can someone send this link that liberal blowhard soledad obrien to explain what critical race theory is?
What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.
The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ - sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'
Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.
See Article: Frankfurt School Conspiracy to Corrupt
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'
The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.
Gatekeeper, you are aware I expect that numbers 1-11 above have been implemented EXACTLY as described in the UK? Every single one, and more.
Thank you for some good links for more reading.
All the best.
I love it when I find something like that article. It explains so much.
Here is another one about the New Age
The new age spiritual movement of Gaia
One of most influential NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) allied closely with the U.N. and intimately involved in their creation of agenda is the Temple of Understanding (TOU), located in The Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. This organization's objectives are, according to its website, "developing an appreciation of religious and cultural diversity, educating for global citizenship and sustainability, expanding public discourse on faith and ecology, and creating just and peaceful communities". Most importantly, although not explicitly stated by the TOU, the cathedral is the center of cosmology, or the worship of Gaia. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is not only home to the TOU, but has also previously housed the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, the Lindesfarne Association and the Gaia Institute, which are all proponents of the gaia hypothesis.
Continue reading on Examiner.com The marriage of religion, nature, and politics: The "why" behind the new world order - Roanoke Homeschooling | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/homeschooling-in-roanoke/the-marriage-of-religion-nature-and-politics-the-why-behind-the-new-world-order#ixzz1os6w2ZXd
Books on the history of the civil war we don't know about
Lincoln and Marx knew each other and exchanged letters.
Red Republicans and Lincoln Marxists
1848 The Year of Revolution
War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
South under Siege 1830-2000
Google: German 48ers for more information
Muslim Slave Trade and Middle Ages
Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters:
White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800
We were a fairly integrated society Woodrow Wilson RE-segregated everyone
Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism
Book list; books about the Black patriots of the American revolution that Liberals deleted from the school curriculum during the early 1900 when PROGRESSIVISM came into being under Dewey who changed the school system we had to a soviet style school system. And books I found on the Irish slave trade.
Irish Slave Trade
To Hell or Barbados
The Irish Slave Trade
American Slavery American Freedom
Emigrants in Chains A Social History of Forced Emigration to the Americas 1607-1776 [Hardcover]
Also Google Irish Slave trade for more information
The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution: free book on line
By William Nel
Barbado'ed: Scotland's Sugar Slaves
The Story Of Ireland: 1600 - 1800
Thank you for posting this video. I have linked to you here: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2012/03/preemptive-surrender.html
I got SOWELL!!! And I'm SooperBAD! I love that Obama's Marxist past will give Thomas some more airtime... this country needs more men like him.
So instead of racists, we can call out people for being ideologue-ists? That actually seems more accurate. I love Thomas Sowell. He's truly an amazingly bright individual.
He has several books my fav is Black Rednecks and White Liberals
once again, a conservative either misses the point on purpose or has a tin ear narrow enough that all the central information clangs off into the distance.
at the time of Dr. Bell's protest, out of 59 possible positions, there were no women of color with tenure. to be even more specific, out of 59 possible positions, there were only 5 tenured women and just 3 black folks.
if you believe that applied egalitarianism generated those results, then you must believe that black folks and women are massively, intrinsically less effective at being teachers. that is, if the arbitrary markers of race/gender had nothing to do with this extraordinary disparity that's absolutely disconnected from the basic population proportions, of course. which is the premise sowell posits.
more to the point, for sowell to suggest that there's a problem with ideological hegemony with a straight face, he's gotta dismiss the measureable, damn near pre-conditional synchronicity of a perspective that creates a disproportionately white, male body and the self-sustaining synchronicity of perspective that such a body would further propagate , intentionally or otherwise.
once again, y'all are so obsessed with being self-righteous, you demonstrate a complete lack of interest in being serious. frankly, it's just silly.
If diversity to you means only skin color, you are an idiot.
At these universities there is NO DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT.
NONE- NADA -ZIP they are all MARXISTS.
I know, I went and you thought like them or your grades suffered.
I know I am a recovering liberal.
And now I resent the MONEY and time I wasted at these factories of ideology.
It took years to deprogram myself from all of the Cr@p I was fed.
Solidad, is that your Obama lovin' rear protecting self??
CNN needs you to come back and kiss Obama's rear on their news set some more!!
So by your analysis, diversity is only relative to skin color? Does skin color impact one's ability to reason and internalize information? If you look only at the skin color of people, then tell me, who is the racist? When you meet people, is the only thing you consider their skin color and thereby that is your determining factor of the diversity of a given place or culture? I'm pretty sure that skin color is only a byproduct of melanin produced by skin cells. Talk about silly...
ok. race is genetically superficial. that's basically so true, it's self-evident. in fact, race is a relatively recent social invention, explicitly designed to codify the population hierarchy in perpetuity. so, yeah, melanin count has absolutely no impact on an individual's character, aptitude or anything other than a rough estimate of how long they can safely sit outside in their skivvies in august.
race is the language that class speaks. it's what it was built for, to expedite and simplify the way wealth was distributed and labour was delegated. this is why the victims of the trans-atlantic slave trade who provided the sweat equity that powered the global marketplace for a couple centuries were and are disproportionately poor.
they were the principal source of free labour because they were black, since society decided that's what black folks were created to provide. the repercussions of that basic fact shape the structure of our society now, and for the forseeable future.
to put it more simply, if you're black with ancestors who were property, forcibly shipped during the TAST, you're disproportionately more likely to be incarcerated, under-educated, underpaid, the product of a broken home, physically/mentally ill, etc. these are not new realities. it's been the case ever since black folks were converted into a commodity.
here's the key question. it's nice, binary, neat, clear.
is all that stuff true because black folks - because of their melanin content - are collectively more predisposed to making self-destructive decisions than white folks?
or, is it because race is a social reality designed to marginalize black folks that continues to shape how people are treated by the world, including themselves?
if it's the former, you're not serious. if it's the latter, props due on avoiding being a cliche.
Google: Irish slave trade
See movie done by the BBC
Barbado'ed: Scotland's Sugar Slaves
The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves
The Slaves That Time Forgot
By John Martin
What about a peoples history that has been erased for the sake of another group being able to claim the title of supreme victim hood?
Enter the Irish Slaves before the blacks were slave and erased from the history texts.
The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves
The Slaves That Time Forgot
By John Martin
They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?
King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.
The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.
This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.
There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.
In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories. But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
Hidden History: The White Slaves Of Americas – By – Nehesy
White Slavery Re: Slaves of Scotland
The Forgotten White Slaves Of America – by – Nehesy
Global Slave System of the Western World Europeans: Nehesy
The last slaves of the 20th century: The white slaves of the Nazis – A dirge by Lion!
I ended his and "thaao's" stays last night. I won't tolerate the "race card" BS, regardless of how well they word it. :)
"it worked. after 12 generations or so, these beliefs have been embedded deep in the foundation of what we believe to be true."
I wonder, who, exactly is "we" in this context? Are you speaking for "whites?" Or African-Americans.
I think to a very large extent, the African-American community need to look inward for the root cause of their problems, rather than blaming some external cause or oppressor.
I've heard the same story again and again from far too many African-American's who are trying to better themselves through education - most every college-educated African-American I know speaks of the attacks they've borne from their own communities for "acting white", taking beatings and worse, for daring to try to achieve in school. More than once, I've heard the metaphor of their communities acting like a bushel of crabs - every time one tries to rise up and escape, the rest grab them and pull them back in.
And whilst you're positing these racial theories, bear in mind there were plenty of non-African "slaves" in this country - Chinese, Irish, Italian immigrants were used as economic slaves, at best. My own lily-white ancestors arrived here in chains, having been on the wrong side of the English civil war, and sold into servitude in the New World to pay for their imprisonment, and then transportation from England, obviously stripped of every possession. The other side of my family were share-croppers as recently as the 40's, and my grandmother built her own house from a Sears "kit". Yet her children went on to become professionals of every stripe - not because they were born rich - my mother picked cotton for pay from when she was 5 years old - but because they worked hard to better themselves.
Seems every ethnic group has managed to thrive in the New World, no matter how desperate the circumstances of their arrival. And many African-Americans now do thrive - but there's far too many that don't. But no amount of reparations are going to fix this - in fact, most of those that are obstinately poor are already completely dependent on assistance programs for food, housing, healthcare.
I've been around a long time - and trust me, today, in isolation, the easiest thing to be today is born a young black male - the table is so slanted in your favor, it's unbelievable - from getting educated, to employment, you have a leg up on everyone you meet - formal or not, affirmative action is deeply in-place throughout higher education and most businesses.
Problem is, most of those babies are being born into a sub-culture that celebrates negative social norms, and oppresses anyone trying to "rise up." Most of them, in turn, will end up prematurely dead, and/or in prison. Take those same children, and put them in a stable, middle-class household that cares about traditional social norms, like education and hard-work, and that same baby will more likely end up living that same life or better. Doesn't matter the color of the parent's skin - it matters what the values they are raised with. Those who are raised with the ethos that "you can't make it a white person's world, they're out to get you, so don't even try" won't. Those that are raised with the ethos of "work hard at educating yourself, and then be whatever you want to be" are far more likely to succeed.
The social pressures that captivate too-many young blacks into a hopeless life and early death isn't the "white power structure" at all.
Your point about black children being less succesful simply because they are black has beendebunked. Try reading "The Bell Curve" by Hernstien and Murray - 1994. Their study addressed race which statistically norms for race shows no correlation between skin color and future success. Liberals hate this book and I'm sure you'll tell me that the study is flawed and flat out wrong.
"What else could be the reason for these overwhelming uniform results?" Umm....liberal 'victim' ideology? liberal 'government is your daddy' policy? Viewing the world through the lense of race and everything is 'whitey's fault'? For a start. Do you think those black teens in Kansas set that 13-year old white boy on fire because they thought they wouldn't get into Harvard?
Maybe you can find somewhere in them there fancy bookz some explanation as to why, after 40+ years of social engineering by our gov't, there are still inequalities based on race. Seems to me that under the guise of "assistance" our gov't has actually created a modern-day version of slave ownership. Many have left the plantation, but still others are stuck, not seeing that they have the keys to their own chains.
Since you have so wisely and open-mindedly declared me to be "factually, empirically, measureably, qualitatively wrong," I see no further point in this discussion. You just keep readin' them bookz about how this one race of people is too victimized to do anything but perpetuate poverty & criminality and then call me the racist. (note: I know you didn't technically call me a racist - just an ignoramus.)
Focusing narrowly on race is a loser for anyone.
Who do you think is more likely to be feared by the average white guy, someone that looks like Van Jones, wearing a suit and tie, or someone that looks like Charles Manson? There are more variables than race that go into the making of success or failure. But one indicator of continual failure is someone focused on race or some other excuse for their problems.
If you want to discuss your views here, you need to drop the "I'm smarter than you" act. Stick with facts, ideas, and reason. Otherwise your stay here will be very short.
Once again toongoon, you keep making stuff up. First of all, you are taking the debt thing out of context. Right now the debt is 15 trillion which is more than any of the 43 presidents debt put together. However Obama inherited 11 trillion in debt and Most of the debt that was added has been due to the Bush administrations policies. Obama has only added around 1.5. Most of the debt was Bush's when you count the wars, tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and his last budget.
And actually economic facts prove that the Stimulus added 2.5 million jobs and so far during Obama's 3 years, Obama added 4 million jobs.
And Obama has increased domestic oil production. There has been more domestic oil production under Obama than under Bush's entire 8 years.
There has been over 2 billion of domestic crude oil in 2010 which is the most since 2003. 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas production, the most in U.S. history. Over 6 million onshore acres leased for domestic oil production between between January 2009 to March 2011. Over 37 million offshore acres leased for domestic oil production, in the year 2010 alone. This has continued in 2011 and in 2012. As of 2011 we have had more Domestic oil Exports than imports which hasn't happen since 1949. This is also just crude oil, this doesn't include the record number of Shale oil that was found and domestically.
And we are focused too much on oil. Its 2012, get with the times, we need renewable and alternative energies. Its the future and we are behind on it.
And for Obama telling the truth.
And that makes him a liar, and if he's lying to the American people you ought to consider that he's lying to you too.
He hid it for the very reason, we are all talking about it now. Can't you now see that? It amazes me how ignorant some of you are? You keep mentioning how this guy hid it but he hid it for this very reason. He knew you conservatives would complain and find some conspiracy. So in the end, Bell was right, he knew what you guys what act like and respond like and he was right. But in the end, there was no reason for people to be freaking out.
I don't have any problems with Dr. King, he did not have the the power of the presidency. There are many socialists and communists who do not have the power of the presidency and do concern myself with their ideology. I do concern myself with a president who usurps power he does not have. Who cozy's up to Islamist's while dissing every other religion. who places czars in his administration that have no reason to be there.
Why did Professor Ogletree feel it necessary to hide the video during the 2008 campaign? Why are obama's Harvard transcripts sealed? Why won't the media report any negative news about him.
You may think that having the obama as president because he is black is a good thing and that he is going to make your life better, but in the end he is has a dictators mindset and that is going to end in a bad way for both me and you. Remember, obama is the descendant of an African black (at least that's the popular theory) as well as the descendant of slave owners. Either way, he doesn't come from slave blood and therefore does not really share the history with American blacks.
Dr. King may have been a Republican at some point in his early adult life, but that affiliation absolutely ended in the leadup to the civil rights/voting rights acts being passed. any political party that absorbed the vast swath of the electorate who was against the federal government's enforcement of equality would have been antithetical to his life's work. also, his disaffection with the Democratic party is well documented. they never went anywhere near far enough in terms of economic and social justice to satisfy his demands.
Dr. King was a socialist, in every substantive way that counts. just to be clear, here are some of the things Dr. King said, believed and worked to create:
"I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."
"Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline."
"There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" These are words that must be said."
BHO saying casually that it's better if we spread the wealth around a little bit is so insignificant as to be immaterial compared with Dr. King's perspective.
so, knowing now what Dr. King actually advocated for - as opposed to a 5 line snippet of a single speech drawn from a catalogue of thousands - do you still believe him to be someone who tried to bring folks together? or, was Dr. King a class warfare agent?
or, to be even more specific, based on the above quotes, was Dr. King right about economic/social justice or not?
i bet you've have problems constructing any opposition to his ideas because, clearly, Dr. King was almost always right about almost everything that really mattered.
thanks for the sharing.
OK, I have to wonder though- if the trans Atlantic slave trade was based on race, how come so many of the African leaders sold their own people to the slave traders? And don't forget many white folks were fighting against slavery as there were blacks who were profiting from it. I just can't understand why there are black folks who have come from slavery, or poverty or crappy upbringing, who have gone on to do great things, while others still remain in the circumstances they rail against.
As for the reparations paid to Jews after WW2, much of that was for personal wealth stolen from the Jews as many of the Jews in Europe at that time were business owners, professors etc. who had family heirlooms stolen along with their businesses.
My point, and I believe the points of others is that while some people blame or make victim status based on race or racial inequality, there are plenty of cases which argue the opposite and show that race should not be a basis for achievement. Most folks I know believe everyone has God given talents and skills, and have ablities to make a life worthwhile. Just because some have been conditioned in some way that they'll "never make it" doesn't mean others are racist for believing they can if they use what they've been given and work for it.
The economy only appears to be recovering because the media won't cover any bad news about obama. He has driven us into more debt than the first forty three presidents put together. There is no evidence that any of his stimulus money went to anything other than his donors in some form or another. He wants to get us off of oil but has no alternative to change to. All of his plans for alternative energy are pipe dreams, going bankrupt with no way for the taxpayers to get the money back.
Tell me something obama has told the truth about.
obviously slavery wasn't created as the principal justification to make the TAST a trip worth financing. it's been a shamefully ubiquitous invention that has appeared the world over for millenia.
however - this is the core point - the difference between the TAST specifically and it's state protected/propagated repercussions and slavery generally is race.
that is, *race simply did not exist* as a color-coding system to quickly classify people in perpetuity before the 16th century spanish conquest of latin america. the newly landed imperialists didn't just enslave/slaughter the indigenous folks they found there, they murdered them in ways - lip/nose amputations, live disemboweling, etc. - that demonstrated how horrible things can become once you blend cruelty and imagination to accentuate your own power.
problem was, spain was a deeply catholic country at the time. so much so, that treating other human beings so viciously had to be unacceptable based on their religious values. so, in order to make the brutality acceptable, the reigning theocrats decided to manufacture a divine imperative declaring that people of colour don't have souls. that is, not really people, as much a commodity to be used and traded like a cow or a bag of tomato seeds. or tortured, depending.
the idea caught on. and spread. hard. so much so, this basic hierarchy - white folks = property owner/black folks = property - was the core premise that sustained the TAST while codifying a short set of social norms that remain with us to this day.
black folks, explicitly because they're black, were/are presumed to be hyper-sexual, less cerebral, more physically powerful, less valuable, replaceable, forgettable, etc. white folks, explicitly because they're white, were/are presumed to be defined as more intelligent, more moral, more pious, more valuable, predisposed to power.
it worked. after 12 generations or so, these beliefs have been embedded deep in the foundation of what we believe to be true.
also, you're right about the jewish experience. jewish folks, thankfully/instructively, are an example of an oppressed group who've collectively succeeded despite their institutional persecution. however, a huge part of that in the modern context has to do with reparations. following the holocaust's litigation, the state of germany pledge to financially compensate individual victims and the state of israel as an effort to practically take responsibility for their country's actions. since WWII, the amount of jewish reparations provided by germany has gotten near the 40 billion dollar mark. that kind of active, concrete justice is necessary and reasonable.
however, black folks have never collectively or individually received financial reparations from any country who profited from the slave trade. so, not getting that kind of powerful reciprocity is going to stagnate process, emotionally and practically.
also, citing exceptional men as being representative of anything other than themselves is just silly. that's like investing your savings into lottery tickets because a couple people have won the money ball jackpot. it's bad math. folks like BTW and GWC are so very singularly extraordinary, there's no value in extrapolating overall possibility from their individual greatness.
sorry for the lack of brevity, but this matters. it's what we're made of, on every level that counts. thanks for the sharing.
Toongoon, you don't have the slightest idea with what you are talking about. Obama is not some revolutionary figure. He has no revolutionary ideas. He is a centrist and was always a centrist. Obama is not lying about anything. I don't understand what you are even talking about. And what destruction? He has been improving the economy, and its still improving under him, and he has a strong foreign policy record.
And MLK wasn't a Republican. There is no evidence that says he does. All the evidence you have is MLK's niece who never met MLK that he was a republican but MLK's son debunked that claim about his father being a Republican.
Yes Dr. King was a socialist but he was also a Republican. He never had the opportunity to do the destruction that obama is doing to the US. I vehemently disagree with you that Dr. King was more revolutionary than obama, Dr. King was vocal and honest about his intentions, obama lies about everything, did I say everything? Yes, everything he says is a lie. MLK saw a nation where we could work out our differences, obama pits every group against each other.
Maybe you can spread some light on just exactly what his end game is. He gives the cold shoulder to allies and gets friendly with brutal regimes. Is that the type of leader you want? You can not trust him.
Dr. Sowell occupies the same space in my worldview as everyone else who happens to be fundamentally, measureably wrong about the practicality of race. that is, a depressingly large patch of real estate.
as a followup, could you tell me where Dr. King fits in your worldview? since he was a proud and powerful socialist, who viewed economic justice as a precondition for any meaningful progress to equality. do you believe him to be as wrong or evil as, say, BHO - who, incidentally, is far less revolutionary than Dr. King ever was - or do you believe him to be one of the folks who was essentially right about everything that mattered?
thanks in advance for the clarity.
forgive me. i thought i was clear.
i mentioned height since it is arbitrary and irrelevant to one's abilities and character as one's melanin count. however - to finish the point - you don't see a disproportionate number of tall folks who are under-paid, under-educated, physically ill, incarcerated, poor, the product of a broken home, who go on to create broken homes, etc.
black folks are overwhelmingly more likely to fail/miss out on success than white folks. that's a fact, something that's objectively possible to be assessed and verified. it doesn't mean it can't happen, it means that it's a loss likely for a black person to be as successful as one of his white cousins.
so, once again:
is the disproportionate number of challenges that limit black folks' access to success a result of their actual melanin count, their physical makeup?
or, is the disproportionate number of challenges that limit black folks' access to success a result of the social construct of race?
also, anyone who uses book reading as a clumsy pejorative clearly doesn't read enough of them.
"to put it more simply, if you're black with ancestors who were property, forcibly shipped during the TAST, you're disproportionately more likely to be incarcerated, under-educated, underpaid, the product of a broken home, physically/mentally ill, etc. these are not new realities. it's been the case ever since black folks were converted into a commodity." I find that interesting. Especially when one considers that blacks from Africa have not been the only ones taken/sold as slaves. Jews were taken many times as slaves to Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria for example, and yet still found ways upon freedom to prosper and thrive. What is the difference between their experiences as slaves which make their experiences in freedom different?
How do men like George Washington Carver and Booker T. Washington whose families were slaves make a difference in the lives of themselves and others if what those who believe as Bell does is true?
So you have no concept of free will?!? There is not the slightest comparison to being tall vs. creating your success. What a genuinely absurd analogy. I refuse to argue with you. Go read your books and believe your theories. In the meantime, I have real life to live. Not on paper, but in reality. Trust me, there's a difference!
(BTW - positive thinking is a good place to start. I never once implied that because a person can think bigger than their situation, that is all that's required. AND anyone who engages in intentional, perpetual self-destruction will eventually self-destruct. Skin color, social class, region, etc. are non-factors. My hope and prayer for ALL Americans is that no matter their current situation, upbringing, social status, region, etc., there is freedom to pursue their dreams and turn their situation around and succeed.)
this is the problem. you're factually, empirically, measureably, qualitatively wrong. your race doesn't guarantee your success or failure, but it substantially impacts the speed and scope with which you end up with either.
a black child born in the US in 2012 is significantly more likely to be less successful than his white cousin. this isn't a broad rhetorical device, it's just math. counting, to be more precise.
also, your individual success means nothing other than that. to be more specific, your individual experience is only representative of itself. that's like saying because you ended up being tall, everyone is probably tall too. or, at least, the ones who work hard and focus. seriously, despite it being completely true, it's absolutely useless when discussing overall social trends.
equally, saying that race only matters if you allow it to be is one of those things that sound beautifully egalitarian, but it's completely meaningless for two particular reasons. the first being that the power of positive thinking isn't sufficient to adjust the national reality. the second being, that if you convert race into a figment of lazy folks imagination, this leads to the conclusion that black folks are intentionally, perpetually self-destructive explicitly because they're black. otherwise, what else could be the reason for these overwhelming uniform results?
seriously, i'm interested in your answer. thanks for the sharing.
For the time being, just being American enables you to pursue your happiness. It doesn't matter a fraction what color your skin is. Your skin doesn't make decisions for you. If someone grew up in a disenfranchised home, they are more likely to see themselves as a victim rather than a capable American who has choices - choices to get out of the pit they were raised in or choices to stay in it. I have intimate experience with growing up in poverty and realizing the truth of the American way to get out of it, turn it around, and become successful. And none of it had anything to do with skin color, predispositions, broken home, etc. (even though all of those things could be claimed...) It got turned around because of the WILL to PURSUE happiness and by the grace of God. "Race is a social reality..." only if you allow it to be. Some of us choose not to allow that stereotype to shape our thinking or our reality.
It has nothing to do with self-righteousness, I reject Bell's racially divisive ideology as much as the KKK/Neo-Nazi's.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - MLK
this is the rub. if you interpret Dr. Bell's perspective on practical equality as being as racially divisive as the KKK, while quoting Dr. King, there's a disconnect. either you don't know what Dr. King truly believed and accomplished, or you don't fully understand Dr. Bell's point of view. here's a few more quotes:
"The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold: We must create full employment, or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available... Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problem of housing, education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished."
"...one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" These are words that must be said."
"We are coming to demand that the government address itself to the problem of poverty. We read one day, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." But if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists."
or(and this is the most immediately relevant one):
"Individually, [black folks] are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the American Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it.
We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles. We don't need any Molotov cocktails. We just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."
And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy -- what is the other bread? -- Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread."
those aren't Dr. Bell. those are all Dr. King. not cherrypicked, or carved free of any context, this was the revolution MLK fought for. in fact, the last one was part of the final address he made before being assassinated.
now, knowing that those ideas are Dr. King's - largely in sync with Dr. Bell's overall worldview - does that adjust your thinking? in terms of how you view Dr. King, or Dr. Bell, or maybe both?
seriously. think about it. see what happens. you might be surprised with where you end up.
"They [Stanford] have perfected the technique of pre-emptive surrender."
I just love listening to Sowell.