HATE
How does one determine hate as a motive or state of mind and heart of another? I ask this question due to many frequent guests to this blog having posted dissents to our message and characterizing this blogs authors as motivated by hate and anti-white rhetoric. This is not a ubiquitous characterization of our motives by all dissenters, but certainly enough to warrant a topic where the accusers or those who share such beliefs of our motives, can demonstrate the evidence of hate and anti-whiteness.
It would seem by virtue of pattern recognition that the working definition of hatred manifest as black people who link this nations racial past to its racial present. To be guilty of this linkage thus makes one also anti-white, but based upon what? What is the logical inductive or deductive reasoning that leads dissenters to conclude this, assuming that the claim is rationally motivated? Given that no admissions of hate or anti-white racism have been made, how does one read between the lines to glean this?
Can it be possible that these dissenters are making a “Freudian slip”? Could it be that their accusations is simply their subconscious mind leading them to believe that given history blacks should hate and be anti-white? When one cannot bare witness to the heart and mind of others, ones own heart and mind then is used as a template to understand the motivations and behaviors of others. This is psychology 101 and it is called “projecting”. I am not saying that our accusers are themselves full of hate and anti-white, for some of them are white. What I am suggesting is that their subconscious mind concludes that histories reality has provided many triggers that would produce hate and anti-white sentiments in the black human condition, as understood and calculated by the dissenters own humanity.
I would like to place a disclaimer on the accusation of possessing hate and qualify what may be interpreted or misconstrued as being anti-white. What I am is pro-black uplift to equilibrium and equality with whites; hence, I am anti-white superiority. In other words, I am also anti-black inferiority, anti-white inferiority and anti-black superiority, as well as being anti-white superiority.
The collective entity of “white people” has accrued a social and economic condition of superiority from past discrimination, oppression and repression of black people. Consequently, the push for black equality requires a relative, if not absolute, demotion of white status. Hence; such thinking is seen as being anti-white or motivated by hatred, because it is seen as punitive, when coupled with their subconscious beliefs that blacks have plenty of reason to be angry, given history.
I would be guilty of prevarication if I were to say that this blogs authors are free of emotions on the subject of race. However, I do strongly believe that the substance of our arguments and propositions are simply logical cause and effect analysis, based upon the natural fact that the present is the creation of the past and that every action produces reactions. Hate has nothing to do with cause and effect unless hate is of such a degree that it blinds logical analysis with bias. If we are guilty of hatred and biased analysis, then what is the bias and how does it manifest? Well, given the current black condition, the question concerning its cause is either rooted internally to “blackness” or externally to the environmental effects and conditioning of white America. Hence, our bias would be the assumption that blacks are not inferior to the degree that we are the cause of our social and economic differential with whites. This means that dissenter’s dissent is partially born from our not wanting to entertain this possibility. To exclude the external is to accuse the internal and visa verse.
In conclusions, I just would like to offer this opportunity to call out all dissenters to demonstrate the evidence of their claims that this blog teaches and preaches hate, so to speak. The failure of you to respond will be interpreted as the recognition that your claims were and are fallacious and merely attempts to discredit and obfuscate truths that you have a vested political and or emotional interest in not accepting.
Thanks in advance of your response.
posted by Noah TA @ 6/20/2005 08:49:00 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
That’s an excellent commentary Nmaginate. I agree with every bit of it. I think that the goal and strategy of many dissenters and detractors is the same as a prosecuting attorney against a key witness for the defense. That goal and strategy is to discredit and create a shadow of a doubt, notwithstanding the veracity of what was witnessed, concerning the credibility of the witness. The most common strategy of our system of justice is not the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of victory, often accomplished by discrediting the messengers and witnesses of truth.
Renu is as transparent as glass. His or her (likely her) whole argument is to discredit the messenger of racial truths, because s/he has no evidence to repudiate the actual truth…so s/he must seek to obfuscate the credibility of us or in this case…me. S/he spent most of the time focused on grammar, spelling and emotional motivations….rather than mounting counter evidence that negates what was witnessed.
Noah,
You might as well just call this blog “Renu’s Introspection,” because I seem to have become the sole motivation, fixation, and driving force of this forum recently. You don’t have to resort to bating because I enjoy this stuff.
I’m leaving the country for a few months (back to Dakar, Senegal, then South Africa, Paris, and lastly Amsterdam), so I’ll be absent for some time.
There are several seminal intellectual texts that have pondered this very issue in depth. I have strong feelings about it. Nevertheless, considering how dialogues have gone in the past, I think it would fruitless for me to discuss it: primarily because our knowledge bases are drastically different. Call me pompous, but I’m very well read when it comes to African-American intellectual and literary culture – philosophy and cultural theory. All I can do is offer these texts to you so that we can discuss things in a meaningful way. Otherwise, we get nowhere…
So as I’ve suggested before, we should choose a text and then make our arguments based on something real, rather than opinions.
Your biggest problem Noah is that you simply have not invested enough time familiarizing yourself with the intellectual history of your own culture. What you consider “pro-black” has long been associated with separatism and “hatred” by black intellectuals. You really need to do some reading about racial “essentialism.” Black intellectuals have discussed this for decades. I would offer this information to you, but I know you wouldn’t want it anyway. You should just know that all the Pan-African, Black Nationalist, and Pro-Black rhetoric you champion is totally outmoded and has been completely discarded by black intellectuals for over two decades. All that stuff is rubbish. You just need to get up to speed.
Frankly, it’s not my job to break down why you’re a racist; only you can “really” determine that. If you say that you’re not a racist; fine, so be it (you have the right to call yourself whatever you want). What do I care? Besides, whether you’re a racist “personally” has little bearing on the discussion. What is pertinent here is whether or not your ideology is rooted in racism. That’s what you should explore further. We, African-Americans have to be particularly careful not to confuse race pride with intolerance. Justified or not, intolerance retards progress. Black Nationalist rhetoric always lambastes whites, but fails to acknowledge that millions of whites (both locally and globally, along with activists of all races and nationalities) were fierce opponents of American racism; and many risked and gave their lives for this noblest of causes. As has been the case with civil resistance efforts in the past: it is only through a global coalition that hate can be defeated. (If you had even a rudimentary knowledge of global politics, you would understand this). Calling everyone who disagrees with your ill-informed views about black culture a Negro-Con; isn’t going to change the fact that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Anyway, I mention that I’m going to Senegal, primarily because I take part in regular summits that focus on fighting racism and oppression globally. Our main mission is to build a coalition of nations that work against the rhetoric of racial separatism and essentialism (some of the essential ingredients of hatred). The panel I’m on is about Gandhi’s “Humanism,” and principles of non-violent resistance – and their successful implementation in global resistance efforts (i.e. anti-colonial wars in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the U.S.). I’m specifically addressing how these hugely successful “anti-racist,” “anti-essentialist” principles advocated racial unity and not “hate.” Historically, the systematic implementation of “hate” has always been configured as a necessary means to preserve a particular identity – of course, at the expense of others. Many people believe that racial identity is compulsory and/or pure (essentialism). This supposed desire for purity and ‘group belongingness’ (often called: racial insider-ism) is what ultimately drives one group to oppress, eradicate, or segregate another. Religious fundamentalism (coupled beliefs of racial/ethnic purity) forms a combustible mixture that has been at the root of most oppressions and forms of genocide throughout history. We have seen this in its most recent forms in American racism, 1940s Europe, Bosnia, South Africa, Israel… the list goes on and on. Ultimately, we must reject the type of “demographic nostalgia” that encourages us to fall into the trap of retaliatory intolerance. I believe this to be a consequence of the psychic trauma inflicted by racism; and this adopted “racial insider-ism” retards our progress.
Rejecting ‘racial essentialism’ is not to somehow, let racist whites off the hook. Conversely, we must reach out and build coalitions with those (of all races and identities, including whites) dedicated to anti-racist directives. Racism is a universal evil that plagues every nation and every people. Retreating into misguided and rapacious forms of ‘group belongingness,’ and rabid nationalisms, only encourage the cycles of divisiveness. Racism cannot be beat through essentialism. If hypothetically, African-Americans were to achieve equality through reparations – that would not intervene in the systematic oppression of other groups within our society (or globally: not to mention the fact that reparations has never succeeded anywhere). We must ask ourselves; “are we concerned with eradicating racial hatred in America, or are we only concerned with our plight as African-Americans?” Historically, resistance movements based on essentialism have not succeeded because they are not concerned with oppression as a global problem, but merely their specific plight. Freedom and equality cannot be attained in this manner. Hence, we must destroy racism through unity, not strategic divisiveness,
African-Americans are in a precarious position because we have been the recent victims of oppression. Thus, our dissent is justified. However, justified “hatred” (strategic divisiveness, essentialism, separatism, racial fixity, retaliatory intolerance; whatever you want to call it) is still hatred. Gandhi believed that hatred produces only more hatred – never understanding and compassion. The racial essentialism, separatism, and compulsory ‘group belongingness’ that produce “hatred” must be eradicated in order for racism to be defeated. As long as so-called black American’s continue to embrace the false racial identification that was imposed upon them; as long as we feel that our identity is compulsory and pure; then we will remain oppressed. The historical precedents for this are too many to mention here. The problem with our attitudes about race is that we think too locally. Our situation here is not unique, and there are well-documented investigations into the plight of oppressed peoples that are applicable to our condition.
I’m signing out for a while, but I encourage you to do some research because I think it will greatly inform your understanding of the African Diaspora, and black trans-Atlantic culture in general.
Anyway, I’ll leave you with this to choke on for now. I must go friends… the world awaits!
Renu
One of your problems Renu is that you have an exaggerated view of your importance. This topic was not specifically about you although you are guilty of what was presented. You ignored the fact that there were hundreds of dissents before you graced us with your presence and wisdom; yet, your self-absorbed pompousness led you to think that this essay was about you. Scott, this past week, also made the claim of hatred.
Your strength and passion, Renu, is literature. Hence, you must contort every debate into a literary debate or else you have nothing substantive to offer that is the product of your own cognitions. As an example, you dismiss my opinion, because it is an opinion, but then forward for my study the opinion of black intellectuals, who have written literary material on the subject matter.
Your feeble attempt at a rebuttal to demonstrate my hate is one of the weakest rebuttals put forth on this blog. What it comes down to is essentially intellectual welfare. Do to your own weak cognitive abilities, outside the scope of literary and grammatical acumen, you must forward the OPINIONS of black intellectuals, thus far unmentioned, to demonstrate why I and my rhetoric is hateful. You are the intellectual equivalent of the “Welfare Queen”, who lives off the work of others. What I seek is YOUR demonstration of my hatred…. not you requesting that I read the opinion of others, at your choosing, to make your case.
Not surprising, it was the era of black nationalism, Pan Africanism, militancy and other efforts at black uplift that also experienced the greatest rise in black civil rights and economic gains. Of course, you would suggest that such is coincidence and not correlation, but again you would be dead wrong. The 1950’s and 1960;s will go down as the most militant and pro black era of the past century and it was that era that produced civil rights and a sharp reduction in black poverty. Your claims are totally without foundation.
Who cares were you are going and what global coalitions you are forming, what I want to know is how have your efforts changed the global position of blacks in this world. The conditions of Africa have only worsened, while the conditions of Europeans and Asians have improved. Whatever coalitions and bridges you are building is not demonstrating any benefit to the masses of black folk in this world. So save all that rhetoric for someone who is a fool.
Moreover, why do you feel you must give us your travel plans? You obviously mention such things like that to try and impress someone. Last time it was you telling us you were going on vacation to Brazil..then two or three days later, you were back posting again. Then the other day you made mention of your name brand office chair. Now you are giving us a list of countries you are going to visit. You are just a pompous bore who wants to be something he or she is not. You figure that if you impress someone with your status, office chair, travel and grammatical perfection….that it would make up for lack of reasoning.
Renu, you are simply a poor attempt at a being a wanna-be intellectual. I guess in your absence, Mrs Nat Turner Jones will pick up where you left off. Take your sorry, FUGLY, literary masturbating, intellectual welfare queen, non-debating arse back to your parents house…because that is the only vacation your taking…heck….you probably still live with you mama….lol…wit you prevaricating arse. Hey….just for your information…I have been to Africa twice sister.
This multiple personality/alias contributor likes to duck and run when s\he gets logical cornered. Such is time for a vacation or for the creation of a new persona that can continue heckling the blog without having to logically work him or herself out of the corner or cry uncle. Those multiple personalities serve as a tag team. When one of the personalities is getting logically beat down, they tag the other personality to come in fresh without having to addressed being pinned or out for the count.
The texbook example of a hate site is http://www.stormfront.org/
http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat/racism.htm
"What Is Racism?
The 'racist' double standard: how Whites are made to feel guilty and "hateful" for loving their own people and culture."
If you read this essay to the end it have almost all of the elements of Noah's logical essays.
So to summaries the similarity of your site to well known hate sites make people call your site a hate site.
Scott, your superficiality is getting annoying. Your attempts at moral equivalence are simply another example of a feeble mind trying to express and draw attention to its self. If I see you walking down the street, minding your own business, then physically attack you, is your defense the moral equivalent of my attack, because we use the same means? The fact that I used physical force to subdue you and the fact that you attempt to use physical force to repel or escape, does not make our actions morally equivalent, even though we exercised the same means.
To suggest that because I promote black unity and black consciousness, that it makes me guilty of hate because white supremacist supports white unity and white consciousness is wrong. You lack the ability to think critically beyond the superficial, Scott. You need to learn to differentiate the MEANS from the MOTIVATION and reason. White unity and white pride is motivated by the goal of the preservation of white supremacy and privilege. My push for black unity and black consciousness (not pride) is motivated by the goal of lifting black people of this world to parity. My push is for social and economic equality, not the preservation or promotion of inferiority or superiority as are white hate groups. Moreover, as I have said…..I don’t hate any group of people, but those who manifest wickedness, which comes in black and white.
A lot of you folks, who marry outside their race, have a psychological need to portray black folk who are committed to the concept of black unity for uplift, as people who are racist of full of hate, when that is far from the truth. If I am an educated black man, good values, good loving and good income, how can I rationalize promoting black uplift if I decide to not share that with a black woman? Such would be counter intuitive and hypocritical. However, people who make a choice to decouple from their people often try to make those blacks who make a conscious commitment to black uplift, through their actions, as having bad motivations…ie racism and hatred of whites.
No Scott, this is simply the equal and opposite forces to undue the subduing of black people from 3 centuries of an unprovoked attack on our humanity. It is not hate….its defense and repair.
Let me say that I believe that beauty of love is not bound by color. I am sure that if I wanted to or tried, that I could find an equally loving mate of a different race, than the one of my same race that I am sharing my life with. However, the thing to note is that love is a CHOICE. Falling in love is a process and picking a mate is a choice. Hence, what I do not understand is why or how a person, who laments concern about the black condition, and improvement, will not make the CHOICE of a black mate, assuming they have something positive to offer.
You see, a large pillar of the conservative mantra is the belief that one CHOOSES the outcome of their life. Consequently, using this logic, such blacks have made a choice not to share the greatest gift of all, love, and all the things that come with it, with a black mate. Hence, they have been irresponsible, in regards to the personal action, to extend the uplift of black people beyond themselves, by attempting to lift up another black person.
An analogy that I like to use is that of a Buick car salesman who drives a Ford. It is hard to take serious the claims of the Buick salesman about believing in the Buick product, when he or she drives to work in a Ford. If one truly believed in the Buick Model and wanted to promote the success of the model then it seems intuitive that the person would make a personal choice of Buick as their personal car of choice. You should not sell it….if you don’t buy it.
I’m just a casual observer, but it appears to me that this person (Renu) has presented a pretty sound theoretical argument. At least it’s pretty damn impressive to me! It’s obviously more than just fancy words, as he/she’s taught me a few things. He/she is the only one that has said anything with substance (methodologically speaking) in regard to the subject of hate. I think that Renu has an extremely developed understanding of racism and its history. Maybe you (Noah) should produce a methodology that asserts a counter model for black uplift that is based on black essentialism (is this not what you prefer?). I’m sure you have some good stuff to offer.
If I understand Renu correctly, I think that he/she is not calling you a racist personally; but is actually calling into question the motives of any resistance effort that is based on racial separatism, rather than a color blind and global form of solidarity.
In other words: essentialism/separatism = intolerance/hatred. I love that idea!
He/she also seems to believe that the focal of resistance should be on inequality itself, not [one] manifestation of inequality [black inequality/queer inequality for example]. I thought this idea was really amazing! I never really considered this. I think it’s true that if black people achieved equality here, that would not change the plight of blacks anywhere else. And it certainly would not impact other oppressed peoples in America. Neither would it work against inequality across the board. This country needs a labor class, and if blacks were no longer filling this need, then another group will have to. Will we fight for them? I doubt it. I think Renu is right that we should focus our attention on wiping out inequality, as opposed to fixating only on our own condition, while simultaneously self-segregating ourselves.
Where are the studies that say that blacks in interracial relationships have the attitudes you’ve expressed? I’m not familiar with them. Those comments are unfounded and outright nasty. They expose the intolerance that Renu was talking about. It was stupid of Scott to suggest that this site is like a white supremacist site, but I still think those attitudes are just mean and inaccurate. Why the hell would you proclaim that you’re not anti-white and then say that stuff? I don’t see how you think that interracial relationships violate black resistance/uplift/solidarity? That’s silly and trifling. Judging an individuals character according to the skin color of their mate is superficial. Policing race is the primary way that hated persists. We police each other’s behavior as a means of keeping each other in line, and as a means of judging one’s dedication to their group. That's just another form of slavery and bondage. Being free is to be able to live and love in the manner of one's choosing. Judging someone in this manner is just wrong. Besides, there is no such thing as racial purity. It’s especially ignorant for American blacks to say stuff like this because we are mixed with everything. People should be able to love whomever they want, and their dedication to their race should not be called into question. It is the very notion of having dedication to one’s race that should be called into question. That is what Renu is saying. We’re a global community of diverse peoples, and we must embrace one another.
I’ve often been told by black friends in interracial relationships that being in that situation changed their entire attitude about race relations. The reason is because they experienced [daily] the hateful and disapproving looks, comments, and isolation from their own people. So, for the first time, they realized that blacks have all of the hatred, ugliness, and malice that whites possess (that their position on that bottom of the socio-economic ladder, does not mean that they are morally superior or less prone to hatred than whites). They also realized that the community loyalty they always enjoyed was conditional, and that their being involved in an interracial relationship inherently meant that they were in violation of this loyalty. Most people do not date and marry within their race because of loyalty. They do so as a means to avoid the disapproval and rejection of their group. It seems obvious to me that receiving hateful scorn from your racial group has to alter how you feel about community loyalty (racial loyalty).
I'm not Renu BTW.
Mathew
Ohhh…now your Mathew….Okey Dokey….whatever. Anyway, my methodology is simple and objectively proven by laws of mathematics. As I have noted before, there are physical and mathematical laws that support my theory. I have stated them in the commentary section of other essays and I am sure you read them while manifesting as one of your many personalities.
Its not that your methodology is without merit, rather, what I have a problem with is the assumption of mutual exclusiveness of methodologies. Black nationalist or separatist serves a purpose that coalitions cannot, in that they represent undiluted black interest. The draw back of rainbow coalitions are that black interest can and will become and impotent minority to the decisions of majority rule. One perfect example of this is the diverse democratic political party of American politics, that does not promote or support many concepts supported by the black majority, like reparations.
What Black Nationalism or black independence provides is an option or defense against white behavior reverting back to that of the past. For those blacks that decided to place their trust in white altruism, they will be burned in the change. Blacks really cannot afford to be that trusting, given the last 300 year and the thousands of years of history and mankind’s inhumanity to man…..when placed under economic stresses. You see, there are really no guarantees or no empirical evidence that shows that supports the notion that humans of today are morally superior to those of any other period. Once the stresses of existence return, which unfortunately will be soon (brought about by declining world supplies of fossil fuels which economies are hyper dependent upon)….white racism will return with a vengeance.
You see, the one of the greatest fallacies of slavery and racism is the belief that it was rooted in hate. The truth is that it was rooted in economics. The rationalization that allowed one group of people to exploit and use another group of people to lift themselves up was racial inferiority. Even though whites are willing to grant and recognize exceptions, I believe most whites still believe that blacks are inferior. How else do they rationalize social and economic racial gaps? They certainly do not link it to past or present white racism. Consequently, I don’t think whites have earned the trust for blacks to put all their eggs in the concept of coalition building. Such is a utopian Idealistic concept.
Noah,
It’s interesting how selective your retorts are.
So I assume you feel that Black Nationalism has been successful at uplifting our condition? Slavery and segregation ended as the result of economic sanctions placed on the U.S., so: considering our current condition, what was (or is) the benefit of Black Nationalism for African-Americans? It can be argued that nationalism is idealistic as well. In fact, how can it not be? Nationalism is a highly romanticized ideal. Historically, nationalism has often been rabid ‘idealism’ at its most sadistic and oppressive. Do you need examples?
What does coalition building have to do with white trust? You don’t have to worry about racist whites because they don’t join or support anti-racist causes. Don’t confuse racist whites with all whites [you join with the ones that are anti-racist; to hell with the others]. You say that you are not anti-white, but then you critique the strategy of building coalitions with whites dedicated to anti-racist causes. This is problematic because many European nations led the effort to end American Apartheid. I think you are too fixated on what white people do, when it would be more productive to work against racial oppression alongside those [of any race] who are deeply committed to that cause. Yes, we all know that there are many whites that have an investment in maintaining racial division and white supremacy; but if they held sway, we’d still be picking cotton. An international coalition of nations [many of whom were white] pressured the U.S. until it relented. The same is true for South Africa. Scores of white American and European activists exposed U.S [and global] corporations: pressuring them to divest in South African Apartheid. Black Nationalism did not end it: it was a multi-racial, ethnic, and global coalition of wonderful people that put an end to that evil regime. What better example do you need? That is not idealism; that is action.
Black Nationalism sounds great as an idealistic, community mobilizing principle, but it has not proven itself to be anything other than oppressive and limiting. Throughout our history, there have always been struggles between Black Nationalism and Black Internationalism, but the nationalist ethos has not proven efficacious in the manner that internationalism has.
Mathew
NmagiNate,
You obviously have read very little about Malcolm X. Towards the end of his life, he began to advocate humanism as opposed to Black Nationalism: a position he found to be increasingly problematic. This is common knowledge; but for a good book on the subject check out: “Malcolm X: In Our Own Image,” edited by Joe Wood. It contains essays by John Edgar Wideman, Angela Davis, Cornel West, and other notables. But there are many others…
All of the [important] black intellectuals have discarded Black Nationalism. In fact, there is an entire discourse dedicated to the subject. Here is a list authors:
Michele Wallace
bell hooks
Kimberlé Crenshaw
Kobena Mercer
Homi Bhabha
William L. Van Deburg
Angela Davis
Elaine Brown
Stuart Hall
Hazel V. Carby
Paul Gilroy
K. Anthony Appiah
If you haven’t heard of all these people, you should be embarrassed to discuss the issue of race.
Black Nationalism [as a concept] has been under attack by leading black intellectuals since the 1980s. Black Nationalism was particularly ‘masculinist’ and oppressive to black women. Angela Davis stated that it contained “conservative racializing limitations [essentialism] and strong masculinist implications that Malcolm problematized at the end of his life” [that is a quote].
You must also read the essay called: “The Allure of Malcolm X and the Changing Character of Black Politics,” by Adolph Reed, Jr. This is an important essay that discusses the failures of Black Nationalism, as related to the life and legacy of Malcolm X.
Patricia Hill Collins states that:
“Malcolm X’s emerging politics during the fourteen months preceding his assassination, a period in which he remained a Muslim but broke from Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam, offer yet another much-needed and often contradictory perspective on Black Nationalist philosophy…
…First, Malcolm X’s definition of race and his perceptions of the connections among race, color, and political consciousness changed. During most of his time with the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X saw race as a biological reality instead of a socially constructed, historical phenomenon. This assumption of biological essentialism colored his Black Nationalist philosophy.” [She goes on to state that Malcolm discarded these beliefs].
…He formulated a different notion of black political consciousness; one “encompassing different notions of black political consciousness and the types of political coalitions that blacks might forge with other groups.”
As Collins’ states, Malcolm was very interested in building [“coalitions”] with [“other”] groups, as long as they were dedicated to anti-racist directives.
I could go on and on…
I would just read the authors listed above. They are the preeminent and canonical thinkers that are driving black intellectual, cultural, and political thought today. And they are “all” critical of the very concept of nationalism (especially Black Nationalism).
Mathew
You guys are a trip. We don't hate white people or you as long as you stay racially pure.
You have also said on this blog you don't want the input of white people.
These are all charactertices of a hate site.
But I did leave out the most damming evidence that this is a hate site and that is that you have NO postive message. There is no love here, no each one teach one. No volunteer at you local church. Nothing no plan. Just Whitey this whitey that.
I obviously find you guys entertaining otherwise I wouldn't stop by. But step back and look at yourself. You wont even meet a white woman for coffee because you are so affraid of whiteness.
You guys are joke. Go read a book or two and learn something.
Or better yet come up with an action plan.
What you fail to note, Mathew, is that countries generally have ulterior motives when they seek to help a people in another country. The US would have you believe they are in Iraq to help the Iraqi people. However, only a fool would believe that is the primary motive. Many countries take of the cause of oppressed people in other lands, to use it against the governments of oppressing country. Countries are engaged in a geopolitical competition, which often results in taking up the cause of oppressed people, to cast a negative light or image on a government.
Many people seem to forget that part of the reason that civil rights was won in America is that it became more difficult for the US to label communist countries as oppressive, when this country was legally oppressing its black masses. All Russia or China had to do was point the finger back at Americas treatment of blacks. Consequently, USA international interest and geopolitics were being hurt by its domestic treatment of black people. This resulted in non altruistic pressures for the government to change its ways and to grant civil rights and protections to black citizens.
Thus, I am not on board with a lot of this international coalition building.
The truth is this. Had the Africans, in Africa, practiced Black Nationalism, instead of tribalism, they would not have warred with each other to sell captives as slaves to Europeans. Had they practiced this Black Nationalism, racial slavery in the West would never have manifested to the degree it did. United you stand and divided you fall. This is why divide and conquer is the preferred methodology.
If white people want to get together and work on behalf of black interest…there is nothing stopping them and I have no objections to it. However, I take issue with the notion that blacks need to integrate in their quest for recovery. If black people want to work with other black people, to help black people recover, such does not hurt rainbow coalition’s ability to help as well. Let’s be clear, if whites really wanted to help black people…they have the power to do so without forming any coalitions. The only reason whites need coalitions, IS FOR CONTROL. The reason that whites are against Black Nationalism is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT CONTROL OVER IT. For the problem, far too often, with so-called good non-racist whites is that they only want to help…if things can be done THEIR WAY. They seem to have an aversion to following behind black leadership and what blacks collectively decide what it is that blacks need the most.
Noah,
In regard to coalition building, I suggest you take a look at the World Social Forum. The last forum was held in Mubai, India from January 16-21, 2004. The Forum is one of the many global coalitions working against inequality. It’s out of a profound lack of information that you link global coalition building with the “Rainbow Coalition.” One has nothing to do with the other. You need to sop with all this uninformed, bias-based opposition to things beyond your purview. The Forum is not a utopian, idealistic organization; but is a think tank dedicated to anti-hegemonic undertakings. And it’s not the only one of its kind. There have been many such forums that have occurred globally since the 1920s; and many African-American leaders, literary figures, artists, and intellectuals participated in these events as a means to advocate the push towards black internationalism, as opposed to nationalism. These forums have always been an effective means for which intellectuals [of all races and nationalities] could band together and contemplate the eradication of global oppression. You really must read about black internationalism (it’s your history after all).
Below is the World Social Forum’s mission statement:
“The World Social Forum is not an organization, not a united front platform, but "…an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo- liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person". (From the WSF Charter of Principles).”
http://www.wsfindia.org/
Also, you have to be careful about your use of terms, because you often invoke them in a careless manner. I find very problematic the opposition you create between “tribalism” and “nationalism,” because they are actually the same thing. These terms are etymologically interchangeable. How is it that you posit them as different? War has always been the result of nationalism Noah. Africa’s rabid nationalism/tribalism/essentialism, etc, is precisely what has kept it in a dystopic state. If you “really” believe that it was tribalism [and the absence of Black Nationalism] that manifested slavery to the degree it did: then you have been totally misinformed about the history of Africa. What source did you get that from? I would like to see it.
At some point, I would really like to see you argue a point on an actual source (historical, critical, anything), rather than your ideological prejudices and ill-tempered conjecture.
Your anti-whiteness borders on the primitive. What does coalition building have to do with integration?” Black Americans are already integrated, so what decade are you in? White people [or what are called white people] globally are not a monolithic group. You must stop speaking in generalizations. The final paragraph of your last post is such a mess of unfounded generalizations and stereotyping that I can’t take it seriously. Please ground your comments in actual “legitimate” historical examples.
Mathew
What is the difference between being Pan African and Black internationalism? Pan African encompasses Diaspora and continental Africans, covering many different nations in scope. I don’t know what your working definition of black internationalism is, but I certainly take an international approach to the black struggle via Pan Africanism. I don’t consider myself a black nationalist, but rather, a Pan African.
You have it all wrong Mathew; I have not confused Americas or Jessie Jackson Rainbow coalition with what you are talking about. I used the term metaphorically to represent a diverse body on interest under one origination. I was not referring to any specific organization. My point being is that a democratic process in a diverse body will manifest majority rule, which may not be in the interest or plans of the minority of the group. Consequently, the short coming of what you advocate is that black interest often get drowned out or diluted in such originations. They cannot offer the purity of black interest and objectives that manifest under Pan Africanism. Of course, given that blacks are the poorest race on the planet, the disadvantage of Pan Africanism is that it lacks the resources and funding that comes with coalitions. However, outside forces are not often willing to contribute without CONTROL of how the funding is to be used.
My use the terms tribalism and Nationalism, Renu (by the way, How your vacation in Africa going) are not the same thing. Remember, Black Nationalism has never been defined in this debate. Thus, Black Nationalism and tribalism are quite different, because the unity of Black Nationalism is centered on race, while the unity of tribalism is centered on tribal birth. When the Europeans came to Africa, the lack of black unity allowed Europeans to exacerbate tribalism and wars to make slaves of the war captives. Thus, black unity, Black Nationalism, black separatism (from the economics of Europeans), would have prevented much of the now infamous black slavery holocaust.
You are too caught up in terms, as opposed to context and usage. Much of language and understanding is predicated on CONTEXT. Your tendency to force one-to-one mapping to term and definition is why you fail so often at understanding. You need to realize that most terms in the English language have multiple working definitions and are not bound by the one definition you wish to associate it with. Don’t be so anal. That’s the problem I have with English majors….you are less concerned about understanding than you are about proper grammatical construction. It just obfuscates communication.
Post a Comment
<< Home