Jump to content
freewayrickyross

Good Article to read (attempt at continuation)

Recommended Posts

I have no idea why this thread was locked. I want to discuss some of it with intelligent people. I have no intention besides this.

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

"Because it creates a vehicle by which black people can resist white supremacy. Creating a certain coalitional standard for black bodies allows for a better resistance of white supremacy. Certain identity politics are already forced onto black bodies and certain politics are taken away from them as well. Becoming niggas allows for a site of resistance compared to a current model of appeasing white civil society."

 

 

I bolded the three points I want to address.

1. A vehicle for resistance- I think that the use of a word that has historically been used to put a certain type of body "in their place" and therefore represents a history of enslavement and genocide is hardly a "vehicle by which black people can resist white supremacy". This word will always mean what it has meant to the ruling class. No matter how many articles are produced. To celebrate such a word is a performance complicit with white supremacy.

2.Better resistance of white supremacy-From what I can see this method is not a method of resistance, but a method of separatism. Evidenced by your total conflation of white supremacy with the white body.

3.current model of appeasing white civil society-So all the methods of resistance used by black people in the past have been appeasement? It is better to embrace a word which entrenches white supremacy with every utterance? The methods of the SCLC, SNCC, BPP, BLA, RNA, etc. were all appeasement? I don't buy it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CaptainWildesron said:

"From the founding of america to about the 1970s (that's an estimate), the black was the nigger- a stupid jive talking, animalistic piece of trash that was considered to be more akin to monkeys than that of actual human beings. From around the 1980s and later, it became more of the nigga. The thug who will most likely die or end up in jail because he is the evolution of the nigger into something worse. Both are a manifestation of white supremacist ideology; however, the dichotomy comes into play when other races have to act white in order to be formulated into the workings of modernity"

 

-If both are a manifestation of white supremacist ideology then how can it be a "vehicle" for resistance to white supremacy?

 

 

 

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

"And dis-identifying ourselves with our true identity is bullshit. The point shouldn't be "you're just like me, therefor I accept you." Fuck that. We're all different, and a mentality that says "we should treat each other like we're all the same" is white supremacy because it fundamentally ignores the identities of millions of bodies. You will never know truly how it feels to be black, I will never know truly how it feels to be a woman. That's fine. Don't start saying that we can only accept people because they have some reflection of yourself in them. That's what white people do. And to say that certain people shouldn't embrace their body just because if the shoe was on the oppressor's foot, it would be bad, so we shouldn't do it. Fuck that. I call you white because you're ignoring the fact that this is necessary because you can't understand from a position of privilege. "

 

 

-We are all the same...Insofar as our NEEDS. We all need food, water, clothes, medicine, fire departments, education, jobs, housing, etc. No matter what type of body you are, all our bodies need those things. And at the point where your political demands are not advocating for everyone to have access to these necessities YOU are in the position of privilege. You are already liberated from necessity, so you can opine about bourgeois identity politics while more and more people go bankrupt from health care bills. While more profit is sought through increasing incarceration rates. While more schools are destroyed to increase corporate profits.

 

 

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

"The dream says nothing about creation of certain entities and how identities formulate politics. The Nigga is a necessary idea in order to resist white power. Niggas fight cops, niggas don't obey school rules, niggas spit in the face of white people"

 

 

-You are right the dream wasn't focused on bourgeois circle jerks. King advocated for a minimum income to free people form necessity. It is only at the point that he started resisting capitalism and militarism that he got shot. It is only when Malcolm returned from haj and expressed interest in coalition building that he became dangerous enough to get assassinated. I believe you should rethink how your advocacy of "not obeying school rules" is 1. Chickenhawking the youth  2. Helping capitalism maintain surplus labor through institutionalizing the cycle of poverty by destroying public schooling.

I also would point out that "spitting in the face of white people" is where you conflate white supremacy with white corporeality. Which is a mistake I think Wilderson also makes. It alienates allies and makes separatism the only end of such a method. And if you think your separatist enclave will be safe from the extraction of surplus value you're wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GeorgeBushsDogPaintings said:

 

"racism against white people doesn't exist"

 

-I think that racism against white people can exist, there is just little to no impact to it in our current historical trajectory. So it is more an expression of white paranoia to play the white "race card".

 

 

 

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

 

"Name one time where I said or referred to jews. Guess which group I kept talking about: White people! I won't deny that jews have had to deal with some shit, I never argued that jews are evil. Where have you suffered? When has a cop ever pulled you over for being a certain way? Who has ever looked at you when the entire society considers your aesthetic to be that of a monkey? When have you ever had to deny your culture to fit in? That's privilege! And that's what we hate. I'm criticising white power and you just pull a red herring about jewish people."

 

-So Jews are not white? And I think that Jews got compared to monkeys a number of times, but they are more likely to have an identity PROJECTED UPON THEM by the ruling class in their propaganda that portrays them as rats and pigs. Maybe the extraction of surplus value finds any race to scapegoat to maintain ruling class power? Maybe one type of racism just gives way to another under capitalism?

 

also just FYI human ancestors never climbed trees or else our big toes would have been pointed inward. Tree dwellers and us share a common ancestor, but we did not evolve from monkeys.

 

 

 

 

I am interested in CaptainWilderson's responses. But I understand that forums face "pressures" when they allow radical ideas to be discussed. But I am trying to be civil (I didn't even swear!) and I don't care if ppl are civil in response to me. So please don't lock this?

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was admirably cogent and on-point.

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

 

"Name one time where I said or referred to jews. Guess which group I kept talking about: White people! I won't deny that jews have had to deal with some shit, I never argued that jews are evil. Where have you suffered? When has a cop ever pulled you over for being a certain way? Who has ever looked at you when the entire society considers your aesthetic to be that of a monkey? When have you ever had to deny your culture to fit in? That's privilege! And that's what we hate. I'm criticising white power and you just pull a red herring about jewish people."

 

-So Jews are not white? And I think that Jews got compared to monkeys a number of times, but they are more likely to have an identity PROJECTED UPON THEM by the ruling class in their propaganda that portrays them as rats and pigs. Maybe the extraction of surplus value finds any race to scapegoat to maintain ruling class power? Maybe one type of racism just gives way to another under capitalism?

 

 

I would only add that its not just Capitalism.  

 

For example, The Soviet Union had ample problems with racism (and sexism, and so forth).  The Russian distinction between 'ethnic Russians' and other Ukrainians today is the same attitude led to the Holodomor.  The Jewish experience of the Soviet Union was... complicated... but included oppression of Judaism (as a religion), pogroms during the civil war, and later widespread anti-semitism under Stalin.  (Lenin was welcoming to the Jews to a degree, but mostly so long as they gave up any real Jewish identity, including attempts to squash nascent Zionism.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For example, The Soviet Union had ample problems with racism (and sexism, and so forth). 

 

-Not really under Lenin and early programmes with Alexandra Kollontai. Some of the earliest statements by any government which were anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic were made in the early stages of the Bolshevik revolution.

 

 

 

 The Russian distinction between 'ethnic Russians' and other Ukrainians today is the same attitude led to the Holodomor. 

 

I don't know too much about this event, but it seems like this is Stalin's shit. And the Russian expansion these days seems to be pursuit of geopolitical assurances  that continued capital accumulation will be smooth(Crimean sea access).  One can also argue that the Russian attitude towards ethnic minorities left over from their pre-capitalist days reasserted itself with Holodomor. It seems more like Stalin's quest for power. I understand your point that racism and genocide can happen outside of Capitalism.  But these events seem to be the result of one man gone mad with power, rather than a certain pattern of interactions that keeps repeating itself under a certain set of circumstances. One could argue that a deficiency of self-determination/collective action caused such a dictatorship. I think I could agree with the statement that the probability for genocide and war increases as democratic power decreases. I don't think that is necessarily mutually exclusive with the claim that capitalism sets up circumstances which continually recreate racism, genocide, and war in every region on earth and in every era.

 

 

 

 

  The Jewish experience of the Soviet Union was... complicated... but included oppression of Judaism (as a religion), pogroms during the civil war, and later widespread anti-semitism under Stalin.  (Lenin was welcoming to the Jews to a degree, but mostly so long as they gave up any real Jewish identity, including attempts to squash nascent Zionism.)

The complications arose from the revolutions desire to promote atheism and not persecute Jews(early in the Soviet Union). Lenin seemed to be very welcoming of Jews as long as they were communists(which goes for about every group of people in Lenin's mind). But obviously trying to revolt against all religions was part of the revolution. For Stalin this meant serious anti-semitism. And for Zionism I'm sure Lenin went by Marx's essay "on the Jewish question". That having a separate state would not solve the problem.  So in order to tie it back to  Wilderson I would like to point out that Theodor Herzl said that his greatest ally in Zionism was anti-semitism. Many wealthy donors and political luminaries came to the Zionist cause because they wanted less Jews in their country. Today we can see echoes of this in Christian Zionism, the fundamentalist Christians who militate against any peace process between Israel-Palestine, because they believe that Jesus will come back once "Judea and Samara" are controlled by Jews(i'm not lying). If one goes and looks at the recent Atlantic article on "white privilege" you will find that the white supremacists actually agree with Wilderson's separatism. Because they want less black people around them. So they wholeheartedly want Wilderson to keep chicken hawking black youth in to violence with no exit strategy. They want black people to get out of their civil society.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Not really under Lenin and early programmes with Alexandra Kollontai. Some of the earliest statements by any government which were anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic were made in the early stages of the Bolshevik revolution.

 

Source? It seems possible, given the trend for socialist revolutionary governments to talk a lot about equality and human rights and fail miserably to put them into practice (starting with the French Revolution). Such statements are often a good way to broaden the revolutionary tent, which is usually necessary to sustain a revolution. I just haven't heard this, especially the anti-homophobic part.

 

Certainly anti-racist and anti-slavery statements predated Lenin; the anti-slavery movements originated from Britain.

 

I don't know too much about this event, but it seems like this is Stalin's shit. And the Russian expansion these days seems to be pursuit of geopolitical assurances  that continued capital accumulation will be smooth(Crimean sea access).  One can also argue that the Russian attitude towards ethnic minorities left over from their pre-capitalist days reasserted itself with Holodomor. It seems more like Stalin's quest for power. I understand your point that racism and genocide can happen outside of Capitalism.  But these events seem to be the result of one man gone mad with power, rather than a certain pattern of interactions that keeps repeating itself under a certain set of circumstances. One could argue that a deficiency of self-determination/collective action caused such a dictatorship. I think I could agree with the statement that the probability for genocide and war increases as democratic power decreases. I don't think that is necessarily mutually exclusive with the claim that capitalism sets up circumstances which continually recreate racism, genocide, and war in every region on earth and in every era.

I'd suggest reading Pipes's "A History of Communism." Stalin can maybe explain part of Russia, but the gulags and purges predated him, and he can't explain China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, and Cuba (not in any order, though Cuba is the least bad of these). Scapegoating isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of power. In general, most unpopular governments of any type search for scapegoats to redirect public anger--this is where most of Chavez's anti-semitism comes from (that, and in Chavez's case a desire for support from anti-semitic Islamist governments like Iran). In any case, the prejudices of most communist countries both predated and postdated their communist periods, except that murderous hatred towards "class enemies" was only a featue of communism. Russians hated Jews before the revolution, after the revolution, and after the collapse of the USSR; China has hated Japan before Mao, under Mao, and today; Cuba's had issues with racism and homophobia under Batista and under Castro.

 

The complications arose from the revolutions desire to promote atheism and not persecute Jews(early in the Soviet Union). Lenin seemed to be very welcoming of Jews as long as they were communists(which goes for about every group of people in Lenin's mind). But obviously trying to revolt against all religions was part of the revolution. For Stalin this meant serious anti-semitism. And for Zionism I'm sure Lenin went by Marx's essay "on the Jewish question". That having a separate state would not solve the problem.  So in order to tie it back to  Wilderson I would like to point out that Theodor Herzl said that his greatest ally in Zionism was anti-semitism. Many wealthy donors and political luminaries came to the Zionist cause because they wanted less Jews in their country. Today we can see echoes of this in Christian Zionism, the fundamentalist Christians who militate against any peace process between Israel-Palestine, because they believe that Jesus will come back once "Judea and Samara" are controlled by Jews(i'm not lying). If one goes and looks at the recent Atlantic article on "white privilege" you will find that the white supremacists actually agree with Wilderson's separatism. Because they want less black people around them. So they wholeheartedly want Wilderson to keep chicken hawking black youth in to violence with no exit strategy. They want black people to get out of their civil society.

This is mostly correct, though that branch of Christian Zionism is an unusual outlier; most pro-Israel American Christians simply respect Israel as an ally of American capitalist interests. The early Zionists of course were socialists if not strict Marxists, and Israel remained socialist through at least the 70s, reformed a bit to be more comparable to European-style state capitalism, and only started moving towards serious free market policies in the 00s under Netanyahu with support from Bush. Of course, I see that as a good thing while you see it as a bad thing :)

 

One thing I do find much more respectable about orthodox Marxism than most postmodern theories is that at least Marxism was still based on humanist ethics. It's flawed in its economics and ethics, and thus ended up causing a lot of unintended consequences when the sort of people who rise to the head of such revolutions took power, but unlike Nazism or Afropessimism, it at least starts with a premise of human equality,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why this thread was locked. I want to discuss some of it with intelligent people. I have no intention besides this.

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

"Because it creates a vehicle by which black people can resist white supremacy. Creating a certain coalitional standard for black bodies allows for a better resistance of white supremacy. Certain identity politics are already forced onto black bodies and certain politics are taken away from them as well. Becoming niggas allows for a site of resistance compared to a current model of appeasing white civil society."

 

 

I bolded the three points I want to address.

1. A vehicle for resistance- I think that the use of a word that has historically been used to put a certain type of body "in their place" and therefore represents a history of enslavement and genocide is hardly a "vehicle by which black people can resist white supremacy". This word will always mean what it has meant to the ruling class. No matter how many articles are produced. To celebrate such a word is a performance complicit with white supremacy.

 

I think it's more of a reverse causation- black bodies are already marginalized and destroyed by white civil society- but they gave the nigga model as a formulation to declare straight up war against the bodies by policing them and justifying enslavement and imprisonment. However, this begs a question of methodology where the nigga can be used as a soldier and an antagonism against WCS. Whether or not violence is a legit methodology is a true question

 

2.Better resistance of white supremacy-From what I can see this method is not a method of resistance, but a method of separatism. Evidenced by your total conflation of white supremacy with the white body.

 

The nigga is an attack on civil society as they attack the apparatuses of white power (cops, laws). This is not to say that certain bodies are excluded from a movement, rather that one identity in particular can start to fight back.

 

3.current model of appeasing white civil society-So all the methods of resistance used by black people in the past have been appeasement? It is better to embrace a word which entrenches white supremacy with every utterance? The methods of the SCLC, SNCC, BPP, BLA, RNA, etc. were all appeasement? I don't buy it.

 

Not at all- it would be foolish to say that any of those aforementioned groups were complicit with oppression ; however, notice my first word was current. In the newer modes of racism, you don't have an explicit bias against blacks- there are no segregation laws, no public acceptance of the word "nigger." The article in question was in reference to the idea that modern movements of power are satisfied with just promoting black history month or recognizing some black figureheads but rarely tackle issues such as the rampant militaristic antagonism against black bodies. That's the question being begged

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CaptainWildesron said:

"From the founding of america to about the 1970s (that's an estimate), the black was the nigger- a stupid jive talking, animalistic piece of trash that was considered to be more akin to monkeys than that of actual human beings. From around the 1980s and later, it became more of the nigga. The thug who will most likely die or end up in jail because he is the evolution of the nigger into something worse. Both are a manifestation of white supremacist ideology; however, the dichotomy comes into play when other races have to act white in order to be formulated into the workings of modernity"

 

-If both are a manifestation of white supremacist ideology then how can it be a "vehicle" for resistance to white supremacy?

 

Because one is a violent epistemology. Niggers are stupid and subserviant to masters so they are no threat to the macro society and aren't going to kill the master. Niggas on the other hand are very prone to violence and will often attack white people which is why we have to lock them up or detain their aggression.

 

The latter is a model by which black bodies are given legitimacy as an enemy to white civil society. It's essentially recognizing that they have the ability to fight back against the masters

 

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

"And dis-identifying ourselves with our true identity is bullshit. The point shouldn't be "you're just like me, therefor I accept you." Fuck that. We're all different, and a mentality that says "we should treat each other like we're all the same" is white supremacy because it fundamentally ignores the identities of millions of bodies. You will never know truly how it feels to be black, I will never know truly how it feels to be a woman. That's fine. Don't start saying that we can only accept people because they have some reflection of yourself in them. That's what white people do. And to say that certain people shouldn't embrace their body just because if the shoe was on the oppressor's foot, it would be bad, so we shouldn't do it. Fuck that. I call you white because you're ignoring the fact that this is necessary because you can't understand from a position of privilege. "

 

 

-We are all the same...Insofar as our NEEDS. We all need food, water, clothes, medicine, fire departments, education, jobs, housing, etc. No matter what type of body you are, all our bodies need those things. And at the point where your political demands are not advocating for everyone to have access to these necessities YOU are in the position of privilege. You are already liberated from necessity, so you can opine about bourgeois identity politics while more and more people go bankrupt from health care bills. While more profit is sought through increasing incarceration rates. While more schools are destroyed to increase corporate profits.

 

This was more in reference to a question that we should see colorblindness- more of where do these questions of why we should help different groups with their problems come from. My criticism was that you shouldn't have to relate to other people using your body as a reference in order to address these problems. It was a question of why we access the basic necessities question in the first place. No one's gonna dispute that we all need healthcare, education, food, etc.

 

 

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

"The dream says nothing about creation of certain entities and how identities formulate politics. The Nigga is a necessary idea in order to resist white power. Niggas fight cops, niggas don't obey school rules, niggas spit in the face of white people"

 

 

-You are right the dream wasn't focused on bourgeois circle jerks. King advocated for a minimum income to free people form necessity. It is only at the point that he started resisting capitalism and militarism that he got shot. It is only when Malcolm returned from haj and expressed interest in coalition building that he became dangerous enough to get assassinated. I believe you should rethink how your advocacy of "not obeying school rules" is 1. Chickenhawking the youth  2. Helping capitalism maintain surplus labor through institutionalizing the cycle of poverty by destroying public schooling.

 

Granted that there are multiple different spaces which are nurturing and helpful; however, are those spaces accessible to black and latino children in the squo? And is also assumptive of a violent methodology 1- again, it's already happening to them now. 2- That's assumptive of a white space which the article would argue a nigga disrupts. 

 

I also would point out that "spitting in the face of white people" is where you conflate white supremacy with white corporeality. Which is a mistake I think Wilderson also makes. It alienates allies and makes separatism the only end of such a method. And if you think your separatist enclave will be safe from the extraction of surplus value you're wrong.

 

Tried to make it obvious that the group in question was the white people who are the oppressors, but that was a bad discourse on my part. You can also note I did advocate coalitions multiple times.  

 

 

 

 

GeorgeBushsDogPaintings said:

 

"racism against white people doesn't exist"

 

-I think that racism against white people can exist, there is just little to no impact to it in our current historical trajectory. So it is more an expression of white paranoia to play the white "race card".

 

 

 

CaptainWilderson said:

 

"Name one time where I said or referred to jews. Guess which group I kept talking about: White people! I won't deny that jews have had to deal with some shit, I never argued that jews are evil. Where have you suffered? When has a cop ever pulled you over for being a certain way? Who has ever looked at you when the entire society considers your aesthetic to be that of a monkey? When have you ever had to deny your culture to fit in? That's privilege! And that's what we hate. I'm criticising white power and you just pull a red herring about jewish people."

 

-So Jews are not white? And I think that Jews got compared to monkeys a number of times, but they are more likely to have an identity PROJECTED UPON THEM by the ruling class in their propaganda that portrays them as rats and pigs.

 

That wasn't clear in my rage-filled tirade, but it was personally addressing him, asking if he's ever felt that way. I recognize jewish people have been marginalized and still are but it's a question of violence comparison. I was just so offended at his statement I didn't really want to distinguish that. 

 

Maybe the extraction of surplus value finds any race to scapegoat to maintain ruling class power? Maybe one type of racism just gives way to another under capitalism?

 

Eh, this is where I'm gonna kinda diverge off of you. First, I think most of us agree racism is a result of cap; however, I think the personal investments and vehicles that race provides creates a better venue to resist capitalism.

 

 

also just FYI human ancestors never climbed trees or else our big toes would have been pointed inward. Tree dwellers and us share a common ancestor, but we did not evolve from monkeys.

 

I'm aware, unfortunately the europeans were not when they came upon the africans.

 

 

I am interested in CaptainWilderson's responses. But I understand that forums face "pressures" when they allow radical ideas to be discussed. But I am trying to be civil (I didn't even swear!) and I don't care if ppl are civil in response to me. So please don't lock this?

 

I only got really upset when someone posted something a genuinely found offensive. I'm happy to discuss it further

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't lock the thread; I can unlock it and merge after I figure out which mod did and ask them why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Squirrloid said something I wanted to dispute

 You said DS9 was the best Star Trek- I'm sorry, but nextgen is WAY better

LIES AND PROPAGANDA---DS9 4 LIFE

 

also Stalin, while the worst and most genocidal leader of the USSR, wasn't the only one to discriminate and send people to the Gulag.  Interestingly enough, prominent Jews were still allowed to thrive (like Molotov's wife) but it probably still wasn't the best place to be.  And exclusion of Ukranians and other non-Russian Soviet ethnic groups was prevalent throughout the USSR's history (despite the fact that Stalin wasn't even Russian)

 

 

One thing I do find much more respectable about orthodox Marxism than most postmodern theories is that at least Marxism was still based on humanist ethics. It's flawed in its economics and ethics, and thus ended up causing a lot of unintended consequences when the sort of people who rise to the head of such revolutions took power, but unlike Nazism or Afropessimism, it at least starts with a premise of human equality,

STAHP.  This is an mostly true paragraph, but don't snidely compare Nazism to Afropessimism .  I hate Afropessimism for reasons both to the right and left of its philosphy, but it is no way comprable to Nazism.

 

Additionally, Nazism is arguably based on humanist ethics.  The nazis wanted to improve society and the human race as a whole.  They wanted to do that by, ynow, murdering everyone they thought was genetically impure (which is flawed for like 10,000 reasons), but that was still their interpretation of humanism and claiming the enlightenment.  After all, Aristotle <3s slavery

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Squirrloid said something I wanted to dispute

 You said DS9 was the best Star Trek- I'm sorry, but nextgen is WAY better

 

Have you watched TNG recently?  I tried.  The pain! The PAIN!  (My memories were so good, why did I have to spoil them?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STAHP.  This is an mostly true paragraph, but don't snidely compare Nazism to Afropessimism .  I hate Afropessimism for reasons both to the right and left of its philosphy, but it is no way comprable to Nazism.

 

Additionally, Nazism is arguably based on humanist ethics.  The nazis wanted to improve society and the human race as a whole.  They wanted to do that by, ynow, murdering everyone they thought was genetically impure (which is flawed for like 10,000 reasons), but that was still their interpretation of humanism and claiming the enlightenment.  After all, Aristotle <3s slavery

Fair enough, I suppose comparing anything to Hitler is pretty charged. Would you prefer I compare it to South African apartheid, Japanese imperialism, or other forms of tribalism that are focused on racial differences over common humanity?

 

And no, a philosophy that defines certain groups of humans as not human is not humanist in any way, shape, or form--not if the term "humanism" is to have any meaning.

 

One for CaptainWilderson:

 

That wasn't clear in my rage-filled tirade, but it was personally addressing him, asking if he's ever felt that way. I recognize jewish people have been marginalized and still are but it's a question of violence comparison. I was just so offended at his statement I didn't really want to distinguish that.

Not so much for being Jewish (though it's happened); occasionally for being white; often for being fat--but fat isn't a race, and I didn't really want to open up all the feminist and libertarian issues around fat acceptance. The first time I left this forum, in high school, was because I was tired of the fat-hating abuse from another Ohio debater I repeatedly beat who referred to me as "FKFH" - "Fat Kid from Hawken." Privilege and disadvantages cut a lot of different ways, and essentializing it to race ignores a lot of problems.

 

As for being offended - there's a real double standard in offensiveness around here. Radical leftist ideas can be quite offensive when you stop to think about what they're saying. Squirreloid and I are both donating our time teaching underprivileged black kids how to debate, and in turn a lot of history, economics, law, and logic that's ignored in most of their classes because many of their teachers aren't capable of it. I don't get paid for any of it; Squirreloid doesn't get paid much and contributes a ton of unpaid time as well. And when I hear attacks like CaptainWilderson's in the original thread, that "The Nigga is a necessary idea in order to resist white power. Niggas fight cops, niggas don't obey school rules, niggas spit in the face of white people"--that hits me personally. Because you're encouraging my students to rebel and fail, to get themselves criminal records that will follow them through life, and to spit in the faces of a ton of people trying to provide educational opportunities CPS is too dysfunctional to offer.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much for being Jewish (though it's happened); occasionally for being white; often for being fat--but fat isn't a race, and I didn't really want to open up all the feminist and libertarian issues around fat acceptance. The first time I left this forum, in high school, was because I was tired of the fat-hating abuse from another Ohio debater I repeatedly beat who referred to me as "FKFH" - "Fat Kid from Hawken." Privilege and disadvantages cut a lot of different ways, and essentializing it to race ignores a lot of problems.

 

Your statement was "we've got you beat" saying that 5000 years of oppression and referencing it as being a jew. I've been fat before and I agree that's no cake-walk (mmm cake), but my criticism if you'll remember is that you don't have the entirety of civil society working against you.

As for being offended - there's a real double standard in offensiveness around here. Radical leftist ideas can be quite offensive when you stop to think about what they're saying. Squirreloid and I are both donating our time teaching underprivileged black kids how to debate, and in turn a lot of history, economics, law, and logic that's ignored in most of their classes because many of their teachers aren't capable of it. I don't get paid for any of it; Squirreloid doesn't get paid much and contributes a ton of unpaid time as well. And when I hear attacks like CaptainWilderson's in the original thread, that "The Nigga is a necessary idea in order to resist white power. Niggas fight cops, niggas don't obey school rules, niggas spit in the face of white people"--that hits me personally. Because you're encouraging my students to rebel and fail, to get themselves criminal records that will follow them through life, and to spit in the faces of a ton of people trying to provide educational opportunities CPS is too dysfunctional to offer.

 

Dude, your argument was essentially interpretable as those black kids you teach should take a back seat to the jews because "they've suffered more." And I teach kids too. I get it. Let me clarify more here as the thread was locked before I could properly explain this argument. When the nigga uses that identity it is in direct opposition to systemic aggression onto their identity. I'll agree that there are quite a few teachers who genuinely engage in pedagogical practices that are very beneficial to students. I don't think anyone on this cite would argue that we are all very lucky to be involved in debate as it contains coaches who are completely dedicated to improving the educational environment of their students; however, most of us aren't so lucky. The nigga as more referenced in the previous work is someone who lives in the inner city where the teacher could not give less of a fuck if they tried. Where the school officials treat them like they're just there in order to drop out and go to prison. Those are the people the nigga tells to fuck off. The nigga is in dire straights pedagogically and knows that white civil society will let them be nothing but  a w-4, a prison number, or a john doe. If you'll also recall when squirrellroid (NEXTGEN all the way!) stated it's an essentialised identity I retorted that it.  "I think you fail to understand some parts of the article. A black is not just authentic if they become a nigga, rather nigga authenticity is a vehicle by which many blacks acheive their own sense of authenticity, because the nigga is in direct opposition of white civil society" This is not a one-size-fits-all approach to combating white supremacy and mainly applies to those schools where their social death is inevitable. These students are destined to fail because civil society demands it. So why should they obey the rules?

 

Let me diverge for a second to input a criticism that I think will answer some of the other points presented. I don't think the article is sufficient in the addressing the squo of being a nigga, as in the squo the actions and consequences of being a nigga are often internalized to the black and latino communities and to the persons themselves. This often results in self harm and patriarchal and racist leanings sadly. But I do think a more violent or aggressive methodology is fit in the disputing of white supremacy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statement was "we've got you beat" saying that 5000 years of oppression and referencing it as being a jew. I've been fat before and I agree that's no cake-walk (mmm cake), but my criticism if you'll remember is that you don't have the entirety of civil society working against you.

 

Dude, your argument was essentially interpretable as those black kids you teach should take a back seat to the jews because "they've suffered more." And I teach kids too. I get it. Let me clarify more here as the thread was locked before I could properly explain this argument.

Apologies if that's the way it came across. The racialist argument usually includes claims of historical and current oppression as a justification for current behavior. I take issue with the idea that historical oppression justifies anything, or that American slavery or Western imperialism are the worst crimes against a race in world history. Much of the leftist argument from history relies on the idea that nations' moral worth are judged based on their behavior in the arbitrary time period from 1600 to 1800. The Wilderson version focuses on the Middle Passage--certainly an atrocity, but not a unique one (a broader historical analysis shows that slavery, and slave trades, were common among most civilizations including African ones before the colonial era--are Slavic bodies suffering a social death due to that slave trade?) The idea that blacks have uniquely suffered in America is plausible; expand it to the world and it's not quite so unique.

 

Now, as to "the entirety of civil society working against you," that just strikes me as false hyperbole. There are definitely kids who get screwed by the system; I've represented one of them in a CPS expulsion hearing. But even then, it wasn't "the entirety of civil society" working against him, it was a few asshole fellow students, an incompetent dean, and the unfeeling CPS bureaucracy against a number of supportive teachers and volunteers trying to help him. When I go to each CDL event sponsored by charitable giving from big corporations and law firms like Allstate, McDermott Will & Emery, and others, I don't see civil society arrayed entirely against black people--I see a lot of volunteers trying to do their best but can only do so much to help.

 

When the nigga uses that identity it is in direct opposition to systemic aggression onto their identity. I'll agree that there are quite a few teachers who genuinely engage in pedagogical practices that are very beneficial to students. I don't think anyone on this cite would argue that we are all very lucky to be involved in debate as it contains coaches who are completely dedicated to improving the educational environment of their students; however, most of us aren't so lucky. The nigga as more referenced in the previous work is someone who lives in the inner city where the teacher could not give less of a fuck if they tried. Where the school officials treat them like they're just there in order to drop out and go to prison. Those are the people the nigga tells to fuck off. The nigga is in dire straights pedagogically and knows that white civil society will let them be nothing but  a w-4, a prison number, or a john doe.

Well, what does that mean, "white civil society will let them be nothing but a w-4, a prison number, or a john doe?" The government won't let me be anything but a W-4, except to the extent that I get to represent clients in court because I'm a member of the NY and IL bars. Do you mean that society views such people as nothing but unskilled labor or criminals? Behaving like criminals validates that societal view! It's the immature attitude of a teenager--"Well, if you're going to treat me like a criminal, I'm going to act like one!" And it's circular--teachers start out ambitious and burn out quickly when students refuse to be taught. Making matters worse, it only takes a few troublesome students to ruin an entire class; I'm sure you've had that experience. The kid who refuses to obey rules or be educated ruins the opportunities of his fellow students who want an education.

 

I think you fail to understand some parts of the article. A black is not just authentic if they become a nigga, rather nigga authenticity is a vehicle by which many blacks acheive their own sense of authenticity, because the nigga is in direct opposition of white civil society" This is not a one-size-fits-all approach to combating white supremacy and mainly applies to those schools where their social death is inevitable. These students are destined to fail because civil society demands it. So why should they obey the rules?

Let's define what we mean by "social death" (not a trivial question; as far as I could tell it became the focus of the TOC Round 7 between Prep DK and Glenbrook North DK), and see what we're actually talking about here. Do you mean that it's a way to become accepted by some society, even if it's a dysfunctional one? Well, yeah, that's why gangs form among all minorities, not just blacks--the same sort of thing happened in late 19th/early 20th century New York among Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants. But as a personal ideal, it's one that ends in an anonymous death after a long rap sheet, not a happy and content life. Society will consider your cause very differently if you claim to be a political prisoner depending on whether your crime was marching in a civil rights rally (MLK) or murdering police officers (Mumia).

 

Violence prompts defensiveness, and racially separatist violence prompts racial defensiveness. When you declare war on white supremacy, you convince white people to defend themselves with violence. However, when you make white people ashamed of white supremacy, they back off. That's the lesson of MLK and Gandhi, and the negative lessons of Mumia and the BPP.

 

Edited by Edgehopper
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how now that it's in an academic context, it's become okay for White people to use the n-word.

 

Edit: Scratch that-- appear to be only quotes.

 

I guess I'll just take this moment to say that you shouldn't if you're white, in case that wasn't clear.

 

Also, I think we should probably lay off on the neg reps for a bit. Squirreloid and Edgehopper are just expressing their opinions, and frankly, I think it's really important to have voices contrary to ones views in this community, even if you don't agree with them. It always scares me when I look at these threads and see how all the more "progressive" responses have tons of upvotes and all the more "conservative" opinions have tons of downvotes- that's not a reflection of "progress" but of unwillingness to include those with views contrary to your own.

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again- I would be fine with agreeing with you if it wasn't still an issue in the present. Black bodies still suffer immensely in the squo.
 

Again not just one time period- it's still going on. And this is gonna blow up cross-x.com that a wildersonite is saying this- but topicality. The original article was about black authenticity, 

 

Now, as to "the entirety of civil society working against you," that just strikes me as false hyperbole. There are definitely kids who get screwed by the system; I've represented one of them in a CPS expulsion hearing. But even then, it wasn't "the entirety of civil society" working against him, it was a few asshole fellow students, an incompetent dean, and the unfeeling CPS bureaucracy against a number of supportive teachers and volunteers trying to help him. When I go to each CDL event sponsored by charitable giving from big corporations and law firms like Allstate, McDermott Will & Emery, and others, I don't see civil society arrayed entirely against black people--I see a lot of volunteers trying to do their best but can only do so much to help.

 

 

Again it's not just a question of black participation in the castes of society, which definitely is an occupation of oppressed bodies, but why they do that in the first place. Nigga identity and nigga authenticity are the true questions. If members of society were truly so altruistic, then all the issues listed above wouldn't be so in the first place. And if you don't see the world attacking black bodies then you need to open your eyes or get some glasses.

 

Well, what does that mean, "white civil society will let them be nothing but a w-4, a prison number, or a john doe?" The government won't let me be anything but a W-4, except to the extent that I get to represent clients in court because I'm a member of the NY and IL bars. Do you mean that society views such people as nothing but unskilled labor or criminals? Behaving like criminals validates that societal view! It's the immature attitude of a teenager--"Well, if you're going to treat me like a criminal, I'm going to act like one!" And it's circular--teachers start out ambitious and burn out quickly when students refuse to be taught. Making matters worse, it only takes a few troublesome students to ruin an entire class; I'm sure you've had that experience. The kid who refuses to obey rules or be educated ruins the opportunities of his fellow students who want an education.

 

Black bodies are the victims here. And this goes back to how white epistemology has always invalidated black experience and black thought as they are considered either stupid or violent. A question of methodology provides a vehicle of violence in order to cause some resistance at least, cause what else are black bodies to do? And why do they burnout because the kids have been reinforced their whole lives to believe society won't accept their identity so either assimilate or die. 2nd it is a bad teahcer who gives up on their students. Yeah there are people who ruin classroom settings for other people, but why? It is largely an independent case but the group we're talking about has been demonized by societal standards that tell them they don't belong in an educational setting. Why do they have to stay in a class that treats them like shit? 

Let's define what we mean by "social death" (not a trivial question; as far as I could tell it became the focus of the TOC Round 7 between Prep DK and Glenbrook North DK), and see what we're actually talking about here. Do you mean that it's a way to become accepted by some society, even if it's a dysfunctional one? Well, yeah, that's why gangs form among all minorities, not just blacks--the same sort of thing happened in late 19th/early 20th century New York among Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants. But as a personal ideal, it's one that ends in an anonymous death after a long rap sheet, not a happy and content life. Society will consider your cause very differently if you claim to be a political prisoner depending on whether your crime was marching in a civil rights rally (MLK) or murdering police officers (Mumia).

 

I think that framing is sufficient, essentially what I said above that either your identity is systemically eradicated or your body is is an ok framing.  On the cause question- The fact that only one of those is deemed legitimate or acceptable by society is a problem. One is interaction with a system, the other is engaging in warfare. I think the question becomes more of pessimism v optimism obviously and whether or not that society serves you well. If you kill that cop in self defense is that not justified by civil society?

 

When you declare war on white supremacy, you convince white people to defend themselves with violence. However, when you make white people ashamed of white supremacy, they back off. That's the lesson of MLK and Gandhi, and the negative lessons of Mumia and the BPP. 

 

And when do they become ashamed of it? In every time period, white people always concur that there is some sort of equality going on. During the 1960s white people in massive numbers said "there's no race disparity in america, black children have every right white children have." Just look at miros post of that god-awful article where people are saying "yeah there's no white supremacy." This has been going on for thousands of years, power does not listen to the voices of the oppressed until those who are oppressed start to hit back. Even MLK and Ghandhi faught back, they just used economics instead of physical violence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Squirrloid said something I wanted to dispute

 You said DS9 was the best Star Trek- I'm sorry, but nextgen is WAY better

upvoted 100x those aren't muskets

 

 

Thank you for responses. From what I can see N**** Authenticity is one proposed methodology or position (the two often overlap[which is the point of "recognizing your privilege"]) from which to enact either the destruction of status quo civil society or create a separatist space which can be home for N****s. It seems this is an attempt to fill the void in Wilderson's philosophy as to method or "what is to be done?".

 

It is important knowledge, but I don't think I personally will ever get over the N word. Also it means I (in my corporeality) will be unable to act as an ally to such a method. Also when we get in to the nitty gritty we realize that although it seems antithetical to capitalism, it is not a transformative political program to destroy capitalism and replace it with something else. Which means it will not do so. Meaning the harms will either continue or will be shifted to some new population.

Edited by freewayrickyross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important knowledge, but I don't think I personally will ever get over the N word. Also it means I (in my corporeality) will be unable to act as an ally to such a method. 

I think the jury is still out as to whether having a white "ally" is necessary or even wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Squirrloid said something I wanted to dispute

 You said DS9 was the best Star Trek- I'm sorry, but nextgen is WAY better

^ this. Picard > Shathead. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

upvoted 100x those aren't muskets

 

 

Thank you for responses. From what I can see N**** Authenticity is one proposed methodology or position (the two often overlap[which is the point of "recognizing your privilege"]) from which to enact either the destruction of status quo civil society or create a separatist space which can be home for N****s. It seems this is an attempt to fill the void in Wilderson's philosophy as to method or "what is to be done?".

 

It is important knowledge, but I don't think I personally will ever get over the N word. Also it means I (in my corporeality) will be unable to act as an ally to such a method. Also when we get in to the nitty gritty we realize that although it seems antithetical to capitalism, it is not a transformative political program to destroy capitalism and replace it with something else. Which means it will not do so. Meaning the harms will either continue or will be shifted to some new population.

I don't think it negates the ability for white bodies per se to engage in the method. I know plenty of white bodies, mainly from the debate space, who are very intelligent and can really engage in this dialouge. It's just that white bodies have been conditioned in civil society to deny their privilege and accept other differences with the condition that they be like them in some way. This certainly does not negate white participation, but it does make it harder. If you wanna see some white bodies who are very involved see Tim Wise and Jane Elliot.

 

Again there is a huge solvency deficit as in the squo, niggas are often internalized and create destruction more in their community than in the white civil society. I think it's a step in the right direction, but I don't think anyone will dispute the idea that a true revolution takes place more epistemelogically, 

Edited by CaptainWilderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...slavery elevated all whites to the ruling caste and thereby reduced the potential for class conflict. The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood this dynamic: The hostility between the whites and blacks of the South is easily explained. It has its root and sap in the relation of slavery, and was incited on both sides by the cunning of the slave masters. Those masters secured their ascendancy over both the poor whites and the Blacks by putting enmity between them."
-Lance Selfa"

 

 

I think the jury is still out as to whether having a white "ally" is necessary or even wanted.

 

 

White allies are needed. Just as black allies are needed. Just as Latino/a, non-hetero, female, and every single type of body/person there is. In order to transform the system that creates the conditions for racism we will need a transformative political vision that is good for everyone. We can't just occupy the N word. Occupying the N word does not take steps towards creating a system which would liberate people from necessity. It may potentially liberate a few individuals, who are already liberated from necessity to the extent they can spend time reading academic journals, from internalizing a certain set of anti-black assumptions. Well thats great for the psyche of an individual coping with such an environment. But what does it change to help future generations not have to deal with the same environment? What is the transformation of politics that happens when we occupy the N word? Otherwise this is not a philosophy of liberation, it is a bourgeois philosophy of retreat. An avenue only open to those already liberated from necessity.

 

Without even leaving the door open to allies this becomes a psychological solution, not a political one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STAHP.  This is an mostly true paragraph, but don't snidely compare Nazism to Afropessimism .  I hate Afropessimism for reasons both to the right and left of its philosphy, but it is no way comprable to Nazism.

 

Additionally, Nazism is arguably based on humanist ethics.  The nazis wanted to improve society and the human race as a whole.  They wanted to do that by, ynow, murdering everyone they thought was genetically impure (which is flawed for like 10,000 reasons), but that was still their interpretation of humanism and claiming the enlightenment.  After all, Aristotle <3s slavery

 

The comparison is apt, because both Afropessimismists and white supremacists come to the EXACT same conclusion: separatism. If you don't understand this you should explore some fascist literature, it is always good to know your enemy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it negates the ability for white bodies per se to engage in the method. I know plenty of white bodies, mainly from the debate space, who are very intelligent and can really engage in this dialouge. It's just that white bodies have been conditioned in civil society to deny their privilege and accept other differences with the condition that they be like them in some way. This certainly does not negate white participation, but it does make it harder. If you wanna see some white bodies who are very involved see Tim Wise and Jane Elliot.

 

I'm assuming those are debaters. This is my original point. Just because someone is liberated from necessity to the point where they don't have to spend that hour working for a wage and instead can spend it reading an academic journal, they are already free. They are already someone who I don't give a shit about because they are not suffering from a lack of necessity. This is not a method for liberation. This is a method for masturbation amongst the already liberated. It takes place only among the privileged few who can go to Undergrad etc. This shows again that it can't become political. It can only be a time killer for the bourgeois.

 

 

 

 

 

Again there is a huge solvency deficit as in the squo, niggas are often internalized and create destruction more in their community than in the white civil society.

 

And why? I can explain why the destruction of these communities has happened using my understanding of the quest for profit. But some simplistic endless antagonism can do nothing to bring context to this situation. To help me understand why the present is the way it is I need history, not psychological absolutes. And only after understanding what is fucked can we go about unfucking it. Racism is real, pervasive, and we need to be teaching each other about it. But when we are not connecting racism to its underlying material causes it does not lend itself to a political answer. It detaches racism from its contingent nature in history and makes it an endless Lacanian antagonism rather than something that can be solved.

 

 

 

 I think it's a step in the right direction, but I don't think anyone will dispute the idea that a true revolution takes place more epistemelogically, 

 

Can you explain what you mean by this . I am not sure I am interpreting it the way you intend and I would rather not respond until I understand better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ this. Picard > Shathead. 

 

Who was defending Shatner?  Talk about straw-manning xP

 

DS9 has Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks), who is absolutely awesome as 'captain' (technically commander, since he's got a space station).

 

I'm starting to think you people haven't even seen DS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was defending Shatner?  Talk about straw-manning xP

 

DS9 has Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks), who is absolutely awesome as 'captain' (technically commander, since he's got a space station).

 

I'm starting to think you people haven't even seen DS9.

DS9 is better than the rest, I'll give you that, but come on- Nextgen was the bomb.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...