The comments on the original post from Open Source Politics
Open Source Politics
"If you're oppressed, end the oppression and move on, but for fuck's sake, don't consider yourself different than whoever oppresses you because you have a different skin color."
I think Samuel L Jackson said it best in Pulp Fiction... "that's some fucked-up, repugnant shit".
Asking the oppressor to "end the oppression" is sort of like telling women it's up to them to stop getting raped. The victim isn't the one who is responsible for putting an end to the victimization, but rather the aggressor.
Black identity has existed and will continue to exist in a country where black people are continued to be treated like second-class citizens. Get used to it... in fact, read up on it. Black identity is based on the fight against oppression and subjugation. White nationalism is based on hatred & murder. If you don't see, or are unwilling to see the difference, then I apologize on your brain's behalf. Do some Google work and find out how many race-based killings the Nation of Islam has committed, then compare that with the Klan, World Church of the Creator, Aryan Nation or any other white seperatist group. It's gonna take a whole hell of a lot of Nat Turner revolts to turn the black identity movement into the bloodbath and hate-fest that white supremacists have accomplished.
Regarding "black news" or "black entertainment", let me point your attention to the "white news" and "white entertainment" channels... every other channel on the goddamn dial. The difference? Other channels don't come out and say that their programming is targeted towards a white audience.
You also said "Race, unfortunately, is not something that can be ignored by masking, like sexual orientation; the minute a person walks into, say, an interview, the interviewer knows what race and sex he or she is. But it can and should be masked on the Internet, when filling out forms, etc. There's a problem in the United States of blacks being disfavored in work solely due to race, but it should be solved by integration, not racial separatism."
Yes, race & religion & sexual identity CAN be masked on the internet, but why should they? We SHOULD be living in a society that is tolerant enough of all groups that NO ONE should have to "mask" who they are or hide any part of themselves, whether it's skin-deep or in their hearts. I'm white, straight, borderline Agnostic/Athiest, left-wing liberal... I'm all of those things unabashedly. I could give a shit what people have to say about it.
Now let's break down the Malcolm X quote you discussed: "Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the white man? ... Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to?"
Ever hear blacks talk about the concept of "good hair"? It's when a black person's hair is straight and bouncy like a white person's. Natural hair is called "nappy" and looked down upon. The "divide and conquer" efforts from slavery days continue to have effects on black people to present day.
Did you happen to email Earl about this post? I'm definitely interested in seeing what he has to say.
blunt, I was prepared to lay into the original post, but you did it very well.
There is necessarily a black identity that develops as a result of being black in America. Whites don't like to think that they have a special identity that develops as a result of being white in America, but they do -- privilege.
Actually blunted, this is an old, old gripe that has no basis.
Joe, read my site. Find something you consider racist other than my partisanship for Black issues. In fact, read Where we stand, published right here on OSP.
I wonder if you consider women's rights activists to be sexist. Is Abe Foxman racist? How about all the people that march in St. Patricks Day or Columbus Day parades?
I'm curious too why you think masking my being Black is a good idea. Do you mask being white? Can you? Being Black, the culture, the experiences, is part of my identity and I will mask it no more than I will mask my American-ness: an equally conceptual, socially constructed affair. If you can speak of American interests…America being as diverse as the Black communities…you can speak of Black interests.
I'll cross-post this thread at P6.
Just occurred to me:
Anyway, Earl Dunovant is black. He's not black like some people I know, who simply have a black skin; Earl is a self-professed "black partisan" who has a strong black identity. He quotes Malcolm X: "Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the white man? ... Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to?"
Now, Malcolm X is an interesting figure. Reverse everything he says - i.e. replace white with black, etc. - and you get something that David Duke et al would say. What I quote above is pure, unadulterated racism;
Let's try that reversal you suggest:
Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the Black man? ... Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to?
Doesn't parse. Because no one taught white people to hate themselves. That's that the whole "replace Black with white" this is just so much bullshit. It makes as little sense as grabbing Gloria Steinam's stuff and replacing every instance of "men" with "women."
Finally…seriously finally…you really should have linked to the post you're complaining about so people could see I was linking to Ampersand at Alas, a Blog talking about womens issues.
So people of color on the internet are supposed to mask our identity because, well, we can. Why, to make life more comfortable for white liberals by not making them have to deal with racial issues?
At least in America, the default identity is white. Asking people of color to hide our identities on-line is asking us to pretend we're white. It's really just an exercise in white privilege to ask us to do that -- because race makes you uncomfortable, it is the obligation of people of color to avoid the subject for your benefit.
That's the essence of the race problem in America today. And like it or not, Joe, you're part of it.
First, on my "end the oppression" statement: you guys deeply misunderstood it. By "end the oppression" I refer to processes such as civil rights litigation and attempts to get people to care less and lessabout race, sexual orientation, etc. There's a difference between that and black pride, which is idiotic considering that nobody chooses to be black, or white, or American, or gay, or whatever.
Now, more specific replies:
I ask, what's wrong with being a dog? (From Earl's new post)
Nothing's wrong with being a dog; just don't make a big deal out of this. You didn't just say you were black; if you did, I wouldn't say what I said about you. You called yourself a black partisan, which in my books is exactly like admitting to membership in or support of the KKK. You didn't say "civil rights partisan" or "racial equality partisan," but "black partisan." Frankly, I don't care what color you are. As far as I'm concerned, you could be a blue-skinned neuter from Antarctica. But it's outright stupid to be proud of something that you never chose to be, and it's outright xenophobic to define yourself according to skin color, religion, nationality, etc. (and this also goes to patriots, whom, as everybody who reads OSP's comment threads will know, I attack with passion).
Black identity is based on the fight against oppression and subjugation. White nationalism is based on hatred & murder.
Prove it. First, define "white identity." Then, define "black identity" in the same terms. Then, show that there's a qualitative difference between them. The fact that the KKK kills more doesn't excuse Nation of Islam and Malcolm "non-violence is criminal" X.
Regarding "black news" or "black entertainment", let me point your attention to the "white news" and "white entertainment" channels... every other channel on the goddamn dial.
Two things:
- Oprah Winfrey is white, right?
- Even if other channels are directed to a white audience, they don't make a big deal out of this. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a channel trying to target a specific audience, be it black, yellow, green, or striped red-and-blue, but there's a very big difference between calling yourself "black TV" and just showing things that would be of more interest to blacks, e.g. having sitcoms and soap operas more about poor inner-city environments and less about middle-class environments.
Yes, race & religion & sexual identity CAN be masked on the internet, but why should they?
It can and should because it's irrelevant. It matters as much as one's name, place of birth, etc. Perhaps a better phrasing of that statement would be, "Ideally, nobody should know what race you are from your writings, and you should relegate race to personal issues, leaving it out of political posts."
Ever hear blacks talk about the concept of "good hair"?
Nope, but it doesn't matter. Some ethnic features just look better than others; there's nothing racist about that. You won't call me a racist for liking women with big tits (generally, Asian women have smaller tits than white women), will you? It's just a taste, if you ask me. You don't see me talking about how bad it is that people like rap (which is based on inner-city culture), rock (which descends from jazz, which descends from black gospel), and pop (which descends from rock), do you?
I wonder if you consider women's rights activists to be sexist.
Only if they elevate femininity to the point of pride or separatism... The Men are Slime club, for instance.
Do you mask being white?
Well, I never say I'm white unless I'm asked... Ask me what ethnicity I am and I'll tell you, but I definitely won't make a big deal out of it, I'm not proud to be white, I don't have any white identity, I don't let race spill into politics, and I think that the best-looking skin color is green or azure.
Being Black, the culture, the experiences, is part of my identity and I will mask it no more than I will mask my American-ness: an equally conceptual, socially constructed affair. If you can speak of American interests…America being as diverse as the Black communities…you can speak of Black interests.
Well, I'd say that being proud to be an American is equally idiotic, because you didn't choose to be an American.
Also, if you speak of culture rather than race, then why do you focus on the race? Focus on African-American Vernacular English (which a non-black will end up speaking if s/he goes to a school where the overwhelming majority of students are black), focus on inner-city culture, and so on - these are things that matter a lot more than race.
Doesn't parse. Because no one taught white people to hate themselves.
Nobody taught black people to hate themselves, either, rhetoric aside. The reversed statement sounds easily like something that a KKK member would say, especially if you remove the part about hair style.
So people of color on the internet are supposed to mask our identity because, well, we can.
Well, I guess you're right... people of color should do it - the thing is, white's a color, too.
At least in America, the default identity is white. Asking people of color to hide our identities on-line is asking us to pretend we're white.
What? Yes, the USA is majority-white. Big fuckin' deal. Would you say the same thing about, say, blue eyed people, or blondes, who are both minorities? Saying "blacks who don't make a fuss over race pretend they're white" makes sense as much as saying "blondes who don't make a fuss over hair color pretend they're brunettes."
It's really just an exercise in white privilege to ask us to do that...
Suppose it is. Does it make my statement necessarily false?
That's the essence of the race problem in America today. And like it or not, Joe, you're part of it.
Yep, you're right. Thinking that race matters like shit, actually believing in what MLK said about judging people nto by the color of the skins, and opposing ethno-nationalism is the essence of the race problem in the USA today.
You called yourself a black partisan, which in my books is exactly like admitting to membership in or support of the KKK.
Then I'm afraid you don't know what a partisan is.
Doesn't parse. Because no one taught white people to hate themselves.
Nobody taught black people to hate themselves, either, rhetoric aside.
You don't know anything about American history if you believe that. And for that reason you totally misunderstand.
You may mean no harm but you're not doing well either.
You have a choice. See me be a Black person, or look away.
You don't know anything about American history if you believe that.
Explain. That is, give instances in which mainstream American tried making blacks "hate themselves." Further, explain to me in what way were the Civil Rights movement and its message of integration so "hateful" of blacks.
See me be a Black person, or look away.
You mean "see me as a black person"? If so, then why should I consider your blackness rather than the fact that your name begins with an E?
Be back in a little while about teaching self-hate. Meanwhile you can tell me:
explain to me in what way were the Civil Rights movement and its message of integration so "hateful" of blacks.
You can tell me why I should explain something I never said.
You can explain why you take me to task for quoting Ampersand when he was talking about women being taught a standard of beauty and woth that's unattainable.
You can tell me why you've brought this up.
As usual, Joe, you oversimplify things and fail to include relevant information (not that you are choosing to leave things out, you just don't seem to be aware of them). Clearly, the institutions of slavery and Jim Crowe, lynching and centuries of inequal justice have taught blacks to hate themselves. That all black people don't hate themselves is a testimony to the strength of the individual spirit. As with most white people who are dismissive of racism, you miss the point entirely. When one side has all (or almost all) the power, then there is nothing remotely equal in things like your reversed statement. If your statement applies to blacks, it applies to a group with no power that has been dominated by the opposition for centuries. If it applies to whites, it applies to a group with all the power that has been the dominator for centuries. Only a blind man or a racist could think these two things are the same.
I also have to reject your idea that "pride" is something that one should only have if they are choosing the thing they have pride in. That makes absolutely no sense. Once can have pride in anything, whether one chooses it or not. In a situation where a group of people has been reduced to inferior status, it only makes sense for that group to take pride in themselves, since the only way really for them to battle the more powerful group is through unity (and I don't necessarily mean battle in terms of violence). And everyone should have the freedom to be themsleves without having to worry about racism, sexism or whatever -- hiding what you are is not freedom, it is the opposite of freedom.
It is obvious why someone should support "black news" or "black entertainment" -- the mainstream news and entertainment ignore or downplay items concerning black people or, even worse, display outright racism towards blacks, such as the way the nightly local news does its best to lead with a scary black man each night. It has become socially unacceptable to say that your show is a "white" show, but that doesn't mean that such shows don't still exist. Again, we are talking about power here. This is one of those instances where a double standard should exist. The group that has all the power and controls most of the media should be held to a different standard. If we lived in a perfect world where there was no racism or prejudice, sure, then it would be wrong to have "black news" or similar things, but we don't live in that world and we aren't going to in our lifetimes, so we have to deal with what really exists, not how it should be.
As usual, Joe, you oversimplify things and fail to include relevant information (not that you are choosing to leave things out, you just don't seem to be aware of them).
Thanks, Ken but I still want Joe's answers. That will determine if I put up with the imperitive tone he's projecting.
Four hours. No answers.
How about a couple of easier questions.
Race, unfortunately, is not something that can be ignored by masking, like sexual orientation; the minute a person walks into, say, an interview, the interviewer knows what race and sex he or she is. But it can and should be masked on the Internet, when filling out forms, etc.
What benefits would accrue to me if I follow your advice and hide my race?
And what is the definition of "partisan"?
You can tell me why I should explain something I never said.
Because you defended Malcolm X's statement in this comment thread, regardless of whether you actually said what I took you to task for on your site. Your post on your site was just an example - I was attacking a broader phenomenon than that.
Clearly, the institutions of slavery and Jim Crowe, lynching and centuries of inequal justice have taught blacks to hate themselves.
I'm sorry, but it's really not clear to me why this is so... Oppression nearly always breeds some sort of resistance. With, say, Jews in Europe, it took the form of taking urban professions, as owning land wasn't permitted. With women in many cultures, it took the form of a sort of a secret women's language or script. With blacks in the USA, it took the forms of slaves not working as hard as they could or simply running away, ex-slaves helping abolition in legal or illegal ways, and so on. But there's no connection between oppression and self-hate. Self-hate only comes when the oppressor actively tries to get the oppressed to believe that he is indeed inferior, which to my knowledge in the USA only happened when blacks converted to Christianity, the religion in whose name they were enslaved (and even here, the actual reason blacks became Christians is not self-hate but hope).
When one side has all (or almost all) the power, then there is nothing remotely equal in things like your reversed statement.
Actually, in this case the analogy works pretty well. The fact that blacks were oppressed doesn't make the analogy not work; the only reason it might not work is if blacks did in fact come to "hate themselves" and whites did not.
Once can have pride in anything, whether one chooses it or not.
But it would be stupid. Pride is in one's achievement, not in accidents of birth, and definitely not in something as irrelevant as skin color. Being proud to be black makes as much sense as rolling a die and being proud that you got a 6.
In a situation where a group of people has been reduced to inferior status, it only makes sense for that group to take pride in themselves, since the only way really for them to battle the more powerful group is through unity (and I don't necessarily mean battle in terms of violence).
I don't particularly remember that the civil rights movement acheived results thru black pride... if we're talking results, then civil rights got us desegregation, voting rights, affimative action - black power only got people disillusioned with civil rights, helping associate the pursuit of further progress (e.g. in education spending) with radicalism.
hiding what you are is not freedom, it is the opposite of freedom.
As long as one accepts the notion that your race is what you are, what you say makes sense. The thing is, your race is not what you are. I explained the masking thing in detail in my first reply here.
It is obvious why someone should support "black news" or "black entertainment" -- the mainstream news and entertainment ignore or downplay items concerning black people or, even worse, display outright racism towards blacks, such as the way the nightly local news does its best to lead with a scary black man each night. It has become socially unacceptable to say that your show is a "white" show, but that doesn't mean that such shows don't still exist.
If white shows like Friends do well in catering to their audience without actually proclaiming whiteness, why can't black shows do the same? Especially given that direct association with a race is, well, racist, channels catering to blacks will do a lot better to cater to blacks in content rather than in name. Remember Sir Arnold's statement in Yes, Minister: "The less you intend to do something, the more you have to keep talking about it."
The group that has all the power and controls most of the media should be held to a different standard.
Why?
Four hours. No answers.
I deeply apologize for having to study once in a while and not being able to sit here waiting for your reply 24 hours a day.
What benefits would accrue to me if I follow your advice and hide my race?
I've already explained that I didn't actually mean masking, but rather not making a fuss over it.
Now, which benefits, you ask? Being more rational and saying the truth, for one.
And what is the definition of "partisan"?
I understood your definition to refer to having a strong black identity, defining yourself in terms of race, and having loyalty to the group of blacks.
I should defend some comment you pulled out of your head? Because I "defended Malcom X's statement in this thread"?
Joe, your problem started before this thread. What did you read, that I wrote, that set you off? Ex post facto excuses don't cut it.
Since you've chose which of thw two sets of questions to answer, you also need to cover these, remember?
You can explain why you take me to task for quoting Ampersand when he was talking about women being taught a standard of beauty and woth that's unattainable.
You can tell me why you've brought this up.
You feel you can demand explanations, (Explain.) I feel you got to come correct enough to show you're worth the effort.
And by the way, I've already given you a link to document how Black people were systemically taught self hatred. Since you're being so damn selective about what you answer (as opposed to the unsupported accusations you make) I don't feel like holding your hand and pointing it out again.
Now you're saying I don't tell the truth. You really need to document this shit, son. You really do.
I understood your definition to refer to having a strong black identity, defining yourself in terms of race, and having loyalty to the group of blacks.
I didn't ask how you took it. I am not responsible for YOUR interpretations.
What set you off? What's your real problem?
Will you please try cutting the flames and the ad hominems? I checked Where We Stand, and not only does it not prove that blacks were made to hate themselves and tried to become like whites, but also it contradicts your point that black partisanship makes sense.
Now, you ask why I quoted what Ampersand said as what you said? There are two reasons. One, it was a mistake caused probably by the fact that your blog consists primarily of quotes and copies-and-pastes so I thought what was there was yours. Two, ex post facto, you said, "Ampersand is always a thoughtful pleasure to read," which clearly means endorsement.
You ask what my real problem is. I'll tell you. My real problems are people who are unable to hold a rational conversation without flaming, and people who think that just because they were born of a certain skin or with a name beginning in a certain letter or in a particular minute changes a damn thing about who they really are.
JOe, you've called me a racist and a liar. I see no attempt at rationality on your part. I'm not going to pretend I'm not angry and if you didn't expect such a reaction you have no understanding of people.
This is my first conversation with you. You can't pretend that some tendancy to ad hominem on my part is what set you off. Ex post facto don't cut it.
What is this about? What set you off?
I don't want anyone to think I'm overreacting in my insistance for an explantion. So this is the text of the post you found so objectionable.
Ampersand is always a thoughtful pleasure to read.
In a completely unrelated rant, I just watched an episode of My So-Called Life. It was a pretty interesting episode; all the plotlines - even the English class reading The Metamorphosis - converged on being about girl's and women's insecurities about their appearances.
My favorite part was a scene in history class, which had no dialog aside from a video of a Malcolm X speech, which the class was watching. As the camera panned across the room (which seemed to have more black students than other classes in this episode) and settled on the main character, obsessing over a zit on her chin, Malcolm X's speech said:
Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the white man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose, and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself, from the top of your head, to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to? So much so, that you don't want to be around each other. Oh no, before you come asking Mr. Mohammed, does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you.
It was a very effective moment; what had been presented pretty much as personal hang-ups among the girls suddenly became politicized. Who taught these girls to hate the shape of their noses, the shape of their lips?
But then I got to thinking: Why is it that we can't seem to get away from viewing the black civil rights struggle as the Platonic civil rights struggle, the struggle that all other struggles must resemble or else be illegitimate?
Think of the debate, in recent months, over if same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. It's almost always presented in the same way: as a question of if the gay rights movement is similar to or different from the black civil rights movement (those who are pro-SSM say "similar," those who aren't say "different"). It's rarely presented as a question of if justice and equality are being denied to same-sex couples, taken on their own terms.
It's like a perverse variation of the "model minority myth," which is so often used to attack blacks (e.g., "if Jews and Asians made it despite discrimination, why can't blacks?"). This time, it's the "model civil rights movement" myth. We need to get over it.
Would you say Ampersand is a Black Nationalist Racist based on this?
I didn't find anything wrong with that Ampersand post when I read it on his site, and I can't say that I find anything wrong with it now.
Joe, you almost had a good point buried somewhere in that post. But you completely obscured it by launching a public ad hominem attack on someone based on a political affiliation that it's clear to me you don't understand.
There is still racism in this country. Many black young people grow up with no chance to accomplish anything that would give them self worth, and they see adults in their community punitively and obsessively targeted by law enforcement. And that isn't even the beginning of it.
I can't speak about this on a first person basis because I'm pretty damn pasty. But when just about every black person you engage in conversation about the subject believes that it's true, it makes you wonder. I've had experiences that make certain things apparent to me that go completely missed by people who haven't had those experiences. It isn't that I'm imagining things, but that it often takes someone else with similar experiences to understand. Other people can make an effort, but they can also choose to ignore anything they've never directly experienced.
Maybe Malcolm X did some things that you disagree with (I don't know enough to come down firmly on a side of that debate), that doesn't mean that every word that ever came out of his mouth has to be forever repudiated. At least half the decent art and literature in the history of the world, and maybe more, came from people with questionable behavior or taste in politics. To apply that standard would leave us without Nietszche, Lewis Carroll, Ezra Pound, Wagner, and a host of others.
Maybe you've seen someone cry racism unfairly to get out of a spot they weren't happy to find themselves in. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen anymore than false accusations of rape or sexual harassment mean that those things don't happen.
To simply hope that people who are treated poorly, sometimes in very subtle ways, will just 'not make a big deal' about something that affects them in potentially serious ways is a little naive. There are things that can be done to people that aren't overtly violent, don't make any fuss, and don't leave any marks, that can destroy lives. There are ways to hurt people with a smile that are no less damaging and insidious for the demure wrapping. Anyone who's been around the block a few times should have had that little fact whack them in the face now and again.
And to sum up, Joe, Earl didn't do a blasted thing to provoke what's a pretty nasty attack. Maybe he likes to use his blog as a handy database for interesting stories that he wants to remember. I'm guessing, but only Earl knows the answer, and I'm also guessing that you didn't ask. To imply that his blog style reflects upon him personally, and further that it's tied up with his racial identity is uncalled for. You've taken a very ugly tone in this post, and I hope I never see something like this published to OSP again.
Two, ex post facto, you said, "Ampersand is always a thoughtful pleasure to read," which clearly means endorsement.
Endorsement of Ampersand's applying the point to women's issues.
My real problems are people who are unable to hold a rational conversation without flaming, and people who think that just because they were born of a certain skin or with a name beginning in a certain letter or in a particular minute changes a damn thing about who they really are.
Your whole initial post was a flame. You set the standard, live with the repercussions.
There are three things you will not find:
1- an example where I say someone's skin color changes anything about who they are
2- an example of me not getting angry when someone attacks me from nowhere
3- an example of me being stupid enough to go for that no flaming bullshit when dealing with someone who attacked me from nowhere
I checked Where We Stand, and not only does it not prove that blacks were made to hate themselves and tried to become like whites, but also it contradicts your point that black partisanship makes sense.
Here's you're imperious command:
Explain. That is, give instances in which mainstream American tried making blacks "hate themselves." Further, explain to me in what way were the Civil Rights movement and its message of integration so "hateful" of blacks.
No demand for proof Black people tried to become like whites. That would just require another URL, but you didn't include it in your fiat.
As for making Black folks hate themselves, here's a quote from the article you seem to have read as closely as anything else I've written:
What we are concerned to emphasize here is that the laws were the heart and center of a massive public education campaign. The best evidence in favor of this point is the extraordinary letter Governor William Ceech wrote to the English government, which had demanded explanation of a Virginia law denying the suffrage to free blacks. Governor Ceech wrote:
[The] Assembly thought it necessary, not only to make the Meetings of Slaves very penal, but to fix a perpetual Brand upon Free Negroes and Mulattos by excluding them from the great Privilege of a Freeman, well knowing they always did, and ever will, adhere to and favour the Slaves. And, likewise said to have been done with design, which I must think a good one, to make the free Negroes sensible that a distinction ought to be made between their offspring and the Descendants of an Englishman, with whom they never were to be Accounted Equal. This, I confess, may Seem to carry an Air of Severity to such as are unacquainted with the Nature of Negroes, and Pride of a manumitted Slave, who looks on himself immediately On his Acquiring his freedom to be as good a Man as the best of his Neighbours, but especially if he is descended of a white Father or Mother, lett them be of what mean Condition soever; and as most of them are the Bastards of some of the worst of our imported Servants and Convicts, it seems no ways Impolitic, as well for discouraging that kind of Copulation, as to preserve a decent Distinction between them and their Betters, to leave this mark on them, until time and Education has changed the Indication of their spurious Extraction and made some Alteration in their morals.
You say I should mask my race, but you didn't mean mask it, oops. You say I shouldn't flame you when you started the conversation by flaming me. You claim you're read what I referred you to, and miss the distinctly indicated section that directly addressed your question. And you claim part of the reason you've insulted me is the way I reacted to your insults. The heart of your disturbance remains unstated.
You've got a long way to go before you even qualify to get schooled. But you will be schooled anyway.
Dammit, I can't edit that last comment. Must…preview…
Natasha, thank you for recognizing. But you know, if my blogging style is a reflection on me somehowm that's fine; I get almost as much traffic as OSP, and twice as many RSS loads. And I actually read and parse everything I post, to make sure the full story is given. I'll note when the headline is inaccurate, weigh in with my opinion without getting unnecessarily verbose;
I'm not trying to make up anyone's mind, I'm just presenting those things that I think need consideration…that and blowing off steam. Oh, yeah, and lots of discussion of economics and economic principals, challenging Libertarian nonsense while trying to address my own libertarian leanings, sharing when the resources I follow produce something particularly good, beating the crap out of people who make the absurd claim that "opportunity cost" should somehow be added to the bottom line cost of drug research and the occasional random bit of advice and political analysis (I just noticed the comments to that last post are quite ironic in this context).
Joe, I've been letting others have at you here, despite the almost continual jaw-floor problem I had reading your posts.
If the school you are at has, say, a Women's Studies department, take a class. An African-American Studies department, too. There is an entire world out there you haven't seen and peeking at it a little from behind your cable modem will not get you any closer to the truth than you were last week.
But this one I cannot let roll by:
Some ethnic features just look better than others; there's nothing racist about that. You won't call me a racist for liking women with big tits (generally, Asian women have smaller tits than white women), will you? It's just a taste, if you ask me. You don't see me talking about how bad it is that people like rap (which is based on inner-city culture), rock (which descends from jazz, which descends from black gospel), and pop (which descends from rock), do you?
I'm a little surprised no one else has jumped on it yet. No, I won't call you racist for liking big tits; I will call you crass and point out that you have bought into the same myths of objectification that Ampersand pointed to in his original post (or, rather, that episode of "My So-Called Life" did).
While scholarship ranges far and wide on the issue, there is no doubt that the objectification of women--above and beyond any evolutionary benefit to selcting for certain physical features--contirbutes to an overall culture of sexism in this country. And whatever fetish you may have, saying that "some ethnic features just look better" is qualitative statement you're trying to pass off as fact. What's worse is that you label the features as ethnic--denying the incredible variation within ethnic sub-groups.
Coming back later with the idea of "taste" and then drawing an analogy to types of music is absurd. Yes, to an extent we have a "dominant" culture telling us what type of music to like (if they play it so often on the radio, it must be good, right? Thank you, Clear Channel, for making decisions for me) but in music, unlike in life, you do not have the wholesale objectification, idealization, and subjugation of a whole class of people.
Another one:
I never say I'm white unless I'm asked... Ask me what ethnicity I am and I'll tell you, but I definitely won't make a big deal out of it.
This is the very definition of White Privilege. You don't have to say you're white--in fact, you seldom do--because whiteness is assumed. It is the norm. Non-white is what's remarkable. I don't care if you're "not proud to be white"; there is a whole host of advantages afforded to you (and, in honesty, me) because of your (our) whiteness. Including your implied whiteness when left unstated. Including you off-handed "other"-ing of non-white people and their various body parts.
The ability to see that does not come naturally; that's why I said to take a class. Move to an all- (or mostly-) black neighborhood. Something.
Some ethnic features just look better than others; there's nothing racist about that.
To whom? You?
You won't call me a racist for liking women with big tits (generally, Asian women have smaller tits than white women), will you?
Racist? Well, racism is usually defined as a gross generalization of characteristics based on race, or a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits. So, to use your terminology, I would argue that Asian women have different sizes and shapes of "tits" just as white women have all sorts of different sizes and shapes of "tits." I might also argue that our "tits" aren't made for your entertainment or pleasure, but thanks for making it seem that way.
Are you racist? Maybe. Certainly classless and crass for feeling the need to reduce us women to our body parts to prove a point in a flame war you started.
It's just a taste, if you ask me. You don't see me talking about how bad it is that people like rap (which is based on inner-city culture), rock (which descends from jazz, which descends from black gospel), and pop (which descends from rock), do you?
What's your point here - sorry, hon, the analogy doesn't work. You say you study, so I assume you're educated in some way, shape or form. Show it.
Take Jay up on his suggestion that you get yourself into one of those women's studies classes and african-american studies classes. You might find that these attitudes you're projecting about race and gender are exactly the type of attitudes that point to privilege. One of the greatest privileges that you own is the benefit of refusing to recognize that privilege.
Glad I met you on the internet and not the real world.
I'm not going to respond to everything now due to time constraints and due to the fact that I don't answer things in my mind all at the same time. I'll post the rest in a few hours.
Earl: I'm not saying it's wrong that your blog is made up primarily of copying-and-pasting. I'm just saying that this is probably the reason I thought that what Ampersand wrote was your words. I'm not blaming you for that.
Jay, Lauren: your posts are completely ad hominem, not to say flames. The two things that doesn't attack me personally are the tits thing (which is completely irrelevant to the issue) and Jay's "white privilege" part, which is unsubstantiated and probably a complete non sequitur.
More...
But you completely obscured it by launching a public ad hominem attack on someone based on a political affiliation that it's clear to me you don't understand.
Actually, the attack on Earl is marginal to the point. Further, what I did was the exact opposite of ad hominem. An ad hominem fallacy is an argument based on the arguer, essentially attacking an argument by attacking the arguer. I do the exact opposite, namely attacking Earl solely thru attacking his arguments. That is, I attack the notion of black pride, and attack what Earl says based on that.
There is still racism in this country. Many black young people grow up with no chance to accomplish anything that would give them self worth, and they see adults in their community punitively and obsessively targeted by law enforcement. And that isn't even the beginning of it.
Of course there is. I never denied it. In fact, I talked a little about it in the article even though I thought and still think that it's irrelevant to the point. The fact that you're oppressed doesn't excuse groupthink and racism, and yes, defining oneself according to race is racism. The fact that people died in your cause doesn't make it right, despite what Earl suggests in his newest post on the main OSP blog; people have died for Nazism, communism, fundamentalism of all kinds...
Maybe Malcolm X did some things that you disagree with (I don't know enough to come down firmly on a side of that debate), that doesn't mean that every word that ever came out of his mouth has to be forever repudiated.
Not exactly... I have two main problem with Ampersand's quote here, namely the treatment of Malcolm X as a civil rights leader rather than as a terrorist ("as for nonviolent resistance: it's criminal not to teach a man to defend himself when he is so harassed..." - a rough quote from Malcolm X retrieved from my memory), and the actual quote given in the post, which is demagogical and, well, wrong.
Maybe you've seen someone cry racism unfairly to get out of a spot they weren't happy to find themselves in. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen anymore than false accusations of rape or sexual harassment mean that those things don't happen.
That has nothing to do with it. Again, I'm not saying there's no white racism in the USA - I'm just saying it doesn't excuse black racism.
To simply hope that people who are treated poorly, sometimes in very subtle ways, will just 'not make a big deal' about something that affects them in potentially serious ways is a little naive.
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying people shouldn't make a big deal out of racism. I am saying people shouldn't make a big deal out of race, and there's a huge difference here. The difference is the one between Civil Rights and Black Power, between liberal feminists and sexual separatists, between opposition to anti-Semitism and Zionism, even between moderate independence movements such as Gandhi's and radical movements such as Chandra Bose's.
I'm not saying it's wrong that your blog is made up primarily of copying-and-pasting.
Hm.
Now, I don't think that P6 ever got on the Around the OSP Blogs column, the main reason being that it comprises almost solely of news copied-and-pasted from news sources with evry little original material (this also goes to other blogs with little original content).
Obviously not intended as a compliment.
But that's okay. I said you would be schooled and schooled you shall be. But not here, in the comments. You can expect a lesson approximately weekly, starting today. Next week will be a lesson on the nature of Black partisanship because I'm assuming you won't follow the links in today's post.
Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe. Sigh. I'm going to address your points out of order, because that's how it makes sense to me.
The two things that doesn't attack me personally are the tits thing (which is completely irrelevant to the issue)
One, if the "tits thing" is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Two, part of the reason I called you on it is that educated people don't say "tits." Call me PC or call me a bastard, but in polite conversation among (theoretically) intellectuals discussion higher-order topics like identity politics and identity in general, you can't throw "tits" into the conversation and expect to be taken seriously.
Three, THIS WHOLE DAMNED THING STARTED when you commented upon P6's co-option of a post using body-image deconstruction as its impetus. Beyond the irony of your then claiming a tit fetish is irrelevant, the way you brought it up goes directly to the heart of the problem, addressed below.
Jay, Lauren: your posts are completely ad hominem, not to say flames.
You are right to point out that "[a]n ad hominem fallacy is an argument based on the arguer, essentially attacking an argument by attacking the arguer." However, most people save the ad hominem card for when they get called a butt head or somesuch. When I--and Kenneth Q, and Lauren, and Earl, and P6, and Natasha (pause for breath)--tell you that you're not just wearing rose-colored glasses but perhaps blinders, perhaps you should consider that maybe we're all onto something here. Which is below.
Jay's "white privilege" part, which is unsubstantiated and probably a complete non sequitur.
I'm not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated. A big part of white privilege is never having to acknowledge that you have it. And to claim that talk of white privilege doesn't belong in a discussion of racial identity is nonsensical. P6 is black, and not only acknowledges that fact, feels it important to celebrate that fact. You are white, and not only do you refuse to acknowledge it (your race is "human"), you don't feel the need to because in the absence of a declaration of race, "white" is the assumed default. And, that, my young friend, is privilege.
You, a straight (judging by the tits fetish), white man are the default setting in American society. When any other class of people--women, gays, minorities--gets discussed by the media, by social scientists, by a group of white men in a coffee shop, by whoever, there is a necessary prefix to distiguish the group under discussion from the norm.
Being a part of the norm means never having to be explicit about your identity because it is understood. That is privilege.
My awakening to the facts of white privilege did not come overnight, nor do I expect one long discussion with your imaginary friends on the internet to bring you enlightenment.
But this is why my (and Lauren's, and everyone else's) points here are not ad hominem. It isn't that we are avoiding your argument and attacking the arguer. It's that we are drawing attention to the lens through which you see the world, the filter through which you craft your argument.
You see it as an attack on yourself. We see it as an attack on your worldview--a worldview that simplistically and un-introspectively classifies all indentity politics or race pride as racism. The unexamined life is etc.
I am not a big fan of what Jesus' followers have done in the 2000 or so years since, but the man made some good points. He asked us to consider the beams in our own eyes before drawing attention to the motes in others'.
Dude: Check your eye.
Obviously not intended as a compliment.
Not really... I'm not saying it's inherently bad to have a blog conssiting primarily of copies-and-pastes. I'm just saying that when I do my part of the Around the OSP Blogs, that's not what I'm looking for.
Okay. Point about posting style retracted.
Most of the good stuff on P6 is in the comments anyway.
So here's something interesting to me: When OSP publishes an article entitled "Black Identity", it's by a white guy, it's based on a misreading of someone else's blog, and it mainly consists of an ad hominem attack on one of the few self-identified African-American bloggers writing on politics from the left. When P6, the writer who suffered the attack, comes to comment, he uses no coarse language, he is unfailingly civil, and he gives extensive, informative links. An exchange follows in which the supposedly leftist OSP essayist shows himself to be remarkably ignorant of US history and culture. The original OSP poster explains that he hasn't covered P6's blog before because he doesn't like his posting style.
To me, there's some kind of irony here.
One, if the "tits thing" is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Because it's a pretty good analogy, possible sexism aside. Remember that the issue at hand is not sexism but racism.
Two, part of the reason I called you on it is that educated people don't say "tits." Call me PC or call me a bastard, but in polite conversation among (theoretically) intellectuals discussion higher-order topics like identity politics and identity in general, you can't throw "tits" into the conversation and expect to be taken seriously.
Great. I get attacked for a politically-incorrect word choice... and I didn't even use epithets like "nigger," "kyke," "spic," or "wop."
When I--and Kenneth Q, and Lauren, and Earl, and P6, and Natasha (pause for breath)--tell you that you're not just wearing rose-colored glasses but perhaps blinders, perhaps you should consider that maybe we're all onto something here. Which is below.
Being in a majority doesn't make you right, Jay.
I'm not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated. A big part of white privilege is never having to acknowledge that you have it...
See, this argument is irrefutable. Everything I say to refute it will have to be based on looking at majority groups, in which case the argument stalls any attempt to seriously attack it, or on looking at minorities, in which case the self-loathing attack comes in handy. The thing is, this makes the argument circular - you're basically saying, "Argument X is right; hence, refutation Y is wrong; hence, argument X is right."
You, a straight (judging by the tits fetish), white man are the default setting in American society. When any other class of people--women, gays, minorities--gets discussed by the media, by social scientists, by a group of white men in a coffee shop, by whoever, there is a necessary prefix to distiguish the group under discussion from the norm.
That's ad hominem, again... the fallacy does not include just "you're an idiot" flames. Ad hominem attacks form a broad class of fallacious arguments - the abusive "you're a butthead form" is the easiest to recognize, but your circumstantial ad hominem ("you're white, hence you can't understand blacks") is a fallacy as well, as are the repeated attempts - not by me - to personalize the discussion.
It's that we are drawing attention to the lens through which you see the world, the filter through which you craft your argument.
That's completely irrelevant, I'm sorry to tell you. It doesn't matter why I say what I say; what matters is to what degree what I say is true.
We see it as an attack on your worldview--a worldview that simplistically and un-introspectively classifies all indentity politics or race pride as racism.
So far you've not proven me that racial pride is not racism, whereas on the other hand I've made some strong arguments why it is.
He asked us to consider the beams in our own eyes before drawing attention to the motes in others'.
So? Jesus is not an authority on anything.
I stumbled on here from somewhere or other, and the best part was finding P6's blog.
Joe, I think someday you will look back on this conversation and feel ashamed.
Being in a majority doesn't make you right, Jay.
Of course not. But consider this an intervention.
It doesn't matter why I say what I say; what matters is to what degree what I say is true.
So let me say this: You're wrong. I'll explain why in a minute (though Blunted and Earl/ P6, who have a much stronger claim to understanding black pride and racial identity than I do, already have, and very well). But now, let me try to explain why it's important not only to address what you say but why you say it.
See, Joe, I think you're a good guy, on the right side of most issues, and some day you could be a strong force for the Left on the net. But, as Tomato Observer pointed out just above, what you're saying now is something that, in time, you'll probably come to regret. It's my intent here (and Earl and P6, in their well stated and thorough rebuttals, did the same) to try to make you see things in a way that will help you work pro-actively with the various factions on the Left to achieve whatever your goals may be.
As I said, throwing around the word "tits" isn't going to help you make your case to the Left. The Limbaughs and Mancows of the world may deal in that level of discourse, but the Left does not. You may have a tit fetish. Fine. We all have something. But if you're asking intellectuals (or the faux intellectuals like me and Earl and Kenneth and Natasha and Lauren et al. on the internet) to listen to your point of view you have to speak our language. "Tits" ain't gonna cut it.
Remember that the issue at hand is not sexism but racism.
You're assuming that we see racism and sexism as utterly divergent issues. They are not. Both racism and sexism derive from the "other"ing of those not in the privileged class. This is not a simple ad hominem--or even a complex one--like my saying, "You're a sexist pig so I don't have to listen to you!" No, this is my saying that the same ideological underpinnings that cause you not to see the flaws in your arguments about racial identity contribute to the casually tossed-off sexist remarks you have been making.
Further, you originally brought up the "tits" in reference to ethnic stereotypes--that certain ethnic groups have more or less abundance in that area. This alone is evidence that you have not given much consideration to your own feelings about race, since, rather than recognize the range of physical characterstics that exist within an ethnic group, you've resorted to the simplest of shorthand. And the choice not only to use that shorthand but to focus on breasts of all things to make your points also shows how shallow your thinking about this issue is.
Go ahead; call that ad hominem. I don't care. The fact is that you believe you can casually drop sexist remarks (or, at the very least, ill-considered and offensive remarks) into a conversation and not get called on it. I'm sorry, but that's what we do around here--we call people on it.
But to reiterate my main idea: There is no point to disputing your arguments when the ideological underpinnings of it make you unable to consider that you may be wrong. To repeat myself from above, you're wrong.
So far you've not proven me that racial pride is not racism, whereas on the other hand I've made some strong arguments why it is.
To date, the strongest arguments that you have made to say that racial pride is the equivalent of racism, as I read this thread, are two. I will address both. (And I know you have elaborated further on each of these--drawn from your initial post--but the thrust of your argument is expressed in these quotes.)
One: Reverse everything [Malcolm X] says--i.e. replace white with black, etc.--and you get something that David Duke et al would say.
First of all, this exercise was attempted above, and it didn't really work out the way you'd hoped. Second of all, even Malcom X at his most incendiary was asking for one thing: equality. Yes, yes, he often exhorted getting there "by any means necessary," yet his goal was Martin's goal was Gahndi's goal was Susan B. Anthony's goal was the goal of everyone who demanded civil rights: equality.
Why did Malcom X. et al. feel the need to fight for equality? Because they were not in the privileged class. I am in the privileged class. You are in the privileged class. Earl/P6 is not. While an absolute moral relativism is declasse anymore, there is still a need to stop for a moment and consider the other side's point of view before you fire away at them. You do not know what it's like to struggle for equality every day. Your comments reveal that you have not even begun to consider what it might be like to have to struggle for equality. (Yeah, yeah, another ad hominem.)
White supremacists (note the difference between white supremacists and black nationalists or even black partisans) believe in maintaining a system of inequality and injustice. Malcom and Martin and the others believed in ending that system of injustice. If you cannot see the difference, then you are truly blind.
Two: Some people are oppressed because they're black or homosexual or atheist or whatever. That doesn't justify turning this into a cultur[al] identity or crusading for ethno-nationalism.
Consider these words of James Baldwin, hardly a figurehead of any black nationalist or separatist identity movement:
I know, in any case, that the most critical time in my own development came when I was forced to realize that I was a kind of bastard of the West; when I followed the line of my past I did not find myself in Europe but in Africa. And this meant that in some subtle way, in a really profound way, I brought to Shakespeare, Bach, Rembrandt, to the stones of Paris, to the cathedral at Chartres, and to the Empire State Building, a special attitude. These were not really my creations, they did not contain my history; I might search in vain forever for any reflection of myself. I was an interloper; this was not my heritage. At the same time I had no other heritage which I could possibly hope to use--I had certainly been unfitted for the jungle or the tribe. I would have to appropriate these white centuries, I would have to make them mine--I would have to accept my special attitude, my special place in this scheme--otherwise I would have no place in any scheme. What was the most difficult was the fact that I was forced to admit something I had always hidden from myself, which the American Negro has had to hide from himslef as the price of his public progress; that I hated and feared white people. This did not mean that I loved black people; on the contrary, I despised them, possibly because they failed to produce Rembrandt. In effect, I hated and feared the world.[emphasis mine]
In other words, Baldwin--and others, like P6--have a choice: They can either accept their place in a white world, or they can accept that they have no place in any world. Or, the third way, the one P6 has chosen: They can celebrate their own world. How is any of that racist?
By the way, this is not a choice you, Joe, will ever have to make as a member of the privileged class.
What I and others are trying to get you to see, Joe, is not just that your arguments are wrong, though I think we've done that. It's that your point of view, tainted by an uncritical examination (or complete lack of examination) of your own privileged identity renders any attempt by anyone other than yourself or those like you to embrace and exalt the achievements of a class of people unlike you as a threat to the privilege you hold.
Honestly, I don't know if you believe that only white, Western culture should be celbrated (as Baldwin laments, and as your comment on another thread "So you're proud of things you had no involvement with?," would indicate). But to suggest that any pride in those who have come before and overcome great odds to succeed despite their being from the subordinate class is racist . . . that just boggles my mind.
Joe, I fail to see any ad hominem attacks against you in these comments; on the contrary, people have taken great pains not to insult or dismiss you, and have provided links to back up their statements.
And yes, it bears noting that the original reference was comparing the way women are taught to hate themselves for their appearance with the way black people have been indoctrinated with self-hatred....and into the arena, you bring up "tits".
Speaking as someone who has "tits", and who has those ethnic features you would probably describe as not being pleasing, I'm going to respond.
Surely you recognize that there is a difference between an offensive and a defensive posture? You throw in "whatever letter your name begins with" along with racism, sexism, etc. Yet we all know that no one is beaten up, denied a job, raped, etc. because of what letter their name begins with. No one was ever lynched or thrown in a gas chamber because their name began with an "L". Some of us identify as hyphenated "Americans", or whatever-other salient label, because that has been our experience. We have not all been treated the same. We are all still not treated the same. And much of this ill-treatment amounts to much more than hearing the slurs you so kindly repeated above (as if we've forgotten who we were and where our place is).
Have you ever wondered why people feel the need to identify with 'their own'? To have 'safe space'? Do you really think it's all about you? It's not. It's simple, really...we are trying to protect ourselves. Perhaps you have led a sheltered life and have never had need to protect yourself. That's ok. We should all have protection....I don't think less of anyone because they've been protected.
Which brings me back to "tits". The first time I realized what having "tits" meant...I mean, the full socio-political impact of "tits"...I had just turned twelve years old. I was walking to my grandmother's house. A carload of adult men started following me...slowly. I tried to ignore them, but then they started in with the catcalls..."heeeyyyy, mamacita! those'r some tits! come'ere! wanna ride? gimme a blow job!!" things like that. Folks who were sitting out on their front porches didn't say word number one. Nothing. Adult men following a twelve year old (and if anything, I looked younger than my age, being really scrawny except for the "tits").
This kept up for maybe another half-mile, before I thought that since ignoring them wasn't working, I'd better start reacting. I cussed them out. Called them every name in the book. Called them a bunch of fucking perverts. They hooted and hollered for a while, laughing. Then they left. And you know? People sitting out on their front porches finally started to react...to me. "That's some mouth you got there, kid." "Does your mother let you talk like that?!" "Hey! Watch your mouth you little (fill-in-with-insult or slur-of-your-choice)!!"
I learned an important lesson that day. Not an academic one. I knew about sexism, about my so-called "place"; I was taught by feminist parents to fight against that bullshit. And in school, and in the neighborhood, I did. But when my body changed, so did the way I was regarded by the general public. The general public was willing to look the other way while adult men made sexual commentary and asked me, a twelve-year-old, for a blow job. Yeah, I was scared. Yeah, I was angry. That's why I reacted the way I did. Someone had to! So, when you use the word "tits" with a man, he'll think of a certain image. When you use the word "tits" with me, that scene...from way back in 1979, comes to mind. And I'm not the only one that's happened to.
Hence, self-protection along with people who have had similar experiences...otherwise known as 'identity politics'. When I read P6 and he says he's a Black partisan, I think, "Right on! Fuckin' A! Good for you!" I have no idea what it is to be black, but I do know what it's like to be under the gun. I not only know what it's like to be angry and afraid, I know where that feeling comes from.
How about you, Joe? You seem to be emotional around this issue. Where do your feelings come from?
RA:
So here's something interesting to me: When OSP publishes an article entitled "Black Identity",
Don't blame OSP - writers publish their own posts on the main page.
it's by a white guy,
So?
it's based on a misreading of someone else's blog,
No, it just uses a misreading as an attention grabber and as a particular instance of the phenomenon. And anyway, the misreading is simply of the credit; replace "Earl Dunovant" with "Ampersand" and there's no misreading.
and it mainly consists of an ad hominem attack
I refer you above to the correct definition of "ad hominem."
on one of the few self-identified African-American bloggers writing on politics from the left.
He could be purple with green spots for all I care.
When P6, the writer who suffered the attack, comes to comment, he uses no coarse language, he is unfailingly civil, and he gives extensive, informative links.
Three "yeah, right"s here. Earl replied flamingly, with several instances of bulldog-like attacks (e.g. his "four hours" reply, and the "sets of questions"). Giving links is no substitute for having a reasonable argument; good references won't save a shit essay from a low grade.
An exchange follows in which the supposedly leftist
Supposedly?
OSP essayist shows himself to be remarkably ignorant of US history and culture.
Two things:
1. In what am I ignorant exactly?
2. The issue is not so much historical as it is philosophical; the issue, let me remind you, is racial identity, which can be brought down without any historical debate - if I were an existentialist, which I'm not, I wouldn't even give you guys all these analogies.
The original OSP poster explains that he hasn't covered P6's blog before because he doesn't like his posting style.
That's not accurate. The purpose of the Around the OSP Blogs, at least to my understanding, is to link to the best blog posts by OSP members. Posts consisting primarily of a link, therefore, don't count, with the possible exception of stuff that would otherwise be hard to find (e.g. a comprehensive list of a politician's flip-flops on an issue).
Joe, I think someday you will look back on this conversation and feel ashamed.
Do you have any comment with actual substance, Tomato Observer?
As I said, throwing around the word "tits" isn't going to help you make your case to the Left.
It is, I believe, the third time you bash me for that, and the third time I have to explain to you that this is a total tangent that doesn't weaken my argument whatsoever.
No, this is my saying that the same ideological underpinnings that cause you not to see the flaws in your arguments about racial identity contribute to the casually tossed-off sexist remarks you have been making.
That's an explanation, not an argument.
First of all, this exercise was attempted above, and it didn't really work out the way you'd hoped. Second of all, even Malcom X at his most incendiary was asking for one thing: equality.
On the contrary, when one removes certain phrases such as "the style of your hair," the statement becomes exactly racist. Also, it doesn't matter what Malcolm X's goal is; terrorism is terrorism regardless of the name of the cause in which the terrorist kills.
While an absolute moral relativism is declasse anymore, there is still a need to stop for a moment and consider the other side's point of view before you fire away at them. You do not know what it's like to struggle for equality every day. Your comments reveal that you have not even begun to consider what it might be like to have to struggle for equality.
The next five words in your post refute this... I don't know what's worse: people who don't know when their arguments are ad hominem, or people who know but don't care.
Consider these words of James Baldwin, hardly a figurehead of any black nationalist or separatist identity movement:
And he is an authority... why?
In other words, Baldwin--and others, like P6--have a choice: They can either accept their place in a white world, or they can accept that they have no place in any world. Or, the third way, the one P6 has chosen: They can celebrate their own world.
You're wrong. There is no reason why the black world is necessarily "their" world. Further, you assume that people must have some group to shill for, to irrationally put above the rest of humanity. I don't know about Baldwin or you, but I don't consider anything as "my heritage" unless I wrote it.
By the way, this is not a choice you, Joe, will ever have to make as a member of the privileged class.
I'll give you a hint about what logical fallacy ou're making here... its initials are AH.
Honestly, I don't know if you believe that only white, Western culture should be celbrated (as Baldwin laments, and as your comment on another thread "So you're proud of things you had no involvement with?," would indicate). But to suggest that any pride in those who have come before and overcome great odds to succeed despite their being from the subordinate class is racist . . . that just boggles my mind.
See, I don't mind individual pride. A slave who managed to escape or even survive should naturally be proud of himself. But it's stupid for a black person to be proud of someone else's achievements just because the someone else happened to be of the same color.
The issue is not so much historical as it is philosophical; the issue, let me remind you, is racial identity, which can be brought down without any historical debate.
Congrats, man. You may be the only liberal in America who believes we can debate race without history.
I refer to Baldwin, above.
Or perhaps to (white) singer-songwriter Ellis Paul, a favorite of mine, who wrote "In L.A., they're whispering race war,/ like it's something that has yet to begin/ like they can plug up the cracks/ in four hundred years of history/ and prove that the melting pot's not broken."
However you want to look at it, it's pretty presumptuous--if not downright insulting--for a white man to deny that history is a necessary consideration when discussing race in this country.
I was about to hit post, and then I thought maybe I should explain for just moment why. I'll try, though I'm sure someone more eloquent than I will try as well.
When conservatives in the country decry affirmative action as "reverse racism" (and, as I alluded to earlier, invoke King's words), I want to throw things at them in anger. Why? Well, they overlook the central fact of race in this country: We are not now, nor have we been for more than 500 years, on a level playing field in this country. If there had not been genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, and institutionalized racism in our past, then maybe--just maybe--we could talk about race and racial identity without digging into history. But given that these things exist, they are the proverbial elephants in the room. We cannot have a reasonable discussion unless we talk about these things. We cannot connect on any level but confrontation unless this history and our own biases are on the table.
You throw around latin and philosophy like it means something. Well, try studying any thinker from the past fifty years. Your average existentialist wouldn't give a flip about history because he (and he would be a he!) and any other philosopher he'd be debating would share a history. You and Earl don't share a history. You and amaretti don't share a history. You and RA, or Lauren, or Natasha don't share a history. In other words, you're relying on your being the "default"--straight, white, male--and can't understand why anyone whose settings are not your settings is insulted when you make assumptions about their most deeply held convictions.
We don't live in the world of philosophy. We live in the real world. And in this world, history matters.
Joe, I fail to see any ad hominem attacks against you in these comments
Well, I think I've used the phrase "ad hominem" at least 15 times in this thread. Please explain to me why all the arguments on which I used the phrase aren't ad hominem. But then again, my logic professor was a white guy, so maybe my ignorant belief that attacking someone because he's white is fallacious stems from that... *L*
Speaking as someone who has "tits", and who has those ethnic features you would probably describe as not being pleasing, I'm going to respond.
Well, I'm not, because this bears no relation to the argument. It was just one analogy I used to demonstrate that preferring feature A to feature B with feature A appearing in ethnic group C than in ethnic group D and feature B appearing in D more than in C (in Blunted's example, A is straight hair, B is curly hair, C is whites, and D is blacks) does not necessarily mean preferring ethnic group C to ethnic group D. That's all.
Some of us identify as hyphenated "Americans", or whatever-other salient label, because that has been our experience.
I'll accept that when you prove to me that all whites oppress all blacks. Till then, this is a pointless generalization. Besides, there's no point in identifying yourself as an American, either, for precisely the same reason. Further, the idea that one must think in a certain way (which is what identity is) because of skin color is one type of racism.
How about you, Joe? You seem to be emotional around this issue. Where do your feelings come from?
I'm not going to answer that. This is a rhetorical question and an emotional argument. Ask me logical things and I'll answer. Ask me things that fall under several logical fallacies at the same time and I won't.
Overall, your post is way too personalized, amarettiXL, so it remains with little logical substance. Frankly, I don't care about your experiences and why you think the way you do. I care about what you think, and there's a very big difference. In a philosophy class, when asked to critique Kant's ideas, you should critique Kant's ideas, but your post is analogous to merely describing the history of the enlightenment.
But then again, my logic professor was a white guy, so maybe my ignorant belief that attacking someone because he's white is fallacious stems from that... *L*
Wait a minute.
Where did I do that? You're going to blatantly lie like that, and call ME a liar?
Joseph:
This has gone beyond bizarre.
On the contrary, when one removes certain phrases such as "the style of your hair," the statement becomes exactly racist. Also, it doesn't matter what Malcolm X's goal is; terrorism is terrorism regardless of the name of the cause in which the terrorist kills.
You're hallucinatory. Malcolm X killed no one. In fact the Nation of Islam never initiated violence.
Man, you've got to exchange every occurance oif white and Black, and take out certain phrases such as "the style of your hair"
WHAT THE FUCK IS LEFT OF THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT?
Some of us identify as hyphenated "Americans", or whatever-other salient label, because that has been our experience.
I'll accept that when you prove to me that all whites oppress all blacks.
And who is saying that all whites oppress all blacks?
And why is that the standard? You wouldn't accept it if all whites oppressed all Blacks except Condi Rice? You make such a statement, and bitch about anyone else in the world's logical constructs?
Flame me as an article on the front page, and when I return in kind I'm accused of, what, Reverse Flamism?
What we think is very much based on our experiences. We don't think in a vacuum. We don't just live in our minds; we live also in our bodies.
You read my post, and saw "my experience". I say that it is not "my experience" (otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered posting it); it is the experience of damn near every woman I know. This is a typical experience. It happened to me, but it could have happened to any young woman. It is not logical to you, because you have not experienced it! The same could be said of "driving while black"; it's happened to enough people to be a universal experience of understanding, even though it may not be a 100% universal experience, in and of itself.
See, we're talking about issues not just of privilege, but of power. The reason we have identity politics is because there is power in numbers. Banding together is an effective way to accomplish a goal. It's an effective way of defending against an enemy. The point of my post was not "men are assholes", something I don't believe; but that women (as a class of people) typically have this experience (and others like it that dehumanize and devalue us), and that it affects our thoughts, feelings and behavior. How can it not?
Asking anyone to throw out their experiences while considering their nature of being isn't just asking too much; it's asking the impossible. We all bring ourselves to the table, you and me both, warts and all, like it or not. We bring our individual pasts to the table, and we bring our collective pasts to the table. There's nothing 'illogical' about that.
Love Me, I'm a Liberal
By Phil Ochs
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the democtratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
amarettiXL:
We all bring ourselves to the table, you and me both, warts and all, like it or not. We bring our individual pasts to the table, and we bring our collective pasts to the table. There's nothing 'illogical' about that.
Joseph is a pretty good example of this, in fact.
A couple of questions were never answered, Joseph. What's your point? What are you trying to accomplish?
Do you even have an answer?
I don't consider anything as "my heritage" unless I wrote it.
I think you're confusing heritage with legacy, and that may explain why we have a problem with your arguments. Maybe you should read up on their definitions, reconsider your position, and come back to us.
--
Okay. I'll forget, Joe, that you ever said "tits." And your bizarre reaction to amaretti when she tried to explain why your use of "tits" might make it hard for you to get your point across. I'm sick of arguing it.
I stick by my word, though, that around here we call people on it when they're out of line. Here, I'm calling you on this:
Stop hiding behind ad hominem and actually address the issues.
You want to treat racial identity as a logical construct, but it is not. We have tried to show you in many ways how it is not. Racial identity, identity politics in general, really, has very little to do with logic. It has to do with how people perceive themselves, how people make sense of the world, and how people can adjust to the unbearable pressure of being members of the subordinate class.
It is, therefore, not ad hominem to address you as a member of the privileged class because, my young friend, YOU ARE.
To repeat: You want to say that identity politics is racism because of some formula. (And then you want to define the formula, such that history--personal or national--for example, is excluded!) But identity is a fluid thing, not formulaic: The person I am now is not the person I was when I was ten and is not the person I will be at fifty--and it is not only because of my age!
You ask why James Baldwin is an authority on the construction of black identity? IT'S BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. And until you are black, I will rely on his words and judgments, not yours (or, for that matter, my own, as I cannot presume to say what it means or feels like to try to construct an identity as a black man). Did you even read what he wrote? To keep from exploding in rage he had to subjugate his sense of self to the overwhelming white culture!
If we pretend the melting pot's not broken, we'll never get around to fixing it.
If we just stick our fingers in our ears and blab "La la ad hominem I can't hear you la la" every time someone posits a worldview that is distinct from our own, we'll never know or appreciate the full range of human experience.
Have you ever read A Confederacy of Dunces? The book is about a man who lives in an imagined world of philosophy and logic while the real world happens around him. You're sounding more and more like that.
Wow. Just - wow.
There are alot of really good comments on this post.
Joe, your tone - whether you intend it or not - is dismissive and rude. You come across as someone who is completely unwilling to really consider someone else's views. I have no idea why everyone has continued to provide such well-thought out, deliberate comments, since all you seem to want to do is pronounce that you are right and they are wrong.
Is this an ad hominem argument? No, because I am not addressing the content of the debate. I am merely hoping to point out to you that people are not going to take you seriously if you approach discussion in this manner. My comment can be likened to telling someone they forgot to zip up after using the toilet -- I'm trying to help you out. You really, really need to give some thought to your approach, if you want people to take you seriously.
But my comment is also a complaint. As a person whose name is affiliated with this blog, I don't want readers to get the impression that your approach is one shared by others who also post here. Yes, we're all responsible for ourselves, but any group endeavor brings with it collective reputation. Your tone will not create the sort of reputation I would want to share in.
Joe, I'll start with definitions and logical argumentation, since this is the only thing that you say counts in this discussion. Your words in the comments section have been helpful to me, since they confirm the premise I was going to assert you are starting from. In replying to RA, you say:
The issue is not so much historical as it is philosophical; the issue, let me remind you, is racial identity, which can be brought down without any historical debate . . .
This is a discussion on a website devoted to politics. How is it possible to consider something political, like racial identity, outside of history? If you don't view racial identity in historical context then you are free assert, as you do, that all expressed identifications with a racial group are examples of racism and no different one from the next. If all racial self-identification is racist, then you can also assert, as you have, that black nationalism morally equivalent to the white supremacism of the KKK:
I'm saying that black nationalists should cut the racism and the racist propaganda, and I'm further saying that liberals should stop cutting them slack that hardly anyone would cut the KKK just because they're "minorities."
The KKK was a racist, terrorist organization, responsible for countless bombings, beatings, lynchings and harassment of African-Americans (and Jews) in the South. Read Diane McWhorter's detailed accounts of Klan activities in Birmingham, Alabama in her book Carry Me Home and see if you're still comfortable equating the Klan with any of the black nationalist groups in the US.
In the interest of promoting a discussion of ideas, I think it would have served you well to quote, or at least link to, the original statement you objected to on Earl's blog. Using the handy search feature in his left sidebar, I found the first reference he makes to himself as a Black partisan was from a post in 1997:
I am a Black partisan--one of those people that actively choose to accept racial kinship. My position is simple and straightforward-every event that affects Black people affects me. Therefore there is a connection between myself and other Black people that I must respond to in some fashion. What the mainstream thinks of Black people in general becomes my starting point in any new situation. My feelings of kinship with Black folks represents my recognition that my fate is linked to that of everyone else of visible African descent and my feelings of loyalty represents my recognition that the fate of everyone else of visible African descent is linked to mine.
If you had included any specific reference to this comment, you would have had to revise somewhat your assertions about the nature of Earl's partisanship. Whatever you might have to say about Earl's feelings for other Black folks, there is nothing here that suggests negative feelings for others, who are not Black. You also would have had to have acknowledged that there is a very nice helping of extensive, thoughtful "original content" in addition to the frequent posts with news items and links.
You assert that "A racial identity has to be manufactured and exclusive and contradicts reality, regardless of the race or ethnic group involved." Well yes, identity based on group affiliation is manufactured. What's wrong with that? Isn't the capacity to create meaningful cultural forms part of what makes humanity beautiful? I am Jewish and have some feelings of Jewish partisanship similar to Earl's feelings of Black partisanship, yet here I am defending his right to be a Black partisan. That sort of upsets the notion of racial or ethnic affiliation being inherently exclusive, doesn't it?
There is a historical precedent for your position that racial identity is a purely abstract, philosophical essence and that some individuals, like yourself, have a special capacity to transcend all external influences on identity. You know about that, right? These were ideas that originated in Austria in the late 19th century. Read something by Sander Gilman if you want to understand why your assertions have a certain European air to them.
Another statement of yours in the comments to your "Black Identity" post belies your assertion that you were not engaged in ad hominem. In your own defense against such charges you say, "An ad hominem fallacy is an argument based on the arguer, essentially attacking an argument by attacking the arguer. I do the exact opposite, namely attacking Earl solely thru attacking his arguments." Presumably, the arguer is not the same as the arguments. However, later in the comments, you say, "I don't consider anything as 'my heritage' unless I wrote it." Sounds like you're saying that your history cannot define who you are and that, in fact, nothing defines who you are except what you write. Um, doesn't that mean that if I attack your writing I'm attacking you? Doesn't that mean that if you attack Earl's writing, you're attacking Earl?
Logical argumentation aside, I want to make a value judgment here. When I see someone attack another person because they identify as Black or African-American, I call that race bating. I don't care if it's in the form of iron clad logical argumentation or if it's in the form of slurs. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, race baiting is race baiting is race baiting is race baiting. Disgusting and unfit for a blog whose mission is "to promote active discourse among progressives."
Just a quick comment on Ben G.'s last line: "Disgusting and unfit for a blog whose mission is 'to promote active discourse among progressives.'" Open Source Politics is a group blog with more than 40 members, by now I'm sure we've all read enough disclaimers to realize that the statement of one person doesn't represent everyone else in that organization. OSP tries to be exactly what its name suggests, "open source," meaning that we don't censor material, even if we disagree with it and we let our members post what they want. We do happen to read what each other post and if we don't like something someone else says, we certainly let them know. Earl is, of course, one of the founding members of OSP and of the comments in this thread 36 of the 46 (so far) are from other OSP members, almost all of whom disagree (vehemently) with Joe. To me, that is promoting an "active discourse," even if this isn't the way most of us would have wanted the discourse to have started (or, in some cases, continued).
Joe? Ya still here?
Back in your original statement, you said, "There's a problem in the United States of blacks being disfavored in work solely due to race, but it should be solved by integration, not racial separation."
Well, how timely! Because here we are in the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education. There are some good articles on this over at www.colorlines.com and www.rethinkingschools.org.
Now, it sounds like you've been to college. Probably took Psychology 101, so I expect you know a little something about human development, and childhood development. Think about what you learned in class while you're reminded about exactly what the children who integrated those schools went through.
Then tell me again how wrongheaded it is to have a black identity. Or how wrong it is not to consider history and experience when talking on issues of race (or sex, class, whatever).
I'll say it again...this is not about you, it's about survival.
And self-determination as well. P6 has the right to define himself as he sees fit -- and to be proud of it.
Joe Taylor wrote: And anyway, the misreading is simply of the credit; replace "Earl Dunovant" with "Ampersand" and there's no misreading.
Hmmn. Let's try it.
Anyway, Ampersand is black. He's not black like some people I know, who simply have a black skin; Ampersand is a self-professed "black partisan" who has a strong black identity.
Well, I'm not a self-professed black partisan, and I don't have a strong black identity. Oh, and I'm not black. Otherwise, this works fine.
Joe wrote: What I quote above is pure, unadulterated racism; if a white person talked to the same extent about a "white identity" and "getting like the black man," he'd be correctly branded as a total racist.
Again, let's try it:
Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the black man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose, and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself, from the top of your head, to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to? So much so, that you don't want to be around each other. Oh no, before you come asking Mr. Mohammed, does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you.
The statement isn't racist if we switch "white" for "black" (and, contrary to Joe's claim, the phrase "black identity" appears nowhere in what I quoted). It's simply nonsensical.
It's a matter of historic fact that many blacks have experienced insecurity about appearance based on their "failure" to live up to a cultural standard of beauty which is based on an idealized version of white beauty (blue eyes, light-colored, flowing straight hair, narrow noses, etc). We know this because countless black people, like Malcolm X, have spoken and written about this experience. The racial politics of hair alone could (and has) filled scholarly books.
Unless we (and by "we" I mean "we non-black people, like me and Joe, who can't know the answers to questions like this from direct personal experience") assume that all those black speakers and writers were either deluded or liars, then we have to accept the historic fact that many (not all) blacks have felt this way.
While certainly many white people have appearance issues, white people don't have appearance issues based on their failure to live up to the standards of idealized black appearance. So reversing the races in the Malcolm X quote doesn't make the quote racist; it just makes the quote gibberish.
The concept of a black identity is as racist as this of a white identity.
I agree; but I don't think the concept of a white identity is racist, in and of itself, either.
Blacks aren't different from whites in mental and physical capabilities, unless one counts the fact that blacks are more resistant to sunburn. A racial identity has to be manufactured and exclusive and contradicts reality, regardless of the race or ethnic group involved.
Blacks are (on average) different from whites - and vice versa - in that there are enourmous differences in experience between blacks and whites. How we are raised, and how our culture treats us, makes a difference in how we think of ourselves, and how we self-identify.
My experiences as a white person are different from what my next-door-neighbor experiences. If I get pulled over by Portland cops, I don't seriously have to worry about getting shot; but my black neighbor does, based on the fact that the Portland cops have already shot unarmed black folks they've pulled over. I don't have to wonder if I'm being pulled over because of my race. When I go shopping, the store detectives don't follow me around. When I pay by check, I'm frequently not asked for I.D., whereas I know that some blacks are ALWAYS asked for I.D.. Studies show that when I'm shopping for a new car, I'm offered a better price, all else held equal. Studies show that I'm job-hunting, I'm offered better jobs and I'm offered them more often, all else held equal.
It all adds up - and what it adds up to is, there's a major difference in the experiences of black people and white people, on average, that's based on race.
There are also cultural differences - some of which are related to the differences in treatment I was just talking about, some of which aren't.
Of course, there are individual exceptions to all of this. No one is saying "all black people MUST feel this way" or "all white people MUST feel this way." But the differences do exist, on average, and denying they exist is denying reality.
That doesn't justify turning this into a culture identity or crusading for ethno-nationalism. It makes sense to the same degree as becoming a Christian theocracy in order to prevent becoming a Muslim theocracy.
A theocracy is a kind of government; it's setting up one group of people above others. Black identity is not. So I don't think the comparison is valid. Black identity, politically, is an interest group banding together in self-defense against racism. And the effect they want isn't to institute black supremacy, but to institute racial equality. That's an important distinction, and one that you seem to overlook.
You know what people?
In the end, this has turned out to be a pretty damn good thread to have on a progressive siute.
Thanks, Joseph!
Oh, yeah. I'm still waiting for
- some description of some flaw you found in the logic of my response to kennedy's article. I mean, since you're so big on logic and all...
- some answer to the question of what you hoped to accomplish by your post. Hopefully everyone recognizes now that it's even harder to find a flaw in my reasoning than it is to shut me up on issues of importance to me.
- you've accused me of attacking "someone" because they are white. I'd LOVE to see you find an example of me doing that.(warning: it's been tried)
Denial, evasions, verbal gymnastics and an intent to deflect rather than consider discussion…and I've haven't applied to you as a person the labels for what you've apparently attempted to do, though you've attempted to apply to me as a person the labels for what took place in your imagination.
You lied about me.
And the only way to deny that is to bring forward evidence that I've done any of the racist things you've accused me of. Something I've actually written, not what it would say if you replaced half the words of your choice with any other words of your choice.
If you can't stand seeing me be Black without getting your feelings hurt, it's not my problem.
You owe me an apology. But you know what? I don't even want it until you've grown up enough to make it significant.
For those that don't know, Joe is away for a few days taking care of real world responsibilities. He'll be back.
I usually don't get involved in these discussions. They end up being way too time consuming, and it ends up that I spend more time being pissed-off than anything else. And inevitably, the original poster ends up not getting it anyway (and in this case I think that will, unfortunately, end up being true).
That being said, I was struck by this whole Ad Hominem back-and-forth. In particular since every other post, Joe is complaining about someone else Ad Hominem-ing him. So, for my own benefit, I looked the word up (quite frankly because I felt that I couldn't rely on Joe's definition). According to Webster's, Ad Hominem is "A phrase applied to an appeal or argument addressed to the principles, interests, or passions of a man.."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole discussion about "the principles, interests, or passions of a man" i.e., Black Identity? I mean, the first sentence of Joe's post was:
"Anyway, Earl Dunovant is black. He's not black like some people I know, who simply have a black skin; Earl is a self-professed 'black partisan' who has a strong black identity."
Am I missing something, or doesn't that fall under the category of Ad Hominem? I am clear that I'm no expert when it comes to logic (in the academic-discussion sense). Maybe someone other than Joe can help me out here.
Oh, and by the way Joe, if anything in my post strikes you as an "AH" attack so be it. Respectfully, keep it to yourself. I think Earl has behaved incredibly civilized given the slings and arrows he has taken from you in the past few days. You clearly have the priviledge of being able to consider this discussion from a "purely" logical standpoint (whether you're actually using any logic remains to be seen). Some of us don't necessarily have the same luxury of not being personally invested in this discussion of race and racism. Hate to break it to you Joe, but when you talk about race or racism with someone who isn't White it's personal. And there's nothing you can do about that.
I meant to get back to this topic sooner, but the Nick Berg situation has taken up most of my blogging attention for the last couple days. I think I've had my fill, though. The news that local deejays mocked Berg's death screams leaves me speechless.
The more I read the sheer bossiness of Joe is what strikes me. He is absolutely certain that he should be telling a black man what that person can think, say and do. His is the same behavior that caused me to tell a bunch of white liberals who thought they could 'run' me last year to kiss my ass. (Ampersand, quite the hypocrite, was among them.) WHY do these people think:
1) That they are in charge of what a person of color can think, say or do, and
2) That their belief in their 'right' to control people who have historically been treated as their inferiors is not racism?
From where I sit, this belief expressed in the right to dominate someone else is the essence of both white privilege and racism. I doubt Joe would address another white person the way he talked to Ea