-Savant
________________________
Self-respect is a much a part of Assdurratin's character as oil is a part of water. Islam forbids "back biting" he says. If so, Assdurratin is not Islamic. LOL! No one engages in more name-calling, gossip, and personal invectives in the place of arguments than does Assdurratin. And, of course, he is philosophically illiterate if he cannot discern Nkrumah's Marxism. As for myself, philosophy of existence and existential phenomenology constitutes my basic philosophical position, if indeed I were to adopt any such label at all. Virtually every scholar who has commented on what I've written has noticed that. At most I appropriate insights from Marx where suitable. But also from Aristotle, Fanon, Nkrumah, Cabral, Cesaire, Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche, Hannah Arendt, Foucault, Sartre and even ancient Chinese and Indian thinkers where it seems fitting. Assdurratin's contrast between alleged "Marxists" like me and "Nkrumahists" like him is a phantom founded on what Analytic philosophers call a "category mistake."
-Savant
_______________________________
Both statements are equally false. Margaret Thatcher was leader of the CONSERVATIVE Party in UK, and not a liberal unless in the sense of "classical liberalism" which is today basically the ideology of conservatism.. And I am way left of liberal. Yes, you do need instruction even in the basics of Western politics, ideas and culture which you so uncritically esteem.
-Savant
___________________
I won't respond to all your childish one liners. But I will make a few observations. A reading of King's own works reveal a pattern of left-of-center thinking, including explicit critiques of capitalism and sympathy for Democratic socialism. Especially in a country as backward as the USA, that is VERY left of center. There are numerous works in which he expresses a pro-Labor perspective, though not uncritically.(Some labor groups are progressive, some are not. He knew this). Read STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM, especially the chapter "Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" . Read WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, CHAOS OR COMMUNITY? King was neither Democrat nor Republican, but a Black revolutionary Christian. A militant foe of racism and economic injustice, who saw racism and capitalist economic oppression as intertwined--and SAID so. Get a copy of A TESTAMENT OF HOPE. Read his April 4, 1967 speech on Vietnam. Take a look at his last presidential address to the SCLC. David Garrow's article "From Reformer to Revolutionary." If not on the net, it can be found in volume 2 of MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER, THEOLOGIAN, ORATOR Read Taylor Branch volumes on King. Read Dr. Thomas F. Jackson's FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR AND THE STRUGGLE FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE.
-Savant
__________________
To get back to the topic of the USA Today article, the problem some conservatives are having is that Dr, King--like MOST African-Americans, and the most enlightened white Americans--was a PROGRESSIVE. "Liberalism: is about as far right as he moved, and was mainly LEFT of liberal. Sorry, but he was NOT a Republican--and Republicans were not always as right wing as they are now. King has a critique of capitalism that is often ignored while one does hear of his critique of Communism. Unfortunately, I had to burst the bubble of one of my conservative Black students who pointed out King's anti-Communism by point out his anti-capitalism as well. In the USA Today article, someone made mention of King's "traditional family values."
What is often overlooked is that one finds traditional family values even among socialists. In fact, Marxist leninsts are even MORE traditional in their advocacy of family, hard work, etc. One need only read Mao's boring homilies to see that. I doubt that KIng would have gay people put in labor camps as has happened in China and (or so I've read) in Cuba. But THOSE "Communist" polices would probably be favored by the American Right--unless they preferred Franco's firing squads. Of course, in all honesty Coretta Scott was too educated and outspoken to submit to the traditional submissive housewife ideal of the 1950s.(She refused to commit to the vow to "obey" as well "love" and "honor" when she married Martin King during the 1950s). The bottom line is that Dr. King was politically a progressive, not a conservative. He was closer to Olaf Palme rather than Reagan or Goldwater.
King vigorously OPPOSED Goldwater. And he was--WISELY--skeptical of BOTH parties. Which means he was more advanced that most AA and white religious and political leaders are today. When the Tea Party and the Republicans can come out in favor of universal health care and King's proposed ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS on the basis of "conservative principles", or when they can favor (as did King) a Democratic Socialism opposed to both capitalism and the Marxist-Leninist systems, then I will listen to their arguments that King was a conservative. If they can do all that...hell, even I'd be a "conservative". Don't hold your breath. Don't hold your breath.
-Savant
______________________
Now that's a good question. I think our economic empowerment and self-determination at some point will require the transcendence of capitaliism itself. But black owned enterprises may improve our situation, especially if they take the form of democratic cooperatives. I suggest democratic cooperatives, even though I don't exclude private enterprises, because in such institutions the AVERAGE person can play a bigger role in securing his/her well being and that of the community. I really would like to see folk take a second look at W.E.B. Du Bois's DUSK OF DAWN, and especially the chapter entitled "The Colored World Within." I've recently published on book on the philosophical thought of Dr. King, and I noticed that he seemed to promote both support for Black enterprises, and the formation of cooperatives among poor and working class Black folk. King discusses some of this in STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM and WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE: CHAOS OR COMMUNITY? I also think we can revisit some of the projects of SNCC, and even the 10 Point Program of the Black Panther Party. One sad thing about what happened after the 1960s, is that too much of the political ane economic thought and proposed programs were forgotten. But some of it is still relevant, even more relevant TODAY than in the 1960s.
-Savant
____________________________
By the way, capitalism created the need for welfare. It is neither a liberal nor conservative issue. But white claptrap about Blacks on welfare is itself one of the constant themes in the racist cultural narratives of this country. Try capitalism chaotic market and institutional racism as factors making for the welfare rolls. Oh yes: MOST poor people--black, white or other--are NOT on welfare. I grew up in the ghettoes of East Baltimore, and neither I or my parents or siblings were on welfare. Again, you're simply pandering racist stereotypes while claiming that those you stereotype are the racists. That's a common practice of you contemporary racists of the Right.
-Savant
_________________________
Yet widespread dsicrimination against people of color and women continues in the marketplace. Sorry, I can't buy your rightwing talking points, At any rate, there's no global depression. In fact, America was on the verge of a depression BEFORE the 2008 election. Had it happene there would have been a global depression, perhaps at least as bad as the Depression of the 1930s. As usual, you white racists know nothing about racism except how to BE reacists while projecting your racism on others. The "victimhood" iis basically a buzz word of the racist right, to which you obviously belong. if Blacks call you out on your racism you b_____ about "black victimology," and insist that whoeveer calls uyou out on your racism is a racist. It's as idiotic and dishonest as it would be for a 19the Century European anti-semite (or 1930s Nazi) charging the Jew for being racist when Jews called them out for racism.(Which actually DID happen. Sartre notes that in ANTI-SEMITE AND JEW) Racism, in REALITY, is a SYSTEM of privielge and underprivilege; a system of domination and oppression, not just sentiments of racial hostility. But on the level of attitudes involves the bad faith choice to believe that one's so-called race is superior, or more human than another. You exhibit that attidues very often, as do many other reactionaries in Topix. "Victimhood" has nothing to do with racism. The usual assumption of reactionaries when the speak of "Black victimhood" is that Blacks are only pretending or imagining themselves to be victims of racial injustice.
But that's simply untrue, and the TONS of reserach about the continuation of racism and injustice againsts Blacks (and other peoples of color even) means that it is not in our imagination. But in REALITY. YOUR own racism is reality. But nowdays many of you racists choose the dishonest dodge or projecting your racism onto others. The truth LIBERATES, but you Euro-American racists refuse to face the truth about yhour own bigory and stupidity. It is largely due to white racism that America is, though technologically advanced, politically and socially one of the most backward nations in the industralized world. CAPIITALISM is reducing America to a New Dark Age. And in America, capitalism and racism is so intertwined that you can harldy combat racism without combatting capitalism, and vi ce versa. Yes, the truth does hurt the 1% and you reactionaries and racists who are the foot kissers of the 1%. For those of us committed to human freedom and liberaton, for Black peoplle and all people, the truth is LIBERATING.
-Savant
__________________________________
By the way, you try to switch horse in midstream--those both horses are losers. Intially your argument--if we can calll it an argument--is that the fact that Blacks voted 97% for Barack Obama was evidence of racism. As if voting for a Black person is somehow of racism. When challenged on your non-substantial conception of racism, you modified it by arguing (or implying) that because Obama was (on your allegation) the worst of all presidents, then then the fact that most Blacks voted for him was evidence of Black racism. But you offered no evidence that Obama was the WORST president (probably because only your racism incllined you to assume such). Then you claim hat Obama created an economic crisis--or global depression---which you also cannot prove. And so, Blacks who voted for Obama given that ALLLEGED fact, were displaying racism. Now you say that Black racism is in "black victimhood"--a vague buzz intended to deny and deflect from the reality of white racism by charging with racism the actual targets of racism. A few things: The state of the capitalist economy is not as bad as under Bush. Since here's little good about capitalism, I won't say it's betrer--just not as bad at the moment. But even if the economy had gotten much worst during Obama's administration, that wouldn't prove that Obama CAUSED (your implicit assumption); and hence those grounds for regarding Obama as the worst president wouldn't hold.
By ASSUMING not only that the eocnomy is WORST, but also that Obama is the CAUSE, involves you in committing the Fallacy of False cause. You must offer convincing EVIDENCE that he is the cause--assuming (as I do not) that the economy is much worse, and in a state of depression. Obama is another corporate politician. And there have been MANY worst than he--including the previous one. Actually, the machiiations on Wall Street have more to do with the state of the economy than actions by either Obama or Bush. Corporate power rules the state, not vice versa. But even if I granted ALL your dubious assumptions about the economy and Obama's role in it, that wouldn't prove that Obama is the WORST president ever.(Would we not have to consider Hoover even worst after charging him with the Great Depression?
Or Bush under whom the current recession began?). And there are other considerations such as the human rights violations of previous administrations I mentioned in earlier posts. Moreover, the fact of Blacks voting for Obama wouldn't prove that Blacks are masters in a system of racial domination of others, priviligeging themselves and underprivileging others. Nor would it prove that Blacks (more so than whites) are guilty of the self-deceiving choice of believing that their "race" is superior or more human than other races. It isn't just that your claims are the OPPOSITE of what most Black people see and experience. Tons of scholarly research over time show that racism is PRIMARILY (though not exclusively) a WHITE practice in America. Decades of psychological tests (including one done at Harvard SINCE Obama's initial relection) demonstrates this. Numerous studies by human rights groups--including Amnesty International--point to the PREDOMINANCE of WHITE RACISM, not Black racism. Which is not to say that Blacks CANNOT be racists, only that they are far LESS LIKELY to be, even when we're talking about ATTITUDES.(Institutional black racism is virtually nonexistent). You live in a myopic world.
-Savant
_________________
An equal number of Black people voted for Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, who are obviously not Black. No "Black racism" was involved, and your repetition of this claim continually made by white racists indicates that you are yourself a white racist or a white racist Negro. The only people who even question Obama's academic competence--claiming that he didn't even pass the bar--are white racists. Mainly, you have an Uncle Tom mentality if you think Obama is worst than those presidents who EXTERMINATED Native Americans, enslaved African Americans, raped the Philippines (with 500,000 Filipino casualties), armed fascistic apartheid South Africa to the teeth, destroyed democracy in Guatemala during the 1950s, toppled democracies and democratically elected statesmen like Patrice Lumumba, Mossadegh, Allende, etc.
-Savant
_______________
Oh, there are a lot of presidents even worse that GW Bush. Obama I consider to be mediocre. He's actually HIGHLY intelligent, well read, and with some background in progressive struggles as a YOUTH. But he's like a lot of FORMER progressives and revolutionaries I know who latter went into politics. Too many deals, too many compromises, and eventually there little commitment left to the progressive ideals of their youth besides occasional lip service. Some older brothers in Bmore--I could introduce you to some of them--who were staunch civil rights warriors, Black Panthers (original ones), fighters for the poor and the oppressed, are now singing a different tune. Occasionally they have a flash of moral consciousness, a flash of the old social consciousness when some especially offensive injustice has happened. We saw this with Obama in relation to the arrest of Skip Gates and the murder and exoneration of the murderer of Trayvon Martin. But those flashes of consciousness don't seem to last. Obama COULD have been a great President, perhaps akin to a Lincoln or the "Black FDR" that some liberals and progressives hoped he would be. It's too late now even if he wanted to. That train has left the station. And his comments about economic inequality is too little, too late. Still only white racists and buck dancing black buffoons thank that Obama is the WORST president ever. REASON has nothing to do with their opinions.
-Savant
______________________
I doubt that the ruling class is trying to put down the emergence of the Convention Peoples Party because you're to marginal to be concerned with. Probably not even 1% of Black people in America even know you exist. You're not like SNCC or the Black Panther Party in their heyday. As for Obama, even those things you say which has an "element" of truth, they can be said about nearly ALL political leaders, and about many even more so than about Obama. Hence you SPECIAL animosity against Obama can't be due simply to his lackluster record. There's definitely an element of anti-Black racism there, and even anti-progressivism even though most progressives will tell you that Obama is NOT one. Notice that I am angry with Obama because of the WEAKNESS of his health care "reform" which still leaves the corporate system intact, and the public with no non-corporate option. Universal single payer should have happened, or at least the public option. Reactionaries are against health care reform altogether. Corporate domination is ok with them, thanks you very much. Black (and other) progressives think his interventions with the case of Gates or his comments regarding Trayvon were too little, too late. Reactionaries have the effrontery to accuse Obama of being a "black racist" simply because of his absurdly mild criticisms of white racism. The problem you reactionaries have with Obama is that he's not right wing as you. Our problem is that he is TOO RIGHT WING already! And so is the Democratic Party, mainly because it clings to the center--a center that has been shifting to the Right since the time of Nixon and Reagan. You reactionaries are heading toward an American Fascism, and want to take the country with you. You must be stopped, even if it comes down to armed confrontation (should all peaceful means fail). Our fight against you reactionaries is like the fight against Slavery described by Wendell Phillips: " This is a fight of civilization against barbarism." There's an old saying that we should THINK globally while acting locally. We can support progressive initiatives like Bob Moses' Algebra Project. We can support progressive organizations of women in our community. If they don't exist,create them. One has work where one is, but not be limited to where one is. Some of my colleagues and I are doing some work to help understand and clarify the meaning of the Middle East revolt for our own struggles here. Progressive community associations, unions, churches can be sites where one can act and promote the ideal of a radically democratic, nonviolent cooperative society. At some point young men may have to refuse to register for the military, and do this in an ORGANIZE manner. Civil Rights organizatons (what's left of them) must EXPAND their vision of what civil rights means. Not only a fight against racism, but also against poverty, class oppression and sexism. Against imperialism. Black nationalists (what's left of them) need to rediscover the revolutionary internationalist perspective and vision of Malcolm X. and other things. Well, I'm being called to a meeting as I type. And I will be discussion with colleagues about the prospects of forming a progressive association of faculty, students and "cultural workers" to aid in the struggle for social justice in this area, and elsewhere. First let COMMIT, then in the struggle we will learn how the revolution is made in the very praxis of making it.
-Savant
_________________________
You are guardedly optimistic, which is fine. Some say that I am TOO optimistic. It's hard to know where to find a wise balance. I'm reminded of comments made by Jean-Paul Sartre to the effect that while everything is not possible, it's only in and through the STRUGGLE that we find out what's possible. What I defintely DO think (at minimum) to be possible TODAY was well stated by Dr. King in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: "I accept this award with an abiding faith in America and an adacious faith in the future of mankind....I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, other centered men can build up....I still beieve that we shall overcome. This faith can give us the courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the City of Freedom." (THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., p. 260)
-Savant
______________
That moron Zaius doesn't even know that the Republican Party was the most LEFT wing of the two parties in the time of Lincoln. And I wonder why Karl Marx was an Abe Lincoln supporter, and a supporter of the Repubicans and Reconstruction? I doubt that it's because Lincoln was too left wing for him. But I do recall that abolitionist like Wendell Phillips were critical of Lincoln and the Republican Party for being too moderate---kind of like why contemporary progressives are pissed at a certain Lincoln admirer now occupying the White House.
-Savant
_______________
Savant wrote:
But it is fallacious, an instance of the fallacy of False Cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc)to infer that simply because crime incresed AFTER the ANC ascended to governance that it happened BECAUSE of the ANC. Crime was on the rise anyway. The problem of the ANC is not carrhing through on the social democratic economic reforms that they stood for when they were a persecuted oppositional movement. Now it's possible that for a time the corruptions of a previous regime will continue---even increase in a new, freer regime. Ironically, freedom may even aid for awhile the increase of evils already there and already incresing from the old regime. It is dubious to argue for that this means that the democracy is more corrupt than the previous tyranny.
-Savant
___________________________________
-Savant
The major problem as I see it is AA have become weak..they aren't the great fighters of the past..Today's AA is very obedient and submissive to "institutionalized racism"...and have now joined the fight to support White people's position in the world..handing over their pride, respect, economics, human resources,etc. The Modern AA have probably secured Whites for the next generation..at the expense of moving a coming generation of AA right back into slavery.
Another thing of interest is the continued claim that Obama is a socialist or a Marxist. Since I AM a democratic socialist, I wish this were true. But let's look at reality. The guy believes in capitalism. He models himself after Lincoln and FDR, a president whose "liberal" economic reforms are said to have saved capitalism during the Depression (though FDR was also labeled a socialist). Obama has even SAID he believes in capitalism--unfortunately. And I think the elite corporate community has far too much influence or power to block whatever progressive initiatives Obama may attempt to promote. But also, I wonder whether people who make these claims that Obama is a socialist or even a Marixt, have ever READ any of Obama's writings or speeches. I have. And as a student and teacher of Philosophy I'm quite familiar with the ideas of Marx as I am with those of Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau or Locke. I believe that if Obama was a Marxist I would have noticed it by now. I asked someone on anothe thread what evidence he had that Obama was a Marxist, and could it point out in Obama's own speeches or writings or even organizational affiliations any evidence of Obama's Marxist inclinations> My interlocutor's response: Zilch. Just the usual moronic response that "it would take an idiot savant not to see that Obama is OBVIOUSLY a Marxist..."etc. Strange inversion of reality which holds that a man who THINKS and refuses to accept claims without eviddence is the idiot, while the man who believes all sort of paranoid fantasies in total disregard for reason is supposedly more intelligent. But this shows another side of this anti-Obama hatred: a fanatic animosity wich is equally an hatred of reaason and truth. A hatred of thinking. And that is SCARY.
-Savant
___________________________
What's interesting is that many rightwingers (who once scorned Ayn Rand for her atheism) now prom0te her as a patron saint of capitalism. Interestingly enough, she did believe that the values of religion--especially Christianity--were anti-thetical to capitalism and her egoistic, possessive individualist ideals of freedom. She may actually have had a point. Certainly the values espoused by the Biblical Christ figure is hard to reconcile with capitalism, Indeed, capitalistic values are hard to reconcile even with the pagan religions and philosophies of ancient Greece or Rome--which civilizations the West regards as its foundation. As you are a religious man (far more so that I originally discerned), you might even recall that verse in the Acts of the Apostles when Luke speaks of the first Christians establishing socialistic or communistic communities. Or Jesus talking about coming to bring glad tidings to the poor and to "set at liberty those who are oppressed." I'm not a religious man today, but I think that perhaps some of the "homespun" ethics of AA Christian "social gospelism" (as Rufus Burrows calls it) has stuck with me. As a student and teacher of philosophy, I realy mainly on reasons. But I am capable of that "prophetic indignation" of injustice, which Cornel West think to belong to all three o the Abrahamic religions, and to be an import bulwark of democracy.
-Savant
____________
You obviusly know nothing about racism except how to be racist. Racism is (among other things) a system of dominaion, as well as the self-deceiving choice of believing one's so-called race to be superior to others. Whether the plight of Blacks have gotten worse, and whether this is due to Obama, is open to debate. If you assume that Obama is the CAUSE of a worsening plight of Blacks when you cannot prove it, then you're guilty of the fallacy of False Cause (post hoc ergo propteer hoc). A deteriorating capitalist system is causing a worsening of the lives of everyone. Only you're too silly to see it. I fault Obama for not adopting a tough stand against white racism and corporate privilege. His belief in "bipartisanship" is either naive or opportunistic. And the idea that Mainstreet and Wall Street can have the same interest is patently absurd. If anything, I hold him responsible for being TOO right wing.
We must wage WAR against reactionaries, plutocrats and racists--even agains white racists who have the effrontery to charge their victims with racism. On the other hand, Barack Obama actually owes the Right for being stupid enough to hand him his victory on a silver platter. I've never seen anything so cartoonish as the REpublican campaign of 2012. Also, Obama may even owe the stupid conservatives for helping to turn out the Black vote in his favor. By 2010, there was a survey which indicated that about half of AA college students stated they were disppointed with Obama. Writers in AA newspapers were angry that he wouldn't seem to fight for anything, but mainly tried to do deals even with his enemies. Then after the Republican wave of 2010, those stupid Republicans initiated a number of laws restricting voting rights, and especially designed to suppress the Black and Latin vote. The very indignation this aroused in the Black community and (I at least suspect) in the Latin community, helped turn out the Black vote in anger against the Republicans. By the way, there is no global depression. So Obama couldn't have turned a recession into a global depression. In fact, some economists claim he didn't go far enough.
The Recovery act may have EASED the recession, but it was not the kind sweeping progressive reform which could have significantly cut unemployment (though unemployment is modestly decreased). As for Obama being the WORST president? Worst than tose who waged genocidal wars agains the Indians and helped protect and manage an abominable slave empire which shamelessly called itself a republic? Worst the paranoia and persecutions of McCarthyism under both Truman and Eisenhower? Worst than GW who slept on the job while Al Qadea did its evil, who then started two wars which caused hundreds of thousands of lives while devastating the economy? I doubt that. I've no illusions about Obama's leadership qualities. But he's far from the worst America has seen. Were you able to view the worls outside the the distorting lens of your white supremacist racism, you might have a more balanced picture. Worst than the Nixon regime which orchestrated via CIA) the 1973 military coup in Chile, killing the democratically elected president Allende, destroying Chlean democracy, and imposing one of the most murderous military fascist states in Latin America? Or those presidents who administered the destruction of Mosadegh in Iran in 1953, toppling a progressive democratically elected regime in favor the the brutal despotism of the Shah?
Or who engineered the destruction of Patrice Lumumba's democratically elected regime in the Congo, precipitating the unending misery (beginning with Mobutu dictatorship) which continues even today? Or the propping up of the murderous fascistic, Nazi-esque apartheid regime in South Africa--a crime for which both Democrat and Republican administrations share guilt. NO, those who are claiming that Obama is the WORST president in American history are guided by white racism and reactionary political and social values.
-Savant
No comments:
Post a Comment