Class consciousness
 

I think that with the white-supremacist, capitalist society that we live in, any attempt at true social change has to address the class divide. Pres. Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty based on the premise that no one in America could really be free if they were poor. Because of capitalism, choices are constrained by resources. The capitalist class understands this all too well. The problem is that there are things in the mainstream conscience that serve to distract us from this reality, things like arguments about morality (Carl Rove manufactered the Gay Marriage debate in 2003 to literally get Bush re-elected, it worked like a charm) and other symbolic ideologies that serve to do little to begin to address vast economic inequalities. Bro. TonyB06 is correct that the only thing the two parties truly respect is economic power. Notice that with all of the symbolic breakthroughs of the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 and 1965, Dr. King was not assassinated until he himself launched his campaign against poverty. Dr. King noted that the true fight begins when we address the issues of economic equality, because then we have to start talking about the redistribution of wealth, meaning that the capitalist class must give up capital, which will not happen. We see many poor people of color today dying in Iraq to preserve a "way of life" in America predicated on greed, check Bush's speeches after 9-11 and as they invaded Iraq.

The need to develop class consciousness has to begin with honest dialogue about our collective condition, across those racial and class lines, that characterizes that condition in collective economic terms. But , the smokescreen of prejudice disguised as racism always poison's these kinds of discussions. Ultimately, the discussion gets away from the economic realities that so characterize our condition and get focused on questions of "do we like each other?", and "can we all get along?", etc. This is a difficult dialogue to have because even though poor people across racial lines do share in the oppression that comes with being poor in a capitalist society, they don't share in the experience of being black in a white supremacist society. Whites do carry a psychological benefit of merely being white in this country that serves to give them the "benefit of the doubt" in individual incidents as well as a sense of entitlement that comes with being white in America. This clouds how many will see poverty and the collective plight of poor blacks. What this does is fracture any solidarity there could be with poor blacks, unless the "wage of whiteness" is freely acknowledged and accepted by the whites. In order to do this, whiteness must be marked as an advantage, which many poor whites wouldn't accept because they simply see themselves as poor. Race doesn't matter to them because being white gave them no percieved economic advantage. But, race was the basis for the economic oppression of black people upon entering into this country. So, for black people, racial justice is inextricably linked to economic justice. This is not so for poor whites. They (poor whites) see no reason to engage in a collective struggle to overcome poverty, but an individual one. Class consciousness is about collective thinking, which is antithetical to a strictly economic movement in a capitalist society. In capitalist societies, the economic empowerment of one is seen as the disempowerment of another, so somebody has got to loose in order for someone to win (zero-sum gain competition is the chief motivator in capitalistic societies).

If all of this sounds too socialistic for most people, that is because I think we need to have a voice in our community that is critical of capitalism. In the civil rights era, I think we were able to raise the conscience of so many black people because there was more open criticism of capitalism (Dr. King, the Panthers, etc.). Capitalism takes for granted the notion of poverty, that "the poor will always be among us" so to speak. So the motivation is not to end poverty collectively, because that's impossible. You just need to make sure that you are not one of the poor, which fractures any collective movement against poverty. When you have a disproportionate number of black folk who are poor, then a message that questions the necessity and justice of poverty would serve to give people hope. Enigma_AKA talks about motivating people, but if people believe that poverty is justified, deserved and ain't never gonna change, what's the point of trying to change it? When more of the underclass becomes critical of the percieved status quo of poverty and questions the very nature of the widening gap between the haves and the have nots, then we will see people having hope that things can and must get better. But, if our message is simply "how to become better capitalists", then I believe the very nature of capitalist enterprise and competition represents more splintering of our community, and in turn ensures the continued oppression of the underclass and other oppressed peoples in this country.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Re: Class consciousness
 

In a capitalist society, what would you propose we do? Be critical and not participate (do the things neccessary to participate like voting)? Or to participate and eventually become leaders who can, with the resources available, do something about it?

America's economic (socioeconomic) fiber is based upon capitalism---it is entrenched with our identity; gain and how to keep gain. The Cushite, your socialist values aren't that different from what was said in the 60's and 70's, especially with the Black Nationalist Movement. However, we DON'T live in a socialist society; we can be critical of the system and sympathetic towards those most affected by the have-mores (Wilson's underclass--read "When Work Dissapears"; another good one is "Inside/Outside Game"), but in reality, what will that do? Criticism and then what? In 2005, America, as an entity, is not going to go for that. Blacks, as a whole, might not even go for that.

We DO need to become better capitalists in a capitalist society. We are not going to change in the next 5, 10, 15 or even 40 years and become more socialized (unless, of course, the executive, legislative AND maybe even judicial parties are all-the-way-left-leaning Democrats, which I doubt, in the next few years). I'm talking about the NOW! How else will people succeed (in America)? the message you spoke of should be: We can succeed by implementing the neccessary steps towards ensuring growth and a positive realization of the ideals that America was based upon. That means getting an education, foremost, which means grasping the skills that White and many other Americans have one leg up on us. Not neccessarily college, but even certain crucial work skills that will enable us to not be the majority working entry/low level jobs. That's what separates us the MOST. We, overall, don't have the tools to be competitors. Every racial/ethnic group has it's minority of underclass yet our (Black) lower/underclass is the majority of our population.

So, then, since we don't live in Russia, let's EDUCATE our people on the widening gap and to be critical of the capitalist enterprise and competition--how it affects them and why; give US a voice of dissent that can go in and say "Yes, we expect more from you [government]. Enough of us are informed and motivated to see that change happens".

Yes, there will ALWAYS be someone on the bottom; that is the way this system works--if it doesn't work for you [general you, The Cushite ;)], LEAVE! If you don't want to leave/can't leave, make the best of what IS here.
And/Or. Make. Change.

In the meanwhile, it doesn't have to mean that the system MOSTLY affects us because we (are beginning to) let it. Yes, there are poor Whites (a lot of whom are worse off than those in the cities (re:Oprah's investigation into poverty in the US)), but us Blacks are a phenomenom of poverty (race, class and political) who, for many justified reasons, haven't done anything about it. We let the legacies of our ancestors go to t-shirts, cool slogans, and Black History Month celebrations (out of 12 months, many of us only celebrate being us ONLY ONE month)but we forgot our IDENTITY (which is key) and the struggle behind what we have/can have today.

There was THE Civil Rights Movement; we got OUR PEOPLE UNIFIED and a lot of great, instrumental things happened, but now we've taken two steps back, and then we started to wait again. And we're waiting, still, for something to happen. No more waiting, please.

enigma_AKA

Re: Re: Disproportionate poverty= Disproportionate Morality?
 

So, is the problem here an innate DISPROPORTIONATE immorality in the black community, or a lack of resources to mitigate against the bad choices of a PROPORTIONATE population of immoral people in our community? What you see as a lack of moral standards and high immorality, I see as a lack of resources to mitigate against the average immorality of any group of people. What I fear is that we will idolize morality over and above other spiritual principles like justice and love. What you have so brilliantly articulated is what I was saying in my post. Due to the lack of resources, moral choices have different consequences for black people. You seem to be at ease with this reality, but I call this reality unjust and must be checked if we are serious about social change. How can we call for morality if we don't call for justice? Without justice, people don't see the hope that presses us towards morality (Check Jesus' interaction with the adulterous woman).


I tend to disagree that we are not preaching traditional values in our community. Have you been to church in the inner city lately? We shame folks all the time about shackin', makin' babies, and not having good jobs and being responsible. What isn't preached in our churches/community is the necessity of critical thought in our moral strivings. Questions like "Why do we sin?" and " What role does sin play in our lives as it pertains to maintaining our own psychological needs in light of our social condition?" and "What issues actually characterise our social condition the most?" would go a long ways in curbing not only the immorality that is observable, but also the less observable systemic oppression that is in our society. Maybe, many of the immoral choices you note are the result of adverse social conditions, not the cause of the conditions. This is how the cycle of poverty persists, because many of the moral choices are made in response to and are constrained by poverty.

Resources constrain choices. For example, if you are sick and have no money, chances are you will have to make choices about your healthcare that you wouldn't have to make if you had money. You seem to take this as a given and a natural consequence and/or motivator to not be poor. I say that it doesn't have to be this way. No human being should have to decide between eating a meal and getting medication, regardless of how we may feel about how their "moral character" characterized their financial status. There are some things that I thought even the founding fathers of this country agreed were rights given to people by God, regardless of race, class, or creed. One of those things was "Life". Government was instituted in this country to protect everyone's natural rights. But, with the capitalist logic, only capital gives people the "natural right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, if you are poor, then you need to not be poor so that you can choose your medicine, or evacute in the face of a killer storm. If you rely on the government to protect your right to live, then that would be abdicating your responsibility to the government, and only people who are infantile in morals need to be "babysat" by the government. Your God given humanity is not enough to justify valuing you if you don't have money. Poverty in a capitalistic society should not be a moral judgement, but an economic reality. But many times, that economic reality serves to dehumanize the poor in most folks minds. I think that is a crying shame.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Re: Where is the love?
 

I just had to point this statement out. When I read it I just shook my head at how on point I think it is.

Also, with respect to Jesse Peterson, I agree totally with your critique of him. I've seen him on Fox News defending the likes of Bill Bennet and others who have down-right denegrated black people and its disgusting. He makes himself look like a complete idiot, to be honest, and I think something is really wrong with him.

This is a great discussion.

Yes, in actuality most African Americans,when it comes to "hot button" family issues (Gay rights,etc.), can be described as conservative,but they tend not to fall within the ambit of conservatism on other political and economic issues. Much of the resistance to conservatism is the association of this movement, in its most recent incarnation in the Republican Party, with the embrace of Dixiecrats, ex-segregationists and states rights whites and the ascendancy of the Right wing of the Republican Party after the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. Most blacks do not identify with these people. And some of the black poster children of Republican conservatism are backed by white conservative think tanks or advocacy groups. But, in reality, aspects of the conservative movement have much to say to our people:it's plain common sense, just like the recent mission of Bill Cosby, who basically stated openly what we say amongst ourselves all the time. We seem to lose heart when we speak of these matters in the wider culture for fear that it willl play into the hands of racists and those not supportive of the black cause in general. As much as I am uncomfortable with some right wingers, the steady drum beat of "victimization" talk of many traditional black leaders is hard to take also. We desperately need more vociferous conservative and moderate black voices in our political discourse. We need this to help keep our "leadership" honest so that we can have a broader base upon which to envision solutions to our ills and our future development.

"Que Ps Phi 'til the day I die!"

Re: Interesting
 

Exactly. I wonder what the victims of Katrina who supported him think of Bush now?

The religious right only started voting Republican since Reagan. Those same voters loved Carter.

It is currently pushing the Republican party into lavish and disgusting spending coupled with the business of charity, a business our government has no reason to be in.

The Republican party was created on a platform on policy integration - most notably anti-slavery. "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont." Right now, to win votes, it has taken on a large religious constituency.

Summation: The religious right/"evangelicals" is mainly a "liberal" group that has a long history with Dems.

Here is an article on black relations and the Republican party:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=57085

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/o...19gates.html?hp

GUEST COLUMNIST

Swallowing the Elephant
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.

Published: September 19, 2004



he moment when the Republican Party lost black America can be given a date: Oct. 26, 1960. Martin Luther King Jr., arrested in Georgia during a sit-in, had been transferred to a maximum-security prison and sentenced to four months on the chain gang, without bail. As The Times reported, John F. Kennedy called Coretta King, expressing his concern. Richard Nixon didn't.

Advertisement


"It took courage to call my daughter-in-law at a time like this," King's father said about Kennedy at a church rally. "I've got all my votes and I've got a suitcase, and I'm going to take them up there and dump them in his lap." In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower had received nearly 40 percent of the black vote. (I myself sported an "I Like Ike" button in first grade.) In 1960, Nixon received 32 percent. A few years later, as the civil-rights era heated up and the G.O.P. pursued its "Southern strategy," blacks effectively became a one-party constituency.

But at what cost? Speaking to a National Urban League audience in July, President Bush quoted an Illinois legislator's piquant remark that "blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant," and went on to pose a series of questions that black people themselves have been asking: "Does the Democrat party take African-American voters for granted? Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party? How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?"

Of course, such questions have an unspoken corollary: Why support a party that has written you off?

Some black Republicans will tell you that however important the legal reforms of the civil-rights era had been 40 years ago, blacks today will be well served by the party of school reform and faith-based programs, the party of the so-called ownership society. "These are going to be the pillars of the black community," Condoleezza Rice told me. "In my little community in Birmingham, Alabama, in the 50's and 60's, there were black-owned businesses everywhere, and everybody owned their own homes. That made our community strong. We've got to get back to that."

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, says the Republicans' low levels of black support are unhealthy for the party - once the party of Lincoln, after all - and for the African-American community. Part of what's gone wrong, he told me, is that Republicans don't advertise in black media markets. "If the conversation in the community is predominantly Democrat, and we don't make the argument on urban radio and we don't pay attention to the African-American newspapers, and if we don't campaign in the community, then why are we surprised when people don't hear our arguments and don't vote for our candidates?"

What's more, many blacks are evangelical Protestants, and tend to be more conservative than their white counterparts on "social" issues like gay rights and capital punishment. "The Democratic Party is not 90 percent more black friendly than we are," Rove exclaims.

Why, then, are blacks such down-the-line Democrats? My Harvard colleague Michael Dawson, a descendant of a black Democratic congressman from Chicago, agrees with Rove that black people are socially conservative. But the issues they vote on are racial and, especially, economic.

When it comes to race, he points out, parties have multilevel strategies. Republicans can appeal to white moderates by signaling a measure of compassion about problems of race. "On the other hand," Dawson observes, "you can go into places such as Florida and try systematically to disenfranchise poor black votes."

The real watershed, in his view, was the 1980 election. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford tried to build up, and win over, a black middle class; the Reagan team figured they could do better by shutting out the black political establishment and mobilizing white conservatives. "Black elites were shocked to find out that with Reagan and his advisers, there were no longer 'good Negroes' and 'bad Negroes,' " Dawson says.

What the big-tent rhetoric ignores is that a more "black friendly" G.O.P. might pay a price in white support. "The Republicans would lose more white votes than they would gain black votes," Dawson says. And so blacks, as a one-party constituency in a two-party system, get sidelined.

It isn't that the candidates won't call. It's just that they're calling collect.



Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a guest columnist through September. Thomas L. Friedman is on book leave.

-Rudey

I agree with the tenor of Wolfman's post. Whatever people think of Jesse Jackson (my presumption, not Wolfman's) and others sometimes identified as leaders of the "victimization" movement (not my characterization), they have a credibility that resonates still with many black people because they were there, putting it (and their lives) on the line in the middle of the fight, when Black conservatives/moderates were nowhere to be found. Much of the resultant legislation of the 60s/70s came out of these efforts and helped many AfAms feel like they could at least get a foothold on the American dream.

It will take years of "traction"--- both symbolically, and more importantly, tangible ideas that translate into policy initiatives that black people see as credible/embraceable before Republicans can legitimately begin to fight for the black vote in numbers they say they want.

As long as Republicans are seen as a haven for gaffes, like the recent Bill Bennett kill black babies thing, they will lose the symbolism/credibility fight before they even start. Political symbolism (a good faith showing of intention) opens the door for AfAms, or anybody for that matter, to begin taking your policy prescriptions at face value. A good fight about political ideas is always good, but Repubs/conservatives have much more "groundwork" to do to create a climate where this "idea fight" can take place vis-a-vis black folk.

(Notice I haven't said a word about the Democrats. They are fresh out of ideas too, but benefit, IMO, because of the "history of hostility" AfAms have toward Repubs for reasons previously mentioned.)

I also agree with the Henry Louis Gates Jr. column. It's on point.

The problem with Republican conservatives and the Black community, to me, is one of lack of understanding of our sociocultural ethos and the particular political calculus that spells the profile of many African Americans. For instance, Bill Clinton gets it and "we" gush over Bill, even though he basically highjacked Newt Gingriches' 'Contract for America' and really pushed much of what was programmatically significant about it into reality legislatively, when it was to his benefit politically.

And as much as I feel the present Bush administration is in disarray and we are seeing the outcomes of some bad policy decisions and the result of political hybris, the Democratic Party lacks backbone and intellectual capital and is not worthy to lead in any manner at present. Where does that lead us? Je ne sais pas! But we've got to become more sophisticated consumers politically on a national level, while we must hold our African American politicians to a higher standard. We want more than platitudes or promises of more money. We need more progressives and people with a background in the Civil Rights Movement to stand up like Bill Cosby, and we need more thinkers of the same ilk as Orlando Patterson of Harvard, who give us a full-orbed accounting of where we've come from, our challenges from within and without, and solutions which call us to sacrifice for the common good of our people.

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die"

A great thread!!!!!!!
 

"The problem with Republican conservatives and the Black community, to me, is one of lack of understanding of our sociocultural ethos and the particular political calculus that spells the profile of many African Americans. For instance, Bill Clinton gets it and "we" gush over Bill, even though he basically highjacked Newt Gingriches' 'Contract for America' and really pushed much of what was programmatically significant about it into reality legislatively, when it was to his benefit politically. "

I couldn't have said that in better words Wolfman! What we need are new leaders for African Americans. I know that Jesse Jackson, Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton are considered leaders, but I by no means think they are sufficient leaders for African Americans. Only time we seem to ever hear from any of them is if some major tragedy or crisis has happened affecting the african american community.

As a young adult, recent college graduate, and currently pursuing my master's degree, it amazes me that the conservatives control the republican party and the liberals control the democratic party. My friends and myself continually find ourselves frustrated with both political parties, but we would never resort to siding with the conservatives. if we did that would mean going back to caucasian men running the country and holding back minorities and women.

NuThetaNupe-

D'accord! We have to remember what leadership is really about. It's more than being a cheerleader or a rousing speaker; it's also about achieving positive ongoing results as the institutional setting also. Far too often our institutions are plagued by corruption, mismanagement, fiscal malfeasance and dictatorial managerial styles that are centered on control for the benefit of the "leader." Leadership is about serving for the good of the people. Dr. King set a good example in his arena.

One relatively unsung role model is the former Gov. of Virginia, L. Douglas Wilder (an Omega man:)). He ran a tight ship as governor. During his tenure VA was one of the best run states in the nation. Gov. Wilder advocated for all the things we say we believe in but first and foremost he knew he had to do his job. Eminent political scientist Prof. Larry Sabato of UVA said that Wilder is the greatest living governor of VA. Here's the kicker: Before he ran (and was elected!) Mayor of Richmond, he was also interested in serving as president of his Alma Mater, Virginia Union University. He let it be known that if he was chosen to assume this position of leadership, he would "clean house" and make this an efficient, well-run, successful institution. Well, those in power at Virginia Union balked. They didn't want this to occur due to well-entrenched interests. Lesson:We can decry what the "white man" and white conservatives are doing to us all we want but we have to get our houses in order!

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

Sounds like this former Governor from VA was a real class act. What is he doing now? (Just Curious, I have never heard of this guy...probably because I am from Ohio)

i agree that we need someone who is going to be able to do the job and do it the best way. I definitely don't think we should just settle for anything.

As stated in the previous post, L. Douglas Wilder is presently the Mayor of Richmond,VA, the capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have to expect tangible excellence from our "leaders" and hold them accountable to this standard.

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

All yah all have some spinning to do...

A lot of this is spin...

And you can think the "spin stops here" and chit...

But in the end, it does not EVEN MATTER...

You all will prick yourselves and everyone around has been asleep...

And like a thief in the night, our who utamaawazo has been taken out from under us and we then might realize that we are no better than our ancestors as slaves...

I ain't waitin' till massa sez he's redy...

My Glock won't allow me to do that, now...

If you think about it, black America and conservative america have a lot in common. We are both very spiritual. Conservatives believe in small owned businesses and belive federal govt should stay out of the way. Blacks believe in black owned businesses which are usuallly small owned . Blacks also dont want the government teling running their lives.

The difference comes when you starttalking about civil rights and thats bigone. Most conservatives believe in the comcept of puling ones self up by his own bootstraps. They look at federal programs such as welfare and affirmative action as the federal govt taking care of one sect of america and leaving another out. They dont fully understand the whole concept of these programs and most are not open minded enough to try.

I think we more black conservatives need to come forth. I also think we need more blacks in the Republican party becuase we need to be a viable force in both major political parties in order to effect change in the way America views African Americans. We need to inflitrate the GOP just like we did the Democratic establishment during FDR's time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
Constructing A Memorial. Deconstructing Race
Bro. JOSEPH C. PHILLIPS:
(January 26, 2006)

Not too long ago, I wrote about the ongoing effort to build a [memorial for
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the mall in Washington D.C. Since that
writing quite a bit of progress has been made. The senate recently
approved $10 million to begin groundbreaking for the memorial, the Walt
Disney Company has made a sizable donation and George Lucas stepped to the
plate with a personal check for $1 million adding his name to the growing
list of large individual donors that already includes Tommy Hilfiger, and
Bill and Donna Marriott.

Noticeably absent from the list of donors are names like Bill Cosby, Oprah
Winfrey, Bob Johnson, Russell Simmons, Spike Lee, Sean Combs, Al Sharpton,
Jesse Jackson and others.

I am normally the first to support everyone's right to live life as they
wish without fear of an admonition from other members of the "group." For
instance, there is no earthly reason all black folks should be required to
vote for the same candidate, root for the same sports team, or like the
same kind of music. Still, I would be dishonest if I said the absence of
so many prominent black individuals on the role of financial supporters
didn't give me (as Gwen McCrae sang), "a funky sensation." When Tommy
Hilfiger and George Lucas are writing checks in an effort to establish a
memorial for Dr. King while Cosby and Winfrey stand on the sidelines and
watch, something is askew.

I want to make it explicitly clear that I am not calling anyone out or
questioning anyone's philanthropic spirit. The generosity of the Cosbys
and Winfrey is unquestioned. Their charitable spirits have touched
thousands across the country. And when all is said and done, it is their
money. They worked hard for it and they are free to do with it what they
please.

Yet, that funky sensation remains. Are there, in fact, causes that a person
by nature of being black (or any ethnic group for that matter) has a
responsibility to support in the name of "the community"? If left up to
me, all black people in America would donate to sickle cell research, black
cultural institutions like The African American Museum and of course the
building of the King memorial. Yet, I find it a bit of a fascist notion
that one person or group of people can decide how others should spend their
money. Besides, ultimately sickle cell, museums and the memorial are
merely my personal interests, a reflection of my values and preferences
rather than some moral or legal obligation to which all black people should
be bound. I may do better to seek out those that share my beliefs rather
than those that share my race. I suppose one can't have it both ways.
Either we are going to embrace our individualism and the freedom to abandon
the construct of race or we are going to remain in its grasp, always
beholden to someone else's definition of our ethnic selves and by extension
the collective ownership of our time and resources.

Remember that it was Dr. King's call to move beyond race and embrace the
substance of our characters that made him not simply a black hero, but an
American hero. His work uplifted all Americans and built bridges that
transcended race. Dr. King was a man all Americans should celebrate and
any monument ought to rise above expectations built on artificial
constructs and reflect the financial support of a cross section of
Americans.

As of this writing, the foundation needs another $4 million for government
matching funds to kick in. We have momentum and with the continued work of
a lot of people of various races and with shared values, the King memorial
will become a reality.

For more information on the King Memorial go to www.buildthedream.org

Joseph C. Phillips is an actor/writer based in Los Angeles. His column
appears regularly in several newspapers and he is a regular commentator on
News and Notes with Ed Gordon on NPR and has a book due out from Running
Press in April. Contact him at: Joseph@josephcphillips.com

Way to go AKA2D' 91. I totally agree.

mmmm..
 

sounds contradictory to me. he's telling people how to spend their money, but he ISNT?

As far as funding capital campaigns go...

You can just tell the the "endowment administrators" who are usually friends of the "big money people" are NOT friends with the likes of Oprah or Cosby...

Their contact with the publicists and arrangements for making large sum--non-taxable without question giving blank checks to such a capital improvement project may have NEVER gotten to the desks of Oprah or Cosby.

Or maybe these folks missed the fiscal years of apportionment at Harpo, Inc. or whatever Cosby's foundation is called...

I am actively involved in non-profits and I can see from a mile away that the organization implementing the King memorial campaign has yet to know any African American donors or cannot think of any of them who would be willing to donate for reasons previously stated... Dare I say institutionalized racism...

Or, maybe I am wrong... Some of Oprah's foundation guidelines and board of trustees/directors may have just place the King memorial adverstisements for the capital improvement project into the "round file"... So that's why Oprah failed to make a contribution.

But if that were the case, then it sounds like a set up to me to embarass African Americans with philanthropic capability to honor a very famous contributor to the culture of America... Meaning, let these caucasian folks prop money up first because we are beginning the "white-washing" and "deconvoluting" of MLK so that he is acceptable to "Amerikkklan" society for history books...

But that's just my opinion...

Thread has taken some interesting turns
 

Wolfman,
I think your point about Clinton is overlooked by most black people. Mandatory Sentencing came in under Clinton, Welfare reform came in under clinton, The Faith based initiative came in under Clinton. I think Clinton is a master Politician in that he used his "charisma" ( I always call him "Pimpin' ain't dead" Clinton) to really serve the interests of "middle America" (which is really a loaded term for rich Americans and those who aspire to be rich). America uses this greed (read as ambition) to really dupe many middle and working class people into believing in political values that really serve to keep them middle and working class as opposed to actually rising up the socio-economic ladder.

Though I am critical of traditional liberal political philosophy, I don't think the answer lies in conservative politics either. Simply put, at it's core, conservative politics assumes 2 things :
1. That all American Social relations are just as is and therefore,
2. Those who are disadvantaged or marginalized in our society are so because they deserve it, or those who are prosperous in our society deserve their prosperity.

I think that these two factors ignore basic concepts in studying social relationships like history, values, and economics. For Blacks to believe that traditional conservative politics (not "values" but "politics") have some solution to our disproportionate suffering I think shows a lack of understanding of where conservatives are comming from and what they are implying with their rhetoric. Conservative politics preaches that black people are not disciplined enough, not moral enough, not smart enough to succeed in America today, and this is why they find themselves at the bottom of so many socio-economic indicators. I always asks those who claim conservative politics as the answer to the plight of black folks how do they explain the disproportionate poverty and suffering of our people, and inevitably it becomes a question of morality. (I have already hashed put my reasons for disagreeing with that notion in earlier posts).

Simply put, a change in morality , or at least banking on a change in morality, I don't think is a good political/ social philosopy. I am reading Mysticism and Social Change: the Social Witness of Howard Thurman By Emory Prof. Alton Pollard and he notes that Thurman believed that society would change if people embrace an encounter with the "Ultimate" (read God) and from that encounter vowed to live better lives. This in turn would lead to more loving and just social relations, that would in turn transform communities and society. While I agree with the Spiritual and religious ethos of this philosophy, I think that socially and politically, it leaves too much to chance. Religious and Spiritual experience is so subjective and random, that it is no guarentee that people will want to experience it, or even if they do, who's to say that they will leave from it with a desire to do anything socially, politically, or economically different? I have the same issues with the morality schtick as I like to call it. Yes, as spiritual people, we want, and need for people to be more just , moral, and loving in their relationships. But is this sound social policy? Can we fully expect to legislate morality? While I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be considerable debate and conscience raising in our community about our moral selves, the government shouldn't be relying on it as it's chief means to address issues of inequality and discrimination.

The thing that frustrates me the most is that most political conservatives don't come off to me as any more moral or religious that any other poeple. They use morality in order to pacify some and justify vast, immoral disparities in health, wealth, and justice in our society. How come no one ever questions the morality of a society that has a wealth gap the size of America? How come no one ever questions the morality of having $46 billion? What has anyone done in this society to justify having that much money (especially when there are so many in this society that can not meet basic needs)? And do we, as a country founded supposedly on "Christian Principles", exemplify those principles when we justify vast inequalities like we do in the name of "deservedness"? Who derserves to be poor and treated as sub-human? What Would Jesus Do?

Blackwatch!!!!!!

The Cushite-
I do generally agree with your concerns. Spirituality and religion are such ambiguous terms. In a real sense, there is not "traditionless" religion and spirituality. Being a Christian believer means that "faith without works" is dead and everyone who says "Lord,Lord" is not going to enter God's kingdom. Following in the way of Jesus Christ, the religion that is the background and putative ideological support for much conservative thougth, doesn't leave one to simply advocate conventional conservative social thought and palm it off as "Christian." It's Christian if it leads us, in our personal and political life, to order our lives in the way of self-giving love and away from greed, the use of power for personal or group self-aggrandizement, and the abuse of others humans beings, who are created in God's image. This is not a new issue: the apostle Paul expends great energy to teach his disciples in the churches he found that they were not to assimilate their new faith and life within the parameters of Greco-Roman socio-political thought and praxis, from current construals of race/ethnicity/gender to how one curries politcal and social favor in that world based on wealth,power,prestige,etc. Our problem is we've done the same thing and have been rendered practically inable, in many instances, to offer true, effective Christian social and political critiques that are the basis for doing the work of societal renewal. This is just what Dr. King was doing,and there are others like William Stringfellow who set about to articulate a "Christian" social and political critique and vision.

Very interesting and engaging thread....(sorry to join in so late)

I wanted to address the following:

Class is often not addressed in the US in part because any discussion of class naturally lends itself to a critique of capitalism and as others have stated, capitalism is the driving economic force in this country. If we examine capitalism closely, we have to acknowledge that the form of capitalism practiced in the US and elsewhere doesn't promote a truly free market economy if things like race and gender are used as artifical barriers to folks' full participation in the economy. I could get with capitalism and buy the whole free market rhetoric that is often attached to political and social conservatives if people were rewarded based on competence, strong work ethic, high performance. But all of us here know countless examples of how incomptent white men and women are promoted by the virtue of their whiteness and access to the social networks used to move up in a company.

I say all of this to say that when Blacks began actively (1) critiquing capitalism and (2) looking for alternatives in socialism during the 1940's, this caused such a stir among white political leaders that the passports of activists such as Paul Robeson, W.E.B. DuBois and William Patterson of the Civil Rights Congress were revoked. The mere critique of race relations in the United States meant a person was labeled as a socialist and thus meant you were attacking the very fabric of American society - capitalism. Conservatives (and Southern Dixiecrats like George Wallace) have been very protective of capitalism and have used the charge of being a socialist numerous times in order to silence any type discussion about racial discrimination. Domestic anti-communism guided much of the American political scene during the 1940-1960's creating a hysteria such that any group seeking substantive change with regards to civil rights were thought to have conspired with the communists. During the Cold War through the 1960's, discussing civil rights and class was akin to committing treason and lead to charges of radicalism.

So when King because dealing with the issue of poverty, this meant he was preparing to challenge the economic status quo and this created many enemies for King. Old guard Black civil rights activists weren't ready to address the sticky issue of class. Leading marches and rallies to call for the end of police harassment of black folks or to push for the end of segregated schools were one thing but asking whites to give up a portion of their money and resources was an entirely different issue. People often say how they believe in equality and justice (in the abstract), but ask them if they are willing to part with some of earned/unearned wealth and all of the equality talk goes right out the window. The conversation about class fall by the wayside because we're not ready to be taxed or give up some material wealth in order for this equality to be achieved.

Black educational attainment and economic independence scares white business and political leaders (regardless of political affliation) because for capitalism to survive, someone needs to be at the bottom of the food chain. While I am not a socialist by any means, I do believe that capitalism as it is practice in the US is fraught with contradictions. Pull yourself by your bootstraps said Booker T. Washington but for many of our brothers and sisters then and now, the question is what if they don't have any boots?

Yes, we all must work hard and put forth an effort in our schooling and in our jobs. There is no good reason why we shouldn't make an effort to better ourselves but to pretend like barriers don't exist in our pursuit of our education and careers is what drives me batty about some black conservatives. Everybody isn't "playing the race card" or on the victimization gravy train as Ward Connerly likes to claim. Some of us have experienced some serious racist, discriminatory treatment and by labeling folks' willingness to speak out against that treatment is just as bad as having the government revoke passports, ruin folks' careers (ala Robeson) and ignore civil rights abuses by labeling folks as socialist and thus unfit for any real consideration.

Now if black conservatives thought like enigma_AKA, I could stomach them much better. There is nothing wrong with having conservative values or pursuing upward social mobility. I would say I have some conservative beliefs about parenting, importance of education, etc. and I sure didn't put myself into debt earning this Ph.D. without desiring a better standard of living. But to act as if everyone should be where I am negates the fact that we have different skills, abilities, desires and opinions of success. Plus, critiquing the black community without actively being engaged in the uplift of the black community is hypocritical to me. Now if someone showed me proof that Ward Connerly or Thomas Sowell or Alan Keyes did community service in the Black community or helped provide scholarships for Black kids to go to college, I'd be more incline to give them a pass. But for Ward claim that ethnic studies programs (i.e. Black Studies) promote the "balkinization of the nation" without having sat through or taught one of these courses lets me know that he's getting paid to say stuff he really knows nothing about. Criticism without activism is just blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

PhDiva

GET.IT.SAID--LOUD AND CLEAR!!!

The question remains: I know you KNOW, but what are you DOING?

enigma_AKA

For those interested
 

Joseph C. Williams will be appearing in Philadelphia PA on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 5:30 PM at Zanzibar Blue (Broad & Walnut) for a book signing.

Just passing along

do you think that the perception of the republican party has prevented some of us from swinging in that direction? or is that we know innately that there is no party that can truly represent us?

i think most of us have been raised to believe that the democratic party is the only real option for us, right or wrong and unfortunately most of us are not going to invest the effort to find out if what we are following is leading us where we really need to go. times change and we as a people need to change as well, we need to constantly reevaluate our positions and priorities.

throwing us a few bones every now and then and popping up in our churches during election time is not good enough. ideally we should have both parties working hard for our votes, it should never be a given that a party will get the black vote, that way they don't take us for granted.

also i don't think any one party can truly represent all of us all the time because we are too diverse of a people. the priorities of a black business owner are not going to be the same as a low income burger king employee. we do share commonalities but at the end of the day, it will come down to what is best for you and your family.