Was He realy listening?
As Bush exited the Capital floor he said to one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), "you can see I really listened during our meeting". The question is did he really listen and was the proof of him having listened present in his speech as he hinted at with his comments. To properly answer this question we must look over what the CBC said to him.
The CBC presented Bush with its eight page agenda in a meeting they had with the President on Jan 26. After the meeting the CBC released a statement about the meeting in which they stated;
“We told the President that he will have three opportunities in the next few days and weeks to signal to us his willingness to work with us to achieve closing and eliminating disparities. First, the President can make a public statement regarding our meeting that he embraces our agenda. Second, in his State of the Union Address he will have an opportunity to speak about the disparities that exist in our Union. Finally, when the President presents his fiscal year 2006 budget, we will know whether there is a real commitment to addressing our priorities based on whether he commits resources”
The third of the three opportunities is the one that will matter most but for the time being I will examine if he lived up to the second of the three opportunities which was to address the issues and concerns that the CBC presented to him in his State of the Union Address.
Among the things the CBC agenda included was Education Spending, health care for “minority” men and women, Promoting Affirmative Action, aid to impoverished African and Caribbean nations and the Criminal Justice system.
Bush made some bold statements on a few of these issues; one in particular that caught my eye was his comments about the justice system, Bush stated:
“Because one of the main sources of our national unity is our belief in equal justice, we need to make sure Americans of all races and backgrounds have confidence in the system that provides justice. In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit -- so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction. (Applause.) Soon I will send to Congress a proposal to fund special training for defense counsel in capital cases, because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side. (Applause.)”
Clearly this is big talk when he speaks about establishing something that has never been established in this nation and that is confidence from Black people in particular in the criminal justice system. This will definitely take hard work to steal a word from Bush during the Presidential Debates and will definitely take more than well crafted words.
On the issue of health care Bush stated;
To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage -- (applause) -- and more control over their health decisions. (Applause.) I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor county, improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees -- (applause) -- expanded health savings accounts -- (applause) -- and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need”
Again, more bold statements with a little bit of pandering to the health care lobbyist, who seek to lessen their liability for their actions.
On the issue of education he did not have much to say except that he plans to expand his No child Left behind act (which has not been successful in its goals) to the High School Level. The NCLBA need to revamped and better funded before it can be considered to be expanded to the H.S. level.
Bush spoke about the apathy young Black men have in regards to opportunities and our treatment in this country. Bush stated;
“Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. (Applause.) Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.)”
Why only three years, it took far longer than that to create what we see in the cities across the country. I truly can not see Laura Bush identifying with or working with young Black men who have turned to the streets for various reasons and I hope his idea of helping young Black men is not midnight basketball games like those under the Clinton Administration.
For the most Part Bush may have held up to the second opportunity out of the three he will have to address what the CBC asked of him and listened to some of what they said, however, the third opportunity is the most important and will be the most telling. Every Political figure and Every President have given speeches promising many things but when it came down to it, none of what they promised had the financial backing it needed to be successful. I do not expect much from Bush or his administration and I believe the smoke and mirror show he put on last night was just that, another put on, but this is definitely a time when I would love to be proven wrong unfortunately I do not think that will happen but time will tell.
posted by Faheem @ 2/03/2005 11:45:00 AM
36 comments
36 Comments:
I can't wait to read your follow up in 3 months.
Btw thanks for posting about this, I heard it here first. 2nd in the Amsterdam news.
I agree with Bombs!
-Jean Michel
I think that any credible republican strategist, who is looking long term, realize the changing demographics of America will mean that the party will have to attract minorities to be viable. Politicians, by their nature, are more about power than principles. Power only comes from being elected or maintaining incumbency. Thus, in light of the republicans overwhelmingly white base, the strategy of the last 30 years, the “Southern Strategy”, will no longer be viable over the next 30 years, due to whites representing a decreasing percentage of the total population going forward.
In light of this, it is hard to see Bush, or any white politician as doing anything but pandering to black people. The Republicans MUST starts to win over a sizable percentage of Blacks (at least 25%) and a sizable percentage of the Hispanic vote. The Hispanic population growth is much faster than blacks, so political strategist no doubt sees this vote as the future vote that will determine victory for either party, however, the republicans will make a rhetorical effort to attract more blacks.
The Republican Party is still seen by many blacks as the political choice for white racist. Even if more than a few blacks may have conservative leanings, most will not sell out their people by aligning with a racist group. For those who do not lean conservative, the democrats are attractive because they are willing to spend money on programs and to support policies such as affirmative Action. The republicans will never get that vote, because to get that vote would mean they would have to sell out some key pillars of their party’s ideology. Thus, their strategy is to appear more inclusive and less racist. One can glean this strategy from Bush’s two most recent speeches where he talked about their being no room for racism in America and talking using terms like “Masters and Slaves”, which is sure to resonate with black folk.
The thing is though; the republican strategy will be all rhetorical. Their goal is to convince blacks who lean conservative or who are on the fence that the republicans are actually trying to help black people through their initiatives. For example, they try to appeal that the social security privatization will particularly benefit black people, because blacks do not live as long. So they highlight this in their attempts to sell the changing of the system. They do not really give a hoot about black folks dying prematurely or benefiting from the program, all they care about is what it is going to do for their base interest of small government. If they really cared about black folk, they would be trying to promote our living longer or lowering the retirement age for blacks, so that we could get our proper input back. That’s just an example of how they are essentially NOT changing who and what they are, but rather, simply attempting to convince blacks that they are looking out for our interest and well being too.
Justin, do you see a danger in blacks trying to play the system backfiring with us getting more played? What those blacks who vote need to do is to be loyal to their beliefs and not play this game of strategy of playing the right against the left. The reason that I believe that is that parties make ideological shifts in order to win votes. The democrats are seen as moving towards the right more than the republicans are seen as moving towards the left. If blacks start to vote republican in greater numbers, the white democrats will interpret this as an ideological shift….and shift ideologically towards the right too. The more democrats shift ideologically towards the right, to capture the moderate vote, the less liberal they become. Thus, if the black masses have truly liberal interest…our playing a game will end up with us being played as neither party has a liberal platform.
Think of it like a plane this is running low on fuel and needs to maintain altitude. In such a case, you jettison certain weight from the plane to save fuel and maintain altitude. If the democrats starts loosing a sizable portion of the black vote, they will jettison some of its liberal platform in order to try to recapture the lost black votes or to pull in white moderates who leaned republican due to being against some (not all) of the liberal policies and practices of democrats.
Thus, if the interest of the masses of black folk who vote is liberal or represented by democrats, then staying with the democrats OR NOT VOTING AT ALL, is the best strategy. When black vote have a vote stoppage, meaning that blacks will not vote unless the democrats put more of our special interest in the platform, democrats will know that there has been no ideological shift. Thus, they will not move to the right in the chase of votes, but rather, be forced to move to the left….because they are DEAD without the black vote. We have more leverage with democrats than republicans.
The question is not how much power Noah gained by not voting but how much power you gained by voting. In an earlier discussion on this Blog, I spoke to this issue in that I ask anyone that votes to show me what they have been given, endowed with, or basically gained by voting that is visibly missing from the lives of those of us that did not vote.
Black men and women do not have to be in total agreement about political issues or politicians but as noted before any movement that is to benefit our people must be done with us in agreement as to what causes and continue to create black condition and what the solutions are. If we can not agree on what causes Black problems, finding a solution for them is next to impossible.
Black men and women vote democratic because the Democratic Party has been the party that is most conducive with issues we have and concerns we have. The problem is not so much that Black men and women are choosing one party over the other; it is that some of us actually believe the system will some how begin to work to our benefit. The structural racist system built by and maintained in this nation is not changing, so while upward mobile Blacks are making gains and being accepted in various circles a great majority of our people continue to suffer and now upward mobile Blacks are looking back at them and saying to them, they are the creators of their situation.
Maybe a party that not only house racist but in fact practice racism in their policies and attitudes towards Black men and women is not enough for you to not want to be associated with the few in the party that you say are not racist, that is not enough in my eyes. You want to see how non-racist those few whites in the Republican Party are challenged them on the racist policies of their party and the racist beliefs of their party and you will see how non racist they really are in regards to Black men and women.
Justin, I have not lumped all black people in a category. I just simply noted the reality of blacks voting 90% democratic. I really do not subscribe to terms like moderate. People, at a given point in time (of vote) are either democrat or republican, conservative or liberal. There is no political party for moderates in the two party systems. The viable options are binary and mutually exclusive, in regards to president. Moderate is not one of the options. Thus, my noting blacks as being liberal is simply from the facts of their votes.
I am aware that some black folk vote republican because they believe in the ideology. I never said that such was not true. My point was in regard to voting republican as a POLITICAL STRATEGY and not based upon the principle of ideology or beliefs. My comment was based upon your proposal, plus, the fact that I always hear that black people should vote republican because the democrats take our vote for granted. I do not believe that is a wise reason to vote republican, if one is truly democratic or liberal in their beliefs. Currently, nearly 90% of black people seem to fall in this category supporting liberal/democratic ideology. That is not me making an assumption, but simply noting the facts of black behavior from the metrics of voting statistics.
Jews should be assumed to be as intelligent as anyone else and thus seek the path of their self interest. Their voting, I do not think, is not the product of a conspiracy. I other words, I do not believe that Jews get together and decide that 25% of them are going to vote for one party and 75% for the other, this time around. Each individual Jewish person makes the decision of who to vote for based upon what his values and interest are. Black people are no different. We do not vote based upon a plan or conspiracy to manipulate the system, but rather, we vote as individual based upon what we value and what our interest are. To the degree that we each share an affinity and interest in blackness, our vote comes out to be on the same page way more than not.
We can advance out interest by our power and right to NOT VOTE. The democrats NEED the black vote. The republicans do not and could work to make up the loss of black support with Hispanics. The Democrats cannot make up for the 90% black vote. Thus, choosing not to vote is the best political strategy that blacks could exercise for leverage. The democrats would realize that going forward their power could not be maintained without acquiescing or compromising with blacks on issue and values important to us. This would be much more effective in the long run, than would a vote republican. It would be one step backwards to take two future steps forward, because the immediate resultant of such strategy is that republicans would win election.
NOTE: In my not vote strategy...that would indeed by a class action conspiratorial effort on the part of blacks to have our issues part of the platform of the democrates.
I have only voted once in my life Justin and that was in 2000. My vote in 2000 had the same effect as my Non Vote in 2004. Even had I voted and voted democrate...Kerry carried my state anyway...without my vote. Thus, evidence suggest that my vote really has not mattered much or changed anything.
School Vouchers are exactly what I/we want.
---> You can argue that they wont work etc, but I and many other black people want them for our kids.
---> Tax credits for health saving accounts
I tend to agree with Bombs in that I think blacks must “urgently” re-think their political loyalties and strategies. The reality is that both parties “need” black people (and other minorities), especially now. Like I said in an earlier post, politics is not something that is inflicted upon us by white culture. That kind of thinking is just plain silly! We MUST vote! Shifting demographics is not a mythology, it’s an ever-present reality – and it’s going to explode the traditional conceptions of American power relations that we have been trained to adhere to like sheep. Furthermore, the party’s evolve over the years. During the early nineteenth Century, the Northern Wing of the Democratic Party was “the” most virulently pro-slavery, and anti-abolition. My point is that these parties have changed dramatically; they are not rigid historical entities – and depending on cultural shifts, the ideological course of these institutions can be radically altered.
Conservatives realize that in the near future minorities will dominate in terms of numbers, so they “must” absorb them. America will never return to a segregated Apartheid state. One could only believe this if they bought into the “PC American History” narrative of slavery’s (and segregation's) abolition. Slavery and segregation ended because of the economic sanctions placed on us by the international community. Reverting to legalized segregation would be the end of our thriving economy. Every industrialized nation in the modern world that has practiced Apartheid has been economically cut off in terms of international trade – thus forcing them to end their system of oppression and exploitation (or at least to find other, more covert means).That’s why fascistic drug laws and the prison industrial complex are so attractive and effective in the United States – they provide a continually growing, ever-revolving labor force (slavery by other means).
Soon we will not inherently be able to put a white face on your local Republican whipping boy/girl. We’ll have to rethink our naïve and simplistic “White vs. Black” conceptions of American (and global) power. As we are currently witnessing, Republicans are going to become increasing Asian, Hispanic and Black, which is going to really change perceptions as time goes by. Republicans are smart, and they’re realizing that they must become less enamored with the “visual signifiers of normative whiteness” (which is all a President really is, an ideological vessel, a figurehead), and focus all attention on further bolstering their political, economic and militaristic might. Bush’s minority appointments are less about illustrating the party’s tolerance, than they are about indoctrinating and familiarizing American whites with the future face of Republicanism.
–Jean Michel
You let someone talk long enough and they will tell you everything they think. Jean seems to believe that this struggle of ours is actually against white skin thus his speaking about a time coming when we can not be simple or naive (his words not mine) in our approach to the warring ideologies and policies of this government past and present that has effected the lives of Black man and women adversely is demonstrative of him truly not understanding anything that is written on this Blog and proof even more that he think what we write about is Black skin versus white skin. How foolish is that! When in fact we have railed against the Negro-Cons for accepting the ideology, policies and belief systems conjured up in the various white think tanks which is proof in and of itself that this is not about skin but about racist and imperialist policies and agendas.
For the record and for future understanding Jean, this is not about Black Skin versus white Skin, it is about a structural racist system imposed on an African people colonized here in America and the reality that today many from amongst the colonized are joining the colonizer and finding themselves in agreement with his imperialist policies and racist agenda that continue to reek havoc on the lives of the least of us.
Appointing Colored men and women to positions of power is not about showing white folk a face they will be confronted with in the future, as if we just arrived. Most Colored men and women that have accepted the republican agenda have renounce their relationship with the community from which they come if not in words than definitely in deeds thus Bush is only presenting Colored faces to white folk but these faces represent a clone, a robot, a man or woman that have rejected his own for personal gain and I do not think white folk miss that reality, maybe the colored folk including you Jean miss that but most white folk know these Colored men and women do not represent the communities from which they came.
When did I ever say anything about skin? I understand that your gripe is with White Supremacy, and that you believe black conservatives abandon their communities in favor of this system. I have no quibble with that logic, if that’s how you want to configure things. When you see a black conservative, you see a pawn for a racist white system. Fine! I’m simply saying that you had better get used to that because this phenomenon is only going to increase in frequency. When I see a black conservative, I don’t inherently think that way. I don’t know what relationship black conservatives (individually) have with the black community. I may disagree with some of their policies, but from that alone I couldn’t assume to know what they’re all about. I’d probably have to follow all of them around and individually stalk them to know that. Anyway, I tend to avoid making generalizations about people I don’t know on a personal level.
If I had a problem with discussing race, I wouldn’t bother with this site, nor would I have accumulated so much knowledge and history relating to the global experience of African people’s. But I do believe that “White vs. Black” political/cultural conceptualizations of racial difference are reductive, and flat out stupid. Power doesn’t manifest itself that way. Do you want historical examples? Power relations have never been that simple. If you looked at my post with care you would have noticed that I never proclaimed that minorities would dominate economically and politically. Conversely, I said they would dominate in terms of numbers, which will make them extremely politically and economically powerful – that’s if they choose to galvanize it.
Who ever said that we were out of the woods? Conservatives realize that Hispanic populations are booming, and that’s not going to change because our nation needs their cheep labor. What they’re doing is absorbing them into their ideology, and it’s succeeding in many ways. The same is true for Asian populations. This is going to become a real problem for African-American’s if we don’t become more politically savvy. What I feel is lost in this discussion is the simple fact that America is rapidly changing. The economic rapacity that exploits poor Americans will continue to thrive, but the face of this exploitive, imperialist force is going to become increasingly brown. So call it White Supremacy if you want. Hell, you can call it Mayonnaise if it helps you sleep at night. But the reality is that people of color are starting to thrive, and abandon the phony liberalism that has stunted their growth.
Also, when did I say anything about playing the party’s against each other? Don’t confuse me with Bomb’s. And please don’t get personal make assumptions about my political affiliations. I’m not a Republican, and I would never ever choose to be a Democrat.
I love to debate gentlemen, but let’s try to keep these discussions from always descending into nasty forms of baiting and mean-spirited insults.
Out of curiosity, do any of you guys consider yourselves to be Black Nationalists?
-Jean Michel
If you feel you need to follow a person around to comment on their social commentary and their political affiliations than you should be as quite as a house mouse. One does not need to follow around or know the personal business of the Negro-Con to comment on their accepting the policies and agenda of the Republican Party that is hostile toward Black men and women. Black men and women aiding abetting the enemy is not a new phenomenon and does not take any getting use to. Our arrival on these shores is in part due to sellout behavior from many African men and women.
It would be ridiculous for Black men and women to accept policies and agenda’s simply because other groups of people are accepting them. We are not followers, we have always set the agenda and those other groups came up on our back and rights we fought for, so now we should abandon that to follow them? Get real, who gives a damn that Asians and Latino men and women are accepting policies and agenda hostile to Black men and women, this simply mean that white supremacy is working and doing a damn good job. When over 40% of Latino folk vote in favor of Prop 200 in Arizona, it only demonstrates that they now believe they are part of the elite class and differentiate themselves from other upward mobile Mexican men and women trying to get what most of their families sought when they entered the country illegal years if not decades ago.
I am definitely a Black nationalist but I am not stuck in any proverbial box that limits my understanding or reasoning.
I don’t know why you think I’m advocating that minorities join the Republican ranks, because I’m certainly not doing that. What I’m saying is that minorities “ARE” joining the party, and will continue to do so. It doesn’t really matter how we feel about it, it’s our present and future reality. Sellouts, NegroCons, White Supremacist sympathizers… whatever you want to call them, their ranks are growing. Now what?
Like I said, I’m not a Republican or a Conservative, but I can’t speak to the sense of “group belongingness” that your average B-Con has for his blackness. Anyway, I detest stereotypes. However, I do believe that if African-Americans stop dialoging, and turn on each other because of this Conservative vs. Liberal nonsense, then we are certainly in big trouble.
I’m not judging you as a Black Nationalist, I’m just curious about it. What does Black Nationalism mean for you?
-Jean Michel
What Black Nationalism means to me is irrelevant and I do not believe you are expecting to hear anything concerning it that you have not heard before or read before nor am I worried about being judged by you or anyone being that the only conclusion you can come to concerning me will be based on using the words I have written on this Blog.
Do you actually believe we need you to come here and tell us something we have been writing about? You have not revealed anything we did not know, you are responding to our criticism of Black men and women joining the republican and conservative movements thus you saying you are simply saying that “minorities” ARE joining the Republican ranks is not news around here.
You continue to write as if you have not been told that we are not arguing Liberal versus Conservative and that we do not subscribe to either school of thought. You want us to believe you are not a Liberal or Conservative? Than you need to pay us the same favor and recognize we are speaking to policies, ideas and agendas.
I thought maybe after a cooling off period you guys were making progress away from being a hate site. But I see I was mistaken.
You guys are so racist and full of hate discussion is impossible.
Faheem,
I’m still interested in your ideas about Black Nationalism? Yes, I’m well read on the subject, but it means different things to different people.
-Jean Michel
I'll say this again...
I love to debate gentlemen, but let’s try to keep these discussions from always descending into nasty forms of baiting and mean-spirited insults.
-Jean Michel
Maybe I was not clear the first time Jean, so I will say it one more time and only once more. What Black Nationalism means to me is irrelevant and whatever it means to me, I am certain it will not be far from anything you have heard or read before thus if you want to know what it means to me, you have seven months of words written by me that you can use to extrapolate whatever it is you are looking for.
Oh, Scott. I would rather be a hate site in your eyes that a self hating site like yours and the rest of your conservative NegroHood bretheren.
I am rather confused by Jean’s input here, although I appreciate it. I have trouble gleaning his writing motive. Is it informative, argumentative, persuasive, praise or condemnation? Jean has lots of information and opinions, but he does not seem to process that information into motivation to become a proponent of any cause or movement.
He seems to have noted that the system of power is “colorless” and exploitive and that blacks are or will lose out for not being absorbed into the opportunities and voids in the power structure as are other minorities. Obviously if one has this position, then righteousness is not their root principle. He seems to be noting that many other races are selling their souls in exchange for material rewards and that blacks are foolish for note following the path of others. Instead of promoting the dismantling or changing of an unrighteous system, by others joining blacks, he seems to be advocating support of the unrighteous system and blacks joining others in its promotion and maintenance.
Jean…what are you trying to inform us of us, that you think we have failed to integrate into our cognitions?
Jean…what are you tying to persuade us to believe that you glean is righteous and absent from our system of belief?
Jean…what is it that we say that is factually wrong?
Jean…what is it that we infer that is logically flawed?
Jean…what is it that we conclude that is logically incorrect or not the dominant truth if not the absolute truth?
I am a Pan African. Whether or not that falls into the Box of Black nationalism I do not know. I am sure that there is some intersection between the two sets of working definitions of the two.
Noah,
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary! You asked some wonderful questions, and I will reply in detail soon.
-Jean Michel
All right Noah; here is my response to your questions.
You asked if my commentary was meant to be informative, argumentative, persuasive, praise or condemnation? I would say that I have no interest in condemning anyone on this forum, but healthy debate is great.
When I spoke against the nastiness on this forum, I wasn’t talking specifically about something that was said to me – I was saying that I don’t like that stuff “period.” As soon as I see insults and negativity being thrown around, I don’t want to participate anymore. It’s just silly nonsense! Scott started it, and then it just got more and more stupid. At that point I just tuned out for a while. If someone comes at you like Scott did, I think it’s more constructive to ask him or her to elaborate on his or her feelings. I think Scott's comments – crude or not – should be taken seriously, because he's not the only one who has made such a statement. Dissenting views on this forum are often met with an antagonism and virulence that's boring, childish and appalingly anti-intellectual. That's certainly not true for everyone, but it's common nevertheless. I'll chat with anyone as long as I'm approached respectfully and without meanspirited intent.
Am I am a proponent of any particular cause or movement? Yes, and no. I consider myself to be a Universal Humanist. I’m also a Foucauldian Poststructuralist. If you want me to explain what that means for me – just ask and I will oblige.
I never stated, nor do I believe that the system of power in America is colorless. And like I said before, I do not necessarily advocate that blacks should become Republicans. To answer your question fully, I would like to refer to an earlier discussion on this forum. Someone asked if African-Americans have historically fought for inclusion, or for the dismantling of the oppressive system – “agency” or “anti-system?” I believe that the answer to this question is contingent upon how one views this conundrum.
Each party represents one side of an exploitive (“unrighteous,” to use your term) system – and each party works to uphold that system. Do we agree on this? Up to this point, blacks have chosen one side – the Liberal side. In my opinion both parties are corrupt, exploitive institutions. A while back I made an important point, which was that the two parties are not static historical entities – they change and evolve dramatically over the years. Today, they’re almost the same on most issues, but in the sixties they were radically different – as they were in the fifties, so on and so forth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Democrats used to be the slavery party, and the Republicans were pro-abolition. Either side you choose, you will be upholding (passively or actively) a hegemonic set of domestic and global power relations. So again, it becomes about whether we perceive ourselves to be “anti-system,” or “pro-agency” – though, whichever party we choose, we will still be affiliated with a viciously capitalist and imperialist structure. The question becomes… which party will best serve our (African-Americans) domestic needs? In our current historical moment, I believe the difference between the parties is more “perception than policy.” Republicans have become more moderate, and Democrats have become more conservative. Neither group is working to secure the civil rights, economic stability, and basic freedoms of everyday citizens. Global capitalism has taken over every agenda at the expense of the masses.
The Democratic Party is not the same party it was during the 1960s. But the black community supports it unwaveringly because it’s ideological perception is that the Democrats liberated them. That notion, needless to say, is a complete fiction (again, perception vs. policy). The “perception” is that Liberalism is more righteous than Conservatism, but the “reality” is that Liberal policies are neglectful of our needs – and Liberalism (like its Conservative cousin) is still haunted by the ghosts of White Supremacy.
If we think our struggle is “anti-system,” then perhaps we should abandon both parties. Conversely, if our struggle is “pro-agency,” then we will most likely choose the party that will serve our needs domestically. Of course, this presumes that blacks are a monolithic, cohesive and unified community with a strong sense of “group belongingness.” If we are to assume that African-Americans post-Slavery/post-Civil Rights are “individuals” with the freedom to choose – then we know that many will choose their own path.
If we’re looking for righteousness, we’re not going to find it within American politics. Ultimately, I believe that rallying against Black Conservatives is wasted energy (unless some fun is derived from it) because it’s simply prattling over a puzzle that should have been figured out a long time ago. B-Cons are not the problem, even though on the surface they make for a convenient target. If they’re just patsies for White Supremacy, how does that make them different than high-ranking minority Democrats – If, as you suggest, both parties are White Supremacist? I personally do not see the difference between these groups beyond historical precedents that have little bearing on current Democratic policy. How do you expect Liberal’s to fight for your Civil Rights when they will not stand up for the basic rights of Gay Americans? Where is the righteousness in that? The Democrats have strayed so far to the middle, and have become so conservative that it’s ridiculous!
So if we choose “not” to ignore history, and acknowledge that the parties are "not" rigid historical entities, then perhaps an effective strategy might be to infiltrate them (especially economically) and change their trajectory and policies (this isn't just empty talk, such strategies have been successfully implemented throughout American history). B-Cons have simply decided to choose a path that has been historically unpopular with blacks (and has simultaneously been as detrimental to blacks as the alternative), but like I said, the difference between the parties – in their current forms – is more perception than policy.
To reiterate an earlier point – assimilationist or not, many (arguably most) blacks in America just want to participate in this country economically and they probably could care less about (or are simply naïve in regard to) anyone else’s oppression.
To answer your final questions:
Am I trying to inform you? Well yes, of course! Why would any of us bother, if we weren’t interested in, and edified by sharing information? Am I trying to teach you? No!
Am I trying to persuade you? No!
Do I think that your system of belief is flawed? No – Primarily because I see no system at all. I don’t know what your beliefs are beyond your contempt for B-Cons and White Supremacy. That's why I asked you to define Black Nationalism. I'm still waiting...
What do I think is logically incorrect, or not the dominant truth, or absolute truth (in your statements)? I don’t believe in dominant or absolute truths. Like I said before... contained within one man's truth, is usually the justification for another man's oppression.
-Jean Michel
Jean, you start off by speaking disparagingly about and being turned off by crude and negative commentary. Then you use Scott as an example of having been the catalyst for this. Then you follow by saying that Scott’s commentary should be taken seriously…crude or not. That seems like a contradiction and therefore seems disingenuous. Why would you leave a debate that has become sprinkled with crudeness, in your opinion, yet, expect us to take someone like Scott seriously? Could you clear up this apparent contradiction?
I think the fact that you have come to this blog lately also means that you likely missed most of our commentary. Much of what you say about the two parties has already been stated as our observations of politics. Had you visited our blog earlier, you would have read that we do not see the black struggle being about democrats vs republicans, but rather, blacks vs the history and tradition of white supremacy, which manifest through power and elitist dynamics.
I agree that the perception of the system is not its reality. As the old cliché goes, politics is truly picking the lesser of two evils, if one is righteous and picking the worse of the two if one is unrighteous.
Jean has indeed repeated most of what we have said on this Blog, his late arrival causes him to believe he is saying something new or something we have not said. This is why I said he has seven months of writings by us to extrapolate from it what he whishes. I recall in the op-ed piece about the difference in Black employment and white employment under the Bush and Clinton administration was basically a 10% difference with the Clinton administration having the edge, while Bush had a few more Black folk in high profile positions. Also in the comments of that piece I spoke to the fact that the 10% difference in employment was the 10% difference in the ideology of the Republican and the Democrats being expressed. This literally means: we should expect to see a 10% increase and decrease in Black employment between the two party’s administration being that they use their 10% difference to keep the men and women in America divided.
I believe it is simply ignorance to under estimate the role the Negro-Con play in current Black oppression and exploitation. We all understand that in order for an external oppressor to fully run his game on a people he is going to need allies from amongst that people to help justify and give legitimacy to their illegal if not inhumane actions being undertaken against their victims. This was true in snatching Black men and women from our Homeland, this was true after our arrival on these shores, it was true in Rwanda, Angola, South Africa or where ever you find oppressed people, the oppressor always looks for a means to connect with a group of men and women from amongst the oppressed to help in the oppression of their people. This means of connection is manifested in politics today in America and particularly the Republican Party that has an agenda that is far more hostile to Black men and women than that of the Democrats.
The difference between a Black Democrat and a Negro-Con is huge especially when it comes to OUR issues. I would even argue that there is a difference between Black Democrats and white Democrats which puts the Black Democrat at odds with all other Politicians inside his party and in the Republican Party. However the Negro-Con is a puppet, a slave and a yes man, who hold as much contempt for Black men and women as do their white counter part. I challenge any Negro-Con to show me their plan that they will present to the president that addresses the needs and concerns of Black men and women as the Black Caucus did. The Negro-Con waits for the President to make a move or statement and then support it, no matter how ridiculous or detrimental it is to Black men and women.
Lastly, Jean you want us to take an interest in you and the label you have attached to your idea’s, where as we are not interested in you taking an interest in us nor are we interested in having our idea’s labeled. If you deal with what we say when we say it, it does not matter if it is derived from Black Nationalism, Communism or Socialism; these labels simply allow you to attack the ideology and avoid dealing with the truth in what we have stated, this is a common tactic used by Conservatives. So you call yourself a Universal Humanist and a Foucauldian Poststructuralist and you would love to explain to us what that means but truthfully WE DO NOT CARE WHAT IT MEANS. State your idea’s and we can debate the truth of them while avoiding debating the fundamental flaws in a particularly ideology being that all ideologies have flaws that are over looked by those who subscribe to them.
Right on the Money Faheem. In order for the divide and conquer strategy to work, the outside instigator and manipulator must get the support of some members of the people they seek to divide. Then they work their agenda in stealth via proxy. All one has to do is to see the empirical evidence of how the USA has played one side against another in its foreign Policy. Then they use the destabilization or their puppets to their advantage.
Faheem,
You seem to forget that Noah “asked” me to reveal my position and affiliation (if I had one) – and respectfully I did so. I did not offer it initially, or express a need for you and your brethren to take an interest in me – as you suggest. If I were so eager to explain what it means to be a Universal Humanist, or a Foucauldian Poststructuralist, I would have just done so. I’ve come to this forum and debated respectfully, with no guile, or malicious intent. So you tell me…when did I say that I wanted “you” to take an interest in me? And when did I say that your ideology is flawed? I did not!
I don’t know why my asking you to define Black Nationalism makes you so defensive? Bizarrely, you assume that means I’m planning some sort of attack. But that’s just a ridiculous delusion, born of your own paranoia! First of all, I haven’t approached anyone in this forum in such an attacking manner. Don’t confuse your insecurities with my intentions. You articulate a desire to avoid debating the “fundamental flaws in ideologies,” as if I have attacked yours in some way. Again, I never claimed that your ideology was flawed – I simply wanted you to define it. You are the one who so strangely configured my inquiry into some perceived threat. Don't lump your personal baggage onto me!!
I’ve heard several people on this forum describe themselves as Black Nationalist’s, and I want clarity on that because it’s a subjective term. I indulged Noah’s interest in my position because it’s only fair for me to do so, given my request for you guys to do the same. Ultimately however, I think it’s disingenuous for me to be asked to define my ideology, when you guys refuse so arrogantly and defensively. It’s absurd Faheem, to suggest that our respective ideologies are irrelevant! That’s the very basis of healthy polemical debate – you must know firmly where the other person stands (don’t you know this?). Noah was correct to ask, and so I responded in kind. So what are you afraid of? I’m sure you don’t think you are, but you obviously have major insecurities about your depth of knowledge. If not, you wouldn’t have taken such an innocuous question, and psychologically perceived it to be a menacing inquisition. Is your knowledge of Black Nationalism your intellectual Achilles heel?
So what does Black Nationalism mean to any of you? I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours!
-Jean Michel
Yup, you guessed it Jean. I am insecure and afraid to state what Black Nationalism means to me. Here is what I will reveal to you, people can make their mouths say anything but in using this medium, the best way to gauge where a person stand and what their particulary belief or ideology means to them is to use their words to garner an understanding of their ideals. If that is not enough, you have a good time on the soap box yelling and screaming how Faheem will not answer your question.
Further more, I find it most interesting how you chose to only focus on me not giving you an explanation of what Black Nationalism means to me versus dealing with the other points I raised but then again the reason behind that is so obvious.
Just define it Faheem, and stop tap dancing around it with all this useless banter.
Will any of you fine gentlemen define your ideological stance?
-Jean Michel
My ideological stance is the uplifting of my family in the micro and the promotion of the uplifting of black African peoples from centuries of exploitation, manipulation and oppression, in the macro. My ideological stance is predicated on finding the working equilibrium between individualism and collectivism in the context of the black struggle and black unity. My ideological belief is one that is against the master slave construct, in its various degrees of freedom restriction, as well as the role of black people as the slaves in the construct. My ideological beliefs in one which is anchored in the laws of nature, logical truths and historical facts, as well as, the concept or goal of righteousness, which is not the same as religion. Righteousness is conforming to what is right by the dictates of nature and its laws.
I see my self as a Pan African.(.but I am more than and less than a Pan African at the same time), in that my goal is for the uplifting of ALL African peoples. However, my ideology and beliefs does not necessarily represent Pan Africanism. It serves no constructive purpose for me to define what Black Nationalism or Pan Africanism means to me. I would simply prefer to state what my belief, values and hierarchies are and let you try to place them is some label or box based upon your working definition of the term. I prefer itemizing my beliefs and not summarizing them to fit properly into a working definition of a label. People want to call me, leftist, socialist, Marxist, racist, nationalistic, antagonistic, so that they can attack the negative connotations of the label and ignore the validity of the itemization of my beliefs on their individual merits.
Noah,
Thanks for the explanation. My intention was not to attack Black Nationalism, as you guys keep suggesting defensively. Black Nationalism is very subjective. It means different things for different people. Knowing how you define it enables me to better understand your world view.
I appreciate your ability and willingness to coverse without hostility. It's a rare trait indeed.
-Jean Michel
Everything that Noah said was subjective. As are most things spoken on this site. This is an opinion forum. And you're wrong to think that Capitalism has a static meaning. Capitalism is one of the most hotly debated and contested constructs ever produced by Western culture. Everyone from politicians, political theorists, cultural critics, economists and philosphers have, and continue to debate its meaning and cultural function.
But I think the more important question is... where does your fixed, static definition of Black Nationalism come from? What source/text are you drawing from?
-Jean Michel
NmagiNATE,
Thanks for your comments. I must say that I value your enthusiasm and intensity. My views on Black Nationalism (and its subjective nature) are grounded in major texts. I will make you a list, if you would like. Also, you’re wrong about DuBois entirely. My comments about DuBois were not intended to discredit or tarnish the man. He’s a personal hero of mine. But you must acknowledge that there were/are many preeminent theorists (and colleagues) of DuBois who sharply disagreed with his views. I can also give you several major texts that ponder the problem of nationalism, if you’re interested of course. I’m not being vague; in fact I have offered to give direct sources many times.
The very fine website you listed I’m quite familiar with, but there are more meaningful sources of information – especially concerning the issues at hand.
I think it would be constructive (and fun) if we could all choose a text and then read it together collectively. Then we could debate it on this forum. That would be amazing! If we’re all drawing from the same source, I think we could have some very lively and informative discussions. We could take turns choosing a text. Think about it!
Anyone game!
-Jean Michel
In previous posts I "did" list text references as I went along, but they were completely ignored, and/or regarded as irrelevant. You guys don't seem to be interested in reading the wealth of books written by our black leaders and thinkers. So now I ask if you're interested before wasting my time and energy. All I can do is offer.
You're the one linking DuBois' legacy with "contemporary" black conservatism. You're hysterical over this Negr-Con thing. If you read me carefully, you would see that I did not say he "was" a black conservative. Conversely, I said that he is largely remembered that way. If you really knew something about DuBois you would be aware that he was hated by many, if not most blacks for embracing Eurocentic-White (conservative) Victorian values and cultural elitism. Many influential black leaders and thinkers (Garvey, Locke) were at odds with DuBois' elitism. DuBois was a complex thinker that embodied what her termed "double consciousness." You should look into that. There are many books that have examined this in great detail. First, I suggest that you read DuBois in great detail, along with the preeminent black thinkers of the time, and you'll see what I'm getting at. When I say read DuBois, I don't mean reading synopses and soundbites from Black Heritage websites – I mean read the actual texts very closely. Start with DuBois' The Souls of Black Folk, and read it against Alain Locke's The New Negro. You should also pick up a book called The Critical Pragmatism of Alain Locke. If we read these texts together, then we can debate them properly.
I wish you would stop trying to link what I say to black conservatism all the time. Suggesting that I'm trying to turn DuBois into a B-Con is your own foolishness. I just know more about DuBois than you do. Like I said, he is someone I respect a great deal.
I am not your enemy Nmaginate. I too am dedicated to fighting the racism and White Supremacy that has historically – and continues to – oppress our people.
You obviously take what I say very seriously, and it certainly stirs great emotion in you. For that I am pleased. If my views didn't strike a cord, they would be ignored entirely. I appreciate that you take so much time to write your highly-detailed ranting replies. It's flattering!
-Jean Michel
NmagiNATE,
DuBois was a Socialist, and was considered (by some) at the time of his life to be a radical Leftist intellectual/activist. DuBois was widely known to be at odds with the black conservatism of Booker T. Washington. However, in retrospect, historians and political theorists believe that Washington and DuBois’ objectives were largely the same. DuBois considered himself to be a black elite, and he coined the term “Talented Tenth” to describe his vision of an elite, educated class of blacks that would lead – and set an example for – the ignorant masses of African-Americans. This, of course infuriated Black Nationalist separatists like Marcus Garvey. Garvey and DuBois were constantly at each other’s throats. Garvey believed that DuBois was a mixed-raced, light skinned, self-hating, conservative black apologist that had adopted a white-European brand of Socialism. Even further, Garvey charged that DuBois largely associated with whites or fair-skinned Negroes, and that he cultivated a pretentious, aristocratic bourgeois persona: a persona that was designed to put forth a palatable and assimilationist notion of blackness. This view is still widely held in Black Nationalist circles today.
So to answer your question: Who regards DuBois as a conservative? BLACK NATIONALISTS DO! From the Black Nationalist Garveyites, to the Nation of Islam, to the Black Panthers (and other black radicals of the 1960s), to current-day Black Nationalist intellectuals, political theorists and cultural critics. Most Black Nationalists today regard both B-Cons “and” NAACP black elites (descendents of DuBois) as black apologist, assimilationist bootlickers. The DuBois vs. Garvey debates resurfaced in the 1960s and continue to rage on today. Black Nationalist separatists are still at odds with what they call “integrationists,” or assimilationist B-cons and Black Liberal Elites – who they believe are essentially turning their backs on the inner city. Real Black Nationalists can’t stand Black Liberal Elites or B-cons.
The one thing you must understand about DuBois that you won’t get from Black Heritage websites is that his views changed over the years. He began as a radical separatist (a race man), then became a Socialist, and then advocated a Liberalism that has, in retrospect, come to be viewed as conservative. Though, to Black Nationalists, DuBois’ Socialism was viewed as weak and entrenched Eurocentric political and cultural snobbery, and conservatism.
Given your questions, there’s obviously so much black history that you don’t know. I really suggest that you read more than Black Heritage websites, which are truncated and often rife with misinformation. You MUST read the original texts of these brilliant men. I knew you were lacking basic information when you didn’t know who Bayard Rustin was. There’s no way you could know about the Civil Rights Movement and not know who Rustin was. You stated on this site that you were a Black Nationalist, but you don’t know anything about it other than it sounds cool. I couldn’t believe that you asked me who regards DuBois as a conservative, when Black Nationalists have been stating this since the 1920s. Unbelievable! If you were a “real” Black Nationalist you would have known that they regard Booker T. Washington and DuBois’ intellectual legacies as being associated with assimilationism and political conservatism.
You can try to pull out all of the quotes you want from websites, but sooner or later you’re going to have to educate yourself by reading the rich intellectual legacy these brothers left behind. It’s for you anyway! I’ve never encountered another brother that’s so angry and virulently arrogant in his own ignorance. I mean you embrace your ignorance, even though you’re aware that you lack knowledge. You constantly misquote me, you take things out of context all the time, and you’re constantly in this childish angry attack mode. You need to grow up. You’re like a rabid Pit-Bull with no leash running around this forum attacking everyone who disagrees with you.
I’m signing out for a while because I’m leaving the country for business reasons. Peace!
-Jean Michel
Thanks Jean for taking the time and care to educate the readers of this blog. I'm a professor of African-American Studies, and the history you cited is right on the money. Black Nationalists have long considered DuBois to have been a politically conservative assimilationist. It's hard for people to understand how someone like DuBois – who considered himself to be a radical Leftist – could also be regarded as a conservative. But it's true... How the man is remembered largely depends on whom you are talking to, and their personal politics. I've been researching and teaching our history for thirty odd years, and there's no short cut to learning one's history. Unless you have read the original texts in detail – as you certainly have done – it's silly to even attempt forming an articulate argument.
Anyway, thanks again!
Professor Mathews
Oh, my misguided young brother – such rage and ineptitude.
Everything you just said reaffirms your insecurities. You didn’t know that DuBois was regarded as a conservative, but you still won’t admit it. You walked right into that one! Jean Michel nailed you there, and all you can do is come back will all these obscenities.
When you started your rant about DuBois, he knew right then you had zero knowledge about the man, or about Black Nationalism (you haven’t read him at all). If you had, you would have known that DuBois is considered a conservative bootlicker. You thought that your little quote contrasting Booker T. Washington and DuBois somehow proved that DuBois was a radical – but you knew nothing about the legendary DuBois/Garvey debates. The black heritage websites you read will always celebrate black thinkers of the past, but they won’t give you the messy details and the intercultural battles. Just read young man!
Obviously you know very little about black history. The only bubble that’s been burst is yours. That’s why you write these long drawn-out, tit-for-tat responses devoid of any historical facts. But I know that you’re learning from Jean, and that he’s really inspired you to push yourself intellectually, and that’s a good thing. I’ve taught many kids like you (I’m assuming you’re young based on your comments), and I know that achieving intellectual maturity is a tough journey – especially concerning a history as tumultuous as ours. You’re in that stage of reactionary anger, but someday, if you allow yourself to grow and not let your anger get the best of you – you will achieve great things. I think your heart is in the right place.
You didn’t have to say that Jean is your enemy; all your responses to him are filled with hatred and rage. It speaks for itself. The only reason why you spend SOOOOO much time responding to him is because he’s more knowledgeable – and that threatens you. You say he does'nt support his claims. He supports all of his claims... and some!
Jean Michel is not my friend, but I appreciate his knowledge, patience and willingness to share what he knows. You’re not a very respectful young man/woman, and I doubt you will show me the respect I deserve as your elder, but you should. Accept the knowledge being offered you with warmth and openness, and find a healthier outlet for your rage. None of the black leaders you admire would behave so rudely if they were engaged in such discussions. Maybe you should think about them, and draw from their spirits before you speak.
These are my final words to you youngster.
Professor Mathews
I am rather disappointed that this debate has digressed into debating the literary works of others...as opposed to our own thinking on a subject matter.
I think that if we were in an English literature class...speaking on the writings of others would make sense. However, it really does not make sense in this debate.
I am rather disappointed that Jean took it there. He is an extremely well read person...or at least it appears that way. However, simply regurgitating the works of others only requires MEMORY and not REASONING.
I think that Jeans strength is his ability to quote others. On the other hand, the strength of people on this Blog is our ability to gather raw facts and data into a premise...make inferences and hence produce a conclusion. In other words, we champion the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning...and not simply MEMORY.
Post a Comment
<< Home