______________________________________
______________________________________________
With the great profusion of lies emitted from the mouth of Romney, Obama should have hung him out to dry. Instead of aggressive attack, "no drama Obama" preferred that cool laid back professorial style that may be Ok in the lecture halls of a university, but which is utterly ineffective in political debate. I am both a professor and activist myself. You don't address a mass gathering or rally as you would an academic gathering. I would have thought "To h___ with academic decorum and civility. This is freaking POLITICS!" I wold have ripped Romney's head off. I'm not saying that an intellectual cannot be a political leader. But he (or she) must wear both hats. I have addressed both conventional political gatherings and activist ones. They're not like conventions of the American Philosophical Association or an academic seminar. Obama's intelligent enough to know this. Perhaps, his coaching staff should be fired.
-Savant
_____________
With your reactionary small mind, I wouldn't expect you to know that there are different kinds of Muslims as there are different kinds of Christians. And I notice that Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists, however much they hate each others, are more SIMILAR than different on most social question.
Yeah. It would take a nitwit like you to say you are not going to attack Islam in one sentence ad then attack Islam in the next sentence. And I know you ust be a teacher because you are so ignorant and incompetent.
Disdain for women and for the free exercise of creative intelligence seems to be common among both Christian and Muslim reactionaries.
But all Christians are not reactionaries. Fortunately, neither are all Muslims.
-Savant
_____________
As I am opposed to militarism and imperialism, your arguent would fall on deaf ears even if I believed what you're saying.
Actually, America is now the only military super power left. But I whould like America to be the most JUST nation on the earth rather than the mightiest superpower.
-Savant
___________
1 day ago____________
________
Reaganomics has devastated the middle class since 1981. And just how is Obama responsible for any of this?
Supporting corporate hegemony, tax cuts for the rich, etc.... that destroys the middle class.
That was Reagan's argument, and it didn't work. It is “trickle-down”. Those policies gave us today's weak middle class, corporations running amok, and the economic meltdown of 2008.
Romney means a return to the same error.
Then why is the whole mess called “Reaganomics” and not “Democratically-controlled Congressonomics”?
But, interesting that you are tacitly admitting that Reaganomics was a failure, since you're now trying to blame it on the Democrats!
And more of the same... pure GOP rhetoric, partisan to the end, and no consideration for reality is possible in your world...
That line doesn't work. If Clinton does well, it's because of a GOP Congress; if Reagan fails, it's the Demo Congress' fault. I've heard this before. Republicans claim that Clinton's economic successes were created by Reagan, lol! And of course the economic nightmare of 2008 was created by Barney Frank and Sen. Dodd, right?
And Harding-Coolidge-Hoover had no responsibility for the Depression...
Well, from Jackson through the 19th century, it's the Democrats who are the worst ones. Jackson himself, Polk, etc.
But I digress.
Reagan: huge deficit
Clinton: cleaned it up, left surplus to Dubya
Dubya: well, must I say it yet again?
Obama: throws money at the problem, which some criticize, but face it, it has mostly worked. The economy did not go down the drain, employment is improving despite GOP lies to the contrary, and so what do y'all have with Romney? Nothing.
-Barros Serrano
________________
The Voter ID laws are a throwback to the to the Poll taxes which used to keep Blacks (and sometimes the poor in general) from the ballot. And the right wing knows it.
As an anti-democratic fascist I suspect Max knows this as well.
It has been pretty well established that people of color, the elderly, the poor, and youth---people LEAST likely to vote for right wing politicians are least like to have such documents, and most likely to have the greatest difficulty obtaining them.
The Republicans are the Dixiecrats of the 21st Century under a different label.
Fortunately, a lot of them have been overturned by the courts. But a right wing administration will probably mean new right wing judges who will make judgments which make it easier to make such laws stick---as right wing judges one passed ruling enabling the Jim Crow legislation which it took a century to get rid of.
-Savant
______________
Savant wrote:
As i came from a poor family myself--factory workers in the North and rural laborers in the South--I can assure you that the poor have far more experience of hard work than do the rich. In fact, the poor do most of the world's work.
But your attitude as a "well of black female" should be a lesson to the African-American MASSES, that they need to be as aware of CLASS CONSTRADICTIONS as they generally are of racism.
The common people must learn grasp (in Frantz Fanon's words) "the inquitous fact that exploitation care wear a BLACK FACE" as well as a white one. And that it no longer makes sense, as it may have at one time, for the common people to assume that being Black means that we all have common interests.
Indeed, the masses of Black and brown and white people may have more in common with each other than the elites of their own specific racial groups.
"The bourgeoise---white, black or brown--behaves the same the world over."
----Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
____________
Cry me a river, Mrs Grundy. There is NO record of whites being disfranchised by Blacks. It has always been the other way round.
Whites have been disfranchised, but by OTHER WHITES. Rich whites disfranchising white commoners. White men disfranchising white women. But not whites disfranchised by Blacks. So take your petty complaints about the New Black Panthers--who are like black cub scouts compared to your KKK, Nazis, Christian Identity Movements, white racist police,etc---and go stick it some place where the sun don't shine.
White who complain about RACIAL OPPRESSION, if they think themselves the victims of it, only make themselves look stupid.
Class oppression? Defintely, though too many of you are sumb enoug te angry at everyone but the 1%. Patriarchal sexist oppression. Definitely.
Racial oppression at the hands of non-whites? Yeah, right. And I got a couple bridges to sell you simpletons if you believe that.
-Savant
______________________
Naw. I think your view of King is entirely incorrect for one reason due to your own failure to grasp African intellectual and cultural depth. Nothing in king is original. So where did his major theories and ideas come from, not just his having memorized a few wordings? He has often mentioned Mathama Gandhi which is etirely misleading although I do not think dishonest. I hesitate to call anynore dishonest especially not a minister of King's stature. One thing that I have recently learned is that King and Kwame krunah were school mates and likely even classmates. So, it would be impossible to imagine that the two did not share and exchange ideas considering that they both did very similar things in life. This proves the connection between King and Nkrumah as students: http://www.google.com/imgres... . Nkrumah is in the center of the front row. King is first to the my left his right from the center in the second row. This is something that needs to be researched,
-Abdurratln
___________________________
You forget what a mess Obama inherited. We were about to go into another Great Depression. The economy was circling the drain. As Democrats like to say, but it's true:“bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!”. And Obama is creating jobs. Given the nature of the mess, you cannot expect unemployment to be at 4% by now.
And Romney's policies are better? Tax cuts for the rich? LOL!!! THAT IS WHAT CREATED THIS MESS IN LARGE PART!!! coupled with irresponsible GOP military spending under both Reagan and Dubya.
Every other developed nation has universal health care, and our system sucks, so something has to change. If you don't like Obamacare, then blame the Republicans for refusing to work out some plan everyone could live with. Instead they just refused to play, and so too bad if they don't like the outcome.
States rights...oh please that is an old argument and has nothing to do with Obama.
-Barros Serrano
_________________
As I am opposed to militarism and imperialism, your arguent would fall on deaf ears even if I believed what you're saying.
Actually, America is now the only military super power left. But I whould like America to be the most JUST nation on the earth rather than the mightiest superpower.
-Savant
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TF481GQEMH6N36AVR#lastPost
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T1NOK37L8LUQID32G
_________________
In the final analysis, both of them are wrong. Both of them should of never have disrespected each other in the first place. The bus driver is an employed person, so if the woman spit at him and grabbed him, he should of immediately stopped the bus and called the police. There is a question of violence. I think that Dr. Martin Luther King is mostly right on this issue. He said that we either follow violence which will lead to more disruptions or tensions or nonviolence.
Nonviolence is morally superior to violence, so our goal in responding to an angry person is nonviolence (especially if someone is of the opposite gender). Violence has been responsible in shedding more blood than any action in human history. That is why it took nonviolent negiotations to end wars and conflicts. The only exception in my opinion is self defense in a life threatening situation. Therefore, if you have no other option, but self defense; you have to do what you have to do in order to preserve your life. Violence long term cause more problems and it doesn't produce long term harmony at all. Peaceful resolution does the trick. You don't have to be violent in order for you to express real strength. That's shown by positive activism, standing up for justice, and tolerant treatment of your neighbor.
-By Timothy
___________
We Debated w an Author 2 Weeks Ago RE: Marxist-Leninism vs
Nixakliel - 10/07/2012 - 21:10
Black Nationalism / Pan Africanism. In fact IMO the author on " 'Secularists' & the Black Movement" took a pot-shot [or cheap-shot] at Garvey. White Marxist-Leninists / communists have a track record of hyping class over race even for issues concerning Black & Brown oppression vs the racist system of white-supremacy [which capitalism is part of]. They often fail to even acknowledge that race is at-least as important [IMO more so] as class when analyzing this system's oppression of Black & Brown folk. So if these white Marxist-Leninists can't even acknowledge that simple fact, of-course they're going to have a problem w the concept of Black Nationalism / Pan-Africanism [= Black Self-determination].
Quoting from the WSWS article 'Michelle Alexander's New Jim Crow- A Brief for Racial Politics' - At Length: } Ms Alexander has been lionized in some liberal and “left” circles, including pseudo-socialists [So according to WSWS {& contrary to the author of that article on WEB Dubois} the folks here @ BAR IE: Bro Glen Ford & Bruce Dixon are pseudo-socialists / pseudo-leftists]. These elements of the middle class, prominent in academia, play a major role in propping up the Democrats.
Identity politics is their calling card, counter-posing the issues of race, gender and sexual orientation to the interests of the working class as a whole [IMO in the post civil rights era the LGBT & feminist movements seem to have more clout w the Dims than Blacks- even though we've been the Dims most loyal constituency]. The pseudo-lefts respond with enthusiasm to Alexander’s call for a new civil rights movement, conceived as a vehicle of middle-class protest against what they regard as congenital American racism. Alexander herself is quite clear on this. The driving force of American history is race, in her view, and certainly not the class struggle. “Since the nation’s founding,” she writes, “African Americans repeatedly have been controlled through institutions such as slavery and Jim Crow, which appear to die, but then are reborn in new form, tailored to the needs of constraints of the time. 'It may be impossible to overstate the significance of race in defining the basic structure of American society,” she states categorically.
From the fact that the US Constitution was based on a compromise with slavery, enshrined in the notorious rule defining the slave as 3/5ths of a man, she concludes that “upon this racist fiction rests the entire structure of American democracy.”
So much for Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of the leading figures of the [so-called] American Revolution and its world-shaking impact which reverberated in France a decade after the Declaration of Independence.
For Alexander, it is not a matter of exploring the contradiction between the American Revolution’s proclamation of Enlightenment ideals and the continuation of slavery—a contradiction that did not erase the 'progressive' character of the Revolution—but rather a basis for dismissing the ideals themselves as a “racist fiction.”
The American Civil War, barely merits a mention. That hundreds of thousands gave their lives to end slavery and uphold the promise that “all men are created equal”is treated as a momentary interruption in the relentless reassertion of American racism.
The rise of Jim Crow is seen as the inevitable expression of an unceasing quest for white supremacy. In fact, Jim Crow was bound up not only with the need to divide the white and black poor in the South, but with the emergence of the working class in the North. The federal government called a halt to Reconstruction in 1877, withdrawing its troops from the South, largely in order to deal with a growing threat from the working class. The great railway strike of that same year saw US troops battling masses of industrial workers and poor in the streets of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis and many other cities [My Note: No mention of the deal that was cut between white GOPers & Dixie-crats that effectively sold post civil-war Blacks out to Jim-Crow Southerners & the KKK- even though IMO undoubtedly the crack down against workers’ up-risings in the North was part of the equation].
Alexander repeatedly places the blame for racism on the “lower class whites,” who are portrayed as a popular base for discriminatory policies devised by the ruling establishment. Her aim is to convince sections of the ruling class, along with the upper-middle class layers with whom she clearly identifies, to take remedial action on the issue of mass imprisonment before it leads to a social explosion.
She discusses the prison system in some detail, dealing with racial profiling, the financial incentives for a burgeoning prison-industrial complex to increase the inmate population, the use of prisons to provide jobs in mainly rural areas with high unemployment, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, denial of adequate legal counsel, and legally authorized discrimination against ex-prisoners on such matters as voting rights, jobs and most other aspects of life. There is more that could be added on the increasing privatization of the prison system and the use of prison labor to generate profit.
From these FACTS Ms Alexander makes the leap—an unscientific and politically reactionary one—to characterize many/most African Americans today as a “racial caste…” {
Now there are some that say the Sis Michelle Alexander actually didn't go hard-enough, because she talked in terms of reform rather than revolution [or at-least totally abolishing the Prison Industrial Complex]. Yet according to this WSWS article 'The New Jim Crow' plays the 'race-card' [They didn't actually use that term but they definitely implied it. So maybe WSWS believes the hype of the 'post-racial' USA in the era of Obama?]. The authors see 1776 - USA as an important ?'progressive'? event in World [?socialist?] 'revolution'???- Apparently ignoring the fact that the US has been / is the bastion of the white-supremacist / imperialist / capitalist system- to which chattel slavery was a key component of [as the Prison Industrial Complex is now]. Thus this WSWS article seems to suggest that we [Blacks] should just over-look the fact that key 'Founding Fathers of 1776- USA' [IE: Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc] were slave-owners- who encoded chattel-slavery in their founding document! Thus the Marxist-Leninist @ WSWS have perfectly aligned themselves w {white} patriotic Americans on both the US' political 'left' [IE: Dave Swanson, Dennis Kucinich, etc] & 'right' [Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Paul Craig Roberts, etc] on this issue.
YET- Even White progressive historical analysts IE: Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, etc- have said that what WSWS calls the 'progressive' 1776 US so-called 'revolution' was NOT a very good progressively revolutionary deal for Black slaves nor Native Americans [nor even for many/most working-class whites]. Of course the elitist Founding Fathers talked a good game about 'All Men Created Equal w Unalienable Rights'- but that was mainly propaganda for white indentured servants- because the elitist Founding Fathers needed bodies as foot-soldiers [pawns] in their quarrel w their royal British kit & kin [left unspoken yet clearly understood was that when they said ‘All Men were Created Equal’ they meant ‘All white {WASP} Men’]. 1776 did mark the end to white indentured servitude in the US- but those white ex-servants apparently didn't see the need to insist that those slave-owning elitist founding fathers end chattel slavery, in 'solidarity' w their Black enslaved working-poor brothers.
Then this WSWS article goes on to say that the Civil War was all about [whites] shedding blood to free Black slaves. Not a word about Lincoln's declaration that his objective was to 'Save the Union' NOT to End Slavery! And as Sis Kimberley said in her recent article 'Emancipation' [Proclamation]: 'The Emancipation Proclamation left Blacks in the slave states that had not seceded from the Union still in chains, and might better have been called “the emancipation {but not for everyone} proclamation...” And if the Civil War was mainly about ending slavery why did it take Lincoln 2.5 yrs into a 4 yr war to even come up w the so-called Emancipation Proclamation that did NOT even free all US slaves??? So of course this WSWS article wouldn't touch the key role that the US burgeoning empire's gangstering of the entire SW quadrant of the US from Mexico during the Mexican-American War(s)- played in setting the stage for the North & South's clash over the slavery issue in those newly 'acquired' SW-Territories. Thus this WSWS article essentially regurgitates verbatim the conventional lame-stream myths RE: what 1776 & the Civil War were really all about.
Then this WSWS article glosses over the fact that the US' prison population exploded in the post Civil Rights era- w the phony 'War on Drugs' which targeted mainly Black & Brown folks & communities [since 1970 the US' prison population has increased 4Xs - 5Xs]. In 1970 over 60% of the US' population was white - by 1990 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the prison population was Black & Brown [fully 1/2 is Black - Black & Browns together = just 25% - 29% of the US' population], w the fastest growing inmate population now being Black women- who also now have the highest rates of HIV infection due to so many Black men [& women] being infected in prison [as Sis Kimberley's article points out].
Then there's the 100 to 1 [recently changed to 20 to 1- BUT Definitely NOT 1 to 1] legalized discrimination of crack to powdered cocaine because crack was/is hyped as Black folks' coke while powered is generally perceived as a white folks' coke- even though you first must have powdered coke to even make crack. Plus there's the fact that most Blacks & Browns are in jail due to non-violent simple drug possession- usually marijuana even tough whites smoke weed as much or even more often than Blacks. - Furthermore there's legalized racial-profiling aka 'Stop & Frisk'- w 90% of those stopped by the NYPD being Black & Brown men- even though the stats show that the few whites who are stopped are far more likely to being carrying illegal guns. But according to the WSWS article its a reactionary -unscientific-illogical leap to conclude all of this amounts to a kind of racial-caste system against Blacks [aka Institutionalized Racism- IMO Ms Alexander was actually being diplomatic to use the term racial-caste].
WSWS also glosses over the fact that most Black & Brown inmates are seemingly imprisoned in lily-white good-ole boy type working-class towns, & are key to those towns' economic 'interests'. The fact is too often too many 'working-class / working-poor' whites tend to see themselves as white above all else & thus too often have supported race-tinged policies of the poly-trickal & corp power elites that ultimately were/are against even their own best interests [IE: most Civil War Confederate soldiers were NOT even slave owners- so fighting for the Confederacy was NOT actually in their own interest]! Other-wise how can WSWS explain the success of race-tinged media IE: FOX Noise, Rush Limbaugh, etc- which is geared toward 'patriotic' working-class whites, as well as the Repugs race-tinged 'Southern Strategy' which got Nixon, Ford, Reagan &- Bush Sr & Jr elected as POTUS??!
_____________
-Harrisson
________________
-IttyBitty13
_______________
We should find ways to break that slave mentality and any form of immoral thinking that exists among some black people.
-By Timothy
_________________
I think Dr. King is a great example of this. Some people's accent may change due to many factors. That's accurate. Yet, Dr. King's voice was still very much Southern and soulful and he experienced a heavy deal of education (from theology, literature, philosophy, and other vital subjects of humanity).
-By Timothy
_______________________
-IttyBitty13
____________
There are differences among human beings. Among different ethnic groups, there are cultural differences, different musical tastes, etc. That's accurate. Yet, even in the black community, we all don't talk monolithically. In Western society, there is even some cultural overlap among ethnic groups (in other words, among races in America as Dr. King said we [with non-blacks] sometimes share musical tastes, we share similar love for athletic teams, and we share other cultural ties). We as black people even have differences in our accents too in our community. On the other hand, we are unified in our basic historical ties, major cultural makeup, and our legitimate goals & aspirations (as blacks). We as blacks all want equality, justice, and freedom for our people. We live in reality, but many black people understand the difference between an accent and human character. We have the right to fight for a better reality where stereotyping is over and righteousness flow strongly on Earth. Certain people may harbor personal imperfections, but this is defined by the debilitating conditions of society, not by an accent. It doesn’t matter what white people think about a question. It’s about making solutions irrespective of whether white people like it or not.
If I am going to judge a person, it's by their deeds alone. Your question has the right to be shown and people have the right to debate on it. You are correct to go out with a person if a person's intentions are sincere and if this person lacks an ill motive. Although, just because a person may use slang sometimes, doesn't mean that person lacks moral aptitude or is unstable socially. There are many cases of people who speak extremely coherent, eloquent English that harbor irrational thinking and a sense of morally deception. People have the right to have their preferences. Some individuals like a female that talks in a certain way and so forth. That's their business and that's fine. Me personally, as a long a female has great character, it doesn't matter if she is from the ghetto or the suburbs (or if she talks in an unique accent or not). I can still understand a sister speaking with some slang once and a while as long as she is down for the cause of a real relationship.
-By Timothy
__________________________________
Speaking standard correct English is not how many white people talk they have a whiney singing your words dialect which is just as annoying as constant slang can be! There is nothin wrong with speaking slang as long as you know how to speak standard English at your job!! Black people need to stop being ashamed of their culture I'm not whining like a Becky to be accepted by white people! No matter how you sound at the end of the day you are still a n____ to them especially if they are prejudice and believe me a lot of them are many just TRY to hide it!!!!
-Blaq honey
_________________________
Accents are diverse based on where people live and other factors. Also, I know many black people from the suburbs talking like other people from the suburbs. Also, there are many people in a poorer black neighborhood that don't talk very incohorent at all. Just because a person is born and raised in a poor environment, doesn't mean that person is going to speak slang 24/7 365. Not everyone is the same. Of course, a lot of people in a trailor park or in a more poor area will talk very similar. Yet, people are diverse and diverse accents can exist even in the most socially homogeneous neighborhoods. This proves that equality is real inspite of social diversity. You are right that many suburban kids don't speak Standard English, but the real point is that our character matters beyond how an accent is displayed.
Talking white is rather silly since I rather talk real. Also, just because a brother may talk like Alfonso Riberio or a sister may talk like Stacey Dash, doesn't mean that person is less down for the cause..
-By Timothy
______________________
-By Timothy
_____________
Anonymous said...
AWW come ON Y'all. Y'all know she just Od'd lyke a munt ago.
she can't help it.she need the rich white dudes to fund her lifestyle.she doesn't want them paying higher taxes because it cuts into her shopping money.Who else is gonna buy all those green contacts and nose jobs.
but seriously,she may actually be a Romney supporter.Black republicans exist.And then you have Cornel West and others who have some pretty valid reasons why they don't like obama's politics even though they would never vote for Romney.All black people aren't the same.
__________-
But I can't imagine Obama writing nearly half the nation. I doubt that you'd hear him say (as Romney said) "I enjoy firing people." He helped save auto workers jobs, and help prevent the second Great Depression. He has conceded too much to the Right.
But he's not contemptuous of the poor, not disdainful of the working class. Obama has his flaws, some quite serious. But neither racism nor elite class contempt for the masses are among them.
-Savant
_________________--
so you think he's smarter than Bernanke? Who is a Republican I might add...you think he has the magical formula to fix our economy?
this is the same man who has no problem outsourcing American jobs to China. When you run a country like a business, you treat people as a means to an end...not a good thing at all
I'm not even an Obama supporter...but voting for a Republican
-A Person
______________
You know, someone else wrote an article suggesting the latter possibility. There's no good reason why Obama shouldn't have chewed up Romney and spit him out.
Romney's transparent fabrications were laughable.
-Savant
____________________
How someone speaks should reflect their environmental influences. The more educated we become we shouldn't lose our foundation ...or identity ..education should enhance our foundation. Oprah is a great example of a bw who sounds like a bw from the south with education and experience. Basically language shouldn't be used to hide who we are in society. Authenticity gains the respect of most people.
-Bluest
_____________
Sorry, but most black people have a mind of their own and reject Tea Party logic. We accept environmental protection, our civil liberties being enhanced, and an end to any form of oppression against any human being. Also, laws come throughout human history to rectify violations of human liberties. The Voting Rights Act is still necessary, because it protects against violations to those valuable human rights. Extremists still exist that want the rights of black Americans to be eliminated. No real person advocates special rights. People want the extension of the same HUMAN RIGHTS to all people. For human rights is superior to states rights. The Federal Bill of Rights is superior to states rights.
Sometimes, the free market and private interests can't guarantee equal rights among all citizens or all human beings. These equal rights are sometimes fought for and people died in allowing the public to have the real liberties to come about. The past is the past, but even in the present, oppression is around. When oppression is around, we don't say let's ignore it. We don't say, let's miminize it. We say, let's fight it and eliminate all forms of injustices in the world society now. That's our job and black people are more than correct to advocate compassion to the poor, not austerity (and freedom not discrimination or intolerance). I prefer black people to be politically independent personally, but I precisely comprehend why most of my people are Democrats (since the Republicans are so extreme that even Eisenhower would be criticized by the Tea Party reactionaries. Nixon is more liberal than many Republicans today). Peace is also superior to war mongering and unnecessary militaristic aggression against sovereign countries in the world. So, black people should advocate social justice and pristine equality via any legitimate means necessary.
-By Timothy
Quoting from the WSWS article 'Michelle Alexander's New Jim Crow- A Brief for Racial Politics' - At Length: } Ms Alexander has been lionized in some liberal and “left” circles, including pseudo-socialists [So according to WSWS {& contrary to the author of that article on WEB Dubois} the folks here @ BAR IE: Bro Glen Ford & Bruce Dixon are pseudo-socialists / pseudo-leftists]. These elements of the middle class, prominent in academia, play a major role in propping up the Democrats.
Identity politics is their calling card, counter-posing the issues of race, gender and sexual orientation to the interests of the working class as a whole [IMO in the post civil rights era the LGBT & feminist movements seem to have more clout w the Dims than Blacks- even though we've been the Dims most loyal constituency]. The pseudo-lefts respond with enthusiasm to Alexander’s call for a new civil rights movement, conceived as a vehicle of middle-class protest against what they regard as congenital American racism. Alexander herself is quite clear on this. The driving force of American history is race, in her view, and certainly not the class struggle. “Since the nation’s founding,” she writes, “African Americans repeatedly have been controlled through institutions such as slavery and Jim Crow, which appear to die, but then are reborn in new form, tailored to the needs of constraints of the time. 'It may be impossible to overstate the significance of race in defining the basic structure of American society,” she states categorically.
From the fact that the US Constitution was based on a compromise with slavery, enshrined in the notorious rule defining the slave as 3/5ths of a man, she concludes that “upon this racist fiction rests the entire structure of American democracy.”
So much for Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of the leading figures of the [so-called] American Revolution and its world-shaking impact which reverberated in France a decade after the Declaration of Independence.
For Alexander, it is not a matter of exploring the contradiction between the American Revolution’s proclamation of Enlightenment ideals and the continuation of slavery—a contradiction that did not erase the 'progressive' character of the Revolution—but rather a basis for dismissing the ideals themselves as a “racist fiction.”
The American Civil War, barely merits a mention. That hundreds of thousands gave their lives to end slavery and uphold the promise that “all men are created equal”is treated as a momentary interruption in the relentless reassertion of American racism.
The rise of Jim Crow is seen as the inevitable expression of an unceasing quest for white supremacy. In fact, Jim Crow was bound up not only with the need to divide the white and black poor in the South, but with the emergence of the working class in the North. The federal government called a halt to Reconstruction in 1877, withdrawing its troops from the South, largely in order to deal with a growing threat from the working class. The great railway strike of that same year saw US troops battling masses of industrial workers and poor in the streets of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis and many other cities [My Note: No mention of the deal that was cut between white GOPers & Dixie-crats that effectively sold post civil-war Blacks out to Jim-Crow Southerners & the KKK- even though IMO undoubtedly the crack down against workers’ up-risings in the North was part of the equation].
Alexander repeatedly places the blame for racism on the “lower class whites,” who are portrayed as a popular base for discriminatory policies devised by the ruling establishment. Her aim is to convince sections of the ruling class, along with the upper-middle class layers with whom she clearly identifies, to take remedial action on the issue of mass imprisonment before it leads to a social explosion.
She discusses the prison system in some detail, dealing with racial profiling, the financial incentives for a burgeoning prison-industrial complex to increase the inmate population, the use of prisons to provide jobs in mainly rural areas with high unemployment, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, denial of adequate legal counsel, and legally authorized discrimination against ex-prisoners on such matters as voting rights, jobs and most other aspects of life. There is more that could be added on the increasing privatization of the prison system and the use of prison labor to generate profit.
From these FACTS Ms Alexander makes the leap—an unscientific and politically reactionary one—to characterize many/most African Americans today as a “racial caste…” {
Now there are some that say the Sis Michelle Alexander actually didn't go hard-enough, because she talked in terms of reform rather than revolution [or at-least totally abolishing the Prison Industrial Complex]. Yet according to this WSWS article 'The New Jim Crow' plays the 'race-card' [They didn't actually use that term but they definitely implied it. So maybe WSWS believes the hype of the 'post-racial' USA in the era of Obama?]. The authors see 1776 - USA as an important ?'progressive'? event in World [?socialist?] 'revolution'???- Apparently ignoring the fact that the US has been / is the bastion of the white-supremacist / imperialist / capitalist system- to which chattel slavery was a key component of [as the Prison Industrial Complex is now]. Thus this WSWS article seems to suggest that we [Blacks] should just over-look the fact that key 'Founding Fathers of 1776- USA' [IE: Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc] were slave-owners- who encoded chattel-slavery in their founding document! Thus the Marxist-Leninist @ WSWS have perfectly aligned themselves w {white} patriotic Americans on both the US' political 'left' [IE: Dave Swanson, Dennis Kucinich, etc] & 'right' [Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Paul Craig Roberts, etc] on this issue.
YET- Even White progressive historical analysts IE: Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, etc- have said that what WSWS calls the 'progressive' 1776 US so-called 'revolution' was NOT a very good progressively revolutionary deal for Black slaves nor Native Americans [nor even for many/most working-class whites]. Of course the elitist Founding Fathers talked a good game about 'All Men Created Equal w Unalienable Rights'- but that was mainly propaganda for white indentured servants- because the elitist Founding Fathers needed bodies as foot-soldiers [pawns] in their quarrel w their royal British kit & kin [left unspoken yet clearly understood was that when they said ‘All Men were Created Equal’ they meant ‘All white {WASP} Men’]. 1776 did mark the end to white indentured servitude in the US- but those white ex-servants apparently didn't see the need to insist that those slave-owning elitist founding fathers end chattel slavery, in 'solidarity' w their Black enslaved working-poor brothers.
Then this WSWS article goes on to say that the Civil War was all about [whites] shedding blood to free Black slaves. Not a word about Lincoln's declaration that his objective was to 'Save the Union' NOT to End Slavery! And as Sis Kimberley said in her recent article 'Emancipation' [Proclamation]: 'The Emancipation Proclamation left Blacks in the slave states that had not seceded from the Union still in chains, and might better have been called “the emancipation {but not for everyone} proclamation...” And if the Civil War was mainly about ending slavery why did it take Lincoln 2.5 yrs into a 4 yr war to even come up w the so-called Emancipation Proclamation that did NOT even free all US slaves??? So of course this WSWS article wouldn't touch the key role that the US burgeoning empire's gangstering of the entire SW quadrant of the US from Mexico during the Mexican-American War(s)- played in setting the stage for the North & South's clash over the slavery issue in those newly 'acquired' SW-Territories. Thus this WSWS article essentially regurgitates verbatim the conventional lame-stream myths RE: what 1776 & the Civil War were really all about.
Then this WSWS article glosses over the fact that the US' prison population exploded in the post Civil Rights era- w the phony 'War on Drugs' which targeted mainly Black & Brown folks & communities [since 1970 the US' prison population has increased 4Xs - 5Xs]. In 1970 over 60% of the US' population was white - by 1990 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the prison population was Black & Brown [fully 1/2 is Black - Black & Browns together = just 25% - 29% of the US' population], w the fastest growing inmate population now being Black women- who also now have the highest rates of HIV infection due to so many Black men [& women] being infected in prison [as Sis Kimberley's article points out].
Then there's the 100 to 1 [recently changed to 20 to 1- BUT Definitely NOT 1 to 1] legalized discrimination of crack to powdered cocaine because crack was/is hyped as Black folks' coke while powered is generally perceived as a white folks' coke- even though you first must have powdered coke to even make crack. Plus there's the fact that most Blacks & Browns are in jail due to non-violent simple drug possession- usually marijuana even tough whites smoke weed as much or even more often than Blacks. - Furthermore there's legalized racial-profiling aka 'Stop & Frisk'- w 90% of those stopped by the NYPD being Black & Brown men- even though the stats show that the few whites who are stopped are far more likely to being carrying illegal guns. But according to the WSWS article its a reactionary -unscientific-illogical leap to conclude all of this amounts to a kind of racial-caste system against Blacks [aka Institutionalized Racism- IMO Ms Alexander was actually being diplomatic to use the term racial-caste].
WSWS also glosses over the fact that most Black & Brown inmates are seemingly imprisoned in lily-white good-ole boy type working-class towns, & are key to those towns' economic 'interests'. The fact is too often too many 'working-class / working-poor' whites tend to see themselves as white above all else & thus too often have supported race-tinged policies of the poly-trickal & corp power elites that ultimately were/are against even their own best interests [IE: most Civil War Confederate soldiers were NOT even slave owners- so fighting for the Confederacy was NOT actually in their own interest]! Other-wise how can WSWS explain the success of race-tinged media IE: FOX Noise, Rush Limbaugh, etc- which is geared toward 'patriotic' working-class whites, as well as the Repugs race-tinged 'Southern Strategy' which got Nixon, Ford, Reagan &- Bush Sr & Jr elected as POTUS??!
_____________
Oh, I don't think there's ANY DOUBT whatsoever that Dr. King would firmly endorse the Occupy Movement, brother Savant. He would be down there in the camps....giving CNN interviews....speaking truth to power....cooking up soup or grilling some ribs...and otherwise helping fortify folks' morale.The 99% Movement is a growing popular democratic movement for economic justice. It is a movement opposed to the concentration of wealth of the corporate plutocracy. And it challenges the worship of wealth and the demeaning of people.
Moreover, the Movement has remained for the most part markedly a NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT.
Is this a Movement such as Dr. King would support were he with us still? Is this movement akin to the Poor Peoples Movement which Dr. King and others were trying to build during the last few months of his life?....
-Harrisson
________________
I understand where you're coming from. I just don't understand how upperclass black ppl could possibly think that they are better than every other black person? Your ancestors in your family went through the same thing another black person's family went through way back in the day. They have the same skin as me and other black ppl. Some may be brown, dark, and lightskinned, but we are still labeled as black regardless. African americans. We're all going to be judged, criticized, and still discriminated against no matter what class you're in. We should be trying to help our ppl become better so ppl can see that we have come a long way, have improved this world, and can tell those who look down on us that we are not defined by our skin, but by our individualities, personalities,ect. We are defined by many differences just like all of the races of ppl.
That's an interesting question Sister and here's the answer.
Actually, there isn't a such of thing as acting "ghetto." Ghetto is a location or a place of residency and it doesn't define a specific personality per se. The reason is that upright people and degenerate human beings exist in both the ghetto and the palace (including middle class communities). So, just becuase a person is from the ghetto doesn't mean that person is some social nihilist. If a person acts disrespectful, that person is just disrespectful irrespective of where they come from. Now, each individual is different. Some folks who may talk like Wayne Brady or Aflonso Ribero (for the sake of argument, these people are called as talking more "suburban") do act uppity. Some of them don't. It's a matter of an individual. We judge the character of an individual. Some falsely use stereotypes against blacks who talk a certain eccletic way as an excuse to dehumanize them and to question their blackness in a foul way (as a means to cover up their own insecurities or validate their sick ideology of hating on a black person by virtue of how someone talks like). That's the reason.
In the final analysis, if a brother or a sister is doing right by their people, they love their people, and they gracefully fighting to do what is right, then that's all that matters. I don't care if you talk like the rapper Yo Yo or Condoleeza Rice. It doesn't matter if a black person talks more urban, suburban, or whatever as a long as that black person wants justice, dignity, and equality for all black people. People have preferences. Some folks are attracted to black women that talk one way or another. That's their right. People have the right to their preferences, but all human beings ought to be treated with respect and dignity without question. So, Sister, this is an important issue because it can inspire people to ignore distractions and to advance the wide circumference of progressive freedom.
-IttyBitty13
_______________
I agree. Some upperclass types act that because they embrace that "slavery mentality" or they mimic the sick treatment that their ancestors experienced from brutal slave masters. So, when the slave masters promotes division, colorism, or elitism against blacks, this same immoral thinking exists among some upperclass black people today (or what we call the bourgeiosie types of Negroes).
I understand where you're coming from. I just don't understand how upperclass black ppl could possibly think that they are better than every other black person? Your ancestors in your familywent through the same thing another black person's family went through way back in the day. They have the same skin as me and other black ppl. Some may be brown, dark, and lightskinned, but we are still labeled as black regardless. African americans
We should find ways to break that slave mentality and any form of immoral thinking that exists among some black people.
-By Timothy
_________________
You are right.How someone speaks should reflect their environmental influences. The more educated we become we shouldn't lose our foundation ...or identity ..education should enhance our foundation. Oprah is a great example of a bw who sounds like a bw from the south with education and experience. Basically language shouldn't be used to hide who we are in society. Authenticity gains the respect of most people.
I think Dr. King is a great example of this. Some people's accent may change due to many factors. That's accurate. Yet, Dr. King's voice was still very much Southern and soulful and he experienced a heavy deal of education (from theology, literature, philosophy, and other vital subjects of humanity).
-By Timothy
_______________________
I agree, and I talk in slang, or urban as you say. But when I'm around adults and ppl I don't know, then I talk correct grammar.There is no such thing as "talking white." People's accents are diverse based on environment, geographic location, family genetics, and other factors. This doesn't denote an inferiority of a person or a person's character defect. Just because a sister or a brother may talk a certain ecceltic way, doesn't mean that person is lacking in "blackness." I talk like an urban man, but I am not a hooligan. I'm an intellectual brother that loves to comprehend a variety of information. I am attracted to a sister from a more urban or a suburban environment. It doesn't matter as a long as the person is compatible. It matters about the deeds and character about a person not on how someone talks like naturally. I am not perfect, but I don't believe in judging a person on how someone talks like.
So, I know Sisters in real life that talk like Stacey Dash or like Queen Latifah with love and respect for black people. In the final analysis, we're all brothers
-IttyBitty13
____________
I respect and understand your position.
When I started this thread, I didn't really want to term it as "Talking White", because technically you're correct, there is no such thing in that sense, however their is a difference in the way we talk, and that can't be debated.
To illustrate the difference further, put the same question to white folks and reverse it, asking them how they feel about a white person talking black. You'll hear "n-word lover" before you'd hear one of them saying there's no such thing as talking black. This is the reality we live in.
Anyway my main question was are black men turned on by black women who talk white, or maybe I could have said, by black women who talk like they've lived around whites. However I worded it, I didn't mean to indicate it should turn people off. Too some, it may not even phase them, which doesn't necessarily mean they are turned off by it. Me personally, I'm turned on by it if the girl has a sweet heart. At the same time, I'm turned on to any girl who has a sweet heart, as long as I can understand what they are saying.
There are differences among human beings. Among different ethnic groups, there are cultural differences, different musical tastes, etc. That's accurate. Yet, even in the black community, we all don't talk monolithically. In Western society, there is even some cultural overlap among ethnic groups (in other words, among races in America as Dr. King said we [with non-blacks] sometimes share musical tastes, we share similar love for athletic teams, and we share other cultural ties). We as black people even have differences in our accents too in our community. On the other hand, we are unified in our basic historical ties, major cultural makeup, and our legitimate goals & aspirations (as blacks). We as blacks all want equality, justice, and freedom for our people. We live in reality, but many black people understand the difference between an accent and human character. We have the right to fight for a better reality where stereotyping is over and righteousness flow strongly on Earth. Certain people may harbor personal imperfections, but this is defined by the debilitating conditions of society, not by an accent. It doesn’t matter what white people think about a question. It’s about making solutions irrespective of whether white people like it or not.
If I am going to judge a person, it's by their deeds alone. Your question has the right to be shown and people have the right to debate on it. You are correct to go out with a person if a person's intentions are sincere and if this person lacks an ill motive. Although, just because a person may use slang sometimes, doesn't mean that person lacks moral aptitude or is unstable socially. There are many cases of people who speak extremely coherent, eloquent English that harbor irrational thinking and a sense of morally deception. People have the right to have their preferences. Some individuals like a female that talks in a certain way and so forth. That's their business and that's fine. Me personally, as a long a female has great character, it doesn't matter if she is from the ghetto or the suburbs (or if she talks in an unique accent or not). I can still understand a sister speaking with some slang once and a while as long as she is down for the cause of a real relationship.
-By Timothy
__________________________________
Speaking standard correct English is not how many white people talk they have a whiney singing your words dialect which is just as annoying as constant slang can be! There is nothin wrong with speaking slang as long as you know how to speak standard English at your job!! Black people need to stop being ashamed of their culture I'm not whining like a Becky to be accepted by white people! No matter how you sound at the end of the day you are still a n____ to them especially if they are prejudice and believe me a lot of them are many just TRY to hide it!!!!
-Blaq honey
_________________________
To answer this argument, my oldest brother is from the ghetto like me, but he talks with an eccletic accent (not like an average urban man). How do you explain that? Also, I talk with a more urban accent, but many of my relatives don't.There is a such thing as talkin white! White Americans have a dialect just like black Americans and it all depends on where you live in this country! There is a big difference from speaking standard correct English Like on the NEWS versus having a whiney voice where you sing every word that's talkin " white" where I live!! surburban rich girls talk like that! That's not standard english either! We also know that slang is quite popular in poorer neighborhoods both black and white! A girl that lives in a trailer park surely talks different than a girl from a rich family
Accents are diverse based on where people live and other factors. Also, I know many black people from the suburbs talking like other people from the suburbs. Also, there are many people in a poorer black neighborhood that don't talk very incohorent at all. Just because a person is born and raised in a poor environment, doesn't mean that person is going to speak slang 24/7 365. Not everyone is the same. Of course, a lot of people in a trailor park or in a more poor area will talk very similar. Yet, people are diverse and diverse accents can exist even in the most socially homogeneous neighborhoods. This proves that equality is real inspite of social diversity. You are right that many suburban kids don't speak Standard English, but the real point is that our character matters beyond how an accent is displayed.
Talking white is rather silly since I rather talk real. Also, just because a brother may talk like Alfonso Riberio or a sister may talk like Stacey Dash, doesn't mean that person is less down for the cause..
-By Timothy
______________________
I agree. Overall, language may change from people to people, but authenticity can never change if a person is a truly progressive human being. In other words, I may use different words when I communicate with friends or co-workers, but my core personality (or my core aura & my core accent) is still the same regardless of which types of people that I encounter in my daily life.
I agree, and I talk in slang, or urban as you say. But when I'm around adults and ppl I don't know, then I talk correct grammar.
-By Timothy
_____________
Anonymous said...
she can't help it.she need the rich white dudes to fund her lifestyle.she doesn't want them paying higher taxes because it cuts into her shopping money.Who else is gonna buy all those green contacts and nose jobs.
but seriously,she may actually be a Romney supporter.Black republicans exist.And then you have Cornel West and others who have some pretty valid reasons why they don't like obama's politics even though they would never vote for Romney.All black people aren't the same.
__________-
The white workingman from Ohio to whom you allude was totally correct. Unfortunately, Obama's not a FIGHTER, as is evident from the debate. And we progressives have been criticizing him for this.
True on both counts.
What's interesting is that millions of white Americans want no part of him. Some Caucasians resent him for looking, acting and sounding like the executive-types and investor-types who would fire them in a heartbeat.
One white working man in Ohio said he figures if he was working hard at digging a ditch, Obama might actually lend a hand... but he thought Romney would be more likely to just stand and watch. LoL!
This will be an interesting election for sure!
But I can't imagine Obama writing nearly half the nation. I doubt that you'd hear him say (as Romney said) "I enjoy firing people." He helped save auto workers jobs, and help prevent the second Great Depression. He has conceded too much to the Right.
But he's not contemptuous of the poor, not disdainful of the working class. Obama has his flaws, some quite serious. But neither racism nor elite class contempt for the masses are among them.
-Savant
_________________--
so you think he's smarter than Bernanke? Who is a Republican I might add...you think he has the magical formula to fix our economy?
this is the same man who has no problem outsourcing American jobs to China. When you run a country like a business, you treat people as a means to an end...not a good thing at all
I'm not even an Obama supporter...but voting for a Republican
-A Person
______________
You know, someone else wrote an article suggesting the latter possibility. There's no good reason why Obama shouldn't have chewed up Romney and spit him out.
Romney's transparent fabrications were laughable.
-Savant
____________________
How someone speaks should reflect their environmental influences. The more educated we become we shouldn't lose our foundation ...or identity ..education should enhance our foundation. Oprah is a great example of a bw who sounds like a bw from the south with education and experience. Basically language shouldn't be used to hide who we are in society. Authenticity gains the respect of most people.
-Bluest
_____________
Black people have the free speech right to protest against police brutality, discrimination, and other subsequent ills in society. That isn't about human whining. That's reality. Your ancestors protested against colonialism that was inflicted upon them by the British Empire. If your ancestors did this centuries ago, we black people have the right to make our greivances known. Also, the acceptable black to you is the bowing down reactionary type of Negro.
You must be an idiot? The biggest RACISTS today are Blacks. Cry about everything and whine about everything is the mantra of most blacks today. Especially the Black racist losers who vote DEMOCRAT. Blacks are citizens and don't need ANY voting acts rights signed.
Lets sleave the past in the past and move on. Blacks get no special rights and due to what happened in the past.
Sorry, but most black people have a mind of their own and reject Tea Party logic. We accept environmental protection, our civil liberties being enhanced, and an end to any form of oppression against any human being. Also, laws come throughout human history to rectify violations of human liberties. The Voting Rights Act is still necessary, because it protects against violations to those valuable human rights. Extremists still exist that want the rights of black Americans to be eliminated. No real person advocates special rights. People want the extension of the same HUMAN RIGHTS to all people. For human rights is superior to states rights. The Federal Bill of Rights is superior to states rights.
Sometimes, the free market and private interests can't guarantee equal rights among all citizens or all human beings. These equal rights are sometimes fought for and people died in allowing the public to have the real liberties to come about. The past is the past, but even in the present, oppression is around. When oppression is around, we don't say let's ignore it. We don't say, let's miminize it. We say, let's fight it and eliminate all forms of injustices in the world society now. That's our job and black people are more than correct to advocate compassion to the poor, not austerity (and freedom not discrimination or intolerance). I prefer black people to be politically independent personally, but I precisely comprehend why most of my people are Democrats (since the Republicans are so extreme that even Eisenhower would be criticized by the Tea Party reactionaries. Nixon is more liberal than many Republicans today). Peace is also superior to war mongering and unnecessary militaristic aggression against sovereign countries in the world. So, black people should advocate social justice and pristine equality via any legitimate means necessary.
-By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment