Cobb

Sigh

The more I play on the 'net, the more I realize it's best to shun all political labels, because it's all crap and no one person is going to agree with the definitions of others.

So, again I state, the "conservative vs liberal" garbage is something that Black America can't afford to be caught up in.

A progressive sentiment if I ever heard one.

Heh...

To the black progressive, any idea or concept that isn't vetted by a black intellectual vanguard is suspect.

Man, I gotta jet. I just threw some salmon steaks on the grill. Mo' later on vision circle.

I gotta make an example out of this one.

Quickly, why didn't you address the role of government in your definitions?

Because I think what black politics expects of government depends entirely on their own ideas, and what they will demand of government depends on that as well. I'm trying, not to think of blackfolks in relation to government, rather based upon their interpretation of history and their relation to society in general.

Well, from what I've witnessed, it seems that, traditionally, conservative and liberal has been defined based on the role of government in individual and collective life.

Thinks a bit...

I think my relation to society is that I am part of a society that has set high goals for itself, but has only historically recently, really started to live the goals that it has set for itself.

There are definitely problems that still abound, but some of those will always be around: crime, poverty, deviency. Society sets the standards and society addresses those that live outside of the standards.

"As Black folk", we are a part of the society as a whole, even though there are many who view us outside of society and still not willing to be a part of society. For "Black folk" in general, that view is garbage. And, IMNSHO, speaks to the ignorance and bias of those who think so, regardless of race.

Thinks...

But racism or other's ignorance ain't our greatest foe, though it is one that can beat down those who aren't prepared. Our own ignorance is greater. But I'm hard pressed to think of something that IS our GREATEST foe.

Changed my mind about exploring on vision circle. I misunderstood your thrust of this piece.

Man, I put my foot in them salmon steaks. Even did up lamb chops on the grill. Did hot dogs for the wife as well as some chicken for later on in the week. Rubbed the chicken with sage and rosemary, sprinkled on some garlic powder and white pepper, and did some grillin.

Good eatin' there son. Yep.
Good. Eatin'.

Insightful post.

Very well said!!

Changed my mind again and put something on vision circle.

You are wrong about Thomas Sowell. He's not saying that everything here is wonderful. He's saying that it's better than anywhere else for black people, which is true. He's also saying that racism is a human characteristic, that it will never be entirely eliminated, that everything human will always be deeply flawed, that despite that, blacks still can "make it" here, that there is less racism here than in any other mixed race society, which is true. This is why black people are not leaving, but coming here in the thousands. What Sowell teaches is the hardest thing to accept, which is that every problem does not have a solution and some things have to be borne.

Actually, no matter what country you are born in, and no matter how bad the country is, MOST people do not try to leave.

That's the problem with your statement.

before I get going on this thing...riddle me this, how is Malcolm X classified as a liberal? Revolutionary does not equal liberal...the overwhelming majority of his political formulations were not his own at this time in his life and were amalgams of Elijah Muhammad and Marcus Garvey. the minister was not socially or economically "liberal" is any american conventional sense...economic decisions made by blacks during the jim crow era don't reveal philosophy as much as they reveal impositions...holla back when you can. i understand the broad strokes idea, but the canvas is missing a few too many spots.

Just as an aside, DuBois is miscast as an American Progressive...not unlike Baldwin, Wright and so many others, he bounced...but he bounced to Africa...

in many respects, DuBois gets treated like King in that folks don't want to deal with the last few years of their lives - and that is a shame, but DuBois certainly cannot be placed in a camp seeking the reform of america. i don't mean to suggest you consciously decided to ignore the last years, but the popular image of Dubois is based on his younger years where he was clearly more "politically radical" (from the standpoint of inclusion and reform) and his scholarly middle-lae years, but the cat lived to be 95...there's a ton of stuff there, and in the final analysis, Dubois' greatest aspiration was not the reform of America.

There is a great deal more to the black conservative tradition than you admit and "dropping your pride" is not one of those things. I would argue that the black conservative tradition was really fused during the 19th century, under the leadership of black church leaders...and Washington's application of their principles to the realm of education and economics was pivotal...to that end, neither Washington nor men like Garnet, Henry McNeal Turner, Crummell or others believed themselves inferior to whites. Hardly. Moreover, most of them didn't take any stuff off of anyone. Washington was astute enough to recognize the logistics and the opportunities. BTW's seed flowered most fully in Marcus Mosiah Garvey and Elijah Muhammad...say what you will about the UNIA and the NOI, but they had/have institutional glue around conservative principles that the talking heads on FOX can only dream of - in particular, the chasm between today's black conservatives as an organic voice/organizational leader and the black community suggests a huge disconnect between Washington's roots and the claims of today's folks...conservatism is not necessarily integrationism (or seeking white patronage), nor is it necessarily nationalism - but i certainly believe conservatism has to be about conserving something - and if black folks cease to identify with and organize around blackness, we do so to our collective detriment...and i submit this as a tactic, as well as a principle...

There is a great deal more to the black conservative tradition than you admit and "dropping your pride" is not one of those things. I would argue that the black conservative tradition was really fused during the 19th century, under the leadership of black church leaders...and Washington's application of their principles to the realm of education and economics was pivotal...to that end, neither Washington nor men like Garnet, Henry McNeal Turner, Crummell or others believed themselves inferior to whites. Hardly. Moreover, most of them didn't take any stuff off of anyone. Washington was astute enough to recognize the logistics and the opportunities. BTW's seed flowered most fully in Marcus Mosiah Garvey and Elijah Muhammad...say what you will about the UNIA and the NOI, but they had/have institutional glue around conservative principles that the talking heads on FOX can only dream of - in particular, the chasm between today's black conservatives as an organic voice/organizational leader and the black community suggests a huge disconnect between Washington's roots and the claims of today's folks...conservatism is not necessarily integrationism (or seeking white patronage), nor is it necessarily nationalism - but i certainly believe conservatism has to be about conserving something - and if black folks cease to identify with and organize around blackness, we do so to our collective detriment...and i submit this as a tactic, as well as a principle...

addendum:

blackness is not a sufficient condition - and not always a necessary condition, but is must be part of the equation...and there is enough work to do with enough willing partners that some of the nitpicking could be addressed well after the work has been done...

by way of example...DuBois' views at 90 were much closer to Washington and Garvey than when he was 30 or 40...and that great 3-way debate (highlighted by Harold Cruse in 'Crisis') still bears much attention - because it seems we continue to choose to ignore the lessons.

By the way...nice grillin' gotta try the recipe.

Yes I agree that my classification of Malcolm as a liberal is indeed problematic as is the notion of letting an orientation on race be the singular predominating factor in the choice of political philosophy. However I think it is the precisely a lack of a set of established priorities that can be accurately be read from the historical continuum that is the cause of this problem.

We know with certainty that there are clear lines of differentiation in todays black polity, and I convinced that is necessary to understand these differences. I know I've been a little less than charitable with liberals and I know the difference between radicalism and rebellion, but I do want to continue this with some refinement. So we've got work to do.

But the groundwork has already been laid elsewhere. Take some time to check Black Visions, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual, Fabianism and the Color Line. If you've got time to read Chang's work on hip-hop, you've got time to read about black political ideology. This needs more than refinement.

Black Visions looks excellent. It's next on the reading list.

Who's Chang?????

The book that hipped me to the importance of the continuity between africa and american leadership; the beginnings of the split between nationalists and integrationists; and the seminal contributions of 19th century X'tian leaders was Sterling Stuckey's Slave Culture. This is an excellent, excellent read - I believe it was written in 1987 - and unless Dawson went for primary sources in Black Visions, he probably swam in this book and Cruse's work to build his compilation...

Stuckey gets it done...he deals with David Walker (18th c), Henry Highland Garnet, Martin Delany, Henry McNeal Turner, etc... - and understanding these guys - in addition to Frederick Douglass is a major part of the historical project that cannot be skipped or glossed over - precisely because they "presided" over black america at the time when many of our greatest issues were decided.

Check it out if you can...the first chapter is about the african retentions, culture and the ring shout and that old time religion from the real southeast (sorry ATL)- 'west africa.'

The distinction between 19th century leaders and 20th century leaders is tremendous and significant...most of the 19th century leaders were independent, fighters grounded in the old testament and RWA to break you off...the example of Frederick Douglass may be most often recited...still Martin Delany was a doctor and a soldier during the Civil War. lotta good stuff there.

Is racism our worst enemy? Do you mean the doctrine or the practice or both? In other words, since Europeans were unable to conduct the snatch and grap without African assistance; since it took 400 years for Europeans to dictate terms in the interior (according to Basil Davidson and others); and since Europeans saw the feasibility of holding African colonies for less than 80 years after the "scramble for africa," might we not have another problem - that is less about white people and/or white supremacy and more about collective action - which was an issue prior to, during, and after the various manifestations of racism (slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, euro-led globalization, etc.)

I'm throwing it out there since we tend to "fall out" with one another based on our treatment of white folks and their various ideologies (liberal v. conservative, etc.) It may be that this is really not about them - kinda like dating...it's not you, it's me or in this case, "it's we" - and it's we, not as in pathological we, but cloudy, off-center, unresolved issues we...we need us to work together on ??? and of course, universal agreement about what and how is not the issue - but the bond of our word - as you have discussed; and the integrity of our name will allow us to build as men and women - rather than repeatedly starting over - as boys and girls...to paraphrase your words.

Let me get personal in two directions for a minute.

In the first direction, as a child of black consciousness, I think that the biggest battle has been the existential one. Further I think that I've always been OK. So I may be be seeing things in too much of a rosy light when I take it for granted that the Negro is dead. So if you have your own mental liberation at hand and you are free of Woodson's chains, where do you go? To the top of America, if you take your cue from everyone whose struggle was about defeating the Man. So I perceived that African America was limited strictly in terms of its collective ability to push back the operating racism in its own heads, and externally as a barrier from controlling the material goods of the wealthiest nation on the planet. The integrationist struggle, by definition, was reaching for a bigger piece of the pie - the American pie.

The second direction was the example of an uncle of mine who taught economics at the U of Ghana. I didn't know him well, but from what I know of my cousins and aunt, I cannot imagine in a million years that he was much of a socialist. In other words he was about building a base from the position of power American education and the understanding living here gives one vis a vis democracy & capitalism. I associate the now moribund PanAfricanism with him and all African American efforts prior to Afrocentrism and slave castle tourism. Not just about living and breathing free of whitefolks, but actively seeking recruits for busting a power move.

So from my perspective there always are, and always will be black free agents, as it were, beyond the grasp of the fetters of ordinary and extraordinary racism. Racism isn't really powerful enough to hold them down, and it never was - it has always been about enough people getting enough resources. As someone mentioned, Haiti freed itself. But what does the free agent do?

I believe it is entirely possible that Pan Africanism and Black Nationalism are both not dead, but just awaiting a critical mass of social, political, economic capital to make their reality more possible than was dreamed up way back when. But I also believe there are a great number of less ambitious goals that need attending on the way there and somewhere in that period of time, cohorts have to sort themselves out. I mean when my uncle went to teach at university in a black nation, I would be very surprised if he had to worry or wonder if he would have to answer to Ghanian peasants saying he was 'acting white' or not 'keeping it real'. So if Sowell is calling some blacks 'rednecks' and saying they are socially regressive, who is that really harming?

At this point in history, I am very concerned that the ambitious threads of the recent movements not be lost. I am conserving. I truly believe that in a certain way there is nothing special about African Americans - that we will need the same kind of traditions as other successful peoples, namely old money, in order to make real those ambitious destinies.

Let's assume for a minute that all wealth - like matter - is not really created or destroyed, but simply takes on a different form...in this respect, "more" and "less" can look exactly the same - because the illusion itself is imperceptible.

One could argue that today's wealth among Europeans amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from Africans and Indians in prior centuries...the European sailors and explorers wrote as much when they marveled at the strucure, organization, cleanliness and wealth of 15th century african and indian cities/societies...none of this, by the way, is debated by most scholars (it is simply excluded from the discourse). the question of what did europeans see when they sailed around the world is mostly unanswered and in most unasked - but it goes to the heart of the question of social organization, wealth and collaboration. we know what was appropriated and we know that men of means like Rockefeller and Morgan have been able to impose their will on entire nations...still, a cursory review of Fortune's wealthiest people reveals there are no black folks in the upper echelon - and those who are big earners derive their income in a manner that is contingent on the good will of white folks - entertainers, athletes, etc. The poverty of entertainers and athletes who "go off the reservation" is too well documented to recount here. haiti is the national example of Paul Robeson and so on and so on.

i concur that old money is needed...a few black billionaires in the right industries could do infinitely more than one thousand marches to one thousand destinations...but old money is really all there is - if you allow the analogy.

pan africanism/africentrism are not dead philosophically, but operationally, they're on life support...black billionaires would HAVE to fund this paradigm if they wanted to prolong their own existence...the extent of the funding can be debated, but it must be done...

I can't see colonialism as a massive transfer of wealth, nor wealth in mercantilist terms. Wealth is essentially not a zero sum thing. Rather I see colonialism as clash in values where the colonial power is bent on establishing a new currency and forcing the colonized to accept it. When colonialism says 'join or die' then it becomes something different altogether.

The question of relevence to the black politcal spectrum vis a vis pan-africanism is whether or not we black Americans accept the worlds currencies of global capital, free markets, national militaries, etc or if we think there is something of the pre-colonial africa worth preserving. If pre-colonial Africa is all that, then the 'wealth' is in establishing those currencies, but it seems to me that you cannot have that AND development. Development is clearly and demonstrably a function of capital investment, industrial production, military security, enforceable contracts, political integrity and class mobility. Nations that can't afford those things remain undeveloped. You can't throw money at such problems, nor weapons for that matter. Wealth building requires all that infrastructure - it doesn't just transfer. The Americans didn't steal the Souix railroads. They didn't rip-off Apache rifle technology. The Dutch didn't take over the Zulu diamond mines. (Don't ask me about the English in India..)

It's not surprising to me at all that there are no black Rockefellers. We can really get into this but I would not be too far off the mark to suggest that a substantial majority of African Americans only understand the power of money and money-making in gangsta-hustler and gambling terms. I don't think most blackfolks ever thought that they would be investing in stocks, bonds, reits, or any type of securities. The evidence is clear, most blackfolks put their money into real-estate not in businesses or securities. You can say without fear of contradiction that by and large we are not raising capitalists.

to Darkstar, people leave when they can. Black people do not leave the US by any appreciable number. Maybe two leave each year to go live in Africa. But tens of thousands come here each year from Africa and the Carribbean and other parts. If they could they would come by the millions. People vote with their feet.

The Spanish conquistadors who arrived in Mexico and Peru were not wealthy, but the kingdoms they displaced were loaded. The same can be said of the Portuguese and later Dutch/English mercantile societies who required African and Indian labor to operationalize their trading companies. The point of American immigration is that this is the one nation where Europeans could move to in order to improve their standard of living...the accounts of early travelers to the Americas and Africa are fairly uniform in recounting the societal wealth that was observable in these places.

Colonialism was not the first stage of the relationship - the colonies were established AFTER the trading companies began the process of transferring wealth out of the non-European nation...colonialism is a result of guns and broken trade agreeements/treaties...and it is paradixical that folks look at development today as being contingent on enforceable contracts and the rule of law, when the development of Europe was based on the opposite.

That being said, I would argue that black folks have always raised capitalists, but have seldom had capital...it's hard to go from being capital to holding capital. after all, we just got the right to vote - and some would argue still don't have it in Florida or Ohio. Washington, Garvey and their followers are clearly in that vein...and they are not alone - but capital formation remains a tremendous challenge for us - principally because we don't funnel our dollars to one another to pay for essential services and non-essential purchases.