I think its fair to say that we already have a "black platform". Regardless of personall affiliation, everyone seems to agree on those areas that we need to tackle, such as the lack of familial units, education, etc.

Again its the "how" we choose to tackle these problems that lies at the heart of the issue. Its the "how" that makes a "Black party" difficult to formulate and really get organized into a force of radical social change.

enigma_AKA, I just wanted to say you should run for office. :)

Bro. Cushite, excellent analysis on the traditional values point. After all, black folk have fought, bled and died in every war this nation has ever fought, and despite the institutional hurdles of history and the present, many adhere to the capitalistic/democratic system. I douby you'll find a more loyal group of people in the nation. Besides, "traditional" values are neither "black" nor "white." They just are.

I have to get off the train, however, on the 3rd party tip. The two party system is too well entrenched in this country, IMO. The system (legis/exec/judicial branches of gov't) is designed to retard radical change in the social order. Politically, we'd do better building primary and generational wealth (which is ultimately what both the Republican and Democratic parties respect) and building grassroots political/economic coalitions around regional issues of commonality and making both parties take notice, and fight for our votes.

...by the way how many credit hours are we earning for this thread? :cool:

Better yet, why isn't C-Span covering this discussion? :confused:

:cool: :D

Credit Hours---I heard THAT!!
 

...especially since a girl is trying to graduate next semester...double major WITH a minor IN four years, okay!!??!!! :D

Honeykiss1974, you are right, there IS a Black platform. However, the political alignment of parties won't allow for a non-extremist conservative/liberal to hold the torch for Blacks and/or to support THAT platform (a senstivity to historical issues while addressing the 'now' matters). Extremists (tools like Alan Keyes--what a tactless so-and-so :rolleyes: !) sell. Middle men/women like myself and others on this board don't. We don't sell because the parties themselves have become represented by the extremists and Americans (at least the voting ones) have taken their cues and gone with it. The rest of those who aren't straight ticket Democrat or Republican either don't vote or just go with the one that is most influential at the time/at that place.

Also, the 'how' is THE key factor in this debate. When working on a political campaign a few years ago in Detroit/Highland Park (anyone from there can understand it), I was thinking, as many people do, 'Why won't these/we (constituents of the respective areas) people vote? How hard can it be?', until I realized every other woman/man I asked to register/attend the education classes offered at the community college/high school told me:

A) I have to work. I already don't get paid enough so I have to take on more hours, etc
B) I have to find someone to watch my kid(s). My mom/grandmother/sister/aunt/whatever cannot because they have to work/already watching someone else's.
C) Don't care.
D) All of the above

So then, I realized there needs to be an option or a voice that speaks to all of the above responses. Because you have to--this affects you the most! And once I got over my fear, my hurt and dissapointment, I told them that. A lot weren't receptive, but after a while, I was talking who those who were willing to listen, who heard what I had to say and were wiling to make a change. Not just in the immediate now, but in the future.

Simply put: there needs to be more of ME'S ;) and less of Keyes!! Lol--but seriously, though. Let's motivate! Let's teach instead of preach! We already know how people (i.e. the more vocal and influential ones) are 'fottin' up handling things so we don't need to beat that dead horse. We need to figure out how many ways to motivate...it won't take ONE thing; it might take many. But however long it needs to take, it needs to be done..

But we all need to be on the same page...I might write a manifesto--I tend to be good at long rambling posts; surely I could come up with SOMETHIN' or at least nothing short of a dissertation!!

---Man, midterms are kickin' my BUTT!!:( At least there is somewhere for me to vent to people who *hopefull* read and maybe understand where I'm coming from...

enigma_AKA

PS--Sistermadly, I might run for office if they actually did something in Detroit. I am pursuing Public Adminstration---I wanna control the funds!! Put them somewhere useful, instead of in Kwame Kilpatrick's (oops, did i type that aloud!) wallet!

Disproportionate poverty= Disproportionate Morality?
 

Enigma-AKA,

I don't think that Min. Farakahn, myself, or "Black Liberals" who see through the smokescreen of the conservative "Immorality schtick" are excusing the detrimental moral choices of anybody. Having babies too soon and out of wedlock would be detrimental to any population of people , but moreso to that population that doesn't have the social capital, fiscal resources, and institutional supports that comes with being middle class and white in America. The immorality=poverty arguement falls short on a variety of levels:


1. It assumes that the only source of poverty is personal choice. It tends to ignore or discount things like generational poverty and systemic barriers such as disproportionate incarceration of black men, inadequate access to healthcare and education, etc., which are more highly correlated with poverty than premarital sex and spending habits.

2. It also assumes that people who are not poor are more morally sound. All we have to do is look at the private lives of many of the "rich and famous" and we can see that the only thing that separates the social circumstance of many of the rich and many of the poor are resources, not character. You have good rich people and good poor people, if you equate good with making empowering (rather than destructive) moral choices. You also have bad rich people and bad poor people. The question that we as black people have to ask is do we truly have justice in our country if everybody's moral choices don't have the same moral consequences due to unequal resource distribution? Money seems to cover up many character flaws.

3. The most eggregious assertment that comes from the "Immorality Schtick" is that it seems to explain the disproportionate numbers of black people who find ourselves at the bottom of every single social and economic indicator by assuming that Black folk are just disproportionately immoral. I find it intrigung that , considering the history of this nation's treatment of black folks, and the moral resolve that black folks have demonstrated in the face of that treatment, that many want to lecture black people on morality. It's as if the social circumstance of black people is due to some kind of innate moral defect (like the curse of Ham myth). The only thing that has cursed black people has been the systemic destruction of our cultural, historical, psychic and moral selves due to hundreds of years of systemic oppression.

As black people, of course we hold ourselves to a high moral standards, because immorality under any circumstance is not only destructive, but just simply not right. But high morality without just relationships and a just society creates a pacified people rather than empowered one. You end up with a morally upright people who still find themselves at the bottom of every social indicator. Changing the morality of the oppressed without addressing the morality of the larger society doesn't change the larger society. In fact, it further entrenches the notion of inherent, justifiable inequality because the oppressed become satisfied with their own morality, rather than seeking a moral and just society. As we hold ourselves to high moral standards, we need to hold the government, the nation, and everybody to the highest of all moral standards, JUSTICE!!!!!!

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Not to muddy the waters here...
 

But could we talk about class issues in this discussion? Specifically, using class as a way to bridge the racial gap in politics? I'm interested in hearing (reading) people's thoughts on this.

It's interesting to me that right before Dr. King died that he started addressing poverty (and class) issues, but it seems that most of the thinkers/social activists/politicians in the United States were quick to let this issue fall by the wayside. I'm of the mind that if we could get a cross-racial/cross-cultural coaltion together to address the ways in which class affects people's personal choices, morality, and yes, their access to resources, we might actually begin to make some headway.

Thoughts?

Related News Story
 

From the Washington Post:

A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 13, 2005; 3:09 PM

In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

Story is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nation/special

Interesting
 

That article is very interesting. I doubt that his approval rating is actually that low with african americans. I would say that he probably is at a 10 percent but i guess anything is possible. I never really like those polls cause I don't know anyone that is ever contacted by these people. I wonder how they find them?

Anyways, I am personnally tired of hearing about Bush's poll numbers being so low. The majority of Americans voted for the man and now you all have to deal with him. I knew he would be bad that's why i didn't vote for him.

Re: Disproportionate poverty= Disproportionate Morality?
 

The Cushite,

Are we holding ourselves to that so-called moral standard now, though?

For one thing, to quote a friend of mine, "WE can't do what THEY do" or basically, when we don't go to school, when we don't settle down and have lot of babies, when we glorify lifestyles not becoming of men and women of character, WE aren't able to rely on family for financial and monetary support; WE cannot claim legacy to get into schools; WE are not close enough to resources that would enable us to have a better quality of life (i.e. Whites who are poor, with the exception of a few, live relatively close to middle/upper class areas, allowing them better schooling, better access to healthcare, more examples of success versus Blacks, who oftentimes concentrated in the urban areas, do not have access to these things) so we, systematically haven't been able to take use of advantages unavailable to us.

With 'White Flight', Industrial Movement (Frostbelt to the Sunbelt, in particular), and 'Public Welfare Programs' (this includes what we know as welfare, public housing, etc), Blacks haven't had the opportunity like some to even be motivated to do better. And then the cycle of destruction perpetuates itself. What to do about it? We aren't morally unsound; we are confused, misguided and misprioritized (is that a word--if not, I made it up!)

Why aren't there more eligible, accountable men available? They are any or a few of the following:
a) Doing whatever they can to get by
b) Incarcerated
c) Uneducated--disallowing them the advantages to seek better job opportunities (I don't knock a McJob, but many of our men are still there at 35, 45, 50 and so on? How CAN they be expected to do anymore than just get by?)
d) Unwilling to want more. I don't mean that they are like "Fot it; I like being disenfranchised/in poverty/etc,", it's that they are not MOTIVATED by people, serving as good role models and examples, of ways to do right (go to school, make a career, earn a REAL, legitimate living).

Women with many children/out of wedlock probably (any one or more of the following):

a) Came from a family (matriarchal) where it was expected/not looked down upon to have a child at 15/no male present (I mean husband, NOT a 'baby daddy')
b) Not educated on the reasons why developmentally, economically and socially, having a male/female counterpart is condusive to child development
c) Don't think it's a bad thing to have sex without adequate protection
d) Unwilling to expect more than what they see perpetuated in their daily lives.

And THIS is the base of that: why don't we say "No, you don't have to have sex! You are not a dog in heat---and if you feel so compelled to behave as such, USE a CONDOM!" Free clinics are begging people to use them but, 'It doesn't feel right with a condom' or 'He says if I use one then I don't love him/trust him'. Where are the men (getting back to traditional values) who are upholding that 'No, as a Black man, this is what I expect and this is what I do' --Laurence Fishburn in 'Boyz in the Hood' (was that it?)-esque man? He's in the suburbs, married with 2.5 children, and more often than not, trying to escape the reality he USED to know and not EDUCATE those left behind.

Morality IS at the base of this argument--the moral decay is prevelant in all of American society. You can argue that we might believe in a certain moral standard, but you cannot prove that we are all are actually living it/believing in it. All these things I've mentioned before aren't factors specific to the Black community; but the fact is that something is wrong and it doesn't affect other people like it affects us. Plain and simple.

It is not our job to look down upon anyone who is living these situations; it is not our job to spout conspiracy theories and exact to-the-t the historical reasons behind the current situations of many Blacks; it helps to know all the reasons why, but it is, more importantly, our job to help promote change.

Additionally, you are absolutely correct: we do need to hold ourselves and the government accountable. But they aren't going to babysit us and we can't rely on them to do EVERYTHING. There are advantages to having the federal government as impassioned as we are about effecting change, but if they aren't going to be about it, then we HAVE to be. Even if they are willing to commit to helping US out, we STILL need to be the ones to uphold the standards and expectations. there are resources and people made for this type of stuff; tap into what is here.

enigma_AKA

~~~Sidenote: ^^^That's what being a Black Greek is supposed to be about. Aside from strolling, calling and sponsoring step shows, we need to be about promoting change. And that's what most of us are about---so keep up the good work, us!! ;)

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!"