; blacks took gangsta beats from eses; blacks took deejaying from eses; took pimpin' women from eses; and on, and on, and on, and on.

And these surs began to spread these lies all over L.A., the classrooms, the internet, and any one that was willing to listen. When I got into it with Wicked Minds about some of that falsehood being pumped out there by surs (he's originally a Chicago Rican who claims 18th St.), which he was preaching in his defense of Chino Grande, all he could say was: "I'm just going off of what I was told."

Hell man, if it weren't for black folks, folks in Japan wouldn't even know what a lowrider is. Back in the mid 90's, you had the Majestic Lowrider club, which was predominantly black, have their lowriders impounded by the gov, and auctioned off in Japan. Many of the early Japanese lowriders had a majestic emblem dead in the back window, whereas these cats were dressing like west coast gang bangers, which they arrogated from watching black gangsta rap videos. Same thing with Hawaii, in the early 90's. As a service man, I witnessed native polynesians, dressing and acting like west coast gangstas, blasting Snoop Dogg and Dre.

I only mention that to emphasize, that true enough, black gangs borrowed some aspects of your peeps culture, just like your peeps did with black gang culture, and black culture in general, but that it was black folks, who added their own funk, flavor and swagger, to your peeps influence, via their slang, gestures and mannerisms, dances, and west coast gangsta rap, amongst other things-THAT ADVERTISED YOUR SOME OF YOUR PEEPS CULTURE, WORLDWIDE. But instead of being thankful, and acknowledging that in L.A., the black and brown have had a symbiotic relationship, in regards appropriating one another's cultural nuances, MANY OF YOUR BRETHREN BEGAN TO LIE TO THE WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE WORLD, AND PROCLAIM THAT EVERYTHING THEY SEE IN BLACK CULTURE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SHOES ON THEIR FEET, CAME FROM MEXICAN/CHICANO CULTURE, AND THAT BLACK FOLKS REALLY HAVE NO OVERALL CULTURE TO SPEAK OF, LET ALONE BLACK L.A. STREET CULTURE.

This is what I, as well as many blacks have been subjected to, again, not only in real life, but in cyberspace, and all over the place, to where you even have white boys, and asian-preaching this nonsense.

This is why I come down so hard on defending black folks street shiit, because even though it's gang shit I'm defending, my defense of it from racist surs have deeper ramifications.

Again man, many of your people are lying on black folks, all over the world, trying to rob us of our street credibility, and collective self-esteem, while posturing us as the ultimate of thieves, while mexicans are being portrayed as being totally original in everything that they do. As a matter of fact, it get so bad, to where I was on this one chicano website, where this one sur from Compton was complaining about how this one black cat, cruising in his lowrider was trying to act like a mexican, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS PLAYING MARVIN GAYE IN HIS VEHICLE! Imagine that, a black man trying to act like a mexican, simply because he's listening to an "oldie" song from another black man.

Damn, you mean to tell me that we can't even enjoy ourselves without some new fangled contemporary sur coming on the scene and "checking" our activity?

And you can totally deny what I'm saying, but there are mexicans reading my words, as well as black folks reading my words, who know I'm telling the truth, regardless of what you claim, or protest to the contrary.





There you go changing the diuscussion --if yo want to start a thread called racist mexican eses then go right ahead. Cuz you wont see me denying some of what you said and acknowledging the contributions blacks have made in music,sports etc etc ......The argument was who are the originators of LA street gang culture ---you have backtracked on the origins of black gangs coming before gangs like the WF and Maravilla, it took awhile but that was at the core of my argument.The originators are the ones with the oldest gang.period! How else could the argument be won?? Certain aspects of chicano gang culture are undeniable big influencers on black culture throughout the nation and vice versa ----chnging things up a lil turning the fedora sideways , sagging the dickies instead of pulling them up , getting thug life instead of mi vida loca , and then repackaging it and claiming patent on it!!YOU cannot actually believe that bloods and crips , didnt get the ideas of red and blue from SUR and Norte??doesnt it seem like tooooo much of a coincidece ?? to much of an anomaly??its like the mexican kid you said was upset that a black guy was listening to MARVIN GAYE, claiming that GAYES words were mexican music is a completely idiotic argument that could be destroyed piecemeal!!or me saying that cuz black gangs dont place the signifance on oldies like DREAM WEAVER< BABY IM FOR REAL<AGoNY AND ECSTASY ,, therefore I have appropriated that music and now relabeled it mexican !!lol what a joke! because the flags of crips and bloods are more importnt to those gangs doesnt take away that those 2 specific colors were used by the norte and sur first!! and that somehow blacks who had been to the pen or something took that experience and relabeled it and ,sure they gave it their own swagger ,,buuuuuuuuuuuuut!!!,,,it doesnt take away from the core argument that blue and red were used by SURs and NORTE first seeing as how SURS are some 50 years older then crips.You seem to be intelligent and very capable in your arguments , and I have enjoyed verbably sparing with you ~~=>!I will not relinquish on togged down surs and the signifance the rags holds for ESes, which is not very important at all, and definetly not as important to Eses as they are to blacks BUUUUT.........doesnt it seem incomprehensible for 2 ethnic gangs living in such close proximity , to not know what the other is doing?at least a little bit?and to not be familiar with the historics of the the other gangs?? GEORGE JACKSON , my idol< wrote in Soledad brother ,his experiences and first hand knowledge of mexican gangs in the California prison system,he admired their warrior spirit and the historics of there gangs, he wrote these tales before crips and bloods and in fact his ideas were great founders for modern california black gangs, and the black power movement.Doesnt it seem incomprehensible to say that blacks invented bandanas ,as a valid argument?? its like saying spaniards invented pants so anyone who wears pants is copying spaniards ! my idea and my argument was the flag*bandana* as a part of a war uniform.Being that the the oldest gang in CAlifornia used it first and that its enemy picked up the red to differeniate itself from the SUR.We are arguing gangs here --not mitary army uniforms. You mention that the explosion of west coast gangster rap is what caused SURS to start saying""hey thats ours!!" well how would you feel if you turned the tube on and saw a mexican in braids talking about how this style of hair is mexican .....when although blacks have never worn it on TV ,it was clearly african at its core. The argument being made by many SUrs is that the originations of the gang culture of the 90s is 100% mexican, and we didnt so much as get a nod (except for TUPAC) on were it came from.That we dint make a big deal about how blacks were wearing alot of our shit and doing alot of what we did ,becaus we figured both blacks and mexicans knew were it came from.Now all of a sudden I am taken by surprise when I hear blacks lay seige to any of the chicano historics of what inspired MOST of what is modern day gang culture.Sure you gave us motown,jazz,oldies and music is defiently an important part to any culture, but style of dress,cultural bonds(gangs) ,tattoing, food and symbols(bandanas) are just as important.And irregardless of what you say I HAVE NEVER EVER heard any chicano claim motown as mexican, or claim to be inventors of RAP, what ajoke!! who are these cholos your speaking to?

perongregory
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5147
Joined: February 12th, 2004, 9:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by perongregory » July 27th, 2009, 5:54 pm

Chino grande is the sureno rapper that said rap comes from an Aztec god.

The arguement needs to be retitled do blacks dispute that Chicanos have laid down most of the basis of MODERN DAY LA street gang culture.

I don't agree w/ the bandana thing. If you travel out of LA, black sets (no Crip, Blood, Folk, People shit) have used the bandana to represent. You'll find this in Philly, DC, Baltimore, NO, etc. You can claim that Californian Chicano prison gangs used blue and red bandanas before c's and b's but we have no evidence that rips and damus took these colors from sur or norte.

Silencioso's account seems the most objective to me.

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 27th, 2009, 6:22 pm

Silencioso wrote:I'm one of the older regulars on this board so let me throw in some first hand observations I have about the origins of street gang styles in L.A.

Bandanas as fashion and gang signifiers:

When I first encountered black gangs in the late seventies they were wearing bandanas/rags. They usually displayed them out of their back pockets or front coat pockets, they rarely wore them on their heads in any style. They used rag color to represent gang affiliations: blue for Crips, red for Bloods/Brims, black for Black P. Stones etc.

Cholos at this time wore bandanas as a style, usually wide over the forehead "apache style" or over the whole head "pirate style". In West LA several cholo gangs used bandanna color to rep the gang, for example brown for Sotel, blue for Venice 13, red or Culver City etc. In most parts of L.A. cholos did not use color to rep the gang, however, and bandannas were simply part of the cholo/ese style along with khakis, pendletons, hair nets etc.. The most common color bandanna worn by cholos back then was red, followed by blue.

Old English letter:

In the late seventies black L.A. gangs often wore "BKA" jackets which were thin wind breaker type jackets with personlized lettering on the back. Occasionally you'd see t-shirts with gang names. The lettering used back then was a type of round font popular in the disco era and rarely seen today. Cholos were already using old english letters on jackets, football shirts etc. I noticed black gangs first using old english around '81, at least on the West Side.

Repping with color:

Black gangs in the late seventies were wearing colored clothing to rep their gangs, most commonly bandanas/rags, jackets, flannel shirts and sometimes hats. Cholos did not rep this way, even gangs like Sotel that had an official gang color did not make a point of wearing brown shirts, brown jackets etc.

Graffiti:

What's thought of today as "L.A. Style" gang graffiti is of cholo origin. PERIOD. Black gangs in the late seventies had a completely different graffiti style that used straight forward print lettering and featured creative use of words and gangster poetry. The earlier black gangs like the Slausons did not use cholo lettering either, based on what I've seen in old photos from that period. In the early 80's I noticed black gangs starting to pick up on the cholo graff style and modifying it somewhat. This modified cholo style eventually became the standard for all L.A. gangs and is what you see on the walls today.

Gang umbrella alliances:

The idea of big umbrella alliances/nations like Crips, Bloods, Sur, Folks etc. is more a black thing than a Mexican thing. It is something you see in black gangs throughout the US and through the years, for example Vice Lords, Stones and Disciples in Chicago. Folks and People in later years (both started by blacks). When I was involved in gang banging (early-mid 80's), "Sureno" was a loose regional based identity, it was not a gang alliance in the sence of Bloods, Crips, Folks...The idea of Sureno as an official designation with connections to la EME came later.

Misc. clothing:

White t-shirts were not common with black gangs in the late 70's, where as they were the most important part of the cholo style, something guys wore every day basically. I started seeing black gangs wearing white t's in the early to mid eighties.

Baggy khakis were not part of the black gang uniform of the late 70's. They usually wore regular fitting slacks or dress pants. Cholos wore baggy khakis, county style denim pants, dress pants, chords and even army surplus pants. I reacll black gangs starting to wear khakis in the early 80's. I also first saw "sagging" at this time and it was 100% black. Nobody else did it.

The fashion of wearing the top two or three button fastened with rest open was a major part of L.A. gang style back in the day that has pretty much died out. I recall seeing black gangs doing it around 80 or 81. Cholos had been doing it for years.

Several aspects of the traditional cholo dress style were incorporated into the black gang style around 81 or so. This would include "Charlie Brown" shits, sweat shirts, army belts and web/stretch belts. I'm not saying no black people ever wore this type of clothing but in the context of L.A. gang culture, these items were a part of the cholo style before the black gang style.

The period when black gangs borrowed from cholos was fairly brief, basically the early to mid 1980's. After that the influences on L.A. gang culture (black, cholo and pretty much everybody else) were mostly from hip hop sources. First from the classic b-boy style and then later the gangster style.




What have you and I said that was different????? -I clearly stated that the bandana didnt and doesnt hold the signifance black gangs place on it.......HOWEVER---to base your assumptions on the free world isnt valid as the core of my bandana argument was based on prison politics and gang life inside prison. I said NUMEROUS times that bandanas and colors arent very important to cholos BUT that RED AND BLUE were used before CRIPS AND BLOODS by Nortes and Surs, and that the coincidence of both gangs adopting the same war colors seemed a incomprehensible to me ......why wouldnt the crips have picked up a green rag ? or the bloods a purple one ??come on!!!its only obvious that it was seen by someone who incorporated it into the crips and bloods lifestyle!

The form of writing and tattoing is at the core of gang culture and that style adopted by all gangs is clearly chicano, to me this is probbly the most important aspect of gang life seeing as how tattoos and writing styles are permanent indicators of gang life style ---your choice in music may change but tattoos never fade. Exactly the reason gangsters get them to begin with. The lettering,drawings street identifers are completely chicano and have been copied and switched up by every race nationwide.

You stated that gang life in the 90s was defind by hip hop and black music artists and what not--I counter that although the music is 100% African-American, the style of clothing ,tattoos and cars and gang lifestyle is chicano at its core.That the words and lyrics may have been adapted by blacks but that its origins are chicano.

I know you are trying to give both groups credit BUT --------we arent here for that. Blacks get their credit from me when it comes to southern speak, ebonics,street slang, gangster rap,hip hop, popularizing more so then anyone.

However it doesnt take away from the fact that gangster culture in LA is the oldest gang culure in America, still standing.That,that culture is chicano ,being as chicanos have the oldest modern gangs and that MOST of what constitutes Modern American Gang culture came from chicanos via blacks in entertainment.

mayugastank
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1708
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Arkansas
What city do you live in now?: Whittier

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by mayugastank » July 27th, 2009, 7:12 pm

perongregory wrote:Chino grande is the sureno rapper that said rap comes from an Aztec god.

The arguement needs to be retitled do blacks dispute that Chicanos have laid down most of the basis of MODERN DAY LA street gang culture.

I don't agree w/ the bandana thing. If you travel out of LA, black sets (no Crip, Blood, Folk, People shit) have used the bandana to represent. You'll find this in Philly, DC, Baltimore, NO, etc. You can claim that Californian Chicano prison gangs used blue and red bandanas before c's and b's but we have no evidence that rips and damus took these colors from sur or norte.

Silencioso's account seems the most objective to me.


SO cuz Chino Grande said it we probably all think it? I have heard mexicans say that blacks have taken some things from them........but rap?come on man!!even the lil homies I know who are rappers.lol, (mexican rappers...lol!) point out or have said to me that although they rap chicano rap andblack rap is different --I havent ever heard them say they started it --just that the two forms of rap are different,to me though ,they look like weenies and fools, but whatever! Mexican rap is the worst music I have ever heard in my life and thats my unbiased opinion.You give credit to were credit is due and instinctively people know when something is original, just like mexican rappers look like rejects and phonys its like how i viewed snoop and dre with the tight dickies an oversized shirts ,unlike the crisp clean lined baggy khakis the vatos wore.Instinctively one looked better and I aint saying shit about blacks, I always liked the look of that crisp lined fade non gangster blacks would sport, and have always FADED my hair ,now cuz I do it do I say mexicans started fades??come on!its a total black do.I at the least no whn something belongs to someone else, unlike alot of the fools (black) on here.Lately more thinbgs are appropriated from blacks then vice versa ,but some of the looks (cholo) are timeless. The pants may get tighter or baggier the shirts longer or tighter, the shoes may go from nike quartez to vans or chucks ,but the look is essentially the same, and that look is original all the way EAST LOS.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 28th, 2009, 9:24 am

There you go changing the diuscussion

*How so?

-if yo want to start a thread called racist mexican eses then go right ahead.

*I don’t have to, this thread will do.

- because you wont see me denying some of what you said and acknowledging the contributions blacks have made in music, sports etc etc

*That’s mighty big of you?

-The argument was who are the originators of LA street gang culture ---you have backtracked on the origins of black gangs coming before gangs like the WF and Maravilla, it took awhile but that was at the core of my argument.

*You’re lyyyyyyyyying. I never said that black gangs originated before Mexican gangs, but rather, I, and other folks on this thread, have been countering the prevailing, mythological sur revisionist history, that claim black gangs in L.A. only had a presence when with the crips and the bloods came on the scene, and nothing beyond that. Go read over my posts carefully, and you will never see me denying anything about Mexican gang origins, other than the fact that, AGAIN-black gangs go back to the 1920’s in L.A.

So jumping up and down as if you discovered the lotto, thinking that you’re forcing me to backtrack from anything, is foolhardy, arrogant, telegraphing, and jumping the gun. Just wait until the battle’s over before you begin to shout, for this shiit’s hardly over. And lastly on this tip-NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT.
With that said, let’s proceed.

-The originators are the ones with the oldest gang.period!

*Again, I reject your position that ese gangs are the “originators,” of all of L.A. gang culture, which is a racist position to take, which is why I don’t really take you seriously, nor your intentions on this particular subject. As I said before, despite the possibility of Mexicans having the oldest gangs in L.A., it still doesn’t mean that even those ese gangs, with their pachuco culture and whatnot-WASN’T INFLUENCED HEAVILY BY ASPECTS OF BLACK CULTURE DURING THE 30’S AND 40’S. As I said before, so say I now and again, and that is black culture throughout L.A., during the 30’s, and 40’s, is what gave Mexican/chicano culture, a facelift, as it relates to the music, the dress, the slang, the dap, which are elements that chicano culture had picked up, in order to form their own identity and culture, which was separate from their parents and ancestors.

Simply put, it was black folks that gave those early ese old heads a new jolt and cultural lease on life, which was rooted in black culture, NOT MEXICAN/CHICANO CULTURE. In other words, if it weren’t for black culture in L.A., during the 30’s and 40’s-THERE’D BE NO CHICANO CULTURE.

I can say more on this, but let’s proceed.

-How else could the argument be won??

*I’m afraid you lost me. I’m not worried about winning, but expressing myself. Then again, I guess that’s a victory in and of itself, right?

-Certain aspects of chicano gang culture are undeniable big influencers on black culture throughout the nation and vice versa ----

*Hold up! Have I ever denied chicano influences upon BLACK L.A. gang culture? HEEEEELLL NO! So to me, in many ways, this is a moot point. HOWEVER, I am stressing the fact that this “chicano gang culture” influence wasn’t as all encompassing as you, and your revisionist sur brethren would like to claim it is.

You’ll see what I’m referring to as we proceed.

-chnging things up a lil turning the fedora sideways , sagging the dickies instead of pulling them up , getting thug life instead of mi vida loca , and then repackaging it and claiming patent on it!!

*Well, uh, THAT’S WHAT FOLKS WITH COMMON SENSE MEAN, WHEN THEY SAY THAT A PARTICULAR CULTURE BORROWS FROM ANOTHER CULTURE, ONLY TO PLACE THEIR OWN STAMP ON IT, TO WHERE THE STAMP THEY PLACE ON IT-EVENTUALLY LEADS TO SOMETHING NEW AND ORIGINAL, THAT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN THERE, IF LEFT TO THE ORIGINATORS. This is what distinguishes black L.A. gang culture, from ese gang culture.
You see, the problem with you eses, is that you claim the cultural nuances you’ve just highlighted, ought to be given, or credited with the eses, because they were supposedly the foundation, even though they themselves (eses) wouldn’t have come up with the things you’ve highlighted-IF LEFT TO THEIR OWN CULTURAL DEVICES. It’s like the creator of the first automobile, telling the creator of the corvette, that he (the creator of the corvette) ought to give him credit, or that the creation of the corvette should be credited to the man who created the first automobile, seeing as how he was the first one to create a horseless carriage-THAT’S SOME PLAYERHATING, MYOPIC, AND AGENDA RIDDEN BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLSHHHHHHIIIT!

Just like I said earlier, on other occasions, when it comes to pachucos, in that they’d borrowed heavily from black culture, in regards to the dress, the slang, the gestures and mannerisms, the walk, and overall style, but yet added their own distinct cultural nuances, to where it produced pachuco culture-THEY CREATED SOMETHING THAT BLACK FOLKS WOULDN’T HAVE CREATED, OUTSIDE OF THEIR (BLACK FOLKS) VERY OBVIOUS INFLUENCES, IF LEFT TO THEMSELVES, WITHOUT CHICANO INFLUENCE. Let me repeat myself for the slowpokes amongst us, and that is- I’m not saying that black folks created pachuco culture, but that it greatly inspired it, and even though it greatly inspired and influenced pachuco culture-I REALIZE, AGAIN, THAT WITHOUT THE MEXICAN INFLUENCE, AND THE PECULIAR CULTURAL NUANCES AND FLAVOR THAT MEXICANS BROUGHT, THEREWOULDN’T HAVE BEEN A PACHUCO CULTURE, NOR WOULD BLACKS HAVE EVER CREATED PACHUCO CULTURE.

Blacks were just the blueprint, where Mexicans, in this sense regards, were the facilitators of their own imprint.

Similarly with black gangs, as was with the pachucos who borrowed heavily, aspects from black culture. Ese gangs may have been an inspiration, but that don’t mean everything black folks took from ese gangs, became stagnant, to where black folks just left it there. I see that eses don’t like giving credit to the distinct brand that black folks created, that wouldn’t have been there, if left to eses alone, so what they do is diminish it by saying, “Oh it all comes from chicano gang culture,” when in reality, much of what black folks created and emphasized-DOESN’T COME FROM CHICANO GANG CULTURE.

Simply put, eses need to appreciate the distinctions that black street gang culture throughout L.A. has wrought, instead of always trying to lay claim on it. Hell yeah black folks can put a patent on the shit they created, without the aid of eses, as it relates to L.A. gang culture, for as I said before, IF IT WERE LEFT UP TO ESES ALONE, THAT WHICH BLACK FOLKS CREATED, WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN CREATED.

Only a racialist, or outright racist, would deny black L.A. gang culture their distinct brand.

-YOU cannot actually believe that bloods and crips , didnt get the ideas of red and blue from SUR and Norte??

*Hell yeah I believe that!

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXT!

-doesnt it seem like tooooo much of a coincidece ??

*No, only because-BLACK FOLKS HAVE A LONG BANDANNA WEARING TRADITION, ESPECIALLY THOSE BLACK FOLKS FROM THE DEEP SOUTH, WHO MIGRATED TO CALIFORNIA AS MIGRANT WORKERS, OR THOSE FROM LOUISIANA, AND TEXAS, WHO MIGRATED TO PARTS OF NORTHERN CALI, AND SOUTHERN CALI, AND WHEN THOSE NEGROES WENT OUT WEST, THE ONLY TWO COLORS FOR BANDANNAS WERE RED AND BLUE.

As I told you before, black folks have a long tradition of wearing bandannas, not only in the field, but also in keeping up their big processed ridden hair dos from back in the day. So no, what I say now, and especially what I’ve said in a previous post about the bandanna, and how it related to black culture, and black gangs, still stands. I’m sorry, but your coincidental smoking gun theories really don’t work, or pan out on this one.

-to much of an anomaly??

*I’ve seen stranger things...

-its like the mexican kid you said was upset that a black guy was listening to MARVIN GAYE, claiming that GAYES words were mexican music is a completely idiotic argument that could be destroyed piecemeal!!

*I know this, and?

-or me saying that because black gangs dont place the signifance on oldies like DREAM WEAVER< BABY IM FOR REAL<AGoNY AND ECSTASY ,, therefore I have appropriated that music and now relabeled it mexican !!lol what a joke!

*I know. Mexicans doing this are funny. And trust me, I’ve ran across many in my day who would act the way you’re describing. But guess what? That doesn’t apply to the bandanna thing, because before there was ever any Mexican gangs-BLACK FOLKS WERE WEARING BANDANNAS, AND/OR HEADKERCHIEFS, whereas before black folks, Mexicans weren’t creating, or listening to music from singers like Marvin Gaye, or listening to songs like “DREAM WEAVER< BABY IM FOR REAL<AGoNY AND ECSTASY”.

So I fail to see your point, or did I jump the gun and make one for you?

- because the flags of crips and bloods are more importnt to those gangs

*Okay, and?

-doesnt take away that those 2 specific colors were used by the norte and sur first!!

*That’s just it, I INTUITIVELY DON’T BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU SAY THAT THOSE COLORS WERE SPECIFICALLY ATTACHED TO SURS AND NORTES FIRST, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE-IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT BLACK FOLKS ARROGATED THE USAGE OF THESE BANDANNAS AS EMBLEMS AND BANNERS, FROM ESES! As I said before, so say I now and again-THERE ARE TWO SOURCES THAT CLAIM THE NORTE AND SUR COLOR DISTINCTIONS. One source claims it occurred in the late 60’s, whereas the other source claims it occurred in the LATE 70’S.

Secondly, as I said before, so say I now and again, BLACK FOLKS HAVE A HISTORY OF SPORTING THE BANDANNA, OR HEADKERCHIEF, TO WHERE THEY REALLY DIDN’T NEED THE HELP OF ESES, IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE RED AND BLUE RAGS AS GANG IDENTIFIERS, OR HOLD THEM UP AS BANNERS AND EMBLEMS.

You always talk about coincidence and whatnot, well guess what-SOMETIMES THINGS CAN OVERLAP, TO WHERE THERE ARE COINCIDENCES, SEEING AS HOW THERE MAY BE SOME SIMILIARITIES IN THE TWO CULTURES. Now pachucos taking the zoot suit, gestures and mannerisms, dap, slang (not be confused with calo), music, etc., from black folks-NOW THAT’S NO COINCIDENCE.

-and that somehow blacks who had been to the pen or something took that experience and relabeled it and ,sure they gave it their own swagger ,,buuuuuuuuuuuuut!!!,,,

*Many of the founding members of the crips and the bloods, were youth, who really never had any experience with the “pen,” to where they could even have time to borrow anything from the surs and the nortes, concerning the red and blue. Furthermore, old school cats like Madd Ronald, who was a blood from the days of way back, talks about how black gangs first got introduced to the blue and red rag, and eses, or chicano gang culture, or them arrogating chicano gang culture-NEVER COMES UP.

Hell, even Tookie Williams, who said complimentary things about ese gangs, never once claimed that the blue rag came from the surs, and the red rag from the nortes-AND HE SHOULD KNOW, RIGHT?

Put old Ronald aside, I know crips and bloods, from the very early 70’s, and they never, not once mentioned ese influence on picking up the blue, or red rag for that matter. As a matter of fact the old surs I talked to from the early 80’s, especially the one who was in his 40’s, admitted that he didn’t know where black gangs got the silly idea of sporting colors. Why didn’t this cat, or these other sur cats (well, one was a sur, and the other two were nortes) admit what you’re saying, in that black gangs got their shiit from them? I mean hell; these cats were closer to the time of when this shiit went down, than cats your age, my age, and those who are younger, and young enough to concoct a fanciful, sur revisionist history and apocrypha, over the years.

-it doesnt take away from the core argument that blue and red were used by SURs and NORTE first seeing as how SURS are some 50 years older then crips.

*Chicano gangs prior to the crips, didn’t refer to themselves as SURS, neither were ese gangs up north, referred to as NORTES. All that shit began in the 50’s, if anything, and it damn sure wasn’t 50 years prior to the crips and bloods. I hate to say this, because I do like going back and forth with you, but it appears as if you’re intentionally beginning to jump onto certain falsehoods and myths, in order to win this argument of the blue and red bandanna thing. Almost every old school sur, and norte from back in the day, as well as the ones I’ve talked to on this site, on other chicano websites, and even in real life in this present day, will all admit that that the sur and norte thing, cropped up either in the 50’s, or the 60’s (depending on who you talk to), and that the color distinctions between the blue and the red rag, came about DURING THE 1960’S-LATE 60’S AT THAT!

Whether it is written research contained in books, or treatises on the net; whether it be young revisionist surs, who are full of racism, piss and vinegar; or whether it be old heads from back in the day, or those surs and nortes living now-I’VE NEVER HEARD ANY OF THEM CLAIM THAT SURS EXISTED 50 YEARS PRIOR TO THE CRIPS AND THE BLOODS, SEEING AS HOW THERE WASN’T A CLASH BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN MEXICANS, UNTIL THE 50’S AND 60’S, TO WHERE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH WERE PUT INTO PLACE.

Moreover, Mexicans in general, like black folks in general, may have utilized the blue bandanna, but their gangs (Mexicans gangs) weren’t utilizing the blue bandanna as a gang emblem, so as to distinguish themselves from red wearing nortes, IN THE 30’S. Back in the day, and during the timeframe of the 30’s, 40’s, and much of the 50’s, if you study the history of the bandanna, there were only two predominant colors-BLUE AND RED! Hell, you’re going to tell me that there weren’t eses in the south wearing red bandannas? Or black folks for that matter? I do know that black folks back in the day, via my family, were wearing both the red and blue bandanna, for again-those were the only colors out there available, until recent years.

But any way, that’s kinda beside the point, the fact of the matter is-SURS DIDN’T UTILIZE THE BLUE BANDANNA AS A GANG EMBLEM, OR BANNER, BEFORE THE CRIPS! It was black gangs in L.A. that first utilized the blue rag as a gang banner, and not chicano gangs from back in the day. Oh sure, from a traditional standpoint, they may have carried and donned blue bandannas, just like white folks created tats, but according to you, it was eses who codified tats as a gang thing, well on the same token, or likewise-IT WAS BLACK GANGS WHO FIRST UTILIZED THE BLUE AND THE RED, BUT ESPECIALLY THE BLUE (seeing as how you’re engaging in revisionist history concerning surs and the blue going back 50 years before the crips), AS GANG BANNERS AND EMBLEMS, TO WHERE THEY DRENCHED THEMSELVES DOWN IN BLUE AND RED GEAR, WHICH IS SOMETHING ESES WEREN’T DOING AT THE TIME, UNTIL RECENTLY.

-You seem to be intelligent and very capable in your arguments ,

*Thanks?

-and I have enjoyed verbably sparing with you ~~

*That’s good, for I view this back and forth as fun, and letting off some steam...

->!I will not relinquish on togged down surs

*What do you mean? Are you referring to the fact that you will always deny the reality that
there are modern day surs who do indeed tog themselves down in blue gear? Okay, how about if I post pictures, or videos up for you-will that assist you in any way?

-and the signifance the rags holds for ESes, which is not very important at all, and definetly not as important to Eses as they are to blacks BUUUUT.........

*I know this, so what’s your point? This is what I’ve been arguing all along. Sheesh!

-doesnt it seem incomprehensible for 2 ethnic gangs living in such close proximity , to not know what the other is doing?at least a little bit?and to not be familiar with the historics of the the other gangs??

*It’s quite comprehensible seeing as how back in the day, especially during the early 70’s and 60’s, when the crips and bloods were formulating, there were hardly any Mexicans living in close proximity to black folks. The only time the chicano gang influence really began to come on, was during the late 70’s, when ese numbers in those particular areas began to blossom into full bloom, and kinda petered off by the mid 80’s (the ese influence thing). I know eses who lived in Compton and Watts, during the 60’s and 70’s, and they would tell me that back in the day, crips and bloods, were sporting leather jackets, with fedoras, and walking with canes. As a matter of fact, there’s a documentary entitled, “The Fire Next Time,” which came out in the early 90’s, that contains stock footage of actual bloods and crips, talking and interacting with one another (not to each other, but within their same respective gangs), and these cats were wearing leather jackets, apple hats, and fedoras, with their bandannas underneath their head gear, and the like. Some were just wearing the clothing items from that time period. None of them were dressing like eses, for again, that shiit didn’t occur until the late 70’s, and in a previous post of mine on this very thread, I even stated why many black folks in L.A at the time, within my generation, began to wear dickies type clothing-WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ESES.

(Let’s be honest here, a black person wearing dickies, or any clothing that is associated with cholo gear, isn’t trying to be Mexican, or was necessarily influenced by Mexicans, for this is the clothing style that many of their fathers, but especially grandfathers and great grandfathers, use to wear around the house for leisure, or at work. Simply put, dickies style clothing, or those clothing items that are associated with cholo gear, is Americana clothing, and fashion that is foundational to this country, to where if you got rid of every new fangled and nuanced style of clothing out there, the core gear will be khakis, loose fitting, to baggy pants, Pendleton shirts, t-shirts, tank tops, , etc. Again, eses may have codified this gear for street gang usage, but they damn sure didn’t create this gear, nor were they the first or only folks to wear such gear.)

-GEORGE JACKSON , my idol<

*That’s good I guess.

-wrote in Soledad brother ,

*Uh-huh.

-his experiences and first hand knowledge of mexican gangs in the California prison system,he admired their warrior spirit and the historics of there gangs, he wrote these tales before crips and bloods and in fact his ideas were great founders for modern california black gangs, and the black power movement.

*Okay man, you put it out there. Did he say that the blue and red rags come from the eses? Come on man, you’re always preaching this, so what did he have to say on the matter, seeing as how he’s an oldhead? Furthermore, so what if he praised ese gangs and whatnot, did he say that these gangs are the reasons why black gangs in the 40’s and especially 50’s, like the Gladiators, Businessman, Farmers, and the Slaussons, were formed? Again, you, like most surs, and sur sympathizers, are constantly dipping your ladle into the black family, and into our business, because of the jealous streaks many (not all) of you possess.

Him giving kudos to Mexican gangs in this book (which I’m going to reread, by the way), doesn’t mean, in any way, that black gangs got their heart from eses, and that black folks don’t come from a warrior tradition as well. Is this what you’re truly saying, for if it is-IT’S RACIST?

You see, I kneeeeeeeew this is where your base argument was, and is. Like most eses surs, and sur sympathizers, you are always trying to diminish the stature of black gangs, and the historical, sociological and psychological reasons why these gangs first formed, which is totally separate from eses. Even though there may be some similarities, because of the minority thing, blacks and eses had a different trajectory in why their gangs were formed. As was stated before, Blood Alley had nothing to do with eses; the Farmers had nothing to do with eses; the Gladiators had nothing to do with eses; the Businessman had nothing to do with eses; the Boozies had nothing to do with eses; the bloods had nothing to do with eses; the crips had nothing to do with eses; the Slaussons had nothing to do with eses; the warrior spirit of the Panthers, had nothing to do with eses-SO WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Again, eses surs and their sur sympathizers are so envious, and jealous of all the attention that black folks receive, that many have picked up the practice of even denying black folks warrior spirit, by claiming that we got that shiit from them. I mean, it’s bad enough that some (not all) are trying to co-opt, and steal outright, black street and L.A. gang culture and identity, or diminish the contributions of black folks to L.A. street gang culture, but to stoop so low, to where you now claim, or imply, that black folks warrior’s heart came from Mexicans-THAT’S OVERREACHING AND GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR, DON’T YOU THINK?
It makes you lose any type of credibility you were trying to hold onto, despite your fallacious arguments.

Black folks, are you reading this?

I think you may need to explain yourself here.

-Doesnt it seem incomprehensible to say that blacks invented bandanas ,as a valid argument??

*Man, you are losing your credibility big time. WHEN HAVE I EVER SAID THAT BLACK FOLKS INVENTED BANDANNAS? I repeat-WHEN HAVE I EVER SAID THAT BLACK FOLK INVENTED BANDANNAS? I never once said that black folks invented bandannas, but that black folks COME FROM A BANDANNA/HEADKERCHIEF WEARING TRADITION, OF WHICH THEY DIDN’T NEED ESES, OR SURS IN PARTICULAR, AS AN INSPIRATION-TO PICK UP THIS GARMENT.

That’s always been my position, not this fantasy argument you’re attaching to me. Now you would probably like for me to make this argument, therefore you can use it against me, so as to expose me for falling off of some deep end, just to satisfy your ego-but I’m sorry, this argument ain’t mine, because I never made it.

- its like saying spaniards invented pants so anyone who wears pants is copying spaniards !

*Man, what are you talking about?

-my idea and my argument

*Yeah what is your idea and argument?

-was the flag

*Uh-huh...

-*bandana* as a part of a war uniform.Being that the the oldest gang in CAlifornia used it first and that its enemy picked up the red to differeniate itself from the SUR.

*The surs didn’t utilize the blue bandanna “50 years” prior to the crip, nor were surs back in those days holding up the blue bandanna as a gang banner, for there were chicano gangs (that sur shiit didn’t come until much later), and Mexicans in general, in Southern Cali, who sported both the blue and the red bandanna, for the blue and red bandanna, back in those days-WERE THE PRIMARY COLORS OF BANDANNAS.

There are no true old school surs, or veteranos from the days you mention, who will deny what I’ve just said. I’ve heard with my own ears, from surs back in the early 80’s, and late 70’s, but especially the 80’s, who said that chicano gangs back in the day, would sport both blue and red rags, but mainly blue, but that the blue wasn’t upheld as an emblem, or a specific uniform of the sur, until the 50’s, some say late 60’s (other sources will say the late 70’s).

So naw man, chicano gangs back in the day, according to old school sur sources, who were alive in the early 80’s, and not these old heads who have been influenced by all of this recent sur mythology being peddled, so as to compete with the images of black south central gang and street culture-were not referred to as surs, nor was the blue bandanna utilized as a standard uniform or badge, for chicano gangs, for at one time-THEY SPORTED BOTH COLORS.

Again, it was black gangs that codified the banner of the blue and red rags as emblems, and not eses.

-We are arguing gangs here --not mitary army uniforms.

*Okay, and?

-You mention that the explosion of west coast gangster rap is what caused SURS to start saying""hey thats ours!!"

*Yep! And you know that’s the truth. They became jealous of all the attention black L.A. gang and street culture was receiving, via the popularity of west coast gangsta rap, to where they tried to attach themselves onto a whole gang culture, simply because they saw some influences stemming from their end. But you see, the surs took it a little too far, for they began to lie and tell the whole world, that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallll of the culture that was emanating from black south central gang and street culture, that was advertised in these music videos, including the stories, and the music itself-ALL CAME FROM SURS/CHICANO CULTURE, WHICH IS BUUUUUUUUUUULLLLSHIT!

-well how would you feel if you turned the tube on and saw a mexican in braids talking about how this style of hair is mexican ..... when although blacks have never worn it on TV ,it was clearly african at its core.

*The same way I feel about Mexicans who don zoot suits and say that shiit is totally Mexican. The way I feel about eses who claim that west coast gangsta rap’s stories, were really the tales of sur gangs, and not black folks. The way I feel about eses claiming that oldies music is ese music, and not black music. The way I feel when I see eses breakdance, pop-lock, and use black slang. I don’t know-YOU TELL ME.

But you see, the equivalency isn’t totally there, for besides the lowriding thing (which black folks were doing, by the way, since the 50’s, instead of beginning in the late 80’s or 90’s, the way many of your people claim)-black L.A. gang culture, and their way of dress, and what they created, emphasized, and accessorized, despite certain aspects being ese influenced-WAS TOTALLY BLACK.

As I said before, so say I now and again, go check out this one doc on Youtube dealing with a Compton crip gang from the mid 80’s. I wish I could remember the name of this doc, but it was produced by a british filmmaker, who was exploring crip gang culture from back in the day. Then go check out the movie, “Colors,” and “Boulevard Nights,” even “Walk Proud,” where you can see the differences in black gangs, and how they dressed back in the day, compared to their ese counterparts. Again, you will notice the similarities, but it is blatantly obvious that there are a lot of differences as well. Hell, go check out the movie “South Central,” which traced a supposed black gang called the deuces (which was patterned after the Crips, only they wore black instead of blue), and you will notice that despite some ese influences, black folks added their own funk, flavour, and cultural nuances that wouldn’t have been there-IF IT WEREN’T FOR BLACK FOLKS!
Where in the video, “Straight outta Compton,” were there ese/chicano influences? Where in DOC’s late 80’s video, were there chicano influences? How about Ice-T’s 80’s videos? And where in the music were they stealing from chicano/ese influences?

The only time chicano influences really came up on the screen, was when cats like Snoop Dogg, or MC Eiht, former gangbanging rappers, came on the scene, but even then, if you were to check out Snoop’s first video, “Deep Cover,” he and Dre weren’t dressing like eses? That shit was straight black south central gang culture gear. The only thing eses can really pinpoint, was Snoop Dogg’s “Snoop Doggy Dogg,” , and “Gin and Juice,” video, and “Nuthin’ but a G’thing,” by Doctor Dre. But even in those videos, despite their being chicano influences in the dress- the way they were accessorized, and the certain emphasis they put on certain items of clothing, on how they wore them, and moved-WAS TOTALLY BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL STREET AND GANG CULTURE.

The way they were moving in their dance movements, flowing, and their clothing accessory, along with their gestures and mannerism, again, was totally black, to where eses/chicano culture on its own would’ve never created such an atmosphere, or style, and guess what-THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO, EITHER. Just like chicano gangs back in the day, weren’t ever going to create jazz, street slang (not to be confused with calo), dap, the pachuco/cholo walk, etc.-WITHOUT BLACK INFLUENCE.

Simply put, black culture, style and texture, gave chicano gangs and Mexican culture a face lift, back in the 30’s and 40’s, which produced what we now know as the pachuco, likewise, black south central gang and street culture, which has some chicano influences (whose foundations are in the pachuco culture, much of which came from black culture), gave chicano sur gangs a facelift, to where it has produced the modern day sur, utilizing black gestures and mannerisms; emphasizing the blue banner; wearing bandannas around their wrists, and over their faces; wearing platinum and gold chains; wearing throwback jerseys; copying black dances; developing the “sur” walk; throwing their sets up (eses originally threw their sets down); listening to, and performing black music; act and move like black folks on stage while performing and listening to black music; wearing sports items to signify their colors; etc.

Oh yeah, black L.A. street gang culture has given the modern day surs, as well as their predecessors, cultural facelifts, regardless of whether they (surs and pachucos) totally borrowed from black culture, or from a black culture, that’s been influenced by aspects of chicano culture, but still indistinguishably black, as it relates to the peculiar, and distinct, cultural flavour, funk and nuances, that was added by black folks, that eses weren’t ever going to add, or create, without the influence of black L.A. street and gang culture.
Simply put, if it weren’t for black L.A. street and gang culture-L.A. AS AN UNDERGROUND STREET COMMODITY, WOULDN’T EVEN BE ON THE MAP, FOR TRADITIONAL CHOLO/SUR CULTURE WOULD’VE NEVER DONE IT, UNTIL THEY GOT THE FACELIFT FROM THE CRIPS OF THE 80’S, AND ESPECIALLY 90’S.

NEEEEEXT!

-The argument being made by many SUrs is that the originations of the gang culture of the 90s is 100% mexican,

*No it’s not. Surs didn’t create west coast gangsta rap, which was apart of 90’s gang culture from L.A., nor did Mexicans create the things I’ve highlighted in the paragraph above me. Would you like for me to repeat the information? I most certainly will:
“black south central gang and street culture, which has some chicano influences (whose foundations are in the pachuco culture, much of which came from black culture), gave chicano sur gangs a facelift, to where it has produced the modern day sur, utilizing black gestures and mannerisms; emphasizing the blue banner; wearing bandannas around their wrists, and over their faces; wearing platinum and gold chains; wearing throwback jerseys; copying black dances; developing the “sur” walk; throwing their sets up (eses originally threw their sets down); listening to, and performing black music; act and move like black folks on stage while performing and listening to black music; wearing sports items to signify their colors; etc.”

All of this, and much more, eses had nothing to do with, for this is uniquely black street and gang culture, emanating from L.A.

You see, the problem with surs and sur sympathizers, who have jealous streaks, is that you guys don’t want to give black folks credit for the distinctions and unique flavours we added onto the L.A. street and gang cultural scene. And when you do, you diminish it, by ultimately absorbing it into chicano sur culture, because your faulty logic is-if it has chicano influences, even minimally, the fact that we were the first gangs, and the fact that might equals right-gives us the moral right to lay claim on anything that black folks will create within the boundaries of L.A. county, that has to do with street or gang shiit, even if chicanos were never going to get around to creating it.

Listen up black folks and others, this is what this cat, and those that argue from his side, are reeeeeeeeeeeaally saying, once you strip away the core of their arguments, and their pretence on being fair and balanced. Just be aware of what to look out for.

-and we didnt so much as get a nod (except for TUPAC) on were it came from.

*You didn’t get a nod; similar to how Pachucos never gave black folks a “nod-“BECAUSE DESPITE THEIR BEING OTHER CULTURAL INFLUENCES, WHAT THEY ULTIMATELY CREATED WAS UNIQUE AND GERMAINE TO THEIR OWN CULTURAL FLAVOR AND ETHOS. Likewise, black folks didn’t owe Mexicans a nod, for the exact same reasons, and even if they did give Mexicans a “nod”, many of your peeps would’ve wanted the whole damn pie-WHICH THEY DIDN’T DESERVE!

Hell, have eses ever gave white folks a nod for the tat thing, or the creating of dickies’ clothing and Pendleton shirts, and whatnot, or the automobile which allowed them access to creating lowriders? The fact of the matter is, all racial groups in this country have borrowed aspects from one another, but that doesn’t mean that folks always have to scurry about giving credit to folks, especially if what they are putting out there culturally-WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN PUT OUT THERE, IF LEFT TO THAT SOURCE CULTURE ALONE.

You get caught up in clothes, and bandannas, and tats, and the chicano influence, but are you seriously going to tell me that the way black gangs rolled during the time period of the 80’s and 90’s, and what you saw expressed in those music videos of the 90’s, in regards to music, and even particular fashion statements, would’ve been in existence, if it were totally left up to eses and chicano gang influences? MAN GET OUT OF HERE!

Again, the contemporary sur style that you see out there today, which didn’t exist in the early 90’s, or even 80’s, let alone 70’s and below-IS A STYLE THEY RIPPED OFF FROM THE CRIPS OF THE LATE 80’S, BUT ESPECIALLY MID 90’S, TO LATE 90’S, WITH RESIDUES EXISTING IN THE VERY EARLY PARTS OF THIS CENTURY.

-That we dint make a big deal about how blacks were wearing alot of our shit and doing alot of what we did ,becaus we figured both blacks and mexicans knew were it came from.

*No, you didn’t hear a lot about where black folks got their shiit from back in the day (80’s and below), simply because chicano bangers understood that blacks and eses borrowed from one another, and despite that which black folks were influenced by, in regards to ese culture, they (black folks) put their own funk, swagger, brand and style into it, of which it never would’ve existed, if left to eses alone. Eses back in the day knew this.
What it is, is that in the early 90’s, beginning in the very late 80’s, because of the L.A. riots, and La Eme trying to consolidate power on the street and all, a blood feud between blacks and Mexicans occurred, which led to a sense of competition on the part of eses towards black folks. This was exploited in how La Eme, and racist Mexicans began to get all jealous of black west coast rap culture, in that they (black folks)nwere being paraded as badasses around the world, to where they (Mexicans) too wanted to get in on the action.

For remember what I said earlier, surs, and their sur sympathizers, believe that because they are the “original,” anything that black folks create in regards to gang and street culture, in L.A., that is unique and distinct, among themselves, with few exceptions-BELONG UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF CHICANO CULTURE.

This is why back in the day, your peeps like Kid Frost, or other rank and file Mexicans, including Mexican rappers like Conejo (yeah, I had an experience with that fool in 03’), and others, can foolishly, but boldly say that the gang experiences and the lifestyles that black west coast rappers were discussing, or rapping about, was STOLEN from chicano/sur gangs-WHICH IS BUUUUUUUUUUUULLLSHIT! You see, only arrogant, playerhating, green-eyed envious folks would resort to such lies. As well as folks who think very little of the people their blasting on.

Black gangstas in L.A. didn’t need chicano gang war stories, in order to come up with their stories, throughout their rap songs. Man that was a total insult. But you see, when you are racially motivated, and jealous, and playerhating, and possessed with the green-eyed monster, things like this will happen. This is why I think very low of Mexicans wanting black folks to acknowledge them back in the day, seeing as how the distinct south central culture they were portraying, nor the stories and experiences they were telling-WASN’T ABOUT THEM (Mexicans)!

-Now all of a sudden I am taken by surprise when I hear blacks lay seige to any of the chicano historics of what inspired MOST of what is modern day gang culture

*Only arrogance would you lead to that. Your side has told enough lies, which contains some truths, half-lies, and damn lies. What? You thought that your side was going to continue receiving carte blanche, a platform to lie on black folks, and what they’ve truly contributed to L.A. street and gang culture, without some of us getting sick of it, because we know better? I’m sorry for your shock and awed experience, but the world’s just not going to work the way you want it to work, in regards to the one-sided stories you want to tell, as it relates to L.A. gang, and street culture.

-.Sure you gave us motown,jazz,oldies and music is defiently an important part to any culture, but style of dress,cultural bonds(gangs) ,tattoing, food and symbols(bandanas) are just as important.

*Black folks did indeed give you guys “ motown,jazz,oldies,” but we also gave modern surs, and chicano culture in general: “black gestures and mannerisms; emphasis on the blue banner; wearing bandannas around their wrists, and over their faces; wearing platinum and gold chains; wearing throwback jerseys; copying black dances; developing the “sur” walk; throwing their sets up (eses originally threw their sets down); listening to, and performing black music; act and move like black folks on stage while performing and listening to black music; wearing sports items to signify their colors; etc.”

Furthermore, black folks never tried to claim tacos and enchiladas as black food, so I don’t know where you got that from. Moreover, Mexicans weren’t the first in this country to create gangs, or “cultural bonds.”

-And irregardless of what you say I HAVE NEVER EVER heard any chicano claim motown as mexican,

*I’m sure there are some trees being chopped down in the forest, and I bet you didn’t hear any of those; but just because you didn’t hear them, DON’T MEAN THEY DIDN’T FALL! Besides, I never claimed that Mexicans claimed motown, but rather I talked about this one ese who was claiming that this black cat, by listening to Marvin Gaye, was trying to be Mexican, or was influenced by chicano culture.

-or claim to be inventors of RAP, what ajoke!! who are these cholos your speaking to?

*I’m speaking to your brothers on the street, as well as on various chicano websites. Now grant it, you don’t hear this kind of talk coming from your peeps today, as they did back in the day, but there are Mexicans reading my words, and black folks reading my words, who know I’m telling the truth here.

Wow man, you really told me, and changed my mind on a few things...

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 28th, 2009, 9:26 am

The truth of the matter is, folks reading my posts on this thread, will see of a certainty, that I am indeed giving eses their props, in regards to their cultural influences, but what I am denying wholeheartedly, are the positions of certain surs, and their sur sympathizers, who claim that EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVERYTHING that black folks created in regards to L.A. street, and/or gang culture-COMES FROM ESES, WHICH IS ANTI-HISTORICAL, AND ILLOGICAL BS!

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 28th, 2009, 9:28 am

Silencioso wrote:I'm one of the older regulars on this board so let me throw in some first hand observations I have about the origins of street gang styles in L.A.

Bandanas as fashion and gang signifiers:

When I first encountered black gangs in the late seventies they were wearing bandanas/rags. They usually displayed them out of their back pockets or front coat pockets, they rarely wore them on their heads in any style. They used rag color to represent gang affiliations: blue for Crips, red for Bloods/Brims, black for Black P. Stones etc.

Cholos at this time wore bandanas as a style, usually wide over the forehead "apache style" or over the whole head "pirate style". In West LA several cholo gangs used bandanna color to rep the gang, for example brown for Sotel, blue for Venice 13, red or Culver City etc. In most parts of L.A. cholos did not use color to rep the gang, however, and bandannas were simply part of the cholo/ese style along with khakis, pendletons, hair nets etc.. The most common color bandanna worn by cholos back then was red, followed by blue.

Old English letter:

In the late seventies black L.A. gangs often wore "BKA" jackets which were thin wind breaker type jackets with personlized lettering on the back. Occasionally you'd see t-shirts with gang names. The lettering used back then was a type of round font popular in the disco era and rarely seen today. Cholos were already using old english letters on jackets, football shirts etc. I noticed black gangs first using old english around '81, at least on the West Side.

Repping with color:

Black gangs in the late seventies were wearing colored clothing to rep their gangs, most commonly bandanas/rags, jackets, flannel shirts and sometimes hats. Cholos did not rep this way, even gangs like Sotel that had an official gang color did not make a point of wearing brown shirts, brown jackets etc.

Graffiti:

What's thought of today as "L.A. Style" gang graffiti is of cholo origin. PERIOD. Black gangs in the late seventies had a completely different graffiti style that used straight forward print lettering and featured creative use of words and gangster poetry. The earlier black gangs like the Slausons did not use cholo lettering either, based on what I've seen in old photos from that period. In the early 80's I noticed black gangs starting to pick up on the cholo graff style and modifying it somewhat. This modified cholo style eventually became the standard for all L.A. gangs and is what you see on the walls today.

Gang umbrella alliances:

The idea of big umbrella alliances/nations like Crips, Bloods, Sur, Folks etc. is more a black thing than a Mexican thing. It is something you see in black gangs throughout the US and through the years, for example Vice Lords, Stones and Disciples in Chicago. Folks and People in later years (both started by blacks). When I was involved in gang banging (early-mid 80's), "Sureno" was a loose regional based identity, it was not a gang alliance in the sence of Bloods, Crips, Folks...The idea of Sureno as an official designation with connections to la EME came later.

Misc. clothing:

White t-shirts were not common with black gangs in the late 70's, where as they were the most important part of the cholo style, something guys wore every day basically. I started seeing black gangs wearing white t's in the early to mid eighties.

Baggy khakis were not part of the black gang uniform of the late 70's. They usually wore regular fitting slacks or dress pants. Cholos wore baggy khakis, county style denim pants, dress pants, chords and even army surplus pants. I reacll black gangs starting to wear khakis in the early 80's. I also first saw "sagging" at this time and it was 100% black. Nobody else did it.

The fashion of wearing the top two or three button fastened with rest open was a major part of L.A. gang style back in the day that has pretty much died out. I recall seeing black gangs doing it around 80 or 81. Cholos had been doing it for years.

Several aspects of the traditional cholo dress style were incorporated into the black gang style around 81 or so. This would include "Charlie Brown" shits, sweat shirts, army belts and web/stretch belts. I'm not saying no black people ever wore this type of clothing but in the context of L.A. gang culture, these items were a part of the cholo style before the black gang style.

The period when black gangs borrowed from cholos was fairly brief, basically the early to mid 1980's. After that the influences on L.A. gang culture (black, cholo and pretty much everybody else) were mostly from hip hop sources. First from the classic b-boy style and then later the gangster style.
Regardless of what anyone says, because of their racialist blinders-YOU SPOKE THE TRUTH ON THIS ONE.

BRILLIANT POST!

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 28th, 2009, 9:41 am

"This would include "Charlie Brown" shits, sweat shirts, army belts and web/stretch belts. I'm not saying no black people ever wore this type of clothing but in the context of L.A. gang culture, these items were a part of the cholo style before the black gang style."

Check out the doc "Fire Next Time," that dealt with crips and bloods, and how they dressed in the late 60's and early 70's. You see, some (and I do mean some) of the gear that cholos wore and codified as gang clothes and identifiers, if you're talking about sweat shirts and khakis. Remember, before the advent of real tight pants in the mid 60's, and 70's, with the flare legs and bell bottoms- most every man wore khakis, especially on up until the 60's. Just keep that in mind, and understand that folks outside of a gang context, still had to wear clothes.

My father who was born in 1911, and my uncles on my moms side, would wear sweat shirts, khakis and the like; even pendleton shirts, tank-tops and what have you, but not within the context of a gang culture, for they were never in gangs-they were just hard-working country/blue collar folks. They were just wearing the leisure/work or casual clothes of the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's; or leisurely clothes that were in fashion during their time.

That's all I have to say on this tip.

User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Do Blacks dispute that Mexicans originated LA gang culture??

Unread post by TheReal » July 28th, 2009, 9:43 am

I meant to say in the first paragraph, in the above post:


"Check out the doc "Fire Next Time," that dealt with crips and bloods, and how they dressed in the late 60's and early 70's, and you will see some (and I do mean some) of the gear that cholos wore and codified as gang clothes and identifiers- if you're talking about sweat shirts and khakis. Remember, before the advent of real tight pants in the mid 60's, and 70's, with the flare legs and bell bottoms- most every man wore khakis, especially on up until the 60's. Just keep that in mind, and understand that folks outside of a gang context, still had to wear clothes."

Locked

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”