Political Realities

Most members of the Black Panther Party were working class, not lumpenproletariat. But there were also middle class Blacks and Black intellectuals involved as well. Since Fanon died in 1961 and the Black Panthers were founded by Huey and Bobby in 1966, it doesn't surprise me that Fanon never heard of them. LOL! Folk should read Fanon: BLACK SKINS, WHITE MASKS; A DYING COLONIALISM, TOWARD THE AFRICAN REVOLUTION & his magnum opus: THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH.

 -Savant

 _____________________

 I also mentioned to the French journalist that when King confronted Johnson regarding our right to vote, he got a bunch of foot shuffling and temporizing. "Oh yes, you're righht reverent. But we can't move to fast. We just got the civil acts act through, and maybe we ought to slow down for awhile and go for Voting rights a bit ladter." As I informed the journalist, Dr. King said "No dice! We're going to force your hand if we have to." And, of course, there was the Selma campaign which did lead to the Voting Rights Act. "What history teachers us" i said to the journalist, "is that while elections DO matter, ultimately it is the self=-activity of the MASSS which mattter more." I further explained that even if Obama hs the most progrressive sentiments it will mean little unless there's a MOVEMENT happening. Otherwise, the only voices Obama will hear will be those of donors and lobbyists---which is usually how American politics works for boht Democrats and Republicans. I argued that IF Obama still does have progressive sentiments, and we have a MOVEMENT happening, he will be able to appeal to the "will of the people" expressed in the streets. If he is NOT still motivated by progressive sentiments, a Movement may move him--kicking and screaming if necessary--in a more just direction. I told Bruno that "I wish I can assure you--since you seem to have progressive sentiments of your own---that Obama's victory in November will mark a great new era. But without popular insurgency it may turn out to be just another election--its symbolic significance notwithstanding. " [That interview was actually published in France]

 -Savant

 ____________________

 I was interviewed by a French journalist in Bmore a couple of months before the 2008 election. He asked me whether Obama's election, if it happened, would mark a new and postive turning poing for Blacks in America and the poor in general. I responded that while I had read up on Obama (including him memoirs) and knew about his relatively progressive PAST, I could not be certain what his CURRENT politics will be like if he is elected. I mentioned that many elected officials with progressive histories going back to the 60s when Obama was in diaperss (and I a small child), became greatly different kind of folk once in office. "It will be a matter of SYMBOLIC historical importance if he wins. I initially didn't expect him to get this far. But it is what happens AFTER he wins which will indicate whether there is SUBSTANTIAL historic importance." I also pointed out to the journalist my concern for the lack of a PROGRESSIVE MASS MOVEMENT on a large scale. "The system is the system" I told the journalist. And it is often forgotten that accomplishement acnieved under so-called progressive administrations flowed more from the presence of MOVEMENTS already on the ground before the new administration take office. There would probably have been no Civil Rights legislations under Kennedy or Johnson had there not be the Black Freedom Movement. White liberals didn't organized the Movement in Montgomery. The sit-ins and Freedom rides were already in progress when Kennedy was elected. Earlier the militant Labor Movement was in progress BEFORE FDR took office, and A. Phillip Randdolp had to threaten a mass march on DC to get FDR to act on segregation in the military.

 -Savant

 ___________________________

 I've read Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, and it only convinces me (especially in light of his performance since 2008) of the limitatons of politics in this racist capitalist republic. I wonder at times what Obama sees when he looks in the mirror these days, Yes, he was involved with anti-apartheid movement, with Black and Latin student organizing, reading Fanon and critiques of colonialism and neocolonialism, hanging with Marxist profs and supporting women's groups. But that eventually went by the wayside as he became an Establishment politician. But I'm not surprised. I know elder brother warriors whom I used to look up from the old Black Panther Party who are now politicians, and not a whit more progressive than other politicians (though, like Obama, they sometimes fall back on the old progressive rhetoric of Movement days that is still appealing to much of the Black masses). They, like Obama, were expected to be "transformati onal" leaders and proved to be (or eventually become) transactional politicos. Our people should have been warned when "leaders " after the 1960s began saying that we have to shift the Movement "from the STREETS to the SUITES." A red flag should have gone up immediately. We must fight CLASS and as well as RACE oppression. Yes, wold should opposed right wing racist attacks on Obama and others. But we must hold to the fire the feets of Obama and all other black bourgeois politicians, Our emphasis has to be on POPULAR and grassroots political activity and self-empowerment. And we cannot limit ourselves to electoral politics, but must begin to create new, revolutionary democratic institutions and associations.

 -Savant

 ________________________________

 I am essentially in agreement with what you're proposing here. i especially want to emphasize the creation of cooperatives simply because they're economic forms which REQUIRE democratic participation and governance in ways not require, or not even possible, with capitalistic enterprises. Some of the programs offered by SNCC and the Black Panther Party can (with some modification in light of contemporary realities) be still relevant and useful. And they can help[ us lessen whyite capitalist economic power over our communities. The only problem is that there must also be changes in the larger society--fundament al changes. Hence our politics--and by politics I don't mean just electoral politics--must also master the art of useful alliances. While I do not share the same degree of animosity toward liberals as does Abdurratin (since the Right is obviously FAR worst), I wold not rely on them when it comes to FUNDAMENTAL social transformation either. And Dr. King himself argued in WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, CHAOS OR COMMUNITY that the old liberal coalitions were not likely to work any longer. You may recall that he argues that as our movememnt was transitioning from the fight for constitutional rights to the fight for HUMAN RIGHTS (as Malcolm had argued), a new more revolutionary thrust would have to characterize not only the internal politics of the Black struggle, but also the kind of alliances would would have to make in the future. The liberal coalitions under liberal Democrat administrations (which hardly exist any longer) might have been useful during the EARLY phase of the Civil Rights Movement, but not much after. And it is now LONG after. I am interested in both internal Black political and intellectual efforts which have a revolutionary character. And at least a revolutionary potential must be there in the multiracial alliances which we may opt for in the future. I am convionced that Dr. King was right that we need a "radical revolution of values" and a "radical redistributiion of political economic power."

 -Savant

 _____________________________

 There are any number of books which I've not mentioned; including nay number which I've READ (unlike Assdurratin), but hadn't thought of at the time. They would included Huey P. Newton's TO DIE FOR THE PEOPLE and REVOLUTIONARY SUICIDE---titles which i don't like but containing much substantive analysis that I can support. I would also include SEIZE THE TIME, and DIE N***a DIE by H. Rap Brown. I would also included BLACK AWAKENING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA, by Robert Allen. Also SOLEDAD BROTHER by George Jackson....and even (with some reservations) BLOOD IN MY EYE, also by G. Jackson. And yes, I would include a number of books by Angela Y. Davis--whom the Black Panthers themselves considered to be an ally (Addie-rats ignorant opinions notwithstanding)-- including her memoir ANGELA DAVIS: AN AUTOBIOGRPAHY. I happen to be an education and a revolutionary intellectual. So there are any number of things that I might not have mentioned. What folk need to learn might be a list circling the globe a hundred times. And unlike Assdurratin, I recommend stuff that I've actually READ. I don't just drop names and titles. This is Black History Month, and I think we should deeply study our history and things of historical-social significance to the survival andl liberation of our people. 

-Savant

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T7A5SSUSHTH1FR934/p15

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T0Q9VUTMO2D9J3KM4/p177

___________________


Cornel West (whom I know personally) is, like most of the Black (or white, or other) intellectual left is convinced that race is a fiction, but that racism is not. However, we mainly think that race is a fiction insofar as it is conceived as a natural entity, or divinely created one. We reject racial essentialism as both FALSE and DANGEROUS. Obviously, we can acknowledge the obvious fact that race as a HISTORICAL SOCIAL reality is real. Most of the discussion of ending whiteness seems to come from WHITE scholars in the area of critical race theory. And they are divided as to whether whiteness as a form of identity can be detached from white racism and white privilege. AA philosopher Lucius Outlaw whom I met as a student, is one person especially noted for idea that "whiteness" is redeemable, that it can become mainly a cultural identity liberated from the chains of racism and privilege. It might then be harmless, even creative.

On this issue I am undecided. But as I stated on a panel with Lewis Gordon, another AA philosopher who was presenting his book HER MAJESTY'S OTHER CHILDREN at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association, "racists don't have much of a problem with the concept of race. Racists have a problem with BLACK PEOPLE." So, for me the critical issue is to ABOLISH white racism, and the system of plutocracy with which it has been inseparably connected from the very beginnings of the entity that we today call the USA. Once institutionalized racism and plutocracy are abolished, then probably EITHER whiteness (and maybe even blackness, not sure) will disappear OR it will take on more benign forms. I guess I stand between those who either insist that whiteness must simply be abolished and those who think it's redeemable. I say "End the system of oppression and injustice on which at least PRESENT FORMS of whiteness is grounded, and the rest can be worked out or will work itself out." That can become the basis of solidarity both WITHIN the Black community, as well as the basis of transracial solidarity binding all the disinherited peoples of America and the world. But as long as sONE and Hendrickson refuse even to admit to the white privilege they benefit from, and as long as many whites delude themselves into thinking that anti-Black racism is a thing of the past (or that anti-white racism is the major problem today), then with THOSE white people I cannot and do not expect much.

I do think that SOME whites are open to this kind of solidarity and willing to acknowledge the realities of white privilege even while also acknowledging that most whites are themselves oppressed. Some are willing to fight racism as well as class oppression. Far from being mutually exclusive the struggles against both aspect of oppression--and against Patriarchy--are mutually dependent for victory. I am probably MORE optimistic on this score Johnny ("in Black Revolutionary Films") or Attai. They are BOTH right, however, in their view that MOST whites are not there yet. Only I think that a LARGER minority of whites than before are accessible for the struggle against racism and economic injustice. Indeed, I think that a MAJORITY of peoples of color and a SIGNIFICANT minority of whites (20--35%) can form a progressive, even revolutionary movement for social justice NOW if they can be somehow galvanized. But that's another discussion for another time/

 -Savant

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T1DDAGEKGCH8EUJVA/p7


__________________


Again, the usual disruptive behavior... which I have to believe comes in part from people who are as they seem---drooling racist kluxer wannabes---or agents of guess who sent to disrupt positive conversation. Bappy and Savant offer up plenty of positive conversation, and so are attacked by packs of racists quivering with angst at being consistently intellectually punked by BLACK people, whom they detest irrationally. Then their self-esteem drops even lower, then they must barf up even more racist crap to compensate and so we go around the vicious racist cycle of idiocy and psychosis. Recently a certain PR went off on me in here, hysterically quivering with fear of Mexicans, and thread after thread appeared, with a few slopeheaded Afronazis trying to jump on the bandwagon... too bad I sent the entire wagon hurtling off the cliff. Racists are the most pathetic of losers. Yet I cannot pity them, since their racism is sociopathic and does have negative effects, even the racism of a worthless little dweeb like Oh-Really, it creates bad vibes if you will...

 -Ish Tov

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TATUH869QA78PGH1P/p7

 _________________________________

 A great quote from Sister Bernice King:

 "...My father, if you study his life's work, was in the midst of addressing economic injustice. In fact, he saw economic injustice as inseparable twins and so he spent the last three years of his life really raising the issue and talked about it during the poor people's campaign that he was crusading for when he was assassinated in Memphis."

__________


 You can SAVE the FALSE Samoan "game". Pretending to be of "COLOR" does NOT supercede white supremacist behaviors and "systems" inwhich YOU agree with. White people don't care about white supremacy or agree with it??? Surely YOU are joking. If whites didn't believe or agree with white supremacy, how does it survive??? If they DON'T believe or agree with white supremacy, HOW and WHY do Blacks receive HARSHER penaties for drugs used in the SAME amount as whites??? Why do WHITE sociologists ACKNOWLEDGE whites ARE obsessed with race to the EXCLUSION of ALL other races??? Why do whites in the criminial justice system, including Mark O'Mara who defended the VILE murderer George Zimmerman, ACKNOWLEDGE the system is rigged AGAINST Blacks, especailly Black males??? They DO it for the SAME reason YOU do. They KNOW the TRUTH but practice white supremacy as it BENEFITS whites to the EXCLUSION of ALL colored people, ESPECAILLY Blacks. It is CLEAR you are NOT in the mental health field. Most PROFESSIONALS who have been educated at any school of note understand to social STRUCTURE that IS BASED on white supremacy. The FACT that you want to IGNORE that and BLAME Blacks for the social CONDITIONS YOU set up in the first place speaks VOLUMES about you mental health education. It is IMPOSSIBLE to Love ALL people EQUALLY while SUPPORTING white supremacy and white supremacist social "systems" that are ANTI Blacks on it's face!!! And LIKE whites, YOU attempt to turn TRUTH about white behavior into HATE. Call it what you WANT, but the TRUTH remains the SAME!!!

 -Edud

 _________________

Great Jewels from the Great Sister Courtney:

Table Salt = BAD!

Table salt, which is 97% Sodium Chloride (NaCl) is chemically produced, bleached and devoid of most other nutrients. It also contains Aluminum in many cases, which has been linked to Alzheimers disease and other problems in the body.
This type of salt is not naturally occurring and in fact, when salt-water fish are placed in salt water made with table salt… they die.

This type of salt is also devoid of the many trace minerals that the body needs… so it is a wise decision to avoid it.
The problem is, that when companies reduce table salt in their foods to make it low-sodium, they don’t replace it with trace minerals and healthier options, they often replace it with MSG and other chemical additives to achieve the flavor without the salt.

Real Salt = Good!

Origins

The Himalayan mountain range stretches across Asia passing through China, Nepal, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bhutan, Afghanistan, and India. Most people associate the Himalayans with Mount Everest, the highest peak on this planet, but here is something new to think about- salt.

Once upon a time (a couple of hundreds of millions of years ago) crystallized sea salt beds, now deep within the Himalayans, were covered by lava. Aside from being kept it in a pristine environment that has been surrounded by snow and ice year round, the lava is thought to have protected the salt from modern-day pollution leading to the belief that Himalayan Pink salt is the purest salt to be found on earth. It is now hand-mined from the mountains and brought to the culinary market.

The many hues of pink, red and white are an indication of this salt’s rich and varying mineral and energy-rich iron content.

Benefits
In the same manner that vitamins and minerals are perfectly packaged in fruits and vegetables, because this salt was formed naturally the minerals within the sodium work in synergy.

(Synergy is the interaction of multiple elements in a system to produce an effect different from or greater than the sum of their individual effects.)

Iodine- Natural salts are rich in iodine, so it doesn’t need to be artificially added in.

Less sodium consumed per serving- Himalayan salt is made of the same components as table salt but since the crystal structure is larger than refined salt, and by volume- this salt therefore has LESS sodium per 1/4 t. serving- because the sea salt crystals or flakes take up less room on a teaspoon than highly refined tiny table salt grains.

Packs a hearty 80+ minerals and elements- Himalayan salts are mineral packed crystals which formed naturally within the earth made up of 85.62% sodium chloride and 14.38% other trace minerals including: sulphate, magnesium, calcium, potassium, bicarbonate, bromide, borate, strontium, and fluoride (in descending order of quantity).

Because of these minerals Himalayan pink salt can:
Create an electrolyte balance
Increases hydration
Regulate water content both inside and outside of cells
Balance pH (alkaline/acidity) and help to reduce acid reflux
Prevent muscle cramping
Aid in proper metabolism functioning
Strengthen bones
Lower blood pressure
Help the intestines absorb nutrients
Prevent goiters
Improve circulation
Dissolve and eliminate sediment to remove toxins
It is even said to support libido, reduce the signs of aging, and detoxify the body from heavy metals.

JUST some more helpful information to be aware of. The fact is, real salt is not bleached ,whitened etc. You can find different REAL SALT IN PLACES LIKE HEALTH FOOD STORES OR ORDER IT ONLINE. SEA SALT, CELTIC SALT PINK SALT.ETC

THE FACT IS, IT TASTE PURER and its healthier but you still don't need a lot. Process salt is missing the 84 trace elements our bodies need. Theirs a lot of info about this on the net. Just have to look it up.

_________________

Just Historical Facts

"This was, for most of us, our first trip to Scandinavia...We felt we had much to learn from Scandinavia's democratic socialist tradition."(AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., p. 259). While I don't have It with me as present, you can find in King's papers an address to the SCLC stating that he thought that America would also have to move toward some form of democratic socialism. In the AUTOBIOGRAPY he speaks of his "anti-capitalist sentiments" (p. 2). In a July 18, 1952 letter to Coretta, King writes "I am much more socialistic in my in my economic theory than capitalistic...[T]oday capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes." That letter appears in the King Papers, but is included on p.36 of the AUTOBIOGRAPHY which you mention but have apparently not read. It seems you're not an "Islamic scholar," but a Muslim fundamentalist hack. You not only do not read secondary sources--which ALL scholars MUST do. You don't read primary sources either. King doesn't bother to critique "Kennedy brand" of capitalism, nor Reagan style. King critiques the CAPITALIST system as a whole. He thought it useful in undermining feudalism centuries ago, but is now a new system of exploitation and oppression. Anyone who studied King himself and those secondary sources by King scholars would know this. 

-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: Now you're exaggerating. Even the worst of ANC missteps do not compare to the totalitarian terror and corruption of fascistic apartheid South Africa. And the corruption is basically the kind of corruption you can expect in a society still governed by corporate plutocracies.. The ANC accomplished a part of the aim of the Movement in leading toward parliamentary democracy. Demonstrators are not likely to gunned down in the streets by the hundreds or thousands, as they were as a matter of course under apartheid. And with greater freedom of assembly, press, and so forth there is probably greater KNOWLEDGE of corruption--greater impatience with it since it falls short of what people expect from a government put in power by their movement. But trying to say that the ANC regime is worst that the previous fascist state is like saying that Obama is worst that Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum. Or saying that the city government of the current mayor of Birmingham iw worst than what existed during the time of Bull Connor. There's a long history of tension between coloreds and Blacks--both of which would be regarded as Black in America, ironically. The tension was mainly generated by apartheid, by white rulers who positioned the coloreds above the blacks, but beneath the whites, but who enticed coloreds to identify themselves with whites--indeed with whiteness. Nonetheless, the ANC doesn't force coloreds (or former white rulers) to carry passes, haven't reduced them to the servitude to which Blacks (and coloreds for that matter) were subjected by the white supremacist regime. Nor do I hear about peaceful gatherings of coloreds being broken up by police firing into crowds. Whatever issues I may have with the ANC, it's still better than the FASCISM of the previous apartheid regime. Meanwhile Reagan armed and financed the racist, terrorist govrnment in South Africa, as well as right wing death squad terrorists and terrorist regimes in Central America--costing at least 100,000 lives. i recall hearing demonstrators chant "Reagan, Reagan, he's no good. Send him back to Hollywood." Were they serious? The bastard fascist cowboy should have been imprisoned for crimes against humantiy. I think that a specious and dangerous argument. 

 -Savant 


______________________

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TGR7NOC6C0A1A5PFR/p223

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TGR7NOC6C0A1A5PFR/p224
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. 

But if the ANC does not find a way of bring about democratic, egalitarian economic reforms, if it doesn't find a way of alleviating poverty, we will see--signs already there--of increasing class divisions within the African population. And that also makes for corruptions which can undermine democracy. 

Indeed, it is possible that if South Africa does not get on a progressive social democratic path---which is really the ANC'S own original program--we may see corrupt Black elites forming political marriages of convenience with the former white ruling caste. In that case we could eventually see South Africa back on the path toward a new (but no longer exclusively white) fascism, or a violent CLASS STRUGGLE. In his writings, and his speeches while on trial, Mandela argued for something like a social democratic alternative. I can only hope they get back on course in that direction. And maybe these popular protests is the wake up call the current government needed.

 _____________________________ 

King and Labor 

 By the way, Dr. King was always pro-labor, though not uncritically so. He noticed that there were progressive unions which were open to supporting the Black freedom movement. There were also conservative unions, and conservative tendencies within union, which would shy away from supporting the Black movement or even oppose it. King did make alliances with more progressive unions, some of whom worked with him to advance the cause of the Memphis sanitation workers---impoverished Black workers fighting for what white workers could more often take for granted during the 1960s: collective bargaining. Rights which the Republican reactionaries are now trying to destroy even as they seek to destroy the fruits of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.(But Uncle Assdurratin can't see that.) Nonetheless, from his first book STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM (1958) to WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE: CHAOS OR COMMUNITY?(1967) King stresses the importance of economic justice and the importance of working class organizations (including unions).. He discusses this at some length in his last book, but actually in nearly all his books. 


-Savant

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T6090PF10PL8ALV2D/p19


 ______________________________ 


 Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral, Frantz Fanon and even Patrice Lumumba (though less clearly than the previous three) were leftists. I can assure Abdurratin that the author of CLASS STRUGGLE IN AFRICA, NEOCOLONIALISM: THE LAST STAGE OF IMPERIALISM and the philosophical treatise CONSCIENCISM was no conservative. And only a political or philosophical illiterate can fail to see Nkrumah's unmistakable Marxian bent. His work is more EXPLICITLY Marxist than those of Fanon and Cabral. I'm passing no judgment, positive or negative, on Nkrumah. It is what it is. And OBVIOUS. At least the OBVIOUS does not escape me. 

-Savant    

___________________________________

Some practically think of him as a holy man, almost as someone who walks on water. Others practically see him as the devil. Why all this LOVE and HATRED for Barack Obama? I see him as a politician, far better than the Republican adversaries who ran against him. He does have a progressive background, as is evident from his memoir DREAMS FROM MY FATHER and commentaries from persons who knew him as an activist--some of which have appeared in THE NATON or THE PROGRESSIVE. I think his administration offers openings for a new popular democratic movement and the beginning of a new era. But he's not going to split the Red Sea. NOr is he the anti-Christ. He's a centrist liberal Democrat with some progressive sympathies, but whose progressive background may or may not reveal itself in his administration. So what's with the deification of Obama on the one hand, the the demonization of him on the other? Bush was nearly condemned to a lackluster presidency, especially given the Florida debacle and the dark cloud under which he entered office. The horrible irony is that Osama and this thugs helped save Bush's presidency in the beginning. He and America gained moral capital due to the crimes of 0/11. And as commander in chief amidst a crisis and an atmosphere of fear, Bush support rose for a time. But only to fall to the lowest levels of unpopularity probably in the history of American presidents. Barack Obama achieved popularity coming into the presidency; and his approval ratings have actually gone up a few points recently. Moreover, his popularity is global as well as national. But how long can this last? Why is he so popular? And why is there still a good number of people (though a minority) who not only disagree with Obama, but HATE him? How can sane people (if they ARE sane) REALLY believe that Obama is a communist and a fascist, a terrorist Muslim and a Marxist? And how could his election spark a RISE in activity (including violent activity) among white supremacist and far right people? This exceeds even the Republican animosity toward Bill Clinton.

-Savant

_________

Queen wrote:

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.

_____________

OBAMA'S LEFTISM?

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