More of Savant's Words

To an extent this may be by design. You know, I heard a student of mine say that he posted the words "Black Love" to see what he could find on the internet, but all (or nearly all) that came up were things about was about the same old Black man vs Black woman hate crap. Imagine (as he said happened one time) posting on Black love and finding two or three videos of Uncle Tommy Sotomayor, or vids of black women demeaning black men. I suspect it's built into the system. However, I think there's another side to this: the low cultural level of Americans generally--black, white, brown or what have you. How many people go into the internet to check out Angela Davis, William Barber (of "Moral Mondays" movement), Alicia Garza and others are talking about. Even aside from the male/female bashing, they're probably looking for porn, violence, twerking or what have you. Similarly, what do most people READ--if they read anything. Many people read mainly emails and tweets. (And here President Trump--in sharp contrast to the learned Obama--is a reflection in the highest office of the land of the social, cultural and intellectual backwardness and poverty of America. An embodiment of the collective buffoonery of the nation.) But why is this? Why is their so much backwardness, so much anti-intellectual buffoonery, so much militant ignorance and even hatred? That is something that needs addressing And why are we not having discussion about the impact of revolutionary Black women, and social implications and historical meaning of a rise of radical sisters? Why can't even the BLACK WOMEN in this thread focus thoughtful attention and reflection on this?

The whole world--at least everyone who opens his or her eyes--have WITNESSED Il Duce Don Trump's erratic behavior. But like many mindless, goose-stepping "good Germans" you have eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, and a mind (of sorts) what does not think. As for "Fake News"--an essentially right wing concoction--I don't pay it much attention. Like most intelligent men and women I've nothing but disdain for Fox. However, I won't say it's fun watching you become unhinged. Your mindset and that of your proto-Fascist messiah Il Duce Don is a thread to democratic freedoms, and to the peace of the world. For the sake of humanity and decency, the anti-Trump resistance must continue. And there are MILLIONS of us.

Actually, Trump's behavior is soooo erratic that he has many people at various levels of society, both in America and abroad, questioning his sanity. As for Obama, my issue with him is the centrist liberalism which never transcends corrupt corporate power. His stability and intelligence has never been in question--at least not by intelligent people. And he hasn't been called "no drama Obama" without a reason. Trump is virtually the epitome lunatic drama. He's a climate change denier despite all the research in the scientific community that overwhelmingly evidences the reality of climate change, and of human involvement in it. He was a birther up until almost yesterday. He lies, and claims that he won the popular vote even though he lost it by about THREE MILLION votes. And when challenged on the FACTS, he (or his surrogate) appeals to "alternative facts." He claims that Obama bugged him during his campaign, but offered no evidence for this--not even superficial circumstantial evidence. He calls for a new arms race which would probably mean a new Cold War. He demonizes Muslims and Mexicans. Il Duce Don Trump was erratic and loony during his campaign; and to the chagrin even of some Republican leaders (who expected him to act normal or "presidential " while in office) Il Duce Don has continued to operate like a fruitcake. In temperament and leadership style Trump is more like Mussolini and Hitler, European fascists of seventy or eighty years ago than American political leaders of either Democratic or Republican party.

-Savant

REVOLUTIONARY BLACK WOMEN: You're AWESOME!

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T20F5K1NTT5CPS2EV


There are new movements emerging, movement of liberation, of which Black Lives Matter is probably the best known. But there are many arising throughout the country, even globally.
Of course, Black people have been struggling for liberation since we arrived here in chains. Slave revolts, abolitionism, varying forms of Black nationalism, civil rights movements, labor and socialism, and increasingly black feminism. You name it, we've been there.
But what's so remarkable about current movements, in contrast to most past movements, is the rise of SISTERS as LEADERS of our movements. BLM was mainly founded by Black women. Even in cinema, we have sisters coming out with films like FREE ANGELA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS, or SELMA.
At least two of my Black female students have been active in Baltimore since at least the time of the Freddie Gray murder by Bmore's fascist pig cops.
These are not the sisters whom you will often find in Topix.)But, of course, the more politically advanced brothers are not very often found here either.)
But they are charting a path forward.

Now the vital roles of Black women in the Struggle is not new. As long as there has been a liberation struggle sisters were there. But they were often the unsung heroines of the movement. Some movements, such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott, may have actually been initiated by Black women.(At least one historian whose name escapes me now argues that it was not only black women, but WORKING CLASS sisters who ignited Montgomery in 1955. And it was the Movement they ignited which drop kicked Dr. King into his world historical leadership).
Over half of SNCC was made up of women. About 55%--60% of the Black Panther Party of the 1960s and early 70s were women.
But women usually didn't have much place in leadership. Leadership often was centered around some charismatic brother. And often when the System took him out (or if he sold out) the Movement faltered.
With the rise of Black women leadership new forms of organization are emerging. Probably the early SNCC, with its emphasis on COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP and participatory democracy, is the form that we are seeing in this era of rising black female leadership. It was precisely this emphasis on grassroots organizing and democratic collective leadership that was emphasized by Ella Baker, an elder who helped 1960s youth found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee--which was the left wing of the civil rights movement.
This is itself a potentially revolutionary phenomenon. For if we want to form a new society, then we must break with old ideas such as the Great Man theory of leadership, or hierarchical and authoritarian forms such as the Leninist vanguard party.
The common people must become their own liberators--they must be SELF-LIBERATING. And the new forms of leadership and organization emerging with the rising of radical Black women activists opens perhaps a path to this great historical development.

In the EMERGING new movements Black women are increasingly the primary leadership. Take a look at Dr. Keeanga Taylor's book, FROM BLACK LIVES MATTER TO BLACK LIBERATION

Among my Black students, I seem to see more women playing leading roles in the new activism. I cannot prove it by scientific means unless a study is done of those student activists in the Baltimore area. Thus far my impression does correspond with what scholars seem to be finding in their general studies of the new movements.
It is not the participation of Black women in large numbers that is new. That has always been the case. It is the increasing prominence of their LEADERSHIP, and the emergence of a different style of leadership in this context that is new. Probably most members of the SCLC, SNCC and the BLACK PANTHER PARTY were women. I KNOW that to be the case with SNCC and BLACK PANTHERS. But most leading roles were played by the brothers. I don't recall reading that there were leading female in SCLC or the NAACP back during the days of the civil rights movement. There were some but not many in SNCC and the Black Panthers.
In the NEW movements women are more prominent, in some cases even the MAJORITY of the leadership.

One thing to be noted is that the new movements are not so church-centered as the previous movements (especially the previous movements in the South). Church institutions are usually centered around the leadership of some charismatic minister, usually a man. They are not democratic institutions.
The new movements emphasize more grassroots focus and decentralized collective leadership more compatible with democracy than older forms of leadership, which were largely ecclesiastical and patriarchal.
Churches, in terms of their membership, are overwhelmingly majority female, but the leadership usually male. This has been accepted by most people (male and female) for centuries, but may now be less and less accepted.
The acceptance by MOST Blacks (male and female), and most people of EVERY ethnicity of patriarchal norms and leadership models, largely explains why women were not as prominent in previous Black movements.(The same was true of previous progressive movements of all kinds except when they were women's movements. Labor, Abolitionism and others were male dominated in leadership).
The decline in the legitimacy of patriarchal norms and leadership have opened up a space for talented and dedicated sisters to exercise leadership and new perspectives.

Savant's Words in March of 2017

REVOLUTIONARY BLACK WOMEN: You're AWESOME!

Probably the person to whose post you're responding is a troll. But as for your comments, what I find remarkable is that the VAST MAJORITY of Black people, male and female, are NOT tossing each other under the bus; and that's the important thing to remember. While I cannot claim that most Blacks are revolutionary and committed in a politically conscious way to Struggle, most do identify with each other. Even the often talked about "black on black crime" is essentially the activity of 1% of the population; and not even in the worst ghettoes (contrary to common belief) are anywhere near a majority of the people involved in violent activity. Most befriend and love each other however fraught are their relations with all kinds of social challenges and contradiction. Moreover, the REVOLUTIONARY women fomenting new movements are about BLACK PEOPLE--women, men and children. Conscious young brothers are doing likewise. And as I explained to Harrisson, these sisters and brothers are a lot more progressive in their gender politics than were even the most advanced activists of the 1960s. But they have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants. Malcolm X, friend and ally of Fannie Lou Hamer, only began to challenge conservative gender attitudes in the last year of his life. (He was apparently inspired by some of the more left wing leaders of the African revolution whom he met). The Panthers only began systematically challenging patriarchal gender ideas and politics in the early 1970s, by which time they were already declining under the weight of COINTELPRO repression. Contemporary activists BEGIN with advanced gender politics that it took the 1960s activists and thinkers years to reach. (And not all even reached it). We may be entering a new era of liberation if we can survive and overcome the horrors of Trumpist fascism.  (14 hrs ago | post #42)

Trump, I believe, is a fake populist, like the fascists in Germany and Italy about70-80 years ago. His job is to misdirect the potential rebellion of the white poor and middle class, and turn their ferocity on Latin immigrants, Muslims and African Americans. The important thing now is education of the people, and the building of a liberating movement, not the fascistic tendency of Il Duce Don Trump. And here, the work of revolutionary black women and men is vital. Fortunately, the political right wing gets little traction in Black America (even though many of s hold conservative cultural values). But we must prepare the Resistance to fascistic repression if it comes. I'm afraid our REVOLUTIONARY sisters may now be a primary target. We must have their backs.


Probably the same recommendation could be well made for white women, and white men too. Yet none of this would make one a revolutionary. You are a revolutionary insofar as you are committed to bringing on a FUNDAMENTAL transformation of society, a radical transformation of values, and a radical transformation of interhuman (and Human/Nature) relations. Mindless individuals sometimes do well in school. Some very creative thinkers have little or no formal schooling. When education is designed for LIBERATION (both in school and out) then we can talk about schooling and education as REVOLUTIONARY.  (20 hrs ago | post #40)


One point you make really does concern me: Negative fools like Uncle Tom Sotomayor or SBT are not a majority, not even CLOSE to a majority, that COULD change. That is why it is needful for positive and socially conscious Black folk, male and female, to do whatever we can to reconstruct community and support the new movements. It is true that the negative haters like Uncle Tom Soto or even "IT IS" are still a minority, they seem to get more support in both tradition media and much of the social media. If you limit yourself to the trash online, especially in YouTube or Topix, you'd get the impression that all or most Black men and women despise each other. You'd get the impression that Black men all (or mostly) regard our sisters as "bed wenches", "ratchet females," or what have you. You'd get the impression that all or most Black women think that all or most black men worship the ground that white women walk on, that we all dream of some "angelic white women" (in words of "IT IS," and that even the most politically conscious brother (no to mention the others) are all obsessed with pursuing white p**sy. If the majority of Black men and women could be convinced of the idiocies the run through the minds (or at least posts and videos) of these silly Negroes, the Struggle would be subverted and the community destroyed. So, this negative tendency must be fought.

Well OhReally (under whatever new name) is well known for his deficiencies. But assuming--for I cannot be certain and there's reason to doubt--but assuming you at capable of improvement, let me suggest that you take a look at Chapter 3 of A CONCISE INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC by Prof. Patrick Hurley. It's a chapter on "Informal Fallacies." The "fallacies of relevance" are to be found in 3.2, among which are listed "Argument Against the Person" (i.e. "Argumentum Ad Hominem"). Read it, indeed read the whole chapter, if you CAN read that well. But perhaps you should start with Chapter 1 first. Find out what an argument is, and how one distinguishes premises from conclusion. Examine carefully the sections on Induction and Deduction, and the criteria for evaluation of each. Then go to Chapter 3 to learn about fallacies which you and most of your contemporaries pour forth like water on line. If you can do just that--even if it takes you a year--it will probably boost your meagre intelligence--that is, if we can assume that improvement is possible for you.  (21 hrs ago | post #686)


Certainly no one in Toix has excelled me in capacity for analysis, and I doubt that any can--least of all you reactionaries in this thread and in AA Forum generally. I could probably teach you the rudiments of logic, of good deductive and inductive reasoning. But I suspect you are unwilling, possibly incapable, of learning.  (21 hrs ago | post #685)


An common feature of white privilege is that whites don't have to offer credible reasons for what they say. Indeed, they may feel that they don't have to have ANY reasons whatsoever. Don Trump can simply say--in bald contradiction to available facts--that he won the majority of the popular vote. He can later say--with ZERO evidence--that he was wire tapped by Obama. And, of course, when push comes to shove white reactionaries can claim that they have "alternative facts." In another thread some white simpleton said that I was a Muslim terrorist (without knowing anything about my alleged religious beliefs nor having any evidence of any terrorist activity or associations on my part). I don't recall him retracting his statement when I informed him that I was an AGNOSTIC, have NO record of violence, and an actually against terrorism--includi ng right wing white terrorism which is most common in the USA. I do recall other white racists chiming to defend his position, also without evidence. Or again, the lies about Obama. There are LEGITIMATE grounds upon which Obama can be critiqued. But the jibberish one normally heard was about Obama being an illegal alien, a Muslim Communist, someone plotting to "pull the plug on grandma," etc.---all of which were idiotic fabrications with either NO evidence or nothing remotely even resembling credible evidence. So, you can be an ANTI-RACIST, and white racists will insist that YOU are the racist. You may never has insulted ALL whites, or whites in general, as they continuously insult Blacks as a whole with stereotypical generalizations and denunciation. Yet minus ANY EVIDENCE those same white racist who have defamed you will accuse you of having defamed the white race. It is no surprise that hostility toward whites among some Blacks is intensified in this place; and that I hear at least more ENLIGHTENED whites saying things like "Even white people are getting tired of white folks b_."  (21 hrs ago | post #684)


Trump exchange with black journalist sparks outrage
That statement is objectively true no matter how many red "X" marks it received  (21 hrs ago | post #152)


Most beautiful women (or women, period) date and marry within their own race. And that includes Black women. Beautiful women-black, white, brown nd other--do date and even marry "out.". But they are (like all women) an exception rather than the rule. The claim that beautiful black women date only or mostly white men is a myth, just like the myth that rich or "successful " black men date only or mostly white (or other non-Black) women. As for IR couples, most are like all other couples: couples in which NEITHER is a gorgeous person, but mainly average. The average Black woman (or man) in an IR relation is, well, AVERAGE. Not surprising since MOST PEOPLE of all races and genders are average. At least this is so in the REAL WORLD. But who knows what happens in subjective perception and imagination?  (21 hrs ago | post #832)


I don't know that I'd call that mother revolutionary, though she was probably acting out of fear for the son's life. (In some Bmore Facebook sites she has been charged with defending white supremacy since, as the argument goes, she directed her anger at her son, not police or the Establishment. In her own words, "I don't want my son to end up like Freddie Gray.") . I don't regard the uprising as anti-social. Fratricidal violence in the community is another matter, and even that is mainly an expression of the dysfunction which oppression usually breeds. I would on that latter issue accede to the point sometimes made by the Black Panthers in the past: "We must transform the black criminal mentality into a black revolutionary mentality." You may know if you study our history that in times when there's a high level of liberation struggle, so called "black on black crime" declines. (Black crime rate dropped 50% in Montgomery during the famous Montgomery Buss Boycott. Dropped precipitously during riots of 1960s. There were whole projects in parts of NYC, especially Harlem, in which drugs, gang violence, homicide, prostitution and even common weekend brawls virtually disappeared when the Black Panthers in alliance with other black nationalist and revolutionary group gained hegemony and declared those communities "liberated territories." That happened in my neighborhood when I was a kid and the Panthers were organizing). But with regard to gender politics, I didn't specifically have Huey P. Newton in mind even though he'd be an example of what I'm talking about. Whether we're talking about the Panthers, SNCC, SCLC, NAACP, NOI, OAAU--most of the movements in the past were mainly male oriented in LEADERSHIP, but not overwhelmingly male in terms of grassroots activism. Women and men made the Movement at the grassroots level, and women were commonly in the majority. Over half of SNCC and the Black Panther members were women. To their credit SNCC (which Ella Baker helped to found) and the Black Panthers had more sisters in leadership than did NAACP or Dr. King's SCLC (not to mention Malcolm's OAAU). Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton began to question patriarchy, but either r died(Malcolm) or their movements eclipsed (Huey) shortly thereafter. Huey and the Panthers did make PUBLIC statements of support for the emerging women's movement and even the then nascent gay rights movement. But by that time both moderate and radical Black liberation movements were declining. Contemporary movements can now BEGIN with a more progressive gender politics rather than eventually reahing this after years of struggle. A revolutionary class consciousness needs als to be an integral part of the struggle for Black Liberation  (22 hrs ago | post #38)


SEXISM is a cancer.  (Friday | post #287)


Savant isn't playing checkers, and doubts that the persons whom he is criticizing possess enough sense to play checkers. Anybody who thinks you can be a "Muslim Communist"--- i.e. an Islamic theist and a Leninist atheist--is not playing with a full deck. And some ideas are too silly to dignify with an effort of rebuttal. I don't debate people who believe the earth is flat, or that flus are caused by witchcraft. When someone says--without knowing what my actual beliefs are--that I am an Islamic terrorist (even though I'm not a theist and have engaged in NO violent activity), then this person is too simpleminded (or emotionally unstable) to debate. Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, but all opinions are not of equal value. And some opinions are not worth taking seriously at all.  (Friday | post #1637021)


Again, you need to seek professional help. Swallowing the right wing Kool-Aid can erode your reason, and yours is seriously eroded if you believe those fabrications to be facts. They're as eerily delusional as Nazi beliefs in international conspiracies of Jewish bankers and Communists. And no, the sky isn't falling Chicken Little. See a psychiatrist.  (Friday | post #1637018)


You and all those agreeing with or judging your comments to be brilliant really ought to seek professional help. Without psychological counseling you may be a danger to yourself and others. I won't blame you because you probably can't help yourself. But you do need help. Also, I happen to be an AGNOSTIC. Look it up. You might find it a surprising discovery that agnosticism isn't compatible with either Islam or Christianity. One other thing: If you accuse someone of being a terrorist and you don't have proof, you're guilty of libel. Just so you Know: People posting libelous attacks on others online have sometimes been sued. I don't see that as worth my time, and I suspect you cannot help yourself. But if you make such accusations against the wrong person, someone who doesn't understand that you suffer from emotional troubles, you could find yourself in court.  (Friday | post #1637013)


You need to lay off the Meth or crack or whatever you're taking if you REALLY believed that tired old line about Obama be "radical left" or "Muslim" . As for Trump, you'd better concern yourself about the mentally disturbed reactionary undermining America than Obama undermining him. If anything Trump may end up sinking his own administration, and maybe the nation as well  (Friday | post #1637010)


The common identity, to the extent it still exists, is a product of our history--of which ethnicity and culture is certainly a part. Diversity by itself doesn't preclude the existence of a common identity. Otherwise, you would not have such a thing as a Jewish identity, or a French or British one. But it can be said that Black people of the USA are less cohesive as a community than we were four or five decades ago. Yes, there has always been (even during slavery) some who found what you call opportunities to improve their lives. There's hardly a society in the world where that isn't the case. But the CLASS DIVIDE is greater now that it used to be, probably much greater. Class tensions have always existed, but the general feeling was we're ultimately in the same boat--whether we like it or not. The enabled at time solidarity in common struggle. You could be an illiterate sharecropper or a destitute brother and sister in the hood (called "ghetto" in the past), and may not have liked those "uppity bourgeois negroes who think they're better than anyone else." Or maybe you were a Black bourgeois, petit-bourgeois or intellectual who so 'embarrassed by those ignorant ghetto Negroes." But ALL face Jim Crow, and all were subject to the racist terrorism of police and the KKK. All had their mobility obstructed (even though the bourgeois still lived better than the masses). Even Dr. W.E.B Du Bois found that he could be denied the right to vote in Georgia. And to win certain rights Blacks of all classes, levels of education, gender or what have you were compelled to unite. I once pointed out in a lecture than in the riots that broke out in th e1960s, and which were far bigger than those that happened in Ferguson or in Baltimore in 2015, you wouldn't have had bourgeois leaders like ex-mayor Stephanie-Rawlings Blackor Barack Obama denouncing the rioters as '"thugs" --in the SAME language used by the racist president of Baltimore's Fraternal Order of Police. At least this wouldn't happen PUBLICLY What Black community and identity will evolve into going forward, or whether it will disintegrate rather than evolve new forms, is a question I can't answer. And I doubt anyone can.