User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 17 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
Black Intrapolitics: Next victimSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on October 26, 2005 - 1:30pm.
on Politics | Race and Identity Now that we've analyzed Condi, let's go for Shelby Steele. Shelby is working the OpinionJournal side of the street, doing his part to support the resurrection of the long-discredited Bell Curve.
Emphasis added. You see his problem, don't you? He thinks' Black people are inferior. This is simply not the majority position in th Black communities. We have never felt inferior. Repressed, beaten down, assaulted, robbed, yes all of that. But inferior? "You've got to work twice as hard to get half as far." Steele holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Utah, an M.A. in sociology from Southern Illinois University, and a B.A. in political science from Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He should be fully aware of the history that explains the economic condition of each of the various Black communities. Black people believing in Black inferiority is a vanishingly small part of if. And he still feels inferiority. That is the shame, exposed in his own words, Steele projects on the rest of us. He's got the same problem David Nicholson has, and less skill with the weasel words...constant references to how this "seems" this way and that "seems" that was doesn't change the fact that it's Steele himself writing the words, expressing the opinion. Then again, it seems OpinionJournal readers like it more direct. Steele obsesses over blame; the entire point of the editorial is to release white Americans from any requirement to upgrade their morality.
I'm not sure if he's saying the black (as in Black) "interior feeling of shame over a belief in their own inferiority" or "the black (invoking the emotional connotation) shame" one feels over inferiority.
Well, there's also the fact that poor Blacks do more to hold up their end than upscale Blacks...
That is EXACTLY what mainstream America made of Dr. Cosby's initial rant. That white people need not be responsible. This is what they hear Shelby Steele saying. White irresponsibility hurts. And that's what we have now, white rejection of any responsibility at all. And I ain't even mad atcha. I just want Black folks to be very clear that the very idea of doing the right thing is being totally rejected by the OpinionJournal set. I want Black people to be really, really realistic about what is being said and done, who benefits from the spin, all that. You see his problem, don't you? He thinks' Black people are inferior. That's EXACTLY what I saw/thought when he was speaking at the "conference" chaired by Jesse Lee Peterson!!!! "Of all our studies, history is best prepared to reward our research." - This quote is often atttributed to Minister Malcolm, but I believe, it may rightly be ascribed to a continuum of personal/professional development first articulated by Marcus Garvey and followed by Elijah Muhammad. Mr. Steele, simply, appears to be unconcerned with history and the demand for rigorous analysis in the qualitative as well as quantitative realms of life. I believe this article reflects a sort of personal revelation that is both dismissive of history and devoid of empirical support. It is one perspective that reveals more about the author than the collective from which his divorce has been cemented. I don't know this guy, but it did seem to me that he was saying that the hordes of (Black) Katrina victims only confirmed Whites' deeply held suspicions of (inherent) inferiority. Didn't get that *he* feels we are. Just sayin.
He is also validating those feelings, is he not? He is also validating those feelings, is he not? hm. not sure. have to think about that a little more.
back to the lab.
*shakes head* i'm pussyfooting here, and that's not my natural steez. back ta bangin...
if the scale is economic success, then by any measure, we *are* inferior. the Q is if we're naturally, inherently so of if this is just a transition stage (or, perhaps in Steele's mind, a period of stagnation). i'm guessin he's thinkin we can do (significantl?y) more on our own.
how, exactly is he validaing those feelins, P? this is not a "challenge' btw, just want to make sure i'm not missing anything ridiculously obvious.
Steele validated these feelings and perceptions by focusing the heart of his argument on what he believes black people - all black people in the United States - should have accomplished in the 40 years since the abolishment of government sanctioned racial segregation laws. What I find even more remarkable about Steele's comments is his complete lack of empathy for the most traumatized victims of Hurricane Katrina. When I see film footage and photographs of tsunami, earthquake and mudslide victims in South and Central America, Asia and other parts of the world I don't think for a moment that people in such wreteched conditions should display more pluck and initiative in the face of such terribly adverse conditions. Many of these people are residents and citizens of countries that were free and independent when the historical Jesus was alive. Turkey, for example, has been a secular democracy since 1917 and prior to that it was the political and financial center of the Ottoman Empire. In any case, many of these countries managed to shed their colonial rulers at least a decade or more before 1964. And I don't hear anybody, including Br. Steele, admonishing them to show more heart and initiative.
If the scale was economic success, he'd be upbraiding us for our lack of skills, not our lack of moral fiber. Now, take a step back. Who is he speaking to? What is his message? pt, thanks for that. i appreciate your patience with my thick skulldednessicity. i get it now. small point, however, is that them other countries are not otherwise an economic juggernaut. urrrybody in the same leaky boat, more or less, in those other countries. i wonder if a closer analogy might be if a tsunami hit the Untouchables in India.
*leans back, surveys 'scape* Yeah, but who don't know that, memer?
On the money, P6. If Steele (or Cosby) directs his message to a black audience, the message sounds to me like: "Don't wait for white folks' help." But when the message is directed to a white audience (and this is the WSJ editorial page), conservatives in the audience are quick to say: "See? It's not my problem!" Two reactions. 1. Nowhere here so far do I encounter anyone taking on Steele's thesis. PT comes closest: Steele validated these feelings and perceptions by focusing the heart of his argument on what he believes black people - all black people in the United States - should have accomplished in the 40 years since the abolishment of government sanctioned racial segregation laws. What I find even more remarkable about Steele's comments is his complete lack of empathy for the most traumatized victims of Hurricane Katrina. Steele's thesis indeed includes an assertion that black people collectively have underachieved during the last 40 years. So what do we see as a rebuttal? An assertion that Steele lacks empathy for the victims of Katrina. 2. Everyone seem to believe this: Shelby is working the OpinionJournal side of the street, doing his part to support the resurrection of the long-discredited Bell Curve. He thinks' Black people are inferior. Which is pure and simple an ad hominem attack on Steele. Furthermore, it's false as anyone who reads Steele's essay can see. Here's what Steele actually says:
=== (The inferiority referenced is an inferiority of accomplishment, not something having to do with any bell curve) Now don't take me to be particularly a defender of what Steele is saying here. It's a racial-grouping analysis after all, and I'm quite uncomfortable with such arguments. However, Steel makes a case and he makes it in a way which should seem familiar to people who are accustomed to thinking in terms of racial groups.[modified from earlier] So we come to a state of affairs where under the heading implying that Steele's argument will be destroyed, we find a ridiculous defense that involves: 1. falsely restating Steele's thesis as "blacks are racially inferior" 2. illogically claiming that means anything else he said is refuted. Y'all can do better than that, I've seen it. Right and double right, QIAB. Audience. Ok, I (fully) get it now. Much obliged, folks. *tips hat* I'll let this simmer and bake in. But when the message is directed to a white audience (and this is the WSJ editorial page), conservatives in the audience are quick to say: "See? It's not my problem!" On its face, Steele's essay is directed toward black people. There are various ways to avoid engaging his thesis. This is one of them.
"But the message it sends is important." The point of the post is not Steele's "thesis," which has been seen, analyized and rejected long ago. However:
Woven in the ad hominem is the reason his ranting is rejected. It's just not in the form you'd like it in. By the way:
That don't mean shit.
Wrong again. What you see as a rebuttal is a reminder of the history which we all, including (if his educational history is correct) Steele, know and understand. It is not my intent to reargue the case. It's all about the timing and how folks choose to define history. It would seem to me that this notion of "the first instance of open mutual witness" ignores the many occasions in which this must have happened. Let's start with the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Blacks jumped at the opportunity to join the British and win their freedom. The British were as white as the Americans and this would certainly constitute mutual witness. Blacks fighting with the British have not been accurately counted, but it is estimated that as many as 20,000 (at a time when the total population was less than 500,000) left with the British.
It seems odd to me that the STONO Rebellion was not another such occasion. It sent shockwaves throughout the North and South. So, too, did Nat Turner's honorable work strike fear in the hearts of American-style freedom lovers. It seems to me, that Mr. Steele (like Cobb) places all manner of historical events in the 1960's as a means of denying history and making decontextualized points to suit a subsidized agenda. This stuff works in uncritical rooms full of sheep ready to be shorn, but there is too much information out there for this stuff to fly. The 1960's was not an occasion of a balance of power between black and white. After all, if power were equitable between these two groups, it certain will be news to about five billion people. This could qualify as the best kept secret since FDR's prior-knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack or federal fabrication on the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Steele ought really get the word out on this. A balance of power between blacks and whites in the 1960's. Imagine that. Economic, political and military parity - and I never knew. It's a wonder all those black billionaires and governors in the 60's couldn't put more pressure on the US to get Mandela out of jail or arrest the conspirators who killed Patrice Lumumba or stop the British from exporting over $3 billion in capital from Kenya. All that power and no one raised a finger to stop CIA operative Jim Jones...all that power and no one halted the invasion of Grenada...all that power and not a dime has been spent to build technology centers teaching black children...all that power and no troops were sent to fight South African mercenaries in Angola...all that power and no effort whatsoever to curb farm subsidies. This is truly amazing. What a missed opportunity. This new definition of balance of power will really turn heads. There is no need to flex on the rest of Steele's argument because his premises are fatally flawed. This is what I expect from folks like him. No numbers, no substance, no historical accuracy, no premise for a compelling argument. This conversation is hardly about the inferiority of black folks - it's about one man's rejection of academic rigor for the sake of pandering to an audience to whom he is eternally and financially indebted. A balance of power between blacks and whites in the 1960's. Imagine that. Economic, political and military parity - and I never knew. So finally we have an actual rebuttal. Do you believe T3 that Steele was claiming this balance in the sense you describe it?
Once I write something and send it into cyberspace I don't control or own how those words are used or interpreted but I do take exception to DW (1) asserting that I am the only one who comes close to taking on Steele's thesis; (2) the presumption that Steele's assertions actually amount to a thesis that is deserving of principled rebutta; (3) DW's insistence on inserting his views in area where his actual understanding of the issues is next door to nil. BTW, to paraphrase a late uncle of mine: If black people have underachieved over the last 40 years then God is a oppossum. small point, however, is that them other countries are not otherwise an economic juggernaut. urrrybody in the same leaky boat, more or less, in those other countries. i wonder if a closer analogy might be if a tsunami hit the Untouchables in India.
The point is not about their GDP in relationship to the GDP of the United States. Each of these countries has people who are educated, prosperous and well-off and each of them has people who for generations have lived in poverty. When these countries suffer a calamitous natural disaster no one, as far as I know, gets up on the podium and questions the intelligence, ambition and drive of the poorest residents of these countries who invariably suffer the greatest hardship at those times.
So desperate... I do take exception to DW (1) asserting that I am the only one who comes close to taking on Steele's thesis; Until T3's posting, that appeared true. Do you believe others took the thesis on, or that you didn't take it on after all, or that whatever happened regarding taking it on you don't want it discussed?
(2) the presumption that Steele's assertions actually amount to a thesis that is deserving of principled rebutta; P6 posted excerpts and referenced the entire essay for discussion. It did seem to say something. (3) DW's insistence on inserting his views in area where his actual understanding of the issues is next door to nil. Curious. I didn't state my view at all (beyond the aside that I'm quite uncomfortable with arguments based on racial group analysis, which Steele's was). lemme put it this way...steele is alot like folks like ed hirsch and others whose prism of opinion, leadership and authority derives exclusively from white folk...the notion that no president has "corrected" lbj is exhibit A...black folks have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER had a national leader who did not EMPHASIZE the importance of black folk doing for self...so, the implication from steele must be that black folk are getting their "marching orders" from someone other than black leaders...but, that would be steele's personal problem - and not something widely held by other black folk...and for those black folk who reject the national leaders, the overwhelming majority of them do so because their personal ethos demands doing for self...so, steele has nowhere to go but the mirror - hence, there is no need to engage his thesis...his whole MO is ahistorical and personal...it is derivative and reactionary - predicated on oxygen within a white approval-rejection axis...and his paychecks are derived from approval...no rockets here, no science here. lemme put it this way...steele is alot like folks like ed hirsch and others whose prism of opinion, leadership and authority derives exclusively from white folk. And this opinion can be stuck onto Steele like a dunce cap, rendering everything Steele says a joke?
The point is not about their GDP in relationship to the GDP of the United States. Each of these countries has people who are educated, prosperous and well-off and each of them has people who for generations have lived in poverty.
I guess we start up at expectations... There’s always gonna be a superrich class and superpo’ class – societal success depends on free access to a (we hope) thick middle. I’m going out on a limb a bit to suppose that we, rightly or wrongly, don’t normally assume that most (say) Indonesians have the means to up and skedaddle out of an angry Mother Nature’s way. Hence no hue and cry from over here re intelligence, ambition etc. About North America, there’s an underlying meme afoot that po’ folk is po’ mainly out of laziness -- as opposed to a sheer drought of opportunities, as might be the case in other per-capita GDP-challenged nations. ...and come right around again to Steele’s intent and audience. A messenger’s message can take on different meanings depending on who’s to be readin’ it. Hence no hue and cry from over here re intelligence, ambition etc. choked with my own string -- who sees the weakness? I would imagine that in Indonesia, for example, government officials are aware that many poor Indonesians don't own automobiles. This fact didn't occur to local, state and federal officials who were allegedly planning for Hurricane Katrina so they continued making evacuation plans that were heavily dependent on the use of automobiles. That isn't racism but it is certainly a failure to think hard about one's job and the tasks that job entails. Only in a country where Henry Ford is worshipped do we believe that something must be wrong with you if you don't own an automobile. It doesn't occur to us that some people either don't own a car because they have no need of one or they can't afford one. In a city like Los Angeles if you're poor you can still manage to get a car because selling cars is a prime economic activity in southern California. Poor folks in New Orleans, however, are even poorer than folks in Los Angeles and many of them cannot get a car no matter how hard they may try.
No, but he can, and has, earned it. When you demonstrate your intent is hostile to my well being, I see no reason to take you seriously. And any idea you raise that may accidentally have merit can, has been and will again be raised by sane people in a sane context. So I don't need to hear it from him. dw...you know how i feel about you...if you're only going to read the first line and post something that is answered in the second, don't bother. reread or roll on. On the radio factor today, Bill O'Lielly wrapped himself in Steele's thesis that white "tough love" is now all that we need to get by. He said that Al Sharpton is a good negro, Jesse Jackson is an ok negro, and Farrakhan is a bad negro who he'd never turn his back on. {methinkst O'Leilly would be a bit more concerned about turning his back on Mrs. O'Lielly after his highly publicized outing for sexually harassing a former employee} , but be that as it may, O'Lielly's primary objective was setting the stage to highlight Kamau Kambon's pre-MMM hyperbole. Of course, he held Kambon out as the exemplar of what is wrong with black/white race relations and put forth the notion that 10% of black folks are hardcore racist. To his credit, he indicated his belief that 10% of whites are hardcore racists, which means there are as many hardcore white racists as there are black folks in America period. By the end of the segment, and a series of black callers who repudiated Kambon, he whittled his guesstimate of hardcore black racism down to the 2-3% range - without a corresponding resizing of his guesstimation of hardcore white racism. Personally, I'd take that guesstimate down by a factor, given that out of the hundreds of black folks I know who know and claim me, I know only one Kamau-ian. Everybody else who knows this brother laughs about his extreme pov and tries to buy him a hotdog, he also maintains an ital vegan diet, and most folks think he's angry cause he's hungry. The thrust of O'Lielly's message had to do with our collective need to pull together to face our common adversary in the War on Terra. I'm going to assume that O'Lielly is in a position to better guesstimate the % of hardcore white racists than I am. If his guesstimate is anywhere near accurate, then it appears to me that O'Lielly has inadvertantly advanced a thesis quite different than the one he initially set out advance. Now Osama and the boys ain't really done shit to me and I don't give em a second thought. OTOH, this stealthy block of hardcore white animus has been a material thorn in my side since even before I was born. Personally, I love it when an Atonist free associates on the topic of race and racism and in the course of his exposition, maneuvers himself into a completely unintended self-disclosure, particularly one of such epic proportions..., it seems to me that given the imperative for us to all pull together in the War on Terra, that any and all white folks acting in good faith would want to do everything in their power to effect a cure on the considerable, pathological mass of their very own enemy within. By that, I of course don't mean powerless little old Kamau and the scant few like him, rather, the bad actors who are phugging the whole equation up for all the rest of us...., ...and put forth the notion that 10% of black folks are hardcore racist. To his credit, he indicated his belief that 10% of whites are hardcore racists, which means there are as many hardcore white racists as there are black folks in America period. ... Personally, I love it when an Atonist free associates on the topic of race and racism and in the course of his exposition, maneuvers himself into a completely unintended self-disclosure, particularly one of such epic proportions.
heh, yeah. does he hear the words that are coming out of his own mouth? That is a rather interesting estimate... Steele's thesis indeed includes an assertion that black people collectively have underachieved during the last 40 years. So what do we see as a rebuttal? An assertion that Steele lacks empathy for the victims of Katrina.
I assert that the Holocaust did not happen. If 7 million Jews disappeared from the face of the earth they must have been abducted by aliens because the Nazis and their allies did not kill 7 million or even 1 million Jews. DW - Why do you believe that any Jew alive today is obligated to rebut arguments like this one? Why do you believe that Shelby Steele's ability to assert that blacks have collectively underachieved over the past 40 years imposes a duty on us to rebut his argument in a way that you find satisfactory or acceptable? Why do you believe that what Steele says is true? Do either of you have any data that supports this claim of underachievement? What was the predicted rate of achievement for blacks prior to 1964?
DW - Why do you believe that any Jew alive today is obligated to rebut arguments like this one? Obligated? Not. But it makes sense to scientifically debunk holocaust deniers. Why do you believe that Shelby Steele's ability to assert that blacks have collectively underachieved over the past 40 years imposes a duty on us to rebut his argument in a way that you find satisfactory or acceptable? I don't think you have a duty to pay Steele any attention whatsoever. But if you do choose to take him on, but end up with a totally unconvincing case, you add rather than subtract credibility from Steele. Why do you believe that what Steele says is true? The longer I considered Steele's argument the more I didn't agree with it. Not for reasons which you would necessarily agree with, but I really was hoping for a good rebuttal. One of the things I'm skeptical about was Steele's observation of permanent pain in the faces of the evacuees. This quote:
I'm just unconvinced by such observations. The people were suffering from an immediate problem. What "despair which had always been there" looks like on a face seems difficult to quantify. Even more deeply, I'm greatly resistent to drawing a line around that many people and declaring that I know something important about all of them based on nothing more than that they had lived in a poor area which suffered a deep flood. Do either of you have any data that supports this claim of underachievement? What was the predicted rate of achievement for blacks prior to 1964? Good questions PT. I'm not the one who made that case, nor will I be the one to defend it. In any case, thank you for inviting my comment.
Good answers. Your observation about Steele's claim to see an "older despair" on folks' faces is especially keen. I'm not convinced that it does any good to debate with Holocaust deniers. These folks have a corner on the delusion market. All I have to say is go to CSPAN and look at the conference moderated by Jesse Lee Peterson. What P6 stated comes through very clear.
It is essential to challenge purveyors of The Holocaust Industry. The ill-telligence involved in forging the historical common understanding - binding minds well known to us hereabouts - constitutes some truly cynical manipulation. According to Steele and the foul overlords he serves, you and I are supposed to forge ahead with amnesia, while on the matter of something that didn't happen here, didn't happen to us, we're exhorted to Never Forget! Steele has greenlighted a stepped up level of white amnesia in his exhortation to white folks to shed their guilt and begin taking us to task. Meanwhile, a demographic mass as large as we are continues to perpetrate against us. I wonder how the racism deniers process that little bon mot of unintended self-disclosure? Probably the same way that Zionists process the decades of criminal perpetration in Palestine..., I couldn 't agree with you more about the unceasing efforts to link any and all critics of Israel with anti-Semitism. I'm not sure that it is fair to lump Steele in with these folks, but his cries for black people trying to be less black in their perceptions of the world has never been linked to a call on his part for white people to be less white in their views. I recall thinking when I was reading his first book that black people would be perfectly willing to give up being black all the time; in fact, were uniquely prepared to throw off the shackles of race more so than any other group in America. The problem, as I saw it then and now, was that white people weren't not prepared to give up being white and their obliviousness to the benefits and privileges that accrue to them because of their skin color is not an acceptable excuse.
|
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
Why wouldn't the conditions that existed for the overwhelming majority of black folks prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be sufficient cause to explain the poverty that Steele viewed in the wake of Katrina? It's not as if white folks took their feet off of our necks the day after President Johnson signed this legislation. Why would any reasonable person believe that people who had been subjected to the harshest forms of racial oppression for generations should have suddenly recognized their innate capacity to lift themselves by their own bootstraps in 40 years? Where, oh where, does this madness come from?