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 28th, 2009, 9:45 am

Oh yeah, and my pops,including his brother (Uncle Walter), would wear blue or black army belts. And no, they weren't apart of a gang, for by the 70's, these cats were in their 60's, or 70'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 28th, 2009, 11:24 am

perongregory wrote: 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.
Good points on the bandanna thing. As I said before, I talked with plenty of old head crips and bloods, and not one of them ever claimed that eses were their inspiration for the bandannas, outside of their own cultural milieu.

On the same token, I remember reading an old Ebony magazine article from the mid-70's, in the archive section of a library, where they were interviewing a black PHD professor from a tough area in Brooklyn. Well anyway, he said growing up in the late 50's, his neighborhood was tough, because in order to get home from school, he had to go pass by too many street gang territories.

He said it got so bad, that one day, as he was walking home, a gang member pulled him aside, and asked him was he apart of their neighborhood, and if he was, could he show "the sign." Well according to him, he flashed some hand signs, all willy nilly, which miraculously, allowed him to proceed.

I only highlight this to show, that even in black gangs from the east coast- prior to the bloods and crips penetration, and prior hip-hop culture-had certain accoutrements that we now strictly associate with L.A. gang culture, or chicano culture, such as HAND SIGNS, AND SIGNIFYING.

Stacking, which is a black L.A. gang thing, is what eses have taken from black gangs in L.A. Chicano gangs back in the day weren't stacking, or sur walking. These are other aspects of black gang culture that have influenced L.A. street and gang culture, but I guess black folks won't get credit for any of this, only because these things were created within the borders of L.A. county, and anything "street" that was created within the boundaries of L.A. county-has to go to the surs, because they were "the first."

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 28th, 2009, 8:36 pm

TheReal wrote: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...



Well if you want to talk about what we took from blacks you need look very far in your own culture who appropriated the entire gang life of EAST LOS whether you want to believe it or not ! Why is it so that across the entire USA --even though their were bigger ,older communities of African Americans ONLY in LA did a certain black gang culture thrive and begin to resemble QUITE STRONGLY the style of dress and garffiti and tattooing of their nearest oldest neighbors?? Why is it that black gangs in cHITOWn , and NYC arent as reputable as LA crips and bloods , why do the brothers in those citys and citys throughout the entire USA copy mimic and start up their own little clicks of crips and bloods in whatever city they are in??Why isnt their a massive gang or reputable black gang in NYC --even though ----the black populace is 6x as large as the black populace of LA? Or how so the Black Gangster Disciples and other midwest fools arent hardly around anymore although the crips membership for the amount of blacks in the city of LA is massive and grows all the time??could it be that the gang style of LA is based on something foolproof,complex and historic?? and that ,that style was originated by VATOS?The entire takeover mentality of citys and neighborhoods happens in other black citys BUT , why does only BLACK LOS ANGELES, continue to offer and export CRIPS AND BLOODS to the entire black america?Where is the massive black army at in other cities?? and why didnt original black gangs thrive and flourish in places were they were NO SURENOS?why is the style of dress of the 90s so different in LA and NYC between blacks ,yet you claim that LA blacks sported dickies ,tattoos ,shaved heads ,chucks ,wife beaters and cut off shorts with the socks pulled up.So it just so happens that even though black america is one communtiy only in LA did they dress that way

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 28th, 2009, 8:51 pm

You can ask yourself why is the Cali Mexican, more specifically the LA chicano way diff. Than all other chicanos...it's something about California, more specifically LA.

Texas and LA are where you find OG's in Chicano gangsterism, and LA and Chicago or where you find OG's in black gangsterism (street gangs).

~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 29th, 2009, 12:00 am

TheReal wrote: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.
Good posts as usual but I'm surprised by this comment, do you mean this literally? isn't this the type of comment you've so passionately been countering Eses of saying? or are you saying that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time? which then of course would hold true in some aspects, maybe even in many.

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 29th, 2009, 12:40 am

~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote: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.
Good posts as usual but I'm surprised by this comment, do you mean this literally? isn't this the type of comment you've so passionately been countering Eses of saying? or are you saying that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time? which then of course would hold true in some aspects, maybe even in many.

I guess he thinks that chicano culture started in the 30s or 40s ,even though the white fence gang ,a gang that is still here started pre zootsuits!!, the alpine street gang -started in the early 1900s and yet somehow they needed blacks to thrive?.....psst!!!yea sounds good,chicano gangs in LA have a deep history,going back to the turn of the century in LA ---only difference is that these gangs are here today on the same streets ----that they once roamed 100 years ago.......nowhere else in the USA does that hold true for any gang !dont forget that critical aspect when arguing about origin of gangs.Just Imagine the membership and dedication the members had for these early EAST LOS gangs.......the gladiators ,businessmen,and all the rest of the gangs THE REAL named died out........why??same reason any gang dies outs............lack of new blood fulfilling the empty spots taken by prison ,death,growing up etc etc.........These EAST LOS gangs had to be massive, their was no other way theyd have thrived going into the 21st century........a good reason to believe that the beginings were alot sooner then the 20s, shit there wasnt even that many hispanics in LA outside EAST LOS at that time. But EAST LOS put that shit on the map,we didnt need anyone to show us how or inspire us ----what were the fools from white fence listening to before MOTOWN since they did come some 30 years before THE DELFONICS and SMOKEY ROBINSON??and what were the ALPINE STREET gang wearing since they claim to have been around since 1909??...........cuz zootsuits idnt hit the streets till the 40s..........dont let this guy fool you !!! History is what shows us who we are ......and our history is older and more unique then what he acknowledges!!! fools in NYC and MIAMI ,supposed latinos dont have a culture unique like ours, that why they latch onto everything they can from blacks --calling eachother nigga this and nigga that ..........but claiming LATIN KINGS. They look suspect to themselves and to blacks,cuz the brothers look at them like WANNABEES in NY.and they should !! Look at the ASIANS and SAMOANS , as far away from being black as possible yet claiming CRIPS AND BLOODS, see deep down it chaps this fools hide cuz we are original , we set that trend started our own culture right here ---same as they (blacks ) did . AND everyone latched onto it and tried to imitate what we created, our creases,slicked back hair,tattooes, stagger,and our entire look as been bootlegged by whites,trying to start gangs like the NLR and wear their dickies cutoff,the look most white boys are going for now the shaved head and tatts and long shorts and wife beaters , and they doing this all over the nation cuz they see what white boys in CAli do, and guess who those white boys imitated??THE REAL says although we both wear dickies , blacks wear it different! and although we both have gangs that are similiar ,black gangs are their own thing,,even though our gangs are older then theirs and our style ,although it has changed ,with the pants getting tighter and the shirts getting longer or the pants getting baggir and the shirts getting tighter,and the shoes changing from nike cortez to chucks to house shoes to wingtips, it has essentially still remianed the same, so we have changed our look with the ages ,but dont let it be fooled to think that we are not our own thing, differnt from just about any youth group in AMERICA, who either imitate blacks or try to fit in with whites!!WE MADE THIS SHIT ..........and it bugs him cuz he knows

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 29th, 2009, 8:27 am

-Well if you want to talk about what we took from blacks you need look very far in your own culture who appropriated the entire gang life of EAST LOS

*No, I don’t believe it, for it is nothing but pure fantasy concocted by modern sur revisionists and their sympathizers. Truth be told, there are plenty of elements from black gang street culture that black folks have contributed to L.A., that wouldn’t have been there, if it were left to eses alone, WHETHER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT OR NOT!

-Why is it so that across the entire USA --even though their were bigger ,older communities of African Americans ONLY in LA did a certain black gang culture thrive and begin to resemble QUITE STRONGLY the style of dress and garffiti and tattooing of their nearest oldest neighbors??

*Many black gangs across the U.S., besides the crips and the bloods thing (you do know that there are other black gangs back east, and in the Midwest, besides the bloods and the crips), and the accoutrements these black gangs bring to the table-DON’T ARROGATE IN ANY WAY, WEST COAST GANG STRUCTURES IN THE LEAST BIT. As a matter of fact, you have black east coast gangs in cities other than NY, as well as black gangs throughout the Midwest, such as the Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, and whatnot, that don’t even mimic black west coast gangs, in style or in dress; and they were formed earlier than the crips and the bloods, as well as was located in an entirely different geographical setting. (Black gangs on the east coast, or folks on the east coast in general, had graffiti from way back in the day, which had nothing to do with eses/surs/chicanos, or west coast influence.)

Right now, you can go through parts of the southside of Chicago, or even the Westside, and check out the various black gangs that do exist, and you will see that none of them have mimicked black L.A. street gang culture, more specifically, crips and blood gang structure. You can do a study of black gangs throughout Philly, Detroit, and other places where there are no crips and bloods. As a matter of fact, you can do studies of black gangs, and/or crews in those areas, such as New York, and you will discover that hand signs, graffiti, jumping in, or some type of elaborate, or semi elaborate initiations, were always a part of the deal. As a matter of fact, many of these east coast gangs in the 50’s, more so than the Midwestern gangs (and I’m referring to black east coast gangs) use to wear jackets with certain emblems and colours on them, in order to identify who they were, and what gang they belonged to.

And mind you, all of this was done-WITHOUT CHICANO INFLUENCE FROM THE WEST COAST, OR BLACK GANGS FROM OUT WEST. And guess what? IF YOU CHECK OUT BLACK GANGS OUT IN THESE AREAS RIGHT NOW, AS WE SPEAK, YOU WILL SEE THESE CATS DRESSING AND ROLLING IN A STYLE THAT CHICANOS NEVER CREATED.

As far as the bloods and crips exporting their shiit across the country- yes, they have had an impact, but not an all pervasive impact, on the cholo tip, they way many on your side of the aisle would like folks to believe. If you look at how black gangs dress back east, and throughout the Midwest, even in the south-YOU WILL SEE THAT CHOLOS NEVER DRESSED THE WAY THESE BLACK GANGS ARE DRESSING, OR ACTING; NEITHER ARE THE GANG CULTURAL ACCOUTREMENTS STEMMING FROM THESE BLACK GANGS, CHOLO IN ORIGINS, OR IN PRACTICE.

What you, and those who think like you, need to do, is study sociology and human anthropology, and how human beings create things that may be similar, but yet distinct, especially if they are separated by a large landmass or thousands of miles. Again, black gangs on the east coast, and Midwest, going back to the 50’s, had their hand signs, emblems (albeit not bandannas mind you), initiation rites, and gang bonds, separate and apart FROM ESES.

Only a myopic thinking, self-centered, overly racially chauvinistic fool would think otherwise. Hell, you had the Italians, the Irish, and other European immigrants, who formed their street gangs in the 19th century, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before eses. And even though I don’t know that much about their gang structure, other than the fact they existed, I can just easily imagine them having their initiatory rites, emblems, or signs that will designate their existence. Hell, even in the South, right after the Civil War, and even during the Civil War, you had white supremacist organizations besides the Klan, who had their initiations, hand signs, colour schemes and emblems.

My total point on this tip is the fact that not everything in regards to gang culture, and/or gang structure, originated with the eses, comes from eses, and thought about first from eses. You do know that as human beings, there are certain elements and practices that we all will engage in that is similar, separate and apart from one another.

Oh well-I guess it takes a small mind to think otherwise.

- Why is it that black gangs in cHITOWn , and NYC arent as reputable as LA crips and bloods ,

*That just shows how much you know about these gangs throughout the east coast, and especially Midwest. In the Midwest, gangs like the Disciples, the Vice Lords, and the like, do have a substantial reputation, going from the Midwest, all the way down to the Gulf of Mississippi. You’ve had plenty of white boys, in states like Nebraska, Wisconsin, etc.-claiming these black gangs. As far as L.A. goes, the reasons why black gangs (crips and bloods) made a loud noise, a noise that was even louder than ese gangs back in the day-IS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH NUMBERS OF BODIES BEING KILLED IN THE BLOOD FEUDS BETWEEN THE CRIPS AND THE BLOODS; THE ACCESSIBILITY OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, THAT INCREASED AND ENABLED THE BLOOD FEUDS BETWEEN THE CRIPS AND THE BLOODS; AS WELL AS THE DRUG TRAFFICKING THAT WAS INVOLVED!

These were the factors involved in why the Bloods and Crips eventually received notoriety, along with that little white girl that was the accidental victim of a drive-by shooting in West Los Angeles during the mid 80’s: THIS REALLY PLACED THE BLOODS AND CRIPS ON THE MAP, ALONG WITH THEIR STORIED HISTORY. Plus the lunacy and illogical thinking on the part of the crips and bloods, in regards to why they would outright kill one another, in such high numbers, OVER SOME DAMN COLORS. Also if you throw in the music factor (i.e. gangsta rap from the west coast), as well as its illusory sunny location (L.A. county)-BINGO, PRESTO: THE FASCINATION!

And guess what-IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CHICANO GANGS, OR CHICANO CULTURE, FOR IF THAT WERE THE CASE, CHICANO GANGS WOULD’VE PLACED L.A. STREET GANGS, AND L.A. STREET CULTURE ON THE MAP, AS WELL AS CREATED WEST COAST GANGSTA RAP, BUT CHICANOS DIDN’T, AND WASN’T GOING TO.

-why do the brothers in those citys and citys throughout the entire USA copy mimic and start up their own little clicks of crips and bloods in whatever city they are in??

-Why isnt their a massive gang or reputable black gang in NYC --even though ----the black populace is 6x as large as the black populace of LA?

*Because crips and bloods, more so than those native black gangs in those areas (man, you ought to watch shows like “Gangland” and read more; not all gangs back east, in the Midwest, or even in the dirty south-ATTACH THEMSELVES TO THE CRIPS AND BLOODS), are more aggressive in their recruiting efforts. Besides, many of those black crip and blood gangs that formed back east, are trying to get some of the lustre, in my opinion, that the crips and bloods out west had, in regards to their ruthless reputations, AND NOT BECAUSE OF CHICANO CULTURE.

(Also the gangsta rap hip-hop thing, that originated out west, which wasn’t created by Mexicans, in any way, shape, or form, is what assisted with this fascination as well; quiet as it’s kept.)

As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, many of those crip and blood sets from back east, don’t even roll the way the crips and bloods out west roll. The bloods and crips back east, predominantly use beads as gang identifiers, and have distinct street and gang slang, that the bloods and crips out west don’t even have. Not only that, many of them don’t even dress the same. And their gang structures were similar to the gang structures of east coast gangs throughout their geographical locales, prior to the advent of crips and bloods entering the NYC, other parts of the east coast, Midwest, or south.

Now that I think about, if anything, many of the gang cultural influences throughout the Midwest, and east coast, DON’T COME FROM MEXICANS, BUT IF ANYTHING, MUCH OF THE DIRECT INFLUENCE CAME FROM THE ITALIAN MAFIA. Hell, the original idea for the formulation of La Eme, came from the Italian mafia.

But just like La Eme originally copied its structure from the Italian mafia, but added their own cultural nuances and textures into the mix-to where they created something new, unique and distinct, from the Italian mafia; likewise, black folks did the same thing, when they adopted certain elements of cholo culture, and mixed it in with their own cultural flourishes, ethos, texture and nuances, whereby they created something unique, distinct, and separate from what ese chicano culture ever created, and would’ve created.

Cultures that borrow elements from another culture, by and large, just don’t borrow, and become stagnant, albeit with few exceptions. Each culture, or group, will lift certain elements from a particular culture, only to place their own stamp on that culture, thereby making it their own. This is what the pachucos did, in regards to their arrogation of black culture.

So naw man, the lure of chicano gangs, had nothing to do with the rise and lure of the crips and bloods throughout those areas. In a sur revisionist fantasy world, that may be the case, but in the hardcore world of reality-I’m afraid for you, that’s not the case.

-Or how so the Black Gangster Disciples and other midwest fools arent hardly around anymore although the crips membership for the amount of blacks in the city of LA is massive and grows all the time??

*That’s easy to answer. In the Midwest, the central leadership for the Black Gangster Disciples was jailed, to where now you still do have the Disciples, but they are scattered clicks, as opposed to being under one central alliance. Hell, reading a book on the subject, or picking up a magazine article, or even watching Gangland, would’ve told you everything I’ve just put forth.

Oh, and by the way, as was said before-THERE ARE STILL DISCIPLES.

As far as black gangs in L.A., well I don’t know in particular, but I do know that-IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ESES. Just like there Midwest and east coast brethren, their gangs (crips and bloods) in L.A., have no central leadership either, and some say their gangs are dwindling, whereas other recent reports stress that these gangs are rising, or just staying even-SO YOU DECIDE. I do know that an underlying factor that many folks don’t want to discuss, may have to do with the rising tide of violence between the black and the brown throughout L.A. county, to where you get the average low level street black youth, who’s male, linking onto black gangs in L.A., for protection, a sense of belonging, as well as utilizing these gangs as a subconscious support system against racist aggression.

These are, I think, the primary latent reasons for why this is the case for black gangs in L.A.-AND IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHICANOS AND THEIR GANGS! To further expand on this theme, with the fear of sounding redundant, black gangs, in addition to being at war with one another (crips and the bloods), they are also at war with the surs; so if you combine black folks wars with one another, or just their war with the surs, you will create a vacuum that was created back in the late 60’s, that will call for these gangs to continue their existence, and come into existence-albeit under a different paradigm...

So if you want to throw surs into the mix on that tip, in regards to them possibly fuelling the average low level black street kid into gangs, because of some latent black nationalist concerns, well okay, you may have a point. But we all know that this wasn’t the point you were making right? Naw...the point you were making lies in the myth that black gangs exist, only because they are being buoyed by chicano gangs-WHICH IS BULLLLLLLLLLSHIT!
NEEEEEXT!

-could it be that the gang style of LA is based on something foolproof,complex and historic??

*No, and if it is, the crips and bloods foundation were rooted in the black protest movements of the 1960’s, seeing as how in the main, they were youth spin offs of the Panthers. Ese gang culture had nothing to do with their advent, and the peculiar storied history and trajectory, concerning their (crips and bloods) origins. Again, don’t be so vain, for NOT EVERY SONG IS ABOUT YOU.

Go check out “Bastards To The Party,” and “Crips and Bloods: Made in America.”
What else you got for me?

-and that ,that style was originated by VATOS?

*I’ve often admitted, ad nausea, that aspects of chicano influence had a hand in overall black gang culture, but to say that vatos inspired crips and bloods origins (this is what I’m zoning in on, from you), is nothing more than sur racialist propaganda and myths, as well as surs always trying to insert their hands into the black cookie jar, by claiming everything that black folks will create in regards to street culture, separate and apart from them (chicanos), simply because it was created by BLACK FOLKS, within the boundaries of L.A. county.

Some eses just don’t want to leave black folks alone, in any way, even if we’re bothering them, or creating something that doesn’t even involve them.

NOW HAVING SAID THAT, the original crips and bloods, but especially the crips, weren’t appropriating anything from chicano culture when they first formed. Chicano gangs back in the day weren’t wearing leather jackets, wide brimmed fedoras, with blue bandannas, and walking canes, as well as lifting weights as a common practice. Crips didn’t receive any of these practices from chicano gangs, neither did the bloods. Nor did the things Silencioso outlined that were distinctly black-COME FROM ESES.

So no, you are wrong again.

-The entire takeover mentality of citys and neighborhoods happens in other black citys BUT

*I know it does, so what’s your point?

- why does only BLACK LOS ANGELES, continue to offer and export CRIPS AND BLOODS to the entire black america?

*I’ve already answered that question in some of the above paragraphs, within this very post. So stop repeating yourself, for I’m not in the habit of repeating myself within the same post. At least I try not to do this.

So, what else do you have for me?

-Where is the massive black army at in other cities??

*”Where is the massive black army,” in L.A.? Are you telling me that black folks in L.A. have a massive central army, and that’s because of chicano culture, and that black gangs in other locales across this country don’t have massive armies, because there are hardly any Mexicans to copy off from? ARE YOU SERIOUS???

MAN, NOW WE’RE ENTERING SILLY SEASON HERE, AREN’T WE?

In Chicago, with the Disciples, under Larry Hoover, there was a massive army, if you want to call it that, until the central leadership was destroyed, thus scattering the gang. As a matter of fact, this same pattern exists all throughout this country, with black gangs, even with the Blood leadership in New York, whereby the head was chopped off, to where all you have left now are scattered crews of bloods, instead of one central leadership. The same with black gangs in L.A.-when the leadership was taking out, or off the streets, the rest of the gang sets became leaderless, independent and scattered, without any central foundation, or chain of command.

The BGF tried to do what La Eme did in the early 90’s, in the late 70’s and early 80’s, but the black gangs in L.A. were a little too hard headed, and relied more so on unifying with folks in the area codes, gang sets, or colors. It was especially over with (the BGF influence) when Tookie Williams got sent up, but that’s a whole other story.

-and why didnt original black gangs thrive and flourish in places were they were NO SURENOS?

*The same reason why older black gangs in L.A., and white gangs in certain parts of the country didn’t thrive and flourish, as well as other gangs-TIMES CHANGE, INTERESTS CHANGES, AND SO DO DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS. Besides, Chicago still have black gangs in their communities that haven’t died out, but again, they are scattered, and heavily detached from one another, similar to crip sets in L.A.

And again, surenos have nothing to do with why black gangs exist, or don’t exist, in L.A. or other parts of the country, for as I said before, so say I now and again, with the fear of sounding redundant-BLACK GANGS ORIGINS IN L.A. AND THE REASONS WHY THEY EXIST, IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ESES GANGS, AND WHY THEY FORMULATED. Black gangs in L.A. have a different trajectory on why they were founded, and why they are presently being maintained. Hell for one thing, high unemployment among black folks, especially black males in L.A., contributes greatly to why there’s a continuance of black gangs in L.A. and in other cities; the unique blood feuds they have with their enemies (whether they be crips or bloods) which is generational, and the present day conflict the black gangs have with the surs, which have created somewhat of a siege mentality.

Again, these factors, along with others, are what propels, the continual flow of black bodies into the crips and bloods, in this present day.

-why is the style of dress of the 90s so different in LA and NYC between blacks ,yet you claim that LA blacks sported dickies ,tattoos ,shaved heads ,chucks ,wife beaters and cut off shorts with the socks pulled up.So it just so happens that even though black america is one communtiy only in LA did they dress that way

*If you knew anything about black culture, you wouldn’t ask me such an ignorant question. You know that in this country, even amongst white culture, as it relates to music, food, folklore and whatnot-YOU DO HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED REGIONAL DIFFERENCES? White folks who live in Tennessee, may be exposed to blues and R&B music, or may have grown up listening to this type of music, more so, than let’s say-A WHITE PERSON FROM MONTANA. A white person from southern Louisiana, may be more prone to being exposed to the French influence, in regards to language, food, and music and culture, unlike some white person, let’s say from-OREGON! A white person growing up in the southwest, may be more familiar with the image of the cowboy, Tex mex cuisine, and the like, more so than, uh, let’s say-A WHITE PERSON BORN AND RAISED IN VERMONT.

So what’s my point? My point is that even though black folks may have a common cultural thread, just like white folks may have a common cultural thread, based on where you live, and what that region emphasizes, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME DIFFERENCES. For example, black folks in Georgia; don’t traditionally eat Gumbo, but those black folks in Louisiana do. Black folks in Tennessee don’t normally eat conk (I hope I’m spelling that word correctly), and grits, but guess what-BLACK FOLKS IN FLORIDA HAVE A TRADITION OF CONSUMING SUCH FOODS. Black folks in Mississippi, are religiously and predominantly protestant, much like the majority of black folks throughout this country, but there are black folks in Southern Louisiana, who are indeed Roman Catholic.

Oh man, I can go on, and on, and on, about the regional differences amongst black folks. Do you know that even amongst a musical genre like the blues, that at one time, there were distinct regional differences, even though it’s all black? For example, you had the Mississippi Delta style blues, then the Piedmont style of Mississippi blues. You had the Texas style blues, with the emphasis on hollering, and then you had the Carolina Blues, which was similar to ragtime music; plus you had the Louisiana Blues and Chicago Blues.
(Also look at the Motown sound, which is Detroit in origins, compared with the Philly sound. These different sounds are distinctly black, but there are regional differences. For instance, now that I think about it-you’ve had the black west coast r&b sound from the 50’s and 60’s, which was primarily rooted in L.A.; you even had the Chicago sound, which was primarily bluesy, which was epitomized over at “Chess Records,” as well as the Minneapolis sound, which was epitomized in Prince’s music, as well as groups like the “Times,” and the “Family.”)

Simply put, as it relates to music, food (for instance Gullah food, which is a part of Gullah culture in South Carolina, is different than black food in Kentucky, or other southern states), dress, and sometimes religion, despite their being a common thread that unite black folks throughout-THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE REGIONAL DIFFERENCES.
Let’s take hip hop for instance. East coast hip-hop for the most part had very tight beats that was frenetic and possessed a sense of urgency, traditionally speaking. Much of this was due to the crowded, hustle and bustle atmosphere of the east coast’s urban landscape. BLACK west coast hip hop music, traditionally speaking, was more rhythmic, and even, with well articulated beats (despite the sense of urgency), that oftentimes were suited for cruising in your ride. This is why in the early days, oldies and various Funk music was used to create west coast hip-hop beats, thanks in part to Dr. Dre, and other BLACK west coast hip-hop pioneers.

In these two styles of black hip-hop, one emanating from the West, whereas the other from the East, there were obvious differences, in what was emphasized, as well as where the beats took you, BUT IT WAS STILL ALL BLACK.

Getting somewhat off of the topic, but staying on the topic:

If you were to check out the movie “Juice,” which was made in 91, but came out in January, or February of 92, and check out their dress (remember, the movie “Juice” was made in New York, Harlem to be exact, I think). Now check out the west coast videos that were coming from black artists at the time, from 91 on down, and you will see two things. The first thing you will notice is that the style of dress that was prevalent in black west coast videos from 91 on down, didn’t possess a heavy black gang/crip or blood theme. Therefore many of the black gangsta rappers at the time were just wearing tight, or regular fitting jeans, and t-shirts, with derby jackets, and a black Pendleton here and there (similar to how the crips were dressed like in “Colors”), but yet, when you saw east coast videos from the very late 80’s, and early 90’s, prior to 92, or, if you began to pay close attention to east coast youth culture during this time, before the full blown invasion of west coast hip hop-you saw, beginning in 87, or around 88, black youth on the east coast, beginning to wear sagging, baggy slacks, especially jeans, and oversized clothing. There were no significant chicano populations in New York at the time, so where did these black youth, around the late 80’s, and early 90’s, learn to dress this way, which is evidenced in the movie “Juice?”

Remember, Snoop Dogg, and the other BLACK west coast gangsta rappers, didn’t begin coming on the scene until later in 92, but as I said before-JUICE WAS MADE IN 91, AND NOTHING COMING FROM THE WEST SIDE PRIOR TO 91, AND IN 91, NOT EVEN THE MOVIE “BOYZ IN THE HOOD,” SHOWED BLACK FOLKS FROM OUT WEST, DRESSING THE WAY THEY WERE DRESSING IN THE MOVIE “JUICE,” WHICH WAS BAGGY/SAGGING PANTS, AND OVERSIZED CLOTHING ITEMS.

Again, back east, there were no surs, nor any chicano culture to speak of, and black folks back east definitely didn’t get their shiit from the Ricans.

I began to see black folks in the late 80’s, a few of them, wear long t-shirts, baggy pants, and whatnot, and again, L.A., AT THE TIME, WASN’T EVEN ON THEIR RADAR, UNTIL LATE 92, IN REGARDS TO L.A. GANG FASHIONS, SO WHAT WAS THE DEAL? (Actually, long white t’s existed in the 80’s, across this country; a long white t, and an oversized white t, are two different types of shirts. One is a galaxy shirt, whereas the other one, well-is just an oversized shirt.)

Now I’m saying all of this to say that black folks traditionally, before the mid 60’s and mid 70’s clothing styles came on the scene, which lasted until the late 80’s, always had an affinity for baggy type clothing. Secondly, black folks in deep southern states (going back to the regional differences) like Louisiana, and Mississippi, or states like Arkansas, and Texas, even Oklahoma, unlike southerners from other states, wore more khakis and Pendleton shirts, as well as gear that is commonly referred to as codified cholo gang gear.
As I said before, eses weren’t the first or only folks to wear pendletons, dickies, khakis, sweat shirts, army belts, and etcs. Hell, what do you think the average black blue collar joe was wearing, as regular leisure clothes, especially prior to the late 60’s? The way Snoop is dressed in “Nothing but a G thing,” is similar to how my uncle dressed in the 70’s, and he was born in 1909. But you see, he was a blue collar labourer, and this is the type of gear he was comfortable in. In states like Louisiana and Texas, off and on throughout the years, you would see black men, who were blue collar men, who really didn’t give a damn about style-nor an iron-wear the types of duds associated with cholo gear, for that type of gear (e.g. Pendleton shirts, dickies, khakis, sweat shirts)-IS AMERICANA CLOTHING.

Again, my uncles, on both my parents’ side, who had no sense of fashion, would dress up in what we would call “old folks clothes.” And many of these old cats were from the states I mentioned, who migrated out to cali, and guess what-THEY WERE NOT GANG AFFILIATED, JUST BUMMISH IN THEIR DRESS! Oh don’t get me wrong, they could dress all smooth when they wanted to, but it wasn’t ordinarily, their cup of tea.

Not only that, much of the gear that’s been associated with traditional cholo gear, especially throughout the 80’s, and below, had a retro flavour. If you were to check out old photos, or check out movies like “Devil In a Blue Dress,” or black movies that were actually made in the 40’s, and 30’s, you will see that much of the gear that was associated with retro cholo gear, blacks had already worn previously. Hell, everyone had worn them previously, it’s just eses, on up until the late 80’s, and possibly early 90’s, kept the tradition of wearing these clothes, alive, for it fitted in with the retro oldies they were listening to, and the cars they were driving.

So again, I can go on, and on, and on, until the break of dawn, when it comes to discussing black regional differences in dress, music, certain dances (not all black dances were created in the same locations), fashion, and food. Again, blacks aren’t anomalies in regards to this phenomenon, for I am sure that amongst eses/Mexicans, whether it is in mexico, or in this country-there are regional differences.

In summary, blacks in L.A. did borrow aspects of chicano culture, but what they borrowed doesn’t explain other aspects of black street, and L.A. gang culture throughout L.A., that was unique and distinct to black gangs, and black street culture, throughout L.A.- that wouldn’t have existed, without the existence of black folks in L.A., or if left to chicanos only. Black culture in L.A. has indeed influenced some aspects of east coast street culture, but it’s not as all encompassing as you may think. Likewise, black culture in L.A. has influenced eses, which is evident in the pachucos (I notice folks have forgotten about them), and the modern day surs, whose style and flavour now, is similar to the crips of the 1990’s. Right now many of these surs are playing catch up, by engaging in rapping, and acting black, which is evident in many of their styles of dress, the emphasis on the blue, and how some of them now sport their bandannas, along with their gestures and mannerisms, which is very similar to blacks.

Black south central street and gang culture wasn’t 100% chicano, but 100% black. It was this culture that was exported throughout the world, and not pure chicano culture. If anything, it was a hybrid culture, influenced by some aspects of chicano culture, but contained heavy deluges of black flavour, style and funk, to where what was exported, wouldn’t have been palatable, if it didn’t have that black flavour.

Naw man, black folks don’t have to be ashamed of what they created, because not unlike all cultures that borrow certain elements from other cultures, while fusing it with heavy doses of their own funk-black folks in L.A. have done the same thing, thereby creating something unique and distinct, to where not only the whole world wants a piece of it-ESES NOW WANT TO CLAIM AAAAAAAAAAALLLL OF IT, even down to the distinct cultural nuances, eses didn’t have a hand in creating (e.g. the sporting of blue and red sports jerseys as gang identifiers; rap music; crip walking; black street slang; upholding the red and blue banners as emblems; wearing the blue and red bandannas as face masks; gestures and mannerisms; and much, much more; etc., etc., etc.)

This is why I say that black L.A. street and gang culture, and what it produced-IS AN AMERICAN ORIGINAL, AND NO ONE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY, OR ATTEMPT TO TAKE AWAY, UNLESS THEY’RE A RACIST, OR LATENT RACIST, OR FULLY OF JEALOUSY AND ENVY!

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 29th, 2009, 8:57 am

"with the pants getting tighter and the shirts getting longer or the pants getting baggir and the shirts getting tighter,and the shoes changing from nike cortez to chucks to house shoes to wingtips, it has essentially still remianed the same, so we have changed our look with the ages ,but dont let it be fooled to think that we are not our own thing, differnt from just about any youth group in AMERICA,"

The shirts getting longer was predominantly taken from black hip hop culture, in the form of galaxy t-shirts (original long white t's, not to be confused with oversized white t's), and long throwback sports jerseys, which eses back in the day weren't wearing (with the possible exception of a few who would wear oversized, not long, white t shirts back in the day; I will admit to this).

I don't remember not one ese gang member from the mid 90's on down, but especially the 80's on down, being togged down in blue or red, sports jerseys, or throwback jerseys, while sporting blue or red bandannas, around their necks, heads and wrists. But guess what-I REMEMBER BLACK GANG MEMBERS BEING ATTIRED SIMILIARILY.

Neither do I remember an ese from the 90's on down, sur walking, stacking, and wearing big fat platinum, or gold chains.

Oh, and as far as shoes, ESES CAN'T CLAIM ADIDAS, LIKE MANY ARE TEMPTED TO DO, SEEING AS HOW BLACK FOLKS ALL THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND ESPECIALLY THE EAST COAST, WERE ROCKING ADDIDAS FOOTWEAR FROM WAAAAAY BACK.

And as far as cortez, but especially chucks-BLACK FOLKS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHETHER IT BE OUT WEST, BACK EAST, OR DOWN SOUTH, WERE WEARING THESE TYPES OF SHOES.

As far as wingtip shoes, eses weren't the first to wear them, nor the only folks who wore them. Hell, all of my father's dress shoes, were wing tipped shoes; MOST FOLKS FROM HIS GENERATION WORE WINGTIPPED SHOES, WHETHER THEY BE BLACK, WHITE, OR CHICANO. Hell, I even have a collection of wing tipped shoes, and now that I think about it-WING TIPPED SHOES ARE ONE OF THE PREDOMINANT TYPE OF DRESS SHOES ON THE MARKET, SO REALLY EVERYONE WEARS THOSE TYPES OF SHOES.

Again, eses may codify certain things, that are set aside for their culture, because they like it, but that don't mean other groups won't wear, or sport the things that eses codify for their own. In other words, the world ain't going to stand still, in regards to what they wear, or get along in, just because eses like the shit, and want to claim the shiit as their own.

BE FOR REAL!

Eses again, contributed to aspects to black culture throughout L.A.-BUT THAT SHIT WASN'T THAT DEEP, and the fact that I'm old enough and wise enough to remember shit-IS WHAT'S BEGINNING TO BUG THE HELL OUT OF YOU!

Oh, and as far as the pants getting tighter, are you, and other eses reading your words- actually believe eses were the first and only ones to wear tight pants? I mean come on? After awhile eses are going to claim all of the clothes and shoe accessories, to where they'll be nothing left for the rest of us. LOL! Sheesh.

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 29th, 2009, 9:08 am

~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote: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.
Good posts as usual but I'm surprised by this comment, do you mean this literally? isn't this the type of comment you've so passionately been countering Eses of saying? or are you saying that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time? which then of course would hold true in some aspects, maybe even in many.
Let me, like Obama recently has done, calibrate some of what I said. What I meant was what you stated "that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time."

Now, this is different than what Mayuga is saying. He's saying that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of black L.A. street and gang culture, regardless of what it is-IS 100% ESE, which is BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLSHIT!

That's intellectual dishonesty and very anti-historical, and the fact that I won't let him get away with that-BUGS THE HELL OUT HIM.

You see, from my sources, and what I did research on, in regards to what we now know as chicano culture- originated in the 30's and not 1909, as mayuga purports. And the zoot suit didn't first hit the scene in the 40's, but some sources says it goes back to Harlem's underground culture in the early 30's, and wasn't exported and popularized until black jazz musicians from the east coast began traveling all throughout the midwest and south, and into L.A. Remember, by the very late 30's, you had pachucos, not just in the 40's. And some historians refer to the pachucos as being the pioneers, and/or, one of the foundations, of what we now know as chicano culture.

My basic theory is that chicano culture from the 30's (bump 1909, when the only type of music those eses would've listening to was ragtime. LOL!), mixed heavily with black culture during this time, which ultimately produced what we now know as pachuco culture.

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 29th, 2009, 9:10 am

I meant to say in this one paragraph of mine:

"And as far as cortez, but especially chucks-BLACK FOLKS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHETHER IT BE OUT WEST, BACK EAST, OR DOWN SOUTH, WERE WEARING THESE TYPES OF SHOES, THROUGHOUT THE 70'S AND EARLY 80'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 29th, 2009, 11:54 am

Another thing, BLACK FOLKS DIDN'T GET THE WEARING OF BALD HEADS FROM ESES, NOR FADES.

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 29th, 2009, 10:41 pm

TheReal wrote:I meant to say in this one paragraph of mine:

"And as far as cortez, but especially chucks-BLACK FOLKS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHETHER IT BE OUT WEST, BACK EAST, OR DOWN SOUTH, WERE WEARING THESE TYPES OF SHOES, THROUGHOUT THE 70'S AND EARLY 80'S.

\
I picked your shortest response................The Origins of Hispanic Street Gangs*

Most people believe that Los Angeles' Hispanic street gangs can be traced to the early 1900s, but Hispanic street gangs of the early 1900's developed as a result of incidents that occurred more than 50 years earlier. In 1718, the Mission of San Antonio Balera was established on the banks of the San Antonio River in south central Texas. This mission later became known as the /Alamo/. The southwestern portion of the United States belonged to Mexico, but many Americans had settled in these areas. By 1835, the revolt by Texans against Mexican control of this area was in full swing. In February 1836, Colonel William Travis and 180 men took control of the Alamo from the Mexicans.

On March 6 of that year, Mexican president Santa Ana and approximately 3,000 Mexican soldiers attacked the Alamo in an effort to regain control. The Americans in the Alamo killed more than 400 Mexican soldiers during the battle. The Mexican army prevailed, and the few U.S. survivors surrendered to General Santa Ana who, to their surprise, ordered their executions. Those orders were carried out immediately. Word of this quickly spread throughout the resistance movement, and the rallying cry for the Texas forces became "Remember the Alamo." Anti-Mexican sentiment had begun, and continued to grow during the conflict.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, marked the end of the war between the United States and Mexico. The United States paid Mexico $15 million plus $3 million in compensation for the northwest portion of Mexico. Today, that area is known as Nevada, California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. Many Hispanic street gang members felt (and still feel) that the United States stole this part of Mexico from their ancestors. In reality, Mexico lost less than 1% of its population. The United States offered a naturalization program to those Mexican citizens affected by the treaty. All but about 2,000 Mexican nationals residing in the area became naturalized citizens of the U.S. Nevertheless, there was still a high degree of resentment by many U.S. citizens against any Mexican because of the memory of the Alamo. The California Gold Rush of 1849 immediately followed this treaty. These events set the attitude, social and economic conditions in Los Angeles during the early 1900's. Those conditions, along with the rapid growth of Los Angeles and other historical events, helped to shape and direct the actions of L.A.'s street gangs.

In the early 1900's, Los Angeles experienced the birth of the first Hispanic street gangs. Mexican-Americans who lived in the "pueblo" of Los Angeles still felt displaced, even as naturalized citizens. Many of these new Americans were treated like second-class citizens by white Angelenos, and were told to go back to their home, Mexico. In the minds of Hispanics in Los Angeles, they were already home, but their home was now part of the United States because of the annexation. They now lived in a country that didn't want them, but they could not return to Mexico because they were U.S. citizens.

The Mexican immigrants also tended to live in the same areas, with family or other Mexicans who migrated from the same geographical areas of Mexico. These neighborhoods were often some of the poorest areas in rapidly growing Los Angeles. These conditions aided in the development of rivalries between various immigrant groups. A modern class distinction was also developing. Sgt. Joe Guzman, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, an expert on Hispanic street gangs, correctly points out that Mexican street gangs formed in part due to economic conditions, prejudice and racism. Irish street gangs formed in the 1800s in New York as a result of these social conditions. In the early 1900s, similar social and economic factors were present in Los Angeles, giving rise to Hispanic street gangs.

*The Los Angeles and El Paso Connection

*During the early years of the 20th century, an underground drug and prostitution market developed between Los Angeles and El Paso, Texas. Early L.A. gang members started to mimic the dress style, mannerisms and language of the Mexican drug dealers and pimps that operated in these areas. During this time, the Mexican youths also became interested in swing music and started to use "Calo," a slang blending Spanish and English.

By the 1920s, El Paso, Texas had become a center for many immigrant Mexicans, much like Los Angeles. In fact, an underground travel route developed between the two cities. This route allowed El Paso trends to directly influence the L.A. street gangs. In El Paso, Texas, many of the Mexicans who went to prison were incarcerated in Huntsville. While in the Huntsville prison, they formed a prison gang called the /El Paso Tip/. El Paso Tip took it's name from the area of Texas where the prison was located. Fellow gang members would greet each other by saying: "are you tipped up?" or "are you tipped?" According to Sgt. Richard Valdemar (a prison gang expert with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department), this phrase meant: "Are you from the El Paso area?" which referred to the location of the Huntsville prison. El Paso Tip would later become very influential in the Los Angeles street gang culture.

*The Depression Era and World War II

*The late 1920's saw the beginning of the Depression in the United States. Most Americans today do not identify with the term "Black Tuesday," which referred to October 24, 1929, the day the stock market crashed and brought the American economy down with it. The depression, while influential in the lives of America's Hispanic population, was less influential to the growth of street gangs than the subsequent economic recovery during the 1940s. The growth of the aircraft industry and other industrial jobs created a "work rush" which resembled California's Gold Rush in the 1800's, and brought many people to California, including Mexican immigrants.

Also in the 1940's, according to Sgt. Joe Guzman, Mickey Garcia, a young boy from Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico migrated north and relocated in El Paso, Texas. He immediately joined a local Mexican street gang called the /Secundo Barrio./ Garcia also brought with him a unique style of dress, initially thought to have originated in Mexico. Garcia's dress style became an instant hit with all the young people, especially the local gang members. His fashion included a felt hat with a long feather in it, called a /tapa/ or /tanda/. The pants were pleated and baggy, and referred to as /tramas/. The shirt was creased and called a /lisa/. A /carlango/, a long, loose-fitting coat, was worn over the ensemble. The shoes, called /calcos/, were French-toe style or S/tacy Adams/ brand and were always shined. To complete the style, one had to have a long chain attached to the belt loop that hung past the knee, and into the side pocket of the pants. This outfit became known as the /zoot suit/, and was later referred to as the /pachuco/ look. In the past, many angry parents would use the term /pachuco/ to describe this popular dress style. The word, Pachuco, was derived from the town that Mickey Garcia's hometown: Pachuca, in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico. Garcia was not the first to wear the zoot suit in California or Texas. However, he may have been one of the first Mexican street gangsters to adopt this popular style of dress. Garcia's appearance certainly helped to spread the popularity of the zoot suit within the El Paso Mexican street gang population.

Remember the well-traveled route between Los Angeles and El Paso? Via that route, the pachuco style of dress was most likely re-introduced to the Los Angeles-based Mexican street gangs. It did not take long for the pachuco clothing to become popular with gang members. The zoot suit was already present in the L.A. area in the late 1930s, however, it was not adopted as a style of dress by the street gangs until the early to mid 1940s.

The /Maravill/a gangs started to form during the mid-to-late 1940s, and continued to grow well into the 1950s. The concept of protecting turf was expanded within the housing projects known as Maravilla, where the Maravilla gangs got their start. Competition for jobs, women and turf became issues for the youth that lived in this area, according to Sgt. Joe Guzman. Eventually, rivalries began to exist between people living in different housing projects. If conflicts arose, however, they were handled within the community, not by outsiders (law enforcement).

This mentality developed into an early form of claiming turf. When you claim turf, the next step is protecting it. These concepts were then adopted by the other Mexican street gangs and were rapidly accepted and put into practice. These housing projects evolved into some of the neighborhoods or /barrios/ whose names are still familiar within the street gang culture. The origin of Mexican street gang turf wars can be traced back to those original housing projects. These behaviors also helped to create the current gang customs and practices.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, forcing the United States into World War II. These war years also played a role in the historical formation of Mexican street gangs. On August 2, 1942, a young Mexican was beaten up and subsequently died from a fractured skull received in the attack. The killing of this young man, Jose Diaz, occurred near a popular swimming hole known as "Sleepy Lagoon," located on William's Ranch, which is now the city of Montebello, California. Police officers who investigated the crime blamed Diaz's death on a gang fight. The Los Angeles Police Department literally rounded up all of the usual suspects and arrested 24 members of the /38th Street /gang. The Los Angeles Grand Jury indicted 22 of the 24 suspects for the murder. The criminal trial was considered by the community to be a "kangaroo court." On January 13, 1943, 3 gang members were convicted of first degree murder, 9 members were convicted of second degree murder, 5 members were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, and 5 members were found not guilty. The Mexican community responded with outrage, feeling that the trial was fixed and the convictions were based on race. However, the 17 convicted members of 38th Street were sent to state prison. Hispanic street gangs in Los Angeles changed forever as a result of those convictions. The jail sentences also acted like glue to unite the Hispanic community in a common cause, to fight against class distinction based on prejudice and racism, along with a fight against the establishment, including the police.

While in prison, the convicted 38th Street gang members never complained. They were given the worst jobs and treated unfairly because at that time, the prison population was mostly Caucasian. The 38th Street inmates kept themselves clean and shined their shoes. They cleaned and pressed their clothes, even though they were issued garments that were several sizes too large. The 38th Street members held tough and maintained their dignity while in prison. This behavior set a new standard for Hispanic gang members who were subsequently sent to jail. They demonstrated a type of gang pride and resolve that had never been seen before. These behaviors also elevated the incarcerated 38th Street members to the level of folk hero status within the Hispanic community. The street gang members especially held them in high regard.

The trial also caused the Hispanic community to develop an anti-white sentiment and created distrust for the government, especially the police. Anti-Hispanic sentiment also grew within the wider community because of this community response. The class distinction only became more prevalent because racially motivated abuse continued to be directed at Hispanics for many years. It did not matter whether they were U.S. citizens or undocumented immigrants. To many whites, they were simply "Mexican."

As the nation became more involved in the war effort, Los Angeles and San Diego became major deployment points for the U.S. military who were involved in the Pacific campaign. As a result, the military population in both cities increased dramatically almost overnight. During June 1943, the Zoot Suit Riots of Los Angeles began. The non-Hispanic community, especially the military personnel, felt that the Hispanic community was not contributing to the war effort. Their dissatisfaction was specifically directed at the young Hispanics and Hispanic street gang members who wore the zoot suit. The large, oversized suit only wasted valuable fabric which could be used in the war effort. In fact, the zoot suit was considered contraband because the War Production Board did not sanction it. The War Production Board took the stance that it was the clothing designers' patriotic duty to design fashions that would use a minimal amount of fabric. This would conserve a valuable resource which was needed for the war.

In addition, many undocumented Mexicans never registered for the draft, nor did they enlist in the military. Lastly, the visiting military were very popular with the local women. The women were attracted to men in uniform. The gang members felt there was additional competition between these two groups (military men and local men) for the women. These factors only caused the anti-White sentiments and corresponding anti-Hispanic sentiments to increase. In reality, the perception that Hispanics were not supporting the war was inaccurate. Many thousands of U.S.-born Hispanics, some first and second generation, volunteered for service in the military. Many saw front-line action, and many sacrificed their lives for the people back home.

These attitudes on both sides, however, became the fuel necessary to spark conflicts between the military personnel and the Hispanic street gang members. There were major assaults on Hispanics who wore the zoot suit, including gang members, by military personnel, who were almost never arrested. The police would routinely only arrest the gang members who were involved in these confrontations. These conflicts forced the Hispanic street gangs to unite against a common enemy and to develop a uniform of their own.

One additional incident occurred during 1943 which impacted Los Angeles' Hispanic street gangs. On October 4, 1943, the California Appeals Court overturned the convictions of the 38th Street gang members for the murder of Jose Diaz. The appellate court found that the criminal trial's findings were in error because the defense attorneys were not allowed to present a defense for the accused. The appellate court also found that evidence had been falsified. The appellate court's findings only validated the community's concerns about the trial, and solidified the opinions of community members that the convictions were based on prejudice and racism. The incarcerated 38th Street gang members were welcomed back into the Hispanic community as heroes.

By the late 1940's, the number of Hispanic street gangs and gang members had increased. Hispanic youth found a certain solidarity in street gangs, believing their cause was just. Sgt. Joe Guzman points out in his research in this area that some gang members adopted heroes of the Mexican revolution, such as Emilio Zapata, as their heroes at the time. They identified with the phrase: "it is better to die on my feet than to live on my knees." The gangs were fighting against the establishment and the military. There were very few fights between Hispanic street gangs.

*The Formation of the Mexican Mafia*

The postwar era brought more change to Hispanic street gangs in Los Angeles. After the war, with no common enemy, the frustration and aggression of the gang members was aimed at each other. The Maravilla gangs that formed in East Los Angeles developed the most notorious reputation for being violent and ruthless.

As the number of street gangs grew, so did the tendency of these gangs to claim turf, and to settle their problems with action. Insults against a gang were not tolerated, and intense rivalries formed between gangs. Violence began to increase as gang members began to use guns more often. A new word entered the gang vocabulary: /drive-by/. The 1950s were to be a decade of rapid growth for Los Angeles. The suburbs became a popular place to live for many Angelinos. Man-made structures, like freeways and major interstate highways helped to define new geographical turf boundaries for many gangs. The new man-made boundaries also subdivided existing gang territories and created new gang /clickas (/cliques) or subsets of the original gangs. To further compound the issue, many families were moving away from Los Angeles to the smaller surrounding cities to avoid the ever-increasing inner-city gang violence. The 1950s urbanization also added to the street gang growth. This flight from gang violence became one of the first identified gang migration mechanisms. Families would move to prevent their children from joining street gangs or to save them from further involvement. For some families, it was too late. The relocated children moved away physically, but brought the gang mentality and philosophy with them. They joined local gangs in their new communities or created new cliques of the gang they were associated with in Los Angeles.

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 29th, 2009, 11:16 pm

TheReal wrote:Another thing, BLACK FOLKS DIDN'T GET THE WEARING OF BALD HEADS FROM ESES, NOR FADES.



Irregardless of your quotes about what was started by blacks .....the truth is we had gangs in LA at the turn of the century ----the oldest gang in LA was the ALPINE STREET GANG a gang that existed in name and on the same streets up until the 1990s!.....today they are known as the avenues......At the time of LAs most famous gang trial"sleepy lagoon' gangs like the 38th street gang were clearly established ---why not so the businessmen or gladiators or slausons??although blacks and mexicans had the distinction as biggest minorities in the city of angels/??because they were little clubs that faded with the wind!! some 3 dozen 38th street gangsters and associates went away for that trial and yet that gang still flourished as it does today! The zootsuit riots were fought by gangs that thrive today and go back to the 1900s....white fence ,alpine,clover,38th street, on and on .....yet somehow we took black culture and mimic it today in form unheard of ,copying the style of SOUTH CENTRAL , lol! we arent puerto ricans,we dont need black culture to have a chicano culture!Our styles of dress came from EL PASO and SAN ANTONIO , chuko town, dont tell me about blacks in those citys cuz there werent hardly any!!The photos of the boyz in the trial of sleepy lagoon,shows them in their pendletons ,short hair ,dickies and baggie pants ,creased up and looking not much different from todays cholos.So we latched onto black culture of the 20s and mimiced it up until present day??gimme a break!.............what were we wearing in the 1900s when we first came out? how about the rich history of my people? why are we so established in gang life and why can we trace our gangs to and from were they started and your people cant? why did I hear from the mouth of black OGs from EAST LOS that the gangs of ELA inspired their dress and that they liked the look ESEs had and turned and flavored it their way?yet ---there are some 3.5 million blacks in NYC and no major black gang! and although you claim BGDs and VICE LORDS are still active ---they really arent ! outside of LA their arent any reputable black gangs , if you go to EAST LOS , only a gang 4 generations deep is considered a gang~~ anything younger is just a fad!!lol........why so the black gangs you named all had roots in or around central avenue ...............home to guess who ???? 38th street ,clover and dogtown .......eastlake all reputable old school SURENO gangs........were them gangs at in OAKLAND ? the biggest black city outside of LA in the state? Why are brothas from LA so menaceful and ruthless compared to DC and NYC and CHI, shit you ask any brother who hits the feds and they will tell you that brothas from LA got brothas from the rest the nation on status and show them how to ride!! alot of your peoples swagger came from us , god dam , the bloods and SURENOS from LA , are closer in demeanor then most mexicans from other states I have met. BLoods are quiet ,vicious--cunning and patient , how could a part of black culture so resemble my own?we have been living around eachother for a long long time , of course we are going to start to take things we like from eachother, it just so happens that you guys took a big chunk out our gang book and showed the blacks nationwide how to do it! PANTHERS and the like get their credit cuz they were off the chain -but they even formed alliance with my people-and gave us our dues --they werent claiming we are nothing but some puerto ricans, like you do!we arent no goya bean ,fade wearing ,nigga saying, rapping and sagging latinos ESE! get that straight we are our own unique peoples,when we bang that flag it isnt cuz the colors look cool.(PR)

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 30th, 2009, 12:13 am

TheReal wrote:
~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote: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.
Good posts as usual but I'm surprised by this comment, do you mean this literally? isn't this the type of comment you've so passionately been countering Eses of saying? or are you saying that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time? which then of course would hold true in some aspects, maybe even in many.
Let me, like Obama recently has done, calibrate some of what I said. What I meant was what you stated "that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time."

Now, this is different than what Mayuga is saying. He's saying that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of black L.A. street and gang culture, regardless of what it is-IS 100% ESE, which is BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLSHIT!

That's intellectual dishonesty and very anti-historical, and the fact that I won't let him get away with that-BUGS THE HELL OUT HIM.

You see, from my sources, and what I did research on, in regards to what we now know as chicano culture- originated in the 30's and not 1909, as mayuga purports. And the zoot suit didn't first hit the scene in the 40's, but some sources says it goes back to Harlem's underground culture in the early 30's, and wasn't exported and popularized until black jazz musicians from the east coast began traveling all throughout the midwest and south, and into L.A. Remember, by the very late 30's, you had pachucos, not just in the 40's. And some historians refer to the pachucos as being the pioneers, and/or, one of the foundations, of what we now know as chicano culture.

My basic theory is that chicano culture from the 30's (bump 1909, when the only type of music those eses would've listening to was ragtime. LOL!), mixed heavily with black culture during this time, which ultimately produced what we now know as pachuco culture.



In the early 1900s, similar social and economic factors were present in Los Angeles, giving rise to Hispanic street gangs............................................................................so who was this hispanic street gang?did it disappear?fade away like the gladiators>slausons?businessmen?all gangs you claim were around at the time OUR gangs developed?NO! it is here today....in the form of the AVENUES and CLOVER and WHITE FENCE, all original clicks off the ALPINE STREET GANG,their was an article in the LA times about this gang and its members going back to early 1900. The same gangs that partook in the ZOOTSUIT riots are with us today,some are battling black gangs,pueblos and 38th. Many have never faded away --like original LA black gangs have. EArlier you had said that many black gangs formed around central avenue and your argument was that it was a black area.you failed to mention that the 38th street gang a very reputable gang , probably LAs largest gang at the time had a very strong presence around central -avenue.East Side 13 , also had a strong presence there as they do now. This gang goes back to the time many hispanic gangs did around 1940 or so. Why does so much much of black LA and chicano LA resemble one another in dress ,graffiti,tattoing,slang and overall appearance of clicks and subsets and much much more? you claim that the reason that blacks in LA dress different from blacks in the SOUTh is regional--a valid argument except that much of LA's black populace were transplants from the south.Yet onlyin LA does gang life exist so solitary and alone from the rest of BLACK AMERICA.? Millions of blacks in NYC and they couldnt form anything like the crips or bloods? Chocalate citys like ATL and DC and nothing like LAs crips and bloods? do you actually expect me to believe this?in reverse the entire chicano community in places like TEXAS AND ARIZONA AND ALL SOUTHWESTERN states have some very similiar forms of dress and style and gang culture ,but blacks dont ?get outta here with that!you are desperate --you say and refute everything back to the 30s and 40s, but there was a signifcant presence of chciano culture in LA and SAN ANTONIO AND EL PASO going back to the 1900s , yet we adapted zootsuits from harlem blacks,as your argument goes!although history says the pachuco culture is entirely mexican-american, ill still give you the right to argue on who started it seeing as how your whole argument on what chicano culture is ,comes from zootsuits,lol.EVEN THOUGH>>>>we had gangs ,mind you , in the 1900s ,that are with us today, and no PACHUCOS existed then............ and we appropriated whose style of dress then?.......

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 30th, 2009, 12:13 am

TheReal wrote:
~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote: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.
Good posts as usual but I'm surprised by this comment, do you mean this literally? isn't this the type of comment you've so passionately been countering Eses of saying? or are you saying that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time? which then of course would hold true in some aspects, maybe even in many.
Let me, like Obama recently has done, calibrate some of what I said. What I meant was what you stated "that Chicano culture would be different if it wasn't for Black folks from that time."

Now, this is different than what Mayuga is saying. He's saying that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of black L.A. street and gang culture, regardless of what it is-IS 100% ESE, which is BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLSHIT!

That's intellectual dishonesty and very anti-historical, and the fact that I won't let him get away with that-BUGS THE HELL OUT HIM.

You see, from my sources, and what I did research on, in regards to what we now know as chicano culture- originated in the 30's and not 1909, as mayuga purports. And the zoot suit didn't first hit the scene in the 40's, but some sources says it goes back to Harlem's underground culture in the early 30's, and wasn't exported and popularized until black jazz musicians from the east coast began traveling all throughout the midwest and south, and into L.A. Remember, by the very late 30's, you had pachucos, not just in the 40's. And some historians refer to the pachucos as being the pioneers, and/or, one of the foundations, of what we now know as chicano culture.

My basic theory is that chicano culture from the 30's (bump 1909, when the only type of music those eses would've listening to was ragtime. LOL!), mixed heavily with black culture during this time, which ultimately produced what we now know as pachuco culture.



In the early 1900s, similar social and economic factors were present in Los Angeles, giving rise to Hispanic street gangs............................................................................so who was this hispanic street gang?did it disappear?fade away like the gladiators>slausons?businessmen?all gangs you claim were around at the time OUR gangs developed?NO! it is here today....in the form of the AVENUES and CLOVER and WHITE FENCE, all original clicks off the ALPINE STREET GANG,their was an article in the LA times about this gang and its members going back to early 1900. The same gangs that partook in the ZOOTSUIT riots are with us today,some are battling black gangs,pueblos and 38th. Many have never faded away --like original LA black gangs have. EArlier you had said that many black gangs formed around central avenue and your argument was that it was a black area.you failed to mention that the 38th street gang a very reputable gang , probably LAs largest gang at the time had a very strong presence around central -avenue.East Side 13 , also had a strong presence there as they do now. This gang goes back to the time many hispanic gangs did around 1940 or so. Why does so much much of black LA and chicano LA resemble one another in dress ,graffiti,tattoing,slang and overall appearance of clicks and subsets and much much more? you claim that the reason that blacks in LA dress different from blacks in the SOUTh is regional--a valid argument except that much of LA's black populace were transplants from the south.Yet onlyin LA does gang life exist so solitary and alone from the rest of BLACK AMERICA.? Millions of blacks in NYC and they couldnt form anything like the crips or bloods? Chocalate citys like ATL and DC and nothing like LAs crips and bloods? do you actually expect me to believe this?in reverse the entire chicano community in places like TEXAS AND ARIZONA AND ALL SOUTHWESTERN states have some very similiar forms of dress and style and gang culture ,but blacks dont ?get outta here with that!you are desperate --you say and refute everything back to the 30s and 40s, but there was a signifcant presence of chciano culture in LA and SAN ANTONIO AND EL PASO going back to the 1900s , yet we adapted zootsuits from harlem blacks,as your argument goes!although history says the pachuco culture is entirely mexican-american, ill still give you the right to argue on who started it seeing as how your whole argument on what chicano culture is ,comes from zootsuits,lol.EVEN THOUGH>>>>we had gangs ,mind you , in the 1900s ,that are with us today, and no PACHUCOS existed then............ and we appropriated whose style of dress then?.......

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 30th, 2009, 2:59 am

~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote:Surenos can talk about tats, lowriders, olde english writing and certain clothing items all they want to, but I as a black person can talk about street slang (not to be confused with calo); certain ebonicized words (e.g. lil', foo, stank, etc.); music (e.g. r&b, hip-hop, funk, blues, etc.); dances (e.g. breaking, pop-locking, etc.); physical gestures and mannerisms; hip-hop deejaying and scratching; zoot suits; and a host of other things that mexicans appropriated from black culture.
mayugastank, the first line above I believe is him giving credit, subtle but nevertheless giving dues. he said he's more on the defense because of him experiences, but acknowledged Chicanos contribution more in the last few posts then I ever recall. maybe you're not following what he's saying, look at the heart of the matter on what he wrote from a neutral perspective...



~J~.............................your not getting what THE REAL is doing.............he is saying in no hidden way that chicano culture is zootsuit culture,that without blacks zootsuits wouldnt exist !! so in other words without blacks ....chicano culture defined by zootsuits woudnt exist..............and without that influence the lowriding and tattoing and old english and everything we got wouldnt exist since it all started with zootsuits and zootsuits started with blacks!!!............dont let the guy fool you! in the plainest english.........chicano culture was created by blacks .period. READ WHAT HE IS SAYING AGAIN.....I countered everythig he has said I also pulled up old articles to show that the style of clothing zootsuits is entirely ours and started before what he is talking about---also I pointed out that chicano gangs go back 30 years farther then zootsuits, dont let him direct the discussion and dont let his half credits to chicanos , make you believe that in all reality he is saying we started via a completely BLACK-AFRICAN AMERICAN.....phenomen.........zootsuits.Cuz its BULLLLSHIT! we were here before that ,before zootsuits and before swing and jazz and whatever else he is saying we needed to thrive.GANG HISTORIANS show again and again that EAST LOS gangs have been around since the early 1900s. I have said throughout the whole argument that the only thing that matters as far as originators of LA street gang culture is to show who' had the oldest gang. NOTHING ELSE in this argument matters~to be an originator means to be the maker of something.........and we definetly originated this modern gang society in the USA.

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 30th, 2009, 2:59 am

~J~ wrote:
TheReal wrote:Surenos can talk about tats, lowriders, olde english writing and certain clothing items all they want to, but I as a black person can talk about street slang (not to be confused with calo); certain ebonicized words (e.g. lil', foo, stank, etc.); music (e.g. r&b, hip-hop, funk, blues, etc.); dances (e.g. breaking, pop-locking, etc.); physical gestures and mannerisms; hip-hop deejaying and scratching; zoot suits; and a host of other things that mexicans appropriated from black culture.
mayugastank, the first line above I believe is him giving credit, subtle but nevertheless giving dues. he said he's more on the defense because of him experiences, but acknowledged Chicanos contribution more in the last few posts then I ever recall. maybe you're not following what he's saying, look at the heart of the matter on what he wrote from a neutral perspective...



~J~.............................your not getting what THE REAL is doing.............he is saying in no hidden way that chicano culture is zootsuit culture,that without blacks zootsuits wouldnt exist !! so in other words without blacks ....chicano culture defined by zootsuits woudnt exist..............and without that influence the lowriding and tattoing and old english and everything we got wouldnt exist since it all started with zootsuits and zootsuits started with blacks!!!............dont let the guy fool you! in the plainest english.........chicano culture was created by blacks .period. READ WHAT HE IS SAYING AGAIN.....I countered everythig he has said I also pulled up old articles to show that the style of clothing zootsuits is entirely ours and started before what he is talking about---also I pointed out that chicano gangs go back 30 years farther then zootsuits, dont let him direct the discussion and dont let his half credits to chicanos , make you believe that in all reality he is saying we started via a completely BLACK-AFRICAN AMERICAN.....phenomen.........zootsuits.Cuz its BULLLLSHIT! we were here before that ,before zootsuits and before swing and jazz and whatever else he is saying we needed to thrive.GANG HISTORIANS show again and again that EAST LOS gangs have been around since the early 1900s. I have said throughout the whole argument that the only thing that matters as far as originators of LA street gang culture is to show who' had the oldest gang. NOTHING ELSE in this argument matters~to be an originator means to be the maker of something.........and we definetly originated this modern gang society in the USA.

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 30th, 2009, 1:16 pm

NOTHING ELSE in this argument matters~to be an originator means to be the maker of something.........and we definetly originated this modern gang society in the USA.


A lot of L.A. people seem to think that L.A. is the originator of modern gang banging. That's a huge exageration. Go to Chicago, the gangs there are not L.A. derived at all. They have a Mexican gang in Chicago called Latin Pachucos. That's about the full extent of L.A. gang influence in that town. Chicago is a major exporter of gang culture just like L.A.. The top gang in many Southern and Mid western cities is the Gangster Disciples and the top gang alliance in many Eastern, Southern and MidWestern cities is Folks. The top Latino gang in the Mid West, North East and in parts of the South is the Chicago based Latin Kings. Crips and Bloods in Eastern and Southern cities often rep 5 and 6 along with Bloods and Crips. They use stars and pitchforks to rep their affiliations.

Some of the founders of the L.A. black Crip/Blood culture had Chicago roots and brought Chicago-isms into the L.A. gang scene. The term "gang banging" itself comes from Chicago and was popularized in L.A. by Crips and Bloods. "hood" for neighborhood is also a Chicago slang term. I read a book a while back about the Black Stone Rangers (original BPS gang) written in 1968. They were using terms like "gang banging" and "hood" already years before L.A. gang culture broke out nation wide.

I would say modern gang banging is a blend of cholo, L.A. black Crip/Blood, Chicago gangbanger and NY hip-hop culture.

People tend to forget how influential the original NY hip hop/b-boy culture was on the world of US street gangs. Any gang with "crew" or "posse" in their name, any gang with a three word "phrase"name - Out For Action, Down In Action, We Don't Care - got it from NY hip hop culture. L.A. gangster rap wouldn't exist without the original NY rap blue print to work from.

~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 30th, 2009, 1:22 pm

mayugastank wrote:BLoods are quiet ,vicious--cunning and patient , how could a part of black culture so resemble my own?
This is something I wondered about. seem that Bloods were/are bind by more rules then Crips, closer to the honor the Cholo homeboys use to have or some still have. can you enlighten me on this?

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 30th, 2009, 4:42 pm

I’m going to break down much (not all) of Mayuga’s arguments in key themes that he seems to raise, and will address this portion of my back and forth with him in such a way, seeing as how folks have been sending me messages and emails, requesting that I make my posts more clearer and easier to read, by chopping them up into discernable sections, as oppose to going tit for tat, and line for line (I rather thought that was easier to understand; oh well).

Having done that, I can tell you that this cat is definitely certifiable, in the lunacy department, for in the end, I really don’t believe he truly believes what he’s preaching, and me stressing that is similar to me giving this potential loon, the benefit of the doubt. I mean if we were to give this cat a polygraph examination, to confirm whether he truly believes his mess, I’d bet you he’d fail like there’s no one’s business. This is highly apparent when he accuses me of claiming that black gangs in the 20’s, influenced Mexican gangs, when in reality, I never said that. Truth be told, I really don’t know what those black gangs had as a culture was from back in those days. I may have an idea-but I don’t know for sure (likewise, this cat can’t tell me what the alpines were wearing, prior to the Pachuco invasion). This is a trick utilized to venture off what I’ve been saying all along, which is something he can attempt to deny, but not totally deny, and that is-BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL GANG AND STREET CULTURE, FROM THE 80’S AND 90’S, IS WHAT HAS GREATLY INFLUENCED MODERN DAY SUR CULTURE, AND THIS FOOL KNOWS THIS, whether it be hip-hop/gangsta rap music, stacking, wearing big fat platinum or gold chains; being togged down in blue; so called “sur walking”; throwing the sets up, instead of down; utilizing black slang (like their pachuco ancestors); wearing sports jerseys as gang identifiers; posing for photographs with bandannas covering their faces; wearing bandannas around their necks; copying certain gestures and mannerisms from black folks; wearing throwback jerseys; etc.-oh yeah, MODERN DAY SUR CULTURE HAS TAKEN ALOT FROM BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL CULTURE.

And the regional differences I was giving in regards to black folks from the south, I mean I’m sorry nutty one, BUT I DON’T FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC. The fact of the matter is, black folks from different southern states, during the period of the great migration of black folks from the south, which lasted until 1965, chose different routes than, with some exceptions, black folks from Louisiana and Texas, predominantly, and Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, to bring up the rear. Black folks from the Carolinas or Georgia for instance, primarily ventured into New York. Blacks, let’s say from Ohio, predominantly come from black folks whose peeps are from Alabama, Georgia, or Kentucky, etc. Black folks residing in Mississippi for instance, mainly headed for Chicago, with a few folks from Louisiana. And yes, Chicago does have a history of having a strong gang presence; and yes FOOL, CHICAGO STILL HAVE BLACK GANGS, AND THEY ARE CONSTANTLY AT WAR KILLING EACH OTHER UP. Just because you don’t acknowledge them, or are ignorant of them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (I also find it interesting that cats like Geronimo Pratt, Huey Newton, Tookie Williams, Fred Hampton, and H.Rap Brown, were either born in Louisiana, or had parents from Louisiana, and whether rightly or wrongly, possessed that warrior spirit. This is what I mean by regional differences, because even when I lived in Louisiana briefly during the late 80’s, WHERE THEY WERE HARDLY ANY MEXICANS TO WRITE HOME ABOUT, Louisiana cats, especially from the New Orleans, WERE KNOWN AS BEING CRAZY AND READY TO FIGHT. They obviously brought that fighting spirit into Cali, and just because you’re a dumb ese, and can’t figure this out, or can’t relate, then hey-IT’S A BLACK THING, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND.)

But anyway, the point being is that the black southerners, despite being black, and one people, still had their own regional differences, which later influenced them in regards to the cultures they eventually formulated, in their respective regions. This is why you will have New York create rap music, and the wearing of leather jackets, and fat chains; whereas other regions of the country, with large black enclaves, hadn’t created hip-hop, etc., and wasn’t going to, because of their distinct regional differences, and what they’ve been exposed to. And if you can’t see this, it’s because you don’t want to see this; you’re a racist; or just-BATSHIIT CRAZY!

Then again, this is what happens when I’m dealing with a latently racist sur sympathizer, who’s strongly in denial.

Likewise, anyone reading my posts can see that I neeeeeeeeeever denied chicano influence upon L.A. street and gang culture, nor upon black street and gang culture. No the problem that this certifiable cat has with me, lies in the fact that I won’t give credit for eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything black folks created, in regards to their own distinct street and L.A. gang culture. You see, as a jealous and envious sur-HE WANTS IT ALL. And he implies, and sometimes borderline admits this, by claiming that because Mexican gangs were first, that automatically means that everything about black gang culture, via an honour system, ought to be credited to chicano culture. But oh, we can keep rap music. This is mighty big of him-YEAH RIGHT.

Well anyway, this is his problem with me, in that I won’t allow him to get away with such lies, truths, half-truths, and damn lies. As a matter of fact, this cat wouldn’t argue half of what he was saying in a live debate, with me, or anyone else, for fear of having his identity exposed as someone who doesn’t have their head screwed on right, especially as it relates to this issue.

I mean come on man, he accuses black folks of taking wing-tipped shoes from eses, as well as chucks, even though black folks aaaaaaall throughout this country, wore such footwear back in the day, and in some cases-NOW. Oh but I forgot, because Mexicans like this style of footwear, and because Mexican gangs were first-THEN EVEN THESE SHOES HAVE A CHICANO PATENT ON THEM! Hell pretty soon, ese cats like him will begin to claim that the underwear that black folks wear-CAME FROM CHICANOS, including the socks. Why? BECAUSE MEXICAN GANGS GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE EARLY 1900’S.

It’s like me saying that the wearing of bandannas around the wrists is a black gang creation; only for him to not only deny it, but to overlook that fact by saying what? You guessed it-ALL GANG CULTURE IN L.A. WAS CREATED BY CHICANOS, BEGINNING IN THE 1900’S. Again black folks, and fair minded Mexicans, what is he really saying in translation: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU CREATED THAT WAS UNIQUE TO L.A. GANG AND STREET CULTURE, AS LONG AS IT’S WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF L.A. COUNTY, AND IF BLACK FOLKS WEREN’T IN GANGS IN L.A., DURING THE 1900’S, EVERYTHING, I MEAN EVERYTHING THAT BLACK FOLKS HAVE, EVEN THAT WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLY BLACK IN ORIGINS-BELONG TO CHICANO GANG CULTURE.

This is what he’s really saying, once you peel away all of his filibusters, and truly engage him in his sophist arguments.

Anyway, enough of those little side issues, let’s get to the meat of his collective arguments, shall we?

Argument 1: Because Ese gangs were first (according to him, it was 1909), therefore aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of the street and gang culture you see out there nowadays, belong to ese gang culture, because the circular logic is-BECAUSE THEY WERE FIRST.

My response:

Again, I’m not disputing that ese gangs were first, even though there’s no evidence for me to base that fact on, other than what you’re putting forth, but I’m being a gentleman about it and taking your word, even though it may be suspect. But regardless of whether your claim is true or not, it still doesn’t negate from the very unique, and distinct, cultural nuances, flavour, and ethos, black folks provided to the L.A. street and gang landscape, which I have highlighted previously on this thread (for those new to this discussion, check out my previous threads on this post to get an idea of what I’m referring to) and other threads on this site.

In other words, bombarding me with information on the history of Mexican/chicano gangs, still doesn’t deal with this very reality (black folks distinct cultural contributions to L.A. street and gang culture, of which wouldn’t have been in existence, if left to eses alone), nor does it erase it away.

Argument 2: Ese gangs are the oldest gangs, therefore all of gang culture emanates from ese gangs, because black gangs no longer exist (like the Slaussons, and Gladiators):

My response:

What does that have to do with west coast gangsta rap, stacking, crip walking, zoot suits (oh don’t think I forgot about that one), holding up the blue and red rags as gang banners and emblem; black slang; oldies music; the wearing of blue or red sports jerseys as gang identifiers, and a host of other things that black L.A. street and gang culture contributed to L.A.?

I’ll tell you what-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Your constant claims about when ese gangs started in L.A. (or the status of black gangs in other cities, which I will address shortly) doesn’t have any bearing on the culture that succeeded them, that originated with black folks, as well as the origins of black gangs within L.A. Only a racist and supremacist fool, would claim that everything black folks have in L.A., in regards to gang and street culture, emanated from ese cats in the early part of the 20th century (i.e. 1909). This is some supreme buuuuuullshit, and I hope folks aren’t being duped, and taken in by this cat’s idiotic mantras of repeating the same thing long enough, to where you begin to believe his lies, which is something, truth be told, he fully doesn’t believe in (his lies-that is).

Black south central culture, as I’ve said before, have indeed borrowed certain elements of chicano culture (again, I never denied this), with a heavy deluge of their own (BLACK FOLKS) cultural ethos and baggage, to where that which was created was something so unique and distinct, to where eses weren’t ever going to get around to creating it, regardless of what they claim, or say-let alone some cats from 1909 would say.

In other words, just because shiit was started in 1909, doesn’t mean that new shiit hadn’t been added onto it, specifically as it relates to what black folks added onto the scene, which is something, AGAIN, that wouldn’t have been there, if left to ese culture alone.

Furthermore, what does the existence of the Gladiators and the Slaussons have to do with the 38th Street gang, and whether or not black gangs existed in L.A. since the 1920’s? And as far as the Slaussons and Gladiators go, if you decided to pick up a book and read, as well as do research, or check out docs like “Crips and Bloods: Made In America,” or “Bastards To the Party,” you would understand the sociological context of why these black gangs (the ones you’ve mentioned here) formed, and came into existence. Again, as I said before, so say I now and again, and that is-these black gangs and clubs that were formed, either in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, that preceded the crips, weren’t arrogating off of ese gang culture, nor did they come in existence because of eses, but was propelled into existence because of other external social forces, regardless of whether those forces were similar to eses and why they started their gangs.

I know that as a racist sur, you would like to think that black gangs came into existence by way of your people, and that they’re ruthless, because of your people (this cat even have the nerves to say the Panthers, who were founded in Oakland, got their bravery, and daring behaviour, from eses: NOW I KNOW THIS CAT HAS FALLEN OFF OF THE DEEP END, FOR HE’S JUST INSULTED EVERY BLACK MALE’S MASCULINITY UP IN HERE-but I’ll get to that shortly), for racist surs, and their racist sur sympathizers, are always trying to place their hands into the pot of black culture and creativity, to where they’ll become jealous and envious, if their story isn’t told, especially as it relates to L.A. black folks unique street and gang culture history.

Truth be told, the shit’s very psychotic if you truly think about it.

Moreover, here you are always talking about how black gangs from back in the day, in L.A., really don’t exist anymore, when the simple truth of the matter is, the Civil Rights and black power movements of the mid to late 60’s, squashed the momentum of most of these black gangs that were initially founded in order to fight against white supremacy and racist gang attacks by white gangs in those South Central enclaves, only to eventually turn on themselves, once the “white problem” was well taken care of. By the mid 60’s, black radical/power/conscious groups like the Panthers, Us, and the like, began to insert their pro-black nationalist views upon many of the gang members from the gangs you mentioned, to where they refocused and retooled their gang banging efforts, into conscious raising activities.

This is why many of these gangs faded from the landscape during the mid to late 60’s. Oh don’t get me wrong, you had other black gangs throughout the city of L.A., besides the gangs you mentioned, but I’m just sticking with the ones that have been highlighted in order to prove my point in this discussion, concerning their eventual dissolution. To make a loooooooooooooooong story short, by the close of the decade (60’s), many of the black empowerment/radical leadership were either killed, imprisoned, or neutralized, to where it left a vacuum within the black youth community, especially the black male youth community, for they no longer had older role models to look up to, or infrastructures to attach themselves onto. So what they did was form their own “organizations,” which eventually devolved into criminal enterprises/gangs. What these gangs did, in a nutshell, is corral many of the existing BLACK gangs under one umbrella, which was the CRIP umbrella and network of gangs.

Other independent black gangs throughout L.A. who didn’t want to fall for this, developed their own umbrella and gang network, in protest to the Crip gang monopoly, and referred to themselves as BLOODS! Crips chose the blue bandannas as their banner, whereas the bloods chose the red bandanna as their gang banner and emblem.

Now, even though this trip down history’s lane was an abridged version of the crips and bloods origins, it is still valuable when it comes to explaining why AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLL of the black gangs that were in existence prior to the crips and the bloods, throughout L.A., ARE NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE- BECAUSE THEY WERE ABSORBED BY THE CRIP AND BLOOD FEDERATION.

And mind you, in my abridged version of the origins of the crips and bloods, as well as in the long version, which can be gleaned from other sources-NO WHERE, BUT NO WHERE, HAVE ESES, CHICANO CULTURE, OR SUR GANGS, EVER CAME ON THE RADAR, IN REGARDS TO WHY THESE GANGS FORMED, OR CAME INTO EXISTENCE, OR WHY THEY WERE RUTHLESS, WHICH IN A PERVERTED WAY, IS AN INSULT TO BLACK MANHOOD, AS WELL AS AN UNDERHANDED RACIST BLOW.

This history is no different than, let’s say the history of the Alpines, which sur folklore and myths say go back until the turn of the century. I mean, is the Alpine gang still in existence? I’m sure there were other ese gangs, if they were in existence at the turn of the century, that no longer exist, because they had been absorbed, or taken over, by newer gangs, which is a social and historical reality for the history of black street gangs in L.A., and throughout the country, regardless of the ethnic, or racial makeup of the gangs.

NEEEEEEEEXT!

Argument 3: Ese gangs were founded in the 1900’s, therefore they never progressed in their cultural output, which suggests that the same culture, and clothing of ese gangs in the 1900’s, are the same culture and clothing of ese gangs in 2009, and the subsequent years in between, BECAUSE THE ESE GANGS IN THE 1900 WERE NOT ONLY FOUNDATIONAL, BUT THEY ORIGINATED EVERYTHING IN REGARDS TO GANG CULTURE, SO EVERYONE MUST BOW DOWN. (This argument suggests that times hadn’t changed, in regards to fashion and style, and that black folks were just dormant throughout their communities, in regards to producing anything unique, and distinct, street and gang culture, for the logic is, everything that was created, including crip walking, was created by ese gangs in the 1900’s, which only comes from the minds of lunatics.)

My response:

Riddle me this-WERE ESE GANGS HOLDING UP THE BLUE BANNER AS EMBLEMS BACK IN THE DAY; WERE THEY STACKING; WERE THEY “SUR WALKING;” DID THEY CREATE THE BLACK SLANG THAT YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS UTILIZE (not to be confused with calo); WERE THEY WEARING FAT GOLD, OR PLATINUM CHAINS; WERE THEY WEARING BLUE AND RED WINDBREAKERS AS GANG IDENTIFIERS; WERE THEY TOGGED DOWN IN BLUE; WERE THEY RAPPING, OR DID THEY CREATE RAP MUSIC, OR EVEN OLDIES FOR THAT MATTER; WERE THEY WEARING THE BANDANNA AS FACE MASKS; WERE THEY SPORTING THROWBACK JERSEYS, GALAXY SHIRTS, OR BLUE OR RED SPORTS JERSEYS BACK IN THE DAY; WERE THEY WEARING ZOOT SUITS; WERE THEY WEARING THEIR BANDANNAS AROUND THEIR WRISTS; WERE THEY WEARING THEIR BANDANNA AROUND THEIR NECKS; WERE THEY THROWING THEIR SETS UP IN THE AIR; ETC.?

I can answer that-HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO!

All of this, despite who had the oldest gangs in L.A., are what these newfangled modern day surs have acquired from black gangs in L.A. from the 80’s, and 90’s, namely the crips. The identity, the swagger, their style (modern day sur style) and gestures and mannerism, weren’t taken from their sur ancestors, nor some folks in 1909, who, if they were listening to music, was listening to Ragtime (black music), and/or mariachi, or ranchero music-NOT OLDIES, OR RAP MUSIC, WHICH IS APART BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL CULTURE, NOT ESE CULTURE.

As I said before, so say I now and again, and that is-MODERN DAY ESE CULTURE, IS NOTHING BUT A RIP OFF OF BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL CULTURE FROM THE 80’S AND 90’S, especially in light of the things I highlighted in the above.

So later for your theory, that just because Mexican gangs were first, AAAAAAAAAAAAALLL street and gang culture thus emanates from chicano gang culture, which is anti-intellectual, and an untenable position to hold-AND OUTRIGHT WACKY. You guys act as if time doesn’t pass, which allows some, or even in some cases, MOST shit to change, due to the times, demographic shifts, or cultural inputs from other races and ethnic groups.

Again, only a short-sighted, myopic thinking, racial chauvinistic fool would think otherwise.

Argument 4: All of pachuco culture, comes from San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, where there were no blacks, hence nothing came from black culture in those areas because of this; or anything significant, because ese gangs were the first gangs in L.A., going back to the 1900’s, and around, and around, and around we go.

My response:

Aaaaaaaah shiit! You done lost this one. First of all, as I’ve always argued, as well as any credible cultural historian has always argued, and that is- THE PACHUCO CULTURE THAT CAME OUT OF EL PASO AND SAN ANTONIO, OR WEST TEXAS, WAS ROOTED IN BLACK JAZZ CULTURE THAT PERMEATED THOSE AREAS. True enough, there weren’t hardly any black folks in those areas, BUT GUESS WHAT- DESPITE THAT PROBABLY BEING THE CASE, IT STILL DOESN’T NEGATE THE REALITY THAT THOSE BLACK FOLKS THAT WERE LIVING THERE, DID INDEED BRING THEIR OWN UNIQUE AND DISTINCT CULTURE WITH THEM.

What, you thought black folks were just going to live around a bunch of eses, and just kick back and listen to mariachi music? That’s like saying that the Chinese were going to just live around a predominant group of white folks, and give up Chinese food, and Kung Fu! LOL!

The fact of the matter is (and this is addressing that other post you put up on this thread, which you took from another site, concerning the history of pachucos and their donning of zoot suits, which is a post, by the way, I’m highly familiar with, and that your side constantly references-which I’m not impressed with in the least bit, especially for some of it’s historical inaccuracies, and the history they decide to leave out)-black folks brought their culture, rooted back east and in the parts of east Texas, as well as Louisiana and Tennessee (I mention Tennessee for a reason)- WHERE THERE WERE NO MEXICANS TO SPEAK OF TO INFLUENCE ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO BLACK CULTURE.

Oh you don’t believe me, then check out these excerpts from a piece on a black jazz musician from the 20’s and 30’s, by the name of Don Albert:

“Wilkinson said most historians trace the history of jazz from south to north, and ultimately to New York City. But here was a jazz musician (Don Albert) and bandleader who moved from New Orleans west to Texas. It was an aspect of jazz history that intrigued him.”

This piece also confirms that at the time of the 20’s and 30’s, San Antonio had a sizeable black population that could substantially support and appreciate black cultural expression:
“During several years of research, Wilkinson traced the movements of Don Albert and his band through 24 states in the eastern half of the country. A great deal of Wilkinson's research was in some of the leading African-American newspapers of the time, including the Pittsburgh Courier, the Chicago Defender, the San Antonio Register, and the Louisiana Weekly of New Orleans.”

Now you notice, this piece claims that the San Antonio Register-WAS A BLACK NEWSPAPER, COVERIN THIS BLACK JAZZ MUSICIAN’S CAREER!

Hmmmmmmmm…that’s interesting!!! I THOUGHT THERE WERE NO BLACK FOLKS TO SPEAK OF IN SAN ANTONIO, TO WHERE THEY COULDN’T INFLUENCE ESES AND WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS PACHUCO CULTURE?

What else does this piece, WRITTEN BY A WHITE MAN, intimate about the existence of black folks in San Antonio, concerning the propagation of black cultural expressions?

Well here it is:

“During Albert's later years as a San Antonio nightclub owner, he saw increasing racial animosity, which he resisted in 1951 by successfully defending his legal right to operate a racially integrated nightclub.

"Albert's later career as a club manager draws attention to two developments in American culture," Wilkinson said. "One was evolving race relations, and the other was the changing taste of music in the black communities of San Antonio. Big band music gave way to modern jazz, or bebop. But bebop had limited popularity because it was not dance music. Blacks in San Antonio were not interested in bebop and instead embraced rhythm and blues."

Now mind you, these excerpts say that Don Albert was a black club owner in San Antonio. These excerpts also discussed black San Antonians musical tastes from back in the day. Hmmmm…I wonder if your pachuco ancestors ever frequented these black clubs in San Antonio, and imbibed some of this black culture, in regards to how they dressed, acted, and carried on? Hmmmmm?

Not only that, the predominant music that characterizes the Pachuco, was not mariachi, rancheros, nortenas, or chicano rap (lol) BUT SWING MUSIC!!

And where did your San Antonio Pachuco ancestors get SWING MUSIC FROM IN SAN ANTONIO?

Check this out:

“Don Albert's SWING BAND built its reputation, in part, on arrangements of popular compositions, including several by Duke Ellington. By 1935, the northeast was beginning to take notice of Don Albert and his band when they performed in New Jersey and New York, and played in a revue called the Harlem Radio Follies. Some of the band's most popular songs, recorded in 1937, were the band's theme song "You Don't Love Me," "Sheik of Araby (With No Pants On)," "Deep Blue Melody," "Sunny Side of the Street," "Liza," "True Blue Lou," "Tomorrow," and their killer-diller number, "Rockin' and Swingin'."

http://www.ia.wvu.edu/~magazine/issues/ ... /jazz.html

Notice the caps for “SWING BAND”? Yes, yes, yes. Here was a black jazz musician, who majored in swing jazz, travelling throughout the east and Midwest, as well as Harlem, and being influenced by the black culture in Harlem. This culture, if you link the dots, was inevitably brought to the Southwest-BY WAY OF SAN ANTONIO, ONE OF THE PREMIER BREEDING GROUNDS FOR PACHUCO ORIGINATION.

Here’s an excerpt, from a brief history of Jazz culture (which propagated the black zoot culture east of El Paso and San Antonio) in El Paso:

“When you look closely at the legacy of jazz (black music and culture) in El Paso (SUPPOSED HOME OF THE PACHUCOS AND PACHUCO CULTURE) you can definitely recognize our community’s distinct contributions, passion for the myriad forms of jazz, and innovations to the blues (black music and culture) and beyond. Jazz never died in El Paso, it evolved here due to our community’s hybridity and innate talent.”

http://epmediagroup.com/culture/276-kee ... in-el-paso

Again, this article corroborates the fact that El Paso, along with San Antonio, at one time during the mid part of the last century, had a thriving black cultural influence, by way of the black Jazz culture, which inevitably influenced the Pachucos, because they preceded Pachucos.

Here’s more about the origins of the zoot suit, in regards to the culture it was born into, and what ethnicity/race:

“By the late 1930s (Mickey Garcia didn’t come on the scene until the 40’s, according to sur folklore and history), the term "zoot" was in common circulation within urban jazz (black) culture. Zoot meant something worn or performed in an extravagant style, and since many young blacks wore suits with outrageously padded shoulders and trousers that were fiercely tapered at the ankles, the term zoot-suit passed into everyday usage. In the sub-cultural world of Harlem's (black) nightlife, the language of rhyming slang succinctly described the zoot-suit's unmistakable style: 'a killer-diller coat with a drapeshape, real-pleats and shoulders padded like a lunatic's cell.”

http://clio.missouristate.edu/lwburt/te ... iots_2.htm

This is a good quote:

“The Zoot Suits began in the Big Band/ Jazz culture (black) and were mostly popularized by Jazz musicians.”

http://askville.amazon.com/origin-Zoot- ... Id=5832613

Check this quote out:

“Initially an African American youth fashion, closely connected to jazz culture, the zoot suit was co-opted by a generation of Mexican American kids, who made it their own.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/eng_s ... _zoot.html

On a sidenote, as I said before, so say I now and again, with the fear of sounding redundant, and that is Mayuga posts an article that eses always throw at me, when it comes to the origins of pachuco culture, and their wearing of zoot suits and other cultural accoutrements attached to it. In this article, that eses notoriously looooooooooove to use, it discusses how this one mythical ese cat, who folks have never seen before, neither are there any verifiable photos of this cat, BROUGHT the zoot suit fashion and pachuco culture, to El Paso.

In other words, the article says he BROUGHT, and not ORIGINATED-BIG DIFFERENCE, BUT THEY’RE STILL LYING, BECAUSE HE DIDN’T BRING SHIT IN REGARDS TO ZOOT SUITS, AT LEAST NOT TO BLACK FOLKS!

Well hell, don’t believe me, check out a portion of the article:

“Also in the 1940's (this year is key for what I’m about to bring), according to Sgt. Joe Guzman (now who’s this guy?), Mickey Garcia, a young boy from Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico migrated north and relocated in El Paso, Texas. He immediately joined a local Mexican street gang called the /Secundo Barrio./ Garcia also BROUGHT (keyword negroes and eses reading this) with him a unique style of dress, INITIALLY THOUGHT TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN MEXICO.”

Now you tell me-WHY WAS THE ZOOT SUIT “INITIALLY THOUGHT TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN MEXICO?” It’s because that was probably the lies that certain eses were propagating to the world, HOWEVER, to say that it “INITIALLY” was “THOUGHT TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN MEXICO,” overtly and explicitly implies what? THAT RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT IT DIDN’T ORIGINATE IN MEXICO, BUT AMONGST BLACK FOLKS, NAMELY BLACK JAZZ MUSICIANS, WHO EXPORTED TO SAN ANTONIO, AND EL PASO, VIA THE BLACK COMMUNITIES THAT EXISTED IN THESE CITIES, AS WELL AS THE CULTURE THESE BLACK RESIDENTS BROUGHT WITH THEM-JAZZ CULTURE

Oh, but you are still sceptical, in that you refuse to tie the pieces together.
Well okay. Then check this out-the mythological, Mickey Garcia character, SUPPOSEDLY brought the zoot suits into El Paso, in the 1940’s, and introduced it to the Mexicans right? Okay, okay, and if this myth of a character introduced/brought the zoot suit to the eses in the 40’s-WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, OR IMPLY? IT MEANS THAT ZOOT SUITS WERE IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE ESES IN EL PASO, AND SAN ANTONIO, BEING EXPOSED TO IT, IN THE 1940’S, RIGHT? Of coooooooooooooooourse!

Where were they in existence? Well-let me show you mayne:

“The suit rose to popularity within the jazz community of Harlem in the mid-1930s.”

http://www.ehow.com/about_5110469_defin ... -suit.html

Check out this quote too:

“The zoot suit first came in the African American jazz civilization in Harlem, New York, and was soon accepted by alternative communities in other American cities, particularly Los Angeles.”

https://www.redtagsuits.com/zoot_suits.html

Now mind you, in one of the above quotes, it says that zoot suits were in existence since the mid 30’s. Some sources say late 30’s, but regardless of when-BLACKS WERE SPORTING THE ZOOTS SINCE THE 30’S, WITH IT’S ACCOMPANYING JAZZ AND SWING CULTURE, AND ALL THAT IT ENTAILS, WHEREAS THE ESES ONLY GOT HIP TO THIS OUTFIT, ACCORDING TO THIS BELOVED ARTICLE THAT MANY ESES, UNIVERSALLY, WILL USE AGAINST ME, IN THE (AHEM)-1940’s…

But yeah, er, uh, remember-ESES CREATED THE ZOOT SUIT, AND THE PACHUCO CULTURE, WHICH DIDN’T HAVE ANY BLACK CULTURAL INFLUENCES, IN REGARDS TO THE WALK, THEIR SWAGGER (yeah, I’m saying it), DRESS, SLANG, AND MUSIC.

YEEEEEEEAAAH RIGHT!

Check out this quote concerning what black culture wrought upon the pachuco:

“The panchucos represented "a rebellious youth culture among Chicanos. Arturo Madrid-Barela describes how the Pachuco became a symbol of resistance against the homogenizing effects of assimilation (Madrid Barela 1973). He notes that the Pachucos' style is derived from elements of urban black culture, such as their suits and the music they listened to…”
http://www.enotes.com/zoot-suit/q-and-a ... riots-3324

Mickey Garcia, WHO?

Check out this quote from the same article:

“Throughout the 1930s (the 30’s and not the 40’s, when this Mickey Garcia cat supposedly came on the scene with the zoot suits), zoot suits distinguished those who wore them as part of the black jazz community (not the ese communities of San Anton and El Paso) that flourished in Harlem nightclubs and speakeasies. Later (operative word here), poor and working-class Mexican-American youth called "pachucos," proudly wore their zoot suits on the streets of Los Angeles to set them apart from the masses and to express themselves as Mexican-Americans.”

http://www.ehow.com/about_5110469_defin ... -suit.html

Check these excerpts out as well:

“The word zoot was known within the urban jazz culture (black culture) of Harlem, and it meant something either exaggerated in performance or in style. Many African-Americans (not your peeps from San Anton, or El Paso) wore an extravagant style of clothing, the baggy pegged pants and jackets with padded shoulders, that later became known as the zoot suit.”

“Prominent black (not chicano) entertainers wore the zoot suit, such as Cab Calloway, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Duke Ellington. Ellington performed at the Orpheum in Los Angeles in 1941 and 1942 (when did the zoot suit riots occur?)…”

http://books.google.com/books?

id=v72wKX9I6lgC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=pachuco+and+african+american+culture&source=bl&ots=eZfXwKGwBs&sig=dL-oXmOFI04we6yIF8ndPuWythk&hl=en&ei=nLZxSqvnN5LuMaKt9bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

Oh, and by the way, this above quote was taken from a book entitled, “CHICANO FOLKLORE,” written by RAFAELA CASTRO, a chicano: ONE OF YOUR PEEPS!

Here are some more random excerpts I thought was befitting of checking out, concerning black influence on pachucos:

“The pachucos integrated their own slang, a hybrid of Spanish-English dialect, into the language of the zoot suit subculture (which was African-american derived). Combined with the swing language of the African American jazz culture, it became known as jive talk.”

This quote is taken from Eradication of a Subculture by J. Brown

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37

Here’s a June 9, 1943 article excerpt from the “Evening Independent,” in regards to the origins of the zoot suit:

“The current fad (of wearing the zoot suit) started, they add, in Harlem (synonymous at the time for black folks and black culture), and spread to other sections of the country.”

This article also gives another reason for the possible origins of the zoot suit:

“Another theory is that jitterbugs inspired tailoring (what, not eses?) of tight cuffs because wide bottom trousers were a definite trip and fracture hazard in their rug cutting (this means dancing, eses and negroes).”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9 ... 41,4672239

Now I posted excerpts from this article for several reasons, 1) this article was produced around the time of the zoot suit riots, and 2) it confirmed the black origins of the zoot suits, and not chicano myth origins; and 3) it highlighted a dance that was created by blacks, and not eses, which many felt this type of suit was acclimated towards: THE JITTERBUG!

Oh you don’t think the jitterbug was a dance with black imprint in the swing community? THEN CHECK THIS OUT:

“The history of swing dates back to the 1920's, where the black community, while dancing to contemporary Jazz music, discovered the Charleston and the Lindy Hop.”

Or this excerpt from the same article:

“In the mid 1930's, a bouncy six beat variant was named the Jitterbug by the band leader Cab Calloway when he introduced a tune in 1934 entitled "Jitterbug".

With the discovery of the Lindy Hop and the Jitterbug, the communities began dancing to the contemporary Jazz and Swing music as it was evolving at the time, with Benny Goodman leading the action. Dancers soon incorporated tap and jazz steps into their dancing.”


Read more: http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcoun ... z0MlKWCzKO

Hey ese, check this out, concerning the jitterbug and swing dancing:

“The jitterbug (initially called the "hop") first became popular in the 1920's, although its popularity was limited primarily to Harlem (black folks).”

As well as this excerpt from the same article:

“From the early days of the "hop" until the mid-1930's, the mainstream of jazz music and swing/lindy/jitterbug dancing was developed and defined in the United States by African -Americans.”

http://www.bobethomas.com/history/history_lindy.htm

These excerpts come from articles that discuss the origins of the Jitterbug, as having a black imprint, and not ese imprint, and that the swing dancing, commonly known as jitterbugging, was tailor made for the black cultural dress phenomenon-KNOWN AS THE ZOOT SUIT! And guess what, pachucos, wearing zoot suits, speaking black inspired slang, walking black, and giving dap and skin like black folks-ENGAGED IN SWING DANCING AS WELL!

And there was also swing dance clubs in El Paso, during the 1930’s, which influenced eses who imbibed all of this black jazz culture, waaaaaaay before this mythological character Mickey Garcia came on this scene, which establishes El Paso, as I said earlier about San Antonio-WITH HAVING A BLACK PRESENCE, THAT PRODUCED A BLACK CULTURE, THAT WOULD LATER INFLUENCE PACHUCO CULTURE!

So let’s connect the dots. If there was swing dancing, and swing music, art forms created and inspired by black jazz culture, during the 1930’s in El Paso, and if the state of Texas itself had a strong black jazz culture-WHERE DO YOU THINK THOSE PACHUCOS FROM TEXAS, NAMELY EL PASO AND SAN ANTONIO, GOT THEIR STYLE OF DRESS, GESTURES AND MANNERISMS, DAP AND SO FORTH FROM? I’ll tell you where, they got it from-BLACK FOLKS, SEEING AS HOW THERE WERE BLACK FOLKS LIVING IN SAN ANTON, AND EL PASO DURING THE 30’S, WITH THEIR BLACK CULTURAL OUTLETS, THAT INEVITABLY INSPIRED THE CREATION OF PACHUCO CULTURE.


Oh you don’t believe me about Jazz being an influence in El Paso during the 30’s, by way of Swing? Then check this out:

“Bill Toering, a longtime resident of El Paso, says, “We all danced to swing, but sometimes you were so relaxed your feet didn’t move at all. You just moved your upper body while your feet stayed put.”

And mind you, this cat was talking about the 1930’s! But let’s move on further into this article, concerning black culture in El Paso as it relates to the 40’s-THE TIME PERIOD OF WHEN THIS MICKEY GARCIA FIGURE, JUMPS ON THE SCENE IN EL PASO:

“El Paso had its own Golden Age of swing. George Reynoso, owner of All That Music in Lee Trevino Plaza, has a home movie narrated by Federico Gonzalez which traces the El Paso connection.

The movie shows that Louis Jordan and his band, Tympani Five, and Big Joe Turner, the great blues shouter, played and sang in El Paso during the early forties. Jordan was so impressed by the railroad sounds he heard at the El Paso train station that he wrote “Choo, Choo, Ch’Boogie.” The song sold over a million copies and ushered in a series of records for Jordan.”

http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlan ... _Music.htm

In case you didn’t know, Louis Jordan, and Big Joe Turner-WERE BLACK!

Let’s not stop there; let’s delve more into this article concerning black jazz/swing music, and how the culture influenced El Paso, which proves that there was a black presence there, as well as black cultural presence, which ultimately influenced pachuco culture in EL PASO:
“Like other young fans of the swing music craze, students at the old Bowie High School were called “cats,” short for “hepcats,” slang for people listening and dancing to music of that time. The students would frequent local establishments such as the Cortez, Hilton and the El Paso Del Norte hotels to listen to their favorite bands.

In honor of the students from Bowie, Jordan wrote a boogie-woogie style song about “a gal waiting for me in El Paso.” It was titled the “T. P. Special,” T. P. standing 00for the Texas Pacific Railroad. The person in the song was West Texas bound. Together he and his girl would “cross the border and honeymoon in Juárez.”

“South El Paso dance establishments included the Hollywood Café, the Venice (now the Acapulco Café & Bar) and the Old California, current location for the National Dry Goods Company. Impromptu jam sessions were common at the Whoo’s Club at 300 S. Mesa St. and at the Esquire Club. Mail carriers would congregate at the red Star Bar on Saturday nights and listen to Xavier Solis’s Latin big bands sounds.”

http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlan ... _Music.htm

Here’s another link to Pachucos and swing music:

“Pachucos listened to swing, boogie, and mambo (black) music...”

Here’s another quote from the same book:

“Pachucos adopted the oversized business suits worn by African Americans in Harlem, New York...”

These quotes were taken from a book entitled, “Mexico and the United States,” by Lee Stacy.

This quote here is from an internet piece that discusses Don Totsi, a mexican swing and jazz musician from back in the day. Here’s what this quote has to say in a piece where he was being interviewed:

“Tosti, who counts himself as one of only a handful of Mexican Americans to succeed in the big band jazz scene, had tapped into the powerful new culture of the pachucos, or so-called "zoot-suiters."

And where did this “powerful new culture” spring from? Well this quote here will tell it all:

“ They were the first wave of young Latinos (eses/Mexicans/ )to assert themselves in American popular culture, adopting the HEPCAT STYLE (black style and swagger, but yet this ese’s going to tell black folks that we got our “swagger” and style from them) and FLASHY CLOTHING (zoot suits) of SWING (black derived art form) musicians such as Cab Calloway (A BLACK MAN).”

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/music/pac ... oid=283741

So as you can see ese, Pachuco culture, even though it was derived from San Antonio and El Paso, still had a black hand, or imprint upon it, that was, and is undeniable, which tears this guy apart to the core, because he really thought he had something, when it came to the Mickey Garcia thing. All this shows me, is that his argument lacks credibility, and that he is also willing to lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, in order to prove his point, hence he lacks credibility.
You can disagree with me all you want, but I’ve never lied, or intentionally lied, even if there’s a possibility that I may have been wrong.

In essence, black gangs have indeed created their own distinct and unique gang culture, in L.A., that wasn’t going to wait on ese surs, even though this is what this fool would like for us to believe. The truth of the matter is, regardless of when ese gangs hit the scene, it still doesn’t take away from black gang, and street contributions to L.A. culture, which I’ve outlined, and which he hasn’t dared to deny, other than to look past them, in a maudlin type of way, to the history of chicano gangs and their legacy.

Again, he feels that just because ese gangs were first, that mean they have created eeeeeeeeverything, and that black gangs aren’t original in anything, even though he himself can’t prove that eses created, that which black folks created. Surs, and their sympathizers are some curious and psychopatic individuals. You can list a beaucoup of street shit that eses didn’t create in L.A., but yet they won’t credit black folks for it, only because of a warped, degenerate and wacky argument they will always circuitously use: WE WERE THE FIRST GANGS, THEREFORE ANYTHING YOU CREATED IN REGARDS TO STREET CULTURE, WE DEMAND TRIBUTE, WHICH IS TOTAL TAKEOVER.

Another thing, this fool really thinks he’s saying something when he claims that black Ogs (oh by the way, the term “OG,” is a black term, not an ese term; eses originally and exclusively used the term “veterano;” OG is black street vernacular) gave credit to certain aspects of Chicano culture, when it comes to their gang influences. HELL, what else is new-I’VE EVEN REPEATEDLY GAVE CREDIT TO ESES FOR CERTAIN GANG INFLUENCES, ON THIS THREAD, AND ON OTHER THREADS!

But the problem this nutcase obviously has with me, lies in the fact that I’M NOT GIVING EVERYTHING TO HIS PEOPLE, and that I am acknowledging the fact that there are unique and distinct elements and contributions, that black folks throughout L.A., have wrought upon L.A.’s street and gang culture-which he is horrified to admit to, for whatever sur reason and sensibilities.

And for the record, I did indeed say that black folks, especially my relatives, wore dickies, pendleton shirts and khakis, and utilized bandannas, with no ties to what chicanos were doing. I even stated that my old relatives, or black folks in general, wore, and wear tank tops, chucks, sweat shirts and army belts-BUT I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT BLACK FOLKS WERE THE FIRST TO CODIFY THIS GEAR AS CHOLO GEAR, OR GANG GEAR. I’ve always given credit to eses, on the codification of this gear for their culture, but won’t ever give them credit for creating this gear, or being the first and only folks to wear this gear.
Hell, eses didn’t create the zoot suit, but they codified this clothing item within their culture, thus it’s the same with many of the clothing items they favor, or want to hold claim to (i.e. sweat shirts, and wing tipped shoes, like other folks, or black folks for that matter, don’t wear these types of clothing).

As I said to him before, so say I now and again, and that is-there’s going to come a time, when looney surs and sur sympathizers like this cat, will start to claim the wearing of underwear and socks, as a cholo thing, even using the iron, to where if black folks wear some drawers, and some socks, then they’re trying to be chicano. YOU GO FIGURE!

Moreover, as I said in a previous post about not wanting to repeat myself, but will do so if I have to, especially on certain topics of discussion, well the same thing applies to when it comes to black gangs in other cities. I will suggest that folks reread my entire postings on this thread, in regards to black gangs in other cities, and what I said about them, for my main focus isn’t on black gangs from other cities, and why they exist, or don’t exist (actually, there are black gangs in other cities; and this nut would know this, if he took his head out of his sur sympathizing anal cavity). Hell, look at shows like “Gangland,” or “American Gangster,” if you want to know about black gangs in other cities, which do exist. I’m concentrating on L.A., for anything else would be filibustering. (Oh and by the way, I’m from Oakland, and this city has had its’ share of gangs, going all the way back to the 70’s; black gangs like the “Cowboys,” “The AC Mob,” “Broadway Hustlers,” etc. You also had black criminal drug enterprises ran by black drug kingpins like Mickey Moore, and Felix Mitchell. But like in those other cities, the leadership had been dealt a heavy blow, either through incarceration, murder, or aggressive government or city takedowns, which leaves them open for crip and blood takeovers.)

This segues into this cat’s hideous and cold hearted racist insult, and attack into black manhood. This fool is claiming that black folks don’t have any heart, and that the only heart we do have-IS BECAUSE IT COMES FROM MEXICANS! WHAT THE FUUUCK????? This racist sur sympathizer, even have the nerves to claim that the only reason why the Black Panthers were bold and fearless-WAS BECAUSE OF THE BROWN BERETS, WHICH WERE AN ESE OUTFIT THAT WAS FORMED AFTER THE PANTHERS!

Racist fool, when the Panthers formed in October of 1966, in Oakland, brandishing guns-THEY DIDN’T NEED CHICANOS IN OAKLAND, NOR L.A., TO INSPIRE THEM, DAMN FOOL IDIOT! They came up with that line of thinking and philosophy, all on their own. If anything, they were influenced by the teachings of Malcolm X (and Mao Tsetung), who died a year before their founding. Malcolm X advocated that black folks form gun clubs, in order to defend themselves against racist whites in the South, or law enforcement. And guess what-MALCOLM DIDN’T NEED ANY MEXICANS TO ASSIST HIM WITH THIS PHILOSOPHY!

And as far as linking up with the eses in L.A., via the Brown Berets (Black Panther imitators if you ask me, especially with the beret thing), that didn’t do all that much good, for the Panthers. But I’ll be gracious and give the Berets their just due and props, because they did represent for their peeps, and did work with the Panthers, albeit symbolically, as well as with SNCC in certain efforts in the state of Texas. But having said all of that-THE BLACK PANTHERS DIDN’T GET THEIR BRAVERY AND HEART FROM THESE BERETS, OR ANYTHING DEALING WITH CHICANO CULTURE, FOR TO SAY THAT IS RACIALLY INSENSITIVE, IN THAT YOU’RE OVERLOOKING THE STRUGGLES OF BLACK FOLKS DURING THE 60’S, THAT LED TO THEM INOT BECOMING GRADUALLY MORE ASSERTIVE AND BOLD.

So are you telling me then that Muhammad Ali had heart, and possessed a warrior spirit, because he was raised around mexicans in Louisville?? Are you telling me that Nat Turner killed those entire slave owners, waaaaaaay back in the day, because he was living around some mexicans on the plantation? Are you going to tell me that the warrior spirit that possessed the “Deacons for Defense”, in rural Louisiana, was there, because these black cats, in rural Louisiana, was living amongst mexicans at the time? Or how about Malcolm X; Elijah Muhammad; the black WW1 soldiers who took up arms and went into a white city and began shooting the place up, because of the brutal racism they were experiencing; or how about George Jackson; Geronimo Pratt; Huey Newton; Stokely Carmichael, and the like-ARE YOU REALLY THAT DEMENTED TO WHERE YOU’RE GOING TO CLAIM THEIR BRAVERY AS BIPRODUCTS OF CHICANO CULTURE??

If this is what you’re truly saying, then you are really a royal dumbazz, and I feel sorry for any black person taken in by you.

The truth of the matter is, and putting all BS aside, black folks didn’t need eses to have heart then, or now. Harriett Tubman, who was a slave with a bounty on her head, didn’t need mexican inspiration to go into the south and free over 300 of her enslaved folks. Frederick Douglass didn’t consult with mexicans, when at the age of 16 years old, he beat the shiit out of his slave master, then escaped to freedom. Nor did those enslaved black folks in the early 1700’s, need to consult with mexicans (there were no mexicans around), when they took part in the Stono Rebellion, nor those black civil war soldiers of the 54th Massachussetts, who stormed Battery Wagner, need mexican inspiration and consultation, in order to invoke their bravery.

Denmark Vessey, Gabriel Prosser, Dessalines and Touissant L’Overture in Haiti, didn’t need your peeps in order to have heart, and be ruthless in striking a blow for freedom, LET ALONE BLACK FOLKS INVOLVED IN THE CRIMINAL WORLD. Fuuck gangs fool, look at cats like Frank Lucas, Nickey Barnes, Fat Cat Nichols, the El Rukns (these cats wanted to purchase military weaponry and do a 911, before their leadership was busted up; which was damn foolish in my book). All these individuals were ruthless, and you have plenty of black ruthless fools across this nation (not that this is something to brag on), who commit terribly heinous and fearless crimes, whether they be in crews, gangs, or as individuals.
So naw man, what you said was insulting, because again, you’re implying that black folks, especially black men as a whole-HAVE NO HEART; but you’re using a gang narrative in order to hide your true intentions.

Surs and bloods don’t have anything in common, other than the fact that they hate the crips. Just because you are fascinated and amazed that bloods can get wicked with their shiit, then fool, you ought to travel more. Go to Miami, and visit little Haiti, and try to test those fools. Hell, you seem to always want to poo-poo Chicago gangs, but go out there and visit them, in their hoods, and say FUUCK THE DISCIPLES, and see how long you’ll last!
I have relatives, who are bloods, and there’s no love between bloods and surs, and if you’re fascinated by their ruthlessness and shiit, then why not just give them credit as stand alone ruthless gangsters? Why do you have to get all racist with yours, by claiming that chicanos gave these black knuckleheads, or black men-their bravery? And regardless of how you spin it, I’m sorry-BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE SAYING AT THE CORE.

Not every human masculine trait that black folks have, that are similar to your peeps, mean we got it from you guys. Just because black folks listen to oldies music (which much of it is our music), don’t mean we’re trying to be you, or that we got it from you.

Sur folks are too racially obsessed with what black folks do, and think sooooooooooooo little of black folks, and so supremacist against black folks, to where they don’t even want to conceive that black folks have heart, apart from them.

Black men reading my words, despite how this clown will try and come on and clean this shit up, I’ve just revealed this cat’s true feelings on this one here. Surs can’t believe we can do anything, or should do anything, without them. This is why they constantly want to claim we don’t have a culture, or at the very least-WE HAVE NO DISTINCT STREET AND GANG CULTURAL NUANCES, THAT WE CONTRIBUTED TO L.A., but yet this cat has the nerve to call me a racist, because I expose him-MAN GET OUT OF HERE!

And hell yeah Pachuco culture preceded what is today known as modern chicano/cholo culture. I don’t care what you claim folks were wearing in the Sleepy Lagoon photographs, because in none of the photos I saw from this trial, was anyone wearing pendleton shirts, or distinct dickies clothing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they didn’t wear this type of clothing, outside of what I see in the photographs from this trial, but what I am saying is that what we now know as modern chicano/cholo style-THAT SHIT CAME AFTERWARDS.
Prior to the eses wearing the zoot suits, they were just wearing the clothing items of the time, no more, no less.

Oh you don’t believe me, when I talk about the modern day chicano/cholo.
Well let’s go to some evidence that’s hard to refute (remember, this idiot claimed that surs were in existence since 1909):

“In the 50s, many of the Chicanos that had fought in WWII decided that they would not return to the America the left, but asserted that they would dedicate their lives to fighting the injustices they had suffered before going to war. The seed was planted and Pachucos led the way to the formation of the Chicano Movement of the 60s.”

http://chicanismo.blogspot.com/2005/12/ ... ities.html
And remember, this article was written by one of your peeps, ERNEST M. SAENZ.

Or how about this piece of evidence:

“By the end of the 1960’s, Chicano gang members adopted a new style of clothing, talking, moving, tattooing, and making graffiti, which was inherited from the pachuco style and was called cholo.”

“Encyclopedia of gangs” by Louis Kontos, David Brotherton, page 165

Or check out this piece that highlights how modern day chicano/cholo culture came about:

“The pachuco subculture declined in the 1960s, evolving into the Chicano style which preserved some of the pachuco slang while adding a strong political element characteristic of the late 1960s in American life.

“In the early 1970s, due to recession and the increasingly violent nature of gang life resulting in an abandonment of anything that suggested dandyism, Mexican-American gangs adopted a uniform of T-shirts and khakis derived from prison uniforms, and the pachuco was truly dead.”

http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/pachuco.htm

Or how about this quote:

“The pachuco is the precur- sor to the bato loco, the cholo,”

Nation and Translation: The "Pachuco" in Mexican Popular Culture: German Valdez's Tin
Tan, by Javier Duran
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 35, No. 2

So naw fool-GO KICK ROCKS! You really have lost all credibility with your sophist BS-and I'm trying to be nice and civil, in saying this shiit.

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 30th, 2009, 4:49 pm

~J~ wrote:
mayugastank wrote:BLoods are quiet ,vicious--cunning and patient , how could a part of black culture so resemble my own?
This is something I wondered about. seem that Bloods were/are bind by more rules then Crips, closer to the honor the Cholo homeboys use to have or some still have. can you enlighten me on this?
I know more about this, seeing as how I have connections with the bloods, via family ties, and others.

Regardless of what this racist nut mayuga will say, who doesn't believe black men have any heart, in and of themselves, without the aid of mexicans-bloods have more of a siege mentality, more so than crips, in that bloods are surrounded by hostile forces of blue, both from the crips who greatly outnumber them, and the surs. Therefore this supposed "cholo" honor is pertinent to survival, for even though they're smaller, they have to make their presence known, in order to survive.

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 30th, 2009, 4:55 pm

Silencioso wrote:NOTHING ELSE in this argument matters~to be an originator means to be the maker of something.........and we definetly originated this modern gang society in the USA.


A lot of L.A. people seem to think that L.A. is the originator of modern gang banging. That's a huge exageration. Go to Chicago, the gangs there are not L.A. derived at all. They have a Mexican gang in Chicago called Latin Pachucos. That's about the full extent of L.A. gang influence in that town. Chicago is a major exporter of gang culture just like L.A.. The top gang in many Southern and Mid western cities is the Gangster Disciples and the top gang alliance in many Eastern, Southern and MidWestern cities is Folks. The top Latino gang in the Mid West, North East and in parts of the South is the Chicago based Latin Kings. Crips and Bloods in Eastern and Southern cities often rep 5 and 6 along with Bloods and Crips. They use stars and pitchforks to rep their affiliations.

Some of the founders of the L.A. black Crip/Blood culture had Chicago roots and brought Chicago-isms into the L.A. gang scene. The term "gang banging" itself comes from Chicago and was popularized in L.A. by Crips and Bloods. "hood" for neighborhood is also a Chicago slang term. I read a book a while back about the Black Stone Rangers (original BPS gang) written in 1968. They were using terms like "gang banging" and "hood" already years before L.A. gang culture broke out nation wide.

I would say modern gang banging is a blend of cholo, L.A. black Crip/Blood, Chicago gangbanger and NY hip-hop culture.

People tend to forget how influential the original NY hip hop/b-boy culture was on the world of US street gangs. Any gang with "crew" or "posse" in their name, any gang with a three word "phrase"name - Out For Action, Down In Action, We Don't Care - got it from NY hip hop culture. L.A. gangster rap wouldn't exist without the original NY rap blue print to work from.
Again, brilliant information. But truth be told, arguing with a certifiable loon like Mayuga, who has intentionally blinded himself in regards to this particular discussion, is like casting your pearls before swine, or trying to teach a dog how to breakdance. This cat can say whatever he wants to say about me, and fool as many people as he want to, but the fact of the matter is-this cat has an agenda, that supercedes, and ignores the truth.

How so? Well, if the truth gets in the way of his agenda, and how he wants to view certain things, then truth be damned-IT'S ALL ABOUT HIS TWISTED INTERPRETATION ON THINGS.

So again, another brilliant, and enlightening post, but unfortunately, fools won't catch what you're saying, because they're so steeped in their own racial chauvinism to the forest from the trees.

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 30th, 2009, 9:59 pm

TheReal wrote:
~J~ wrote:
mayugastank wrote:BLoods are quiet ,vicious--cunning and patient , how could a part of black culture so resemble my own?
This is something I wondered about. seem that Bloods were/are bind by more rules then Crips, closer to the honor the Cholo homeboys use to have or some still have. can you enlighten me on this?
I know more about this, seeing as how I have connections with the bloods, via family ties, and others.

Regardless of what this racist nut mayuga will say, who doesn't believe black men have any heart, in and of themselves, without the aid of mexicans-bloods have more of a siege mentality, more so than crips, in that bloods are surrounded by hostile forces of blue, both from the crips who greatly outnumber them, and the surs. Therefore this supposed "cholo" honor is pertinent to survival, for even though they're smaller, they have to make their presence known, in order to survive.





okay now since you called me a dumb ese...i guess that would make you an arrogant uppity black man with no sense of what you are or who your people are ! uppity ---meaning a person who is nothing thinking he is something.>>who would have wanted to be black in the times you name ? getting spit on --assasinated for whistling at a woman, slapped around and then thrown in jail for sticking up for yourselves to the point were a a whole generations of generations of black people were taught to just sit back and take it !!!living on the same slave plantations your grammys worked on ----till what 1960? after some 200 years of living in this country it took white men fighting white men to free you?and we imitated THAT??? what the phuggg for ? if you wanna get ignorant and call names we can really get ignorant in this BItch!!you didnt have shit in LA , nothing !! fake fronting ass crips and bloods , just casually wearing the same colors the oldest mexican gangs do, just casually wearing the same dickies -tattoos, head gear and style ?? not copying shit fom us ? all your shits original..........pffft!!! you dont have a thing !! you dont have anything outside of LA that resembles LA --get outta here with black gangs in CHI ---cuz they arent a thing compared to what gang life in LA is , they dont even go at it anymore just a simply ass fad that got a ton of people killed but got shut down as quick as they sprung up!NYC ---yea , go watch more TV , fools in NY had to copy LOS to get any idea what it really means to be gangsters....you guys have a fad , we have a generations of generations of history .........you are seriously denying our history ---but your people aint got shit like we do and the only reason the crips and bloods even resemble us so much and no one other black gang in the nation does is cuz you fools are biters--imitators, getting the thug life like TUPAC across the stomache when ONLY we ever did shit like that ---the game teardrops and all the other GANGSTER RAPPERS.lol!!!fuck you guys dont come up with your own shit?? why you gotta get all the tattoos we do then claim you guys invented them pathetic asses!!stop bitingoff us and go copy the whites or something ------the same way you see mexican rappers is how i see snoop dogg and every other black dude on A&E specials talking about GANGSTA this and That , yet getting the work we do all tatted on them ---claiming and singing its a black thing !!FLORIDA AND NY were the fuck are your old school gangs?? man you make me sick ---MEXICANS ARENT PUERTO RICANS ---we dont need shit from you!go teach them how to wear their pants half dragging off their asses and put on fake gold teeth ---cuz we never picked it up cuz it looked like shit--------yet you guys bit off us cuz our shit was tight ---but even then you guys fucked it up by getting our style and trying to give it your flavor and making it look all sloppy!! and those tattoos ,man just let us pick them out for you------cuz you gusy are fucking it all up ---you cant even pick out some sick work when you got ESEs to do it for you ---all you had to do was pick out some tight shit ........yet you fools went and fucked that all up by getting microphones and satcks of money tatted on you like some dumbasses, what th fuck would you do that for ? shwo some class and get those dragging ass boxers covered up, get that pick out our hair and stop telling people THATS HOW GANGSTERS dress cuz you making all gangsters (ones taht came B4 you) look like some wankstas and suckas!! get back to singing and shit like making us laugh and quit fucking up, and making dysfunctional shit we started which at one point had some class......we can get nasty "BROTHA" and when you call a fool a dumb ESE -he can get real stupid in this bitch cuz getting stupid is our business and we been doing it longer and classier then you fools for a long time.

~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 31st, 2009, 12:35 am

I guess I was being humble when I asked you about the parallels between Surenos and Bloods since you made some valid points, but now you seem to have reveal your true colors and or intentions or maybe you're pulling your leg just for kicks (no pun intended). reading this last post you lost just about all creditability and it really reminded me of those posts Vico use to type.

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 31st, 2009, 7:11 am

Fool I don’t give a damn how so –called stupid you can’t get off in this biitch, because calling you a “dumb ese,” ain’t equivalent to me calling you a beaner, a spick, or a wetback- simpleton biatch (hell this fool got his nerves, demonstrating this false righteous indignation, when he referred to black folks, in a previous post as “nigs”). For one, you are an “ese,” and two-YOU ARE DUMB AS HELL (just because you are an ese, doesn’t make you dumb, but I do know for sure, based on what you’re putting forth, that you are an ese, who is dumb, based on the sophist arguments you put forth on this thread)! And thirdly (again)-WASN’T IT YOUR ASS WHO REFERRED TO BLACK FOLKS AS “nigs” AND CLAIMING THAT WE HAVE NO HEART, ASSHEADED BASTARD? Heeeeeeeeeellll yeah! So don’t come at me, claiming that your azz was trying to play it cool until TheReal fucked it up, seeing as how the rage your putting on down, IS FALSE RAGE, in that you’re not really upset about me calling you a “dumb ese,”-DUMB ESE- but in reality, the true reason why you’re sooooooo upset is because-I’VE SCHOOLED YOUR DUMB AZZ, UP AND DOWN THIS THREAD, while dropping bombs on your latently, then overtly, RACIST SHIT!

You claiming that black folks have no heart, in many ways, is worse than calling black folks a niigger, and I know that those words, or at least the sentiment of such a word, is at the tip of your tongue, or your damn fingertips, seeing as how you referred to black folks as “nigs” before on this very thread, so fuuck you, eat shit and die-no one’s impressed by your mess. Haranguing black folks for supposedly not having anything, is what you always believed, regardless of how diplomatic you came off, and how you tried to fool and lull black folks too sleep with your lying BS, by subtly calling us inferior, of which we are at the core foundation, cowardly.

And your information was BS, dumb bastard. Here you are trying to prove that black L.A. gang culture, or black folks in general, didn’t contribute to the streets of L.A. gang culture, or even influence eses, by denying the very hard core reality of the information that I’ve posted, as well as by deflecting the issue by bringing up other black gangs in other cities, which you don’t consider legitimate, only because you couldn’t adequately address the points and counterpoints that I was making. This is why you’re really upset, dipshit, NOT BECAUSE OF THE DUMB ESE REMARK. What I’ve done is peeled away the layer, or broke you down steadily and surely with the truth, whereas all you’ve returned with on the scene, is constant filibusters, and BS, as well as topics that are not even pertinent to this discussion-BECAUSE YOU ARE A DUMB ESE! Okay, so I’ll play nice, and just call you an ese-WHO’S DUMB AS HELL!

The fact of the matter is, black gangs regardless of when they came about, have had gang cultures in their cities, whether it be in the Midwest, east coast, or even the dirty south recently, way before the crips and the bloods, as well as the Disciples in Chicago and whatnot. And guess what assheaded moronic bastard? THOSE GANGS DIDN’T NEED ANY INFLUENCES FROM ESES ON THE WEST COAST, WHEN IT CAME TO FORMULATING THEIR GANGS, OR GIVE THEM A STRUCTURE. To claim that they did, is soooooooooooooooooooo fuucking retarded, and only a certifiable nut job like you, would come to such a conclusion, dumb bastard. So I guess the gang that Sonny Carson belonged to, when he was growing up in the 50’s, where there was a structure, got the idea of wearing certain gang identifiers, as well as being jumped in, from Mexicans on the west coast-WHEN THERE WERE HARDLY ANY MEXICANS IN NYC BACK IN THE DAY, LET ALONE SURS FOR THAT MATTER! Being jumped in, or hazed before entering into a particular set, crew, gang, or organization, is an ancient practice, that goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the existence of the alpines, you dumb muuthafucker, and regardless of what you try to deny in that regards, logic, as well as history-IS ON MY SIDE, DUMBAZZ TRICK!

And all of this BS talk about black gangs or other ethnic gangs for that matter, not truly counting, and being legitimate gangs, simply because they don’t exist anymore-IS DUNCEHEADED ILLOGICAL, SOPHIST BS! You don’t judge gangs, in regards to their legitimacy, based on whether they exist now, or later, but rather on their functions while they were in existence. Folks who are being terrorized by these gangs, FOOL, in the present, or in the past, don’t give a damn whether they were formed in 1776, or 2006, and just fizzled away-BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THEY EXIST, AND CAUSE DAMAGE IN THE NOW, THAT EFFECTS THE COMMUNITIES THEY DWELL IN, NOW!

No one, I mean no one, not even Alonso who is an expert on gangs, or anyone else with knowledge of gang history, place gangs under racially chauvinistic, and myopic lenses, that you, and other sur sympathizers do-BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT THE LENSES YOU UTILIZE ARE MUDDY, DIRTY, PUTRID, MYOPIC, BIASED AND BLATENTLY FOUL. Your lenses can only go back to 1909, and claim that eses gangs are the first gangs in this country, like the dumb stupid biitch that you are, when in reality gangs go back waaaaay before ese gangs, all the way to the mid 1800’s.

Not only that, this alpine gang of yours that was formed in the early 1900’s, NO LONGER EXIST, BECAUSE THEY GO THE WAY OF OTHER GANGS, IN THAT THEY EITHER FADED OUT, OR BECOME ABSORBED BY MORE DOMINANT GANGS. This is a truism that runs throughout the history of humankind, whether it be civilizations that rise or fall, or civilizations that become absorbed by other civilizations, and if you weren’t such a silly biitch, you would’ve realized this-IGNORANT, MORONIC BAZTARD!

But getting back to gangs not being real gangs, because they’re new, or because they’re not as strong, or as strong as they were before, or because they no longer exist: I GUESS THE BARROW GANG WASN’T REALLY A TRUE GANG, HUH DUMBAZZ? I mean, they are no longer around, so tell me silly biitch, are you really going to tell me that the James Gang, The Rufus Buck Gang (two old gangs from the old west, with the latter being headed by a black teen), The Plug Uglies, the Monk Eastman,and Dead Rabbits of New York in the mid 1800’s, or the Five Points Gang that originated in the late 1800’s, the Barrow gang, the Dillinger Gang, Bugsy Moran’s gang, and Al Capone’s gang, or even the crime syndicate, Murder Incorporated, were not true gangs, or criminal enterprises? These gangs no longer exist, but no one, I mean not anyone, including old school surs, will ever call these gangs illegitimate gangs, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION, OR IMPACT OF A GANG, DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THEY EXIST NOW, OR PARTIALLY EXIST, OR HOW OLD THEY ARE, BUT ON WHAT TYPE OF DAMAGE THEY CAUSED, OR WHAT IMPACT THEY HAD, WHEN THEY WERE AROUND, WHETHER IT BE ON THE NATION AT LARGE, OR IN THEIR OWN LOCAL COMMUNITIES. Man, I feel like I’m talking to a child.

So are you telling me that victims of the Barrow gang, Dillinger gang, Bugsy Moran gang, Al Capone gang, Murder, Inc. etc.-CAN TAKE COMFORT IN KNOWING THAT THESE GANGS WEREN’T REALLY GANGS, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T OLDER THAN ESE GANGS AAAAAAAAALLL THE WAY IN L.A. COUNTY, THEREFORE THEIR IMPACT UPON THE LIVES OF LOVED ONES, REALLY DOESN’T COUNT, IN THAT THEY WEREN’T TRULY THE VICTIMS OF LEGITIMATE GANG VIOLENCE? GET THAT SHIIT OUT OF HERE, DUMB MUTHERFUCKA! Again, no expert on gangs, including the founder of this very site you’re on, even your peeps with sense-WILL AGREE WITH YOUR FUUCKED ASSESSMENT!

The fact of the matter is, these gangs had an impact on the lives of the people they came across, whether it be negative or positive, similarly to gangs out there nowadays, regardless of race and ethnicity, and regardless of when they started, and how they started. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how you pooh-pooh black gangs of the Midwest, like in Chicago, or New York, that existed, let’s say in the 50’s and 60’s, and even the 70’s, or 80’s- the clothing styles; their hazing rituals (which may include jumping in); wearing certain jacket colors, or jackets with gang emblems on them; their own style of graffiti (which I’m going to do research on, because some eses will leave you with the impression that graffiti originated with them); their various gang symbols; WERE ALL ORIGINAL, AND HADN’T A DAMN THING TO DO WITH THE INFLUENCE OF ESE GANGS, OR CHICANO GANG CULTURE EMANATING FROM L.A. DURING THE TIME!

So tell me thickheaded biitch-WHERE DID THESE GANGS ORIGINATE THEIR SHIIT? Where did the street gangs in the mid 1800’s originate their traditions and shiit? Are you going to still tell me the eses even retroactively created gang shit back in the mid 1800’s, out west, and/or even amongst the European immigrants, or not so immigrants, back east? And you wonder why I call you a DUMB ESE??

When it all boils down to it, HUMAN BEINGS, dwelling in URBAN ENVIRONMENTS, will almost instinctively form clicks, crews, or gangs, why? BECAUSE THIS IS HUMAN NATURE, AND GOES WAAAAAAY BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME! In other words, this is a HUMAN thing, and not an ESE THING-DUMBAZZ!

You ask me why black gangs like the crips are forming in other areas of the country, and you ask me why other black gangs in those parts of the country are dying, or scattered, and I’m like-THAT’S NOT ANY OF MY BUSINESS, FOOL, BECAUSE THIS A LOCAL DISCUSSION ABOUT BLACK AND BROWN IN THIS CITY! In other words, you putting forth the belief that black gangs in L.A. are more ruthless than black gangs in other cities, to where they’re able to invade other cities, DON’T HAVE SHIT TO DO WITH HOW BLACK FOLKS IN L.A., INFLUENCED STREET AND GANG CULTURE, IN L.A., AND YOU KNOW THIS! This is just a last desperate attempt, by a racist sur sympathizer, to hang onto his denials of black folks influencing street and gang culture in L.A., as well as what we now know as elements of chicano culture, pachuco culture, and modern day sur gang culture!

Mutherfucker, you can’t deny this! You sound like a damn fool trying to use the argument that black gangs in L.A. are ruthless because of eses, FOOL-when our ruthlessness ain’t got a damn thing to do with eses, but with the criminal nature-OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS! The black folks I pointed out in my last post, didn’t need eses heart, in order to do what they had to do! Oh so I guess this is all you have left for me?

Hell, dumbazz, I never claimed that black folks first codified certain cholo gear, as gang gear, fool! Nor have I ever denied chicano influences on black gangs! But what your biitch azz don’t want to credit black folks ARE THEIR INFLUENCES ON CHICANO GANGS, AND CHICANO/CHOLO CULTURE, AS WELL AS PACHUCO CULTURE! This is what got your panties all up in a bunch, while catching hissy fits, LIKE A WHINY AZZ BIITCH! No one’s impressed with your false indignation!

Then this dumb mutherfucker is going to try and push off on me some mythical cat, who has no verifiable photo or proof of his existence, named Mickey Garcia, in order to prove that zoot suits were either first popularized by Mexicans, or created by the Mexicans, which is a myth I BLEW THE FUUUCK OUT OF THE WATER! This racist sur sympathizer can claim he’s not a racist, but to outwardly deny black folks influences upon modern day Chicano culture (which isn’t to say that black folks created chicano culture), and the overt influences of black jazz and swing culture from the 20’s, and especially 30’s, upon his pachuco ancestors, in regards to dress, street slang, dances, music, and swagger-MAKES THIS FOOL A LYING SIMPLETON BAZTARD WITH NO DAMN INTEGRITY ON THIS SUBJECT, WHATSOEVER!

This dumbazz keeps trying to convince me and pound into my head, the fact that black folks adopted certain cultural nuances from chicanos, as it relates to gang culture, because we live near the eses (which I’ve admitted to, over and over again), whereas this hammerheaded imbecile, refuses to admit the black street, and gang cultural influences upon chicano gangs, as well as other influences of black culture upon chicano/Mexican folks! This ignorant dunce is always blasting Puerto Ricans and other folks for what they took from black folks, whereas all folks have to do nowadays, as relates to modern day sur culture-IS CHECK OUT WHAT THESE CATS TOOK FROM BLACK CRIP CULTURE, OR GANG CULTURE IN GENERAL, FROM THE 80’S AND 90’S, WHICH IS A POSITION I WILL NEVER DETRACT FROM, FOR IT IS THE 100% TRUTH, DESPITE WHAT THIS MORONIC BAZTARD SAYS, OR PROTEST!

The fact of the matter is, history isn’t on his side; truth isn’t on his side; logic isn’t on his side; NOR IS COMMON SENSE ON THIS AZZHOLE’S SIDE! Lol!!

And phugg a tattoo biatch! Is that all you can come back with, racist baztard who’s been exposed! Fuuck tattoos, because that’s shiit isn’t as essential to black street culture, as black music, or black musical styles, are, in your people’s overall culture. Hell, you can get rid of the tattooing culture amongst black folks, and you will still have black street and gang culture, whereas you get rid of black music, or your people’s ability to perform certain aspects of black music-THEN MUCH OF THE SOUL OF YOUR PEOPLE, AND MODERN ASPECTS OF YOUR CULTURE, WILL FLATLINE, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE TEXTURAL LAYERS, SOUL, AND ESSENCE YOU TAKE FROM BLACK MUSIC (not necessarily the intricate parts of certain black cultural traits), WILL HAVE LEFT THE BUILDING!

Tupac would’ve been Tupac, even without the tats fool!

And eses weren’t the first or only folks to originally tat their entire body, AS YOU CLAIMED IN A PREVIOUS POST. Oh don’t get me wrong, even the Mayans and Aztecs would tat it up, going as far back as the ancient Egyptians (blacks in sub-saharan Africa would either lift their skin, and form dots on them or certain tribal markings, or paint their faces, and parts of their bodies, for dance and war ritual purposes)-BUT THEY DIDN’T HAVE A HISTORY OF TATTING UP THEIR ENTIRE BODIES! If you can prove me wrong on this, or if anyone can prove me wrong on this, then I will humbly concede, but with that said-I CAN POST UP PHOTOS OF WHITE FOLKS, POLYNESIAN FOLKS, AND JAPANESE FOLKS, IN THE 1800’S, AND THE EARLY PART OF THE LAST CENTURY, WITH FULL BODY TATS, ESPECIALLY CIRCUS TYPE FREAKS FROM EUROPE, NAMELY GERMANY!

Not only that, many of these tats style rival the tats that eses create today, and if you deny this, I will gladly pull up the photos. Just because eses dominate out your way, the tat parlors, just like your kind dominate the listening of certain types of oldies, and wearing of zoot suits, even though your folks didn’t create the music, nor were the first to wear the clothing-DON’T MEAN YOU OWN THE SHIIT!

But in being gracious and humane, despite the fact that you are racist biitch who think black folks have no heart, and don’t have anything, I will admit the fact that eses were probably the first to codify the wearing of tats, on the L.A. gang cultural scene, even though they didn’t create the tatting phenomenon. But I guess to a racist azzheaded imbecilic baztard, that admission ain’t good enough. This racist wants black folks to slit their wrists and bow down before surs, and admit that everything, even the damn drawers they’re wearing, originated with eses. Ese mutherfuckers like this cat, as I said before, are always trying to dip into black shit, and monitor black shit, all in the name of so call maintaining historical and cultural integrity, when in reality, despite the fact that black folks don’t have much, that which we do have, is enough for fools like this ese to want to claim as their own.

So fuuck you, eat shiit, die and go to hell mutherfucker, you ain’t impressing no one with your false righteous indignation (then biitch motherfucker drew first blood on the racial tip, when he said that black men have no heart, outside of what the Mexicans give us), for the simple fact of the matter is-YOUR ASS JUST GOT SERVED, and like the racist that you are, YOU CAN’T HANDLE THAT SHIT! SO BRING IT ON MUTHERFUCKER, BRING IT ON-YOU AIN’T IMPRESSING A DAMN THING AROUND HERE BUT YOUR OWN REALITY!

Look at this dumb biitch, talking all of this shit over the internet, with his kid in the sandbox type threats…

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 31st, 2009, 7:28 am

Simply put, this cat Mayuga should've never kept preaching that black folks have no heart, and that what we have, we got it from eses/mexican culture-THAT SHIT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE OF ANY MAN, WHO HAS SELF-RESPECT AND DIGNITY. At first I was letting that shiit slide, but when he kept at it, and through the bloods in there (remember, I have connections here)-that's when I went semi-ballistic, for he took the shit too far.

I never said that shiit about eses, even though I said that pachucos got a lot of their shiit from black folks, and that modern day surs got a lot of their shit from south central L.A. gang culture-I NEVER QUESTIONED THEIR HEARTS, DARING, BRAVERY, RUTHLESSNESS AND COURAGE!

Furthermore, me also saying that pachucos got a lot of their swagger from the black culture in their day, again-ISN'T THE SAME AS ME SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY HEART!

In saying what he said about black folks having no heart, he crossed the line, and made it a supremacist argument, with mexicans being substantively better than black folks. And the thing about it is, this cat thought I was supposed to bow down like some dumb cooon and take that sleight?

Again, with the fear of sounding redundant, I can't stress enough the fact that me saying that eses were influenced by aspects of black culture, isn't the same as me saying that eses are substantively inferior,to black folks. Hell, I even gave eses their props in influencing black gang culture (I even gave eses the tat and other things), but that wasn't enough for this idiot-that's why his true colors and latently racist agenda has been exposed, along with his petty threats and all.

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 31st, 2009, 11:48 am

I’m going to break down much (not all) of Mayuga’s arguments in key themes that he seems to raise, and will address this portion of my back and forth with him in such a way, seeing as how folks have been sending me messages and emails, requesting that I make my posts more clearer and easier to read, by chopping them up into discernable sections, as oppose to going tit for tat, and line for line (I rather thought that was easier to understand; oh well).

Having done that, I can tell you that this cat is definitely certifiable, in the lunacy department, for in the end, I really don’t believe he truly believes what he’s preaching, and me stressing that is similar to me giving this potential loon, the benefit of the doubt. I mean if we were to give this cat a polygraph examination, to confirm whether he truly believes his mess, I’d bet you he’d fail like there’s no one’s business. This is highly apparent when he accuses me of claiming that black gangs in the 20’s, influenced Mexican gangs, when in reality, I never said that. Truth be told, I really don’t know what those black gangs had as a culture was from back in those days. I may have an idea-but I don’t know for sure (likewise, this cat can’t tell me what the alpines were wearing, prior to the Pachuco invasion). This is a trick utilized to venture off what I’ve been saying all along, which is something he can attempt to deny, but not totally deny, and that is-BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL GANG AND STREET CULTURE, FROM THE 80’S AND 90’S, IS WHAT HAS GREATLY INFLUENCED MODERN DAY SUR CULTURE, AND THIS FOOL KNOWS THIS, whether it be hip-hop/gangsta rap music, stacking, wearing big fat platinum or gold chains; being togged down in blue; so called “sur walking”; throwing the sets up, instead of down; utilizing black slang (like their pachuco ancestors); wearing sports jerseys as gang identifiers; posing for photographs with bandannas covering their faces; wearing bandannas around their necks; copying certain gestures and mannerisms from black folks; wearing throwback jerseys; etc.-oh yeah, MODERN DAY SUR CULTURE HAS TAKEN ALOT FROM BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL CULTURE.

And the regional differences I was giving in regards to black folks from the south, I mean I’m sorry nutty one, BUT I DON’T FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC. The fact of the matter is, black folks from different southern states, during the period of the great migration of black folks from the south, which lasted until 1965, chose different routes than, with some exceptions, black folks from Louisiana and Texas, predominantly, and Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, to bring up the rear. Black folks from the Carolinas or Georgia for instance, primarily ventured into New York. Blacks, let’s say from Ohio, predominantly come from black folks whose peeps are from Alabama, Georgia, or Kentucky, etc. Black folks residing in Mississippi for instance, mainly headed for Chicago, with a few folks from Louisiana. And yes, Chicago does have a history of having a strong gang presence; and yes FOOL, CHICAGO STILL HAVE BLACK GANGS, AND THEY ARE CONSTANTLY AT WAR KILLING EACH OTHER UP. Just because you don’t acknowledge them, or are ignorant of them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (I also find it interesting that cats like Geronimo Pratt, Huey Newton, Tookie Williams, Fred Hampton, and H.Rap Brown, were either born in Louisiana, or had parents from Louisiana, and whether rightly or wrongly, possessed that warrior spirit. This is what I mean by regional differences, because even when I lived in Louisiana briefly during the late 80’s, WHERE THEY WERE HARDLY ANY MEXICANS TO WRITE HOME ABOUT, Louisiana cats, especially from the New Orleans, WERE KNOWN AS BEING CRAZY AND READY TO FIGHT. They obviously brought that fighting spirit into Cali, and just because you’re a dumb ese, and can’t figure this out, or can’t relate, then hey-IT’S A BLACK THING, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND.)

But anyway, the point being is that the black southerners, despite being black, and one people, still had their own regional differences, which later influenced them in regards to the cultures they eventually formulated, in their respective regions. This is why you will have New York create rap music, and the wearing of leather jackets, and fat chains; whereas other regions of the country, with large black enclaves, hadn’t created hip-hop, etc., and wasn’t going to, because of their distinct regional differences, and what they’ve been exposed to. And if you can’t see this, it’s because you don’t want to see this; you’re a racist; or just-BATSHIIT CRAZY!

Then again, this is what happens when I’m dealing with a latently racist sur sympathizer, who’s strongly in denial.

Likewise, anyone reading my posts can see that I neeeeeeeeeever denied chicano influence upon L.A. street and gang culture, nor upon black street and gang culture. No the problem that this certifiable cat has with me, lies in the fact that I won’t give credit for eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything black folks created, in regards to their own distinct street and L.A. gang culture. You see, as a jealous and envious sur-HE WANTS IT ALL. And he implies, and sometimes borderline admits this, by claiming that because Mexican gangs were first, that automatically means that everything about black gang culture, via an honour system, ought to be credited to chicano culture. But oh, we can keep rap music. This is mighty big of him-YEAH RIGHT.

Well anyway, this is his problem with me, in that I won’t allow him to get away with such lies, truths, half-truths, and damn lies. As a matter of fact, this cat wouldn’t argue half of what he was saying in a live debate, with me, or anyone else, for fear of having his identity exposed as someone who doesn’t have their head screwed on right, especially as it relates to this issue.

I mean come on man, he accuses black folks of taking wing-tipped shoes from eses, as well as chucks, even though black folks aaaaaaall throughout this country, wore such footwear back in the day, and in some cases-NOW. Oh but I forgot, because Mexicans like this style of footwear, and because Mexican gangs were first-THEN EVEN THESE SHOES HAVE A CHICANO PATENT ON THEM! Hell pretty soon, ese cats like him will begin to claim that the underwear that black folks wear-CAME FROM CHICANOS, including the socks. Why? BECAUSE MEXICAN GANGS GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE EARLY 1900’S.

It’s like me saying that the wearing of bandannas around the wrists is a black gang creation; only for him to not only deny it, but to overlook that fact by saying what? You guessed it-ALL GANG CULTURE IN L.A. WAS CREATED BY CHICANOS, BEGINNING IN THE 1900’S. Again black folks, and fair minded Mexicans, what is he really saying in translation: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU CREATED THAT WAS UNIQUE TO L.A. GANG AND STREET CULTURE, AS LONG AS IT’S WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF L.A. COUNTY, AND IF BLACK FOLKS WEREN’T IN GANGS IN L.A., DURING THE 1900’S, EVERYTHING, I MEAN EVERYTHING THAT BLACK FOLKS HAVE, EVEN THAT WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLY BLACK IN ORIGINS-BELONG TO CHICANO GANG CULTURE.

This is what he’s really saying, once you peel away all of his filibusters, and truly engage him in his sophist arguments.

Anyway, enough of those little side issues, let’s get to the meat of his collective arguments, shall we?

Argument 1: Because Ese gangs were first (according to him, it was 1909), therefore aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of the street and gang culture you see out there nowadays, belong to ese gang culture, because the circular logic is-BECAUSE THEY WERE FIRST.

My response:

Again, I’m not disputing that ese gangs were first, even though there’s no evidence for me to base that fact on, other than what you’re putting forth, but I’m being a gentleman about it and taking your word, even though it may be suspect. But regardless of whether your claim is true or not, it still doesn’t negate from the very unique, and distinct, cultural nuances, flavour, and ethos, black folks provided to the L.A. street and gang landscape, which I have highlighted previously on this thread (for those new to this discussion, check out my previous threads on this post to get an idea of what I’m referring to) and other threads on this site.

In other words, bombarding me with information on the history of Mexican/chicano gangs, still doesn’t deal with this very reality (black folks distinct cultural contributions to L.A. street and gang culture, of which wouldn’t have been in existence, if left to eses alone), nor does it erase it away.

Argument 2: Ese gangs are the oldest gangs, therefore all of gang culture emanates from ese gangs, because black gangs no longer exist (like the Slaussons, and Gladiators):

My response:

What does that have to do with west coast gangsta rap, stacking, crip walking, zoot suits (oh don’t think I forgot about that one), holding up the blue and red rags as gang banners and emblem; black slang; oldies music; the wearing of blue or red sports jerseys as gang identifiers, and a host of other things that black L.A. street and gang culture contributed to L.A.?

I’ll tell you what-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Your constant claims about when ese gangs started in L.A. (or the status of black gangs in other cities, which I will address shortly) doesn’t have any bearing on the culture that succeeded them, that originated with black folks, as well as the origins of black gangs within L.A. Only a racist and supremacist fool, would claim that everything black folks have in L.A., in regards to gang and street culture, emanated from ese cats in the early part of the 20th century (i.e. 1909). This is some supreme buuuuuullshit, and I hope folks aren’t being duped, and taken in by this cat’s idiotic mantras of repeating the same thing long enough, to where you begin to believe his lies, which is something, truth be told, he fully doesn’t believe in (his lies-that is).

Black south central culture, as I’ve said before, have indeed borrowed certain elements of chicano culture (again, I never denied this), with a heavy deluge of their own (BLACK FOLKS) cultural ethos and baggage, to where that which was created was something so unique and distinct, to where eses weren’t ever going to get around to creating it, regardless of what they claim, or say-let alone some cats from 1909 would say.

In other words, just because shiit was started in 1909, doesn’t mean that new shiit hadn’t been added onto it, specifically as it relates to what black folks added onto the scene, which is something, AGAIN, that wouldn’t have been there, if left to ese culture alone.

Furthermore, what does the existence of the Gladiators and the Slaussons have to do with the 38th Street gang, and whether or not black gangs existed in L.A. since the 1920’s? And as far as the Slaussons and Gladiators go, if you decided to pick up a book and read, as well as do research, or check out docs like “Crips and Bloods: Made In America,” or “Bastards To the Party,” you would understand the sociological context of why these black gangs (the ones you’ve mentioned here) formed, and came into existence. Again, as I said before, so say I now and again, and that is-these black gangs and clubs that were formed, either in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, that preceded the crips, weren’t arrogating off of ese gang culture, nor did they come in existence because of eses, but was propelled into existence because of other external social forces, regardless of whether those forces were similar to eses and why they started their gangs.

I know that as a racist sur, you would like to think that black gangs came into existence by way of your people, and that they’re ruthless, because of your people (this cat even have the nerves to say the Panthers, who were founded in Oakland, got their bravery, and daring behaviour, from eses: NOW I KNOW THIS CAT HAS FALLEN OFF OF THE DEEP END, FOR HE’S JUST INSULTED EVERY BLACK MALE’S MASCULINITY UP IN HERE-but I’ll get to that shortly), for racist surs, and their racist sur sympathizers, are always trying to place their hands into the pot of black culture and creativity, to where they’ll become jealous and envious, if their story isn’t told, especially as it relates to L.A. black folks unique street and gang culture history.

Truth be told, the shit’s very psychotic if you truly think about it.

Moreover, here you are always talking about how black gangs from back in the day, in L.A., really don’t exist anymore, when the simple truth of the matter is, the Civil Rights and black power movements of the mid to late 60’s, squashed the momentum of most of these black gangs that were initially founded in order to fight against white supremacy and racist gang attacks by white gangs in those South Central enclaves, only to eventually turn on themselves, once the “white problem” was well taken care of. By the mid 60’s, black radical/power/conscious groups like the Panthers, Us, and the like, began to insert their pro-black nationalist views upon many of the gang members from the gangs you mentioned, to where they refocused and retooled their gang banging efforts, into conscious raising activities.

This is why many of these gangs faded from the landscape during the mid to late 60’s. Oh don’t get me wrong, you had other black gangs throughout the city of L.A., besides the gangs you mentioned, but I’m just sticking with the ones that have been highlighted in order to prove my point in this discussion, concerning their eventual dissolution. To make a loooooooooooooooong story short, by the close of the decade (60’s), many of the black empowerment/radical leadership were either killed, imprisoned, or neutralized, to where it left a vacuum within the black youth community, especially the black male youth community, for they no longer had older role models to look up to, or infrastructures to attach themselves onto. So what they did was form their own “organizations,” which eventually devolved into criminal enterprises/gangs. What these gangs did, in a nutshell, is corral many of the existing BLACK gangs under one umbrella, which was the CRIP umbrella and network of gangs.

Other independent black gangs throughout L.A. who didn’t want to fall for this, developed their own umbrella and gang network, in protest to the Crip gang monopoly, and referred to themselves as BLOODS! Crips chose the blue bandannas as their banner, whereas the bloods chose the red bandanna as their gang banner and emblem.

Now, even though this trip down history’s lane was an abridged version of the crips and bloods origins, it is still valuable when it comes to explaining why AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLL of the black gangs that were in existence prior to the crips and the bloods, throughout L.A., ARE NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE- BECAUSE THEY WERE ABSORBED BY THE CRIP AND BLOOD FEDERATION.

And mind you, in my abridged version of the origins of the crips and bloods, as well as in the long version, which can be gleaned from other sources-NO WHERE, BUT NO WHERE, HAVE ESES, CHICANO CULTURE, OR SUR GANGS, EVER CAME ON THE RADAR, IN REGARDS TO WHY THESE GANGS FORMED, OR CAME INTO EXISTENCE, OR WHY THEY WERE RUTHLESS, WHICH IN A PERVERTED WAY, IS AN INSULT TO BLACK MANHOOD, AS WELL AS AN UNDERHANDED RACIST BLOW.

This history is no different than, let’s say the history of the Alpines, which sur folklore and myths say go back until the turn of the century. I mean, is the Alpine gang still in existence? I’m sure there were other ese gangs, if they were in existence at the turn of the century, that no longer exist, because they had been absorbed, or taken over, by newer gangs, which is a social and historical reality for the history of black street gangs in L.A., and throughout the country, regardless of the ethnic, or racial makeup of the gangs.

NEEEEEEEEXT!

Argument 3: Ese gangs were founded in the 1900’s, therefore they never progressed in their cultural output, which suggests that the same culture, and clothing of ese gangs in the 1900’s, are the same culture and clothing of ese gangs in 2009, and the subsequent years in between, BECAUSE THE ESE GANGS IN THE 1900 WERE NOT ONLY FOUNDATIONAL, BUT THEY ORIGINATED EVERYTHING IN REGARDS TO GANG CULTURE, SO EVERYONE MUST BOW DOWN. (This argument suggests that times hadn’t changed, in regards to fashion and style, and that black folks were just dormant throughout their communities, in regards to producing anything unique, and distinct, street and gang culture, for the logic is, everything that was created, including crip walking, was created by ese gangs in the 1900’s, which only comes from the minds of lunatics.)

My response:

Riddle me this-WERE ESE GANGS HOLDING UP THE BLUE BANNER AS EMBLEMS BACK IN THE DAY; WERE THEY STACKING; WERE THEY “SUR WALKING;” DID THEY CREATE THE BLACK SLANG THAT YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS UTILIZE (not to be confused with calo); WERE THEY WEARING FAT GOLD, OR PLATINUM CHAINS; WERE THEY WEARING BLUE AND RED WINDBREAKERS AS GANG IDENTIFIERS; WERE THEY TOGGED DOWN IN BLUE; WERE THEY RAPPING, OR DID THEY CREATE RAP MUSIC, OR EVEN OLDIES FOR THAT MATTER; WERE THEY WEARING THE BANDANNA AS FACE MASKS; WERE THEY SPORTING THROWBACK JERSEYS, GALAXY SHIRTS, OR BLUE OR RED SPORTS JERSEYS BACK IN THE DAY; WERE THEY WEARING ZOOT SUITS; WERE THEY WEARING THEIR BANDANNAS AROUND THEIR WRISTS; WERE THEY WEARING THEIR BANDANNA AROUND THEIR NECKS; WERE THEY THROWING THEIR SETS UP IN THE AIR; ETC.?

I can answer that-HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO!

All of this, despite who had the oldest gangs in L.A., are what these newfangled modern day surs have acquired from black gangs in L.A. from the 80’s, and 90’s, namely the crips. The identity, the swagger, their style (modern day sur style) and gestures and mannerism, weren’t taken from their sur ancestors, nor some folks in 1909, who, if they were listening to music, was listening to Ragtime (black music), and/or mariachi, or ranchero music-NOT OLDIES, OR RAP MUSIC, WHICH IS APART BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL CULTURE, NOT ESE CULTURE.

As I said before, so say I now and again, and that is-MODERN DAY ESE CULTURE, IS NOTHING BUT A RIP OFF OF BLACK SOUTH CENTRAL CULTURE FROM THE 80’S AND 90’S, especially in light of the things I highlighted in the above.

So later for your theory, that just because Mexican gangs were first, AAAAAAAAAAAAALLL street and gang culture thus emanates from chicano gang culture, which is anti-intellectual, and an untenable position to hold-AND OUTRIGHT WACKY. You guys act as if time doesn’t pass, which allows some, or even in some cases, MOST shit to change, due to the times, demographic shifts, or cultural inputs from other races and ethnic groups.

Again, only a short-sighted, myopic thinking, racial chauvinistic fool would think otherwise.

Argument 4: All of pachuco culture, comes from San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, where there were no blacks, hence nothing came from black culture in those areas because of this; or anything significant, because ese gangs were the first gangs in L.A., going back to the 1900’s, and around, and around, and around we go.

My response:

Aaaaaaaah shiit! You done lost this one. First of all, as I’ve always argued, as well as any credible cultural historian has always argued, and that is- THE PACHUCO CULTURE THAT CAME OUT OF EL PASO AND SAN ANTONIO, OR WEST TEXAS, WAS ROOTED IN BLACK JAZZ CULTURE THAT PERMEATED THOSE AREAS. True enough, there weren’t hardly any black folks in those areas, BUT GUESS WHAT- DESPITE THAT PROBABLY BEING THE CASE, IT STILL DOESN’T NEGATE THE REALITY THAT THOSE BLACK FOLKS THAT WERE LIVING THERE, DID INDEED BRING THEIR OWN UNIQUE AND DISTINCT CULTURE WITH THEM.

What, you thought black folks were just going to live around a bunch of eses, and just kick back and listen to mariachi music? That’s like saying that the Chinese were going to just live around a predominant group of white folks, and give up Chinese food, and Kung Fu! LOL!

The fact of the matter is (and this is addressing that other post you put up on this thread, which you took from another site, concerning the history of pachucos and their donning of zoot suits, which is a post, by the way, I’m highly familiar with, and that your side constantly references-which I’m not impressed with in the least bit, especially for some of it’s historical inaccuracies, and the history they decide to leave out)-black folks brought their culture, rooted back east and in the parts of east Texas, as well as Louisiana and Tennessee (I mention Tennessee for a reason)- WHERE THERE WERE NO MEXICANS TO SPEAK OF TO INFLUENCE ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO BLACK CULTURE.

Oh you don’t believe me, then check out these excerpts from a piece on a black jazz musician from the 20’s and 30’s, by the name of Don Albert:

“Wilkinson said most historians trace the history of jazz from south to north, and ultimately to New York City. But here was a jazz musician (Don Albert) and bandleader who moved from New Orleans west to Texas. It was an aspect of jazz history that intrigued him.”

This piece also confirms that at the time of the 20’s and 30’s, San Antonio had a sizeable black population that could substantially support and appreciate black cultural expression:
“During several years of research, Wilkinson traced the movements of Don Albert and his band through 24 states in the eastern half of the country. A great deal of Wilkinson's research was in some of the leading African-American newspapers of the time, including the Pittsburgh Courier, the Chicago Defender, the San Antonio Register, and the Louisiana Weekly of New Orleans.”

Now you notice, this piece claims that the San Antonio Register-WAS A BLACK NEWSPAPER, COVERIN THIS BLACK JAZZ MUSICIAN’S CAREER!

Hmmmmmmmm…that’s interesting!!! I THOUGHT THERE WERE NO BLACK FOLKS TO SPEAK OF IN SAN ANTONIO, TO WHERE THEY COULDN’T INFLUENCE ESES AND WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS PACHUCO CULTURE?

What else does this piece, WRITTEN BY A WHITE MAN, intimate about the existence of black folks in San Antonio, concerning the propagation of black cultural expressions?

Well here it is:

“During Albert's later years as a San Antonio nightclub owner, he saw increasing racial animosity, which he resisted in 1951 by successfully defending his legal right to operate a racially integrated nightclub.

"Albert's later career as a club manager draws attention to two developments in American culture," Wilkinson said. "One was evolving race relations, and the other was the changing taste of music in the black communities of San Antonio. Big band music gave way to modern jazz, or bebop. But bebop had limited popularity because it was not dance music. Blacks in San Antonio were not interested in bebop and instead embraced rhythm and blues."

Now mind you, these excerpts say that Don Albert was a black club owner in San Antonio. These excerpts also discussed black San Antonians musical tastes from back in the day. Hmmmm…I wonder if your pachuco ancestors ever frequented these black clubs in San Antonio, and imbibed some of this black culture, in regards to how they dressed, acted, and carried on? Hmmmmm?

Not only that, the predominant music that characterizes the Pachuco, was not mariachi, rancheros, nortenas, or chicano rap (lol) BUT SWING MUSIC!!

And where did your San Antonio Pachuco ancestors get SWING MUSIC FROM IN SAN ANTONIO?

Check this out:

“Don Albert's SWING BAND built its reputation, in part, on arrangements of popular compositions, including several by Duke Ellington. By 1935, the northeast was beginning to take notice of Don Albert and his band when they performed in New Jersey and New York, and played in a revue called the Harlem Radio Follies. Some of the band's most popular songs, recorded in 1937, were the band's theme song "You Don't Love Me," "Sheik of Araby (With No Pants On)," "Deep Blue Melody," "Sunny Side of the Street," "Liza," "True Blue Lou," "Tomorrow," and their killer-diller number, "Rockin' and Swingin'."

http://www.ia.wvu.edu/~magazine/issues/ ... /jazz.html

Notice the caps for “SWING BAND”? Yes, yes, yes. Here was a black jazz musician, who majored in swing jazz, travelling throughout the east and Midwest, as well as Harlem, and being influenced by the black culture in Harlem. This culture, if you link the dots, was inevitably brought to the Southwest-BY WAY OF SAN ANTONIO, ONE OF THE PREMIER BREEDING GROUNDS FOR PACHUCO ORIGINATION.

Here’s an excerpt, from a brief history of Jazz culture (which propagated the black zoot culture east of El Paso and San Antonio) in El Paso:

“When you look closely at the legacy of jazz (black music and culture) in El Paso (SUPPOSED HOME OF THE PACHUCOS AND PACHUCO CULTURE) you can definitely recognize our community’s distinct contributions, passion for the myriad forms of jazz, and innovations to the blues (black music and culture) and beyond. Jazz never died in El Paso, it evolved here due to our community’s hybridity and innate talent.”

http://epmediagroup.com/culture/276-kee ... in-el-paso

Again, this article corroborates the fact that El Paso, along with San Antonio, at one time during the mid part of the last century, had a thriving black cultural influence, by way of the black Jazz culture, which inevitably influenced the Pachucos, because they preceded Pachucos.

Here’s more about the origins of the zoot suit, in regards to the culture it was born into, and what ethnicity/race:

“By the late 1930s (Mickey Garcia didn’t come on the scene until the 40’s, according to sur folklore and history), the term "zoot" was in common circulation within urban jazz (black) culture. Zoot meant something worn or performed in an extravagant style, and since many young blacks wore suits with outrageously padded shoulders and trousers that were fiercely tapered at the ankles, the term zoot-suit passed into everyday usage. In the sub-cultural world of Harlem's (black) nightlife, the language of rhyming slang succinctly described the zoot-suit's unmistakable style: 'a killer-diller coat with a drapeshape, real-pleats and shoulders padded like a lunatic's cell.”

http://clio.missouristate.edu/lwburt/te ... iots_2.htm

This is a good quote:

“The Zoot Suits began in the Big Band/ Jazz culture (black) and were mostly popularized by Jazz musicians.”

http://askville.amazon.com/origin-Zoot- ... Id=5832613

Check this quote out:

“Initially an African American youth fashion, closely connected to jazz culture, the zoot suit was co-opted by a generation of Mexican American kids, who made it their own.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/eng_s ... _zoot.html

On a sidenote, as I said before, so say I now and again, with the fear of sounding redundant, and that is Mayuga posts an article that eses always throw at me, when it comes to the origins of pachuco culture, and their wearing of zoot suits and other cultural accoutrements attached to it. In this article, that eses notoriously looooooooooove to use, it discusses how this one mythical ese cat, who folks have never seen before, neither are there any verifiable photos of this cat, BROUGHT the zoot suit fashion and pachuco culture, to El Paso.

In other words, the article says he BROUGHT, and not ORIGINATED-BIG DIFFERENCE, BUT THEY’RE STILL LYING, BECAUSE HE DIDN’T BRING SHIT IN REGARDS TO ZOOT SUITS, AT LEAST NOT TO BLACK FOLKS!

Well hell, don’t believe me, check out a portion of the article:

“Also in the 1940's (this year is key for what I’m about to bring), according to Sgt. Joe Guzman (now who’s this guy?), Mickey Garcia, a young boy from Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico migrated north and relocated in El Paso, Texas. He immediately joined a local Mexican street gang called the /Secundo Barrio./ Garcia also BROUGHT (keyword negroes and eses reading this) with him a unique style of dress, INITIALLY THOUGHT TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN MEXICO.”

Now you tell me-WHY WAS THE ZOOT SUIT “INITIALLY THOUGHT TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN MEXICO?” It’s because that was probably the lies that certain eses were propagating to the world, HOWEVER, to say that it “INITIALLY” was “THOUGHT TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN MEXICO,” overtly and explicitly implies what? THAT RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT IT DIDN’T ORIGINATE IN MEXICO, BUT AMONGST BLACK FOLKS, NAMELY BLACK JAZZ MUSICIANS, WHO EXPORTED TO SAN ANTONIO, AND EL PASO, VIA THE BLACK COMMUNITIES THAT EXISTED IN THESE CITIES, AS WELL AS THE CULTURE THESE BLACK RESIDENTS BROUGHT WITH THEM-JAZZ CULTURE

Oh, but you are still sceptical, in that you refuse to tie the pieces together.
Well okay. Then check this out-the mythological, Mickey Garcia character, SUPPOSEDLY brought the zoot suits into El Paso, in the 1940’s, and introduced it to the Mexicans right? Okay, okay, and if this myth of a character introduced/brought the zoot suit to the eses in the 40’s-WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, OR IMPLY? IT MEANS THAT ZOOT SUITS WERE IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE ESES IN EL PASO, AND SAN ANTONIO, BEING EXPOSED TO IT, IN THE 1940’S, RIGHT? Of coooooooooooooooourse!

Where were they in existence? Well-let me show you mayne:

“The suit rose to popularity within the jazz community of Harlem in the mid-1930s.”

http://www.ehow.com/about_5110469_defin ... -suit.html

Check out this quote too:

“The zoot suit first came in the African American jazz civilization in Harlem, New York, and was soon accepted by alternative communities in other American cities, particularly Los Angeles.”

https://www.redtagsuits.com/zoot_suits.html

Now mind you, in one of the above quotes, it says that zoot suits were in existence since the mid 30’s. Some sources say late 30’s, but regardless of when-BLACKS WERE SPORTING THE ZOOTS SINCE THE 30’S, WITH IT’S ACCOMPANYING JAZZ AND SWING CULTURE, AND ALL THAT IT ENTAILS, WHEREAS THE ESES ONLY GOT HIP TO THIS OUTFIT, ACCORDING TO THIS BELOVED ARTICLE THAT MANY ESES, UNIVERSALLY, WILL USE AGAINST ME, IN THE (AHEM)-1940’s…

But yeah, er, uh, remember-ESES CREATED THE ZOOT SUIT, AND THE PACHUCO CULTURE, WHICH DIDN’T HAVE ANY BLACK CULTURAL INFLUENCES, IN REGARDS TO THE WALK, THEIR SWAGGER (yeah, I’m saying it), DRESS, SLANG, AND MUSIC.

YEEEEEEEAAAH RIGHT!

Check out this quote concerning what black culture wrought upon the pachuco:

“The panchucos represented "a rebellious youth culture among Chicanos. Arturo Madrid-Barela describes how the Pachuco became a symbol of resistance against the homogenizing effects of assimilation (Madrid Barela 1973). He notes that the Pachucos' style is derived from elements of urban black culture, such as their suits and the music they listened to…”
http://www.enotes.com/zoot-suit/q-and-a ... riots-3324

Mickey Garcia, WHO?

Check out this quote from the same article:

“Throughout the 1930s (the 30’s and not the 40’s, when this Mickey Garcia cat supposedly came on the scene with the zoot suits), zoot suits distinguished those who wore them as part of the black jazz community (not the ese communities of San Anton and El Paso) that flourished in Harlem nightclubs and speakeasies. Later (operative word here), poor and working-class Mexican-American youth called "pachucos," proudly wore their zoot suits on the streets of Los Angeles to set them apart from the masses and to express themselves as Mexican-Americans.”

http://www.ehow.com/about_5110469_defin ... -suit.html

Check these excerpts out as well:

“The word zoot was known within the urban jazz culture (black culture) of Harlem, and it meant something either exaggerated in performance or in style. Many African-Americans (not your peeps from San Anton, or El Paso) wore an extravagant style of clothing, the baggy pegged pants and jackets with padded shoulders, that later became known as the zoot suit.”

“Prominent black (not chicano) entertainers wore the zoot suit, such as Cab Calloway, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Duke Ellington. Ellington performed at the Orpheum in Los Angeles in 1941 and 1942 (when did the zoot suit riots occur?)…”

http://books.google.com/books?

id=v72wKX9I6lgC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=pachuco+and+african+american+culture&source=bl&ots=eZfXwKGwBs&sig=dL-oXmOFI04we6yIF8ndPuWythk&hl=en&ei=nLZxSqvnN5LuMaKt9bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

Oh, and by the way, this above quote was taken from a book entitled, “CHICANO FOLKLORE,” written by RAFAELA CASTRO, a chicano: ONE OF YOUR PEEPS!

Here are some more random excerpts I thought was befitting of checking out, concerning black influence on pachucos:

“The pachucos integrated their own slang, a hybrid of Spanish-English dialect, into the language of the zoot suit subculture (which was African-american derived). Combined with the swing language of the African American jazz culture, it became known as jive talk.”

This quote is taken from Eradication of a Subculture by J. Brown

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37

Here’s a June 9, 1943 article excerpt from the “Evening Independent,” in regards to the origins of the zoot suit:

“The current fad (of wearing the zoot suit) started, they add, in Harlem (synonymous at the time for black folks and black culture), and spread to other sections of the country.”

This article also gives another reason for the possible origins of the zoot suit:

“Another theory is that jitterbugs inspired tailoring (what, not eses?) of tight cuffs because wide bottom trousers were a definite trip and fracture hazard in their rug cutting (this means dancing, eses and negroes).”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9 ... 41,4672239

Now I posted excerpts from this article for several reasons, 1) this article was produced around the time of the zoot suit riots, and 2) it confirmed the black origins of the zoot suits, and not chicano myth origins; and 3) it highlighted a dance that was created by blacks, and not eses, which many felt this type of suit was acclimated towards: THE JITTERBUG!

Oh you don’t think the jitterbug was a dance with black imprint in the swing community? THEN CHECK THIS OUT:

“The history of swing dates back to the 1920's, where the black community, while dancing to contemporary Jazz music, discovered the Charleston and the Lindy Hop.”

Or this excerpt from the same article:

“In the mid 1930's, a bouncy six beat variant was named the Jitterbug by the band leader Cab Calloway when he introduced a tune in 1934 entitled "Jitterbug".

With the discovery of the Lindy Hop and the Jitterbug, the communities began dancing to the contemporary Jazz and Swing music as it was evolving at the time, with Benny Goodman leading the action. Dancers soon incorporated tap and jazz steps into their dancing.”


Read more: http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcoun ... z0MlKWCzKO

Hey ese, check this out, concerning the jitterbug and swing dancing:

“The jitterbug (initially called the "hop") first became popular in the 1920's, although its popularity was limited primarily to Harlem (black folks).”

As well as this excerpt from the same article:

“From the early days of the "hop" until the mid-1930's, the mainstream of jazz music and swing/lindy/jitterbug dancing was developed and defined in the United States by African -Americans.”

http://www.bobethomas.com/history/history_lindy.htm

These excerpts come from articles that discuss the origins of the Jitterbug, as having a black imprint, and not ese imprint, and that the swing dancing, commonly known as jitterbugging, was tailor made for the black cultural dress phenomenon-KNOWN AS THE ZOOT SUIT! And guess what, pachucos, wearing zoot suits, speaking black inspired slang, walking black, and giving dap and skin like black folks-ENGAGED IN SWING DANCING AS WELL!

And there was also swing dance clubs in El Paso, during the 1930’s, which influenced eses who imbibed all of this black jazz culture, waaaaaaay before this mythological character Mickey Garcia came on this scene, which establishes El Paso, as I said earlier about San Antonio-WITH HAVING A BLACK PRESENCE, THAT PRODUCED A BLACK CULTURE, THAT WOULD LATER INFLUENCE PACHUCO CULTURE!

So let’s connect the dots. If there was swing dancing, and swing music, art forms created and inspired by black jazz culture, during the 1930’s in El Paso, and if the state of Texas itself had a strong black jazz culture-WHERE DO YOU THINK THOSE PACHUCOS FROM TEXAS, NAMELY EL PASO AND SAN ANTONIO, GOT THEIR STYLE OF DRESS, GESTURES AND MANNERISMS, DAP AND SO FORTH FROM? I’ll tell you where, they got it from-BLACK FOLKS, SEEING AS HOW THERE WERE BLACK FOLKS LIVING IN SAN ANTON, AND EL PASO DURING THE 30’S, WITH THEIR BLACK CULTURAL OUTLETS, THAT INEVITABLY INSPIRED THE CREATION OF PACHUCO CULTURE.


Oh you don’t believe me about Jazz being an influence in El Paso during the 30’s, by way of Swing? Then check this out:

“Bill Toering, a longtime resident of El Paso, says, “We all danced to swing, but sometimes you were so relaxed your feet didn’t move at all. You just moved your upper body while your feet stayed put.”

And mind you, this cat was talking about the 1930’s! But let’s move on further into this article, concerning black culture in El Paso as it relates to the 40’s-THE TIME PERIOD OF WHEN THIS MICKEY GARCIA FIGURE, JUMPS ON THE SCENE IN EL PASO:

“El Paso had its own Golden Age of swing. George Reynoso, owner of All That Music in Lee Trevino Plaza, has a home movie narrated by Federico Gonzalez which traces the El Paso connection.

The movie shows that Louis Jordan and his band, Tympani Five, and Big Joe Turner, the great blues shouter, played and sang in El Paso during the early forties. Jordan was so impressed by the railroad sounds he heard at the El Paso train station that he wrote “Choo, Choo, Ch’Boogie.” The song sold over a million copies and ushered in a series of records for Jordan.”

http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlan ... _Music.htm

In case you didn’t know, Louis Jordan, and Big Joe Turner-WERE BLACK!

Let’s not stop there; let’s delve more into this article concerning black jazz/swing music, and how the culture influenced El Paso, which proves that there was a black presence there, as well as black cultural presence, which ultimately influenced pachuco culture in EL PASO:
“Like other young fans of the swing music craze, students at the old Bowie High School were called “cats,” short for “hepcats,” slang for people listening and dancing to music of that time. The students would frequent local establishments such as the Cortez, Hilton and the El Paso Del Norte hotels to listen to their favorite bands.

In honor of the students from Bowie, Jordan wrote a boogie-woogie style song about “a gal waiting for me in El Paso.” It was titled the “T. P. Special,” T. P. standing 00for the Texas Pacific Railroad. The person in the song was West Texas bound. Together he and his girl would “cross the border and honeymoon in Juárez.”

“South El Paso dance establishments included the Hollywood Café, the Venice (now the Acapulco Café & Bar) and the Old California, current location for the National Dry Goods Company. Impromptu jam sessions were common at the Whoo’s Club at 300 S. Mesa St. and at the Esquire Club. Mail carriers would congregate at the red Star Bar on Saturday nights and listen to Xavier Solis’s Latin big bands sounds.”

http://www.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlan ... _Music.htm

Here’s another link to Pachucos and swing music:

“Pachucos listened to swing, boogie, and mambo (black) music...”

Here’s another quote from the same book:

“Pachucos adopted the oversized business suits worn by African Americans in Harlem, New York...”

These quotes were taken from a book entitled, “Mexico and the United States,” by Lee Stacy.

This quote here is from an internet piece that discusses Don Totsi, a mexican swing and jazz musician from back in the day. Here’s what this quote has to say in a piece where he was being interviewed:

“Tosti, who counts himself as one of only a handful of Mexican Americans to succeed in the big band jazz scene, had tapped into the powerful new culture of the pachucos, or so-called "zoot-suiters."

And where did this “powerful new culture” spring from? Well this quote here will tell it all:

“ They were the first wave of young Latinos (eses/Mexicans/ )to assert themselves in American popular culture, adopting the HEPCAT STYLE (black style and swagger, but yet this ese’s going to tell black folks that we got our “swagger” and style from them) and FLASHY CLOTHING (zoot suits) of SWING (black derived art form) musicians such as Cab Calloway (A BLACK MAN).”

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/music/pac ... oid=283741

So as you can see ese, Pachuco culture, even though it was derived from San Antonio and El Paso, still had a black hand, or imprint upon it, that was, and is undeniable, which tears this guy apart to the core, because he really thought he had something, when it came to the Mickey Garcia thing. All this shows me, is that his argument lacks credibility, and that he is also willing to lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, in order to prove his point, hence he lacks credibility.
You can disagree with me all you want, but I’ve never lied, or intentionally lied, even if there’s a possibility that I may have been wrong.

In essence, black gangs have indeed created their own distinct and unique gang culture, in L.A., that wasn’t going to wait on ese surs, even though this is what this fool would like for us to believe. The truth of the matter is, regardless of when ese gangs hit the scene, it still doesn’t take away from black gang, and street contributions to L.A. culture, which I’ve outlined, and which he hasn’t dared to deny, other than to look past them, in a maudlin type of way, to the history of chicano gangs and their legacy.

Again, he feels that just because ese gangs were first, that mean they have created eeeeeeeeverything, and that black gangs aren’t original in anything, even though he himself can’t prove that eses created, that which black folks created. Surs, and their sympathizers are some curious and psychopatic individuals. You can list a beaucoup of street shit that eses didn’t create in L.A., but yet they won’t credit black folks for it, only because of a warped, degenerate and wacky argument they will always circuitously use: WE WERE THE FIRST GANGS, THEREFORE ANYTHING YOU CREATED IN REGARDS TO STREET CULTURE, WE DEMAND TRIBUTE, WHICH IS TOTAL TAKEOVER.

Another thing, this fool really thinks he’s saying something when he claims that black Ogs (oh by the way, the term “OG,” is a black term, not an ese term; eses originally and exclusively used the term “veterano;” OG is black street vernacular) gave credit to certain aspects of Chicano culture, when it comes to their gang influences. HELL, what else is new-I’VE EVEN REPEATEDLY GAVE CREDIT TO ESES FOR CERTAIN GANG INFLUENCES, ON THIS THREAD, AND ON OTHER THREADS!

But the problem this nutcase obviously has with me, lies in the fact that I’M NOT GIVING EVERYTHING TO HIS PEOPLE, and that I am acknowledging the fact that there are unique and distinct elements and contributions, that black folks throughout L.A., have wrought upon L.A.’s street and gang culture-which he is horrified to admit to, for whatever sur reason and sensibilities.

And for the record, I did indeed say that black folks, especially my relatives, wore dickies, pendleton shirts and khakis, and utilized bandannas, with no ties to what chicanos were doing. I even stated that my old relatives, or black folks in general, wore, and wear tank tops, chucks, sweat shirts and army belts-BUT I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT BLACK FOLKS WERE THE FIRST TO CODIFY THIS GEAR AS CHOLO GEAR, OR GANG GEAR. I’ve always given credit to eses, on the codification of this gear for their culture, but won’t ever give them credit for creating this gear, or being the first and only folks to wear this gear.
Hell, eses didn’t create the zoot suit, but they codified this clothing item within their culture, thus it’s the same with many of the clothing items they favor, or want to hold claim to (i.e. sweat shirts, and wing tipped shoes, like other folks, or black folks for that matter, don’t wear these types of clothing).

As I said to him before, so say I now and again, and that is-there’s going to come a time, when looney surs and sur sympathizers like this cat, will start to claim the wearing of underwear and socks, as a cholo thing, even using the iron, to where if black folks wear some drawers, and some socks, then they’re trying to be chicano. YOU GO FIGURE!

Moreover, as I said in a previous post about not wanting to repeat myself, but will do so if I have to, especially on certain topics of discussion, well the same thing applies to when it comes to black gangs in other cities. I will suggest that folks reread my entire postings on this thread, in regards to black gangs in other cities, and what I said about them, for my main focus isn’t on black gangs from other cities, and why they exist, or don’t exist (actually, there are black gangs in other cities; and this nut would know this, if he took his head out of his sur sympathizing anal cavity). Hell, look at shows like “Gangland,” or “American Gangster,” if you want to know about black gangs in other cities, which do exist. I’m concentrating on L.A., for anything else would be filibustering. (Oh and by the way, I’m from Oakland, and this city has had its’ share of gangs, going all the way back to the 70’s; black gangs like the “Cowboys,” “The AC Mob,” “Broadway Hustlers,” etc. You also had black criminal drug enterprises ran by black drug kingpins like Mickey Moore, and Felix Mitchell. But like in those other cities, the leadership had been dealt a heavy blow, either through incarceration, murder, or aggressive government or city takedowns, which leaves them open for crip and blood takeovers.)

This segues into this cat’s hideous and cold hearted racist insult, and attack into black manhood. This fool is claiming that black folks don’t have any heart, and that the only heart we do have-IS BECAUSE IT COMES FROM MEXICANS! WHAT THE FUUUCK????? This racist sur sympathizer, even have the nerves to claim that the only reason why the Black Panthers were bold and fearless-WAS BECAUSE OF THE BROWN BERETS, WHICH WERE AN ESE OUTFIT THAT WAS FORMED AFTER THE PANTHERS!

Racist fool, when the Panthers formed in October of 1966, in Oakland, brandishing guns-THEY DIDN’T NEED CHICANOS IN OAKLAND, NOR L.A., TO INSPIRE THEM, DAMN FOOL IDIOT! They came up with that line of thinking and philosophy, all on their own. If anything, they were influenced by the teachings of Malcolm X (and Mao Tsetung), who died a year before their founding. Malcolm X advocated that black folks form gun clubs, in order to defend themselves against racist whites in the South, or law enforcement. And guess what-MALCOLM DIDN’T NEED ANY MEXICANS TO ASSIST HIM WITH THIS PHILOSOPHY!

And as far as linking up with the eses in L.A., via the Brown Berets (Black Panther imitators if you ask me, especially with the beret thing), that didn’t do all that much good, for the Panthers. But I’ll be gracious and give the Berets their just due and props, because they did represent for their peeps, and did work with the Panthers, albeit symbolically, as well as with SNCC in certain efforts in the state of Texas. But having said all of that-THE BLACK PANTHERS DIDN’T GET THEIR BRAVERY AND HEART FROM THESE BERETS, OR ANYTHING DEALING WITH CHICANO CULTURE, FOR TO SAY THAT IS RACIALLY INSENSITIVE, IN THAT YOU’RE OVERLOOKING THE STRUGGLES OF BLACK FOLKS DURING THE 60’S, THAT LED TO THEM INOT BECOMING GRADUALLY MORE ASSERTIVE AND BOLD.

So are you telling me then that Muhammad Ali had heart, and possessed a warrior spirit, because he was raised around mexicans in Louisville?? Are you telling me that Nat Turner killed those entire slave owners, waaaaaaay back in the day, because he was living around some mexicans on the plantation? Are you going to tell me that the warrior spirit that possessed the “Deacons for Defense”, in rural Louisiana, was there, because these black cats, in rural Louisiana, was living amongst mexicans at the time? Or how about Malcolm X; Elijah Muhammad; the black WW1 soldiers who took up arms and went into a white city and began shooting the place up, because of the brutal racism they were experiencing; or how about George Jackson; Geronimo Pratt; Huey Newton; Stokely Carmichael, and the like-ARE YOU REALLY THAT DEMENTED TO WHERE YOU’RE GOING TO CLAIM THEIR BRAVERY AS BIPRODUCTS OF CHICANO CULTURE??

If this is what you’re truly saying, then you are really a royal dumbazz, and I feel sorry for any black person taken in by you.

The truth of the matter is, and putting all BS aside, black folks didn’t need eses to have heart then, or now. Harriett Tubman, who was a slave with a bounty on her head, didn’t need mexican inspiration to go into the south and free over 300 of her enslaved folks. Frederick Douglass didn’t consult with mexicans, when at the age of 16 years old, he beat the shiit out of his slave master, then escaped to freedom. Nor did those enslaved black folks in the early 1700’s, need to consult with mexicans (there were no mexicans around), when they took part in the Stono Rebellion, nor those black civil war soldiers of the 54th Massachussetts, who stormed Battery Wagner, need mexican inspiration and consultation, in order to invoke their bravery.

Denmark Vessey, Gabriel Prosser, Dessalines and Touissant L’Overture in Haiti, didn’t need your peeps in order to have heart, and be ruthless in striking a blow for freedom, LET ALONE BLACK FOLKS INVOLVED IN THE CRIMINAL WORLD. Fuuck gangs fool, look at cats like Frank Lucas, Nickey Barnes, Fat Cat Nichols, the El Rukns (these cats wanted to purchase military weaponry and do a 911, before their leadership was busted up; which was damn foolish in my book). All these individuals were ruthless, and you have plenty of black ruthless fools across this nation (not that this is something to brag on), who commit terribly heinous and fearless crimes, whether they be in crews, gangs, or as individuals.
So naw man, what you said was insulting, because again, you’re implying that black folks, especially black men as a whole-HAVE NO HEART; but you’re using a gang narrative in order to hide your true intentions.

Surs and bloods don’t have anything in common, other than the fact that they hate the crips. Just because you are fascinated and amazed that bloods can get wicked with their shiit, then fool, you ought to travel more. Go to Miami, and visit little Haiti, and try to test those fools. Hell, you seem to always want to poo-poo Chicago gangs, but go out there and visit them, in their hoods, and say FUUCK THE DISCIPLES, and see how long you’ll last!
I have relatives, who are bloods, and there’s no love between bloods and surs, and if you’re fascinated by their ruthlessness and shiit, then why not just give them credit as stand alone ruthless gangsters? Why do you have to get all racist with yours, by claiming that chicanos gave these black knuckleheads, or black men-their bravery? And regardless of how you spin it, I’m sorry-BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE SAYING AT THE CORE.

Not every human masculine trait that black folks have, that are similar to your peeps, mean we got it from you guys. Just because black folks listen to oldies music (which much of it is our music), don’t mean we’re trying to be you, or that we got it from you.

Sur folks are too racially obsessed with what black folks do, and think sooooooooooooo little of black folks, and so supremacist against black folks, to where they don’t even want to conceive that black folks have heart, apart from them.

Black men reading my words, despite how this clown will try and come on and clean this shit up, I’ve just revealed this cat’s true feelings on this one here. Surs can’t believe we can do anything, or should do anything, without them. This is why they constantly want to claim we don’t have a culture, or at the very least-WE HAVE NO DISTINCT STREET AND GANG CULTURAL NUANCES, THAT WE CONTRIBUTED TO L.A., but yet this cat has the nerve to call me a racist, because I expose him-MAN GET OUT OF HERE!

And hell yeah Pachuco culture preceded what is today known as modern chicano/cholo culture. I don’t care what you claim folks were wearing in the Sleepy Lagoon photographs, because in none of the photos I saw from this trial, was anyone wearing pendleton shirts, or distinct dickies clothing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they didn’t wear this type of clothing, outside of what I see in the photographs from this trial, but what I am saying is that what we now know as modern chicano/cholo style-THAT SHIT CAME AFTERWARDS.
Prior to the eses wearing the zoot suits, they were just wearing the clothing items of the time, no more, no less.

Oh you don’t believe me, when I talk about the modern day chicano/cholo.
Well let’s go to some evidence that’s hard to refute (remember, this idiot claimed that surs were in existence since 1909):

“In the 50s, many of the Chicanos that had fought in WWII decided that they would not return to the America the left, but asserted that they would dedicate their lives to fighting the injustices they had suffered before going to war. The seed was planted and Pachucos led the way to the formation of the Chicano Movement of the 60s.”

http://chicanismo.blogspot.com/2005/12/ ... ities.html
And remember, this article was written by one of your peeps, ERNEST M. SAENZ.

Or how about this piece of evidence:

“By the end of the 1960’s, Chicano gang members adopted a new style of clothing, talking, moving, tattooing, and making graffiti, which was inherited from the pachuco style and was called cholo.”

“Encyclopedia of gangs” by Louis Kontos, David Brotherton, page 165

Or check out this piece that highlights how modern day chicano/cholo culture came about:

“The pachuco subculture declined in the 1960s, evolving into the Chicano style which preserved some of the pachuco slang while adding a strong political element characteristic of the late 1960s in American life.

“In the early 1970s, due to recession and the increasingly violent nature of gang life resulting in an abandonment of anything that suggested dandyism, Mexican-American gangs adopted a uniform of T-shirts and khakis derived from prison uniforms, and the pachuco was truly dead.”

http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/pachuco.htm

Or how about this quote:

“The pachuco is the precur- sor to the bato loco, the cholo,”

Nation and Translation: The "Pachuco" in Mexican Popular Culture: German Valdez's Tin
Tan, by Javier Duran
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 35, No. 2

So naw fool-GO KICK ROCKS! You really have lost all credibility with your sophist BS-and I'm trying to be nice and civil, in saying this shiit.

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 31st, 2009, 12:12 pm

~J~ wrote:I guess I was being humble when I asked you about the parallels between Surenos and Bloods since you made some valid points, but now you seem to have reveal your true colors and or intentions or maybe you're pulling your leg just for kicks (no pun intended). reading this last post you lost just about all creditability and it really reminded me of those posts Vico use to type.
Well, I can't say I was surprised. I knew this would eventually happen, regardless.

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 31st, 2009, 12:18 pm

Silencioso wrote:
I would say modern gang banging is a blend of cholo, L.A. black Crip/Blood, Chicago gangbanger and NY hip-hop culture.
I forgot about this nugget in your post, and you know what, despite what haters may say, either because of racial chauvinism, short-sightedness, or a racist agenda, because they want one side to have aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalll of the credit-your fair assessment basically says it all; much better than I ever have.

In other words, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

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 31st, 2009, 1:14 pm

Silencioso is the only on talking straight... mayuga has some good thoughts but he let his arrogance destroy his whole argument. I can see there is no point in even debating with him for he does not know a good amount about black people, and especially black history and black folks outside of LA -s well as Latinos outside of LA. Gangsterism and class... I scoff at that silly paradox. It's sort of like how Mexicans claim LA as their own, but never searched the history to find out half of the founders of the city were black, black Mexicans.

J, who were you talking to, Mayuga or TheReal?

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 31st, 2009, 1:56 pm

perongregory wrote:Silencioso is the only on talking straight... mayuga has some good thoughts but he let his arrogance destroy his whole argument. I can see there is no point in even debating with him for he does not know a good amount about black people, and especially black history and black folks outside of LA -s well as Latinos outside of LA. Gangsterism and class... I scoff at that silly paradox. It's sort of like how Mexicans claim LA as their own, but never searched the history to find out half of the founders of the city were black, black Mexicans.

J, who were you talking to, Mayuga or TheReal?
At first I thought J was addressing me, that's why I put up a post explaining why my tone changed on Mayuga. Then another side of my brain said that he may be addressing Mayuga, therefore I put up a post acknowledging what he said.

Either way, you guys can have at that. I'm going on vacation (literally), and will be back within the coming weeks. Peace.

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 31st, 2009, 2:55 pm

Peace. break time.

Locked

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