Too many idiosyncratic (subjective/mechanical) incompatible psychological garments of blackness

Not enough interpersonal-communion based project-oriented objectives for blackness

Gotta put all these ideology bots to work brah. Work is all that's real, everything else is merely conversation..,

"If I could devise a way for the various folks that resist mainstream dominance in their various fashions to talk things out reasonably, I would be very, very happy."

I thought that's what we were doing here in P6's barbershop? The "reasonably" part might need a little work, but the conversation progresses most days.

cnulan's take on this puts the hammer to the nail: "Gotta put all these ideology bots to work brah. Work is all that's real, everything else is merely conversation..,"

And I agree with his point. But IMHO this conversation we're having is work. I have to work damn hard to keep up with cnulan, T3, PT and the other cognitive activists (is that your term nulan?) dropping the knowledge you don't get in college. But, admittedly, that's about personal growth. The real challenge for the collective brings us back to cnulan's comment:

"Too many idiosyncratic (subjective/mechanical) incompatible psychological garments of blackness... Not enough interpersonal-communion based project-oriented objective for blackness" 

How we migrate or evolve from one to the other is not easy to envision in cyberspace where each of us seems accustomed to being a feather for every topical wind that blows (to paraphrase Shakespeare).

Perhaps P6 can run a thread like a wikki where we can contribute to and agree on some basic terms and ideas that define the common ground of a common agenda we can advocate or act upon as cognitive activists and wordsmiths.

Just a suggestion from someone who recently went to check if the grass was greener on the other side of the hill. I can now report with authority: it ain't no greener and it's a lot harder to keep lit.

It is a laudable and even necessary goal but it can't be achieved even through a process dominated by an emphasis on work. Resistence to mainstream dominance is a necessary pre-condition, perhaps, to initiate a discussion but the flow of that discussion can be seriously impeded if people are not committed to granting each other the benefit of the doubt and exploring in a less confrontational mode what others mean when they express a viewpoint that seems either at odds with or not quite on point with the subject being discussed. You can't have a civil discussion with people who are quick to assume bad faith or who are too literal minded. You always offend them and cause them to question your motives.

You can't have a civil discussion with people who are quick to assume bad faith or who are too literal minded.

My mother always accused me of disliking people because I wouldn't respect their personal (persona=mask) boundaries..., from my perspective, direct apprehension of cameral paradox in which a mind said yes, while a body said no, was equivalent to catching a person in a lie.

Having studied this for a long time now, and having reconciled it with my subjective idiosyncracies, I've come to believe that both behaviourally induced autistic withdrawal and schizophrenic dissociation have a common causal genesis. Children, whose very existence pivots on reading the large people by whom they're surrounded, can either accept the nuanced {conflicted} behaviour of those upon whom they depend, or, they can recoil in instinctual objective moral horror from the conflicts.

Fast forward to the attenuated avatars through whom many of us exteriorize in this medium. Like seeks like. Absent common expressive idiosyncrasies, the likelihood of establishing a trust subsystem is slim. Frankly, anything stemming from an alias, a stepwise removed avatar of a mask ill-at-ease with owning it's political expressions, is dubious from the word go.

Methinkst this has always been a limiting factor in this medium. As you know, we're communicating via protocols concocted by deadly serious war gamers, pursuing game theoretical insights and advantages, and not that much has been done to dress it up over the ensuing decades to make it more hospitable.

I'll never forget cold war era scifi pulps I read as a teenager that portrayed in vivid detail submarine warfare or interstellar alien first contacts, all conducted through attenuated media with adversarial presumption and limited default commonality....,

"If I could devise a way for the various folks that resist mainstream dominance in their various fashions to talk things out reasonably, I would be very, very happy."

I thought that's what we were doing here in P6's barbershop? The "reasonably" part might need a little work, but the conversation progresses most days.

Yeah, it is.

All of us currently posting these long ass analytical pieces right now know pretty much for a fact we have very similar visions. We're starting from our individual experiences but we're on the same side. Yet we still bump horns periodically.

I'm thinking of what happens if we reach a consensus. I'm thinking about how we'd recognize a consensus. Hell, I'm thinking about what reaching a consensus means.

If I could devise a way for the various folks that resist mainstream dominance in their various fashions to talk things out reasonably, I would be very, very happy.

Well, I come down on the co-sign with O~...

[We have to get to the point to] where we can contribute to and agree on some basic terms and ideas that define the common ground of a common agenda we can advocate or act upon as cognitive activists and wordsmiths.

I agree.  The way to overcome the friction is to put everybody to work.  But therein lies the problem.  Can you get everybody to work together despite their ideological differences? or conduct constructive conversations without devolving into ideological warfare?

IMO, the thing to do is to both be Goal Oriented in your approach ("we are gathered here today...") and to be a master orchestrator and put the talent you have to its best use.  Unity Of Purpose not Uniformity.  We only need to agree on some basic things, it seems to me, and then resolve to get out of each others way or rather identify how we are working not only against each other but against the ultimate objective.  An objective or group of objectives that we have to be very explicit about. 

PTC??  Where do I know you from?  Or, rather, where do you know me from?

You can't have a civil discussion with people who are quick to assume bad faith... [and are quick] to question your motives.

That sounds pretty familiar...  Just asking... especially since....

I'm thinking of what happens if we reach a consensus. I'm thinking about how we'd recognize a consensus. Hell, I'm thinking about what reaching a consensus means.

But that's just it.  A "consensus" on what?  On what in particular?  Assessing talents, actual areas of interests/emphasis, IMO, says that, while so many of us (not that I'm necessarily included, being new here), there are particular areas where we have individual strengths or the most interests.  Identifying and accentuating those particulars may make the general consensus easier to recognize and, more importantly, to maintain.

All of us currently posting... know pretty much for a fact we have very similar visions... Yet we still bump horns periodically.

And what's problematic about that? 

We're on the same side.

Seriously, what does that mean?  Being on the same side means little or no disagreement? Is there something else there?  Something about the character of the disagreements/differences that seem problematic to you?

What are you expectations?

Thank you gentlemen. Digesting your reactions helped.

Actual questions I should respond to, though it may get kind of meta.

A "consensus" on what?  On what in particular?

Strikes me conversations such as these are searches for a "lens," or a kernal around which a crew could "recrystalize." Acquiring a lens would let you find the kernal, building on a kernal changes your lens...I actually think them two aspects of a unity. The consensus I was trying to name was

• does one search for the lens first or the kernal?
• how does one recognize either?

Yet we still bump horns periodically.

And what's problematic about that?

Just thinking about having the conversation with folks who do not share the basic approach.

Consensus?

Quaker folk are all about consensus.

Right off the top of my head, you are so right about the kernal and lens being two parts of a unity.

In Quaker meeting, the search begins with a query, a spiritual question (or sometimes even a practical one) for the group to consider.

Where meeting differs from most blogs--but not necessarily this one--is the members of the meeting hold off trying to pose an answer right away. Instead, they let the question simmer a little, get past the initial gut reactions, and let that second or third thought rise to the surface before speaking up.

Generally, I'd say people go for the kernal first, taking a try at painting the truth in big strokes. As several people try, the differences in individual lenses become apparent and those differences can be examined and the lens ground a little more precisely.

Arriving at consensus is what's best. The meeting doesn't have to hold the same opinion, but they need to reach the point where everybody can at least see the same kernal and accept it.

And, by the way, P6--to your original remark: You're doing fine, mister. And I expect you'll do better still.

Generally, I'd say people go for the kernal first, taking a try at painting the truth in big strokes. As several people try, the differences in individual lenses become apparent and those differences can be examined and the lens ground a little more precisely.

This assumes some fundamental agreement, at least on a method of checking the result. For great numbers of folk, that agreement is some unfalsifiable statement of faith. And most efforts at corrections are like, "hey, the prescription for your glasses needs adjusting, so put these glasses on top of your glasses..."

It's why cnulan always goes back to autopoiesis. The trick with mortals, though, is to get the point across without using words like "autopoiesis"...

This assumes some fundamental agreement, at least on a method of checking the result.

Well, in the case of Quakers, that method is simple persistence. It's not at all efficient.

Autopoiesis.

My "hadda-go-google" for the day. Thanks.

Too many idiosyncratic (subjective/mechanical) incompatible psychological garments of blackness

The key is to render those garments transparent, so the common humanity underneath is visible.

Strikes me conversations such as these are searches for a "lens," or a kernal around which a crew could "recrystalize." Acquiring a lens would let you find the kernal, building on a kernal changes your lens...I actually think them two aspects of a unity. The consensus I was trying to name was

• does one search for the lens first or the kernal?
• how does one recognize either?

I don't think it ultimately matters in situations where consensus is being sought after if one searches for the lens first or opts to pursue the kernal as long as the parties involved agree that the reality or answers being sought is sufficiently complex to accommodate a diversity of views within an agreed upon framework. The more serious problems generally arise around the question of the agreed upon framework, which is why it is important that the seekers assume a degree of good faith on the part of their fellow searchers.

We all know by now or at least we should know that if we search for the lens first and are lucky or persistent enough to find it, we cannot be assured a priori that it will allow us to view the kernel unless we have altered the kernel beforehand. Conversely, if we look for the kernel at the outset then we need to be assured that once we have found it that the lens we are using will allow us to see it.

I suspect that we all tend to do both at the same time and that community and cooperation is attained and sustained in most cases when we accept or at least recognize that the quest itself - regardless of the object being pursued - is what changes the lens and the kernel. The best that we can probably hope for is some rough or approximate congruency of viewpoints. In a community built on good intentions and a desire for harmony and comity this is probably sufficient. In a community focussed on dominance and control either of its internal members or those outside of its fold this situation always leads to conflict.

In a community focussed on dominance and control either of its internal members or those outside of its fold this situation always leads to conflict.

A nearly perfect description of the allopoietic beast in whose belly we reside, against which the sympoietic interpersonal communion of blackness emerged, to which we owe a disciplined autopoietic allegiance lest we be consumed and forfeit our souls....,

Thom 47:2

47 Jesus said, "A person cannot mount two horses or bend two bows. 2And a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one and offend the other. 3 "Nobody drinks aged wine and immediately wants to drink young wine. 4Young wine is not poured into old wineskins, or they might break, and aged wine is not poured into a new wineskin, or it might spoil. 5An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, since it would create a tear."

A nearly perfect description of the allopoietic beast in whose belly we reside, against which the sympoietic interpersonal communion of blackness emerged, to which we owe a disciplined autopoietic allegiance lest we be consumed and forfeit our souls....,

The reality of the superstructure does not absolve us of individual responsibility for how we choose to conduct our affairs with people on a day-to-day basis nor does it release us from the choices or policies we pursue and promlote at a macro level. I think it was Kierkegaard who defined abstract thought as thought without the thinker. In other words, he was placing the individual at the center of a morally imperfect universe and world and declaring that one still has a responsibility to make choices.

Old Soren would be proud.

You guys know you agree, right?

they'll figure it out, after they land from that existential leap of faith.

Leap Of Faith... Good Faith... Blind Faith... No Faith... 

Who Killed Biggie Smalls?

“Too many idiosyncratic (subjective/mechanical) incompatible psychological garments of blackness…”

hanging in my bicameral closets. I admit it. But, hey, lately I’ve been trying to purge my wardrobe, break it down to a few essential pimped out personas in checks and plaids, platform shoes, an afro wig, or, better yet, did somebody say DOORAG.

All I’m saying is we should not get hung up on the masks, “the attenuated avatars through whom many of us exteriorize in this medium.” IMHO what is at issue here is the message not the messenger. What we have to share with each other, irrespective of identity, is perspective, analysis, synthesis, and intelligence.

I give you my words; you give me your words. That’s the deal. That’s the consensus. We take what we can from the table. We place offerings for others to feed. Folks can call it a “consensus of crows,” if in the navel of their imaginations they think we’re just a bunch of blackbirds sitting on telephone lines flapping our beaks at the sun. For me it doesn’t matter because the work is still getting done. It’s getting done because the words I gather here, though light as a feather, carry the weight of history and the wonder of our collective memory and experience. With those words I renew myself everyday; everyday I find new strength even in anger, confrontation and conflict. How can I not be inspired by these words:

"A nearly perfect description of the allopoietic beast in whose belly we reside, against which the sympoietic interpersonal communion of blackness emerged, to which we owe a disciplined autopoietic allegiance lest we be consumed and forfeit our souls....," (cnulan)

Or these:
“Resistance to mainstream dominance is a necessary pre-condition, perhaps, to initiate a discussion but the flow of that discussion can be seriously impeded if people are not committed to granting each other the benefit of the doubt and exploring in a less confrontational mode what others mean when they express a viewpoint that seems either at odds with or not quite on point with the subject being discussed.” (PTcruiser)

Or these:
“When someone advocates a position for millions of people based on, "It worked for me, it can work for you," (without some sound logic - that's not a tautology) I watch my wallet and my ass - 'cause there is a criminal element in the room. that's the same pitch used by Floridian real estate salespeople, missionaries (assume the position), and diet fad pimps. I recognize it's a bit of a straw man, but my critique is of the flawed logic in the pitch - since it lacks demonstrable proof and causality is attributed to false sources (ie, this prayer = salvation, this diet = permanent weight loss, this deal = financial security).”
(Temple3)

Words like these brought me out of the wilderness…

What we have to share with each other, irrespective of identity, is perspective, analysis, synthesis, and intelligence.

I give you my words; you give me your words. That’s the deal. That’s the consensus. We take what we can from the table. We place offerings for others to feed.

And that is the deal.  Unless a topic is structured in a manner with some desired or directed outcome... It is what it is.  And the various lens or kernels, great or small, spoken out anger, frustration, exasperation or in affirmation are kernels and lens regardless.

I agree with Quaker, it's the persistence and what I call an unconditional commitment towards the desired end (consensus, affirmation, confirmation, just lettin' me speak my peace... whatever) that is important.  The thing about though, it always seems that most threads and most topics are open for freestylin'.  People post to speak their peace (present their offerings/perspectives) even if that means contending with or agreeing, slightly or more, with someone else's "peace". 

Reaching a consensus is, IMO, at all times something that must be a conscious effort.  Emphasis on the keyword:  Effort.  Don't know whether that is the conscious approach taken or even engendered.  But I feel it can be accomplished when specifically targeted with unconditional persistance.

Synthesizing then, too, must be a conscious effort.  Someone with the intent or ability to see the parallel or matching, mutually inclusive kernels or lens of two or more differently articulated positions then, at least as far as I'm concerned, they are more than welcome to, if not obligated to point those things out (if consensus is the aim).

Synthesizing then, too, must be a conscious effort. 

I'm working on it. It's like trying to draw four faces of a cube... 

Hi everyone,

I just happened to come upon this post by chance while surfing through Afro-Netizen:

"If I could devise a way for the various folks that resist mainstream dominance in their various fashions to talk things out reasonably, I would be very, very happy"

If this is an example of the kind of dialogue that takes place here, then count me in. I have been looking for just such a place where I can share in robust discussion with kindred minds, where if we disagree, we can do so without being "violently disagreeable". 

I am myself, a former Black Nationalist, resigned in the sense that I realized that it will take much more than inciting and outrage to mobilize the people. Moreover, that the "mainstream" is much more than a nebulous web of mendacity, but rather an intricate tool of the powers that be to perpetuate dissention among those who would otherwise organize.  Thus, it is in this sense that I am inspired by the idea of Prometheus6.  This is the spirit of Bacon’s rebellion, when all types, free blacks, enslaved blacks, free whites, indentured whites, and Native Americans came together against the powers that be. Moreover, in that day the powers that be realized that there must be something more than class to frustrate the underclass. Therefore, they began the construction of artificial structures vis a vis the mainstream. These same structures exist today, perpetuating white privilege, not merely for the sake of white power, rather to keep the masses preoccupied with superfluous differences.  

Likewise, blacks have been swept into foolish contention over this notion of authenticating “blackness”, when in fact our struggle, much more than the overall struggle of America’s downtrodden, demands clear and simple responses to frequently asked questions.  Do we object to the wholesale oppression, malignance, and disenfranchisement of our people by the larger society? Yes or no?  Will we, or will we not unite to overcome this?  Yes or no?  I realize this is oversimplified, but my point is I believe that such a dialogue needs to take place, as opposed to the posturing and the ‘flossing’ as it were, that has been going on by and between our so called leaders.

"These same structures exist today, perpetuating white privilege, not merely for the sake of white power, rather to keep the masses preoccupied with superfluous differences."

Now that's putting food for thought on the table. Got any mo' of dem groceries?

"The thing about though, it always seems that most threads and most topics are open for freestylin'.  People post to speak their peace (present their offerings/perspectives) even if that means contending with or agreeing, slightly or more, with someone else's "peace". 

True dat. But at some point a transformation occurs where the sound bite or instant breakfast just isn't enough. Since most of us are capable of posting those long ass analyses of the frisson du jour, it seems to me we could, when appropriate, operate more in the manner of "unconditional persistence" in order to realize a common objective.

it seems to me we could, when appropriate, operate more in the manner of "unconditional persistence" in order to realize a common objective.

That kind of conversational persistance can get tedious, especially if it's not pursued with open-mindedness. (See several contentious threads elsewhere on P6, for example.)

However, if you look at the P6's listing of "Most Popular Threads," you'll see that many here are capable of sustained examination of the kernal.

I've yet to see in these types of forums the "common objective" articulated.

What is it?

If the basic mode of interaction here (or elsewhere) is to present a topic with no clear objective stated as to what is supposed to be accomplished when speaking on the topic then, really, what are the expectations?

Again, what is the common objective?  Is it the same for every topic introduced?  When a topic is introduced, how do we approach this "common (and still unstated) objective"?  How do we know when we're deviating from the path to it?

I'm still new here and I don't know whether there's really an issue with long post or whether there is a genuine interest either at getting to deeper, root essences or going beyond talk towards some type of action... over the net???

Seriously... what is the common objective?  Why is it so hard to just state whatever it is?   

 I could devise a way for the various folks... to talk things out reasonably

Is that the sum total of the "common objective"? 

I seriously don't understand what people are trying to get at when no one is saying anything in particular... about anything in particular.  Take for instance the Shelby Steele thread(s).  What was or should have been the "common objective" there?

Former Black Nationalist, eh?

I once claimed to be a Black Nationalist. Was told in no uncertain terms I was not...didn't make me less concerned or serious, didn't inspire me to change what I was doing. Made me coin the "Black Partisan" terminology.

Anyway,

I am myself, a former Black Nationalist, resigned in the sense that I realized that it will take much more than inciting and outrage to mobilize the people.

Yeah. Inciting and outrage isn't enough because they already feel it and so are either venting or denying. I probably shouldn't say it with all the Republicans watching but you don't convince people to join you...you show them they're already a member or the benefit of joining is greater than the cost.  People make their sociopolitical choices on the same basis as their other life choices.

I'm still new here and I don't know whether there's really an issue with long post or whether there is a genuine interest either at getting to deeper, root essences or going beyond talk towards some type of action... over the net???

There's no problem with long posts, though maybe I should look into the forum module. That might be interesting...

As for the rest, my operating assumption is that I'm starting from scratch, and that information, support and communication channels are the only deliverables online. Oh, and that such does not yet exist for Black folks, not an effective such anyway.

I think some of what can be done is just provide validation...I think there's value in letting people know they're not FUCKING CRAZY...

And I'd like people to consider the issues common to Black folks among all the many issues they juggle so I have to point those issues out.

And I have to phrase my request such that it's not scary to middle-class Black folk. 

And I have to phrase my request such that it's not scary to middle-class Black folk." 

Yeah, that sort of gives me a nice segue, into my post about being a "Former Black Nationalist". Make no mistake about it, I am what I am, that is, I still believe in black power. However, black power must be put in context, or else it will be misconstrued (once again) by the mainstream as the language of unrighteous rebellion and lawlessness. That's what scares white folk, middle class blacks, and hell I even shudder to think what one million blacks could do, both good and bad, if they organized. Nevertheless, black power, at least as I see it, assumes black consciousness, black uplift, and righteous indignation, never unmitigated rage.

And going back to the initial premise of this thread, I believe that MLK began to develop the right formula towards the end of his life, when it seemed that he began to realize, as did Malcolm, that the liberation of our people is inextricably tied to the liberation of all people. As MLK posited,” Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".  People began to see MLK as a man for the people, not just black people.

So we must indeed choose our words wisely, so that the language of black power is not hijacked by the mainstream to be dismissed as rhetoric in the ilk of the KKK or some other nut-club. Quite frankly, the language of black power is valid for any oppressed people. In fact, I’m convinced that someone, assuming they were sincere, could go up to the Appalachian mountains, where the poorest people in America live, I’m talking about dirt poor whites, and stir them up with the same language used by Martin or Malcolm. The key is, I believe, and I’m confident that this is your point prometheus6, how does someone tailor the message so that it does not fall upon deaf ears.

So we must indeed choose our words wisely, so that the language of black power is not hijacked by the mainstream to be dismissed as rhetoric in the ilk of the KKK or some other nut-club.

This is an aside to your post but I always felt as if Stokely Carmichael and others were engaging in a form of theatre back in the day when they began talking openly about black power. I thought the majority of black folks - regardless of their socio-economic status - understood the importance of black people having poliitcal, economic and financial power and at an intuitive level agreed with Stokely et al. but at some deeper level of reality, perhaps, were turned off by the theatrical aspects of the presentation.

In retrospect I think that black folks, by and large, did want black power but they also wanted to be part of the mainstream. In other words, they wanted to use this power to insert themselves into a more central and honored place in American society. They did not want to pursue black power for the purpose of creating distinct and separate spheres of activities for themselves because this had already been tried and found greatly wanting.

I don't know if Stokely et al. failure to grasp this sense of longing on the part of black Americans to belong was because of their youth or, as Harold Cruse suggested, because they weren't not Negro Americans in the sense of having been born and raised in the United States. What I do know is that it created a schism within certain activist and leadership elements in the black community and this distance has not to date been bridged.

I don't know if Stokely et al. failure to grasp this sense of longing on the part of black Americans to belong was because of their youth or, as Harold Cruse suggested, because they weren't not Negro Americans in the sense of having been born and raised in the United States.

that empty wantingness is a generational liability that is thankfully dying off with its victims.., to want to belong to an immoral and thermodynamically unsustainable modus operandi is equivalent to wanting to board a sinking ship. To want to belong to such a thing when its passengers and crew categorically reject and debase you is inexcusably pathetic.

it would be dishonest to claim that things haven't changed somewhat. very little of the categorical ostracism continues in the mainstream because it is incompatible with the principles to which the mainstream pays lip service, and, the economic utility which it formerly subserved moved along with the apartheid exclusion. we can go anywhere any other passenger can go on the ship, though we don't own shit and we don't occupy genuine command roles crucial to the navigation, operation, etc.., of this ship.

At this moment, illegal immigrants seem to have taken on the role of America's niggers du jour. The War on Terra seeks to erode the principles that were highlighted as wanting by the CRM. It's not as if the knuckledraggers have gone away altogether, they're still plugging away at their model which is even more tired and obviously and objectively flawed than it's ever been seen to be before.

In the midst of all this encompassing drama, here we sit. what to do with this lump of politically imiscible negritude? the sundry wars of attrition haven't killed it off..., simple samboism only works on those atavistic 2% so desperate to belong.., what to do, what to do...?

A window of opportunity yawns wide open for enterprising black partisan autodidacts, technocrats, and propagandists to inject an ascending octave of developmental possibility into the mass. as PQ pointed out, that ascending octave must appeal to the 53 Million working poor whites in America as surely as it appeals to 18 Million working poor blacks.

Having no idea how long this window of opportunity will persist, there is no time like the present for doing work. I suspect that this moment will not last more than a few years. Things will either get bleak as hell or get better in a hurry, and I honestly have no idea which way that will go. All I know is that we should be focused with no let up on implementing measures of culturally partisan inclusive fitness that are orthogonal to what is being perpetrated in the highly confused and conflicted mainstream. When in Rome, do as a genuine Christian...,

Perhaps because I'm partial to the gospels as a cultural legominism, I find numerous parallels in this thin record of the conflicted collective psyche of Rome's colonized Jews and the conflicted collective psyche of my people under comparable Pax American sway...,

"I've yet to see in these types of forums the "common objective" articulated."

It's not uncommon for the common objective to remain unstated. Someone throws a chunk of fresh rhetorical meat in the cage and with the common objective of satiating a hunger to get at the crux of the matter a feeding frenzy begins. Let's take the recent thread dealing with Cobb's magic denegroidizing American flag lapel pin for an example. An unstated common objective emerged within certain sectors of the collective to deconstruct, debunk, and dismiss his conservative maunderings as hysterically ahistorical and cognitively challenged. I think that objective was achieved. It was settled without comment or the popping of champagne corks because that kind of thing goes on around here regularly.

P6 occasionally will post a question without stating any particular goal or objective beforehand, and those who feel like debating the question or positing answers do so. The process is pretty straightforward (no giving of blood, sweat, tears, or DNA required). I raised the point of “common objectives” simply to suggest a more formal process could occur on occasion around issues or concerns that may be considered foundational to black discourse or black intrapolitics. The idea of “blackness” comes to mind as an example. We all are grappling with its meaning and import in various ways and from various personal perspectives. “Black nationalism” also has emerged in this thread as a topic. We know it has changed over the last two centuries. Is it still evolving? Is it defunct or just de-funked?

I am willing to work strategically with others to define and refine such questions for contemplation if not resolution or consensus. I’m not, however, proposing to constrain anyone’s input in any way. I just think that we gather here on the corner of http and www for a larger purpose than just dealing with the issue or outrage du jour. If that purpose is “black partisanship” there’s nothing wrong IMHO with stating it as a common objective.

"In retrospect I think that black folks, by and large, did want black power but they also wanted to be part of the mainstream. In other words, they wanted to use this power to insert themselves into a more central and honored place in American society."

Point taken pt, and yet this is the fundamental paradox of black Americanism. As Dubois framed it:

"The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife,—this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self." "He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face."---Souls of Black Folk

I believe that this could be tied back into the larger conversation, about those who resist mainstream dominance. Even if blacks were able to achieve full assimilation into the mainstream, what does this guarantee them?  The mainstream after all is the mechanism of the powers that be. When we look at the American social structure, everyone else aside from the white male elite is a token. The poor white male, the white female, the ethnic American who is granted honorary white status (i.e. Asians, light-skinned Hispanics, etc.), black females, and uncle toms; in that order are not co-beneficiaries of power. Yeah, they may receive scraps from the master's table, but as long as they are content with mediocrity then the power structure is undisturbed.

But for every American to have a true shot at equality, it means two things, the elite, the top one percent of people in this country who control 90% of the wealth must agree to relinquish their title to power. However, by doing this they would be disinherited from centuries old power structures that were designed to ensure that their offspring had access to the best places at the metaphorical watering hole.

And so, cnulan is correct, this desire by blacks for assimilation is equivalent to boarding a sinking ship, or as MLK put it, "integrating into a burning house".  The message must make the same thing clear to all of those who have been disenfranchised by this American system.  America as she is now is top heavy, and if she remains as such, she certainly will fall with a crushing blow.

But for every American to have a true shot at equality, it means two things, the elite, the top one percent of people in this country who control 90% of the wealth must agree to relinquish their title to power. However, by doing this they would be disinherited from centuries old power structures that were designed to ensure that their offspring had access to the best places at the metaphorical watering hole.

Sorry PQ, it just ain't so.  Not in America anyway.

To start with, in order to talk about 90% of the wealth we need to get to around 25% of the people, depending on defninitions.

Secondly, to claim an aristocracy we would need to show that the richest familes are static across generations, utilizing some kind of defense to keep outsiders from getting rich.  That just doesn't happen in America.  The vast majority of the 1000 richest families consist of first or second generation wealth.  Of the top ten, all are recent wealth (five are heirs of Sam Walton, who was recent first generation wealth).

So what we see is that the wealthy of America is a dynamic club with no membership rules.  People join and leave based on their own decisions.  While power certainly flows from money, there is no power to relinquish except perhaps with Mugabe style confiscation with its subsequent destruction of economic opportunity for everyone.  The power structures may look impenetrable, but they're penetrated regularly by newcomers.

By contrast, the offspring of wealth in America have had a very difficult time holding large concentrations of that wealth for more than a generation or two.