Prometheus 6

And I think she misses it.  But as for the overall message: 

*applauds*  Yes! 

 

"White-News" vs. the Blackosphere (Updated and Cross-Posted)

Because we are communicating amongst ourselves, we can do so without filtering our language and thoughts to appease white sensibilities and without worrying that the information we want to share and the fundamental truths that we wish to impart are more than whites can bear. In the Blackosphere, although views are diverse, there is a strong sense of shared struggle, an implicit and explicit shared awareness of the irreducible facts of Black life in America whose very existence white people and "white-news" strenuously deny.

It is, indeed, fortunate that there is a Blackosphere, because much that is said there would be considered "controversial", "argumentative", "overly combative", "rude" and "insensitive" at whitosphere blogs. Indeed, part of the value of the Blackosphere is that we can express ourselves to one another without censoring ourselves because of a concern that most white people will be offended by the views that many Black people hold in common.

Whenever I wonder why I bother to blog, I'll think of this and keep on going.

The Journey to Freedom Starts with Your Mind. http://exodusmentality.blogspot.com/

I am new to the Black Blogosphere, but I’m very grateful to find the blogs. I think the more lists of blogs of reference that I find on Black Blogs, lead me to more Black Blogs, on both the left and the right. I feel like a kid in the candy store. I love reading all these Black views, even when I disagree with them.

I go to ‘ mainstream’ blogs and argue my points, but, it’s nice to have places, that even when I disagree with them, there are other things I don’t have to ‘explain’ to them….know what I mean?

I believe that Black Bloggers should never give up the ‘ fight’ to bring the battle to the ‘ mainstream’ blogs…I don’t think we should retreat, but we should relish the Black Blogosphere as a place where we can see honest discussion, honest conversation, and where we don’t have to hold back.  

THIS is why there is the need for a Black Blogosphere. I came in to use the computer, and what was the topic on the local Black talk radio station?

Shaquanda Cotton. The talk show host is a Black Blogger himself.

THIS is why the Black Blogosphere is important.

We can raise issues of importance to us, and that’s a good thing.

 

I believe that Black Bloggers should never give up the ‘ fight’ to bring the battle to the ‘ mainstream’ blogs…I don’t think we should retreat, but we should relish the Black Blogosphere as a place where we can see honest discussion, honest conversation, and where we don’t have to hold back.

I agree there is a need to interact with the political/editorial blog network. But it's going to be hard to be more than audience.

Tell you the truth, I think Josh Marshall (TalkingPointsMemo) and Andrew Sullivan did more to legitimize the blog network than the megablogs like DKos, RedState and MyDD by being media insiders.  Being quoted by the media is the mark of A status, and the media has started with their own and branched out from there. Typical network stuff.

Now media folk start their own site using blog software (Politico.com) and mainstream blogs engage and link them immediately.

Me, I think our interactions are more important to us than mainstream recognition because if we keep it real and decide for ourselves they will come to us. 

Crucial piece!!!!!!!!!. No more.........!?*. My last post. It's been beautiful. But I got to keep it reallll. No more blogging for me. There's more than enough stuff and folks to keep the fire burning. Buh bye!

 

The dawgggggg!

The critical difference that i can see between the white blogs and the Blackosphere is that authors in the Blackosphere are often unwilling to accept mainstream assertions about Black identity*. Blogs allow many previously-unheard voices to open up discussions about more complex ways of understanding Black culture and Black people. The kicker is that this is not done for the edification of the Ofay; these discussions follow an intellectual discursive path blazed by the 3rd places of Black day-to-day life: the barbershop and beauty salon.

One cannot assume that the Blackosphere, however, is a unified online community. Instead, it seems to be a bricolage of individual articulations of Black values and beliefs using a common medium. The shared quality is an allegiance to a Black identity (as defined by the individual).

Me, I think our interactions are more important to us than mainstream recognition because if we keep it real and decide for ourselves they will come to us.

What exactly are we deciding? How to present ourselves? Who gets to decide if we're "keeping it real"?

Are real-time political decisions being made in the Blackosphere? What is the metric used to determine this?

---

*There are always a few who are not only willing to go along with mainstream views on Blackness, but in doing so receive an inordinate amount of mainstream recognition for validating their beliefs.

 

"...authors in the Blackosphere are often unwilling to accept mainstream assertions about Black identity*"

This has been my experience. I don't mind having a spirited discussion with other black folks about issues and questions related to Black identity (Whoa! This is not entirely true. I would not engage in such a discussion with La Sham Barber or Starr Farker.) but I find doing so with white folks - regardless of their political views - a pretty tedious exercise.  

 

What exactly are we deciding? How to present ourselves?

I think that pretty much sums up what people are looking for in their search for "identity." 

Who gets to decide if we're "keeping it real"?

Who needs help knowing if they are "keeping it real"? If someone has to decide for you, I'd say you need more help than is available online.

Are real-time political decisions being made in the Blackosphere? What is the metric used to determine this?

Give me an example of a real-time political decision.

I think that pretty much sums up what people are looking for in their search for "identity."

i disagree slightly with motive; Black people online ain't searchin for identity - why search for what you already possess? instead, i think the process is much more the deliberate display of an alternative, more complex Black identity. which leads me to:

Who needs help knowing if they are "keeping it real"?

If we can agree that Black people online are engaging in the construction of a discursive Blackness online (which is no different from what we do offline), then the openness of the Internet becomes a factor. When we engage in discussions about Black identity offline, those are not "public" conversations. They are "private" in the sense that everyone participating is visually (at least) identifiable as belonging to the Black community and that is their primary allegiance. How do you ensure that same level of verification for online discussions, where the Internet allows ANYONE to participate? that's what i meant by my question...

I'm going to demur and throw this last one back in your lap:

Give me an example of a real-time political decision.

You said we would "decide for ourselves". what exactly is it that we're deciding upon? I decided to pick politics as an example, but i'd like to wait to see your answer before i jump in with my foot in my mouth.

I decided to pick politics as an example

Interesting.

I have a problem with the "exactly" part. I chose not to specify politics because it's not going to be that limited. And actually "decide" isn't precise. It's more that when collective issues arise we can have a real national, or state or local discussion, give and get an understanding of the arguments we'll face and the information to rebut the false ones, and really get the sense of the community. That alone would cut back on massive amounts of bullshit.

How do you ensure that same level of verification for online discussions, where the Internet allows ANYONE to participate? that's what i meant by my question...

Personally, I only care that everyone be seriously pro-Black folks. That CAN be verified. But...

I've been delayed due to personal slacking, plus a three-topic limit on simultaneous full frontal effort. But I have a site set up for invitation only membership. Anonymous folks can read, but only registered folks can post and comment. And any member can invite folks up to whatever limit I set. There isn't even a way to sign up on the site...you MUST be invited.

I've been working on PRECISELY the site I want, but I can set up blogs and a forum, like, today.

That's not an absolute guarantee of identity

Some days I wonder what might have been if several of the hottest black bloggers could have lived under the same blog roof...

Well, this conversation seems to be brewing elsewhere as well.  I hope that this case kicks something off in a big way.

Cobb:

Some days I wonder what might have been if several of the hottest black bloggers could have lived under the same blog roof...

Unfortunately the "hottest black blogger" is decidedly anti-Black. That's a problem.

that "the hottest blogger who happens to be black"...isn't that how those folks tend to refer to theyself?

and if you "happen to be black" then it is what it is, ain't it.

The hottest black blog idea would have been dope, but dope in a different way. It would've been cool to see someone move from relative obscurity to stardom just off of blogging. But that isn't what we need here. Our strength lies in the fact that we are not centralized. 

But our INFORMATION can be centralized. There would be value in sites that do nothing more than present RSS feeds of black blogs. As it stands many of us don't have the time to see what everyone is writing on PLUS checking on news, tech stuff, what not.

There would also be value in having some way to vote on what is important and what isn't. Though this can end up generating just the type of oxygen sucking enterprise that would result if we DID create a hottest black blogging group.

Finally there would be value in getting together. I've been able to meet and do work with several people that I first met online. But inter-personal trust is often difficult to build online only. 

We don't need unity.

I don't think we need some sort of black blogging group--except for the conference.

Our strength lies in the fact that we are not centralized.

You been reading BlackProf, huh?

Let's talk politics. What decentralized group has political power in the USofA? Power in the USofA is proportionate to your constituency.

You can pull together leventy-seven examples of effective decentralized opposition to some huge centralized force...but how many of them still exist? Seriously, because I have no idea.

There would be value in sites that do nothing more than present RSS feeds of black blogs.

There's several of them out there...and running them is no joke. People's RSS feeds suck. There's no consistency of content (just full feed vs excerpt is a pain in the ass) and most aren't well formed. You have to read them and decide what to accept, too...we're not talking Bloglines at all.  

Earl I've been talking black decentralization as long as I've been a professor. I thought that you and I had talked about this expressly before, but perhaps I was wrong.

Decentralized groups by their nature are ephemeral, though there is interesting work going on in Sao Paulo. So I'm not sure--particularly given our discussion about the naacp--whether continued existence is a good barometer.

But with this said, I'm not necessarily talking about black people in this instance. I am talking about black bloggers.

There are somethings that a centralized black blogger group would give that a decentralized entity (oxymoron i know) would not. Status, prestige, and loot. And to some people these three things are important (I'm not saying this to be crass..these things are important to me too...just not here).

But the type of power we wielded in the Cotton case came not because of our centralization, but because we had access to the same information source then sent that source out through our own interpretive lens. We already have hubs in place. I read four or five black blogs (via RSS feeds) on the regular. I'm betting that you read much more than I, but that you do the same.

The RSS feeds are very very difficult to deal with I know. But this combined with something like Digg would get us closer to where we need to be--decentralized but fully aware.

I thought that you and I had talked about this expressly before, but perhaps I was wrong.

No, we haven't.

Status, prestige, and loot. And to some people these three things are important (I'm not saying this to be crass..these things are important to me too...just not here).

Good.

But the type of power we wielded in the Cotton case came not because of our centralization, but because we had access to the same information source then sent that source out through our own interpretive lens.

That's not an argument against centralization. If anything, it would make for more common sources. Not that what I have in mind is about centralizing, nor is it limited to bloggers. I'm building a safe space for honest discussion where no assholes can intrude.

It's not an argument against centralization. the argument against centralization is based on the idea that centralization leads to ossification of goals and rewards, and the idea that centralization is inefficient.

what you have in mind is a different project. a discussion space would be cool. a brainstorms for black folk by invite. 

 

I can't say that's what it is because I've never seen it, and your link requires a password. Rude. Also not very transparent, etc...

Which is okay. Anyway...

the argument against centralization is based on the idea that centralization leads to ossification of goals and rewards, and the idea that centralization is inefficient.

But is it avoidable? I think not. 

We've already got a centralized institution--think THE STATE. 

We've already got centralized organizations--whether something like the naacp, or our fraternities and sororities, or unions, or black professional organizations. 

if you're talking about crystallizing black bloggers as a class then perhaps this route would work for your interests.

But if you're talking about politics? No.

And the Brainstorms model is what you're looking for right? Didn't you say invite only? Brainstorms is a conference begun by Howard Rheingold that's been going on for some years. You get down by sending an email to Rheingold saying who suggested it, and what you bring to the table.

This model could work for waht you suggest if you want a combination of expertise and seriousness. And political ideology depending--I like a number of folks (well, not really) on the other side(s) but I wouldn't put them in my organizations. 

 

We've already got a centralized institution--think THE STATE.

Trust me, I'm fully aware of the state.

if you're talking about crystallizing black bloggers as a class

I am not talking about that. I am not limiting this to bloggers, remember?

And the Brainstorms model is what you're looking for right? Didn't you say invite only? Brainstorms is a conference begun by Howard Rheingold that's been going on for some years. You get down by sending an email to Rheingold saying who suggested it, and what you bring to the table.

Never heard of it, and no that's not the model. I will seed the site with a number of folks that expressed interest in the idea. THEY (and I) will have a fixed number of invitations. Those that accept the invitations will get an equal number, and so on.

I'm too weird to make those membership judgments so I intend to spread the responsibility around.

Brainstorms is more like what you're talking about than not. you just need some proxy of ensuring a combination of expertise and seriousness/dedication. and again, political ideology, depending.

If you are not limiting this to bloggers, then this gets back to the naacp discussion. taking ideological differences out of the discussion there is more to like about the urban league's decentralized model than there is to like about the naacp's staid centralized model. if you're talking about an organization with legs at any rate...as opposed to a fluid "stick and move" approach.

wait. are you talking about an organization for "black people" as opposed to an organization for "black bloggers" or "black bloggers and the black people who read them"?

you just need some proxy of ensuring a combination of expertise and seriousness/dedication.

This is what I intend. If that's Brainstorm, fine. But what I'm looking for is a true sense of the community on whatever topic...of what actually is a topic. Brainstorm sounds like a bunch of folks who already know all the answers. But again, I don't know...and have no way to determine if it's worth my time.

Enough about Brainstorm. Hard to be intense about something I only just heard of.

urban league's decentralized model than there is to like about the naacp's staid centralized model.

Sadly class issues will prevent the NUL for taking me seriously, because I am not...NOT...on their side of the line. I do not share their mission.

wait. are you talking about an organization for "black people" as opposed to an organization for "black bloggers" or "black bloggers and the black people who read them"?

When have I ever favored organizations over humans?

i don't know the answer to your last question. and i don't care about the nul's politics for the sake of this discussion--although at some point you're going to have to find some brick and mortar group to work with. for the purposes of this discussion i was more interested in their decentralized model.

whenever i say "black bloggers" what i really mean is black people who have a presence on blogs on the internet. as much as i see her around i'd call rikyah a black blogger. so again you're talking about creating some form of discussion group where black people who are serious and have expertise (or putting it another way, committed and competent) can engage in discussion on the issues of the day, or whatever else suits their fancy.

again, this isn't the same project i'm talking about. i don't expect that everyone you'd want to participate would have the same time to participate in a discussion conference as on their own blog generating mini-discussions. it's still worth doing though.

again, this isn't the same project i'm talking about.

True. 

I actually find it interesting that no one ever takes me at my word. I say up front what I intend, folks ask themselves what that has to do with their own plans and views or something, and start advising me on stuff I never intended. That's why I started working in the other guy's vocabulary, and why I stopped and started refining my own.

i don't care about the nul's politics for the sake of this discussion

I do. Ever since I saw they were willing to whore themselves to the Republican agenda, I realized there is nothing out here that actually speaks to or for the standard Black person. Enough people need to be heard to make them...and the CBC...and the NAACP...that they've made an error.

That's why I stopped polishing and developing and set up something immediately. And I'll tell you something else. The momentum can be shot all to hell. Our people are strong, but way too many people are militating against the communities. Against the very possibility of community while EVERYONE ELSE IS BUILDING AND CONNECTING THEIRS.

That makes no fucking sense at all. 

I do. Ever since I saw they were willing to whore themselves to the Republican agenda, I realized there is nothing out here that actually speaks to or for the standard Black person. Enough people need to be heard to make them...and the CBC...and the NAACP...that they've made an error.

This is the natural conclusion of working for "black people" or having organizations that deal with "black people" rather than dealing with specific groups of black people with specific problems. The "standard black person" has a gender, a sexuality, a class, etc.

The momentum can be shot all to hell. Our people are strong, but way too many people are militating against the communities. Against the very possibility of community while EVERYONE ELSE IS BUILDING AND CONNECTING THEIRS.

I have to think about this a bit. Like I said, for me those networks never went away. The way I think about it is that this potential energy always exists. The key is actualizing it. Sometimes this is easier to do than others. This is a moment that we should take advantage of, don't get me wrong. But perhaps in my case I'm young enough (and knowledgeable enough) to know that there will be other times in the worse case scenario.

This is the natural conclusion of working for "black people" or having organizations that deal with "black people" rather than dealing with specific groups of black people with specific problems. The "standard black person" has a gender, a sexuality, a class, etc.

And as I said, those organizations have no interest in working for the class of which I would be considered a member. In fact, they have all, quite recently, worked against it. The NUL is no less "Certain People" than the NAACP. They just personally make more money off it than the NAACP.

And when a great mass of people with differing genders, sexualities, etc. have the same issues, I feel free to speak of those Black folks collectively. And a collective has no gender, no sexuality, etc.

The momentum can be shot all to hell. Our people are strong, but way too many people are militating against the communities. Against the very possibility of community while EVERYONE ELSE IS BUILDING AND CONNECTING THEIRS.

I have to think about this a bit.

 Ya sure-shit do. Especially that capitalized part. Because it's obvious.

Like I said, for me those networks never went away.

What social class are you?

And when a great mass of people with differing genders, sexualities, etc. have the same issues, I feel free to speak of those Black folks collectively. And a collective has no gender, no sexuality, etc.

This isn't right.  Not empirically. Not even in people's heads. And as soon as you start a "collective" with the purpose of dealing with "black people's issues" the gender, sexuality, and class stuff will all come out. Next time you get a chance ask someone what a "black person" looks like. What is the gender of that person? What is the sexuality of that person? Where does that person live? What is that person's skin tone? You can speak about black folk all you want to. But when I do it, I know that what I'm really doing is talking about very specific black people rather than an abstraction like "the black masses."

 What social class are you?

Take a look at the example you used and lamented about because it didn't exist anymore. The people in that example? That's the social class I'm in. What about you?

This isn't right. Not empirically. Not even in people's heads. And as soon as you start a "collective" with the purpose of dealing with "black people's issues" the gender, sexuality, and class stuff will all come out.

Fortunately, I need neither permission nor verification. I flatter myself by saying I am in the correct position on all those issues...and as I said when a great mass of people with differing genders, sexualities, etc. have the same issues, I feel free to speak of those Black folks collectively. And a collective has no gender, no sexuality, etc.

Because, you see, when I'm dealing with collective issues I am NOT dealing with the personal ones...which is where all that comes out. It's like talking about Democrats, or American foreign interests.

Take a look at the example you used and lamented about because it didn't exist anymore. The people in that example? That's the social class I'm in.

Hence your defense of the Urban League.

What about you?

VERY lower middle class. The guys your guys ignore. The group that's been under attack since Booker T.

Because, you see, when I'm dealing with collective issues I am NOT dealing with the personal ones...which is where all that comes out. It's like talking about Democrats, or American foreign interests.

Exactly...and when people talk about "Democratic interests" who's interest routinely get ignored? And when black people pipe up, what's the response?

That's what you're doing here.

Hence your defense of the Urban League.

You're confusing me with someone else. Why? Find me a spot where I did something more than say that the NUL decentralized model works better than the naacp. 

VERY lower middle class. The guys your guys ignore. The group that's been under attack since Booker T.

"Your guys".  And who would that be? All I said was that I'm in the class of people who had that network that you said didn't exist for black people anymore.

 

 

Exactly...and when people talk about "Democratic interests" who's interest routinely get ignored? And when black people pipe up, what's the response?

That's what you're doing here.

sigh

Welcome to the mobius point...

I said "like" not "is." You disappoint me.

You're confusing me with someone else. Why? Find me a spot where I did something more than say that the NUL decentralized model works better than the naacp.

Forgive me. Replace "defense" with "support." And I'm not confusing you with anyone.

"Your guys". And who would that be? All I said was that I'm in the class of people who had that network that you said didn't exist for black people anymore.

Look around.

Forgive me. Replace "defense" with "support." And I'm not confusing you with anyone.

You're still confusing me with someone else. I haven't defended the NUL. I've talked about their model of decentralization model. You're parsing words above, making a careful distinction between "like" and "is" that doesn't mean much to me...but not doing it here with "support". When there is a very straightforward way of measuring "support" verbally.

 Look around.

I don't know what that means here. All I "see" is you.