Because it wants to continue taking money directly, Black Lives Matter UK has become an official organization and, in the process, renamed itself “Black Liberation Movement UK.” This obviously allows it to retain its BLM UK branding without changing anything about its politics.
“We remain committed and our politics hasn’t changed, and we remain in constant conversation [with] and committed to the network of Black Lives Matter groups across the world,” said Elliott Cooper, who registered the entity. But people should be asking what this idea of “black liberation” is in the first place. We hear it a lot, and yet a quick web search reveals that its meaning is not immediately clear.
Liberation—black or otherwise—is a neo-Marxist concept based loosely upon Marx’s notion of the “emancipated man” who has been freed from the oppressive system of capitalism as it naturally evolves into communism. “Liberation” specifically refers to the liberation from systemic oppression, to frame it as the neo-Marxists would, which is to say liberation from the liberal order and Enlightenment rationalism, if we translate it into plainspeak.
“Freedom is liberation, a specific historical process in theory and practice, and as such it has its right and wrong, its truth and falsehood,” wrote neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse in his famous 1965 essay, “Repressive Tolerance.” And what does it require? Suppression and the revocation of the civil rights of those in “power,” according to Marcuse: “It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.”
Marcuse went on in 1969 to write about liberation in positively alarming terms, indicating that until human beings are fundamentally remade at a “biological” level, essentially to prefer socialism to capitalism, liberation will remain impossible. He also went on to inspire the radical black feminist theorist and activist Angela Davis who abandoned her studies (against another neo-Marxist, Theodor Adorno’s, advice) and joined the Black Liberation Army. She is now actively pursuing “black liberation” within the context of BLM (whichever thing that refers to ). Davis, for all her prolific writing and activism seems merely to assume the meaning of liberation, largely like her mentor Marcuse, though, and finding a clear outline of what either he or she means by it is a surprisingly tricky task. It seems to mean, reading from Marcuse’s 1964 book One-Dimensional Man, the rejection of all servitude and domination, which begins in turn from one’s “consciousness” of this dismal state.
While, at times, both Marcuse and Davis described “liberation” explicitly in Marxian terms and both left open the door for “violent resistance,” if necessary, to achieve it, the Black Liberation Army of which Davis was a part was more forthright about what liberation meant and entailed. It’s a neo-Marxist conspiracy theory. They observe, to quote them at some length,
In a society such as exists here today, law is never impartial, never divorced from the economical relationships that brought it about. History clearly shows that in the course of the development of modern western society, the code of law is the code of the dominant and most powerful class, made into laws for everyone. It is implemented by establishing “special” armed organs, that are obliged to enforce the prevailing class laws. In this historical period of human social development such is the objective function of “law.” …
Under such conditions of the most powerful economic and political classes. But, what about the law in a democracy, especially one that claims that all its citizens can elect their representatives who in turn can create new laws? First of all such a democracy does not exist in North America, bourgeoisie democracy is essentially the dictatorship of what used to be termed the “national bourgeoisie.” There are a combination of reasons as to why this form of democracy as such is merely a means of political control that evinces a design to subjugate its people, all of these reasons flow from the necessity to maintain exploitative capitalist relationships. Thus, the influence of corporate wealth on the politics of bourgeois democracy is merely an extension of private property’s traditional influence and control of the so-called democratic process. … To a greater degree all social and political institutions in a class society are reflections of the class organization of that society of the reflection of a given technological-economical arrangement and its supporting value system. The political organization of the most powerful classes or economic groups in a class society has to be, and is, the control by these classes over the entire society and its political system. We have found the democratic process under capitalism to be merely a means by which capital controls the masses. It is a means of mass diversion, designed to keep the powerless classes politically impotent while at the same time fostering the illusion that real power can be gained through the electoral process. Black People should know better. In a nation based on the false principle of majority rule we are a marginal minority and therefore our right to self-determination cannot be won in the arena of our oppressor.
It’s in this context that we can understand what “black liberationism” actually means in practice:
We, as blacks in North America must realize, that to seek inclusion into the prevailing socio-economic system is suicide in the long run, for the prevailing system cannot withstand the irresistible world trend of history which is opposed to continued U.S. exploitation, racist domination and subjugation. To fool ourselves into believing that “equal opportunity,” “justice,” and social equality is the same as the capitalist system is a grave mistake with genocidal implications for every person of color. Our first obligation is to ourselves, this means our first obligation is to secure our total liberation from those forces that maintain our oppressive condition. Related to this self-obligation (not distinct from it) is our obligation to all oppressed peoples throughout the world, for in striving to liberate ourselves we must abolish a system that enslaves others throughout the world.
So, black liberationism is the effort to free black people from every conceivable form of systemic oppression as analyzed by a Marxian conspiracy theory about how capitalism and the related liberal order allegedly intrinsically oppress them through tools like “equal opportunity,” “justice,” “social equality,” and, we could add, Enlightenment rationality, equality theory, and neutral principles of constitutional law (which Critical Race Theory explicitly and cynically calls into question). I don’t think this is what a lot of people think the otherwise pleasant-sounding term “black liberation” really refers to. Why not? For the simplest of reasons—who could be against liberation?
When people think of Black Lives Matter, as a decentralized confederacy of co-belligerent movements operating effectively under one umbrella, they may not realize that what they’re actually observing is a re-assertion of the Black Liberation Movement of some fifty years ago, which is in turn based literally upon a neo-Marxist conspiracy theory about free (liberal) capitalist societies. Perhaps this change of name by BLM UK will help them understand that.
This article was originally published at Roca News.
56 comments
Does anyone else feel that this article is just a pseudo-intellectual attempt at negating the fact that our country is still steeped in racism?
You stating something as fact does not make it so. Define ” steeped in racism”please.
You’re Jewish, right, Michael?
Looks to me like BLM was founded, and Ferguson looted & burned, based on the utter fabrication that Officer Wilson executed Mike Brown like a dog in the street as he knelt, hands up, pleading, “Don’t shoot!”
The common BLM chant, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” is rooted in that lie.
I wonder how long the BLM people will take to realize the people of Africa could do with some help.
Anyone who does not think that BLM is a neo Marxist movement based on the views of Marcuse Davis and Howard Zinn is profoundly mistaken in their assessment of BLM
Is it a conspiracy theory though? Conspiracy theory has negative conotations. Are you saying there’s no truth to it? Wasn’t there a Princton statistical study that showed a direct correlation between government policy and corporate opinion and absolutely no correlation between government policy and public opinion? So whether there’s a conspiracy or not, the result is still that corporations do have very strong control over democratic governments.
Just to be clear, I’m not justifying “liberation”. And I’m not a communist. But there is truth at the core of the marxist critique of capitalism and till we face that and try to improve things, we won’t get rid of communist ideas. It would be naive to think that the capitalist-democratic system is great and just and there’s no reason for people to feel opressed.
I had a similar response reading this. Many Americans – and particularly those in the “detached middle” and the “exhausted majority” (as elucidated by the Hidden Tribes report https://hiddentribes.us/) – are feeling the effects of being excluded from the polictical process which is increasingly polarized and manipulated by the two-party duopoly and its various cronies.
BLM is taking what could otherwise be a unifying experience for all those frustrated by the political and economic exclusion in this country and wrapping it in a race-war narrative, thus supercharging it for one group (as well as attempting to “own” the mantle, such that other groups – or _all of us together – can’t “use it ” for our shared benefit).
While the capitalist democratic (and let’s call it liberal) system obviously has many flaws, I think in the context of world history we can safely call it “great”. It doesn’t mean people are not oppressed in some form or another but how do we define “oppressed” exactly? Certainly compared to most times in history in almost all of the world, people in current day capitalist, liberal democracies are not “oppressed”, no matter which skin colour they have.
This is a good article with some actual facts on the matter. Is it okay to rely on facts or is that “epistemic oppression?” Oh, I forgot, facts are just interpretations and interpretations are just power. Oh well…
https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/
The whole “systemic racism” idea is a conspiracy theory. You can’t see it, but it is there. You can’t point to specific people who are responsible for it but “they” are out there hiding in the shadows. You just have to know the secrets about where to look and what to look for. It’s a Dan Brown novel. Systemic racism is Opus Dei.
Sure you can. It’s all the white people.
I think that at it’s most crude, in street form, neo-Marxism can be understood as a conspiracy theory but quite incorrectly, in my view, since the contention was always that the structures and institutions we create take on a life of their own and enslave, or alienate us in turn (or at least the dominated classes or identities), hence Marx’s metaphor of Capitalism as a Golem, created by its masters – the bourgeois – but now autonomous and turning on them, out of control, etc.
A conspiracy theory implies agency, and the bourgeois is just as much caught up in social structure as the proletariat, compelled if you like to compete in the price war and in turn exploit the proletariat, and in Marx’s view, sow the seeds of their own destruction as a class.
Translate this into the cultural sphere and the same applies to BLM or so-called post-modern Marxism.
My answer to the same question would have been much shorter: Yes.
Another good essay. Thanks! James.
As much fun as it is to pour over white Eurocentric philosophies that biracial, yet mostly white, folks like Angela Davis espouse, I’m always left with the same thought: What a bunch of bullshit. I have no use for millionaire Marxists.
Amen!
“Marcuse went on in 1969 to write about liberation in positively alarming terms, indicating that until human beings are fundamentally remade at a “biological” level, essentially to prefer socialism to capitalism”
Hm yummy, eugenics – would be nice to have a reference for the original text… anyone ?
I’m not sure if the work I think you’re thinking of is the original, but we could always reference “progressive” icon Margaret Sanger, who felt that Hitler wasn’t thorough enough.
Two points here:
First: This is not really new James., You will find the same beliefs in literature from the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam was very active in downtown Chicago during the 1960s. Members would often force their pamphlets into the hands or in the face of people walking past them. I remember it.
Second: gmmayo70, as George Costanza would say, “It’s not a lie if you believe it”. Beliefs are harder to refute because they are untestable-the same way feelings are. If you’ve ever seen a child express disbelief when they hear Santa isn’t real, you’ll see what I mean.
Cal,
I’m not sure Lindsay was trying to imply this was a new idea. Like most of radical Leftwing ideology, it’s all just a repackaged form of the stale and failed. Much like the cultural facelift marxism received in the 20th century, black liberation theology has gotten a few Botox injections from the isolated events of 2020. But it’s still the same old face.
I would much rather see the word “belief” attached to these ideologies. Seeing “theory” appropriated by an ideology padded out with so many completely unfalsifiable propositions destroys credibility from the start.
Cal,
In retrospect and after rereading James’ essay, I agree; James didn’t suggest the underlying belief/s of BLM, ad nauseum were new.
I like your idea of using the word “belief” instead of theory as a descriptor. Theory sounds “sciency” and therefore legitimate.
As to the remodeling of Marxist/CT ideas, I simply shake my head. My thinking is something like, “How can they not see it?”. I have ideas about why they don’t. Hubris is one of the answers. Somehow they’ll make it (Marxism, etc) work this time. Secondly, I think too many Americans have inadequate historical literacy.
Unrelatedly, did you see my suggestions for assertive communication techniques for people with porous borders (the CRT/D&I presenters) I left in another thread?
Yes, I did. I just haven’t had the time to go back and give it a thoughtful response yet. I do have it somewhere on my agenda though. So for now, thanks for the feedback!
gmmayo70-
I’m glad to hear you found my suggestions. Please do share (ick, sharing sounds so therapisty) some real questions and statements D&I instructors “teach”. I’m interested to learn what they actually say. Thanks.
He begins by talking about works written in the 60’s. I don’t think he meant these are new ideas. Quite the opposite really
“In a nation based on the false principle of majority rule…”
With such a fundamental ignorance of the founding principles of our nation, it’s no wonder the paragraph that squeezed out this nugget is almost pure nonsense.
Reading these sorts of diatribes is always the same. Nearly every sentence contains an unprovable claim, a debatable premise, or factually inaccurate statement. The more questionable the allegation, the more certain the language. The author produces a thick smokescreen, hoping to smuggle something, anything in unchallenged, making a thorough rebuttal impractical.
gmmayo70-one other thought:
Maybe you recall Barack Obama’s Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Jr. This is the same man who preached Black Liberation Theology. Liberation Theology teaches black people that white people are the source of their problems. Wright openly made hateful statements about white people. It was hugely controversial.
Black Liberation Theology essentially says the same things as the Nation of Islam and Black Lives Matter.
I wonder how many Americans remember Jeremiah Wright.
I had just made a comment about Black Liberation Theology to your other comment. We’re on the same page, as usual.
“Reading these sorts of diatribes is always the same. Nearly every sentence contains an unprovable claim, a debatable premise, or factually inaccurate statement. The more questionable the allegation, the more certain the language. The author produces a thick smokescreen, hoping to smuggle something, anything in unchallenged, making a thorough rebuttal impractical.” That sir, is an absolute gem of writing. I hope you don’t mind but I have used it elsewhere in relation to an entirely different subject: that being con artistry.
You left out the part where we dig into where these feeling of resentment come from. I’m not attempting to legitimize Me. Wright’s remarks, but add context. Africans were sold into slavery by fellow Africans to Whites and brought them to a foreign land and denied them the ability to practice their native culture, gave them new names, bred them and destroyed their biological families at will. They also created slave codes, then after slavery black codes, then Jim Crow. Race and laws oppressive to Blacks were codified from the very beginning and continued right on up to the misguided war on drugs sentencing guidelines. You didn’t mention redlining, or the violent mob violence that blacks incessantly defended themselves against in the early 20th century or how they were coerced to not participate in politics. This idea that victimhood culture is the impetus of Black Liberation movements is pure shenanigans. “Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees” (Nina Simone song reference) is the impetus for Black Liberation. The oppression and racism in America isn’t anecdotal or one off incidents. Historically, it has spoken to a national culture backed by rule of law. The laws are on the books. Plessy vs Ferguson isn’t ambiguous in the least bit. I do understand that the reality creates cognitive dissonance with the America that many people were indoctrinated to in their youth. Confirmation bias is real. Deep down many people want to believe that this country was born on an unobstructed moral high ground and are unwilling to accept the reality of what we are and what we have always been. It’s my personal belief and not a universal definition that Black Liberation is about holding a self-image of something diametrically opposite of a victim, but at the same time addressing the realities on the front line, rather than believing that things will get better eventually..somehow. That is the essence of Voltaire’s message in Candide, so I find it highly questionable to put Black Liberation at odds with all Enlightenment period thought.
This oft-repeated argument relies on the implication that the United States is still mired in the 1950s, or that any reader here is ignorant of the basic history you outline. Jim Crow is over. Redlining is over. Lynching is over. In their places – in over half a century since their abolishment – are Affirmative Action, preferential hiring treatment and college admissions, government grants, scholarships, funding for businesses, tax credits, and a host of other institutions that provide a positive benefit to blacks in the US, to the exclusion of others.
Confirmation bias indeed.
The current mobs roaming the streets aren’t coming for blacks, are they? You fail to mention that blacks were not the only demographic that experienced oppression, intimidation, denial of property, coercion, and yes, even internment. Yet the data show that all of those groups, and even blacks who have immigrated to the US recently have moved beyond the drastic socio-economic inequality that plagues the resident black community today. Why?
“This idea that victimhood culture is the impetus of Black Liberation movements is pure shenanigans.”
Really? Your entire argument is one of exclusionary victimhood in spite of the massive amount of political and economic resources that have been redirected to the black community since the 1960s. Is it possible that there is some other variable worth considering? That there is only one argument to be made?
Contrary to your demonstrably false claim that the “laws are on the books”, Plessy v. Ferguson is not the law of the land. There is no legal case for racial segregation that can use that case as dictum. It is effectively defunct and relegated to the trashbin in which it belongs. Though I do invite you to produce another example of a law on the books that legalizes racial segregation. Strangely enough, as we look on college campuses today, there seems to be a neo-segregation movement that looks not unlike the Black Liberation Movement. Calls for black dorms, black study spaces, and black gathering spaces just to free young blacks from the mere presence of whites is the new progressivism.
“Deep down many people want to believe that this country was born on an unobstructed moral high ground and are unwilling to accept the reality of what we are and what we have always been.”
These sorts of mass mind-reading ‘arguments’ are neither useful nor helpful. This is a caricature. Since before the founding of the country there has always been a massive movement and opposition to the oppression of blacks and the immoral institution of slavery. I can cherry pick all sorts of historical ignorance or misinterpretations from any large group of people to make a tendentious point, if I were so inclined. But I don’t like poor argumentation.
The idea that there is only some nebulous belief that things will “somehow” get better is rubbished by the fact of the existence of abolitionists in 18th century America, a few hundred thousand whites dying to free the slaves in the 19th century, and the implementation of massive institutions intended to help blacks in the 20th century.
It’s time to stop repeating the fashionable, reductive arguments of today’s undergrads (and an alarming number of PhDs) and ask what other variables could account for varied socio-economic outcomes in our society, rather than remaining trapped in ideological dogma.
Before you give an emotional response you should respond to the point being made. I qualified my statement by saying “You left out the part where we dig into where these feelings of resentment come from. I’m not attempting to legitimize Mr. Wright’s remarks, but add context.” My post gave was an explanation of the impetus of the frustration that Mr. Wright expresses in his views. I don’t have to validate the impetus because whether credible or not it still remains the root cause for Mr. Wrights’s comments. Whether you believe these motivating factors are credible is a separate argument.
Jim Crow is over. Redlining is over. Lynching is over.
—
The legal practices as they were known are defunct. The effects of the practices can be traced to contemporary society. If you need in-depth data, see The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. In other instances, they evolved and the culture that gave rise to these practices festers unabated. By your logic race problems ended when Lincoln freed the slaves and the Union won the Civil War. Yet they still felt the need to erect some 1,741 confederal monuments as a symbol of their readiness to enter a new day in race relations. Cut…it…out.
You fail to mention that blacks were not the only demographic that experienced oppression, intimidation, denial of property, coercion, and yes, even internment. Yet the data show that all of those groups, and even blacks who have immigrated to the US recently have moved beyond the drastic socio-economic inequality that plagues the resident black community today. Why?
If you are citing another group of minorities that have defended themselves against the same level of oppression for the same extended period, I’d need to see the documentation of that. You don’t need to look though…it’s nowhere to be found. Not to mention that this isn’t about who’s been the bigger victim but overcoming the obstacles as they stand and how past obstacles have evolved but haven’t been eliminated. Accurate historical analysis is a part of every great path forward. To their credit, Jewish people will never let the world forget the Holocaust.
—
These sorts of mass mind-reading ‘arguments’ are neither useful nor helpful. This is a caricature. Since before the founding of the country there has always been a massive movement and opposition to the oppression of blacks and the immoral institution of slavery.
—
This is now borderline delusional. By massive if you mean a movement dwarfed by the masses of people that around the world supported the slave trade then you are spot on. There was a time when slavery was an accepted practice. No race’s, certainly not Africans, hands are clean of this practice. To act as if they didn’t have open worldwide acceptance of the slave trade is mind-boggling.
—
It’s time to stop repeating the fashionable, reductive arguments of today’s undergrads (and an alarming number of PhDs) and ask what other variables could account for varied socio-economic outcomes in our society, rather than remaining trapped in ideological dogma.
—
Pointing out factors that attribute to a condition doesn’t mean that there aren’t other factors at play. Nowhere in my statement did I mention that these are the only obstacles to attaining success for blacks in America.
The denial of systemic racism is absurd. The denial of a white supremacist culture in a country that participated in the chattel slavery of black people is absurd. The idea that these cultural values died the day the Civil war ended is also absurd; Or maybe it was when Jim Crow ended…or when redlining ended…or when predatory lending ended…or when stop-and-frisk ended. Hahaha, you can’t be serious. The idea that I, as an African American, can’t call out the lay of the land and achieve success is equally as ridiculous!
—
The idea that there is only some nebulous belief that things will “somehow” get better is rubbished by the fact of the existence of abolitionists in 18th century America, a few hundred thousand whites dying to free the slaves in the 19th century, and the implementation of massive institutions intended to help blacks in the 20th century.
—
You make my point for me. White abolitionists are a part of the full genesis of the Black Liberation movement. So, these movements can’t very well be working against all Enlightenment thought. Still, there is more nuance, not every white abolitionist thought black people equal to white people. They agreed that chattel slavery was an immoral practice. The same way some men thought the women suffrage movement to be valid but didn’t believe women to be equal to men in all respects. Your takes are incredible unnuanced. All I hear is “Black guy point finger at white man, black guy cry victim, but white guy hero, the Black guy never blame himself.” These hoary myopic takes are clearly beneath your level of intellect judging from your comments. The idea that you could accuse me of oversimplification is the icing on the cake. FYI Polysyllabic verbiage doesn’t deepen the complexity of your analysis.
“Before you give an emotional response you should respond to the point being made.”
And before attempting another bout of internet mind-reading, you might ask yourself why you’re reading emotion into my argument.
Hiding behind “adding context” that everyone here is well aware of is betrayed when you addressed me specifically (“you didn’t mention”). Your comment then reads as if it is coming from you, and it is chock full of debatable assertions, which are not shielded from criticism merely because they were ostensibly “adding context”.
I will return to the rest of your responses later today when I have more time for a thorough treatment.
Ophnell,
” The effects of the practices can be traced to contemporary society.”
And yet you still fail to account for the numerous institutions and programs implemented to redress each of those wrongs since then. It’s as if each and every well-known example I provided you doesn’t exist. Why?
I have read Alexander’s work. Her selective interpretation of the data is as dishonest as how she opened her book with the example of Jarvious Cotton’s disenfranchisement. If we’re going to do the “read this” gambit, see professors James Forman and John Pfaff’s direct refutations of her claims.
“In other instances, they evolved and the culture that gave rise to these practices festers unabated.”
This is vague. Please be more specific.
“By your logic race problems ended when Lincoln freed the slaves and the Union won the Civil War. Yet they still felt the need to erect some 1,741 confederal monuments as a symbol of their readiness to enter a new day in race relations. Cut…it…out.”
This is not my logic, but a strawman of your own construction. Telling me to “cut out” something that you’re responsible for is tired rhetorical gambit.
“If you are citing another group of minorities that have defended themselves against the same level of oppression for the same extended period, I’d need to see the documentation of that. You don’t need to look though…it’s nowhere to be found.
Not to mention that this isn’t about who’s been the bigger victim…”
It’s interesting that you say you’re not making the precise argument you just made. Within living memory, Japanese Americans were interned in concentration camps, socially scorned, and outright denied the ability to own private property – something blacks have not experienced in living memory. I could go on about the oppression of Chinese and Irish (the latter also within living memory). But this is all information freely available. So if this is not about “Who’s the bigger victim”, what exactly is your objection?
“…but overcoming the obstacles as they stand and how past obstacles have evolved but haven’t been eliminated.”
Asserted but not proven. What obstacles are currently in the way of black Americans? I’d like to see you provide concrete examples and contrast them with much more current institutions and programs that favor blacks.
“Accurate historical analysis is a part of every great path forward. To their credit, Jewish people will never let the world forget the Holocaust.”
I agree completely. So far, I have yet to see you meet that standard of historical analysis. No one has forgotten slavery or Jim Crow, so I’m not following your point.
“This is now borderline delusional. By massive if you mean a movement dwarfed by the masses of people that around the world supported the slave trade then you are spot on. “
I’m doing a fine job of framing my argument and don’t need you to reframe it for your own purposes. We’re talking about the United States, not a global outlook on slavery. Since you seem to value accurate historical analysis, I’ll help you. The United States almost didn’t happen because of slavery. The 3/5ths compromise is routinely misinterpreted as a judgment on the value of blacks at the time, when it was a mechanism used to minimize the electoral power of slave states. This could not have happened if there weren’t significant, massive opposition to slavery within the US since its beginning. Several hundred thousand whites sacrificing life and limb to abolish slavery is hardly “delusional” in any meaningful sense of the word, nor is it indicative of a marginal support for abolition.
“To act as if they didn’t have open worldwide acceptance of the slave trade is mind-boggling.”
My mind is boggled by anyone who got that from anything I wrote.
“Pointing out factors that attribute to a condition doesn’t mean that there aren’t other factors at play. Nowhere in my statement did I mention that these are the only obstacles to attaining success for blacks in America.”
Your language doesn’t reflect this, but it’s good to know you consider other variables. What other variables do you think contribute to socio-economic disparities between blacks and other demographics?
“The denial of systemic racism is absurd. The denial of a white supremacist culture in a country that participated in the chattel slavery of black people is absurd. “
I have offered you concrete examples that refute your portrayal of system racism, and you handwave it away by tossing the word “absurd” around. Now you’re attempting to sneak “white supremacism” into the mix. I imagine this will be supported with more vague assertions, but I hold out hope you’ll do better on your next attempt.
“The idea that these cultural values died the day the Civil war ended is also absurd; Or maybe it was when Jim Crow ended…or when redlining ended…or when predatory lending ended…or when stop-and-frisk ended.”
Said no one.
“Hahaha, you can’t be serious.”
Indeed I am when I say that your penchant for arguing against strawmen is becoming tedious.
“The idea that I, as an African American, can’t call out the lay of the land and achieve success is equally as ridiculous!
Once again, who said this? Do you feel that your opinions are immune from critique? Because given your rhetorical gambits here, I’m beginning to think that you do, but hopefully I’m wrong.
“You make my point for me. White abolitionists are a part of the full genesis of the Black Liberation movement. So, these movements can’t very well be working against all Enlightenment thought.”
Given that some of the most prominent supporters of Black Liberation have been and continue to be Black Separatists and neo-segregationists, I’m wondering how on Earth you can reconcile that with Enlightenment values.
“Still, there is more nuance, not every white abolitionist thought black people equal to white people. They agreed that chattel slavery was an immoral practice. The same way some men thought the women suffrage movement to be valid but didn’t believe women to be equal to men in all respects. Your takes are incredible unnuanced.”
Nuance is not a requirement for a valid argument, but of course there is more nuance. My responses were to an unnuanced argument. So when you answer some of the questions I’ve posed to you in this response, perhaps we can explore more nuance. Until then, your objection here rings hollow.
“All I hear is “Black guy point finger at white man, black guy cry victim, but white guy hero, the Black guy never blame himself.”
Now this is evidence of an emotional reaction, though I will reserve judgment. If this is what you’re “hearing”, you’re not reading for comprehension, but skimming until you can perceive offense. I have not once said that whites were heroes, nor do I think the blame lies solely at the feet of blacks. But that’s a more nuanced discussion that is impossible while you resort to arguing with your own constructs.
“These hoary myopic takes are clearly beneath your level of intellect judging from your comments.”
You are correct. Because they are not my takes, but yours. If you want to continue to bash strawmen, you may do so without me. The moment you’re ready to engage with the words I put on the page, I will gladly partake in disucssion.
“The idea that you could accuse me of oversimplification is the icing on the cake.
The don’t put forth simplistic arguments.
“FYI Polysyllabic verbiage doesn’t deepen the complexity of your analysis.”
More useless mind-reading attempts. If you’re uncomfortable with descriptive words, I can alter my writing style to please you.
An excellent to the ideology that undergirds BLM
Ophnell,
Two ideas here: Victimhood culture along with honor and dignity cultures are all concepts from psychology. You may wish to acquaint yourself with the definitions of the above cultures. Currently, America society continues to move towards a victimhood and away from being a dignity based society. In fact, there are even examples of a honor culture here too. For example: honor killings of wayward daughters by fathers occur . Female genital mutilation occurs even in America. It is not European Americans who practice it.
Secondly, I urge you to gain a better understanding of the gains the American Black community has made in the last 50 or so years. gmmayo70’s rebuttal of your notions was well stated.
Pedant alert: Lastly, if you used paragraphs, it would be a cleaner read. Strive for around five sentences per paragraph.
Cal, thank you for your reply and formatting recommendations. I replied from my phone and formatting can be cumbersome so I didn’t do it.
Victimhood and honor culture or the proliferation of such as it relates to the black American community is overstated. Dignity culture as it relates to the black American community is underreported. This is a very complex discussion, but at certain points all 3 concepts intersect. Social media platforms make poor forums for what would be better live discussions.
An anecdotal example of the point I’m making would be the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Rev. Wright “earned a B.A. and M.A. from Howard University, an M.A. from the University of Chicago and a doctorate in divinity from United Theological College.” Dignity culture was at the forefront of all of his professional accomplishments, yet what he is known for is spreading the seeds of victimhood culture. I also feel his comments that drew such ire during Obama’s campaign were fueled by honor culture.
Many intelligent white people in positions of power like to insinuate that the ONLY problem with black people is black people. For instance, when Paul Ryan said “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning to value the culture of work, so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…”
To hear these words or other comments incessantly from various media outlets, political pundits, politicians, community leaders, etc. it becomes difficult to not respond emotionally regardless of the level of dignity culture that is present in your current lifestyle; so I believe many black people lash out with language that is equally offensive and sometimes equally absurd in an effort to regain the honor they feel have been tarnished.
It’s important to note that a disproportionate number of black people accused of spreading a culture of victimhood are successful, well educated, and have achieved the American Dream relative to all Americans of all races. To point out what they view as culture, practices, laws, and leaders that deliver unjust outcomes only detract from their accomplishments. Still, they persist in sticking to this narrative, not for some contrived moral equity from seeing themselves as victims but because that is the reality as they experienced it.
These AAs that speak from their lived experience also mentor younger AAs and they believe it would be a disservice not to teach, talk, and relate solutions to obstacles that believe a younger generation will face as they strive for the level of success that they themselves have already attained. To teach black youth that all things are equal is borderline delusional and harrowingly irresponsible. The focus is on how blacks talk about the obstacles and somehow there is a total disregard for the discussion that follows that entails how to overcome the obstacles. A discussion that happens in every black community. BLM, Black Liberation, Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Black National Caucus, and others, at their heart, are dignity culture-focused entities.
Anecdotal, but powerful are the last words of Elijah McClain. “I can’t breathe. I have my ID right here… My name is Elijah McClain. That’s my house. I was just going home. I’m an introvert. I’m just different. That’s all. I’m so sorry. I have no gun. I don’t do that stuff. I don’t do any fighting. Why are you attacking me? I don’t even kill flies. I don’t eat meat. But I don’t judge people, I don’t judge people who do eat meat. Forgive me. All I was trying to do was become better… I will do it… I will do anything. Sacrifice my identity, I’ll do it. I’ll do it. You all are phenomenal. You are beautiful and I love you. Try to forgive me. I’m a mood Gemini. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. Ow, that really hurt. You are all very strong. Teamwork makes the dream work.”
His dignity is beautiful, his ability to discard his honor in the name of self-preservation leaves me in awe. Victimhood culture is nowhere to be found in his last words. The reality that he is the victim is indisputable. This isn’t evidence of some kind of culture being pushed. People describing what is and what occurred isn’t victimhood culture. It should be a reality check. I agree sometimes people can be too Woke, but other times it is what it is, your discomfort with that reality is understandable.
While historical oppression is undeniable, I believe these arguments are based upon grievance and a desire for revenge. This only leads in one direction. If one desires to use historical context to predict an outcome, look no further than the history of the 20th century. These ideas are not the solution. Not in any way, shape or form.
Strange Fruit was first recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939, and written by Abel Meeropol in 1937.
It’s actually not ignorant at all. America teaches its history to its citizens as the home of democracy and most people in America belief that implies that the power is with the people. Relative to an autocratic regimes this may be true, but no one could credibly describe the masses as more powerful than the aristocracy in America at any point in our history- speaking politically, economically, or otherwise.
Unless American education systems adopted an American-centric approach to history in the last 20 years (a laughable proposition on its face), “America” has always taught that Greece was the home of democracy and republicanism. Given the fact that the United States is not, nor has it ever been based upon the principle of majority rule (neither in principle nor practice), it seems you also commit the same error as the quoted author.
You’re also confusing “aristocracy” with oligarchy.
Ignorance is no way to rebut an allegation of ignorance.
As an aside, I’ve always found it amusing that the Democrats (the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and all sorts of other stuff) claim to be the champions of Blacks, and that Blacks accept this without murmur. Has the Democratic Party leadership ever apologized en mass (and repeatedly) for obstructing and eventually dismantling Reconstruction, enforcing Jim Crow laws, and all their other nastiness (including, of course, slavery and the Civil War)? If Juneteenth is going to be a holiday (and a more mixed-up holiday I can’t begin to imagine), maybe a ritual apology by senior Democrats every year would be in order.
GenXer: Agree. The fact that racist government policies were supported by Democrats can’t be stated often enough. It still occurs; many of the policies supported by Democrats actually undermine the financial stability of poor people and minorities.
Admittedly, I don’t know exactly what the public schools teach about American history now. However, it certainly appears to be a very different narrative from what it was even a few years ago. I do know the public schools where I live harp on just how racist America is, the Holocaust, and slavery of black people. If one didn’t know better, it would seem no other cultures/society had ever enslaved others before.
On another note, I notice people apologizing for actions they didn’t commit. Absurd. For example: Recently, I was told, “I’m sorry you feel that way”. My immediate response was, “Why are you apologizing for something I said to you? You did nothing wrong to me”. We only apologize when we have acted in a way/done something that is harmful to someone else.
Nope, no blaming the party founded by a slave-owner (Jefferson); refounded by another slave-owner who also fought and deported Indians (Jackson); who fought to keep slavery legal; tried keep blacks in their place when they couldn’t, etc. etc. Isn’t projection, situational ethics and selective reading of history fun?
One other thought GenXer: A good example example of government policy that hurts poorer Americans is the current Covid lockdowns. The states with progressive, democrat governments also tend to have the more restrictive lockdown policies. Also, it appears to me that democrats heartily support Covid lockdowns.
Many small businesses have closed-forever. The hospitality sector jobs have basically vanished. The people democrats claim they want to help are the most adversely impacted as many of them work at small businnes, hotels, restaurants, etc..
Cal:
Agree completely regarding lockdowns. And it’s also interesting to note how many of those same “leaders” routinely ignore their own restrictions and then offer only half-assed apologies (or none at all in the case of Chicago’s mayor Lori Lightfoot) when they are caught. Another rarely-noted impact of the lockdowns is the flood of moneyed people buying property outside cities (often in other states) so they can “work from home.” This destroys the housing economies in those areas, which in turn keeps the less fortunate trapped in the rental cycle (or renders them homeless as rent increases but local wages do not). The lockdowns hit smaller communities especially hard in my view, and often those are home to the very minorities the Democrats say they want to protect.
The usual response to your argument is that the parties switched places. I’m sure you’ve seen it.
This specious argument takes many forms, and rather than respond with electoral data, or decades of party platforms, I find the most succinct way to rebut this positively magical party switcheroo to be that if it actually happened, we should now consider FDR a staunch Republican?
There are plenty of other refutations, but that one works for short attention spans.
I always like tossing in JFK and LBJ as well when they do the whole “the parties switched places” thing. Asking why the Democrats have effectively abandoned organized labor unless they need a bloc of votes also makes people shift around a bit and try to change the subject.
Cal,
Re: COVID restrictions
“Many small businesses have closed-forever.”
I recently saw data that almost half of all black-owned small businesses have permanently closed. We can add that policy to the growing list of federal and state policies that have been an absolute disaster for blacks in the US since the FHA programs of the 1930s.
Much like the riots that were allowed, no encouraged, to ravage cities this year, black and minority communities were disproportionately impacted in the name of racial justice…or something.
These communities will feel the fallout from this government-prompted policy for decades to come. As tax revenues plummet from people and businesses making the completely rational decision to leave for saner pastures, city services will decline, further devastating the minority communities the state and local governments have bought and paid for.
And we’ll hear the same old excuses for the continued socio-economic disparities, with the same failed suggestions for solving problems created by government – more government. Much like apologia for socialism – this time, by golly, we’ll get it right!
Thank you for your reply. I think you mistook my meaning when I said “home.” This one point feels like more a miscommunication in semantics. When I say home, I don’t mean the birthplace of, but rather the place most renowned for Democracy. In that vein, Greece was never taught as the home of American style democracy in the modern world in any school I attended. I didn’t delineate between contemporary history and ancient history. America’s much shorter history than Greece has only known Democracy as a form of government. Even looking at only ancient times, Greece had a republic, kings, military dictatorships at one time or another. Even in modern times, Greece had Kings, then military juntas or tyranny well into the 21st century. I believe Greece banned monarchies in 1974?!? Google may be wrong.
The idea that Greece and not America is the home of Democracy in the contemporary world is far fetched given these facts. Birthplace of Democracy in the ancient world, yes, modern home of Democracy- no. We are discussing a Black Liberation movement in the 21st century, not debating the birthplace of Democracy. That standard for freedom and liberty for this movement are indisputably based on American Democracy. Context does mean something. Side note: I meant to say aristocracy, not oligarchy. An oligarchy limits the power to a few people but doesn’t denote what socio-economic class these people come from. An oligarchy is different from an aristocratic oligarchy.
The allegation of ignorance stands unsubstantiated. I interpreted “In a nation based on the false principle of majority rule” to say that the rich and powerful people that control the political arena in America don’t represent the majority of Americans. The author feels that is real-world power hierarchy renders elections and legislative processes based on the majority of participants’ support to get elected or create new laws meaningless to the majority of Americans, but especially so to African Americans- a minority. That’s just my interpretation.
Ophnell-
I think it’s important to note that America is a democratic republic, not only a democracy. It was founded on the notions of a republic state/government. One mechanisms that allows for the representation of minority opinion is the electoral college.
By the way, the rule of law prevents (it should) democracy from turning into mob rule.
I’ve also found the idea of “lived experience” to be limited to certain kinds of people. What about the poor White kid who’s seen police abuse people in his neighborhood for as long as he can remember? Or the “lived experience” of German-Americans, who were interred in BOTH world wars (and had their property confiscated by that great liberal Woodrow Wilson) and historically marginalized since the 1850s? There’s also an attempt to discount, as others have pointed out, the experiences of Asians and Latinos. If “lived experience” is of value, then everyone’s is of value. If there are limits place on it due to an artificial construct, you’re starting to stray down some historically familiar and dangerous paths.
Ophnell – I’m curious; what are your thoughts on “lived experience” vs statistically verifiable data?
And just to show I’m not trying to entrap you with some argumentative ploy, I’ll try to summarize my view. I believe lived-experience is the guiding light by which we as individuals live our lives and rightfully so. My sense of the world is highly affected by what I see. In fact, we’re so limited in our view, it’s fair to say humans essentially live according to “All I see is all there is”. (Kahneman) Cognitively, we are wired this way. Even when we are self-conscious about our limited view point, we still tend to make personal decisions influenced by it.
Such as it is at an individual level, I believe it makes for a horrendous guide when determining societal rules and policies. We have the capabilities to collect and analyze data. To get a broader view and look beyond our own neighborhoods to evaluate populations. Verifiable, repeatable, and peer reviewed research provides a much better perspective on what is and what isn’t, especially when informing the decisions that should be made for the populous.
Tying this back to the discussion at hand; i’m concerned with BLM’s, and more generally CRT’s, propensity to elevate “lived experience” to the top of the truth hierarchy and deride and dispense with scientific methods, particularly anything that may tell a different narrative to the one they prefer is told. I understand why anecdotes such as the experiences of Elijah McClain, George Floyd, and others are used; they are incredibly powerful emotionally, and those experiences become very effect tools for shaping and influencing the “lived experience” of others. But connecting these experiences with a nebulous ‘systemic racism’ that is difficult to define and *impossible* to verify with scientific means, in order to turn society inside out is destructive to the individuals in that society, including you, me, majority and minority alike.
PS I know from your other comments that you’ll consider my denial of ‘systemic racism’ to be borderline delusional (or is it just straight up delusion) so you can save yourself the time of addressing that part. I’m really more interested in your answer to my initial question.
Another thought Ophnell: You do know the word “slave” derives from the word “slav”. The slavs were the Easter Europeans who were enslaved by the Muslims of Spain.
If you want to clarify what you meant by “home”, then fine, but to continue on to say that I or anyone else for that matter would then imply that Greece was the home of American democracy is something I cannot describe charitably.
“The idea that Greece and not America is the home of Democracy in the contemporary world is far fetched given these facts.”
These facts, as you have apparently just learned them, do not change the reality that Greece was indeed the home, or birthplace (if you prefer) of democracy (yes, even modern democracy), regardless of what forms of government it later adopted. Adopting a different form of government doesn’t mean the previous ones never existed. Did you really mean to imply that?
“Birthplace of Democracy in the ancient world, yes, modern home of Democracy- no.”
This is because you’re confusing “democracy” with ‘constitutional republic’. The founders drew heavily upon Greek and Roman Republican forms of government, not the Greek democracies, which the Founders (and many Greeks at the time) rejected.
“We are discussing a Black Liberation movement in the 21st century, not debating the birthplace of Democracy.”
At this point, I should remind you that you responded to a comment I made about the ignorance of the quote in the article which erroneously stated “In a nation based on the false principle of majority rule…”
This is inarguably false.
The entire structure of our constitutional republic is one that prevents simple majority rule. Google it if you need to, because you seem to lack knowledge that is germane to the discussion you wanted to have. Yes, context does mean something.
“An oligarchy limits the power to a few people but doesn’t denote what socio-economic class these people come from. An oligarchy is different from an aristocratic oligarchy.”
Then you’re repeating your original error. Both oligarchy and aristocracy concentrate power into the hands of a relative few, so that metric fails to distinguish the two. Oligarchy is a far more accurate term to describe the socio-political power structure in the US. Our ruling caste is populated by people from all walks of life, not just a privileged few who solely derive their wealth and influence hereditarily or from a stratified political class. I shouldn’t have to provide examples (in the interests of space or respect for your intelligence), but I can if you need.
“The allegation of ignorance stands unsubstantiated. I interpreted “In a nation based on the false principle of majority rule”…
There’s another mistake. What the nation was based on is rather clear cut and used to be well-known. Apparently not so much anymore. Your interpretation is simply a construct that allows you the wiggle room to say what you want to say, rather than address what was said.
“The author feels that is real-world power hierarchy…”
Now, real-world power hierarchy is something a bit different than the legal theoretical underpinnings of a political system. There’s ample room for discussion and debate about what our socio-political system is in practice, and why. But to unambiguously claim the nation was founded upon the principle of majority rule is demonstrably wrong. One need only look at the Electoral College (one of numerous examples) for a refutation of the notion.
So while I will grant that my allegation of “ignorance” could be wrong, I will offer that the only alternatives are mal-education or misinformation. None of which reflect well.