|
Discussion and Debate>
Join in on a strand below or start a new strand.
Page:
1
2
Barack Obama
Jorge
72 posts
Feb 12, 2007
5:27 PM
|
I'm interested to hear what everyone in this forum thinks of Obama's ambitions. What say you, fellow savvy people?
Last Edited on 12-Feb-2007 5:28 PM
|
JB
1552 posts
Feb 13, 2007
7:24 AM
|
Jorge,
I wholeheartedly intend to give this a thoghtful response when things let up a bit. For now I will just say it is refreshing! Early on it was easy to be smitten with him, but in some ways he has played it so, so much safer then I wish. I very much like the person who emerged in his book, and one upshot is that he would send the world a very different message...
More soon....
I hope others chime in. I haven't been pushing this forum here in NYC, so hopefully our old LA friends will come by. However, should any New Yorkers stumble upon it, or Englanders (HELLO ME), then please share your questions and thoughts.
|
me.
1132 posts
Feb 23, 2007
3:46 AM
|
I've been busy. Plus I've lost interest in american politics. I wouldn't stand for months on end
in a shop trying to choose between two identical packs of butter with different labels, so I don't want to do it politically.
I don't even watch television now.
I'm reading:
Open society and its enemies (Popper, critical)
Open society and the open philosophy (cornforth, reply to above)
Marx engels lenin on dialectical materialism. (progress)
Soviet philiosophy today (gustav wetter, critical)
the evolution of dialectical materialism (critical)
Simpsons comic "extravaganza" (groening)
How to win friends and influence people (carnegie)
Fruitful!
Now I know where all the american misconceptions and opposition to progress have come from - "open society and its enemies".
Bye
|
jopaku
179 posts
Feb 23, 2007
4:54 PM
|
"How To Win Friends and Influence People"?
Having a hard time recruiting for the revolution?
I too have given up on American politics. I am thinking of expatriating.
Forget about all that junk you've been reading.
A couple of books to read,
on foreign policy, "Death of the West" by Patrick J. Buchanan
on world economics, "Eat The Rich", by P.J. O'Rourke
Let me know when you're finished, I'll give you a couple more.
|
me.
1133 posts
Feb 24, 2007
4:18 AM
|
I was only joking, YOU CRAZY FOOL!
Here's two books you should read:
-My country, right or wrong, by Adolf Hitler
-Capitalism and freedom, by milton friedman (penname of adolf hitler)
Banzai!
|
JB
1554 posts
Feb 25, 2007
9:02 AM
|
Haha; how funny to see you two in your usual form after such a dry period...
|
Jorge
73 posts
Mar 05, 2007
5:40 PM
|
Haha, that WAS funny.
|
Heather
1 post
Mar 11, 2007
8:32 AM
|
I'm also curious what people think about obama. I like him. Refreshing, exciting, full of promise for our tired nation. I think he'll do well in the debates, not because he has such great ideas so much as he sounds so genuine when he speaks.
What would it mean for America to have a president named "Obama"?
|
jopaku
180 posts
Mar 11, 2007
4:40 PM
|
I almost feel bad for Barack. I think he is being set up to be easy prey for Hillary. It was a big deal for him to make it to the Senate, and now after just a few short uneventful years there,he is being pushed towards running for something that he has no chance of winning.
Every liberal in the country is looking at him as "the Great American Liberal", when they have very little to base that on. He just seems so empty and hollow, sort of like John Kerry. He is riding on a wave of vapid adulation, that is likely to fade as more attention is paid to him.
I would like to see him win the nomination, because it would mean certain victory for the Republicans, although looking at the current crop of candidates there, I wouldn't exactly be proud of it.
I think the left would probably be just as happy if he won the nomination and lost the presidency.
They would not have the responsibility of leadership, and they would get to call us a racist nation.
|
jopaku
181 posts
Mar 11, 2007
5:04 PM
|
I have to add, that I recently came across the line "vapid adulation is really just obsequious self praise."
It was in a text that had nothing at all to do with Barack, or politics, for that matter, but it did make me think of him.
When Senator Biden recently got in trouble for saying something to the effect of Barack being articulate and clean enough for mainstream America, he was basically saying that he was homogenized and watered down enough to the point where white americans can feel safe voting for him.
I think he is so popular because it gives everybody the chance to feel good about "not being a racist" by voting for the black guy who "seems like" a white guy.
Last Edited on 16-Mar-2007 4:25 PM
|
JB
1555 posts
Mar 11, 2007
5:10 PM
|
If you have read his books or reviewed his pre-senate work on poverty and civil rights, it is pretty clear that Barack Obama is not vapid.
Though I will grant jopaku this: Obama seems to be playing it safe and watered down, and therefore maybe a little insincere -- like a long string of Democrats before him. Kerry and Edwards really might have been genuinely vapid, while Gore and Clinton are tragedies. By this I mean Gore should have been brave about his convictions when it was most critical and never conceded. And Clinton should have been an actual liberal and an actual reformer ('cause he's damn smart, if not in his personal life.)
I hope Barack Obama gains strength and doesn't let himself be overly managed and realizes this is the moment to take risks.
Sadly, I found both Clinton and Obama's speeches down South stilted and, sorry to say it (especially hers) embarrassing. People want authenticity; not you to mimic who you think they are, or what they want to hear.
Well, many people (she stubbornly hopes...)
But some optimism: If Barack Obama can utilize the substance I believe he is capable of conveying -- and if he is does not pull a Kerry/Gore -- he may be the exact antidote America needs.
And we need it oh so very bad.
|
JB
1556 posts
Mar 11, 2007
5:14 PM
|
Sadly, jopaku, I also think there is some truth in your second post. But a part of me says, SO WHAT. IF he is an actual global thinker who helps us break are monolithic ideas about race and identity, GREAT. That's what we need most. Everywhere.
And don't forget people, unlike Clinton, Barack Obama had the foresight to vote against the invasion/war. That shit was so clear as day in many of our views, as old threads reveal, that his stance is a major litmus test in my view.
Jo, I suspect, does not agree!
|
jopaku
182 posts
Mar 11, 2007
5:29 PM
|
If you want to consider his pre-Senate work, it's like taking a small time local state legislator and putting him in the national spotlight and expecting him to know what to do. If he had more time in the Senate, perhaps he would have the confidence enough to call his own shots. It is almost like a movie. To me he comes across as a puppet.
With that being said, I really don't have anything against, personally. Even if he is sincere, idealogically I disagree with him.
I think you are giving Gore too much credit. How do you know how he truly feels?
I remember supporting him in the 88 primaries, back when I was young, and naive, largely because he ran as a conservative democrat. Do you remember Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa?
|
JB
1557 posts
Mar 12, 2007
6:00 AM
|
Yeah, man, I was for Frank Zappa and Prince all the way!!! Was not a Tipper fan, that is for sure!
But Gore's record does show a long, often confrontational, activist commitment to the environment. It was clearly a crusade for many decades, though he whimped out with Clinton and I give him no credit for that or for not challenging your man (is he still your man?) in Florida.
So Gore's crusade is revitalized. Hopefully out of sincerity and passion, though frankly the sincerity is less important to me than whether or not it has an impact.
There is not much else more important out there. All the other issues depend on having a sustainable planet to live on. And you can be sure I will show and discuss Invonvenient Truth in class.
Now that we live closer, you can come, and if you want, be a foil!
|
jopaku
183 posts
Mar 12, 2007
6:10 AM
|
I actually live even closer now. I just moved to the Bronx.
I'll have to take a pass on the film, but I am sure you will be fair and balanced!
|
me.
1143 posts
Mar 12, 2007
8:43 AM
|
America is a racist nation. (jopaku). I got a travel guide today, from 1959. It's called
"JIM CROW GUIDE TO THE USA"
Dozens of US states enacted laws in which marriage between "negroes, orientals, indians" you name it and whites were criminal offences. Then something like 90% of the housing stock in some counties would have occupancy clauses attached to buyer and sellers. This meant that a non-white couldn't move into a white area.
In 1949 the federal courts FINALLY ruled that no local court could enforce these agreements.
that's the tip of your racist iceberg. Or should that be "whiteberg".
To claim that america is not racist is tragically deluded.
The people who were alive in the 1960's as teenagers are running the country now. They were racist then. They were more than that, they were uber-nazis.
What's changed that they should not be now?
The blacks are still poor (and therefore despise-able)
The mexicans and puertos are still illegal
The indians are still drunk and destroyed as a nation
Nothing whatsoever has changed in America, except that most of the non-white-trash now feel a need to cover their tracks.
Sorry!
|
me.
1144 posts
Mar 12, 2007
8:49 AM
|
Barack Obama:
What I did notice is none of us have posted any 'policies' that Obama would pursue.
Isn't this the problem?
It doesn't matter if a black or a woman becomes president, s/he will still be answerable to the same FAT STUPID UGLY RACIST CORRUPT PERVERTED white fellas who surround Bush, who surrounded clinton, dole, kennedy... the whole damned lot since washington (his excellency) created the dictatorship role of the president.
Stop living in hope, start changing what has so far remained unchanged: the power of property deeds over your people. America had a "revolution" and a "civil war against the slavers" once. But you wouldn't know it.
|
me.
1145 posts
Mar 12, 2007
8:50 AM
|
Easier said than done
Why bother
Revolution will only end in dictatorship
Hello- it already did!
|
jopaku
184 posts
Mar 12, 2007
9:04 AM
|
How did you come up with the profile for a 60's american teenager?
A case could probably be made that they were the least racist generation to come along.
Oh, I get it, George Bush was a teenager in the 60's.
A racist teenager from the 60's is now running the country.
You will probably write another book length response to try and defend your ridiculous comment, but now there is no need.
Let me do your editing in the future. I can sum up everything you have to say in just one or two lines.
And if you plan on doing some traveling, I suggest you buy a guide from this century.
|
Jorge
74 posts
Mar 12, 2007
3:57 PM
|
Wow, there is still a lot of cynicism going around, I see.
To *me.* I say: without hope, we're lost! We all might as well just turn into greedy warmongers and start fighting each other to the death.
To jopaku, I say that the fact that you are uncomfortable with Obama on "ideological" terms bodes well for him as a candidate.
I've always thought fondly of this board because you two guys are a good example of the kind of political debate that *should* be taking place more often.
Yet, as before, I think your refusal to differentiate between political ideology and governing policy is what ends up crippling a healthy dialogue. Blind adherence to your ideology has no place whatsoever in the crafting of effective policy. You've always seemed suspicious (sometimes downright derisive) of what is called a middle ground, when in reality striving towards a compromise is often what makes the most sense.
I like Obama because he strikes the right balance of idealism and pragmatism to give me faith that his policies will aim primarily at being the most effective for the most people possible. Visionary leaders instinctively understand the need for a "split view" of the world, balancing what is with what could be. What could be cannot be achieved without first addressing, understanding and changing what truly is. I see that kind of intellectual honesty in Obama, and I have yet to see it in Clinton. So far, I am also not aware of any Republican candidate emerging who even comes close to possessing that quality.
I'll repeat what I've been using often when defending Obama's lack of "experience." In the end, the Presidency is earned, not learned. What we should look for is a coherent plan of action during the campaign, a sense for the direction in which the candidate intends his or her leadership to take the policies of government, and let the details sort themselves out as the campaign matures.
So far, Obama has the most appealing direction for US policy. He's unapologetically liberal, yet his record on the lower state houses and the Senate points to him understanding the wisdom of not being crippled by his own ideology.
|
Heather
2 posts
Mar 13, 2007
2:07 AM
|
I think Obama is a good idea in part because America is racist. Because of that, he'll have to do something to win the Republicans that already instictively hate him. He has to moderate enough to make up for his heritage. How many Liberals would dare to announce the intention of mixing politics and religion?
Besides that, America is completely charmed by him almost the same way we were by Bush. As a purely symbolic figure, he's what we want and what we need. He's the opposite of Bush, whom we're all fed up with, and comes off as noble, trustworthy, and ready to "save" America. Who cares about his policies? We're already so screwed up that it's going to take someone better than who we're being offered.
And purely because he wants to bring Americans home from Iraq, I think he's worthy of the role.
I know, a idealistic and pretty ridiculous way of assessing the person that we have president for the next four years, but I've lost hope in a real leader emerging anytime soon.
|
me.
1146 posts
Mar 13, 2007
6:20 AM
|
Jopaku - This is how you misquote me. Is it deliberate? I contend that the 'president' is not the one running the country, it's the same bunch of UGLY FAT RACISTS who used to run it under clinton, under reagan etc etc.
Take it *literally*! Henry Kissinger. Donald Rumsfeld. All of Bush the firsts "advisors", all the Israeli lobby.
LITERALLY its the same bunch of pro-SouthAfrican apartheidists, pro-Israeli segregationists, pro-confederate segregationists IN PERSON who tell the president WHAT to think, WHAT is possible.
And then he says: "Gee guys, well if you really think, that then I guess we've no choice but to invade Eeraq! Shucks! Now watch this drive!"
But you say that I say the opposite of this. That the president is a lone dictator rather than a dictator surrounded by "advisers". I guess you better not edit for me after all, because I wouldn't be shocked if, after your 'editing' I should come up, after all, supporting racism!
|
me.
1147 posts
Mar 13, 2007
6:31 AM
|
I'd like Obama to win. I'd like any good american to win.
But would that *in itself* make a difference? It would not.
The same advisors are there, the same local segregationists are there, who used to be campaigners as teenagers for the two pro-segregationist parties, who are now senators and congressmen.
You cannot change a man by giving him a new haircut, though it might be a contributing factor in an overall plan to change him. Nor can you change a genocidal system like american invasionism by changing a single man at the top.
I'm not opposed to compromise. I'm just opposed to:
-compromising without the other side conceeding anything
-compromising due to a lack of particularised objectives (i.e. policy - still haven't heard any)
-compromise due to people playing boths sides of the fence (i.e. not representing workers consistently.), playing it safe. Those who play it safe before becoming president, may thereby become president. But if they get there by compromise because its easier, then when in office they may find it 'easier' more expedient to *go on* compromising even when there is no need to, and they could make a stand.
When the rot in a windowframe or someone's leg or a tree is TOTAL then some consideration must be given to getting a new one, getting rid of the old one altogether.
You can't replace such things bit by bit.
Is this wrong? Maybe I misunderstand. I want to know.
|
me.
1148 posts
Mar 13, 2007
6:48 AM
|
Jorge: you, JB and heather give me 'hope'. But that's not really what I meant: of course you should have hope.
It's false hope I'm on about, where what can be done is not done. This is often the cause of disappointment, not 'trying and then failing'.
Last Edited on 13-Mar-2007 7:05 AM
|
Jorge
75 posts
Mar 13, 2007
11:54 AM
|
me.: It seems to me that what bothers you most is the cesspool of DC bureaucracy, and I agree wholeheartedly with you on that. There is a certain kind of person that stomachs all kinds of compromises that come their way, and lose themselves as they climb the bureaucratic ladder. They have a way of festering around for decades and returning to government like a bad rash (ahem, Rumsfeld and Cheney). These kind of people are attracted to power for its own sake, and they will do anything to keep it for themselves and their cronies. (See also most corporate executives.)
However, there is another kind of person that is attracted to politics, a person with the goal of public service. Granted, this person is also attracted to power, but they pursue it with a desire to enact change. This second type is also able to stomach all kinds of compromises (politics is a dirty game), but they do so with the purpose of serving a greater good. This type of person possesses a special mix of idealism and pragmatism, blending a passion for making things better with the gumption to get their hands dirty yet come out clean.
I think Obama is cut in that mold. So far he has shown inklings of an ability to hit back hard and fast at anything that gets thrown his way (recently with the whole David Geffen scrap), yet do it in a way that elevates the nasty game into a kind of political jiujitsu performance we can actually enjoy watching. Yes, he is a natural politician, but one that comes from the ranks of workers and understands the plight of the middle class - a HUGE difference from W.
|
jopaku
185 posts
Mar 13, 2007
2:56 PM
|
"ME", I didn't see your other posts until after I sent mine in. As far as my editing eventually turning you into a racist, I've always thought your attitude towards minorities was patronizing. We've both expressed similiar views on immigration in our countries, but you feel it's acceptable for you to do so because it is eastern europeans flooding your job market with cheap labor. But that's another post, for another time.
Jorge, speaking as the only moderate on this board, or at least the closest we come to having one here, I think you are sending mixed messages.
Do you want a more liberal government, or do you want a new government?
Remember, before you opt for the "ME" plan, which is to take away all freedoms and give everyone a job at the widget factory, the first to lose are always the artists.
Art is just another form of dissent, so that would have to go. Even if it is government approved non political art, it causes people to think, to dream, to aspire.
I also would not condemn capitalism as greed. The guy that wants to open his own restaurant is not doing out of greed. Even if he wants to expand to 2, 3, 4,even 50, that's an inborn desire, the same as an artist may have. The guy on the assembly line who spends his lunch time working on developing a new and improved widget, would also suffer. That is the true evil of communism, it's a suppression of desire and creativity.
So vote for Obama. Hopefully I'll have someone that I can feel comfortable voting for, but "ME" is right. It is not going to change the system. Whether your candidate wins or mine, the changes will be subtle, at best. But that is probably a good thing.
|
Jorge
76 posts
Mar 13, 2007
4:08 PM
|
Jopaku wrote:
"Whether your candidate wins or mine, the changes will be subtle, at best. But that is probably a good thing."
Worthwhile changes usually are subtle. Subtly ending a war that was incredibly dumb to begin with would be a great start! ;)
And I can't vote for Obama. I am only a permanent resident in the US, not a citizen. I am an evil immigrant sent here to steal jobs from US Americans. Not only that, but I am politically aware and inciting my citizen friends to get out and vote, too! Boogah-boogah-boogah-boogah... 8-)
But to speak to your point about mixed messages, I don't think they're mixed at all. I think it is possible to elect someone who brings about real changes in the way politics work in Washington. Minor example about why I think Obama is committed to change: he stopped using private corporate jets provided by lobbyists for his travel when he co-sponsored a bill about campaign finance reform. One of his staffers called him on the not so subtle hipocrisy (I'm sure the staffer didn't use those exact terms, I'm paraphrasing) of taking a private jet to and from his home state when trying to pass legislation that limits the ability of lobbyists to influence lawmakers. Small, yes, but significant. What if every member of Congress did the same thing, hmm?
|
JB
1558 posts
Mar 13, 2007
10:06 PM
|
We've never had a utopia, and likely never will, but change happens all the time. Eighty-seven years ago I couldn't have voted or pursued my professional goals and, horrifyingly, my son might have been living in the cruel aftermath of that vile American/British/etc. atrocity called African slavery.
Change happens. And yeah ME, there IS still sexism and racism (and all kinds of other bigotries), both socially and institutionally. That said, I'd rather be fighting them NOW, as I regularly try to in some small way, then to be subjected to them in broader and far more violent forms back then.
My grandmother turns 95 in two weeks! Do the math. How old was she when women could vote? But when she grew up, she voted her ass off. So change happens. But it only happens because some people believe it is possible.
I believe ME thinks change is possible, but through a model of violent revolution. As we have discussed ad nauseum, I think that is the last resort. But realistically, change usually has to happen at EVERY level: peacefully and through agitation. Inside the system and outside of it. Consciousness-raising and action-taking. None of these are futile.
As for Barack Obama, I’m not going to idealize him. But I’m perched on hope. And I'm damn happy he is here for several reasons: what he represents symbolically, his global views and experiences, his anti-war stance when it was still unpopular-- and his ability to speak with more complexity then most politicians in those two silly monolith parties. May he not suffer the fate of his over-managed predecessors and peers!
Now Jorge. I both admire and chuckle when you frame yourself as a moderate. In American rhetoric, a moderate is usually someone who doesn't want to rock the boat, who may not be "conservative" in the colloquial sense, but not necessarily a person who feels more than lukewarm passion for social justice.
(Yeah, some self-proclaimed moderates will say the term merely means they are not “extreme” and look at “both sides.” We can go there later. But back to Jorge.)
So, Jorge my friend. Yes, you are sane and well-reasoned and understand negotiation. You may hold back for the sake of civility (and I mean that in the best sense.) You may be a realist. But you are also an idealist. In my experiences with you, I have seen a passionate global thinker, who is keenly aware of the natural tensions between individuals and institutions. So instead of calling yourself a "moderate" (or maybe just jopaku did that?), how about we call you HUMANITARIAN WITH GOOD CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, HEALTHY HOPE and, heck, INTEGRITY? Would that be okay? Would you object?
|
JB
1562 posts
Mar 13, 2007
10:18 PM
|
Just posting again to get this up top!
|
me.
1149 posts
Mar 15, 2007
7:00 AM
|
Me. thinks change is possible through violent revolution, JB Says.
It's not me who says it. the people who say such things include
Malcolm X
Sitting Bull et al.
Muhammed Ali
People you might come across if you have a look through this here website.
You can't have revolution without evolution. And evolution turns into stagnation without revolution.
America, politically is wholly stagnant. This is because it has reached a point where something needs to be done about the effects of capitalism, the necessary effects
(Unemployment, drug abuse, ghettoisation, genocide, segregation, waste, foreign invasionism etc)
But nothing has been done.
"Evolution" - a chicken lays an egg. Inside the egg, the embryo continues to develop into a chick. It doesn't "just happen", it is gradual. This evolution is necessary.
At some point, the evolution has come to a head. The chick must cast off its egg shell and become an animal. This is revolution.
The evolution (development) must be allowed to happen. You can't smash an unripe egg open and get a chick. EQUALLY, and this is the bit american liberals forget - YOU!- at some point what is old and hindering must be cast off.
Revolution- sudden change of Quality from quantity changes.
The liberal wants the chicken to emerge without smashing the egg.
Go figure that they get nowhere then!
|
JB
1563 posts
Mar 15, 2007
9:40 AM
|
We talked about this too many times in the past, but as a refresher I know my Macolm X and Sitting Bull and a fair amount of Ali too. They saw violence as a last resort, chose more often than not to use other means, and X did not believe in it at all by the time he died. I think Ali does not advocate violence now. Sitting Bull famously resisted nonviolently after Liltte Big Horm.
In fact, all three practiced overt form of Civil Disobedience. And I would assume a smart guy such as youself would have read more than footnotes, and have seen more than movies, so you should know that.
But, again, I will sadly relent, there may be times violence, symbolic or real, is a necessary last resort. I understand why American Indians and the Zapatistas had to defend themselves, and more people should have done what Nat Turner did.
My ACTUAL point, which I said clearly, is that social change, to be effective -- and not reproduce the same old patriarchal hierarchal violent system -- needs to happens on MANY fronts and MANY levels.
Last Edited on 15-Mar-2007 9:49 AM
|
JB
1564 posts
Mar 15, 2007
9:45 AM
|
And I agree we need revolution for evolution. I believe that like some people believe in God or Gold. Hell, I talk, think, read, and teach about this every day.
There are many tactics for revolution, and violence is only one of many that has *sometimes* been effective. But, sadly, it usually begets worse problems, or the same problems with different characters.
But instead of going through all this again (especially since I felt in the past you twist and bastardize what I say), perhaps, we can just refer to an old link. Unless you have something new. Unless you can wrap your mind about what I am actully saying and not misrepresent it.
Last Edited on 15-Mar-2007 10:00 AM
|
JB
1565 posts
Mar 15, 2007
9:56 AM
|
Liberals get nowhere? How did apartheid end? Slavery? Voting rights? Peace treaties? Just because American has had a string of loser Democrats who conservatives call liberals, does not mean liberals get nowhere.
And I did not say that liberals have corrected all wrongs and we are not still royally fucked innumeral areas. So don't go there.
Actually, you are probably defining liberalism in a very different way than I am.
And if I'm a liberal, which is fine by me, what are you? A fundamentalist?
p.s. I may sound prickly but am glad to have you back!
|
JB
1566 posts
Mar 15, 2007
1:21 PM
|
Perhaps I was a wee bit cranky this morning. The reality is for social change we do need people urging for dramatic fundamentalist overthrows, like ME. We need negotiators and articulaters, like Jorge. We need people who champion civil disobedience and non-violent revolution, like moi. We need activist artists, like Civilian. We need jopaku's to provoke and delight us. We need johndarklighter's to occasionally throw us curve-balls out of the blue. We need Marxist intellectuals like DPS's, wherever the heck he is (I know where he is, but he isn't on this board....)
Ah yes, feeling the balance, feeling very Buddhist now. Obviously, I need some coffee.
|
me.
1150 posts
Mar 19, 2007
6:31 AM
|
Yes everyone has something to contribute.
With regard to apartheid, mandela was arrested and held for decades for 'terrorism'. The south african government wasn't scared of him nor the vast multitudes of white liberals in south africa. (I still like them, I'm not attacking them, they're good people!)
But they were scared of communists. So they banned the communist party, and tortured them and their black friends to death in prisons. Meanwhile "non-violence" slinkered on decade after decade after long decade in censored silence.
Why tell a man that is being attacked that the best way to defend himself is to submit to his attacker? Confuscius said (murkins are fond of quotes, so:) "If you reward violence with kindness, with what will you reward kindness?"
When malcolm x talked of a black revolution, he contrasted it with what he called the "negro revolution".
He said "a revolution is bloody. A revolution is hostile. i'm tellin ya ya don't know what a revolution is..."
He defines it: "The land*less* against the land*lords*"
Obviously, X would class a liberal revolution as a "negro revolution".
He said of the negro revolution that its the only kind where "the aim... is a desegregated lunch column, a desegregated the-atre, a desegregated toilet - you can sit on a toilet next to a white man! (laughter from audience)"
So malcolm was a man who felt that violence was necessary. Not the be-all, but certainly, to advocate apriori against it was a great crime in his eyes.
Malcolm talked of having to defend King and his negroes when they marched in southern states. King, like ghandi, walked about oblivious to the fact that if it wasn't for people keeping certain hostile others in check, he wouldn't have been able to preach 'non-violence' for very long. Innit funny how all the non-violence men end up getting killed by pro-government supporters *anyway*!
JB said:"...X did not believe in it [violence] at all by the time he died." ... 'died' - don't you mean murdered? Violence sure believed in him - perhaps he should not have let his guard down!
"If you reward violence with kindness, with what will you reward kindness?"
And finally, here's what sitting bull said about the US government (great white father):
I never taught my people to trust Americans.
I have told them the truth - that the Americans are great liars.
I have never dealt with the Americans. Why should I?
The land belonged to my people.
[New York Herald, November 16, 1877]
What do you think? Sound like a reconciled man?
Bye!
Last Edited on 19-Mar-2007 7:59 AM
|
me.
1151 posts
Mar 19, 2007
7:51 AM
|
Next question:
How did slavery end?
The short answer is that it hadn't really ended in the united states of freeworld until the 1980's. Slavery went from being where one man has the right to tell one negro what to do and how to be, to the even worse state of all white men being able to tell all negroes collectively!
In other words, america passed from Primitive Greek Style slavery to a Primitive Indian Style caste system.
I'm impressed (!)
But even then, It hadn't ended in missouri until 1995, because the ratification of the appropriate ammendment "slipped their minds!" It hasn't ended in the United states biggest allies, Israel (the apartheid wall-no voting rights for palestinians in jewish state elections- i.e. 'seperate development'!), Saudi arabia (1962 legally abolished, yet still actually continues) and finally south africa. I was on the train the other day when I heard a south african talking about the indian train conductor.
He said, in his big Baaastidly Uglee Eck-sent:
"That Kaffir gayve me the wrong Teekit!"
I see south africa has changed enormously(!)
Secondclass citizenship continues.
Of this I'm sure you are painfully aware, or will perhaps become aware, when your son comes to choosing colleges.
Unless of course he is well spoken and not *too* black, such that like the 'fresh prince's' cousin Carlton, he will be grudgingly accepted as an honorary white man.
Here is the only condition upon which Race-based slavery can end, as also spotted by malcolm X and the 1930 report of the USSR on slavery in the USA (among others):
THOSE WHO HAVE NO HOMELAND CAN NOT BE FREE!
The proposal of both the communists and the black nationalists is the tens of millions of blacks who were enslaved in the United states of freedom, should in the southern states, have their own homelands, and in the north should join with their white worker counterparts.
In the north this means Liberalism (fair enough!)
But in the south this means Liberationism (revolt!)
Last Edited on 19-Mar-2007 7:55 AM
|
me.
1152 posts
Mar 19, 2007
8:08 AM
|
So is obama going to free the negroes of the south by proposing a black homeland
Is he going to make the blacks of the north into firstclass citizens by proposing a united front with poor whites
No
So on that score nothing will change, for blacks at any rate, just because a black man should become president
and nothing can really change either so long as the political inferiority is reproduced in the economic inferiority position of our black brothers and sisters who work for wages, who have no property beyond their dwelling places who are proletarians in a democracy built for Capital. Am I wrong? Can you be unequal economically as a distinctive race or caste, and be equal politically? Looking at "democratic" India or anywhere where a shade of skin-colour can determine your life (brahmins tend to be the whiter aryans, untouchables tend to be the blacker dravidians) we can not find a single example of an economically weak class not also being weak politically. Not never not nowhere. In fact doesn't the word "poor" in most languages reflect this double implication? Poor = not rich and poor = helpless, unfortunate. But there, even the word "unfortunate" literally means unprivileged!
One final question: what would be easier and quicker to achieve - the full equality of blacks and hispanic citizens (not talking illegals here), or a totalitarian race-based dictatorship in which blacks and hispanics are ghettoised and then liquidated?
From this side of the sea, the second is far more likely, if the good working whites do not get start getting serious with the violent bad racist whites. Why? Because all the while SOME people have been asking the blacks to disarm, to march in peace, when their task ought to be *first* to disarm the white racist/nationalist, and then to disarm the black racist/nationalist.
Just opinions- don't get cranky on me, I think you are great really. I'm just being "blunt" and therefore it looks rude, which is not intentional, but it is incidental. Sorry!
Last Edited on 19-Mar-2007 8:17 AM
|
JB
1567 posts
Mar 19, 2007
9:13 AM
|
I like you ME, but you exhaust me. I can't tell if you don't understand what I mean when I talk about civil disobedience and symbolic violence, or if you don't want to understand because of the thrill of debate, or if your convictions make it difficult to read.
At any rate, I'm at work and can't break it down again now, but I will later. I remember years back this almost turned into a second job, but I will do what I can.
I will also tell you about my new hobby of chasing army recruiters aways from Bronx Community College, but that too will have to come later. (It's damn fun though!)
|
jopaku
186 posts
Mar 19, 2007
2:36 PM
|
How can you chase away army recruiters?
Do you think we should not have an army at all?
Or should it only be a white army?
Do you think the average student at BCC is not capable of making the decision to join?
What is the graduation rate at BCC? If someone feels that they are not sure of what they want out of life, but feel they are not going to get it at a community college in the bronx, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to explore other options?
Just because you're against the war?
I have known many people who have been in the military, many of them from my high school, and most of them non-white, and I have yet to meet one single person who regretted it.
It is a public school, if they don't allow recruiters, they should lose all federal financial aid.
You are lucky I am not in congress.
|
jopaku
187 posts
Mar 19, 2007
2:43 PM
|
"ME", Fresh Prince of Belair?
I know you live in a culturally barren wasteland, but watching reruns of really bad american television shows is not the answer.
Why don't you focus on all the arts that have been inspired by communism?
|
jopaku
188 posts
Mar 19, 2007
2:59 PM
|
JB, you are intefering with the civil rights of your students by trying to take away their right to join the military.
Civil disobedience is usually a fascist act.
If you want to bring up MLK, and others like him, it was necessary for them to do so, because they did not have legal rights at the time.
Today civil disobedience just means "I didn't get MY way, and I don't care what others think"
NO one has the right to intefere with the rights of others.
If someone comes on campus to sign up volunteers, why should those who don't want to join have a problem with that?
The fundamentalist left are hardcore fascists that have absolutely no respect for anyone that disagrees with them.
It doesn't matter that they are few in numbers. Everyone else is wrong, and they are always right.
Last Edited on 19-Mar-2007 3:02 PM
|
jopaku
189 posts
Mar 19, 2007
3:17 PM
|
As that "self proclaimed moderate" who you were referring to, what's wrong with not being
extreme, and looking at both sides?
That is the only way to grow. Not just to listen to someone, as some sort of sociological observation, without once thinking "could some of what they are saying be true?"
To have such a rigid outlook, never once wavering, is irresponsible. It makes the rest of us, living in the same world, have to really deal with the problems that need to be dealt with today, in reality, not tomorrow in the abstract. Let us be the bad guys who equivicate and compromise, you can remain pure.
|
jopaku
190 posts
Mar 19, 2007
3:22 PM
|
You know what?
I think I will run for congress. I will run as an Independent Conservative.
Look for me on campus next spring getting my petition signed and recruiting campaign staff.
|
JB
1568 posts
Mar 19, 2007
4:16 PM
|
So. I am off campus talking openly with students and recruiters, offering another perspective, acounter-voice. That, jopaku, is absolutely my civil right, and my chosen calling as an active citizen.
Do you not think I do not have a right to engage, dialog and protest about civic issues that impact people integral in my life, or just fellow humans? If I perceive a social injustice, do I sit silent?
You might take comfort to know the recruiters were not actually on campus, but in front of the gate. Would it be different if they were on campus? Apparently this is ambiguous legally. Would I do the same thing behind the gates? This is a serious question that I am pondering.
If you really can't see why I might find it so profoundly immoral for these guys -- who do not even know what or where Dafur is (truly and literally!) -- to recruit our African immigrant students to potentially kill other people of their own religion, people with whom they might have solidarity, well, then I guess I will have to elaborate after grading my current stacks of papers later in the week.
As for Jorge, you did not understand what I wrote at all. Of course, it is essential to look at multiple views. And he does, thus my compliment. And if I am a liberal, well, that would mean I try to be open-minded and look at multiple views as well. So really, who is the reactionary fundamentalist here?
But I will agree with you that ME has got to update his American culture trvia a bit. Of course, though, he is just being snarky. And at least Brits get to use words like snarky -- a fine word I must say!
|
jopaku
191 posts
Mar 19, 2007
4:33 PM
|
Engaging to persuade is o.k., but if you make any attempt at prevention, that's another story.
Something tells me that 20 years ago(with no war looming)
you would have chased the army off the Bard campus.
Not that you would have had to.
I just discovered that your campus is not in my congressional district, so we don't have to worry about that.
My whole purpose of sticking around these past few years is to change the way you think.
Am I making any progress at all?
|
Jorge
77 posts
Mar 19, 2007
4:58 PM
|
Jopaku wrote:
'As that "self proclaimed moderate" who you were referring to, what's wrong with not being extreme, and looking at both sides?
That is the only way to grow. Not just to listen to someone, as some sort of sociological observation, without once thinking "could some of what they are saying be true?" '
--
Hmm, I get the sense from jopaku's tone that he was trying to take a jab at me, but instead he ended up somewhat clumsily reinforcing my point.
Striving for a middle ground, by definition, *requires* that you look at the extremes on their practical merits (and not their ideological "virtues") to help decide on the best course of action to achieve your stated goals.
Extremes have their place, although it is mostly to prove themselves problematic. Great ideas are initially borne from them, but they generally have to be boiled down to their more universal essence before they can be universally useful.
So don't worry about me, jopaku! I am certainly one to seek out ideas that can help me grow from as many sides as possible. I just don't see that much I can learn from US Conservatism circa 2007 other than how to grapple for power through lies, misrepresentations and deceit. I guess even that is learning through a process of elimination, though, so there you have it.
|
jopaku
192 posts
Mar 19, 2007
5:12 PM
|
Jorge, I was referring to a JB comment, not you.
But you do seem to not be aware that JB, ME, and DPS are extremists.
She may not advocate violence like they do, but they are a wing of her group.
The extreme wing of my group advocate prayer in school, and other "extreme" ideas like that. But nothing violent.
You may try to link them to some Aryan type groups, but they are not only renounced, but actively pursued by law enforcement.
The left never does anything about the peta extremists, or the environmentalists that commit acts of terrorism.
Not only that, they defend acts such as 911, and suicide bombers.
See the difference?
Last Edited on 19-Mar-2007 5:18 PM
|
Jorge
78 posts
Mar 19, 2007
5:35 PM
|
Hmm again, jopaku..
First, even though I just tried *really hard* to imagine an instance in which Julie would come off as an extremist, I failed pretty miserably. It seems as though you're trying to discredit her intense passion and superior intelligence by slapping a scary label onto it. The same goes for the other "radicals" on the board that you mention.
If anything, reducing those who disagree with you to a label is one of the things your "side" has learned to do almost too well in the last 20 years, to their eventual detriment. I definitely would respect Republicans more (okay, only a teensy weensy bit more) if they engaged the debate on its merits, rather than resorting to name-calling as they usually do.
After all, conservatives have historically championed important policy positions liberals seemed to overlook (and viceversa). Granted, all Republicans in power right *now* skipped the lesson on fiscal responsibility and gone haywire with the US of A's credit card, but at some point conservatism had some salient points to make about how to run a government.
And I'm pretty sure law enforcement punishes acts of vandalism (like, say, breaking into a lab and freeing animals used for testing) just as much as it does white supremacist hate groups. It may be more severe with the racists because, well, come on, do you really want me to explain how the two crimes differ in degree?
I think you're being more than a little bit specious in your argument here.
|
jopaku
193 posts
Mar 19, 2007
5:54 PM
|
I don't even think that she would disagree with me calling her an extremist. I think she see's the label as a badge of honor.
What I mean as extremist is being very far to the left of the democratic party.
I mean people like Micheal Moore and Noam Chomsky are off the scale in comparison to every one else.
I would estimate that her views represent maybe, 1 or 2 percent of the nation.
She has never expressed any moderation in her political views, and seems to want to pull you back from your stated desire to seek middle ground.
I think you are letting personalities interfere with your perception.
You like her. She is nice.
But politically she is radical. I am hoping she will jump in and explain it better than I can.
You are also confusing party politics with idealogy.
Don't talk about lies and deceit in this administration without thinking hard and sincerely about the last one.
You can rip apart the Clinton white house without condemning liberals, just as you can do the same with Bush and conservatives. Politics vs. Idealogy
|
jopaku
194 posts
Mar 19, 2007
6:18 PM
|
In the lobby of my building someone put up a flyer on the bulletin board announcing a candlelight vigil somewhere, I guess to protest the war. It is being sponsored by truthout.org (extremist)
What should I do to express my opinion?
What would an act of civil disobedience be in this situation?
I have no doubt that if the flyer was announcing an event that showed support for the president, that flyer would either be taken down, or defaced, in the name of civil disobedience.
Being the law abiding conservative that I am, I won't do anything.
I think the fact that the vigil is being sponsored by truthout makes it worse. I can respect people's stand against the war, but the messenger does matter when a message is given.
It would be like being against affirmative action and attending a klan rally.
I doubt that many (or most) of the people that show up will know anything about truthout. I should probably post information about them next to the flyer.
|
|
|
|
