February 03, 2005

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.

76 Comments:

At 5:47 PM, Blogger bombsoverbaghdad said...

I listened to the speech as I was driving to teach a class, and I was wondering whether I have been giving President Bush a bad rap. Surely, the Iraq War is a farce. But on domestic issues, I find myself more agreeable with him. His speech last night was very moderate, even liberal in some instances. I think we should look at Bush as a big government moderate with a hardline on foreign policy.

His speech is about as far as a Republican is going to go. Shoot, he's probably doing more than Clinton.

If our goal is to erase racial disparities, and Bush is willing to use governmental power to help, we should embrace it, rather than commence the usual, knee-jerk, anti-Republican response.

It is time for black Americans to maximize our political power, which is slight, to play the Democrats and the Republicans against each other. The government does not have the power to cure our most pressing problems, but it can help. We need to work with Bush and the other Republicans. Then, we'll have both parties beating our doors down.

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger Scott said...

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.

 
At 6:21 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Bombsover~,

I've heard plenty of people express this idea about playing the two parties against each other thing... but I have yet to see anyone elaborate on it and explain how it would really work.

IMO, it's wishful thinking at best.
Wishful thinking without foundation...

How exactly are we going to play the parties against each other? And what's to guarantee that we don't get played in the end?

It all sounds like rhetoric to me.
But if you have a more detailed reasoning, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not adverse to whatever works no matter who it comes from. I do, however, refuse to buy things that are exaggerated... But anyway, I'd like to hear what you have in mind or think will actually work. I believe some of us have a serious disconnect when we get to thinking about schemes like this...

But my cynicism could be misplaced.
I've just haven't seen anything more than claims on this. Nothing substantive. Just hope-claims.

 
At 8:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Bombs!
-Jean Michel

 
At 8:31 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger bombsoverbaghdad said...

Here's how my strategy works:

I agree with Noah that Republicans realize that they need black votes to survive as a political party. There is no shame in admitting that. Similarly, Democrats need upwards of 90% of the black vote to survive as a party, as evidenced by Kerry's loss. In states like Ohio, Bush got almost 18% of the black vote, and Kerry lost the crucial state.

We all know that the Republican Party is the home of white comfort and many racists. There is no doubt about that. But the party is also home to many more people than "racists." To say that all Republicans are racists is simply foolish. I know plenty of white Republicans that are good people--they simply believe in the Republican party's ideas, or candidates. Bringing more color into the Republican party will force that party to soften its stances on certain issues: affirmative action, Africa, etc. That is being borne out right now. Have you heard Bush rail against Affirmative Action? No.

Right now, there is a concensus within the Republican Party that it's "whiteness" is becoming a disadvantage. On the other hand, Democrats consider their black constituents a "burden." All they want is our votes, not our politics. Just give them the ballot, and shut up. There are no blacks in the Party leadership. Notice that Kerry went out of his way to not associate himself too closely with blacks. He had no upper-level black campaign staff.

If Republicans are willing to aim their agenda, in any way, toward us, we must respond. We don't have money, but we have votes and strong voices that white people fear innately. When the Republicans start making contact in traditional Democratic groud, the Democrats will be forced to respond to counter. Democrats will be forced to embrace blacks, rather than maintain the quiet "alliance" that currently exists.

Basically, white people are white people. Most of them are racists, I know. But politics is a GAME. It's not an idealistic thing. I worked for the Kerry campaign for 6 months, in various capacities. I travelled with him and his staff all over the country. I can tell you this: they do not respect black people at all. It's all lip service. I was highly offended at the way they treated black people and our concerns. Trust me, you would be too. Republicans are the same way, even moreso, I know.

Competition brings out the best in all parties involved. Think about it: if you are playing football and the guy who wants your starting spot is very good, you are going to work hard to be the best. I want Republicans and Dems to COMPETE for our votes. It will bring out the best policies for blacks from both parties.

 
At 10:20 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger bombsoverbaghdad said...

Well, then we just disagree. First, I don't think you can lump black people into one category and say that every black person is a liberal, or should be a liberal. Some blacks are actually conservative. I consider myself moderate.

Example: I work with a mail clerk who is black, around 40, and has two kids and a wife. He makes about 34K a year, and votes Republican because he believes in what they believe in. He is being "loyal to his beliefs." I think you assume that every black person is (or should be) voting Democratic, and that's just not the case (even though I, myself, vote Dem 90% of the time). We blacks are not all in total political agreement--and I'm fine with that. It's only natural.

All Jews don't vote the same. In the last ten years, Jews have moved to the Republicans to the clip that Bush got 25% of their votes. Jews now RUN both parties. I want us to be about about 75/25 as well. I'm not saying that we have to be ALL in the Republican party, just a higher percentage. It will give us leverage within BOTH parties, rather than one. It's a concept that is difficult to accept, I understand, because of the Republican racism. But I say, again, that Democrats are racists too.

How can we advance our interests in America if we only work with Democrats? Jews don't, Asians don't and Hispanics don't, but we should?? That makes no sense to me. It's conceding too much.

Black people are the religious stepchildren of white slavers that are now called the Religious Right. I don't expect much from our church "leadership," but if their entreaties into the Republican party will make that party moderate while at the same time cause the Democrats to react, I'm with it.

And not voting is a ridiculous idea to me. If a candidate knows that you won't vote, he ignores you. Period. Point Blank! I have a lot of respect for your views, and I agree with you on many things relating to our people, but I can't believe you advocate not voting as a way to gain political power. How much power did you gain by not voting? If you don't vote, they respect you about as much as they respect the homeless. To me, at times, you let the bitterness we BOTH have blind you to the fact that we are in this game and we have to play to win. We will not always be so low. Nelson Mandela says that "The Mills of God grind exceedingly slow." Stay up, and play hardball with these white boys.

 
At 12:03 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 3:14 PM, Blogger bombsoverbaghdad said...

I need to be clear about something: My strategy is not for us all to gather in a room and plan a % of votes. But moreso, that if you are black, you should at least give a Republican consideration. If you are, for example, pro-life, you should not feel guilt for voting Republican.

Nobody in the country can say that there particular vote paid a dividend. But you wait and watch and see how blacks in Ohio get treated. They will get major love from the Federal Gov't.

"...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." Just to be clear, I'm not not one of those people, like some of the folks on bookerrising. I'm no sellout, and I don't look down on poor blacks. OTOH, I'm not going to hold a poor black person to a low standard and just say he can do whatever he wants and not draw my ire.

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Bombsover~

All I want is for people who speak of this strategy you mention to illustrate how it is suppose to actually work.

Identify one issue or set of issues (an Agenda) that is worth Blacks playing games with that Republicans will champion.

That is, tell me one issue that Blacks can be assured that Republicans will promote in a way that is exactly what Blacks want out of the particular issue or set of issues (or reasonably close to what Blacks themselves say they want).

If we are going to Shop Our Vote or play the parties against each other, as Faheem alludes to, we better be getting what we want instead of the run around. And that's just it. ANY party can promise anything. By definition they got four years to put you off.

And its funny that you mention money. The fact that we don't have money is all the more reason why they can ignore us, put us off and, at the most, offer crumbs and claim they've done something by doing that.

I maintain that NEITHER party will risk alienating White voters by doing anything to overtly cater to Black people. And, in this country, any such move would be publicized as such - pandering to (Black) "special interest" at the expense of hard-working, red-blooded, tax paying [White] Americans.

I've long since made this argument:
http://www.fivemoreminutes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11275

I think Black people need to face the fact that there is no place for them in the political climate that exist, much less in either party. Neither party is rushing to embrace our core concerns.

And I'm not on board with these predictions about the changing demographics. White people will pull a South Africa if they have to. But as it exist now they will be satisfied in, as they say, "winning the hearts and minds" of people - i.e. making Hispanics and others adopt their views. That's a requirement for membership, especially in the Republican party.

So, no. I emphatically disagree with BOMBS idea that Bush or Republicans are "softening" their views. Hell... Bush didn't stutter on the U of M case. See what he says if another case comes up then tell me if he has "softened" his views (or has been allowed to).

The shit is not happening the other way around any time in the foreseeable future by traditional means and accepting the two-party system. Shopping Our Vote does nothing to challenging that system.

 
At 9:40 PM, Blogger Scott said...

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

 
At 5:07 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Well, for one, that would be because a full range of options aren't presented. Two, I'm sure poll data would have to viewed in that regard and by how the question was asked. And most importantly, Vouchers have not proven to be the partisan wedge issue (so far) that Big Money WHITE Conservatives want it to be.

This is another Armstrong Williams type of case. WHITES heavily fund Vouchers for their own motivations and certain Negroes fall in their parrot line.

SCOTT, again, you need to talk with your pal Renaldo about how much he as a parent loves the Black-centered Charter school his kids go to. I'm sure a majority of Black parents would love that too. So, it's not about Vouchers. They are no panacea and represent a limited alternative at best.
_______________________________________________________
"Even in the Milwaukee schools, which have had the longest running school voucher program, limited funds and a shortage of classroom space in private schools enable ***only a tiny percentage of the school district's low-income students to use vouchers*** to attend private schools. The best that the voucher combatants can do is parrot anecdotal homilies such as "the parents love them"...

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/13500/
_______________________________________________________

Now you never did answer what you and Black CONservatives like you are doing to use Vouchers as a way to found or strengthen our own (Black) schools.

Why do you constantly run away from questions born out of things you yourself present here Scott?

That would be a way, I'm sure to attract even more Blacks to the idea of Vouchers if there was such a plan. One in which the Voucher Advocacy of Black CONservatives was aimed at. I know I would more readily accept them.

But nothing you have said Scott erases the racist nature (historically conceived as a racist reaction to School DeSeg~) and the obvious racist effect voucher will have.
_______________________________________________________
"Historically, white parents have used vouchers to avoid racial integration. In 1959, Prince Edward County, Virginia closed its public schools and provided public tuition vouchers to support a private school, which admitted only whites.

The current voucher proposal has no safeguards to prevent new variations on this racist history..."

http://www.arc.org/erase/vouchers/voucherpress.html
_______________________________________________________

It's funny how some people are so eager to jump at this repackaged racism-in-disguise.

Scott, why don't you B-CON's try the EQUAL part from the Separate But (un)Equal past since you want to dig up and recast old fashion racist tricks, dress them up and say they are something new. At least with that, promoting material EQUALITY then you can reasonably seek to build new schools or overhaul old ones via Charters or what-have-you.

Oh... but I forget... Black CONservatives aren't allowed to say things that varying from their White CON brothers. Oops! My bad. lol

 
At 8:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 9:53 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Jean...

It would be nice if your comments actually spoke to something that was on the table (so to speak).

And this idea that "minorities" will dominate...
Well, perhaps in certain locales but Whites will still hold power and be statistically in greater numbers.

No other ethnic group even as a monolith would have more collective numbers nationally. And certain no group called a "minority" today is or will be a monolith.

So, a lot of this talk and supposed re-examination is missing the point.

Yes, ABSORBING or rather CO-OPTING is more like it.
NONE of you have presented anything that suggest how Playing The Two Parties, Shopping Our Vote, etc. will work.

Scott presented Vouchers... and with all the high-powered, mega-financed campaigning it has so far come up terribly short and limp. I'm still waiting for someone of this opinion to say something sensible.

Sure we need to do some Re-Thinking... but I haven't seen a clearly constructed thought on this from anyone. At least not one that made any sense or moved pasted the "We need to do something different" stage. A stage where nothing else of substance is ever registered.

Or am I suppose to believe that willingly presenting ourselves to be "absorbed" (and co-opted) is suppose to be a good thing?

In this move to "do something different", we might want to ensure that we are not doing something just because its different... and end up in the same or similar position.

And the changing demographics represent something that's still unpredictable to a great extent. But one thing is constant in the foreseeable future. Whites will still hold predominant economic power.

South Africa is proof of how economic power trumps political power. The state of California is a model of that. By 2050, Whites nationally will be where Whites in California are today. That is enough to show how baseless these stipulations based on projections are.

We are not "out of the woods yet"...

 
At 12:00 AM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 5:55 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Faheem,

This is psychic in nature. People have an aversion to "Race". So when people like us speak freely about it and all its ramifications, some people disconnect the information-processing centers in their brains from their intuitive and logical discernment centers.

Race is not some abstract, amorphous notion.
You cannot talk about "race" without overlapping and intersecting with culture. You can't talk about culture without talking about history. And you can't talk about how those things impact a shared society without talking about the well-documented philosophies and ideologies that go along with said cultures over the course of time (i.e. history) and how history has shaped or impacted said cultures and influenced said ideologies.

This ROOTS SYNDROME BS where people want to turn their head away from the brutal reality that is usually spoken in terms of "race" has too many people missing the point. But that's what's happens when you purposely close your eyes to certain things because its painful or difficult to watch and/or navigate.

 
At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 6:36 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 8:01 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:06 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

We’ll have to rethink our naïve and simplistic “White vs. Black” conceptions of American (and global) power.
______________________________________________________

Jean? Is that not a reference to "race" and/or skin color?

You ask a question denying your line of thought on that level and then a paragraph or so later revert back to displaying your ROOTS SYNDROME.
______________________________________________________
"I do believe that “White vs. Black” political/cultural conceptualizations of racial difference are reductive, and flat out stupid."
______________________________________________________

No need to even discuss your AVERSION and mischaracterizations that flow from it. But I will reiterate how your conceptualization of how "minorities" will "dominate" in numbers is fundamentally flawed.

That was something I directly addressed. And everything you said fell apart from that point on.

You speak as if "minorities" are some monolith. Now, read my post with care and reflect on the illogic of claiming that there will be some numerical dominance by "minorities" in the foreseeable future that amounts to something of consequence.

The idea of being "absorbed" (relenting to it or seeking it) is indicative of things inconsequential from the standpoint of a "minority" changing anything.

And you can stop contradicting yourself anytime now.
"I never claimed it.. but the "numbers" will make it so."

Poor debating skills, Jean... Very poor...

As for me confusing things... Read what I said. I challenged you to put some meat to your ideas. I challenged you to actually speak to the subject at hand.

Instead of that, we get the Spiral Ridiculous from you.
Funny how you don't personally know ALL Black people but you feel so comfortable speaking about what you presume to be "missing" from our discussions and conceptualizations... Those of us who are not blowing in the Republican, America's Changing Winds you're concocting.

Yes. America is and may very well be changing.
But I've pointed out how your thinking and numbers are flawed.

 
At 8:25 PM, Blogger Scott said...

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.

 
At 8:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 8:47 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:58 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Jean...

Why are you trying to change the subject?

If you want to discuss Black Nationalism then you can easily do so by stating what your conception is. And you can even speak what you think Faheem's seems to be and what it is about his conception that doesn't jive with yours.

Your RELATIVITY BS aside. There is still a subject here that has been left unaddressed here, Jean.

Will you ever speak to that squarely? Or is your tactic one of going off on your own tangents where you do completely say anything about anything?

Again, you have not made a case for the things you've said here.

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.
________________________________________________
And how exactly does that "brown-ness" in the composition of the force make it anything other than White Supremacy?
Why? Because the foot soldiers aren't all White? Predominantly White? Mostly White?

What does that have to do with the end result and ultimate impetus and benefit?

It seems like you are more Stuck on what you call Stupid than what you care to admit.

You need to learn how to maintain your pretenses better. I most certainly hope you didn't think this "brown-ness" idea was suppose to present some kind of complication.
END RESULT. ULTIMATE IMPETUS and BENEFIT, Jean...

You admitting on one hand that "minorities" are increasingly becoming Republican, and will (as if that means something; Republican or Democrat both parties serve to maintain and perpetuate White Supremacy, and will) but on the other hand acknowledging that Republicans are being smart by seeking to "absorb" (CO-OPT) them is contradictory ideas. Two Forces working in against each other, in reality. There is no support for your idea that there is some changing of the Color Guard on the horizon. To suggest that is to completely ignore history and common sense out of what can only be wishful thinking about best.

You're making claims about something where there is no reason to believe what you say. Your conclusions simply don't follow.
And that's what I've attacked. Your reasoning and not your political affiliation if you have one. That's irrelevant. Again, I've challenged you to do more than just claim we should re-think our political affiliations but, instead, lay out a logical reason why that needs to be done, beyond you making simple, unsupported claims and leaps in logic.

________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________

See this is a prime example. You've just contradicted your "Browning" assertion here, I hope you know.
THEIR IDEOLOGY. Succeeding in absorbing "minorities" into THEIR [WHITE] IDEOLOGY.

So, there you have it. No matter how "brown" the Republican party or America gets as long as this assimilation and absorption takes place WHITE SUPREMACY will still be firmly entrenched no matter what color the grunts are or how many colored ones there are.

Anyway... You've said all that and said nothing.
You didn't stipulate what the "real problem" would be and why it would be a problem. And, most importantly, you said nothing about what us being more "politically savvy" entails.

So with those noteable omissions of yours? What exactly do you really think we should think about your thoughts?

Does us being mroe "politically savvy" calls for us to Jump On The Bandwagon?
What Jean Michael? I'm still waiting for you to say something that's complete. Something that makes some sense. Complete, logically-connecting sense.

As incomplete as your views are here (especially since you don't want us to assume anything about what you're saying... despite your careless, if not obvious suggestions) we are left with nothing of any value from all of your comments. Nothing save your SENTIMENTS. And like so many before you, you too, are Voicing Sentiments Without Conviction.

 
At 9:05 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Scott please...

Unless you have something to say that's on the topic, keep your delusional thoughts to yourself.

You could really do a whole lot better than that. lol
You could like actually try to forward your Vouchers idea. But, seeing as how you didn't get any traction with that, you go the Rookie Route.

"You guys are so full of hate." ROFLMAO!!!

Oops!! I'm sorry. I guess I'm suppose to be crying instead of laughing. My bad.

Umm... How about commenting on that topic and for once substantiating or supporting or following up things you say?

Oops! I forgot. That's too hard for you.

 
At 6:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 7:04 AM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 9:15 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noah,

Thanks for the thoughtful commentary! You asked some wonderful questions, and I will reply in detail soon.

-Jean Michel

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Jean Michael,

You claim to love debating but so far in this thread you are falling short. Instead actually debating, you keep saying you don't want this exchange with you to descend into insults, etc.

Well, I've yet to see anyone insult you.
So what seems to be your problem?

Again, there are things on the table for you to address and not avoid by Switching The Subject or any other tactic.

Stipulating parameters for something NOT present in our exchanges with you speaks more about your unwillingness to debate, IMO. I would prefer that you just debate. PERIOD... and leave all that other stuff alone.

You've said some things. I've commented on how I think your assertions are flawed. Now we're at a Jean-imposed impasse because you apparently don't want to support your views out of some paranoid fear of being "insulted" or some anxious suspicion you have about being "baited".

Jean save our time and yours by just focusing on the topic at hand. If you're trying to take the posture of presenting information or analysis you feel is lacking here then you should save your judgements that can be seen as "insulting" and, at the very least, misrepresentative and inaccurate.

______________________________________________________
"We’ll have to rethink our naïve and simplistic “White vs. Black” conceptions of American (and global) power."
______________________________________________________

What was that, Jean? What was that but an insult to the intelligence of the writers here?

You do remember the "call it White Supremacy or Mayonaisse" follow-up to that you gave right?

Again? What was that?

Now tell me what your pre-emptive gripe is about?
Your overbearing concern about descending into "baits" and "insults" while you leave the major points of contention laying cold on the table because you would rather restate your premises as opposed to defending/substantiating them?

 
At 3:55 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Noah,

While you may be right in assuming that Jean has tried to make those impressions/suggestions to us... as of now, Jean is not claiming he's doing anything but putting the information out there.

He claims no motivation when being pressed.
He claims no party affiliation; therefore, we should accept his comments (I guess) as unbiased, objective and thoughtful. As such, he has no point or reason for saying the things he has. He's "just saying"...

He's just saying... that talk about White Supremacy are "simplistic and naive". He's just saying that Black people aren't being "politically savvy".

He doesn't mean anything by it. He's "just saying"...
We're not suppose to draw conclusions or infer anything from his statements; he's "just saying"...

He never meant to mean anything from his statements - to infer, to suggest or conclude anything. He's "just saying"...

What part of that don't you understand Noah?

He's just saying (meaningless) stuff! (Things you're not suppose to presume were said to mean or suggest anything.)

Don't you get it?
He loves to debate.... (Huh???)

 
At 8:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 10:40 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

“anti-system,” or “pro-agency”

The two are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, they are, IMO, one in the same given the situation.

IMO, something is wrong with you conception of what Agency is if you view it as something antithetical to being Anti-System.

Where is the Agency in the system as is?
Where is the Agency in the system with a little change here... a little change there?

And quaint little statements about One Man's Truth Is Another Man's Oppression have no bearing on this conversation.

Where is the "oppression" in what has been expressed as "truth" on this blog?

And as for SCOTT... You speak in the abstract based on flawed assumptions. SCOTT's has been taken "seriously" long before you got here. He hasn't raised any new points since you've been here. So, I ask you to speak with some reference and say something that makes sense in terms of the actual situation and not based on what you like to hear or think should be done when you speak without reference.

No one has a duty to honor Scott's every comment (those repeated for the umpteenth time) with "serious" responses.

 
At 6:41 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 7:28 AM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 8:59 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 10:30 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Jean,

Why are you intent on Changing The Subject?
Certainly you know that such an undertaken is patently fallacious and a debating sin...

Moreover, it's particularly disingenuous to feign ignorance to the expressions here. Given the professions of Black Nationalism here then logically the views here are an outgrowth of that philosophy-ideology.

I mean... I don't think you would separate your views here and for one moment say that things you've actually voiced your opinion on are not part of your ideology or a function of it.

So besides being an OFF-THE-POINT inquiry, it's one that pretends as if nothing else that has been said here is relevant or a reflection.

Beyond that, the question is really pretty awkward and, IMO, doesn't lend itself to a fruitful discussion, regardless of your intent. It's like you don't even know how to phrase a question, intelligently.

Your question lends itself to more of a descriptive and not a definitive answer. One that actually solicits specifics. Your question, more often than not, will lead to vague descriptions that may or may not say enough about what someone really thinks about a subject.

You've essentially asked "what you like about it" and not "what do you think it entails and why you do you think it is an important philosophy for you or whomever to subscribe to".

And I would like to know where exactly Noah as you about your ideology beyond you identifying it by name and given Faheem's statement that he's not interested so much in you hearing a tangential monologue about your ideology then your little childish, "I'll show you mine" thing is a bigger waste than the insults you're so anxious about.

Okay... we know what label you prefer to go by - what you subscribe to. Now, it's time for straight debate or discussion on the issue-at-hand. And Black Nationalism happens not to be the topic though it is ever present in the things expressed to some degree or another.

Again, your philosophy, no doubt, is too.
So either you deal with the logical progression of this thread or consider your ability to debate on the merits of the discussion at hand forever suspect.

There's point and then there is counterpoint.
Your inquiry about Black Nationalism doesn't connect to a point that has been made. And you've clearly ignored clear Black Nationalist expressions.

Proof that you ignored them is present in this rehash of yours:

"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."

Regardless as to what you think, because this is not the first time this ANTI-SYSTEM vs. PRO-AGENCY stuff came up... you've gotten clear answers and there is NO *IF* about when you're discussing things with us.

 
At 10:46 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

We all address your Anti-System vs. Pro-Agency dichotomy on the ZERO SUM GAME thread.

http://blackintrospection.blogspot.com/2005/01/zero-sum-game.html

So there is no *IF* about it. And what we said was not confined to your false dichotomy. So raising it again here shows your disinterest in processing Black Nationlist thought or thoughts outside your own. Once we contended with your views there you left that topic alone... save for trying to justify it by way of fallacy.

 
At 7:04 AM, Blogger Faheem said...

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.

 
At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 11:45 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

PROOF that Jean can't even maintain his own pretense and refuses to DEBATE - point & counterpoint.

Jean, I thought you eschewed BAITING?
What was all the "Faheem? What are you afraid of?" business.

Black Nationalism is defined, redefined and refined in every blog-thread here. You were confronted with it in the ZERO SUM GAME thread. *I* specifically said *I* was a Black Nationalist... if you wanted a label. I also specifically made that revelation RELEVANT to the topic-at-hand.

C'mon Jean?? What are you afraid of?
Why do you want to Change The Topic? I-Love-To-Debate-Man?

Show some balls and clearly state why this is relevant.
Explain what this "Please Define Black Nationalism" TANGENT has to do with this thread.

 
At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 4:32 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

A rare trait that you do not possess. Along with debating skill or stamina or will.

"What are you afraid of?"

You got your answer... Just because you didn't like didn't mean you didn't get it.

Of course now it very easy for you to say that's all you wanted, whether true or not. You have no moral ground to talk about hostility when you yourself used it just to satisfy some off-the-subject, distraction from the subject urge you had.

Again, Black Nationalism was on display on the ZERO SUM GAME thread. The very thread where you introduced the same exact stuff you regurgitated here as if you never heard views from the Black Nationalist perspective of the writers here.

Now, what's so "subjective" about Noah's ideology?
Black Nationalism has a definite meaning...
But, then again, I've spoken to that too.

You may want Black Nationalism to be as "subjective" as you say but it has a definite, distinct meaning.

Capitalism has a definite meaning as does a number of things. Certainly people can have different views on what is the best form of Capitalism or how best to practice it, but it has a definite meaning that isn't subject to the subjective views of anyone who wants to claim they're a capitalist when they may indeed be practicing something antithetical to Capitalism.

Again, what was subjective about what Noah said?
Exactly what is it about Black Nationalism that you feel is subject to any and everyone's subjective self-created notion of Black Nationalism?

 
At 10:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 5:15 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

All words have definite meanings Jean. Someone who's a Socialist can be confused so much with a Capitalist because of that.

It might help you if you showed some honesty. Yes, I said Black Nationalism has a definite meaning. But I also said by way of analogy that people can differ on what they think it means but none of that can change the core meaning or thrust of the idea.

You've yet to show how there can be so many subjective interpretations of Black Nationalism while the term maintains its meaning. When interpretations of what Capitalism is or should be in the minds of some get too close to Socialism (or anything else that's different from Capitalism) then you can't simply say that's a legitimate alternative view of what Capitalism is. Certainly, people who's subjective ideas deviate too far from the core of what Capitalism means... those people can't be called Capitalist. PERIOD.

Black Nationalism, likewise, can't be what anybody Black wants it to be for the sake of them latching on to a term they might feel has currency, popularity, or whatever.

Capitalism naturally emphasizes capital, etc. Black Nationalism, as the term suggest, emphasizes nation-like conceptions as a matter of things Black's must strive for or function as. There is, therefore, a very limited range of things (regardless of the diversity of opinion) that Black Nationalism can be.

Further, I need not draw from a text to speak to what Black Nationalism is. Nor do I have to concede that there are ideas that my want to appropriate and present themselves as Black Nationalist unless, in fact, they place Black Nation-Building concepts at the highest premium, core focus and as the ultimate objective of the ideology.

Assimilationism is a counterintuitive to that. But there are certainly those with Assimilationist mentalities who can subjectively miscontrue their aims to uplift Black people as they see fit (via Assimilationalism) as something that's "Black Nationalists" because they feel they have concerns with building up Black communities nationally.

You can claim that EVERYTHING Noah said was "subjective" but it appears that you have no interest is illustrating how that is so... for EVERYTHING he said.

Don't waste my time, Jean.
If you're going to make a claim. Back it up.

Given your positions here (from the things you expressed on the ZERO SUM GAME thread) I have no faith that you can speak to with any legitimacy what the range of things Black Nationalism is. You've yet to do so though you've almost entered this forum announcing that.

Black Nationalism, like any ideology has it's various Schools Of Thought, but you saying it all "subjective" is well... your subjective BS.

History and the evolution of theory in Black Nationalism are known fixed values to the core. Sure all things are fluid to a certain degree but the core of every philosophy remains the same and unchanged.

Again, nothing you've said (because you've said little) gives me any reason to believe you have a clue as to what Black Nationalism is... especially in a contemporary context. The views you've expressed are alien to Black Nationalism. By nature and definition Black Nationalism was ANTI-SYSTEM for one...

Now, come on out and say why claiming Black Nationalism is "subjective" is an important point for you to make. Do that along with detailing how Noah's ideas, as vague as they were, are "subjective".

That is, you show how there are some alternative and definitive expressions of Black Nationalism... Alternatives that are markedly different in scope or in focus from what Noah said.

Consider this the TEXT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

Now, if your views or what you perceive to be other alternative ideas of what Black Nationalism is strays from the core meaning (via the historicially originated impetus and objective) and the luminaries listed then and only then are those ideas of yours (as you see, whether your personal ideas or not) a legitimate reflection of Black Nationalism.

What is your "text" for this undisclosed BS about how it's all "subjective"?

Again, you've shown little if any ability to articulate things that are Black Nationalism, yourself, let alone things that are alternatives to what you perceive to be the rigid idea of what Black Nationalism is here.

You still haven't said anything yet. You've only made a claim. Now, with you making this claim over and over without producing anything to bolster your argument, we can only assume that you either don't have a clue or you have some ulterior motivation for wanting to suggest without support that what we say is "subjective" and somehow excluding legitimate expressions of Black Nationalism.

 
At 5:44 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:47 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Black Nationalism is very subjective. It means different things for different people."

What it means to different people has no bearing on what it means per se. Different people didn't come up with the concept... or should I say form it into a cohesive School Of Thought. Because of that, "different people" don't get to bastardize the idea to their own liking and assume they are Black Nationalists (or pursuing those aims).

Christianity, with all its denominations, has a definite meaning. Sure, it can mean different things to different people and different people may choose to define or practice Christianity as they perceive it in different ways. But none of that changes the core principles of Christianity. Nor does the diversity in Christian opinions change what those principles are.

My point is (as your repeated subjective suggestion seems to be trying to argue for), people can't change the core meaning of something to their liking just because they want to be associated with it or want to believe that they are practicing it.

Like Christianity, Black Nationalism has its core principles and, historically, its unique prophets and disciples that laid out the Gospel. Any people's idea that deviate from that Gospel, no matter what Black Nationalism means to them (and how different they perceive it), are not upholding Black Nationalism. They are speaking of and/or practicing something else.

Pagan beliefs cannot be assimilated into Black Nationalism and it still be Black Nationalism. In that respect, Black Nationalism can only be so subjective and can only differ in how people translate what it means in a very finite box.

Either something is or something isn't Black Nationalism. So far, you have not expressed much of anything germane to Black Nationalism. That is, taking your oft repeated views from the ZERO SUM GAME thread.

There... your apparent definition of AGENCY was antithetical to Black Nationalism. Otherwise you wouldn't have posed it as something mutually exclusive to being "Anti-System".

Black Nationalism is a definite WorldView. A definite philosophical and theoretical framework. It, like a lot of other things, has to be. Otherwise, there is no way to distinguish it from things that end in something different or otherwise deviate from its objectives.

Again, you have not voiced things that are Black Nationalism (going by that one thread).

Now, if you've made no attempt to do so personally because you don't claim to subscribe to the philosophy (especially consider how you've "labeled" yourself) then its incumbent upon you to add some meat to this bony refrain that still exists as an unsupported claim.

I'll forever be trying to figure out how something VAGUE, like what Noah said, can be called SUBJECTIVE.

Challenge:
Demonstrate how what you say is so, Jean.

No more Mickey Mouse. You made the claim. Now it's time for you to explain and sustain your point.
... and repeating your claim doesn't strengthen your point.

PRODUCE!

 
At 6:04 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

From the linked TEXTbook definition of Black Nationalism:

Black Nationalism is a complex set of beliefs emphasizing the need for the cultural, political, and economic independence of African Americans.Now, either something is or is not a reflection/expression of those aims for independence (or self-determination).

You spoke about there not being a "consensus" about "WHAT'S BEST"... But there is a consensus as to what Black Nationalism is and what it means regardless of varying sub-philosophies.

"I believe that our struggle was “not” anti-system, but rather “pro” agency and inclusion."And your belief there would NOT be in line with Black Nationalism. Black Nationalism, by definition, requires "anti-system" thinking if not a complete breaking away from said system.

 
At 7:28 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

"No oppressed group’s goal is to eliminate an unjust system – but rather to change the conditions within a given system that oppresses their particular group. Once they have achieved agency and cultural capital, they join the ruling class elites."Your TEXT or sources for this?
What do you base this claim on?
One the was contended with. One that was debunked with (con)textual sources.

Now, if your idea of the subjective range of views housed in Black Nationalism includes this... then you have no case -- which is exactly why you haven't been able to make one or even attempted to.

There is little if any AGENCY in the current system for Blacks. That's exactly what's problematic with the two White Supremacy parties and the American system of Majority Rule, Winner Take All Democracy.

 
At 7:55 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

I think I pretty much agree with you, but remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative.You and others can try to misappropriate DuBois, Douglass, etc. (and some Black CON's even try it with Malcolm X) but there is simply NO support for your claim.

Dubois is largely remembered...
Well, that might be and example of how subjective things are but there is little in today's Black CONservative ideology that resembles the sum total of what Dubois was about. In fact, B-CON's choose Booker T. as being more of their Patron Patriarch. So you can cut the subjective BULL!!

There's not a Black CONservative that would broach repatriating to Africa as Dubois did and Dubois views are distinctly different then and now with Black CONservative thought.

[quote]“There [should be] no objection to colored people living beside colored people if the surroundings and treatment involve no discrimination, of the streets are well lighted, if there is waters, sewerage and police protections, and if anybody of any color who wishes, can live in that neighborhood…never in the world should our fight be against association with ourselves because by that very token we give up the whole argument that we are worth associating with.” In a similar vein, DuBois once noted that black school children “need neither integrated education nor segregated education; what they need is education.”http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/another_stupid_white_man_who_just_cant_let_go/[/quote]


Those would not be an approximation of Black Conservative views today for sure. And that doesn't place a premium on Inclusion per se either.

 
At 10:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 3:09 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Also, you’re wrong about DuBois entirely... How was I wrong?
CLAIM then SUPPORT....
That's how this works, Jean... since you like to make CLAIMS.

But you must acknowledge that there were/are many preeminent theorists (and colleagues) of DuBois who sharply disagreed with his views. Where did I not acknowledge that?
What gives you cause to say some BS like that? You are not the only one who knows about DuBois...
(Plus when "text", etc. were brought Faheem mention the COMMON KNOWLEDGE philosophical differences that at least all us here are well aware of.)

Bottom line is... was the quote I referenced something that Black CONservatives today would say in the in the exact same Spirit and Letter.

The resounding answer is NO!
So, in so far as what I quoted, DuBois was in no wise a Black CONservative and his repatriation to Ghana and its attendant Pan-Africanism is far and away something that can't be likened or associated with Black CONservatism.

You, like Black CONservatives, want to misappropriate Black "Heroes" for your own purposes. DuBois' ideas are clear that he was hardly a Black CONservative...

I’m not being vague; in fact I have offered to give direct sources many times.OFF-THE-POINT... I didn't say you were being vague. I said Noah was...

C'mon DEBATE-MAN... You're slacking.

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 posted the link to the website for reference only. Made no issue out of the content of the site. You did.

For someone to talk about things "meaningful"... you're sorely lacking (which is what I've been saying all along).

I think it would be constructive (and fun) if we could all choose a text and then read it together collectively.I think it would be great if you actually had the Intellectual Fortitude to forward the debate on things you offer up for discussion and follow your BS up with some substance.

You can site sources as we go along. I have no aversion to that. But, you'll never get me to swing for your evasive, Let's Get Off The Topic and Talk About Something Else little tactics.

Come on... DEBATE-MAN...
Let's debate!

 
At 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 9:09 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.
Dude, it was your statement here that got all this started:
"I think I pretty much agree with you, but remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative."Again, B-Con's today reverence Booker T as a Patron Patriarch. Some even misappropriate Fredrick Douglass but you casting DuBois as THE ORIGINAL BLACK CONSERVATIVE is beyond even your pale. I've yet to see B-Con's claim DuBois. But I have seen Black Nationalist and Pan Africanist claim him despite the WELL KNOWN philosophical debates he had with his contemporaries.

You let that BS slip out your mouth. Don't try to distance yourself from it now.

Come on... Let's Debate!!

If we read these texts together, then we can debate them properly.Jean? What's with all the stalling? Bring on the debate NOW!

Present your argument, support it and stand by it. Don't get into this Wiggles routine, Dancing With Dorothy... Demonstrate how Dubois was/is remembered as the Original Black Conservative.

You've read the text you presume I'm ignorant of... Lay your shit out, Jean. I hope I don't need to hold your hand for you to do that.

Do I need to refer you a How To Debate & Not Be Scared Handbook?
Do you need me to Read Along with you for you to do more than just present a claim but actually have the fortitude to support what you say.

"...remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative."Remember... That's the BS you said.

Although originally Du Bois had believed that social science could provide the knowledge to solve the race problem, he gradually came to the conclusion that in a climate of virulent racism, expressed in such evils as lynching, peonage, disfranchisement, Jim Crow segregation laws, and race riots, social change could be accomplished only through agitation and protest. In this view, he clashed with the most influential black leader of the period, Booker T. Washington, who, preaching a philosophy of accommodation, urged blacks to accept discrimination for the time being and elevate themselves through hard work and economic gain, thus winning the respect of the whites. In 1903, in his famous book The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois charged that Washington's strategy, rather than freeing the black man from oppression, would serve only to perpetuate it. This attack crystallized the opposition to Booker T. Washington among many black intellectuals, polarizing the leaders of the black community into two wings--the "conservative" supporters of Washington and his "radical" critics.http://search.eb.com/blackhistory/micro/179/2.html

Now who was remembered as The Original Black Conservative?
(Remember... You said that!)

Now, where are all the Booker Rising type blogspots (hosted by today's Black Conservatives paying homage to DuBois' conservatism)?

I am not your enemy Nmaginate. I too am dedicated to fighting the racism and White Supremacy...Never said or posed you as an "enemy". You said you liked to debate. I'm trying to get a debate from you. You made the claims you have. I'm hoping one day you will actually support them.

 
At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 9:29 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Oh dear Professor Matthews... would you mind applying your observation to what our friend Jean Michael said?

I think I pretty much agree with you, but remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative.It would seem that you contradict what our dear friend Jean Michael said. He didn't specify by whom Dubois was "largely remembered". And you said:

How the man is remembered largely depends on whom you are talking to, and their personal politics.One, I did not state what my personal view of Dubois is/was. That may, indeed, require referencing original texts. I've simply challenged Jean Michael's assertion that DuBois was "largely remembered" as the Original Black Conservative.

As such, your comments here are wholly irrelevant and doesn't speak to any views of people here.

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.Both you and Jean presume and CONFLATE that "people" (here on this blog) are somehow ignorant of how DuBois was viewed by Black Nationalist, etc. That CONTEXT was never present or stated by Jean Michael, rendering both of your comments MOOT!

I merely asked for Jean to reconcile his SWEEPING and unspecified claim -- that Dubois was THE Original Black Conservative (something he's now contradicting) -- with how Dubois is viewed, especially in terms of his views during the latter part of his life that included his Pan Africanism and repatriation.

YOU both have been silent on that.
I wonder why...

Again, I have not stated my personal, political views on DuBois... I've only challenged your boys sweeping statement.

You want to comment on that?
Or do you just ride with him... regardless?

 
At 9:57 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.
This I know... Now tell me how that sustains your view that DuBois was/is largely remember as THE Original Black Conservative.

Noting that DuBois was comparatively "conservative" to Black Nationalist or generally "conservative" politically or socially is completely different from suggesting how he is LARGELY REMEMBERED.

However, in retrospect, historians and political theorists believe that Washington and DuBois’ objectives were largely the same. You're boring me with your Off-The-Point comments that represent things that are COMMON KNOWLEDGE (at least here).

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.


You're boring me with your Off-The-Point comments that represent things that are COMMON KNOWLEDGE (at least here).

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.Imagine that... I've often almost categorically dismissed talk about Socialism (as opposed to Capitalism... claiming that ideology) on that very same basis:
That it was/is European derived and speaks to European conceptions/issues.

Anyway....
You're boring me with your Off-The-Point comments that represent things that are COMMON KNOWLEDGE (at least here).

So to answer your question: Who regards DuBois as a conservative? BLACK NATIONALISTS DO!BULLSHIT! That's not an answer to my question because you have disingenuously disregarded the CONTEXT in which you made you sweeping statement. The only logical context from what you did say would have been to view you statement as DuBois being largely remembered (as you suggested) by Black people IN GENERAL.

This is what Faheem said:
When we are talking about the rise of the Black conservative we must be specific in that Black men and women have a history of being culturally conservative more so than white folk... However, socially Black men and women have been communal since time immemorial. The rise of the Black political conservative is a new phenomenon that is not rooted in our cultural conservativism and is by far closer to white political conservatism and propaganda. Even if you take the debate between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois, their fundamental disagreement with one another was not rooted in either of them repeating the platitudes and mantras of white think tanks or white folk in general although white folk tried to side with one over the other...To that you responded with the matter at issue here, now:
I think I pretty much agree with you, but remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative. He was a part of the West Indian elite class and championed the whole "Talented Tenth" thing. Many blacks felt that his mantra of resistance was rooted in white/European intellectual strategies and that he was a black apologist. By stating MANY Blacks, obviously, the impression you wanted to give (intended or not) what that BLACKS GENERALLY (i.e. MOST ALL BLACKS as opposed to Most Black Nationalist) regarded and remembered DuBois as "THE Original Black Conservative".

So, when you can be honest on these little things then and only then can we debate or discuss things in depth because you obviously are not motivated by an honest and truthful desire... If you were, you would arrogantly be presuming that we (I) don't know about DuBois or presuming that we haven't read texts... and most of all CONFLATING things to avoid issues that you don't know how to deal with or would rather avoid.

... Like this Shit-Out-The-MOUTH sweeping statement about DuBois being LARGELY Remembered as "THE Original Black Conservative". A statement you provided no context for, initially, that adds up to what you're calling your "answer" now...

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Given your questions, there’s obviously so much black history that you don’t know. You point out the questions I asked that were flawed and lacking knowledge... Don't just claim shit Jean. Prove what you say is true.

You said you like to debate. You've done none of that when I challenged you. What are you scared of?

I really suggest that you read more than Black Heritage websites, which are truncated and often rife with misinformation.I suggest that you resist the sissified pontificating over things you have no way of knowing. Assuming (or rather asserting) like a dumbass that I don't know about DuBois simply because your dumbass said some shit you can't defend.

Keep trying to save face, Jean...
It would seem that this Historical "ignorant" person is more Intellectually Gifted than you are, seeing as how you've been trying to avoid debate with me(us) and hoping that sure volume of knowledge can account for your apparent inability to apply that knowledge accurately and effectively in debate/discussion.

What would cause someone like you (the presumably super-knowledgeable about Black History & Heroes) to say some bullshit like DuBois is LARGELY REMEMBERED as "THE Original Black Conservative"?

You didn't qualify your statement.
You advance knowledge didn't help you there. When I brought it up, you didn't clarify and with INTEGRITY see how it could have been misconstrued (if it was)...

So what do you call all that JEAN?

I call that your Lack Of Intellectual Fortitude and Integrity. PERIOD.

You can have all the knowledge in the world but without that your knowledge doesn't amount to anything.

It's has been said that the Devil knows The TRUTH but that never stopped the Devil from telling a LIE and from trying to manipulate.

So, as I would hope you would speak with some relevance instead of all this pussified "I know more than you" BS.

Obviously you don't know what to do with that knowledge or how to use it. Apparently, you're still learning how to Connect The Dots.

In debate, when you self-professed Book Smart ass don't... I will be the first to point it out. And I guess it must burn your butt how someone like me (who you presume to know less than you do) can kick your ass in debate and show you how you're on some half-cocked, non-logically connecting bullshit and do it all so Fluently...

No, Jean... you're not my enemy and you're damn sure ain't my superior in anything. Believe that...

Now, when you get that Wiggle-Bitch BS out your system... Let's debate, discuss, dialogue or whatever the case may be.

But, if you want to bring your ego into this, don't cry when your bubbles get burst.

Signed The Black Heritage ONLY Website Reader

 
At 11:19 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.When did I misquote you on the DuBois thing? WHEN??

Stop crying like punk-kid and LYING in the process.

Also, when did I take your DuBois statement "out-of-context"? When did you (re)assert the proper context you presumed I misquoted you on?

I just quoted the whole context of what you said. You never once stated that I ignored the original context, nor did you quote the original context you claim I'm ignoring.

Quit talking lame shit and prove how I misquoted you and saw your statement in a context you did not state(write).

Here it is again:
I think I pretty much agree with you, but remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative. He was a part of the West Indian elite class and championed the whole "Talented Tenth" thing. Many blacks felt that his mantra of resistance was rooted in white/European intellectual strategies and that he was a black apologist.


.
Show me were I erred.
Show me how MANY BLACKS was suppose to be the functional equivalent of Black Nationalist.

Black Nationalist have never constituted a majority of Blacks. So, given that ideological adherence truth-fact-of-the-matter, how the hell was/is DuBois "LARGELY" remembered as THE Original Black Conservative by MOST BLACKS (the clear contextual connotation of your statement).

It's disingenuous to say Black Nationalist compose of the "many" Blacks you alluded to. It's even more specious to say that your original context was specifically about Black Nationalist opinions and the way most Black Nationalist regard DuBois.

There was nothing in your post that suggested that and nothing in Faheem's statement (which you responded to) that made a point about how DuBois is/was regarded by Blacks in general and definitely nothing about how he or Black Nationalists regard DuBois.

Contrary to your assertion, Pan Africanists and/or Socialists -- who in some way can be considered Black Nationalists in some respects or vice versa -- do regard DuBois favorably despite his "elitism". Certainly, some people, Black Nationalists included (and in particular here), can and have taken a more nuanced view and reconcile DuBois' ideas, the "good" and the "bad".

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.No. What I "need" is to, for once, for the would-be dissenters to actually substaniate their claims and points they make.

I understand how me intellectually destroying your arguments (You like to debate?), not allowing you to save face and Talking Shit at the same time (a Black Rhetorical Tradition... :} ) throws you for a loop. I understand how it infuriates you because it's so embarrassing. Embarrassing how little ole me -- someone you want to pretend is you intellectual inferior (or inferior in "knowledge") -- could ever dare be so treasonous and uppidity in highlighting your intellectual deficiencies.

Yes, I do "attack"... but that say more about your LACK than it does mind.

Time and time again you made claims you never supported. Time and time again you tried to switch the subject (when things weren't going so well for you).

Sorry, but I don't let that BS pass especially from signifying people like you. Sophisticated or crude, don't flex if you don't want to be flexed upon.

There will be NO Face Saving here when you step, halfly... That's simply the way I Get Down.

If you want to suggest somehow the views expressed here are lacking or flawed then you better come with something more than a SUBJECTIVE and unsupported claim.

That gives me every reason to "attack".... because WEAK Ideas Irritate My Ears.

I can respect your knowledge and perspective... but don't Insult Mine and expect it to be all "peaceful" in this piece.

Stand on yours, Jean.
But, anytime you fuck up and try to Insult My Intelligence by saying dumbshit, assuming something you don't know about what we know (simply because we don't agree with you)... you will get "attacked".

Stay on-point without the BS and we'll be cool.

PEACE... and GodSpeed in your travels...

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 3:39 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Oh dear professor... How you do profess a whole lot of BS.

You are not the first and, unfortunately, will not be the last to come here and say thing that they cannot support.

How DuBois is regarded, by Black Nationalists or otherwise, is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. And you nor Jean Michael can verify what I know and don't know about WEB DuBois.

Jean Michaels statement was fallacious, sweeping and particularly irresponsible of someone supposedly knowledgeable.

Your own statement contradicted it.
The facts of history directly disputes the nonsense Jean stated.

DuBois was largely regarded as THE Original Black Conservative... huh?

Well, your own statement would cause us to question: BY WHOM? Of course, he never supplied a by Black Nationalist context. Never qualified it that way making you cheerleading and nutsucking of him moot and all so revealing.

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.You being an elder (simply stating that you are) means nothing. You get respect when you give respect and speak with objective reference...

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.Oh the cute little fallacies we engage in... As if what you say about me being "rude" amounts to jack.

If you want to comment don't come with some weak suggestive White Boy Bullshit.

"You're angry." "Your rage and insecurities..."

All so very patently fallacious. All issues more concerned with Style as oppose to Substance.

Let you or Jean or whoever in the many alter-egos that come here to weakly disparage (weakly because none have yet to make a logical case for anything) Insult My Intelligence or the writers here and you will be swiftly "disrespected" for the irrelevant BS you would rather focus on instead of stating your case and then logically supporting or defending it (whatever the case may be).

First Rule of Blogs or Forums:
I never take things people say at face value.

Now, unless you got proof or something other than you casual surmise to back up the stuff you say then leave that cheerleading BS alone. NOTE: I will never be fazed by stupid, non-logically following BS people like you or Jean say.

I (we) gave Jean Michael ever possible chance to support his arguments and like most of the saps like you PROFESSor... He came up limp and went away crying... like a baby.

Either you or him come hard with some relevant facts and arguments or get summarily dismissed.

Yes. I will disrespect you or whoever comes here with some BS.
Now what??

If you want to have a real discussion or debate... cool. But don't fan in the process, let your Ego Write A Check That Your Intellect Can't Cash and then want to cry foul when I proceed to embarrass you in the Black Snap!, Dozen Playing Style that I just like to Get Down With.

Call it a character flaw... I'll own it. But I resort to that because I get bored... too damn bored with suckers like Jean (who may very well be "knowledgeable") but can't add nothing by way of debate or indepth discussion on things relevant.

Yes, I'm the Mighty Intolerant. But we already know this.

For you and all...
When you come here (as long as the brothers Noah & Faheem allow me to stay) speak with reference and RELEVANCE... and make your arguments with things other than blatant, anemic SEE THROUGH fallacies.

That's all I ask...
I guess that's just too damn hard. PROFESSor... lol

 
At 4:01 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

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.You being an elder (simply stating that you are) means nothing. You get respect when you give respect and speak with objective reference...

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.Oh the cute little fallacies we engage in... As if what you say about me being "rude" amounts to jack.

If you want to comment don't come with some weak suggestive White Boy Bullshit.

"You're angry." "Your rage and insecurities..."

All so very patently fallacious. All issues more concerned with Style as oppose to Substance.

Let you or Jean or whoever in the many alter-egos that come here to weakly disparage (weakly because none have yet to make a logical case for anything) Insult My Intelligence or the writers here and you will be swiftly "disrespected" for the irrelevant BS you would rather focus on instead of stating your case and then logically supporting or defending it (whatever the case may be).

First Rule of Blogs or Forums:
I never take things people say at face value.

Now, unless you got proof or something other than you casual surmise to back up the stuff you say then leave that cheerleading BS alone. NOTE: I will never be fazed by stupid, non-logically following BS people like you or Jean say.

I (we) gave Jean Michael ever possible chance to support his arguments and like most of the saps like you PROFESSor... He came up limp and went away crying... like a baby.

Either you or him come hard with some relevant facts and arguments or get summarily dismissed.

Yes. I will disrespect you or whoever comes here with some BS.
Now what??

If you want to have a real discussion or debate... cool. But don't fan in the process, let your Ego Write A Check That Your Intellect Can't Cash and then want to cry foul when I proceed to embarrass you in the Black Snap!, Dozen Playing Style that I just like to Get Down With.

Call it a character flaw... I'll own it. But I resort to that because I get bored... too damn bored with suckers like Jean (who may very well be "knowledgeable") but can't add nothing by way of debate or indepth discussion on things relevant.

Yes, I'm the Mighty Intolerant. But we already know this.

For you and all...
When you come here (as long as the brothers Noah & Faheem allow me to stay) speak with reference and RELEVANCE... and make your arguments with things other than blatant, anemic SEE THROUGH fallacies.

That's all I ask...
I guess that's just too damn hard. PROFESSor... lol

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

You say he does'nt support his claims. He supports all of his claims... and some!When did he support this claim... PROFESS-or?


I think I pretty much agree with you, but remember that Du Bois is largely remembered as the original black conservative...
Many blacks felt that his mantra of resistance was rooted in white/European intellectual strategies and that he was a black apologist.


Patently unqualified as he later tried to state (that he was talking how Black Nationalists regard(ed) DuBois). Blatantly obvious that he made a mistake and said something he could not substantiate as stated.

Tell me where that original statement made sense and was truthful/accurate?

Don't stutter "old man"... Speak the f@ck up!!

Tell me why it took him so long to even get around to answering my question by saying, "Black Nationalists (They're the ones who think/thought he was conservative.)"

Even with that, unless he can sight a source that says Black Nationalists or some historians do in fact give DuBois that moniker -- THE Original BLACK CONSERVATIVE (something different I contend than him merely being "conservative") -- then his point still would carry.

Besides... the context in which he made that statement in made his point IRRELEVANT, even if completely and literally accurate. Again, Faheem spoke about how African-Americans have always been conservative, socially or culturally.

So Dear Jean never had a point.
And sir, old elder of mine, you don't either.

Jean, apparently, just want someone to think that because he's a stat-fact cruncher he's automatically "smarter" or more knowledgeable.

Well, Welcome To The Theory Testing Zone. Beware of Falling Rocks...

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

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.

 
At 11:05 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Noah, as always (in the vain of the dissenters who prefer your more cordial style) SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE GENTLEMEN!! :)

Of course, there's a tremendous difference between reciting information and actually Processing/Synthesizing it.

Anyway... here's a little correction from my post above:

Even with that, unless he can sight a source that says Black Nationalists or some historians do in fact give DuBois that moniker -- THE Original BLACK CONSERVATIVE (something different I contend than him merely being "conservative") -- then his point still would {{NOT}} carry.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums