The "mirror for princes" genre was a type of political writing that was very popular during the European Renaissance of the 14th through 17th centuries. These books taught rulers how to behave in order to avoid having reigns that were violent, tragic, and most of all, short. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is the most famous example of this genre. Currently, these books are mostly read as a form of self-help literature. Most Blacks have never heard of them. This is a pity. This lack of knowledge makes us vulnerable. Vulnerable to hype, and vulnerable to the wiles of others who are familiar with the wisdom contained in these books.
In my recent Sovereign Individual post, I mentioned some of the flaws inherent in the composition of what Pres. Obama apparently believes is "his" team. I pointed out that Pres. Obama doesn't have a strong, faithful posse of his own. He didn't create any of the people around him. Instead, he was loaned the use of other people's posses and retainers. To use Renaissance terminology, Pres. Obama has surrounded himself with mercenaries and auxiliaries. Auxiliaries are troops borrowed from another (typically more powerful) prince.
We can all see what's wrong with depending upon mercenaries. They have no loyalty to anyone because they fight for money. The small saving grace is that mercenaries usually work as individuals with no real attachments to other rulers or factions. Therefore, they probably won't work in an organized, united manner to undermine the prince that has hired them. When mercenaries betray the prince who hired them, they will usually do so as individuals. This is more manageable than the problems created by auxiliaries.
Auxiliaries are even more dangerous than mercenaries. Auxiliaries are loyal to another prince!
When you lose with auxiliaries, you lose. When you win with auxiliaries, you still lose. This is because you owe your victory to the power of another prince. The other prince who loaned you his troops wins because he controls his principality, and indirectly yours also.
A prince without his own native troops will never be truly independent OR secure.
I'll let Niccolo Machiavelli break it down about mercenaries:
"I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.
The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe. . . " The Prince, Chapter 12, "How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries." [emphasis added]
Machiavelli on auxiliaries:
"[Auxiliaries] may be useful and good in themselves, but for [the prince] who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive." The Prince, Chapter 13, "Concerning Auxiliaries, Mixed Soldiery, And One's Own." [emphasis added]
I'm going through this in some detail because more of us need to learn how to disregard the hype, and look at situations through the prism of recorded human experience in these matters. It's worth everyone's time to read The Prince and other "mirrors for princes."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
I seem to remember reading an abridged version of The Prince or perhaps it was only a chapter of it, in high school.
Clearly I missed alot.
Hey Khadija!
I need you to put a required reading list or something as a side bar on your page! Every time I take note of a book to read, you mention another one (although, to be fair, I believe you've referenced Machiavelli before). I can only check out so many books at the library at a time! And you will not cause me to go broke buying books from Amazon, dagnabit!
Darn you and your insatiable desire for books, which has inadvertently reignited my love for reading! *shakes fist in defiance*
P.S.
Thanks for the post.
Brava Khadija!
This book was a must-read in all of the prep schools among the teen crowd!
Yes....I remember it many term papers written from this book!
I believe that we should discuss this work as we examine different approaches to dominance strategy!
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
Greetings, ForeverLoyal!
If you "missed a lot," it was probably because these books are rarely taught properly. These books are read and discussed as fossils from 500 years ago. Instead of pointing out how these observations of eternal human behavior patterns are playing out in the modern era.
__________________
Greetings, Daphne!
{chuckling at your shaking fist}
You're welcome!
Girl, now you see why I'm so happy I bought an Amazon Kindle. Books were literally overflowing from my already-full bookcases. I've been addicted to books for a very long time. I blame my parents and Dr. Seuss. They "ruined" me. LOL!
I will note that in my student days, I would haunt the student bookstore and buy the books used. I would also frequent the used book stores.
Hmmm...a required reading list. That's a thought. But...how could I pick...I love almost ALL of my books. {chuckling}
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Greetings, Lisa!
Thank you for your kind words about the post. I truly appreciate it.
When I first heard this "team of rivals" mess being bandied about, I just assumed that it was another part of Pres. Obama's PR strategy of adorning himself in the trappings of Pres. Lincoln. It's a nice-sounding fantasy for the masses.
I was horrified when I realized that Pres. Obama might actually be naive enough to believe that this reflects what's going on with his administration. If so, then he's a fool. And even worse, a fool who has bought into his own hype. And this is the person Black folks are lifting up as our "messiah"? {shudder}
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
I've done two things.. I just purchased this book and I'm learning how to play chess.
It seems obvious that President Obama needs to take up chess himself....since It seems that he's been "checked" a few too many times.
Khadija, I read this book--The Prince--probably first year in college. It was required reading in one of my classes. I agree that human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years and this book is very relevant and can be applied to many situations in everyday life.
The thing is that Pres. Obama has NO ONE (no large body of people) to turn to for hard core, unwavering support. He doesn't come from any ethnicity or culture. For ex. if he were Hispanic or a Korean-American, he would have a gazillion diehard supporters. And naturally, if he were white, he'd have automatic supporters no matter what. For ex. Bush and just about every other (white) president had lots of people on various levels in their camp who were willing to do whatever to keep them in the oval office. Obama doesn't have that. Yes, he had people who voted for him, but how solid/unwavering is that support if he goofs up too much?
Without enough support, anyone can and often will collapse or be severely weakened.
So he knows that his rivals are gunning for him. I think he's hoping that these folks from the rivals' camps will be loyal just out of their own selfish, ***individual*** interests and will help him to keep his arch enemies at bay. He seems to be operating under the notion of holding his enemies close to him--in plain sight. It's sad, but he really has no hard core support base.
I think this says a lot about any so-called AA person who rises to a high position. Who constitutes their diehard support base? If the black person relies on white supporters, s/he is called a sellout by other blacks and is untrusted by blacks, but if s/he courts black support or relies on on it, s/he is seen as "angry" by whites. Black support, to me, is a shifting base with often unrealistic expectations and therefore shaky.
For ex. I hear blacks still wondering whether he's black or what? LOL!!! This is what I mean. How can he expect someone to be his solid supporter if they don't even know what he is? This is important because if he makes a policy that they oppose, they'll assume that it was because his "white" side did it. Ridiculous but true. SMH
Greetings, MangoButtahQueen!
Good for you! My Dad taught me chess when I was small. But since I never practice the game, I'm a lousy chess player. LOL! One day, I'll take the time to practice (with the computer chess tutorials) and read up on it. {sigh}
__________________
Greetings, Evia!
Well, I think there are multiple things going on in this situation. There are some things going on that are particular to Pres. Obama:
*weak, people-pleaser personality
*half-White & half-foreign Black
*raised by Whites
*didn't grow up among AAs, therefore no natural AA posse from childhood/high school/parents' friends, etc.
*only really exposed to AAs as an adult
And then there are some things that apply to almost ALL crossover Black politicians:
*didn't pay any "dues" in any Black organization or movement
*no Black "posse"/troops as a result of the above
*primarily focused on being perceived as "non-threatening" by Whites
*no Black "posse"/troops as a result of the above
I think this situation is exposing some of the costs of being a disconnected, crossover Black politician. Basically, Pres. Obama doesn't have a natural posse because he was dropped in by parachute among us.
Because he never formed a natural, Black posse, there's nobody around him that HE created and lifted up. NOBODY owes him. Meanwhile, he owes many, many other people and "princes."
Pres. Obama's situation is somewhat more extreme than "typical" AA crossover politicians because of his family background. Typical AA crossover politicians at least have Black potential posse members that they grew up with, or are friends of the family, etc.
You said, "For ex. if he were Hispanic or a Korean-American, he would have a gazillion diehard supporters."
I don't think this is a comparable situation. Hispanic and Asian politicians are not RUNNING away from Hispanic and Asian people and forums! No other ethnic group has politicians that are feverishly trying to distance themselves from their own ethnic group. There's a price to pay for keeping your own people at arm's length.
You said, "If the black person relies on white supporters, s/he is called a sellout by other blacks and is untrusted by blacks, but if s/he courts black support or relies on on it, s/he is seen as "angry" by whites."
This IS an extremely difficult balance. However, Mayor Harold Washington was skilled enough to be Black folks' champion AND appealing to non-racist Whites. Mayor Washington never ran away from, or distanced himself from Black people and Black concerns. It CAN be done. However, I suppose most Black politicians are not up to this challenge.
You said, "Black support, to me, is a shifting base with often unrealistic expectations and therefore shaky."
True. But the Obama-ssiah and other "1st Blacks" are quite happy to exploit our people's unrealistic, emotion-based expectations for their own gain.
You said, "For ex. I hear blacks still wondering whether he's black or what? LOL!!!"
You must admit that a LARGE part of Pres. Obama's appeal to many Whites is that they don't perceive him to be quite "one of us" [African-American]. As we see with college admissions, etc. many White Americans prefer any type of Black person other than AAs.
Without his "exotic," half-Other Than Black background, Pres. Obama NEVER would have been elected.
Also, he played this up when stressing his White grandmother and relatives while throwing Rev. Wright under the bus (in order to appease these same White folks who don't see him as AA).
Given this context, I don't think that it's totally unreasonable for some AAs to question this man's identity and loyalties.
I (barely) tolerate him because he is choosing to identify as AA, when he doesn't "have" to do so. However, it still angers me that Pres. Obama is a half-White, half-foreign carpetbagger riding the coattails of dead AA martyrs.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Evia's right and you're wrong. Sorry. I say this respectfully, truly: as you advise your readers, stop honing your attention upon the President. He's not the cause; he's not the problem. Moreover, as you've stated? He's not the solution. If he's not so many things? Why speak to his ethnicity, rearing, or anything re: him at all? Your post exposes a schizophrenia being exposed across Blacks and most recently, wildly exhibited by Juan Williams when speaking of Michelle Obama. You may appreciate; however, you also "hate."
Greetings, Anonymous!
You said, "Evia's right and you're wrong. Sorry. I say this respectfully, truly: as you advise your readers, stop honing your attention upon the President. He's not the cause; he's not the problem. Moreover, as you've stated? He's not the solution. If he's not so many things? Why speak to his ethnicity, rearing, or anything re: him at all?"
Response:
1-Evia brought up some Black folks' perception of Obama's ethnicity FIRST. I mentioned all of that in response to her comment.
2-My points about Pres. Obama in the text of the posts focused on the fact that he does NOT have his own posse. And the vulnerability that results from not having one's own troops. Evia presented her view of the reasons why Obama does not have his own troops. In response, I presented my views of the reasons why he does not have his own "troops." Again, all of these details were mentioned in response to her comment.
3-It is Black folks' hysterical cult of personality surrounding Pres. Obama that has brought him to my attention. It is Black folks staking their very survival on this one politician that keeps him before my eyes.
I discuss Pres. Obama because most of y'all are worshipping him! At the risk of your very lives. And to your detriment. I'm hoping that at least a few people who have mistakenly (and unwittingly) staked their survival on him will reconsider that decision.
4-Many of the problems inherent with Pres. Obama's situation are actually inherent with being a crossover Black politician. I firmly believe that the masses of AAs will reap the whirlwind once our "old heads" are off the scene, and we are left with only crossover Black politicians. I am (indirectly) warning y'all about the perils of completely switching over to crossover politicians.
5-Another thing is that I hope more of us will learn the tools needed to logically analyze what's REALLY going on with our politicians. As well as our own office politics situations. The mirror for princes books are very helpful for learning how to do that. Discussing a real-life example that everybody is familiar with is ALSO helpful for learning how to do that.
You said, "Your post exposes a schizophrenia being exposed across Blacks and most recently, wildly exhibited by Juan Williams when speaking of Michelle Obama. You may appreciate; however, you also 'hate.'"
Response:
There's no "schizophrenia" here. I never claimed to like Pres. Obama. Nor have I ever claimed to be one of his enthusiastic supporters. As I have stated before (in various comments on various blogs), I NEVER liked or trusted Obama. From the very beginning of his political career here in Chicago. I have disliked and distrusted him from the very beginning.
I dislike and distrust Black crossover politicians in general. I disliked and distrusted Eugene Sawyer, David Dinkins, Doug Wilder, etc. I feel the same way about the current batch of crossover Black politicians. Including now-Pres. Obama.
Also, the points that I mentioned in response to Evia's comment are some of the SAME underlying reasons why, when he ran against Bobby Rush, local Black voters rejected Obama by a margin of 2-1!
So, no...I never "appreciated" him. At best, I have tolerated him. At best, he has (at times) not been AS cowardly and weak as are his inclinations. At best, he has embraced identifying with our ethnic group when he doesn't "have" to [it just so happens to benefit him politically due to our hysterical, unthinking support of ANY brown-skinned politician].
Respectfully, I don't know if this is your particular deal, Anonymous---But I DO know that it pains and upsets many Black Obama-worshippers when somebody points out the dents and scuff marks on their favorite golden calf.
So then they raise the question, "Why talk about our golden calf at all? You sound like you're 'hating on' the golden calf. Stop talking about our golden calf."
Answer: I'm (periodically) talking about this particular false messiah because so many Black folks are worshipping him. And betting their lives on him. Once y'all stop, then I'll stop. It's that simple.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Hey Khadija (waving),
I've been following this conversation but not responding because I really do not think about politics. But I did want to note (co-sign) the fact that there are so many people worshiping Obama that it really scares me. It's as if they belong to a cult. I did vote for Obama; but I don't expect any miracles. He cannot save folks from their own foolishness.
I've never read the Prince series but I would have to agree you did need your own exclusive group of backers/supporters in politics and in life.
Greetings, Beverly!
{excited waving back at ya}
I voted (early) for Pres. Obama!
I did so because I was acting in my rational self-interest of picking the best available candidate that had a chance of winning. I made this choice without enthusiasm, and I would have preferred to have better candidates available.
This cult of personality/idol worship frightens me.
Our people's longstanding habit of making choices off of symbolism and emotionalism frightens me.
Our people's mass ignorance (including ignorance of how politics of all sorts actually work) frightens me.
The Prince isn't just about "official" politics, it's about the dynamics of POWER relationships.
NO WONDER we have failed to make any real progress in corporate America. After decades of a government-forced access.
NO WONDER when we take control of cities they become a hot mess. After decades of Black mayors, etc.
NO WONDER our few major Black corporations (like Motown, etc.) end up in the hands of White entities.
NO WONDER we are routinely pimped by our so-called allies (be they foreign Blacks, or other so-called people of color like Latinos, etc.).
NO WONDER we fail to advance at our "good jobs." It's not always racism, per se. Often, it's our incompetence and ignorance of how to play office politics.
It's long past time for our people to put away childish things like emotionalism, and grow up! We have completed 80% of the process of becoming a PERMANENT UNDERCLASS in this country. Time is running out.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Khadija, I had written a detailed response re the schizoid nature of many AAs, biracialism, the importance of a cultural base for a launching pad, identity, etc. but my internet connection died (I'm away from home)and I lost my comment. It's interesting that the Anon mentioned 'schizophrenia'. I don't know about schizophrenia, but there's definitely lots of schizoid thinking and behavior among AAs about Obama and lots of other issues. Let me be specific though. Schizoid and schizophrenia are not the same.
Just one point: if these black folks I'd mentioned don't trust Obama because they don't know whether he's white or black, then why do they expect him to be inclined to do anything for them? LOL! This is the same as bw who initially came to my interracial marriage site proclaiming their lack of interest in wm as well as proclaimed in other public situations: "I don't want a white man!" Then these same women get upset because they say wm aren't showing interest in them. LOL! This is schizoid behavior. Don't people know they are being heard?
It's been a long time since I read The Prince, but one thing I remember reading in that book is that if you are going to attack another prince's kingdom or territory, you don't give them advance warning. I often thought of this when Saddam Hussein kept telling the U.S. about how he was going to declare the "mother of all wars" on the U.S. And we see what happened to him. Not Smart.
So if blacks don't know what Obama is and keep telling him that they don't trust him for that reason, don't they know that they're hurting themselves by constantly talking about that? SMH I just think it would be a lot smarter for black folks to not say everything they think.
Hello there, Evia!
You said, "Just one point: if these black folks I'd mentioned don't trust Obama because they don't know whether he's white or black, then why do they expect him to be inclined to do anything for them? LOL!"
Response: Throughout the campaign, hysterical Black Obama supporters told me that I was not ENTITLED to expect Obama to respond specifically to Black folks' concerns. That he was running to be the president "for everybody."
I responded by asking them, "If he's not going to respond specifically to Black folks' concerns, then what makes him automatically ENTITLED to Black votes (including my vote) in this crusade that Negroes have launched on his behalf?"
Hysterical Black Obama supporters then replied that I MUST vote for him so that we could have the first "Black" president. This is NOT reciprocity. Why should I be expected to support Obama if he and his supporters are telling me to my face that I don't have anything coming from him? And saying how dare I expect something from him?
Crossover Negro Politicians want to have it both ways:
(1) They want to reap the benefits of AAs' misguided, emotional "crusades" in support of Black [skinned] candidates. These crossover Negroes do this because they know that AAs are foolish enough to assume that the Black-skinned person is automatically our champion.
(2) And they want to reap the benefits of being ASSUMED to be Our Hero while simultaneously going to great lengths to distance themselves from us. They do this by running from Black forums (i.e., Tavis Smiley's forum). I'm not saying that any Black candidate has to "come through" Tavis Smiley's house to talk to us. I simply didn't like (or appreciate) the reason why Obama was running from Black forums, including Tavis Smiley's.
Crossover Negro Politicans also distance themselves from AAs by making a point of BEING SEEN by Whites while telling us off---like Bill Clinton went out of his way to "diss" Sista Souljah (i.e., when Obama made a point of lecturing Negro males about their paternal irresponsibility).
Incidentally, what Obama said in this particular incident was factually correct. I just didn't appreciate his motives for doing it---to prove (yet again) to Whites that he has no special affection for AAs. And that he's going to "tell us off" for their pleasure.
Hysterical Black Obama supporters said that this was a bracing dose of reality for us. How come nobody else is EVER subjected to the same "in your face" dose of reality? Why are we the only ones that it's permissible to slap our faces? I don't like this.
NO OTHER ethnic group's politicians behave like this.
NO Jewish candidate treats Jewish voters as if they have "cooties" by running from Jewish forums. NO Jewish candidate goes around telling Jews "Y'all need to shut up about Israel." They especially don't do this for the pleasure and appeasement of White Christians.
NO Latino candidate treats Latino voters as if they have "cooties" by running from Latino forums. NO Latino candidate goes around telling Latinos "Y'all better learn to speak English, and shut up about bilingual services. And learn how to fit in." They especially don't do this for the pleasure and appeasement of Anglo Whites.
Again, this whole scenario demonstrates a LACK of reciprocity in this exchange:
The Crossover Negro Politician [and his hysterical Black supporters] is demanding/expecting SOMETHING (Black votes) in exchange for NOTHING (the symbolic "feel good" of having a Black-skinned _______, or a First Black ____________).
Something in exchange for nothing is not reciprocity.
I reject this non-reciprocal exchange. I reject being disrespected. I reject being treated as if I have political "cooties." I'm not going to be silent about that.
You said, "So if blacks don't know what Obama is and keep telling him that they don't trust him for that reason, don't they know that they're hurting themselves by constantly talking about that?"
Response: But didn't Obama's campaign and his hysterical Black supporters already tell us Black "heretics" that we SHOULDN'T expect anything from Obama? That Black people are NOT entitled to expect anything from Obama?
Let me get back to a point that you made earlier: If Obama is NOT going to do anything "diehard" for AAs,then why should he expect to receive "diehard" support from AAs? Other ethnic politicians get "diehard" support from their own people because they actually embrace their people and DO "diehard" things for their people.
By contrast, Obama's hysterical Black supporters have been telling me that I should give him "diehard" support even though he's made the point that he's NOT going to do anything "diehard" for me or other AAs. They say I am obligated to give him this type of support (despite his keeping AAs at arms length) because I must support the First Black President.
Isn't all of this yet another example of our traditional "Give Your Support to BM in Exchange for Nothing" contract that we've all rejected in other contexts?
I say "NO" to all of that.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Khadija, my sista, I didn't have the strength to go there and I'm sure glad you did.
Pres. Obaman hasn't been in office long enough to flush all the toilets in the White House and folks are not only expecting him to "save us," but expecting him to save us miraculously and quickly at that.
This whole worship thing is just numbing to me. As a psychologist I understand the celebration of the "1st black" and there is a place for that, but this has gone beyond "normal." There is no balance, no rationale. It's not just black folks either.
Hubby and I have spent many a night discussing how the President seems alone even when he's surrounded by so many. Where are those who are loyal to him and those who are, are they in significant positions? It seems that it is he and Mrs. Obama. If I were him I would trust no one at this point. There are clearly those who do not want him to succeed and there are others who quietly (sneakily) await his failure.
Pres. Obama's distancing himself from blacks and wanting to appear non-threatening to white folks just ticks me off, to be polite. It angered me that he went "begging and pleading" to get his stimulus package passed. He ran a campaign on "change we can believe in;" Congress did not and it is clear. Change is slow and he seems to want so called change in large chunks and congress is pushing back as I knew they would.
His inexperience is showng. One thing I admired about Pres. Bush - he was the president and he knew it and he knew, acted like it and others treated as such. Pres. Bush surrounded himself with very loyal people, even in when they made a mess of the world.
Thanks for the post, I just didn't have the energy to write anything about it.
Khadija, this may be a bit brutal for your readers, but in the spirit of "The Prince," it's necessary. LOL!
Black folks in America have mostly squandered and given away our inheritance from the gains that were made during the Civil Rights movement. And due to the lack of the structure of a progressive, uplifting culture of some sort, the situation we're in could have been predicted by social scientists, and maybe was.
Most AAs have an IDENTITY issues. Who are AAs? Who's in the group and who's out? Most AAs don't know. And this is why some of us are constantly trying to claim people and give them an AA card? IMO, we need to be trying to yank a whole bunch of AA cards because a lot of AAs are NVs (No Value) to the collective and many are extremely damaging to the group. Since we can't force them out of the group, this is just why some of us are now urging bw to leave the collective behind and flee.
Anyway, I have watched this AA squandering of our inheritance over the past 2 decades, and I've been aghast. I can't justify being angry or even annoyed at whites, Asians, non-AA blacks, Hispanics, etc. for making maximum use of the freebies our folks gave/give them or for taking advantage of opportunities when AAs are being fools. AAs have had and still have millions of opportunities in this country to show the world that we are all we claim we are, but we either don't use or misuse those opportunities or give what we have away. Since most AAs have never read The Prince and similar books (due to widespread anti-intellectualism in the AA "culture") or play chess or been exposed to the type of strategic thinking that "The Prince" advises and are never encouraged to think critically, many AAs operate like naive children. This is why I keep pointing out that LIFE IS NOT FAIR. So many AAs really believe that if they share with others, are nice to others, that others will reciprocate and when others don't do it, they scream that these others are mean, greedy, and don't like black folks. LOL!! SMH
For ex. you talk about scholarships and slots in colleges and universities that other non-AA blacks are taking from AAs, well why didn't AAs realize that if you just throw juicy morsels out there with no strings attached, OF COURSE others are going to snatch them up. DUH! AAs are great at knocking down doors and fighting for equal access but they don't put guards at the door to block others from getting in and AAs don't charge an entrance fee 'cause giving is better than receiving.' LOL! Lot of AAs really believe and live their lives by that type of stupid thinking. So, OF COURSE, you can BET that others will flock in, grab the goodies, and regard us as fools. At this point, other groups don't even have to fight for access; they can sit back and wait for AAs to knock down the door.
For ex. now that Obama (regarded as a black man by everyone except some AAs) has accessed the white house, you can bet that Asians, Hispanics, and others have already started planning and preparing their own candidates. And when either an Hispanic or Asian candidate runs for the presidency, many naive AAs will support them because MANY AAs consider all non-white people to be friends or at least non-racist towards AAs. Unebelievably naive!
So I'm not angry at any other group for grabbing the opportunities and leaving us in the dust. This is called 'survival of the fittest.' This is why lots of folks feel they can talk "down" to us or lecture us. AAs have clearly behaved like naive children and this is why other groups will use us but discount us as equals--just like lots of bm use bw because LOTS of bw allow it with no strings attached and no reciprocity demanded and depend instead on magical thinking.
Reciprocity is not negotiated EARLY in either of these arrangements because in many cases, black folks and bw are just happy to get a little attention or be in somebody's spotlight for a minute.
IMO, Obama would be EXTREMELY foolish to put his eggs in the AA basket, no matter how noble that might be. I don't blame him at all about that. AAs have proven to be an easily manipulated, fickle support base. And he could lose A LOT if he caters to the whims of AAs. It wouldn't take much for AAs to ditch Obama. All it would take would be a few negative rumors and a lot of AAs would trash him because they already don't know who or what exactly he is. Look at how little it has taken for AA men to ditch bw. AAs voted for Obama because he just kinda sorta looks like some of us. AAs are not a hard-core support base for him and he knows it. We know that many AA women supported him because of Michelle, but if the nasty rumors are credible enough, many AA women would still trash him. For ex. suppose someone were to post a credible pic of him in a compromising position with a man. Many religious AA women would trash him. LOL! Whereas neither Hispanics, Korean-Americans, Nigerian-Americans or Jews would ever ditch a president from their group no matter what due to the cultural BOND. This is why I keep emphasizing the need for a reasonably uplifting CULTURE among AAs. If I'd been his adviser, I would have advised him to play it just as he did. I didn't keep up with every little tidbit of the Rev. Wright situation, but if the Rev. was his friend, I think Obama should treat him right "under the table," but distance himself from him publically. Presidents cannot afford to be Mother Theresa types. I certainly wouldn't want that type of president because we live in a lowdown dirty world. Obama played this in the spirit of straight up Machiavellian if I understood The Prince at all. If he was going to win the Presidency, he couldn't afford to be bogged down with playing to AA issues because AAs have some really ridiculous issues which they cling to for some unknown reason. For ex, how can anyone take people seriously when those people don't DEMAND that men support their children? How can people take people seriously when those people don't spend their last dime, if necessary, getting the best education possible for their children?
LOTS of AAs are just plain suicidal and this is why I used to refer to AAs like that as the suicide squad. And just look at all of the excuses that so many AAs make for this or that type of poison coming at them from other AAs. Just look at any incident in the news concerning AAs and you don't need to look far to find the bulk of AAs defending the most abusive, vile behavior. Let's just admit it. The time for the bulk of AAs has come and gone. You know that. It's painful, but you know that. This is why you often warn of the permanent underclass.
Any AA person who believed that Obama was going to focus for more than minute on AAs to "save our people" is certifiable. The fact is that AAs don't need Obama to solve their problems. Obama has the political skills of a maestro. Any man with Obama's level of skill would never have been able to get to where he is by being foolish. Despite his often sappy persona, he's a realist.
Greetings, Hagar's Daughter!
You said, "Khadija, my sista, I didn't have the strength to go there and I'm sure glad you did."
Yes, it IS draining deconstructing the many liabilities involved with Black folks' Obama-mania; and the many vulnerabilities caused (and experienced) by Crossover Negro Politicians. But somebody has to do it. We need to learn to logically analyze our situation. The stakes are too high to continue in our current mental habits.
You said, "This whole worship thing is just numbing to me. As a psychologist I understand the celebration of the "1st black" and there is a place for that, but this has gone beyond "normal." There is no balance, no rationale. It's not just black folks either."
Yes, Black folks are firmly attached to the Obama-ssiah crack pipe. HOWEVER, these non-Black Obama fans are NOT so attached. These non-Blacks will turn on Pres. Obama once the hopes for "change" that they placed in him are frustrated.
The backlash from these soon-to-be-disappointed non-Black Obama fans will be at least as large as their current fawning support. It won't be a pretty picture.
You said, "Hubby and I have spent many a night discussing how the President seems alone even when he's surrounded by so many...It seems that it is he and Mrs. Obama."
I've noticed the same thing.
You said, "Pres. Obama's distancing himself from blacks and wanting to appear non-threatening to white folks just ticks me off, to be polite."
I'm DEEPLY offended by this sort of behavior.
You said, "It angered me that he went "begging and pleading" to get his stimulus package passed...His inexperience is showng. One thing I admired about Pres. Bush - he was the president and he knew it and he knew, acted like it and others treated as such."
Yes, Pres. Obama's weaknesses (people-pleasing inclinations) and inexperience ARE showing. He clearly does NOT understand the true nature of how things work.
It's like he's asking for permission to act. This is crazy. Especially for a "PRINCE"! This sort of begging and pleading behavior ENCOURAGES rebellion from subordinates and contempt for the "prince."
Bush instinctively knew to ACT as if he had the last word on any subject or course of action. He acted as if he had a mandate whether he had one or not. This is appropriate for a prince.
Some more quotes to ponder from The Prince:
"CHAPTER III
Concerning Mixed Principalities.
BUT the difficulties occur in a new principality. . . .
. . . In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them."
Pres. Obama doesn't seem to understand that by winning the presidency ("seizing the principality"), he has thwarted the ambitions of other princes who wanted that spot. They, of course, perceive this to be an injury upon them. This makes them and their retainers that he has borrowed(quietly) implaccable enemies.
". . . Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge."
Pres. Obama should have been prepared to politically stomp Congress and anybody else at the first sign of rebellion against his plans. And stomp rebels so hard that they cannot do any more harm. Which also has the good effect of making less bold wanna-be rebels think twice.
". . . Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others. . ."
Well, this one quote is the key to the whole situation. Pres. Obama should have realized that conflict was unavoidable (for all of the above reasons), and prepared for it. Instead of trying to beg and plead for cooperation from people who never had any intention of cooperating in the first place.
{very long sigh}
______________________
Hello there, Evia!
You said, "Khadija, this may be a bit brutal for your readers, but in the spirit of "The Prince," it's necessary. LOL!"
Girl, it's TOTALLY necessary! THANK YOU for this public service.
You said, "Black folks in America have mostly squandered and given away our inheritance from the gains that were made during the Civil Rights movement. And due to the lack of the structure of a progressive, uplifting culture of some sort, the situation we're in could have been predicted by social scientists, and maybe was."
Yep. Sadly, this is true.
You said, "Most AAs have an IDENTITY issues. Who are AAs? Who's in the group and who's out? Most AAs don't know. And this is why some of us are constantly trying to claim people and give them an AA card? IMO, we need to be trying to yank a whole bunch of AA cards because a lot of AAs are NVs (No Value) to the collective and many are extremely damaging to the group. Since we can't force them out of the group, this is just why some of us are now urging bw to leave the collective behind and flee."
Exactly. We don't have any standards for being considered a member in good standing within the AA collective. And we give heavy resistance whenever any of us suggest that we start ENFORCING standards of any sort. That's how things have gotten so screwed up.
You said, "Anyway, I have watched this AA squandering of our inheritance over the past 2 decades, and I've been aghast. I can't justify being angry or even annoyed at whites, Asians, non-AA blacks, Hispanics, etc. for making maximum use of the freebies our folks gave/give them or for taking advantage of opportunities when AAs are being fools."
Yes, I understand. I am annoyed with thieves in general. However, the ultimate blame is with AAs for consistently choosing to be "Boo-boo the Fool."
You said, "AAs have had and still have millions of opportunities in this country to show the world that we are all we claim we are, but we either don't use or misuse those opportunities or give what we have away.
Since most AAs have never read The Prince and similar books (due to widespread anti-intellectualism in the AA "culture") or play chess or been exposed to the type of strategic thinking that "The Prince" advises and are never encouraged to think critically, many AAs operate like naive children. "
Yes, this rabid anti-intellectualism among AAs cripples us in MANY ways. That's why I'm so infuriated by it, and its many manifestations [lifting up trash like "street literature," etc.].
You said, "So many AAs really believe that if they share with others, are nice to others, that others will reciprocate and when others don't do it, they scream that these others are mean, greedy, and don't like black folks. LOL!! SMH"
This nonsensical belief is beyond stupidity.
You said, "For ex. you talk about scholarships and slots in colleges and universities that other non-AA blacks are taking from AAs, well why didn't AAs realize that if you just throw juicy morsels out there with no strings attached, OF COURSE others are going to snatch them up. DUH! AAs are great at knocking down doors and fighting for equal access but they don't put guards at the door to block others from getting in and AAs don't charge an entrance fee 'cause giving is better than receiving.' LOL! Lot of AAs really believe and live their lives by that type of stupid thinking.
So, OF COURSE, you can BET that others will flock in, grab the goodies, and regard us as fools. At this point, other groups don't even have to fight for access; they can sit back and wait for AAs to knock down the door."
Yes, I expect others to act in their own best interests. That's what rational people do. It would be nice if AAs picked up that mental habit. Instead of doing what you described above.
You said, "So I'm not angry at any other group for grabbing the opportunities and leaving us in the dust. This is called 'survival of the fittest.' This is why lots of folks feel they can talk "down" to us or lecture us. AAs have clearly behaved like naive children and this is why other groups will use us but discount us as equals--just like lots of bm use bw because LOTS of bw allow it with no strings attached and no reciprocity demanded and depend instead on magical thinking."
Mentally, most of our people ARE foolish children.
You said, "Reciprocity is not negotiated EARLY in either of these arrangements because in many cases, black folks and bw are just happy to get a little attention or be in somebody's spotlight for a minute."
Yes, and we mistakenly perceive these pats on the head to be progress for us. {shaking my head}
You said, "IMO, Obama would be EXTREMELY foolish to put his eggs in the AA basket, no matter how noble that might be. I don't blame him at all about that. AAs have proven to be an easily manipulated, fickle support base."
Yes, AAs are the perfect example of what the Bible is talking about when it mentions the "slender reed that will pierce your hand if you lean upon it for support." {sigh}
You said, "Let's just admit it. The time for the bulk of AAs has come and gone. You know that. It's painful, but you know that. This is why you often warn of the permanent underclass."
God, yes...I know this.
You said, "The fact is that AAs don't need Obama to solve their problems."
Yes, AAs have many useful resources at hand. We can see how well these resources work after other people (Latinos, Asians, etc.) snatch them out of our hands and start using them! The tools for surviving and thriving are there for any of us who have the presence of mind to use them. We just need to come out of our traditional childish and confused thought patterns.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Felicia chiming in on this thought provoking discussion.
Evia said..."For ex, how can anyone take people seriously when those people don't DEMAND that men support their children?"
Exactly. Decent individuals (regardless of "race"/ethnicity) take seriously and respect other decent individuals (regardless of "race"/nationality) on a case by case bases. But cultures themselves are usually judged by the observable well being of the members of that culture. Particularly the women and children. The most defenseless and helpless population in a male dominated world.
It is clearly observable that many women and children in black societies across the globe are not fairing well. And this being a patriarchal world, it is still a MAN'S responsibility to protect and provide for his children and the woman who's given birth to his children. Out of concern for the groups welfare, his culture, his own sense of self-worth and pride.
IMO - AND that of the majority of the inhabitants on earth - If a male after a certain age can't (or isn't trying to) provide for and protect the women and children in his community, he's NOT fulfilling his role as a man and is therefor WORTHLESS and not deserving of respect.
At least not deserving of being considered on the SAME level that those men who ARE doing their upmost to provide and protect.
This is one of the big reasons why black folks internationally are looked at as "a world apart" by many.
Because of the lousy and pitiful situation of many black women and black children world wide.
Greatly at the hands of black men. Not white men. Regardless of what black pathology apologists say.
The world is watching and does not care who "started it" or "caused it". The world just sees all of these suffering BW and black children.
News reports like these leave sad/negative impressions with people...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
africa/3078776.stm
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/
show_article.php/_c-476/
_nr-252/i.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/
Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_
1813126,00.html
Many black people are literally DYING for the opportunity to live - and educate themselves - in the West, and here many black folks who are already in Western countries - and have been for generations - are squandering opportunities to succeed. To live well. Hard earned opportunities made possible by THEIR ancestors and living relatives.SMH
It just doesn't make any sense...
It makes black folks as a whole - as a people - look a bit odd I think.
Below is the Father's day speech that Obama gave that was criticized by many. Partially because Obama was not born into the African-American (dying) culture.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/27/
obama.fathers.ay/index.html
Daniel Patrick Moynihan also told the truth but was dissed because he was white.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/
10.04/01-moynihan.html
IMO Common sense and good advice is common sense and good advice - and should be heeded - whatever and whoever the source.
Especially considering all of the suicidal "information" given blacks - especially BW - on the daily.
As far as Jeremiah Wright being thrown under the bus. I don't see how Obama's continued association with him could have helped.
We all know it couldn't have. So I won't judge him for cleaning house.
Inside and outside of politics, whatever and whoever doesn't help you achieve your goal, should ultimately be tossed IMO.
Jeremiah Wright had become dead weight. And for someone b*tching about white people to high Heaven, this other woman he was seeing
com/2008/09/09/elizabeth-payne-jeremiah-wright/
looks significantly different then his wife.
http://www.courant.com/news/
hc-jeremiahwright-pg,0,2790604.photogallery
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1927227/
Jeremiah-Wright,-Barack-%3Cb%3E%3Cspan%20style='background
:yellow'%3Eobama%3C/span%3E%3C/b%3E's-pastor,-'stole-my-wife'.html
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0fUNbYP7v4fbR
Fascinating discussion Khadija!
I just wanted to say I really like your blog and would enjoy a required reading list that daphne suggested.
@ MangoButtahQueen
Congratulations on taking up chess! My father taught his children to play when we were all in elementary school so we could understand mental competition and proactive strategic maneuvers. It was BRUTAL in our household with that chess board at times!! *LOL*
There are many online tutorials for those who are interested in chess. There are also online chess matches. If you see a chess player who is kicking butt and taking names and the online moniker is "Thinking Mind"...well, that's me!! *smiles*
Since I started playing chess at such a young age, I still think that I relate a lot of my strategic thinking to chess concepts.
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
_________________________________
@ Khadija!
Obama is very naive... he doesn't realize that people aren't loyal to him because they "buy in" to his ideals...
Most people only give cosmetic loyalty until more is demanded of them.
It seems that black women will often give emotional investments without receiving anything at all in return. {looong sighs}
If you recall in many discussions last year when I was talking about the vetting process at my blog, commenters were talking about "giving our hearts"... {shaking my head}.... and I kept saying "did I mention giving our hearts?!"
That was their mentality when the discussion was about vetting others and forging alliances...instantly they THOUGHT that forging alliances involved making an emotional connection or emotional investment in someone.
I find this often at my blog forum...there are women who think it matters to me whether or not they emotionally identify with me or not...and I could care less. That's not cold...that's just real...
I focus on what is important.
I don't spend time seeking emotional investments from others... people can be emotionally invested and have NOTHING to contribute.
Obama will find out the hard way that TRUE loyalty from others will only come when it is earned. If he gives them nothing but an attractive ideal, he should not expect authentic loyalty.
Power only exists where there is dependency. Obama doesn't understand how to leverage dependency in a way that expands his own power base.
I suspect that he hasn't had much understanding of the fundamentals of dominance strategy....but time will tell. I hope I am wrong.
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
@ Hagar's Daughter
You said (in part):
This whole worship thing is just numbing to me. As a psychologist I understand the celebration of the "1st black" and there is a place for that, but this has gone beyond "normal." There is no balance, no rationale. It's not just black folks either.
I find that if anyone is offering any critical thinking about the Obama administration, then black folks start raising accusations of "oh you must be jealous of the Obamas".... and that's third grade thinking...
In the third grade, if any child on the playground said anything that was not complimentary, everyone assumed that jealousy was at the root of the comment...
Well...now we have adults using this same remedial thinking...as if critical thinking is SOOO FOREIGN to them.
All these simple negroes seem to understand is perpetuating Obama-ssiah.
If there are blacks who do not do likewise, then in their minds it's because "you don't like Barack and Michelle"...
{shaking my head}
I will be very happy to see our people elevate our thinking from the elementary school playground.
This nation is in a mess and we need to embrace some sophisticated analysis and observation...thank you for keeping us thinking!
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
Add the Art Of War by Sun Tzu and Frederick the Greats- Instructions To His Generals which are also required reading. I honestly believe that the president has probably read these books.
Hence, in the wise leader's plans, considerations of advantage and disadvantage will be blended together...on the other hand in the midst of difficulties we are always ready to seize an advantage, we may extricate ourselves from misfortune.
What has happened with the economy can best be summed up like this- when the evils that arise have been foreseen they can be quickly redressed, but when they have been permitted to grow in a way that everyone can see them, there is no longer a remedy.
Therefore, the last administration foreseeing troubles, did not deal with the problems they saw and allowed them to come to a head where it will be very difficult to deal with and eradicated.
The president is not a miracle worker, so we must be patient with his decisions and his cabinet choices.
And nothing honors a man more than to establish new laws and new ordinances when himself is newly risen...when they are well founded and dignified will make him revered and admired.
Hello there, Felicia!
Hmmm...this is beginning to feel like a repeat of our earlier discussions about self-proclaimed biracials. I'm not going to rehash all of that. I'm not going to spend a lot of time going back and forth over these self-proclaimed biracials. We agree to disagree.
I'm not very protective of self-proclaimed "biracials." I'm more worried about the fate of the non-"biracial," non-"multicultural," non-"exotic," AA person. I'm more worried about the fate of those AAs who have been (and continue to be) kicked to the bottom of the (racist and colorist) perceived social value index.
You said, "Every black American didn't take it as a disrespectful tongue-lashing."
Who made the claim that "every Black American" took it as a disrespectful tongue-lashing? I never said anything like that. You're responding to things that I never said.
I DO know that I was one of many AAs who were displeased, and took it as a disrespectful tongue-lashing meant to curry favor with White voters.
And I know that my displeasure with that speech was NOT based on some sort of BM protectionism. I defend the dignity of AA people. From anybody and everybody who would attack my people's dignity.
You said, "And just because black people (and half white or not Obama is considered black in America because of his appearance) may have different perceptions of situations that are occurring - and different solutions to how these problems may be fixed - doesn't mean that one side is more righteous or "authentically black" than the other."
"Relativity" in terms of my people's LIFE and DEATH interests only goes so far with me. For example, I reserve the right to say that individuals like Ward Connerly are NOT righteous, and are NOT working on behalf of Black interests. I reserve the right to describe Ward Connerly as the traitor (and internal enemy) that he is to AA interests.
Also, it's like you're trying to twist this into some sort of "acting Black" discussion. I'm not talking about "acting Black." In Obama's case, I'm talking about him going out of his way to publicly tongue-lash AAs in order to curry White favor. I object to that.
When a Crossover Negro Politician, or a Negro Celebrity (Yung Berg, Ne-Yo, DL Hughley, etc.), or a Negro like Ward Connerly does something that I consider to be a slap in the face and a betrayal, I reserve the right to call BS on it.
This has nothing to do with debates about so-called Black authenticity. In this case, it's about disrespect in order to suck up to White (racist) voters.
You said, "IMO if someone isn't personally attributing to a social problem, they shouldn't feel any humiliation or feel scolded at all if an obvious problem is pointed out.
...When people feel that someone's "calling their name" it's usually because they feel some emotional attachment to the issue."
This sounds a lot like the argument that Snoop Dogg and other hip-hop misogynists make: "If you're not a h** or a b****, then I'm not talking about you; and you shouldn't be offended when I refer to women by those terms in my 'music.'"
Response: NO. I reject disrespect. And in Obama's case, I consider it disrespect because the motives were tainted---to curry favor with Whites. Whatever else is wrong with Bill Cosby, he's not saying these things to curry favor with (racist) Whites. Which is why I support Cosby's statements.
You said, "Just because most black people may not want to hear or agree with what an individual black/biracial person says, doesn't mean that individual is necessarily wrong. Or right for that matter.
All I'm saying is that there are usually shades of gray. Yet people - and especially many black people - tend to think that everything is either black or white.
When most things are based purely on opinion."
Again, it sounds like you're responding to things that I didn't say. I've been talking about "shades of gray" recently.
You said, "Out of honest curiosity Khadija, which black politicians around now would you consider to be for those who you feel Obama - and those like him - are not representing?"
To answer your question, I can only speak about local politicians. Even though he truly annoys me with his speech patterns and mannerisms, I believe that Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been doing a good job for his district. My childhood neighborhood is in his district. I was displeased that his name was mixed up in Blagojevich's mess in any capacity.
A lot of local Whites hate on Jesse Jr. because of his father, and paint a caricature of him. He's NOT Jesse Sr. When you look at him over time, he's more of a technocrat sort of politician.
His wife became the Alderman in my parents' ward a few years back. I believe she has done a good job for her constituents. She's much more accessible and responsive to her constituents than the previous alderman. Especially considering the LONG years of outrageous neglect that the previous long-term machine Negro Alderman inflicted on that ward.
From what I can tell, various categories of constituents (elders AND local Black business owners, etc.) have been mostly pleased with both of them.
Peace, blessings and soldarity.
Khadija, re Obama lecturing bm, well this is my take. For too long, too many AAs and others have kept quiet about the social PLAGUE in the so-called bc because they didn't want whites of ill-will toward blacks to rejoice. And it has reached the level of a "plague" when you look at the stats.
I know that lots of black folks deny that, but I'm not backing down.
Staying quiet as the plague gained momentum is what is largely responsible for a lot of the havoc of all types in the bc. So it is firmly rooted now. Black folks with common sense know that when they do speak out, they will either be attacked by other blacks or at the very least, they will not get support of other AAs. Those are other aspects of this plague. It's a plague that protects itself.
The few of us AAs left with common sense have got to be able to scream out about these destructive behavior patterns irrespective of who will rejoice and we must have the courage to do so without fear of being accused of trying to win points with whites or whoever else. Even if we're scared, we must still oppose this plague. We also should be heavily supported by other blacks and all well-meaning others when we do talk out about it.
So, IMO, it doesn't matter who is talking about the plague or their reasons for talking about it ***BECAUSE***it is helping AAs to know about exactly what is devouring us and how it presents itself. If not, this plague will continue to take out more bw and children. Since so many AAs have been gagged out of fear of being accused of helping 'whitey,' their common sense has withered and died from lack of use. LOL!
As you can imagine I've been skewered and roasted in the last few days for even mentioning Chris Brown's "alleged" attack on Rihanna. As usual, folks have written to accuse me of bashing bm and currying favor with white folks for the mere fact of saying that another bw was attacked by a DBRbm. SMH I don't get deterred by that because I know those folks are under the influence of the plague.
I don't want to bring that fiasco here, but this is similar to Obama's father's day speech to bm. IMO, it's not important whether his intent was to curry favor with whites; instead I'm thrilled that he said what he did because what he said may have caused some bm to step up and get more involved in their children's lives emotionally and financially. I'm sure those black children are happy about that.
Bm NEED to be told this over and over and over because OBVIOUSLY a lot of them do NOT know what a man's role is, yet they want to be treated with respect the way they see men from other groups being treated. Many AA men claim they behave irresponsibly because they never had role models to teach them how to behave. Where are the bm who are ***supposed*** to step up and teach these males how to be men? Where are they? Yet when a high-profiled bm does it like Cosby, Jesse, or Obama, they get furious. SO MANY people seem to be terrified to tell AA men what they MUST do in order for them to be considered worthwhile. They MUST perform their role!! Other than that, they're going to continue to be regarded by others in the world as less-thans whose lives are not valued like other men.
Obama is a politician and I believe that MOST or maybe ALL politicians say what they say to get votes all of the time. It's ALL calculated speech. I'm not sure why anyone would expect Obama to be different. He's either a good politician or he's not and if any black person doesn't want to support him, then they shouldn't. I clearly recognize that he's a politician and I've stated why I support him. I know that he will become toast if he tries to do anything for blacks "specifically," though blacks ought to make it a priority to position themselves to benefit from his policies. AAs should be doing that with urgency.
He's NOT there to "save our people," and this is what you've been trying to hammer home to Obamas-siahs, so he's going to say what he needs to say to get votes and support from whomever and implement his policies.
One of your commenters referred to him begging and pleading to get support for his stimulus plan. OMG--This is what good politicians DO! They do what they need to do to get their policies passed. Other than that, it will count against them because it's all being written down. Look at how it was viewed as a failure on Bush's part when he couldn't "reform" social security. And Obama can't wave a magic wand to influence folks. He's just a man. LOL! ALL politicians make deals with demons and devil ***sometimes*** and IF NECESSARY and black folks need to savvy-up and realize that. No successful politican can be a Mother Theresa!
Hmmm...this is beginning to feel like a repeat of our earlier discussions about self-proclaimed biracials. I'm not going to rehash all of that. I'm not going to spend a lot of time going back and forth over these self-proclaimed biracials. We agree to disagree.
I not once mentioned self-proclaimed biracial people in my last post. What I did say is that many if not most African-American identified historical figures had biracial ancestry. None of them self-proclaimed as biracial. They identified as Negro/black just as Obama identifies as black/African-American. All I'm saying is a black politician with Obamas appearance and genetic make-up is nothing new. Yet many folks are acting like he is and is remarkable in some way. When there were MANY others like him "racially" speaking before.
I'm not very protective of self-proclaimed "biracials." I'm more worried about the fate of the non-"biracial," non-"multicultural," non-"exotic," AA person. I'm more worried about the fate of those AAs who have been (and continue to be) kicked to the bottom of the (racist and colorist) perceived social value index.
MOST AA people from the darkest "blue black" to the lightest "high-yella" are of multiracial ancestry. Evia has mentioned this before in a post. When she lived in Africa - if I'm not mistaken - she was addressed as either the American OR belonging to an African group with known ethnic/racial ties to Arabs.
The Africans could SEE that she was different then them and that she had non black admixture. I've been in similar situations with Africans, Hispanics and sometimes AA's and many others have as well.
Folks we consider - and consider themselves - unquestionable black in America would have their sanity immediately questioned in Africa, Europe, and Latin America.
Many African-Americans haven't come to terms with this fact of mixture.
You said, "Every black American didn't take it as a disrespectful tongue-lashing."
Who made the claim that "every Black American" took it as a disrespectful tongue-lashing? I never said anything like that. You're responding to things that I never said.
You're absolutely correct. You were speaking from your perspective. How you viewed it. You considered it those things.
This being your blog, the views expressed in it are yours. And there are obviously others who share your outlook. And those that view things differently.
I DO know that I was one of many AAs who were displeased, and took it as a disrespectful tongue-lashing meant to curry favor with White voters.
And I know that my displeasure with that speech was NOT based on some sort of BM protectionism. I defend the dignity of AA people. From anybody and everybody who would attack my people's dignity.
You've stated your POV well.
You said, "And just because black people (and half white or not Obama is considered black in America because of his appearance) may have different perceptions of situations that are occurring - and different solutions to how these problems may be fixed - doesn't mean that one side is more righteous or "authentically black" than the other."
"Relativity" in terms of my people's LIFE and DEATH interests only goes so far with me. For example, I reserve the right to say that individuals like Ward Connerly are NOT righteous, and are NOT working on behalf of Black interests. I reserve the right to describe Ward Connerly as the traitor (and internal enemy) that he is to AA interests.
That's right, it's America, we have freedom of speech, and we can all describe anyone any way we wish.
Also, it's like you're trying to twist this into some sort of "acting Black" discussion. I'm not talking about "acting Black." In Obama's case, I'm talking about him going out of his way to publicly tongue-lash AAs in order to curry White favor. I object to that.
I understand where you're coming from. You feel Obama tongue-lashed AAs and went out of his way to court the white vote. Since you feel that way you can't help but object to it.
When a Crossover Negro Politician, or a Negro Celebrity (Yung Berg, Ne-Yo, DL Hughley, etc.), or a Negro like Ward Connerly does something that I consider to be a slap in the face and a betrayal, I reserve the right to call BS on it.
Right. Everyone reserves the right to call BS on anything and anyone who they feel is a detriment.
Everyone, you, me, and everyone else reserves that right for themselves. No arguments here.
This has nothing to do with debates about so-called Black authenticity. In this case, it's about disrespect in order to suck up to White (racist) voters.
You feel that Obama disrespected AA's, with that Father's day speech. That's clear. And you feel that the whites he courted in order to get elected were most likely racist. Understood.
You said, "IMO if someone isn't personally attributing to a social problem, they shouldn't feel any humiliation or feel scolded at all if an obvious problem is pointed out.
...When people feel that someone's "calling their name" it's usually because they feel some emotional attachment to the issue."
This sounds a lot like the argument that Snoop Dogg and other hip-hop misogynists make: "If you're not a h** or a b****, then I'm not talking about you; and you shouldn't be offended when I refer to women by those terms in my 'music.'"
If that's what it honestly sounds like to you, then that's your perception.
It can't be stated enough that we all have very different perceptions, opinions, and viewpoints regarding any number of different issues.
You said, "Just because most black people may not want to hear or agree with what an individual black/biracial person says, doesn't mean that individual is necessarily wrong. Or right for that matter.
All I'm saying is that there are usually shades of gray. Yet people - and especially many black people - tend to think that everything is either black or white.
When most things are based purely on opinion."
Again, it sounds like you're responding to things that I didn't say. I've been talking about "shades of gray" recently.
That's true, the above statement had nothing to do with anything you've said. I was just making the point that usually there's a little bit of useful truth/sense on both sides of an issue.
You said, "Out of honest curiosity Khadija, which black politicians around now would you consider to be for those who you feel Obama - and those like him - are not representing?"
To answer your question, I can only speak about local politicians. Even though he truly annoys me with his speech patterns and mannerisms, I believe that Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been doing a good job for his district. My childhood neighborhood is in his district. I was displeased that his name was mixed up in Blagojevich's mess in any capacity.
A lot of local Whites hate on Jesse Jr. because of his father, and paint a caricature of him. He's NOT Jesse Sr. When you look at him over time, he's more of a technocrat sort of politician.
His wife became the Alderman in my parents' ward a few years back. I believe she has done a good job for her constituents. She's much more accessible and responsive to her constituents than the previous alderman. Especially considering the LONG years of outrageous neglect that the previous long-term machine Negro Alderman inflicted on that ward.
From what I can tell, various categories of constituents (elders AND local Black business owners, etc.) have been mostly pleased with both of them.
Thank you for answering my question. It does sound like Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife are doing positive things. And you're right, he's not like his father which I consider a positive.
Peace and blessings to you.
Felicia
Below is an excerpt from the blog I was refering to regarding AA's mixed ancestry. And the inability of many AA's to come to terms with it. Interesting videos related to this topic can also be found at this link...
Felicia
http://evolvingslices.typepad.com/9_
black_female_interracia/
So, folks do need to ponder this one. Bw-wm relationships are NOT actually interracial at all as you pointed out. Aside from the fact that all humans came from the same ancestor, most AAs can look at their family members and see right away that we are not "full-blooded" Africans (whatever that means). Most Africans that I encountered in Africa and here looked at me and right away knew I wasn't a "full-blooded" African. They considered me "mixed," which initially surprised me since "mixed" in this country means that you're "biracial." When I pointed this out to Africans, they couldn't understand why I was splitting hairs. LOL!! They can't understand why so many AAs get into debates about whether we're 50% mixed with whites and/or Indians vs 33% vs 11% or 2%. They absolutely can't understand that and neither can many AAs deal with their need to split hairs about their undeniable bloodline.
As long as no one tries to trumpet the superiority of one bloodline over the other, I totally support anyone acknowledging ALL of their ancestry. There is no superior bloodline; there are NO superior GROUPS of people; there are simply large groups of people who have adopted ways that have enabled them to survive and thrive better or compete for vital resources better than others. We can ALL do this, as I constantly point out and urge bw to do.
Another thing is that we all know that if any AA person points out that they're mixed with white or even Indian, other AAs almost always ridicule them and accuse them of denying their African heritage. I had a girlfriend once who said she wanted to know more about her Scottish ancestry and black folks called her all kinds of foul names. SMH She didn't let them stop her though.
Of course, many continental Africans think we're insane about denying our white, Indian, and Asian heritage, especially when it's so apparent. LOL! This denial is a type of mental issue that many AAs have not dealt with successfully because many AAs are in denial about it and are therefore still unable to even talk about it rationally OR are prevented from talking about it openly by other AAs who can't talk about it themselves. I think that denial of any portion of heritage indicates something profoundly sad in that person's soul--a major wound. AAs need to just deal with this once and for all. But we know that many AAs are not able to talk openly about LOTS of internal issues. They magically think these issues will just go away or that whites will deal with these issues, or now they're pinning their hopes on President Obama.
However, I am not a magical thinker. I know that I, as an individual endowed by my Creator with free will AND much freedom (these days), am primarily responsible for resolving my issues. I can talk about any issue that I may have or even think I have because I want to resolve it and I know that refusing to talk about it--and deal with it--is harming me and most likely my children too.
Anyway, when I lived in Nigeria, the typical Nigerian assumed from my appearance that I was a Fulani and sometimes referred to me as the "Fulani" woman. Here's something I pulled from a site about the Fulani:
The origins of the Fulani people are highly disputed, some believe that they are of North African or Arabic origin, characterized by the lighter skin and straighter hair. Some Africans even refer to them as "white people". However, recent studies show that they descend from nomads from both North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. The Fulani were the first group of people in West Africa to convert to Islam through jihads, or holy wars, and were able to take over much of West Africa and establish themselves not only as a religious group but also as a political and economical force.
My maternal grandmother is from SC and she was a very light-skinned woman with freckles and light eyes. I carry some of her skin shade, especially in the winter time--though I'm not nearly as light as she was. Whereas I've always known my family tree on my father's side for several generations back, I'm actually now engaged in finding my mother's family tree in SC, so I'll be digging through the records this year. This is another reason why I'm scaling down on my time on the site here.
Hello there, Evia!
We agree to disagree.
Khadija, we'd have to be the same person if we never disagreed and we certainly don't want anyone thinking that you and I are the same person. LOL!
Your perspective on this is one that I'll have to think about more and I appreciate people who can give me other perspectives to think about. Even if I don't ever agree with their perspective, it usually causes my mind to spin off in a way that enriches me.
Hello there, Evia!
But I hear that we are the same person. Along with many other aliases! Shhh!{whispering---don't tell on "us"}
{chuckling}
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
You guys may not be the same person do please tell "Sara" that I am aware that she IS "Harry Potter" the so-called "average white guy" of the "White Women Suck!" blog...
Thanks, guys!
Hello there, Felicia!
Again, we agree to disagree. I suspect that your definition of "coming to terms with mixed ancestry" is NOT at all my definition of it.
Hey there Khadija!
Everyone is going to naturally have their own definition of coming to terms with mixed ancestry.
I wouldn't expect your definition to be like mine. Differences when it comes to all issues can be and should be expected.
I know that AAs (especially myself) are of "mixed" ancestry. I see that every morning when looking in the mirror. HOWEVER, I'm not a person who has any interest in playing up the White rapists or other non-Blacks in my family tree. I'm not interested in emphasizing how genetically "different" I am from Africans.
Acceptance doesn't have to have anything to do with playing up white rapist and other non-blacks. PLUS, NOT all European input was a result of rape. There were common law marriages - and before anti-miscegenation laws went national - legal marriages across the color-line. Not every white man (or white woman for that matter) in ones genetic tree was a rapist. MANY indeed were but they don't account for ALL of the input.
There are African-Americans who in addition to obviously knowing of their black ancestors, also know of their white/and or Native-American ancestors (Grand/Great Grand, etc... parent) and also know they weren't rapists.
Plus, many - especially these days - young black folks ARE the result of black rapists. Many fathers (sperm donors) of these unwanted/unplanned innocent babies that these teenaged - and sometimes not even teen-aged SMH - black girls are giving birth to across this nation are grown damaged black men.
Of course you don't have to be interested in how genetically different you are from Africans.
My ONLY reason for even broaching this topic is because some AA's (I'm not accusing you of this) make such a point to emphasize how supposedly "different" "racially speaking" Obama is from them. When he's not.
That was my only point.
And you've made it clear that your issue with Obama is more culture. The fact that he's not from the AA ethnic group. I'm only refering to those other AA's I've read about who talk about how different racially speaking he is.
I'm not the type of AA who glories in emphasizing that they are 1/32 Irish, 1/17 Cherokee, and 1/42 Martian (if they could claim Martian ancestry). Who glories in emphasizing anything that is NOT Black about their ancestry.
Just because an AA acknowledges their full background - especially if it's personally known about and proven - doesn't mean that they're necessarily taking "glory" in something. There's a difference in a simple truthful acknowledgement and acting as if their better than someone else because of it. Those are two different things.
What really turns me off about the way you're framing this "mixture" issue is that it too easily accomodates AAs' LONG HISTORY of programmed ethnic self-hatred. I've heard plenty of self-hating AAs talk that same formula about how they're just acknowledging all of their heritage, yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is presumptuous to automatically assume that one's public acknowledgment of one's known heritage is case of self-hatred. It may be, but then again it may not be.
Each individual case is different.
This is not what's motivating their quest to claim as much non-Blackness as possible.
Your opinion and you're entitled to it. Sometimes there is a negative ulterior motive involved and sometimes there isn't.
Incidentally, it's not just self-hating AAs who do this. I've watched many self-hating Mexicans [who were physically Indians with very, very little visible White admixture] feverishly claim as much Whiteness as possible.
Both AAs and Mexican mestizos are the product of White men's sexual conquests among the people they defeated.
This trait of wanting to claim as much genetic affinity as possible with one's conquerors is a common trait among conquered people.
I also have no interest in claiming to be the same as Africans. AAs are not the same as continental Africans. We are our own separate ethnic group. I'm not the sort of AA who is groveling before continental Africans looking for validation from them, either.
My bottom line is that I believe in ethnic self-respect for AAs. The same way OTHER ethnic groups believe in self-respect for THEIR OWN group.
My bottom line is claiming ones full heritage doesn't necessarily have to be a sign of self-hate.
It may be and then again it may not be.
Your opinions and outlook are understandably important and completely legitimate to you and I would imagine give you a sense of wholeness. These are your truths (your feeling regarding the "real" reason some people don't claim a 100% black/African-American identity) that you're expressing.
We all have truths. I have mine, you have yours, there are as many truths as there are people.
It would be boring (and dishonest) if everyone spouted the same party line.
Because we don't all think alike. Which is perfectly fine.
We will continue to agree to disagree on a number of different topics and points as you stated at the beginning of your comment.
It's been a GOOD exchange.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Felicia
Anonymous Troll,
Sure. Right. I suppose that thought must give you some (false) comfort. By all means, keep believing that . . . {chuckling}
Goodbye.
___________________
Ladies,
See how worried many folks are that more BW might just wake up and start acting in their own bests interests?
Every once in a while, it's good for the audience to see some of the madness that I routinely delete.
Onward and forward to abundant life for all BW and girls!
WARNING: I feel a MAJOR rant coming over me!
I had originally intended to let Felicia have the last word about our particular "agree to disagree" point in this exchange. But there's something else about this particular "agree to disagree" point that I find especially problematic:
Too many of our people have an aversion to pattern recognition. I see this all the time with the Black underclass client population. I see this all the time with BW who allow themselves to be taken advantage of and abused by BM, their relatives, predatory "frenemies," etc.
They don't seem to understand that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; then it probably IS a duck.
They don't seem to understand that if something looks like exploitation, sounds like exploitation, and is compatible with exploitation; then it probably IS exploitation.
There are always arguments raised about how you really can't tell whether it is or not; and maybe this one situation is the exception, etc.
In terms of this particular "agree to disagree" point:
If a statement looks like our traditional self-hatred, sounds like our traditional self-hatred, and is compatible with our traditional self-hatred---then it probably IS self-hatred.
When those Black folks who feel compelled to defend Cablanasians, biracials etc. jump to their defense, their whole arguments often revolve around looking at Tiger Woods', Kimora Lee's and other such persons' statements and behavior as if there is NO historical precedent among us.
As if we did not live through paper bag tests.
As if we did not live through:
"If you're White, you're right;
if you're yellow, you're mellow; if you're brown, stick around; if you're Black, get back!"
In the wake of Ne-Yo, Yung Berg, and BET, one might say that we are STILL living through these things.
We ARE still living through these things! We just don't tell the truth about this. We've found new labels for this same old behavior.
Felicia, please don't take this like this is about you or directed at you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respect and value the work that you have been doing on behalf of BW. For me, this issue isn't about you or anybody else in particular. Rev. Lisa and I have this same "agree to disagree" point.
{voice rising as I mount my ill-repaired soapbox}
For me, this is about an EVIL that I have watched grow and expand since high school. An EVIL that I learned to hate ever since I saw the damage that it has been doing to other Black women and girls.
I want to make it clear to any BW or girl who's self-worth is being battered RIGHT NOW due to the celebration and promotion (at her expense) of light-skinned, "biracial," "bicultural," "multicultural," "Cablanasian," etc. persons:
Don't let anybody trick you with lies about how they're just acknowledging all of who these people are!
If you feel like you're being DEVALUED because you don't have non-Black ancestors that you can pull out of your pocket to "acknowledge";
If you feel like you're being DEVALUED because you don't look like you have some non-Black ancestors that you can "acknowledge";
Then you probably ARE being DEVALUED!
Don't let anybody run some Jedi Mind Trick on you about how "they didn't mean it how you took it." NO. Trust your instincts. Trust your feelings. Trust your own personal history and observations of these matters.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, JUST LIKE ALL THOSE OTHER DUCKS YOU'VE SEEN THROUGHOUT YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, then you are totally justified in calling it a duck.
And you are totally justified in saying "NO" to all of that! You have the RIGHT to reject all of that mess!
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Hi again Khadija!
I wanted to add something about our "agree to disagree" point about pattern recognition...you have an entirely different reasoning process than those who THINK they are applying "pattern recognition" analysis who are actually applying typecasting and blanket generalizations.
There are many women who we have been in conversations with online (and offline) who are still using 4th grade reasoning skills to navigate the social dynamics that impact our survival.
I listen to plenty of blanket generalizations that are based on what Big Mama said and based on what aunty said...women who NEVER EVEN LEFT the all-black construct except to work in environments where they were not equals.
This is why so many of these women are scratching their heads when the mechanics of dominance strategy are entering into group conversations at my blog.
This is why I often challenge that level of thinking....because too often...it is rooted in a lack of exposure to ANYTHING outside of the all-black construct of interpreting people and groups of people.
I think we need to make a clear distinction between what constitutes pattern recognition and what constitutes operating with blanket generalizations based on a total lack of exposure to other class tiers and the social landscape of other cultures.
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
Hello there, Lisa!
In responding to Hagar's Daughter, you said: "I find that if anyone is offering any critical thinking about the Obama administration, then black folks start raising accusations of "oh you must be jealous of the Obamas".... and that's third grade thinking...
In the third grade, if any child on the playground said anything that was not complimentary, everyone assumed that jealousy was at the root of the comment...
Well...now we have adults using this same remedial thinking...as if critical thinking is SOOO FOREIGN to them."
In your most recent comment, you said "I think we need to make a clear distinction between what constitutes pattern recognition and what constitutes operating with blanket generalizations based on a total lack of exposure to other class tiers and the social landscape of other cultures."
Guurl, you've said a mouthful that folks need to contemplate. These faulty assumptions apply across the board.
As you noted, many believe that if somebody criticizes the Obama-ssiah and/or Wife of Obama-ssiah, then they must be "hating" on them.
Although...I, for one, really DO dislike what I've seen of them. But that's not why I'm critical of the Obama-ssiah. This isn't 4th grade; and I'm not looking to make friends with them.
I'm concerned about the harm that Crossover Negro Politicians have done, and are doing, to the AA collective. I'm also concerned about the harm that AAs' idol worship of the Obamas is doing to the AA collective.
Another thing is that Obama-ssiah worshippers have managed to intimidate most Black "heretics" into silence. I refuse to be silenced. Not now. Not ever. NO.
Many believe that if you speak the truth about the activities and harm caused by DBRbm, then you must hate BM in general.
Although, as I have noted in past comments, some Black people who speak these truths about AA dysfunction really DO hate Black people in general. And really DO worship non-Blacks. Shades of the Uncle Ruckus character from Boondocks.
Many believe that if you are not just thrilled about the lifting up of Cablanasians, Biracials, and Multiculturals, then you must be part of the Acting Black Crew. Although, some Black people who refuse to lift up and swoon over biracials, etc. really ARE part of the Acting Black Crew.
Many believe that if a Black person is critical of AA dysfunction, then they must be a "tom." Although, many such Black critics ARE toms.
True pattern recognition leaves room for recognizing nuances. However, pattern recognition does NOT invent nuances where there are none.
Folks need to weigh their views of our people's circumstances for themselves. And decide where they are most comfortable risking being in error.
I choose to err on the side of protecting those who are the most devalued, exploited, and oppressed: BLACK women and girls. NOT Cablanasian, biracial, bicultural, multicultural, etc. women and girls.
[Especially since most such persons I've encountered have been simply an extra set of people exploiting and devaluing BLACK people. ("Hair-flippers.")]
If I'm in a situation where I have to prioritize among BW and girls, then I'm going to err on the side of protecting dark-skinned BW and girls. These are the women and girls who are subjected to the brunt of the colorist madness.
I'll be blunt: This is the time for everyone to Get Their Minds Right! And purge their minds of all sorts of remedial and confused thinking. I believe that the economy is going to go COMPLETELY belly-up by this summer. I believe that this 2nd Great Depression will last around 10 YEARS. There's just no more time left for magical thinking. Of any kind.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Felicia, please don't take this like this is about you or directed at you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respect and value the work that you have been doing on behalf of BW.
I don't take it personally Khadija. I THANK you - and ALL of the other BW empowerment bloggers whether IR focused or not - for providing these forums where we can express ourselves. Whether we agree on certain points, and fully understand each or or not. You, Evia, Lisa, Halima, Sara, CW, WAOD, (and those I've forgotten to mention) ALL of ya'll are doing such a PUBLIC SERVICE.
And I agree with your advice to BW who feel personally and specifically abused and tormented by the current status quo.
BW DO know when they're being hated on and being devalued, based solely on how far away they are physically from a racist Aryan "ideal".
This MUST be resisted. It must be fought. Because it is wrong. Evil like you said.
And it's wonderful that there are BW who although they themselves may not be personally receiving the brunt of the madness, are willing to call that mess out.
Because it ultimately harms ALL of us. Regardless of our complexion, features, hair texture, yada yada...
If that was a rant, it was a good one.
Peace, blessings, and I wish everyone a wonderful upcoming weekend.
Felicia
I have thoroughly enjoyed this post (as usual) exchange of ideas and opinions. I agree with some and disagree with some but understand that we for the most part are civil and respectful. I value many of the opinions here and can take something from most of them.
I had not given much thought to those with whom Pres. Obama had surrounded himself, but note that many are Clinton transplants. Even King David as a general felt he had to keep in enemies close (1 Samuel 26:1-13)so that may be smart on his part. Pres. Obama is in a predicament and from what I can see, it is all trial and error. I appreciate the unique situation in which he finds himself but am willing to give him a chance and see where it goes. I don't like much of what I see already, but I don't understand his strategies. I don't think I would embrace my enemies but politics is a skillful art within itself.
Good post.
Hello there, Felicia!
Thank you so much for your kind words about the blog! And thank you for being an active participant in this think tank. I truly appreciate the contribution that you've made to this and other conversations.
___________________
Greetings, Lorraine!
Thank you for your kind words about the post. I truly appreciate it. I have also enjoyed this discussion. I always learn from listening to the reader-participants.
You said, "Even King David as a general felt he had to keep in enemies close (1 Samuel 26:1-13)so that may be smart on his part."
Thank you for the scripture citation. I like it when people cite to specific materials, so I can quickly look at it for myself. I'll have to sit down and read up on the Bible passage you cited.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Respected Teacher Khadija,
Small question concerning what my role participating in this blog:
As a sympathetic older white man, where can I go and where can't I go in challenging others' views. This can clearly be tricky. I may appear to be a "duck". Ex: the controversial, but I believe sincere & appropriate, analysis in that ancient P. Moynihan report.
Can I be appreciated as a legit source of criticism? Or would that be damaging to the goals of this blog? -- Should the deconstruction be left to bw, because then it may heard as supportive?
Wishing Y'all Progress,
--- Aabaakawad
Greetings, Aabaakawad!
First of all, thank you--but I'm NOT a teacher or guru of any sort. I'm just hosting the conversations here. I learn from listening to the participants.
After some reflection, I've decided to take your comment at face value, and respond accordingly. As you know, there are a lot of time-wasting, game-playing trolls, but I decided to err on the side that maybe you are sincere about your question.
You said, "Small question concerning what my role participating in this blog:
As a sympathetic older white man, where can I go and where can't I go in challenging others' views. This can clearly be tricky. I may appear to be a "duck". Ex: the controversial, but I believe sincere & appropriate, analysis in that ancient P. Moynihan report.
Can I be appreciated as a legit source of criticism? Or would that be damaging to the goals of this blog? -- Should the deconstruction be left to bw, because then it may heard as supportive?"
Response: I don't like voyeurs. By "voyeurs," I mean people who do NOT have a stake in the issues under discussion. So their participation is simply a matter of personal entertainment.
I don't like this because this sort of behavior is disrespectful of the gravity of the issues under discussion. I'm not running a gossip blog. This is about uplifting spirits, and helping people to change their lives for the better. Lives are literally at stake concerning the issues under discussion here.
This blog is not about entertainment for me. I don't mind if people read this blog as entertainment. But I DO mind if people participate in these conversations for personal entertainment. If I see that somebody is playing games, then they're out of here.
I would also not look favorably upon your wish to intrude upon conversations that don't pertain to you. What's that about?
Why would you want to come here to (I take it from your Moynihan reference) quibble with us? Don't you know any Black folks in your personal life that you can bounce your ideas off of? If not, then this is yet another reason to be suspicious of your motives.
Just because you claim (and believe yourself) to be "sympathetic" doesn't mean that you actually are. Furthermore, I'm not looking for "sympathy" from anybody. For you to even conceive of the situation in those terms is paternalistic and patronizing.
I'm interested in JUSTICE. I support anybody who supports JUSTICE.
There are some blogs where I function as a SILENT voyeur. For example, gay and lesbian blogs. I enjoy Pam Spaulding's and Jasmyne Cannick's blogs. [They are Black lesbians.] I also enjoy "Living Out Loud With Darian." [He's a Black gay man.]
I read those blogs so that I (as a straight woman) can learn how to become a better ally in their pursuit of justice for themselves. I am not "sympathetic" to gays and lesbians. Who am I to presume that they would want or need my "sympathy"? I support JUSTICE for gays and lesbians. I read and LISTEN so that I can learn how to be more effective in my efforts to support justice for them.
I don't comment at those blogs because I feel that doing so would be presumptuous of me. I don't intrude upon their conversations. I disagree with some of the viewpoints expressed by the participants at these blogs. But that doesn't matter. I go there to listen and learn, not to lecture or debate with gays and lesbians about THEIR understanding of THEIR concerns. I would suggest that you do the same when it comes to conversations here.
Peace and blessings.
Khadija,
Thank you for your careful and detailed response to my query. My missteps may have provided a teachable moment. This blog is not about entertainment for me either.
Regard this as personal communication or blog comment, as you choose. But I hope this last comment is allowed before I fade away, so that at least I can protect my reputation as a sincere participant on certain IR blogs run by your colleagues, where wm are explicitly welcome. I will better research where my input is accepted after this. I am very new to blogging.
I am sorry about the poor choice of the word sympathetic. I meant it to indicate I agree with your outlook. It was a poor choice to submit a comment thru a smartphone in the wee hours.
I will remain as a silent voyeur as u suggest. The very reason I asked my question was to understand the boundaries.
Although I do not have a place in this blog, I feel no embarrassment in being interested. I date within and outside my race with intentions of finding a LTR, likely marriage. Understanding the territory is essential for interacting without causing pain.
After posting, I realized my salutation laid it on too thick. Sorry. But I do regard u as a teacher, along with also being someone learning from others, because I have learned a lot, and I am sure many others feel this way too.
I placed a comment as a prelude to weighing in on the disagreement over the legitamacy of wp and multi-racial people in the outside world, as opposed to the blog world, pointing out or describing publicly the demonry in the bc. I was NOT going to do a critique of behavior, or to shame anyone, but a defense of the legitimacy of outside-the-group analysis in the real world. Rereading my comment, I totally blew it in framing this.
Specifically I was going to support Felicia in the following exchange, but I will refrain from comment:
Felicia said:
Daniel Patrick Moynihan also told the truth but was dissed because he was white.
and Felicia supplied this link:
Four decades later, scholars re-examine Moynihan Report
[That link is a wonderful summary of the history of that report and the evolving reaction to it.]
to which Khadija objected:
In terms of Moynihan, I also refuse to meekly submit to a humiliating tongue-lashing from some non-Black.
to which Felicia replied
IMO if someone isn't personally attributing to a social problem, they shouldn't feel any humiliation or feel scolded at all if an obvious problem is pointed out. Whether the observation is being made by someone inside of the American "black community" - and judging from some of the atrocities happening in heavily black under-class areas one would be hard pressed to call them communities - or outside of it.
Khadija, I really am grateful for what u r doing, and I am sorry for the disruption.
--- Aabaakawad
Hello there, Aabaakawad!
I'm delighted to see from your thoughtful reply that I didn't make a mistake by taking your original question seriously. It's good to see that you don't appear to be a game-playing troll.
Let me make this clear to you and any other non-Black readers: You are welcome to participate within certain boundaries.
To skip forward [I'll explain in detail later in this reply]: You are welcome to participate using the same respectful, self-editing that you probably use when discussing Jewish issues with Jewish people. [That is, assuming that you are not Jewish yourself.]
You are perfectly welcome to comment, and participate as long as it's NOT an effort to TELL us how we should think about racial matters that pertain to US. This is not a forum to debate with non-Blacks about OUR business. You are welcome to ask questions, as you have done. You are welcome to ask for clarification of why a commenter believes as they do.
Be aware that nobody is under any obligation to invest time in answering questions from outsiders. Readers are free to do so if they wish. They are free not to do so. I'll do it if I'm in the mood (LOL!), but keep in mind that educating non-Blacks is not my mission profile for this blog.
The problem that often occurs with non-Blacks jumping into many of these Black blog discussions is that it becomes a form of dominance. Many Whites feel perfectly comfortable telling us about OUR experiences. And telling us how we "should" perceive OUR experiences regarding racial matters.
This is disrespectful and unhelpful.
I would suggest the following thought experiment:
If you are not Jewish, have you ever questioned or debated with Jews about THEIR perceptions of matters related to their Holocaust? [I'm not talking about debates/questions about Israeli/Zionist politics or policies, I'm talking about matters directly related to their Holocaust.]
If you are not Jewish, have you ever questioned or debated with them about how they choose to define membership in THEIR ethnic/relgious group? Have you ever questioned or debated with them about how they choose to interpret the behavior of children from religiously mixed marriages?
People take liberties with AAs' concerns and sensibilities that they would never think to do with others.
So here's a quick guide for outsiders' boundaries here: If you wouldn't do it, say it, or challenge it regarding Jewish people, it's probably equally inappropriate to do it, etc. with us.
If you don't go around telling Jews who they should or should not consider Jewish, then it's not appropriate for you to try to define membership in OUR group.
If you don't go around telling Jews that they shouldn't be offended by actions and statements they perceive to be anti-Semitic, then it's not appropriate for you to try to give us lectures about what we should or should not perceive as racist.
LOTS of people seem to be able to figure this out when it comes to other people's sensibilities. Folks can figure it out when it comes to us as well. It's not that hard. However, part of the problem is that most "mixed company" discussions surrounding race tend to be dishonest. Another part of the problem is the AAs tend not to enforce boundaries. There are boundaries here.
Peace and blessings,
Khadija
Khadija,
My gosh u type fast. I am envious.
I seem to be partially redeemed.
I am not Jewish, but my two best friends in college were. One was President of Hillel. I did discuss all of those subjects with them, and I sometimes disagreed with one or both of them. However, they were interested in my opinion.
But of course you are correct, since I could only do this because we three were a very tight group with complete trust. I think I now have a comfortable understanding now why my opinion of the Moynihan report does not belong here.
You have stated:
If you don't go around telling Jews who they should or should not consider Jewish, then it's not appropriate for you to try to define membership in OUR group.
Well of course. Was that aimed at me. Or just part of general instructions to non-AA participants. Am I being thick and missing something?
Wishing you progress,
--- Aabaakawad
Hello there, Aabaakawad!
My parents requiring me to take typing in high school has come in handy over the years. LOL! [They didn't want me to have to pay folks to type my papers in college.]
Peace and blessings.
Salaam'Alaikum Khadija
Sister... I was thinking about this post of yours today as I've watched the fall out from President Obama's comments about the Prof. Gate's incident.
SisterSeeking/Miriam,
Wa Alaikum As Salaam!
Yes, Machiavelli's The Prince is VERY instructive in analyzing the true nature of these situations.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Post a Comment