Prometheus 6

why do you think black politics depends on agitation?

More precisely, because I'm still thinking about it, agitation has been the signature tactic of Black politics since the 70s. That's the tactic that I think is hitting the wall.

There definitely has to be understanding/education. Not quite sure how one would go about moving black politics in that direction, though.

"...I think that what it takes to get them is what it takes to keep them."

(...Okay, but is this more an 'Obama' specific stream of concious thought, or in general?)

To my tin ear, it sounds more Obama specific, because I'm at a loss to see the failing trend across the spectrum.

(...In my minds eye it's too diverse and far from being monolithic)

But my interpretation, and I believe your instincts are correct, is:

'Ya gotta dance with the gal what brung ya.'

I'm thinking generally, though the reflections are brought on by everyone's reactions to Obama and his campaign. As you well know, people are trying to use his candidacy to claim the need for Black politics is gone. Never mind if he wins...

Basically I'm making the same calculations the Confederates made: what's more important, the motive or the tactics?

In some way the Agitation model of black politics reminds me of the republicans “waving the bloody shirt” in the 30 years after the civil war. Eventually black politicians that want to have a national impact will have to transition to the type of inclusive campaign being waged by Mr. Obama.

In some way the Agitation model of black politics reminds me of the republicans “waving the bloody shirt” in the 30 years after the civil war.

How?

Motive or the tactics? Now thats a good question. I'm not sure how to answer that. It is something I've been negotiating for a long time. I guess if I had to pick one I'd pick tactics. But I agree that our tactics have been to agitate the white establishment rather than motivate our own base. (I have my own theories about that.)
But I would go further back than P6 and say our politics have depended on agitation as far back as the 60's. I think it is "hitting the wall" because white America has simply become desensitized to Black agitation. There are an assortment of latent fears that white America has of Black America. Through the 60's and 70's white America's simply couldn't handle their anxiety of any form Black agitation. But throuthout the 80's, I believe, white America began to better handle Black agitation. So much exposure to agitation with no political teeth behind them (e.g. marches) began to ware off its effectiveness and they soon realilized that there was a ceiling, if you will, to agitation. Having met ceiling, as is today, all they needed to do was just ignor agitation and act as if our concerns are heard.
I believe that this is similar to whats happened to the integration strategery. Once they had gotten over, to some extent, their initial panics of sitting next to Blacks in schools they began to successfully develope skillful ways of limiting integrations effectiveness to as little Blacks as possible. At least thats what I think.

there are two reasons why black politics depends on agitation.

1. it's been the way that working class folks (including black people) have gotten stuff.

2. brokers use agitation in order to get stuff for themselves, and in order to legitimate their existence (sharpton can't use votes...so he uses attendance at marches and the like).

Well . . . when you think about it. Black folks don't need agitators per se. We can get pretty agitated without anyone help. What we need is in house self-help and forceful spokespeople for America at-large. I suppose the agitation is more a release for us and a message to America.

Marches will legitimize black brokers who can speak for the community and educate America at-large about how racism works. You don't need to "hate" black people. All you need is to think that we're not as smart/responsible/etc, etc as white people. That's white supremacy. And enough whining from mainstream America about black agitation. When the racism stops, we'll stop.

Following the civil war every republican elected president served in the Union Army. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, and McKinley all served in various capacities in the Union Army and used that service to mobilize the GAR (Grand Army of the Republic - the largest union army veterans orginization) on their behalf.
In a similar way black democrats seeking votes from the black electorate had to demonstrate their civil rights agitator status in order to mobilize organizations to assist their efforts to win election. They did not have to be on the front lines being fire hosed or attacked by dogs. They could do battle in courts or as legislators. But if they did not have that on their resume, they did not have "street cred" and were sometimes viewed as not "being black enough".
But now we have reached the point where the veterans of the 1960s civil rights movement are old or dead. The old organizations have become moribund, corrupt, or defunct. It is time to broaden the base of support for black politicians to include whites and latinos and time to get rid of anachronistic groups like The Black Caucus. I think Mr. Obama understands this need to broaden the base of support for black politicians. He is not waving the bloody shirt of the civil rights struggle. He is trying to bring all the people together and at the same time get elected.

I guess if I had to pick one I'd pick tactics. But I agree that our tactics have been to agitate the white establishment rather than motivate our own base.

That actually reads like you're so sure of your motives that you're only looking at tactics to convince folks. I have no problem with that.

it's been the way that working class folks (including black people) have gotten stuff.

That's what I'm concerned about...selfishly, since that's the cohort I see myself as a part of. 

"...I am concerned for the future of Black politics because it depends on agitation rather than structure."

...I think that to be a black politician in today's world (...speaking to race, as opposed to agenda) and call yourself really working on the behalf of your people, you've got to speak to the concerns of those who don't necessarily identify with you to give them a sense that their concerns will be represented as well.

The primary need, first and foremost, for agitation was extremely necessary once upon a time because there was no level playing field, so you could could create the ground swell in highly populated areas where a lot of minorities never really realized how much political strength they had in their numbers.

But the question, I think, is how do you cultivate leverage today in areas where you aren't a majority and the ill-concieved presumption is the field has been leveled?

To gain advantages for the minority, I think the example you have to cultivate a 'collatoral' (...What's in it for me?) favor with the majority that doesn't end up as a disadvantage the minority or, establish a 'win-win' situation.

That's where I think the evolution is kicking in, because they power of black politics is slowly, but surely, expanding beyond the somewhat predictable power bases of areas highly concentrated in minorities.

In those areas, agitation is a viable 'can-do' reality because there's a heightenend sense of urgency mixed with a realistic sense of the strength in numbers that can enable the reality of it all.

Beyond that, it woud appear the game plan has to be far more inclusive to attain the gains looked for in you core constituency.

I don't think black politics is dying as much as it is growing and evolving...

"To gain advantages for the minority, I think the example you have to cultivate a 'collatoral' (...What's in it for me?) favor with the majority that doesn't end up as a disadvantage the minority or, establish a 'win-win' situation."

I'm not saying you're wrong, Clone. But what benefit is it to talking about improving the situation for minorities if when doing so, we talk about how it benefits whites? If the point at the end of the day is to achieve equality, specifically racial equality, all Americans need to understand that "everybody" can't win.

I guess in theory, if you give minorities way more benefits than whites, it can even out. But why act like racism isn't the issue? And if we're going to address racism, you don't do that by appeasing those already advantaged.

On the other hand, if by "favor with the majority" you mean the kind of abstract stuff that racism hurts white people to, I fully agree.

In 32 years the majority will not be white. Better start learning to speak spanish.
I agree that black politics is evolving.

"...But what benefit is it to talking about improving the situation for minorities if when doing so, we talk about how it benefits whites? If the point at the end of the day is to achieve equality, specifically racial equality, all Americans need to understand that "everybody" can't win."

~

(...Historically, Eldridge Cleaver is given credit for the saying "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem". In actuality it was his wife Kathleen who came up with it the night before Eldridge spoke it.)

The greatest building in the world began with the movement of a single shovelful of dirt.

Excerpt from 'Seeds of Heaven'- Part of the Solution

~

Out of all of the well known works of Mark Twain, one of his most telling, but least known works is Pudd'nhead Wilson.

You have two children, very similar in appearance, except that one is a child of a slave and the other is the child of white privilege, switched at birth, unbeknownst to one another, by a slave who wants to see the best for her child.

When the deed has been discovered years later, the white child has grown to be an illiterate valet for the spoiled, pampered, self absorbed black child who is eventually found to be guilty of murder.

Had he retained his identity of privilege, he very well may have beat the charges, but having been found to be black and actual 'property' he's sold back into slavery to compensate for the very debt he was trying to overcome.

His valet, now found to be 'white' is freed, but having grown up 'black' and in servitude his entire life, doesn't seem to have the ability, or inclination, to conceptualize exactly what this means for him.

I think that what the nation as a whole is trying to overcome is what in my mind's eye I consider to be, 'The Pudd'nhead Wilson Syndrome.'

Even as well documented the injustices to minorities in general and blacks and Indians in particular are, no one is going to want to take the blame for crimes committed generations ago by people they're not related to, even if they benefited in ways they don't understand.

You have a majority that believes they've worked hard for everything they have, why should their efforts be penalized?

I don't think you can impact this mindset by trying to make them believe they owe anyone anything other than to themselves.

But if you explain and identify how certain types are social programs are needed to help quell under age pregnancy and get wayward youth off the streets and away from a life of crime so that they can develop skills to involve them in work programs that help businesses become further productive while keeping overhead to a minimum and provide invaluable work experience for the participants to further themselves, then the premise of the logic is such that prevailing thought would lead you to think it would be universally sound enough to be embraced in all quarter.

A good example of this, I think, is the Exodus Transitional Community that was profiled not too long ago on the PBS program Independent lens.

The hope of the program is to help those that have made mistakes in life get a second chance at an opportunity to contribute to the society at large and benefit from it in the process.

And though it would be easy to say that these are individuals who were subliminally induced into a wayward lifestyle by a cruel and unjust system of oppression, none the less, the advocacy for the programs participants is that these are individuals that really want to make a difference in their lives and the lives of others.

I would believe that most would agree that this is a model example of taking something that at it's core is derived from a negative situation and turning it into a 'win-win' proposition for all involved.

I also think that the most true contribution towards providing any form of reparations, not much unlike Obama has espoused, would be to, "Teach a Man to Fish..."

~

...The real heir suddenly found himself rich and free, but in a most embarrassing situation. He could neither read nor write, and his speech was the basest dialect of the Negro quarter.

As soon as the Governor understood the case, he pardoned Tom at once, and the creditors sold him down the river.

The Tragedy of Pudd'Nhead Wilson - Conclusion

"In 32 years the majority will not be white. Better start learning to speak spanish." Stay tuned, don't underestimate white America's determination to maintain the whiteness of America. White America pays close attention to the sensus. If you think white America will stand by and allow America to become predominantly spanish in language you are kidding yourself.

"It's been the way that working class folks (including black people) have gotten stuff." True. But I think when it comes to Black American and Black politics white America has adapted to agitatation (and other Black political and social strategies), whitch is why, in my opinion, Blacks have progressively gotten less and less over the past 30 years.

"....racism hurts white people to, I fully agree." I don't. To me, there is an obvious advantage to white racism - maintaining white power. It is how they got/stole power in the first place. It is how they grew their power. And it is how they keep it.

"....it woud appear the game plan has to be far more inclusive to attain the gains looked...." Inclusive for who, whites? I think we have been far too inclusive to them for far too long with little return.

"It is time to broaden the base of support for black politicians to include whites and latinos and time to get rid of anachronistic groups like The Black Caucus.....The old organizations have become moribund, corrupt, or defunct." I agree that that groups like the Congressional Black Caucus (and I'd include the NAACP, Urban League, et. al) have become old and have reach their peek. But, again, I don't think we should be in the business of including others in our cause. I conuld be wrong but I think we have been tyring this game for a long time and I don't think its worked all that well. Inspite of ourselves, we have, and continue to be, the most inclusive group in America. I think its time be more politically and strategically selfish in our cause.

"...I think we have been far too inclusive to them for far too long with little return."

"...I think we have been tyring this game for a long time and I don't think its worked all that well. Inspite of ourselves, we have, and continue to be, the most inclusive group in America. I think its time be more politically and strategically selfish in our cause."

~

I'll confess to struggling in trying to follow your train of thought.

In an urban area, maybe that holds true. How does your scenario play out in suburban and rural areas?

Does this mean the whole black populace move to one self-sufficient strong hold somewhere?

(..When you say 'far too inclusive' what exactly does that mean? I don't think you're exactly espousing actions like moving to Liberia, or something like that, are you?)

My thinking has always been that a big part of the struggle to this day is to have minority businesses, academics, athletes, entertainers and just plain old everyday people to get recognized beyond their immediate culture, no?

Or are you saying that we need to view things from a more pre-integration model?

(Again, I may not be even remotely following you at all...)

If you have the time, please expound on how you envision becoming more politically and strategically selfish

I'm genuinely curious to know what I'm missing out on in your perspective...

I understand your point, Clone.

That said, some of what mainstream America accepts as truth is just plain false or ignores plain facts. The forced labor of black peoples didn't end until the 50s. The last family didn't gain their freedom until the 60s.

Unequal educational opportunities still exist. "Deliberate speed" for some states meant schools weren't integrated until the 70s.

Then let's talk about FHA loans that were given to whites and not blacks. Let's talk about red-lining.

The sins weren't committed "generations ago." To the extent that some sins are not illegal, it was hardly one generation ago that they ended. The truth is, individuals working, living, and studying today have benefitted in tangible ways from past and present racism. Your method of making the issue one of giving people a second chance no matter who they are will work. That I don't doubt. But until we deal with truth and facts, racism will just find another way to manifest itselt and limit the opportunities of people of color.

Osiris - I for one have no doubts about white people's ability to maintain white supremacy no matter the demographic make-up. But there are some ways that racism hurts white people the same way sexism hurts men. That's not to say racism doesn't give real and tangible benefits to white people. That's just to say that there are some drawbacks that aren't so real and tangible.

That said, some of what mainstream America accepts as truth is just plain false or ignores plain facts.

Common sense as regards Black folks is wrong.

Back to agitation, I think my problem with it is that it has become a publicist's tool as well as a political tool, and it's getting harder to tell one from the other.

I guess "publicist's tool" is my "as free of connotations as possible" version of the second motivation Spence listed.