Prometheus 6

*pulling up a ringside seat*

this is where DW gets to show us his chops, right?  cuz i'd sho lak to heah a reasoned, intelligible response to this piece from a reliable informant. 

I don't experience any such fear CP.  I work and live in a context where white people are in the minority, and get along fine.

Jensen is free to discuss his own fears of course, but his experience and mine (and those I know well) just don't much match.  Maybe it's because we're not from the South.

There is one exception.  Jensen offers a story of interaction with black academics, and says:

In that particular moment, for a white academic on an O.J. panel, my fear was of being exposed as a fraud or some kind of closet racist. Even if I thought I knew what I was talking about and was being appropriately anti-racist in my analysis, I was afraid that some lingering trace of racism would show through, and that my black colleague would identify it for all in the room to see.

I do think this is a generally applicable fear of white people in such a context. 

I work and live in a context where white people are in the minority, and get along fine.

I recall that's because you don't speak to them about your race issues. Afraid you'll lose friends.

sorry for the snarky comment, DW. 

seriously, i'm asking you for a reflective moment.  do any of Jensen's explanations ring true - why or why not?  the explanation you offer (being in a geographical location where whites are a minority) does little to explain your interior thought processes...and kinda makes me feel like you're blowing me (us) off.

"Are non-white people capable of doing to us the barbaric things we have done to them?"

Reverse racism from a black collective? Absolutely not. Our experience with antiblack racism has only deepened our humanity and our belief in the oneness of human beings. During the worst period of the 19th century, when scientific racists like Samuel George Morton, Josiah Clark Nott, George Robin Glidden and Louis Agassiz advanced the theory of polygenesis which held that African people were a sub-human species that had evolved seperately, black activists like Frederick Douglass spoke truth to power to uphold the unity of humankind.

African Americans have always recognized and accepted diversity as a basic reality of human existence. Within our families we see humanity in all its variegated manifestations. We understand our family trees have Native American and European roots commingled with our deep African roots. We also understand our sick "white" brothers and sisters better than they understand us or themselves. We understand their guilt and fear and how it manifests as hatred. Those that hate us do so often because we remind them constantly of their inhumanity. But the fate of "white" people is in their own hands. Not ours.

do any of Jensen's explanations ring true - why or why not? the explanation you offer (being in a geographical location where whites are a minority) does little to explain your interior thought processes...and kinda makes me feel like you're blowing me (us) off.

That's why I went back and read the entire article.

I'm not sure why P6 picked the imagined fear of being the minority to cite, but it does seem relevant to reply that the counter-experience (actually living as a minority) works fine.

As to fear of losing privilege, I can tell you that I never experienced having racial privilege. Never. Doesn't mean I'm claiming that I didn't benefit from being white. It does mean that one can't fear losing something which one doesn't actually feel one has. Since I've been posting here I've come to be more aware of white privilege, but it's still very abstract, something which doesn't apply to me or in my context.

The reality of California is that racial issues are not black and white. There's the three "successful" races (mongoloid, Indian, and caucasian). You can find many upscale neighborhoods and professionally oriented companies formed with no majority among these three. They mix almost effortlessly. This collection is one side of the racial divide, and includes some Mexicans. However, most Mexicans and African Americans are on the other side of the divide.

So being white in this context does not grant one any more privilege than being Chinese. I can't actually identify any privilege at all, but the racial divide surely exists, and is well understood by pretty much everyone, so presumably some people in some contexts react differently based on which side you're on.

I recall that's because you don't speak to them about your race issues. Afraid you'll lose friends.

Among Chinese, Indian, and whites race issues can be readily discussed, even readily joked about with no fear. Mexicans are usually open to discuss racial issues. The race discussion stress is between me and blacks.

I think my experience with PT illustrates what goes wrong. In truth, I have come to value PT in my life; I'm more than willing to avoid saying things which would cause him to break away from me. I value PT's insights on music far more than I value reading my own political opinion. But PT interprets my analysis of the Bennett affair as an insult which is at odds with friendship. I think I've worked through how that went from PT's perspective, but there was just no way I would have anticipated that reaction ahead of time. Except that I knew it was possible or even likely for that kind of thing to go wrong.

Among Chinese, Indian, and whites race issues can be readily discussed, even readily joked about with no fear.

That's beause they're honorary whites.

The reason white folks have problems with Black folks is that we are the ones you define yourselves against. And America has always brought in more immigrants and slid them in the space between Black and white folks.

You are the authors of your own discomfort.  

You are the authors of your own discomfort.

Do you see this as a good thing?

Or something which could and should be chipped away at, with the aim that it will eventually go away entirely?

Oh, I picked that particular point to quote in honor of Lou Dobbs and all his fans.

You are the authors of your own discomfort.

Do you see this as a good thing?

I see it as a fact.

Or something which could and should be chipped away at, with the aim that it will eventually go away entirely?

Depends on who you expect to do the chipping. Nah my yob, mon... 

As to fear of losing privilege, I can tell you that I never experienced having racial privilege. Never.  Doesn't mean I'm claiming that I didn't benefit from being white.  It does mean that one can't fear losing something which one doesn't actually feel one has.  Since I've been posting here I've come to be more aware of white privilege, but it's still very abstract, something which doesn't apply to me or in my context.

This is the crux of your response, to me at least.  i'm amazed (kinda) that it is possible to live a "life unexamined" such as you seem to be experiencing.  If nothing else, i would argue that the fact that you can intellectually acknowledge privilege yet refuse to critically examine the ways in which you might have benefited from it is itself a privileged position. Although you superficially note the (outdated) racial classifications of the people you identify with, do you actually consider white to be a race?  If so, how would you delineate the position whites hold in American society and culture?

The question i want to ask, then:  the book you proposed to P6 - why would someone like you read it?  Such a book would call for a radical re-envisioning of one's socioecological niche.  What's the point of writing such a tome if the main person who asked for it doesn't appear to be interested in  making the psychological and political investment necessary to actually becoming  anti-racist?

sidebar:  at this point, i would identify you as a WMwP:  Well Meaning white Person.  Such whites are especially dangerous because they consider themselves to be 'comfortable' with minorities but rarely consider the condescension they demonstrate during their interactions with minorities or understand the angry reactions they inevitably encounter from those interactions.

An Anti-racist, however, would be aware of the privileges and benefits they accrue from their skin color.  the best ones don't point this out all the time; instead, they avoid taking for granted conditions which appear to be "common sense" based on their own life experiences. 

Such a book would call for a radical re-envisioning of one's socioecological niche.

That's not the book he asked me to consider. He suggested something along the lines of a tourist's phrase book in form, but with depth. Your Negro Tour Guide would be the ideal title, but I believe it's taken.

code switch

DW thinks a book modeling successful resolutions of racially "difficult" situations from both sides of the situation would

1. help people understand successful resolution is possible through a reasoned approach to the other
2. give them a starting point and direction in which to travel

Sheeeeeit.

you don't think that's pretty radical for someone coming from DW's position?  the idea that they even HAVE to negotiate racially difficult situations rather than just cruising through the red light knowing they won't get a ticket?

(sorry for the mixed metaphor...) 

a book modeling successful resolutions of racially "difficult" situations from both sides of the situation

Wouldn't the desire for such a book be evidence of what Jensen's talking about?

Jensen sounds like my man Thomas Jefferson. Y'all are to be commended for your patience at such engagements. It is a testament to your faith. CP makes some excellent points and paints a clear picture to me. Nonetheless, I can see how certain folks do not get it. I can also see how they might not ever come to an understanding of it. Still, I am fairly clear that if the material conditions were different (or reversed if you prefer), they'd understand almost instantaneously. But, no matter. Privilege allows architects to plead ignorance just as easily as inheritors. It must be some fun game for these folks who meander through live's unexamined. Ignorance is bliss - and so if lying without getting checked on it in a way that matters. And in this material world - the only things that matter are paychecks and ass-kicks. Neither get handed out on blogs - and so, the myths persist. Fables make the world go round.

as an addendum...check out some of the straight white supremacist blogs and read the comments about white folk in south africa and zimbabwe. even those who are less strident always understood white boer demands that mandela renounce violence. the us state department embraced that idea...so did american liberals. it's why white folks can get with william styron's depiction of nat turner - rather than an authentic representation. it's why king is in the school curriculum and malcolm x is not and why garvey is not and why dubois is not and why fanon is not and why lumumba is not and why martin delany is not. in any event, white folks are clear about acceptable black heroes...wanna empty a room in a hurry - talk about the importance of teaching our children about our freedom fighters - no colin powell's - throw in a denmark vesey and bring it forward with a george jackson. hmmm. all that nonsense that folks are kicking right now falls to earth - where it belongs. it's entirely unsuitable discourse for men and women who profess to be engaging in an honest, forthright conversation.

folks are crystal clear about this stuff. harboring illusions is for children and hotties. after all, it's why the indians americans are talking about now originate from a place half way around the world. red been dead (mostly) - long time.

Neither get handed out on blogs - and so, the myths persist.

Sad but true. Online discussions, disputes, whatever, are like battles between true immortals...neither can be forced to stop.

Years back I gave careful thought to what deliverables are possible online. Came down to information and support (each quality can hold positive and negative values). 

I think ConPermiso made a good point:

the fact that you can intellectually acknowledge privilege yet refuse to critically examine the ways in which you might have benefited from it is itself a privileged position

For a lot of us white people, everyday life doesn't demand a comparison of what we have compared to others, or an examination of our place in the social scheme. We live in a world where most of the people around us have the same privileges, benefits, and opportunities we have. Freedom from constant reminders of difference is indeed a position of privilege.

It's that very freedom from reminders that can make some people blind to those differences, to the point of denying their existence.

"Freedom from constant reminders of difference is indeed a position of privilege. It's that very freedom from reminders that can make some people blind to those differences, to the point of denying their existence."

Can the brother get an "AMEN" from the amen corner?

Astutely observed, eloquently stated.

DW thinks a book modeling successful resolutions of racially "difficult" situations from both sides of the situation would

1. help people understand successful resolution is possible through a reasoned approach to the other
2. give them a starting point and direction in which to travel

I like it.

i would argue that the fact that you can intellectually acknowledge privilege yet refuse to critically examine the ways in which you might have benefited from it is itself a privileged position. Although you superficially note the (outdated) racial classifications of the people you identify with, do you actually consider white to be a race? If so, how would you delineate the position whites hold in American society and culture?

So let's consider an abstract country, CP.

In this country, at time 0, there exist only white people. That's it.

Q: do those white people enjoy white privilege?

50 years after time 0, black people immigrate. By year 51 black people make up 10% of the population. The black people are treated as American blacks are treated in 2005.

Q: have the 90% white people gained privilege?

do you actually consider white to be a race?  If so, how would you delineate the position whites hold in American society and culture?

I consider white to be a race, but race doesn't suggest very many valid generalizations. 

I observe whites to be overrepresented in positions of power, but underrepresented in various cultural spaces. 

at this point, i would identify you as a WMwP: Well Meaning white Person.

Ok. I mean well.

Such whites are especially dangerous because they consider themselves to be 'comfortable' with minorities ...

I thank y'all for protecting me from that particular delusion. I'm in very good hands.

drogas, drogas, drogas!!

i'm not sure of how to properly answer this question.  you have removed all historical, political, cultural, and social context in order to build a 'logical' argument, but that removal makes this exercise pointless (for me) in terms of the current discussion.  i'm going to try to work thru your example, but i think a discussion of privilege is really the best place to start. 

How exactly are you defining white privilege?  i've been working from the Peggy McIntosh definition, where she calls it "an invisible knapsack of unearned assets that confers dominance".  For example, a governmental policy of denying mortgages to Blacks results in largely homogeneous communities of middle class whites.  These whites don't "see" their being able to obtain a mortgage as privilege, although they may understand that owning a home is the surest route to middle class prosperity.  with me?  there are a bunch of other examples i could use, but let's just call privilege "immunities and rights inaccessible to others"  

let me see if i can work my way thru this (bear with me - i'm no T3, Ourstorian, or cnulan): in the American context, "whiteness" is predicated primarily upon a semiotic opposition (i would say fear, but i'm going to stay away from that for now) to "blackness".  so in countries without black people, how do you construct "whiteness" or "white people"?  wouldn't they assume a national identity (e.g., the Irish) and simply be "This Country-ans"?

moreover, why would they treat immigrants the way "American blacks are treated in 2005" without having prior experience/myths/cultural artifacts about "black" people?  your "abstraction" has real, unarticulated properties underlying its premise: equating social status with phenotype/culture, discriminatory exercises of power based on that social status, and a naturalistic assumption about the way "American blacks are treated in 2005".

so you've basically articulated a neo-liberal version of American history - the same one that gets pimped under MLK's name and words. that's not an abstraction, is it?

Finally, there's a huge difference between "immigration" and "n!gga get on that boat!".  i'm just sayin.

(Note:  i'm posting this "as-is" because i have to leave my innanet connect.  i'll try to edit later.  feel free to Ginsu the hell out of it until then).

Q: have the 90% white people gained privilege?

The answer depends on where you're standing. "Privilege" is relative. In your hypothetical country, an individual white person could easily notice no change in his own circumstances, and because of that, say that he hadn't gained privilege.

On the other hand, if you ask one of the newly immigrated, "Who has privilege?" I don't think you'll be surprised when they say: "white folks."

The white citizens of your hypothetical country have gained a "privilege" that is perceived most readily by those who don't share it.

That sounds familiar to me.

so in countries without black people, how do you construct "whiteness" or "white people"?  wouldn't they assume a national identity (e.g., the Irish) and simply be "This Country-ans"?

I would think so, CP, yes.

What is "normal"?.  (where normal is, among other things, "unprivileged")

Is it normal to be black, and white people are privileged?

Or is it normal to be white, and the entry of a black person into the room doesn't create privilege?

How one will answer that (as QB nicely states)  depends on whether you're black or whether you're white. We're back to an example where we experience an equation differently.

"The gulf" is not created solely by the differing experiences.  The gulf is created by differing experiences combined with an expectation that the experiences are the same.

Thus, a black person observes a white person enjoying privilege.  The white person doesn't experience anything different, privilege wise, when a black person is around as compared to when there are no black people around.  The black person, observing that enjoyment, asks the white person "hey, what did you do to deserve that privilege?".  The white person, experiencing no such privilege, says "huh? Are you paranoid? Black people get more privilege than white people these days".  And the black person is now pissed.  He's encountered a white person who seems to be dishonest. The white person experiences a seriously confused black, a black willing to act as a malcontent on the basis of that confusion.

Note, we're not discussing the facts of the matter here. At least for this discussion, let's agree that blacks are at a disadvantage.  We're discussing experiences.  I don't experience privilege over black people. I do now get it that a black person experiences me enjoying an unearned privilege, but that knowledge does not, and I don't think ever will, create in me the experience of enjoying privilege.

I don't experience privilege over black people.

Let me try to tweak that a little, DW, and see if it still sounds right to you.

"I don't experience privilege relative to my immediate environment."

Where "experience" means "perceive" or "become aware of."

At the same time, the difference between your societal opportunities and those of black citizens is very real. There is privilege.

given the tenor of the conversation, it occurs that folks simply may not have the historical frame of reference to discuss "privilege" - unearned or otherwise. i mean, isn't the prevailing assumption about native americans that they were simply in the way of progress - and needed to get bumped off - and while they might not be better off for it, the rest of the world is - and that's an acceptable trade off. moreover, america extended the olive branch of acculturation and were largely rejected. today, the government and americans are not to blame for alcoholism on reservations. it's really just a sad story where there is no one to blame. i think this is the level of understanding that is reflected in the last few posts. after all, whether or not you reside in a locale formerly held by displaced indians, how could you perceive such a thing? they're not there. the place names have been changed. so, what's the point? it's a done deal.

DW thinks a book modeling successful resolutions of racially "difficult" situations from both sides of the situation would /p>

1. help people understand successful resolution is possible through a reasoned approach to the other
2. give them a starting point and direction in which to travel

I like it.

I wasn't joking when I said it could be written.

Such whites are especially dangerous because they consider themselves to be 'comfortable' with minorities ...

I thank y'all for protecting me from that particular delusion. I'm in very good hands.

At the same time, the difference between your societal opportunities and those of black citizens is very real. There is privilege.

I don't disagree with that QB.

i mean, isn't the prevailing assumption about native americans that they were simply in the way of progress - and needed to get bumped off - and while they might not be better off for it, the rest of the world is - and that's an acceptable trade off.

One can see what you're aiming at there T3, but I don't think that's a correct analysis. It's overly civilized, eh?

The primary point of the analysis is that the first inhabitants of the western hemisphere could not defend the territory against the invaders.

I wasn't joking when I said it could be written.

I wasn't joking when I said you're the right person to write it.

It's got to be real. 

dws...the primary point of the analysis from your perspective is that teh first inhabitants of the western hemisphere could not defend the territory against "the invaders." i would suggest there are two other factors, at least, that are at the heart of the discussion. first, given the stated value system of "the invaders," the first inhabitants should not have had to defend the territory at all. second, "the invaders" have a much closer-organic-genetic-connected-rootedness to white folk than such language might suggest. you could change "the invaders" to "our mothers and fathers" or something more familial. by the way, i am not approaching this from a moral perspective. i am not of the mind that the privilege of white folk is unearned or should be conceded without a fight...after all, it came at the edge of a gun - so why would it be surrendered at the end of anything less. the introduction of morality flows from western doubletalk - and since it's not my own, i don't lean on it.

"in the American context, "whiteness" is predicated primarily upon a semiotic opposition (i would say fear, but i'm going to stay away from that for now) to "blackness".  so in countries without black people, how do you construct "whiteness" or "white people"?  wouldn't they assume a national identity (e.g., the Irish) and simply be "This Country-ans"?"

CP raises a crucial question about the construction of "white" identity that points to its own resolution. How do you construct whiteness or white people without a black referent? You do so with any other "other" that happens to be handy. In other words, those with whom you are familiar and with whom you differ in matters of language, religion, custom supply the lexicon and concepts of "difference" that constitute the buidling blocks of your own identity. The mechanism, process and content for defining yourself in relation or even opposition to "them" is already present (say in the formulation "low country Irish" versus "highland Irish" or some such). The distinctions that already exist (especially if the identity-forming process is one of opposition) then lend themselves readily to application to any other "others" subsequently encountered.

I contend Moorish Spain was a crucial laboratory in the invention of "whiteness." And that the "white" identity that emerged after the Reconquest of Spain (especially the fall of Grenada in 1492) had been shaped and nurtured in the conflict between Islam and Christianity. Much of the construction of "blackness" that supplied critical elements in the formation of white identity came into Europe via the Arabs and Islam. Arab ethnographers of the era did much to create and disseminate the negative sterotypes of African peoples that eventually cohered to form the central tenets and beliefs of racist ideology.

Although the rhetoric expressed by Arabic ethnographers went a long way in laying the foundation for the emergence of modern racist thought, Muslim scholars, unlike their later Euro-American counterparts, never developed the concept of polygenesis (the theory that “blacks” evolved separately) to explain the purported savagery and barbarism of Africans. Their strict adherence to the Qur’anic teachings that all humans descended from a single soul prevented them from questioning the underlying unity of the human family. Yet, what Arabic writers like Al-Idrisi, Said al-Andalusi, Ibn Khaldun, Al-Masudi, Ibn Battuta, Ibn al-Faqih, Nasiri al-Din Tutsi and others said about “blacks” could provide a primer for Racism 101, and did, in a sense, for the masses of literate Muslims and non-Muslims educated in the Islamic world.

Arabic ethnographic discourse was disseminated throughout the Islamic empire in the form of adab—urbane secular Arabic writing that included history, geography and popular literature. According to Al-Azmeh, a contemporary Arab scholar, “Adab was the means of cultivating a common cultural identity, and the mirror-image of this identity and its shades, which was barbarism in its many gradations, was a mode in which exclusion buttressed and sharpened the social boundaries of a reflexive culture." What Al-Azmeh benignly refers to as “the social boundaries of a reflexive culture,” barely describes the religious ideology and ethnocentric ethos that dictated and governed the social constructions of “self” and “other” in Islamic society. Through the literary vehicle of adab, Arabic writers popularized and institutionalized stereotypic notions of “black” barbarity that eventually became widely adopted tropoi in Western literature. Arabic ethnography infiltrated European thought through the internationally renowned centers of learning in Moorish Spain. The translation and dissemination of Arabic ethnographic discourse throughout Europe from the widely studied and imitated corpus of Arabic literature provided the intellectual foundation and impetus for the development of antiblack racism and Eurocentrism in the late medieval and early modern eras.

So, those folks from Europe extrapolated all of the negative "qualities" they had previously associated with "other" to those others they encountered first in nearby regions, next in Muslim Europe, and then in Africa. Religious wars and the trade in African slaves thus gave impetus to the founding and grounding of "whiteness" and "white" identity. Later, as "blackness" was commodified in the massive European expansion into the so-called New World, Euro-American thinkers tried to place their colonial policies on a scientific foundation and the pseudo-science of biological race was invented.

How do you construct whiteness or white people without a black referent? You do so with any other "other" that happens to be handy. In other words, those with whom you are familiar and with whom you differ in matters of language, religion, custom supply the lexicon and concepts of "difference" that constitute the buidling blocks of your own identity. The mechanism, process and content for defining yourself in relation or even opposition to "them" is already present (say in the formulation "low country Irish" versus "highland Irish" or some such). The distinctions that already exist (especially if the identity-forming process is one of opposition) then lend themselves readily to application to any other "others" subsequently encountered.

I agree with the concept here O.  Any large body of people will by nature identify preferred characteristics.  Frequently those preferred characteristics will be whims of birth (unearned).  People with those characteristics will enjoy whatever benefit falls from the preference.

What we can observe however is that it's broader than "whiteness".  It might not be racial at all.  Racial preference is a particular form of a broader phenomenom.

Thus, we cannot say that our abstract Ireland had created "whiteness".  We can say they had created privilege.  We can say that the privilege works similar to racial preference in America. But it would be incorrect  to dub all such privilege "whiteness". 

A concise example of a privileged class are the European royalty.  We wouldn't describe them as "extremely white".

Nicely done O.

Consideration of the primacy of kinship vectors within abrahamic culturotypes, as specifically expressed in arabic tribalism, Islamic thought, and religious practice - will complete the set. Coupled with P6's Theories of Power, just about all the hidden variables will have been disclosed.

A concise example of a privileged class are the European royalty. We wouldn't describe them as "extremely white".

Why not? Any examination of the modus operandi of euroseignurialism and how the clans that have perpetrated hereditary rulership of their european subordinates would certainly suggest such a usage.

the first inhabitants should not have had to defend the territory at all.

By what authority?

I mean, I observe no God out there stating what international borders should exist.  A border exists purely defined by the effectiveness with which it can be defended by real people.

Consider for example the Great Wall of China. 

Any examination of the modus operandi of euroseignurialism and how the clans that have perpetrated hereditary rulership of their european subordinates would certainly suggest such a usage.

It's metaphoric rather than descriptive.

What we can observe however is that it's broader than "whiteness".  It might not be racial at all.  Racial preference is a particular form of a broader phenomenom.

This is true. The particular construct and it's repercussions were distinctly American, but it was constructed by kicking reflexes that exist below the level of national or racial identity. 

It's metaphoric rather than descriptive.

the one drop rule, metaphorical or descriptive?

"What we can observe however is that it's broader than "whiteness".  It might not be racial at all."

The keyword term I used initially in discussing the construction of what became the template for white identity in my comment on CP's post is: "difference." The "othering" that took place in the example of lowlanders versus highlanders was predicated on whatever differences could be perceived or imagined about one by the other (they were taller on average, they ate dogs, etc.). Once these differences were identified and defined they became part of the constellation of characterisitics used to separate the theoretical us from the theoretical them. In the example I gave, race, as a construct, doesn't enter the picture and doesn't function as another overlay on the template of difference until other socio-historical factors and encounters come into play.

I believe I made this process pretty clear in the post above. But, as usual, in your haste to spin everything into your usual inane froth and hijack the discussion, you missed the goddamn point.

A grain of grist for Ourstorian's mill;

Membership in a brotherhood is theoretically a voluntary matter unrelated to kinship. However, lineages are often affiliated with a specific brotherhood and a man usually joins his father's order. Initiation is followed by a ceremony during which the order's dhikr is celebrated. Novices swear to accept the branch head as their spiritual guide.

Each order has its own hierarchy that is supposedly a substitute for the kin group from which the members have separated themselves. Veneration is given to previous heads of the order, known as the Chain of Blessing, rather than to ancestors. This practice is especially followed in the south, where place of residence tends to have more significance than lineage.

Leaders of orders and their branches and of specific congregations are said to have baraka, a state of blessedness implying an inner spiritual power that is inherent in the religious office and may cling to the tomb of a revered leader, who, upon death, is considered a saint. However, some saints are venerated because of their religious reputations whether or not they were associated with an order or one of its communities. Sainthood also has been ascribed to others because of their status as founders of clans or large lineages. Northern pastoral nomads are likely to honor lineage founders as saints; sedentary Somalis revere saints for their piety and baraka.

The one drop rule is confused opinion.

It's confused because we (as a matter of fact rather than opinion) all share common ancestors.

Thus, any objective quantification of "one drop" would show us all to be black. 

That's one o them perilous "reductio ad absurdum" arguments.

"Consideration of the primacy of kinship vectors within abrahamic culturotypes, as specifically expressed in arabic tribalism, Islamic thought, and religious practice - will complete the set."

As you point out, these are important issues to parse and synthesize in this ongoing discussion. For example, contradictions abound in Arab kinship vectors when they are extended into the domain of the African "other" through concubinage and intermarriage. These contradictions gave rise to status or identity labels such as "son of a black woman" (considered an insult) and "son of a white woman" (considered a compliment), as revealed by popular historical Arabic idioms.

Of further note, it is estimated the Atlantic or Euro-America trade in enslaved Africans shipped roughly two males for every female. The Islamic trade shipped roughly two females for every male. What does that reveal about "Arab" kinship vectors?

Please continue, cnulan. Connecting the dots has ignited some synapses that haven't fired in awhile.

"The one drop rule is confused opinion. It's confused because we (as a matter of fact rather than opinion) all share common ancestors."

I keep telling myself: don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...

But the rabbit races by, dropping rabbit pellets across my screen and I reach for the dustpan and broom and before I know it I'm...

Don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...don't chase the rabbit...

As one who has exhausted himself in pursuit of the wascal, let me just say: Haw!

"Privilege allows architects to plead ignorance just as easily as inheritors. It must be some fun game for these folks who meander through live's unexamined. Ignorance is bliss - and so if lying without getting checked on it in a way that matters. And in this material world - the only things that matter are paychecks and ass-kicks. Neither get handed out on blogs - and so, the myths persist. Fables make the world go round."

ya damn right - don't chase the wabbit!

When asked to comment on the meaning of life, Julian Jaynes offered the following;

"This question has no answer except in the history of how it came to be asked. There is no answer because words have meaning, not life or persons or the universe itself. Our search for certainty rests in our attempts at understanding the history of all individual selves and all civilizations. Beyond that, there is only awe."

The silly rabbit's tricks really are for kids. Continuing our paleopsychological exploration of the rabbit hole I sincerely doubt he'll be able to keep up.

Many whites fear that the result won't be a system that is more just, but a system in which white people become the minority and could be treated as whites have long treated non-whites. This is perhaps the deepest fear that lives in the heart of whiteness. It is not really a fear of non-white people. It's a fear of the depravity that lives in our own hearts: Are non-white people capable of doing to us the barbaric things we have done to them?

One view of the problem holds that it is tractable and I suspect that this view is more in line with P6's approach and methodology. It assumes anthropocentric agency. i.e., that we humans are the governors of our behavioural propensities.

Not everyone shares this foundational assumption. Are you familiar with Charles Fort (1874-1932)? While everyone has heard of the Fortean Times, not many know Fort's most infamous idea,

"We're property"

I share Fort's doubts concerning the primacy of subjective human agency. I think we're a lot more mechanical (and far less in control) than we imagine ourselves to be.

Do you doubt your own agency? Are you human or some different order of being?

P6's approach and methodology

Take the real consciousness out of the overlay of conditioning that obscures it, and use it to make awareness complete. - The Book of Balance and Harmony

Wow. Julian Jaynes, Taoism and Alice in Wonderland in the same thread...

I read Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" nearly thirty years ago. I rarely come across references to it. Thanks cnulan for linking to the JJ Society's website. It provides citations to later articles by Jaynes that may be worth reading.

While I find Jaynes' "origin theory" original and provocative, I have never accepted his evidence for a bicameral culture or of a culture derived from one. Aside from the issue of reductionism in his analysis of ancient cultures, part of my problem with him stems from his definition of "consciousness." He defines it first by negation, telling us what it is not, and in the end leaves us with the notion of consciousness as a metaphor-generated model of the world. He explains it thusly:

Conscious mind is a spatial analog of the world and mental acts are analogs of bodily acts. Consciousness operates only on objectively observable things. Or, to say it another way with echoes of John Locke, there is nothing in consciousness that is not an analog of something that was in behavior first (66). 

now we're cooking with gas...

Do you doubt your own agency?

Every awake moment of every hour of most days. To do otherwise, would be to languish in the mechanical delusion of sleep.

Are you human or some different order of being?

Ecce Homo!

Take the real consciousness out of the overlay of conditioning that obscures it

When I say *I*, I feel. When I say *am*, I sense. {that is at least during every hour that *I* remember to Work on myself.}

Which order of consciousness are you referring to magne? The one you experienced when your eyes opened this morning? The one you experienced during your last fight or flight temporary relocation to the parasympathetic zone? The one you experienced during your last intimate interlude when {choose the ambient tune} was playing in the background?

The term *real consciousness* is terribly inexact you know. Every day out here in the attenuated ecology of the typographical porch, don't we observe how difficult it is for some folks to exhibit a simple, unitary command of the english language?

Whose behavior? What is it that behaves?

You tell me magne. What spins the spider's web, builds the beaver's dam, and speaks the word through my children's lips?

And why isn't it the other way around: behavior as a metaphor-generated model of consciousness?

The moment we abandon rationalist discourse, we abandon our capacity for verification.

Jaynes raises some challenging questions, but I tend to look more to

I look to verification brah..., nothing separating us from an exacting understanding of this challenging topic save an inexacting language and methodological approach applied to its elucidation.

Which order of consciousness are you referring to magne? The one you experienced when your eyes opened this morning? The one you experienced during your last fight or flight temporary relocation to the parasympathetic zone? The one you experienced during your last intimate interlude when {choose the ambient tune} was playing in the background?

That's about the content of consciousness. You know that...or do I have to find your comment about conscioussness being independant? 

Brookside is a ten minute walk away - it is a combination of dozens of little local stores...hundreds of odors...the elderly gentleman on the corner has just trimmed his hedge...the blood of the cut plants, pungent, dog shit, my feet against the cobblestone street, the tight onion booty on the cholita walking ahead of me..."Buenos dias" to the yardboys cutting grass two blocks from where I live...

but where am *I*?

This is wonderful a cascade of impressions flowers, eternal summer, everyone polite, but where am *I*?

We can be conscious, even hyper-conscious, of the exterior, yet ignore the interior...the inner world of man. Where am *I*?

*I* am afraid.

*I* am lost,

*I* cling to my little comfortable neighborhood, my ritual habitual of pictures and words...,

That's about the content of consciousness.

actually, it's about the variable localization of consciousness within your organism.., thus the applicability of the term orders when applied to same.

You know that...or do I have to find your comment about conscioussness being independant?

Please do. You'll find it remarkably consistent with the above representation. Matter of fact, it gets us sharply away from the false impression that consciousness is exclusively an emergent property of neurons. Though it may well add a bump or two on the road to bringing us back fully around and into the subject of this thread - it may help us toward the paleopsychological explication of collective consciousness - which has a great deal to do with the group dynamic of collective fear and collective action.

masters of human synapsing

Ancestor worship and respect for ancient authority are among the few things which separate man from beasts. They link us in a chain of wisdom which transcends the centuries. In Catal Huyuk, those who ran the rituals and vivified the myths behind them were the city’s priests. So heavily did Catal Huyuk rely on the social glue of priestly ritual that one room in every three was a holy sanctuary. For their services priests were given larger living spaces, more generous allotments of food, and numerous other luxuries. If disaster struck, priests were among the best placed to survive. So were other experts in social connectivity—political leaders like kings, judges, and military chiefs able to settle disagreements with a minimum of friction, to boost consensus, to give men confidence in times which made them tremble, to advance a city’s interests, and to help it dodge catastrophe. Merchants tied a city’s market to the sources of the goods which satisfied the populace’s hungers for basics and for luxuries. These wheeler-dealers pulled together webs of commerce whose furthest ends were hundreds, and later thousands, of miles away. (Catal Huyuk’s lapis lazuli came 1,500 miles from southern Russia.)

The rich of neolithic cities were the masters of human synapsing. When times turned mean and the deprived were faced with death, the rich were those most likely to survive. Their progeny were blessed with the ability to win the finest mates and to make sure that, in their turn, their children thrived. A city favored those who mastered it. It gave a reproductive edge to those whose genes had helped them plait the social weave. And it favored good followers as well, those able to tame their “primitive� instincts and to demonstrate civility. In times of famine or of drought when the poor curled up in the streets and died, those who led or who obeyed were those most likely to remain alive.

I'm afraid I'm not the one to hold up the other end of the discussion. I don't hold any of the beliefs necessary for that to make sense.

I speck O will come back to it when he get's over his first taste of the Miles Approach...., (^;

just kidding...,

I don't hold any of the beliefs necessary for that to make sense.

What is the difference between the man who believes that 800 situps a day will effect the architecture of his abdominal architecture, and the man who does 800 situps every day?

The difference between belief and praxis isn't that hard to keep straight.

there's a huge difference if the guy who believes it will effect his architecture, but does not do the situps.

"I read Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" nearly thirty years ago."

I still have my copy. I read it twice and spent a few minutes or more every once in a while over the years since then trying to imagine how one would see the world in terms of Jaynes' description of the unicameral mind. I still think about this every now and then.

We're all familiar with auditory hallucinations PT. Unfortunately, our normative familiarity tends only to encompass that big'un talking in our heads and subvocalizing across much of the rest of us.

The moment you encounter an auditory hallucination not answering to your name is when things appear to be dicey. Yet, we sometimes encounter these in our most vivid and physiologically engaging nocturnal experiences, i.e., on those rare and memorable occasions when we speak to our dead loved ones in our dreams. You've done that, had one of these conversations, and I suspect you can remember some of it more clearly than anything from the ordinary waking state.

if you tell me no, the rest is just me blithely inching out on the limb, oh well....,

My point is this, we have each of us at one time or another had the experience of a non-routine locus of consciousness getting ahold of the microphone and saying something. Elevated serotonin levels are usually required for this to happen.

In folk in whom this happens routinely, i.e., the folk we call schizophrenic spectrum, it is considered madness. The fact of the matter, is that these folk are experiencing activity within their organism that is usually too faint to make it out of background in your organism. There are many selves in your organism, and many that get a crack at the microphone in the course of any given day. The odd thing is that access to the mike is only authorized under your name. i.e., different selves only take voice as PT, rather than as the relatively independant little daemons (processes) that they really are.

{pause} - there now is sufficient grist for the discussion mill, perhaps we can each recollect subjectively verifiable instances that make what I'm describing more personally and usefully real.

The next assertion goes to the subject of the thread, the subject of the open threads and the subject of rational racial rapproachment.

These other processes which rarely if ever take autonomous voice in your stream of consciousness, are nevertheless actively there and engaged in shaping your experience. Call them the subliminal decision daemons who get polled to produce the internal consensus that we each experience as orchestrated subjectivity. Playing fast and loose with the question of substrate here, I'll posit a correlation with underlying orchestrated objective reductions and the critical threshold of these required to bleed over into your subjective experience.

I digress too far into the subjective, when the subject is the collective. But then, if you follow me to this point, and don't find yourself in violent disagreement, you have by this point already been dangerously infected with the notion that what you call subjective is in fact quite thoroughly collective. (^;

Simply because we do not routinely have qualia of the subthreshold collective, doesn't mean that that collective or at least certain members of that collective don't exercise considerable influence in terms of subliminally shaping the psychosocioecological consensus reality in which our respective subjectivities are embedded.

Just as you and I both have a pancreas that objectively does what it does in the maintenance of our organisms, and you could not at this very moment tell me what your pancreas is up to we each of us have daemons, some of them quite old and long established, which subliminally serve/govern our organisms.

Origins of consciousness is about the paleopsychological evidence of a more overt governance role played by these daemons in our collective past. Those daemons or processes have never gone away, nor has their role in our individual and collective governance by any means ceased.

"Always question yourself. BE THE QUESTION"

"One has to be able to sacrifice everything, including oneself.

Oneself is the price"

"You have dogs inside yourself. you must become their master.

When you find the animal, which is inside yourself, you can learn to understand it. You should not put it down, it belongs to you.

One has to know its nature, and have understanding towards it: It barks, it attacks, but when one understands it and loves it, it will happily serve you, it doesn't have to be on guard to defend itself, because it feels loved and understood, and it will love you.

G. said, that a dog will notice the state of its master. Then he told the story of a dog, which could not take it, that his master humiliated himself, turning himself fully drunk on the ground, the dog went and prodded his master so that he would get up."

from the chapter "Paroles de Georges Gurdjieff"

Solange Claustres, La Prise de Conscience et G.I. Gurdjieff Editions Eureka, 2003

"You've done that, had one of these conversations, and I suspect you can remember some of it more clearly than anything from the ordinary waking state."

No, I'm sorry but I haven't experienced talking to any departed spirits of loved ones. I follow the thread of your argument and I don't have any significant disagreement with the point of view you are presenting. You do understand, however, that your theory, which strikes me as eminently plausible, must account for and explain, among other things, how these daemons come to reside in our substrates of consciousness and how they seem to be so finely attuned to our own individual quirks and experiences. In other words, despite their objective origins and existence how is it that they only come to be recognized subjectively and not at all indistinguishable or separate from the person in whose psychological substrate they may reside?

The classic daemonic meta-categories of envy, gluttony, avarice, lust, etc..., and everything associated with these are fairly universally mythologized and universally recognized even in the monosubjective west. Of course, each individual has his or her own highly specialized chemistry and experiential associations which color the "unique" manifestation of these subprocesses..,

But to get on to the big and empirically incontrovertible process/personae dichotomy we turn to Sperry and Gazzaniga's work on commissurectomy patients. The nerve bundle cut is proof positive of what I'm describing.

Of course it's not necessary to go to such extremes, but the big cut verifies the phenomenal rule around which we can gather more subtle and exceptional examples. The less categorical of these examples comes from selective cortical ablation using sodium amytal or pentathol (so-called truth sera). The nerve cut with chemicals is reversible and perhaps subject to competing interpretations that the actual surgical cut is not.

Lastly, we have the least categorical and most universal examples of dissociative states available to the capable hypnotist. As most of the world's dissociative religionists are in fact hypnotists that work with these more universal daemonic personae, it is to this last category that we turn for the full ennumeration of the daemonic hosts. Dissociative states obtained via hypnosis are most broadly open to alternative interpretation, yet it is precisely here where the most systematic and detailed examination of the universals has been compiled. The Yoruba religion(s) in diaspora absolutely exemplify this theme.

how is it that they only come to be recognized subjectively and not at all indistinguishable or separate from the person in whose psychological substrate they may reside?

In this culture we're heavily conditioned to disbelieve and to suppress the little voices. Children aren't encouraged to keep their invisible friends, psychosocial factors conducing to ego-tranparency have been all but eliminated from normative life. Has anyone other than Jaynes and yours truly ever made the audacious suggestion to you that these alternative mentalities are valid and not pathological?

The dominant hypnotic suggestion in this culture speaks to an all-encompassing monotheistic agency in whose exceedingly jealous image we've been made.

My purpose in laying all this out for your consideration is to invite an alternative view and analysis of the forces at work in our sundry ongoing culture wars..., experience on these threads compels us to conclude dishonesty or malfeasance on the part of some correspondents, or, alternative mentality differentially conditioned and expressed within somewhat shared psychosocial space.

Think about the just-so stories we tell ourselves about muslims, for example. Many assume that muslims are bad actors filled with unexplainable enmity toward this culture. Many assume that dominionist evangelical christians are bad actors filled with unexplainable and irrational enmity towards.., or that whites and blacks, and so on and so forth...,

The fact of the matter is that these groups of people have different practices which serve to amplify or to suppress different aspects of the collectivity making up one's subjective psyche.

"In this culture we're heavily conditioned to disbelieve and to suppress the little voices. Children aren't encouraged to keep their invisible friends, psychosocial factors conducing to ego-tranparency have been all but eliminated from normative life. Has anyone other than Jaynes and yours truly ever made the audacious suggestion to you that these alternative mentalities are valid and not pathological?"

Let me put this as politely as I can. You are far too invested in my opinion in trying to either prove your point or having a dialectical argument with someone who is more interested in trying to have an intellectual discussion with you. I have decided that this is damn near impossible because instead of addressing my question to you in the spirit in which it was intended you respond as if I am in opposition to your viewpoint regarding the existence of realities and events beyond what we have been taught or expected to receive. Take care, Craig. I'm done here.

I have decided that this is damn near impossible because instead of addressing my question to you in the spirit in which it was intended

My bad PT. I did the best I could with what I could gather your question meant. My point was merely to offer evidence for what you had described as a difficult or unfamiliar phenomenon - I couldn't tell one way or another whether you believed it to be real or not;

I read it twice and spent a few minutes or more every once in a while over the years since then trying to imagine how one would see the world in terms of Jaynes' description of the unicameral mind.

Most people don't believe it and have no knowledge of split brain evidence or what that evidence suggests. I was not trying to argue with you about any aspect of it at all. Rather, it was my second attempt to get on the same page with you. The first and more subjective attempt, i.e., conversing with the dead in sleep, having been a nonstarter.

The bottom line from my perspective is this;

1. unicamerality is an hegemonic illusion.
2. bicamerality is trivially provable.
3. multicamerality is the underlying fact

True governance of human society depends on masterful manipulation of 3. and careful policing of the consensus illusion of 1. Much of what is now termed culture war is rooted in the systematic intolerance of the unicameral mass for the n-cameral outliers.

If these discussions are actually about analyzing, architecting, and implementing changes to the governance status quo, i.e., changing the terms of consensus reality, then it is imperative that we look under the psychological hood.

That's a HUGE proposition given the factions institutionally arrayed against any such understanding or movement.

"My bad PT. I did the best I could with what I could gather your question meant. My point was merely to offer evidence for what you had described as a difficult or unfamiliar phenomenon - I couldn't tell one way or another whether you believed it to be real or not..."

Okay, but all that I meant was that I was still grappling with the implications of Jaynes' conclusions. My reading the book twice and still mulling over its central points three decades later is a sign of admiration and wonderment not disdain or refutation.

"The first and more subjective attempt, i.e., conversing with the dead in sleep, having been a nonstarter."

My response was about what I have factually experienced, not about what I believe to be true. You asked if I had experienced this phenomenon and I truthfully answered that I had not, which is not an argument against the possibility or reality of people conversing in their sleep with the departed spirits of loved ones. It is not important for me to have first hand experience of some event in order for me to believe that it has occurred. If you tell me that you conversed with your late father while sleeping, I am more interested in talking about what you think that means than whether it actually happened or not. I tend to accept that it happened for you and that it has happened for countless others but not as yet for me.

"The bottom line from my perspective is this;

1. unicamerality is an hegemonic illusion.
2. bicamerality is trivially provable.
3. multicamerality is the underlying fact

True governance of human society depends on masterful manipulation of 3. and careful policing of the consensus illusion of 1. Much of what is now termed culture war is rooted in the systematic intolerance of the unicameral mass for the n-cameral outliers.

If these discussions are actually about analyzing, architecting, and implementing changes to the governance status quo, i.e., changing the terms of consensus reality, then it is imperative that we look under the psychological hood.

That's a HUGE proposition given the factions institutionally arrayed against any such understanding or movement."

I have no disagreement at all with the points above.

I disagree with equating "analyzing, architecting, and implementing changes to the governance status quo" and "changing the terms of consensus reality"...plus I see "changed terms" are usually just more fuel for the same machine, regardless of what the new terms are.

I've been puzzling long and hard about how to effectively pick up where I left off both clearly and in context. By no means have I entirely reached that goal.

Temple3's Night in Tunisia masterpiece points to the way - but also sadly shows that the way is ill-telligently blocked.

yeah, we know white folks don't mind listening to black folks. that's why king wasn't killed in 1955 and why he was killed in 1968. that following thing is a big deal - and white folks without marching orders are liable to do anything - like honor the presidency of a regular thug ushered in by his conniving brother, then turn around and invade a sovereign nation because it doesn't practice that most elusive american ideal, democracy.

King and the school that he fronted featuring Bayard Rustin and others had mastered the art of collective human synapsing. They seized the moment and got loose in the American cultural machine in a way that could not be controlled short of murder. King had the unique charisma and personal genius required to deliver the payload of a deep black psychological insurgency.

disagree with equating "analyzing, architecting, and implementing changes to the governance status quo" and "changing the terms of consensus reality"...plus I see "changed terms" are usually just more fuel for the same machine, regardless of what the new terms are.

Those who operate the machine know how to defend it exceedingly well and have consolidated their control of the organs of collective attention and memory in such a fashion as to make themselves virtually invincible. Recent attempts to take on the machine have been headed off at the pass.

While the machine continues to evolve its methods, we have not.

no one has followed in C. Delores Tucker's footsteps to engage the corporate media structure directly.

gee, i wonder why? is it because the crudest rap makes the most money for the shareholders of these companies?

and who is the primary market for this music?

guess.

let's just say that if all black people boycotted the gangsta rap music industry it wouldn't have much of an effect on its profits.

"In 40 years, we have been reduced to what we see now — and it can be directly tied to the destruction of the family through abortion,
illegitimacy and the dismal effects of this rap music," he said. "This is what we have."

the jist of this argument was applied to jazz itself a generation ago, and goes all the way back to the schism between the staturday night social and the sunday morning service. notice how the article ends on this note, having *nothing* to do with perpetuating the practical specifics of Tucker's approach. which is to deal with the
men in the boardrooms who, based on projected sales figures, decide what media gets put out.

Tucker went out like any other black revolutionary with a singular radical view:

they open the door, die, and the pundits stand around while it's gently pulled closed by the ill-telligent folks on the other side.

Just one disagreement.

King and the school that he fronted featuring Bayard Rustin and others had mastered the art of collective human synapsing. 

They hadn't mastered it at all. 

We must frankly acknowledge that in past years our creativity and imagination were not employed in learning how to develop power. We found a method in nonviolent protest that worked, and we emplyed it enthusiastically. We did not have leisure to probe for a deeper understanding of its laws and lines of development. Although our actions were bold and crowned with successes, they were substantially improvised and spontaneous. They attained the goals set for them but carried the blemishes of inexperience.

This is where the civil rights movement stands today. Now we must take the next major step of examining the levers of power which Negroes must grasp to influence the course of events.

Bras got killded before that examination could be completed.

hence the call to excellence.

P6 - if folks read "Where Do We Go From Here" their perceptions of King would change dramatically. that book really lays it down. it's a tremendous read and it flows smoothly because it's almost impossible to read his words without hearing his voice. his clarity about the situation is almost divine as he approached his last days. it's almost unnerving the level of certainty he and malcolm had about the end coming. it's as if these latest death threats rose to a level above all others and were guaranteed to be fulfilled. both sets of last speeches and final writings lead inexorably to the type of reconciliation that dubois envisioned when he left for africa. that's where the other half of our lever is - no reconciliation, no power - no power, no justice.

what's interesting is that his "separation" from malcolm x was not a result of their personal inclinations. both were very young man serving an apprenticeship under organizational leadership with a vested interest in not seeing them come together. i reject, out of hand, the notion that malcolm became "less radical" upon returning from mecca - and would argue that had these two spent as much as one or two days together (ALONE) that would have been sufficient to radically alter the CRM.

straight william wallace - robert the bruce - ya dig??

"The final major area of untapped power for the Negro is in the political arena. Higher Negro birth rates and increasing Negro migration, along with the exodus of the white population to the suburbs, are producing fast-gathering Negro majorities in the large cities. This changing composition of the cities has political significance. Particularly in the North, the large cities substantially determine the political destiny of the state. These states, in turn, hold the dominating electoral votes in presidential contests. The future of the Democratic party, which rests so heavily on its coalition of urban minorities, cannot be assessed without taking into account which way the Negro vote turns. The wistful hopes of the Republican party for large-city influence will also be decided not in the boardrooms of great corporations but in the teeming ghettos."

Sho's you right P6.

I got carried away with the apparent synapse-jacking that was the CRM up through 1965. Question begged by the post `65 requirements document you linked, that organic phase of King's life that has been ill-telligently squirreled deep down the collective memory hole, is whether or not in `05 is the effort to jack mainstream synapses worthy of our consideration, or, should we focus ALL our efforts toward an introspective psychological insurgency?

Somehow, the King assessment got sidetracked off the path of architecture and implementation that he set forth. Some of my elders in KC state unequivocally that immoral opportunism and lack of accountibility embodied in the likes of Jesse Jackson had a great deal to do with derailing King's efforts. I've heard a story about the theft of $750K in breadbasket funds and a repudiation by Ralph Abernathy on a couple of occasions.

On the evolutionary tactics and strategy tip, what is your opinion on what if any effect blaxploitation cinema 1968-75 had on undermining black nationalism? Ahead 20 years, what is your opinion on what if any effect gangsta rap had on conscious hiphop 1988-1995?

Individuals make these cultural products, whether Gordon Parks, Melvin Van Peebles.., Easy E, Dr Dre, et al but it's the machine's massive distribution and repetition that make them so memetically and synaptically powerful

it might be that the economic opportunities to traffic in heroin (late 60's, early 70's - post-Vietnam) and the economic limitations of the nationalist paradigm (i'm guilty too) deflated the black nationalist thrust from '68-'75. clearly a number of those movies portrayed the tension between nationalists with guns and hustlers with guns. the hustlers had the support of the state and benefitted from the economics of their endeavor.

the same paradigm (different drug) emerged in the late 1980's, early 1990's. after the decline in heroin sales and use by white folk - following a politically unacceptable number of deaths, narco-trafficking ebbed until it spiked again with the emergence of crack and cocaine. hip-hop from cali chronicled this emergence from day one.

i would say that the blaxploitation films (in which heroin was a central figure) provided a visual mirror, almost instantly, in the same way that hip-hop did. these black artists provided new content (films, cd's, videos, concerts, etc.) introducing the confluence of urban life and the socio-economic implications of localized drug trafficking. and the die had been cast about where drug trafficking would be conducted and policed in the 1930's. the criminalization of drugs like cocaine and heroin never led to widespread arrests of white folks. it went from a legal, corporate practice (1890's to 1920s's) to a behind the scenes method of medicating the cauc proclivity to forget (so stepford - 1930's to early 1960's) to a clear and present negro danger requiring shiny new prisons (1960's to present).

i would argue, simply, that black nationalism is undermined by a fundamental inability to subsidize practice and pendulum swings in the American need to get high and do so in black communities. i haven't done the research, but i would venture to say that a similar black nationalist highjack happened in the 1890's...as white america was getting coked up [think drug stores, coca-cola served on rotating stools and kids, parents and grandparents spinning mindlessly, numbing the pain of leaving the countryside - and ignoring Teddy R.'s fabricated war against Spain following the sinking of the USS Maine]...and what's on the horizon - Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise speech. sounds a lot like "Come on in, the water's fine."

following the end of radical reconstruction, the emergence of black codes and jim crow laws, and the great migration - it would stand to reason that the most visible leaders would have been nationalist leaders in cities with a program of pursuing civil and economic rights for new migrants. didn't happen that way. instead, you get a southern, albeit national, leader with a non-confrontational social agenda - and northern leaders pursing social, rather than economic, interests. and on a cultural front - you have what may well be considered the GOLDEN AGE of black classical music in the US. (George W. Johnson, Bert Williams, George Walker, Noble Sissle, Eubie Blake, the Fisk Jubilee Singers, W. C. Handy, James Reese Europe, Wilbur Sweatman, Harry T. Burleigh, Roland Hayes, etc.)
___

the strongest economic engines in the black community are decidedly not nationalist in orientation - and if they are, they don't have a direct confrontation social agenda...ala the continuum from Washington to Garvey to Elijah Muhammad to Farrakhan. so whatcha wanna, but these survival tactics have worked quite well for over 11 decades. oddly enough, the strongest opposition to this continuum of leadership has come from america's reigning cultural nationalist group - european jews. oddly enough, this same cultural nationalist group played a seminal role in ushering forth the development and distribution of anti-nationalist cultural materials in the 1890's, 1960's and 1990's.

harold cruse handles the 1930's as well as anyone. i won't touch that here.

or "wine, women, and song" or "sex, drugs, and rock n'roll" or "beats, byatches and bling"

i grow increasingly frustrated with the efforts to link the explicit nature of rap music and videos to the decline in morals and economic opportunity in the Black community.  I could have sworn the "magic bullet" theory of media consumption was discredited years ago, but everytime i turn around another self-proclaimed cultural arbiter is arguing that rap music is the problem.

One goal of black cultural products has sought to put into discourse conditions existing in black communities. Despite a larger Black middle class than ever, hip hop artists are still hyperaware of the conditions of poverty, environmental racism, and structural inequity in justice and educational systems.  The only reason they ain't rappin about structural inequities in health care is probably because they're young and the young don't give a damn about that stuff.  The greatest irony of hip hop is that images of bLInding poverty and decaying infrastructures are broadcast daily and nobody tries to address THOSE problems...

it's much easier to kill the messenger.

if you stopped all the rappers right now; destroyed the videos; shut down the clubs - would the conditions that engendered that discourse change one iota?  

The era most commonly cited as the "golden era" of hip hop - 1990-1994 - for some reason also coincided with the receding of the crack epidemic (which never ever focused on the HUGE numbers of white crackheads - i served a few of em myself).  In new york city, the financial services industry which had been gathering strength while David Dinkins  was Mayor EXPLODED during Giuliani's tenure and suddenly we were making money.  New York hip hop reflected that.

but strangely enough, the South and the West weren't making money like new york was...and that was reflected in their hip hop.  New Orleans hip hop is a damned good reflection of that, with its repeated references to the poverty and restricted social mobility.  Those rappers sold hundreds of thousands of records before they had national distribution because they were talking about life in their world. 

This isn't a defense of rap or foul-mouthed MC's.  One reason i come here is to read critical thinkers talk about being Black and making this discourse a reality.  Don't do the kneejerk thing about a Black cultural product - it's beneath y'all. (apologies to T3 and cnulan - this rant is more a response to conversations i've been having on campus and in public).

"...- and northern leaders pursing social, rather than economic, interests..."

Temple, if you feel like it, I'd like to hear more about what you mean by Social vs. Economic interests, and if you think that they intersect and overlap.

Thanks.
 

con su permiso, mi hermano...

please reread my post...i agree with you and framed it in the context of a recurring social phenomena in which the cultural follows, rather than precedes the economic. my premise is that this is not about hip hop or rock n' roll or jazz or blues or juke joints...it's about the snatch and grab - and you know what i mean if you've been snatched n' grabbed.

and nulan didn't say it either...he just posed the question. so, i feel ya, but you're right - it is beneath us and that's why neither of us went there.

it's an abbreviated representation of Harold Cruse's premise in The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. simply, the civil rights movement (from its beginnings with WEB Dubois via the Niagara Movement) pursued a course of what he calls non-economic liberalism (nel). nel was the preferred strategy of NAACP financiers like Joel Spingarn, etc. because blacks and jews faced a similar body of social exclusions at the time - but their confluence of interests parted at level of economics. thus, the NAACP became the #1 critic of black leaders pursuing economic strategies (Washington and Garvey). the financing for the attack came from a group with a vested interest in opening social doors while retaining economic limitations. it's pretty straightforward and has been written about by black and jewish authors since then. the broader historical look at black-jewish relations frames the 1960's confluence as a minor episode, that while important, does not frame the broader context of the relationship - and offers no predictive value for the relationship. social and economic interests certainly overlap. however, the historic approach of the NAACP has not been to honor that intersection. conversely, most jewish rights and anti-defamation organizations have prioritized this intersection. the conflict, of course, is that many of the financiers and board leaders for black organizations were jewish who advocated policies in one arena that would not stand scrutiny in another. it's an ironic twist and interesting bit of history. i certainly believe groups are entitled to pursue their self-interests...after all, this example proves that if they don't, no one else will.

"...thus, the NAACP became the #1 critic of black leaders pursuing economic strategies (Washington and Garvey)..."

I'm far from inclined to defend the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People, but, to be fair, its reasons for criticizing Washington were substantively different than its reasons for castigating and secretely urging the Feds to investigate Garvey. It was Washington's policy of accommodation to Jim Crowism that raised the ire of DuBois and others at the NAACP not his belief in creating a black tradesmen and business class. Garvey's obvious appeal to the black working class was threatening to the NAACP and its allies because Garvey had come to the conclusion that America would never truly accept the black man and woman as equals.

"i grow increasingly frustrated with the efforts to link the explicit nature of rap music and videos to the decline in morals and economic opportunity in the Black community. I could have sworn the "magic bullet" theory of media consumption was discredited years ago, but everytime i turn around another self-proclaimed cultural arbiter is arguing that rap music is the problem."

On one hand I am strongly inclined to agree with you because I don't think there has been a decline in morals in the black community and, if there has been, I don't believe this decline could or should be attributed to the popularity of rap music and rap music videos. On the other hand, I do suspect, at an intuitive level, that the seemingly ubiquitous appeal of this music and its accompanying videos does seem to indicate that what we have traditionally come to understand as black cultural forms and aesthetics is under tremendous pressure, which is a way os saying that the black community is under tremendous pressure despite the growth of the black middle class.

To some extent, I think the breakdown or separation from previous forms happened years ago and this music is, for the most part, simply giving voice to this new order of things. But its nearly addictive emotional and commercial appeal also serves to create a distinctly different sensibility and world view among the people who are, for want of a better term, the lifeblood and primary source of this form of musical expression.

The issue is not whether the music is moral or immoral, although it represents a world view that Ellington, Armstrong, Mingus, Eubie Blake, Mahalia Jackson, Albert Ammons and Ethel Waters might find puzzling, but whether or not it reflects a view of life that serves to nourish and sustain the roots of African American music and life.

i agree that was the primary source of the opposition. i don't think the economic approach is unrelated because it served as a line of demarcation between BTW and WEB...and then between WEB and MMG. BTW derided WEB for seeking to apply northern strategies in the south at a time when they likely would not have worked (there was no moral suasion movement - and there were no televisions)...so, Washington's ability to wield influence and dole out patronage was precisely the power that was sought - and eventually gained by the NAACP. i don't wish to rewrite the history here, but i do believe this piece has been given short shrift because the leadership of the NAACP sought to have THE preeminent place in the leadership of black america. that was not achieved by educating children or by providing jobs for families - it was achieved by securing social reform...moreover, it was precisely DuBois' recognition of the importance of black economic empowerment and his rejection of integration/assimilation that led to his departure from the NAACP in 1934. At the end of the day, BTW, WEB and MMG felt that black folk needed to work and build a viable economic foundation - and the paradigm was explicitly not integrationist...that was antithetical to the approach of the founding financiers of the organization.

or "wine, women, and song" or "sex, drugs, and rock n'roll" or "beats, byatches and bling"

In less than a century, we've gone through multiple cycles of innovation and dominance of this nexus, at no point having ever had any consequential competition and only a handful of successful imitators. Is it simply making a way out of no way excellence, because it's one of the only games economically available, or, is there something else going on here?

If we look at that something else, really closely and seriously - aren't we inevitably brought to the crossroad of cultural blackness as cultivated neurophysiological difference? In that difference, don't we simultaneously find our unique in-group differentiation and the touchpoint of the embedding culture's implacable oppositionality?

This in-group differentiation is highly impermeable to white males, and I suspect that apologists and assimilationists nothwithstanding, those of us in the in-group are not about to relinquish the difference.

Make it through the night? Pain? Defined by a weak family? The totality of what I had to say on the subject boiled down to control of seigneurial privilege. i.e., who plays the role of God the Father in the lives of children in America. In the collective unconscious of America, black men have been systematically obviated from that role. Whether we're talking about the infantilism of Baby Boy or the presidential merits of Colin Powell denied, it's simply not a prerogative that America has willingly bestowed or that we have decisively asserted, by any means necessary. don't get it twisted, we wouldn't still be here if legions of black men hadn't handled their's, much as my father did for me but the fact of the matter is that it is has been systematically blocked from being installed as an American cultural archetype.

Apologists and assimilationists who have it are required to suppress it. Those who don't have it, are mad about their deficiency. Though it is our exclusive perogative to credentialize its expression in cultural production, we don't control its association, presentation, distribution, or commercialization.

I find the cultural love/hate dichotomization of blackness among the most bizarre paradoxes in the world. Everyone wants to have it. It is a de facto American archetype. Yet America, or elements within the governance in-group in America have consistantly stigmatized and weaponized it against its exemplars.

Please explain this phrase: "cultivated neurophysiological difference..."

"...i don't wish to rewrite the history here, but i do believe this piece has been given short shrift because the leadership of the NAACP sought to have THE preeminent place in the leadership of black america. that was not achieved by educating children or by providing jobs for families - it was achieved by securing social reform..."

I am in complete agreement with you here. The implications of the NAACP's quest to, in effect, socially reform America has also helped to create a style of organization and leadership within the black community as a whole that tends to emphasize integrationist goals and objectives as being more desirable and preferable than community building and economic development. Any efforts - no matter how rationally based and fundamentally sound - that seeks to build on black people's plainly evident nationalist desires and interests is regarded suspiciously even by blacks.

Some years ago PT, I came across a couple of - to me - revolutionary concepts which account for much of what we experience as cultural oppositionality. I've since come to think of these in terms of cultivated neurophysiological difference.

1. Microsynchronization of body language. People who closely associate with one another and transact behavioural data via imitation, develop body language styles. Dialects and accents, postures and gestures, and a host of other cues go into the specialization of a cultivated "style". It becomes an unconscious garment.

2. Facial microexpressions - an even deeper set of unconscious processes born of instinct but also typified through access, imitation, and other factors. Interestingly, many folk clinically diagnosed as schizophrenic are able to d