Updates
6/19: Comments are still coming in on this topic and I don't want them to get lost as obviously this is an important conversation, so I updated the post and put the latest comment here:
Yes, Cindy Sheehan "did not go far enough"... she did not go to the very beginnings of the USA. But, for an apolitical white middle class woman to have come as far as she did in just 3 years is NO SMALL THING. I can't help but feel the comments made about how Sheehan has 'goots [sp] come out of some sort of envy or something. And as for her going back to being "privileged"... she's FLAT BROKE. Her family deserted her for her involvement in the anti-war movement. When she got involved in the anti-war movement, she gave it her ALL--unlike the many mushy white liberals who stand on the Lake Street bridge here every damn Wednesday.
I almost always AGREE with Liberator peoples' comments about how damn LAME white folks are... have been struggling with my fellow white "progressives" for 30 YEARS now... so, I think I get it about how frustrating it is.
But, increasingly, I wonder if communities of color can SEE when a white person actually IS "doing the right thing"--and HOW WOULD THAT BE DEFINED? Frankly, it increasingly seems that NOTHING a white person could do would be the "right thing"... maybe write a no-strings attached check, maybe not even that... and yet, I don't see a whole lot of political activity by the African-American community here in the [Twin Cities]. Take Mumia; I was very moved by The Liberator's published "letter of support"... but, I also wondered why in the, at least 10 YEARS of
support work done here in Minneapolis for Mumia's case, the Black community NEVER stepped up to the plate to be involved. Over and over again when I'd walk the streets putting up flyers and leafleting about a Mumia event, the response from Black people was "They ain't killed that n---r yet?" Young people, especially, it would seem would be inspired by Mumia's life and writing TO TAKE ACTION... but, haven't.
Or police brutality... it was 2 white women (myself and Michelle Gross) who started Communities United Against Police Brutality---the NAACP refers cases to us--since they don't take on individual cases--or even the policy work that CUAPB does. We've worked to get survivors of the cops off the phony charges put on them when they stand up for themselves... have even won some cases--and tried to stay on the case whether to try to get a new police chief that's not one more white guy as usual or to get changes in cop training or stop the big purchases of Tasers... Only a few people of color have gotten involved. The community here doesn't even show up for the annual national Oct. 22 protest (events in cities across the country opposing police brutality and the criminalization of a generation--again, quite relevant to youth of color)
The only "action" I see is in organizing Hip Hop concerts... in spite of very real crisis in the African-American community so, personally, I don't see the basis to criticize Cindy Sheehan. She was propelled into action by the death of her son--something that's moved many a Black mother to political action. One would think there'd at least be a little compassion for that. And it's not like Liberator folks are even involved in the anti-war movement either! And yes I get it, not every person of color wants to be involved in a movement that's been led so far here by white liberals. But, communities of color haven't organized themselves either--even though youth of color are targeted by military recruiters and much of the economic investments communities of color need so desperately are bing pumped into the "war machine". But, all I'm saying is; given that communities of color here are absent from the anti-war movement, what purpose does it serve to go after Cindy Sheehan? Just seems like a cheap and easy shot.
-Lydia
--
Amy Goodman interviewed Sheehan on Democracy Now! this morning.
As I read the transcript of the interview, I'm reminded that what she experienced is nothing new. An exhaustion, maybe skepticism, of trying to work within a system that refuses to change in any satisfactory fundamental way.
I've been there for a while. She talks about not wanting to work with politicians anymore but instead wanting to work with humanity. I dig that. I think when a person struggles against a system you realize that ultimately the power is in the people. If you can place yourself in the company of humanity and be apart of a collective thought you can start a movement towards real change. It might take much longer than a political move, but it will be much more authentic and revolutionary.
But the decision to build a new house when you have one that you once believed could be repaired is a hard one to make. And as a white person in America to come to that conclusion, you'd really have to be at your wit's end. Even if you build a new house while you're living in the beaten down one, you've essentially made a decision that there's no saving this house. There's no appealing to its foundation to heal its own cracks. There's no appealing to the roof to fix itself. The best hope is to start the long arduous process of building a new foundation and a new house.
I feel her frustration at, as she says, to paraphrase, an America more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith and American Idol than the havoc and destruction that is being waged around the world IN OUR NAMES, with OUR MONEY.
In the end I think she's realized that "raising awareness" can only be the small battle -- maybe "the first battle" is that better said -- and that this is pretty much all she has done, take a first step. John The Baptist's prophecy to everyone that they need to repent and that "the kingdom is near" was only the beginning. Ironically, she gets put on a pedestal for taking the tiniest of steps in the right direction. But that's another discussion altogether.
Despite the moves she's making I still think the main difference between her and me is that even with all that emotion she emits I still think she believes that this house can still be fixed, if only because she doesn't really have anywhere else to build a new one -- like when she talks about retooling and coming back with a new and improved factory (strategy). Whereas myself, over the last few years, I've started to think more along the lines that I need to try and "raise awareness" to as many people as possible while trying to get the hell out my damn self. Buy that land, build that house, start that farm. Migrate my family and my community, even if it has to be one by one, one generation at a time. Even if it means some generations will have one foot in and one foot out, it's worth it because eventually there'll be a generation with both feet in. I feel like home is outside of this place. And that the homes that have been built here were only meant as temporary ones in the long view anyway. So parting with them, to me, is no great sorrow when compared with the promise of the future.
Post a Comment
56 comments:
this reveals the very real inadequacies of western liberalism. by constantly viewing events like the iraq war as anomalous, they continue to think the status quo (western civilization) is a perfectly healthy apparatus. they refuse to interrogate the potent strain of barbarism that has been a constant feature of its architecture. as such, rather than examine the deeper roots of the civilization itself, they dally on the surface, become overwhelmed after the moment stagnates for longer than initially thought and end up abandoning the project due to the existential cost. in lieu of this outcome, there is also an adoption of cynicism or in other cases outright denial of any flaws in the civilization (the conservative movement). what's been most interesting these past couple of years is how much more quickly this generation of white liberals are transitioning into status quo politics than their sixties predecessors.
we have yet to come to grips with the obvious fact that if the iraq war had turned out to be a quick success, there would be NO anti-war movement. the u.s. has never shown an aversion for war against cultural and social "others" en masse. indeed, it was not until vietnam "hit back" that resistance to it assumed a mass character (although black radical organizations were railing against it from the very onset). let's never forget where we are. this is the same country that elected a nazi sympathizer and blatant white supremacist to office for five terms (Jesse Helms); a country that has made peace with the fact that the current fascist president executed a coup d'etat in the past two elections by disenfranchising Blacks not once but twice in spite of an abundance of evidence available to confirm these violating actions; a country that has built a civilization based on the negation of entire peoples and refuse to interrogate this pernicious fact for absent this myth this (white) country and its (white) citizens are exposed for the empty shell it is. i am sorry that sheehan's family underwent such stress and hardship. perhaps the thousands of iraqi women that now occupy the status of refugees in syria and have been reduced to prostituting their bodies for subsistence will be sympathetic as well. certainly, their families have also been dealt a cold, harsh hand. their plight underscores the fact that for us "outsiders" (by historical circumstance and deliberate positioning) "retiring" or "walking away" from the struggle is NEVER a possibility. for us, freedom remains a constant struggle—for that very freedom the “modern” world has come to cling to and exalt is based on our negation. a retreat into that freedom spells our ontological suicide.
the (white) u.s. population is and always has been politically naive and easily seduced by the rhetoric of political and economic scum. their investment in whiteness drowns out calls for a sober appraisal of their environment. it has been a long struggle to "educate", from the efforts of formerly enslaved africans during the reconstruction period (and before) to the present debacle in Iraq, not to mention the increasingly blatant class warfare being waged by political and economic elites. yet to this day, it takes merely the hasty and shoddy construction of a “welfare queen” to obviate substantive discussion on class politics with white economic kin. as c. robinson stated, this is nothing short of a cultural marvel. yet, this technique has had a stubborn presence in the globe for the past five hundred years. one can easily collapse time and see how the very issue of enslaving an entire people's has yet to be resolved, or more hauntingly, has already been. its echo is present in this very situation. slaves shouldn't talk or are not capable of articulating their own plight goes the logic. interlocutors are needed because only they can steal into the heart of the matter. and thus, when they "retire," we are supposed to hang our heads and charge it to the game. sheehan is today’s bartolome de las casas. let's be clear: the anti-war resistance will continue as long as iraqi resistance on the ground continues. for we shall strive to never forget that when the anti-war resistance stumbled after bush launched the war, it was resuscitated by the stubborn determination of the iraqi people, the so-called insurgents. no resistance, no anti-war movement. that is the bottom line. freedom is won...by any means necessary and as khalid muhammad often stated, don't focus on the "by any means" focus on the "necessary."
very thorough. I like how you brought in the Orlando Patterson piece on the analysis of Western concepts of freedom inFreedom in the Making of Western Culture.
airtight and well put.
when you said the "conservative movement" i at first read that as the "conservative moment"... then when i re-read it, i realized you didn't say that but it could just as well be called that for many white Americans. i found that amusing. like it was a light switch or something that flips on at 30.
the retiring notion always confused me. shit even with some black folk. when kwasi mfume came to speak at the 05' commencement at Howard and said he was "retiring" it struck me as odd.
anyway that's exactly what i was saying about my frustration (or annoyance) with bono. the freedom he cries for isn't freedom to me, it's colonialism. it's a continuation of things essentially as they are.
i had to look up obviate in the dictionary, but you really summed up my feelings in a super concise way.
this post relates directly to the bono and the metaphorical mulatto posts in case you didn't check them out.
matter of fact it relates to the post on wounded knee as well in my view. perhaps it's not my battle by inheritance, but i find it troubling whenever i think of the impossible situation that native Americans are in, in this land. especially the ideas of the reservation and treaty law. and most especially what was illustrated with this Cherokee thing recently. it seems like a sentence to purgatory. a pseudo-freedom and a never-ending dependence, or "baaskap" as kwame ture reminded me of the afrikaans word for "white bosshood" in south africa. i knew remembering that was good for something! (funny, i just read that tonite too.)
one last thing that hit me as i re-read that last idea you wrote where you're describing how the anti-war movement here depends on the Iraqi resistance... that's very very deep. it really suggests that the interlocutor, as you called it, this person who is silent and non-interested until the war becomes a quagmire (due to competent resistance), is damn near worthless as a true resister. (which is really the bulk of the anti-war movement, if at the very least the portion of it that gives it any relevance.)
it really reduces them to powerless (but envious or perhaps just romanticists of power) middle men. it really reminds us that all this new found protest spirit is worthless.
a sobering but needed reality check.
(especially in times where bill maher and jon stewart pathetically make up the HEART of the left's popular critique to the war)
definitely in solidarity with your statements b. we must be ever attentive to how white supremacy operates, on the right AND the left. as sheehan and anti-war protestors garner more and more attention for thier role in war resistance, the more invisible the people in iraq, those fighting for their land, resources and way of life become. as such, fifty years from now, they will be writing that "abolitionists" ended u.s. aggressiveness in iraq. (sounds familiar). of course propoganda has its role in the struggle. indeed, it must be viewed as a given in any struggle. however, we must not inflate that role to the extent that it is viewed as the exclusive mode of resistance or even the most effective. the people in iraq are speaking. how they express this reflects their understanding of what language is being employed by the west--naked violence. until we allow this voice its proper space, we will continue to elide the deeper meanings of thier speech and fall prey to the myth that it was EVER about the west. sheehan's fight is not iraqi's fight for they are both fighting for two different civilizations. thiers is not a fight to enhance or "fix" western civilization but to preserve and extend their own. her fight, her loyalty, as you pointed out already b., is to the european project known as the u.s. western liberals continue to assume that they occupy the center of every narrative. newsflash: its not about you! never has been. our interactions has been one of historical circumstance, a moment in which we were forced to engage. other than that, this moment, like all historical moments will pass.
p.s. stewart and maher are perhaps the best examples of this trend. the latter is an idiot who at best says the obvious and is a good index of the mediocrity of the left in this country. stewart has made me cringe on more than one occassion (in fact i don't think i can get by a whole week watching his show without tensing up at someo point) at his flippant remarks concerning people of color. both illustrate why liberation for us will never come through these vehicles or thier approximates. they're necessary only for as long as this "situation" persists.
Hey kadiri, I have a question which may seem obvious; when you refer to the fight for Iraq to extend and preserve its own civilization, which civilization do you mean?
not sure if i completely understand your question. you suggest that the answer is perhaps obvious but posed it nonetheless. i'll assume it is either rhetorical or bait (for what i am not certain…)
what appears somewhat obvious is that whatever response i offer to your direct question can only invite criticisms of essentialism or a reverse manicheanism. this, in turn, will plunge us into a theoretical black hole of the postmodernist bent that results in a masterful display of elegant yet ultimately sterile wordplay. since this would be far too much work for a seemingly obvious question, let me reiterate my point within its initial context.
as I thought the entry made clear, my usage of iraqi civilization was simply to illumine the contradictions of western liberal involvement in their resistance. sheehan’s own words incriminate her and reify the point made by both brian and i: her concern is with the u.s. for those resisting occupation in iraq, the political and moral direction of the u.s. is of concern only to the extent that it implicates their living. this is difficult for white liberals to grasp since they assume that their (western) project—ordained by enlightenment—always occupies the center. it is fascinatingly still difficult for the melanin-deficient (as g. horne is fond of saying) to come to grips with the fact that no society waited for their representatives to descend upon their land to begin “history.” indeed, by the time the west emerged out of its medieval stupor and began to travel around the world, most of the world had lived in “civilized” societies for more than a millennia. by refusing to honestly interrogate its past, many western liberals end up accepting the myth that history began and will end with them and that the world inevitably turns on the pivot of the west. of course this is categorically false. in fact, those who remain ambiguous to this fact are usually products of the (western) academy since they have been overwhelmed with the western humanities (a paradox of sorts) since adolescence.
the recent rise of china corroborates the historian andre gunder frank's thesis that even the modern world-system did not begin with the west (see his book ‘reorient’), a false position pushed by the leading theorists of western radicalism like marx, luxembourg, braudel and more recently wallerstein. to be succinct: my statement basically pointed out that the transformation of the world is not fated to pass through the west although I suspect it will be difficult for the west to come to terms with its increasing irrelevancy.
i am curious as to why my reference to iraqi (middle eastern, etc.) civilization intrigues you yet my earlier referent to western civilization does not achieve the same effect. indeed, it inadvertently illustrates how the west continues to be accepted as a normative category while all other ‘civilizations’ beg complication.
Well, I hope I won't plunge us into essentialism or reverse manicheanism with my explanation.
I just wanted to know what you meant, because I think you explained clearly about Western civilization and its essential hubris and 'potent strain of barbarism'. I think I understand how you look at so-called Western civilization.
I say my question is obvious, because a cursory answer would seem to be 'Islamic civilization.'
Historically and politically I don't have a critique to advance; I was more hoping to open some new directions in the conversation since you are quite knowledgeable about the subject.
My question was asked, because, in the end, do you mean to connect Iraqi civilization to its roots in Babylon and Sumer? Or do you identify it more with the golden age of Islam when Baghdad was a center of learning? And we can't forget the Kurdish civilization fighting for a national homeland.
Anyway, my point is that, yeah it does get very complicated when you talk about 'civilizations' because people born into a particular one have varying degrees of loyalty to it. Do the Kurds have loyalty to 'Iraqi civilization'? Maybe to a degree necessary to survive, but, No, they want their own state.
Its probably rather difficult for Sheehan to articulate a more cogent critique of the West because for her its almost like an unconscious medium she moves in everyday. She remains insulated by that medium.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of us socialized in the West have this issue, although so-called white people have a very very difficult time with coming to grips with this idea, due to how much they benefit from the current system (the wages of whiteness) and ALSO because they believe they have no where else to go. This 'place' is 'theirs' and they have become used to that idea.
It reminds me (again) of Parable of the Sower where one family in this small town that is under attack by robber bands chooses to move to a company town where the company owns everything and they'll have to work for the company. Essentially they choose a kind of slavery over the dangers of trying to live in a supportive but vulnerable community. They choose this knowingly, desiring security above all else.
Kadiri...as usual I feel you. And B. I think this discussion deserves its own post...maybe even an article. The New Abolition or something like that. This conversation is extremely important and I think we need to spend more time on these types of discussions
your ambivalence towards my use of ‘civilization’ is understandable and (no offense to you personally) predictable. you (and by this i mean most whites) fail to truly appreciate the impact the west has had on the societies it penetrated. the disruption of everyday life not only forced societies to reassess their relationships to one another, it also unified in their consciousness an antagonism, so deep to be called visceral, for the perpetrators. i urge you to revisit edward said’s ‘orientalism.’ he does a thorough job of showing how the middle east has been constructed as a veritable “other” and the underlying politics that drives this process. case in point, the various actors you mentioned (kurds, etc.) are treated as a discrete, and more importantly, ‘distant’ entity though the west is directly implicated in how they navigate that region. the middle east itself is an invention of western imperialism. thus, how the different societies move is going to be in some form a response to this imposition. this matter is given due treatment in british journalist’s robert fisk’s recently published memoirs, “the great war for civilization.” (a massive text but well worth the journey). his book is interesting because he begins the narrative in world war I and traces western involvement through to present-day iraq (though he even stretches the narrative further back sporadically). there is a haunting unbroken line of western intervention from that period onward, particularly when those in the region attempt to organize life on their own social, cultural, political and economic terms. even gerald horne has recently insisted that the religious fundamentalism coursing through the region is a direct product of western financing and political support. (tariq ali makes a similar claim though provides more detail of this in his book “the clash of fundamentalisms”). when you thus read about the massacres taking place in aghanistan by the taliban and the wide calls for (re)implementing sharia law in many islamic countries, one must keep in mind that these actions have been sanctioned and indeed sponsored by the very folk condemning it. the civilians on the ground are very clear of this. as such, the civilization nurtured within this maelstrom is not too concerned with its cultural source (sumer, islam) as it is in destroying white supremacy, which has fought vehemently to disorganize life to its benefit. the pan-arabism that emerged during the cold-war era reflected this as does the recent efforts at coalition building taking place between sunnis and shiites in saudi arabia. reading the reports it is clear that they are as much committed to constructing a “unified region” as they are to dispelling western involvement in their local affairs. what is unfortunate among western liberals is this proclivity to complicate identity formation while wholly pardoning white supremacy. to this end, whiteness becomes virtually invisible and implants itself more firmly into the daily life of these societies. look at contemporary south africa for a good example of this (or even the u.s. black mayors that are being scapegoated by corporations, federal neglect and white flight).
but there is also something else at play within this conversation that I feel compelled to comment upon. steph, you hinted at it in your last comment. we are currently at a moment when two radically different traditions have once again arrived at an intersection…accidentally. the radical western tradition, liberated in part by the radical resistance waged by its former colonial subjects, have unleashed a systematic string of accurate criticisms upon the civilization it inherited. this has occurred at the same time that societies extant to western civilization have forced their bloody realities into the previously segregated walls of the academy, inducing an existential crisis among western liberals. we understand the two traditions colloquially as postmodernism and postcolonialism. here is why their union is temporary. for former colonial (and enslaved) subjects, our resistance has been constant and fluid. as c. robinson has pointed out in ‘black marxism,’ (a book that people still have not given its deserved attention despite its republication) we were never concerned with improving western society upon encountering it. indeed, our first acts of resistance was marroonage, an attempt to reconstitute and extend life as we once knew it. to be sure, this analysis is a template for understanding most of the societies that the west drew into its fold. when forced to confront, we did so. however, our understanding of this confrontation differed from those melanin-deficient persons who sometimes locked arms with us. their fight was and continues to be a critique of their society with the intention of redressing its holes.
for ‘us ‘in the academy today, our residency here is purely circumstantial while the larger objective guides our actions. what is it; fanon puts it beautifully:
The settler’s work is to make even dreams of liberty impossible for the native. The native’s work is to imagine all possible methods for destroying the settler…
“all possible” means everything is on the table that prevents our communities from living healthy lives. in the case of postmodernists, the text has been elevated as the site to do battle. this approach would make your statement about the complexity of identity in the middle east valid and logical. however, when one re-inserts (or simply acknowledges) the violence that regulates life in the middle east historically and today, the complexity of the situation becomes remarkably simple. chinks, ragheads, gooks, niggers, spics, greasers, and all other disgusting labels created to negate peoples’ very beings, has been largely rejected and fueled some of the most sophisticated historical projects to date. societies have looked into their past for meaning which has been stripped and sough tot retrieve the best of that tradition to facilitate contemporary challenges. i was struck by a recent reading that pointed out that the famous chinese marxist mao tse-tung, did not consult marx or engels for direction, he consulted the ancient chinese narratives and epics. the civilizational impulse should thus be seen, to borrow from robinson, as a “negation of a negation.” how it looks decades from now is subordinate to the necessity of reclaiming a seat at humanity’s table. to be sure, the details as biko stated “will work themselves out.” what is clear is that the west has proved inadequate as a model for liberation. this understanding is firmly set within the minds of those who “reach for their gun whenever they hear mention of western culture.” that is the civilization I am referring to.
almost as if its too late for diplomacy. people have already figured out that want they want first and foremost is a change in the head of the table (or a seat at the table, which means a change in the head of the table or perhaps an elimination of the concept of a "head" of the table altogether)...
and i can see how people coming to that conclusion is scary to the west (even my parents).
but unfortunately it might be too late.
kinda like the informant in the movies who tries to play you one too many times. after a while you get to a point of frustration and skepticism/distrust/disillusionment where you just cap him in the head and find another way of getting the information you need. even though this last chance might have really been the time he was gonna give you some accurate intel.
it's a very human reaction and people have been seeing it coming i think for a while so it's no surprise.
Kadiri, I find your writing refreshing.
That said I feel/read a lot of anger in your writing. I am still reflecting on what that means as far as affectively communicating with people who might think differently from you.
But in only reflecting on the article, I really did not care when Sheehan "resigned". Sadly, I don't believe it will affect the anti-war movement at all. There really is no anti-war movement. There is anti-war rhetoric, but no one in the US is moving (myself included). . . . .
"The settler’s work is to make even dreams of liberty impossible for the native. The native’s work is to imagine all possible methods for destroying the settler…"
I love this quote. After thinking on it for a bit, I think that if people of color in the US are the 'Natives", then we have stopped (as of the end of the civil rights movement)trying to destroy the settler and are now trying to settle ourselves or find a new place to settle outside of the US.
Continued from my last comment. . .
Reading the conversation between Kadiri and Nathaniel made me cringe at times.
Anyhow, it led to an interesting conversation between me and a friend about how black anger might alienate whites who believe they are allies. Do we need white people as allies? Should they just deal with our legitimate anger? Are there any real white allies? Do people really hear you when you express anger towards them, blame them, yell at them? There were a lot of questions I had about it. I hadn't really made up my mind, but just wanted to talk it out.
I naturally lean towards a gentle style of communication. I'm a teacher, so I know how to get what I want, but I get people to want to do what I want them to do I make them want to be on my team. As I asked my friend, is it more affective to communicate what you want with gentle communication, or is it better to be frank and let it all come out? In our conversation we came to the conclusion that both styles are needed (kinda like the Malcolm X and Dr King often referenced example).
This might be totally off the track of the conversation but really I had as much reaction to the style of communication that was going on as to the topic that was being discussed.
tasha. i aim to be honest in my conversations. all else is a betrayal of my person. i think this passage from r. wright's 'white man listen' captures my attitude towards writing. forgive the length.
"confronted with a range of negative hostility of this sort, knowing that the society of the western world is so frantically defensive that it would seek to impose conformity at any price, what is an honest man to do? should he keep silent and thereby try to win a degree of dubious safety for himself? should he endorse static defensiveness as the price of achieving his own personal security? the game isn't worth the candle, for, in doing so, he buttressess that which would eventually crush not only him, but that which would negate the very conditions of life out of which freedom can spring.
in such a situation one's silence implies that one has surrendered one's intellectual faculties to fear, that one has voluntarily abdicated life itself, that one has gratuitously paralyzed one's possibilities of action. since any and all events can be lifted by men of bad faith out of their normal contexts and projected into others and thus consequently condemned, since one's thoughts can be interpreted in terms of such extreme implications as to reduce them to absurdity or subversion, obviously a mere declaration of one's good intentions is not enough. in an all-pervading climate of intellectual evasion or dishonesty, everything becomes dishonest; suspicion subverts events and distorts their meaning; mental reservations alter the character of facts and rob them of validity and utility. in short, if good will is lacking, everything is lost and a dialogue between men becomes not only useless, but dangerous, and sometimes even incriminating.
to imagine that straight communication is no longer possible is to declare that the world we seek to defend is no longer worth defending, that the battle for human freedom is already lost. i'm assuming, however naively, that such is not quite yet the case. i cannot, of course, assume that universal good will reign, but i have the elementary right, the bounden duty even, to assume that man, when he has the chance to speak and act without fear, still wishes to be man, that is, he harbors the dream of being a free and creative agent."
Gentle communication style is not equal to silence. Richard Wright has a great point, but it doesn't connect fully with my question. Modifying the style of communication to make it more affective for your audience (by choice) is not silence. It might be the opposite of silence as you might be heard at a much louder volume than if you screamed at the top of your lungs.
I wonder if there is an element of gender role playing into this. As a woman I notice that women tend to be well equipped at modifying all forms of communication to fit whatever audience they are facing (be it clothing communication, body language, business style, and verbal communication).
I'm just getting at: if the conversation makes the listener metaphorically put their fingers in their ears and "lalalala" to you, you have not communicated with them. And I know that most people do that when they feel attacked (not that that was your intention). I just saw that patter beginning between Nathaniel and you.
And since everyone else who commented already fully agreed with you, he seemed to be the most relevant person in the discussion. If you were going to "convert" someone new, it would have been him. Yet he was becoming alienated - not by the facts you so clearly set out, but by your style of communication.
It disturbed me that someone who might have fully agreed with you and joined your team would not do so simply because he didn't like how you advertised. That's what made me wonder if you (blacks) even wanted him on your(our) team. Do black people need whites to "join the team"? Does it matter if they are alienated by our anger?
I think that because of our current "situation" whites play an important role whether we like it or not. White liberals can be dangerous, but and end to communication is just as dangerous. We have to honestly and effectively communicate. Both must be done; honesty in an empty room serves no one.
Basically I'm saying that there is a need for both styles of communication. I just wanted to make clear what I was getting at earlier.
reminds me of kwame ture describing his view of the "total nonviolence" advocated by dr. king.
he seemed to acknowledge it and even show a reverence for it.
but he also admitted that it wasn't for him. for him nonviolence was simply a tactic and that he didn't believe in "transforming the oppressor" with love and nonviolence.
i think what was said about the places where we are taught and raised relates to this.
some of us have greater hope and less skepticism that a "change in tone" might make a difference.
richard wright seemed to see it that a compromising in the style of communication rendered us as guests on the playing field.
i guess dr. king (at the moment of his life referred to in ture's book) might be more optimistic and forgiving and say that modifying the style of communication isn't too much to give.
to be honest, instinctively i tend to refuse to modify my style of communication, but i have been criticized for it.
i tend to think there's a way for everyone to communicate and that just ain't my way. maybe its stubbornness, maybe its wisdom, time will tell. or has it already told?
Kadiri,
Initially I found it offensive that you assumed you really knew my mindset even though we have not had a deep and personal conversation. (Imagine if I began a sentence with, 'no offense to you personally,' and then proceeded to direct my statement to you very personally) Maybe the lack of depth in electronic communication contributed to your assumptions that my question was rhetorical or an attempt to bait you. Its interesting to me that you would assume that, but in context it makes sense, given your beliefs about the vagaries, deviances, and capabilities (or lack thereof) of the melanin-deficent.
I will have to read some of the books you suggested. I have yet to understand what reverse manicheanism is: do you mean to say that it’s the opposite of thinking about the world in a dualistic nature (ala Descartes) so therefore thinking of all reality as a totality or unity?
I look for what immediate steps can be taken to advance toward an agreed-upon goal. You suggest we can’t agree on a goal; you assume my goal is to ‘reform’ Western civilization or save it. Any time you feel like it might be valuable to have a dialogue with me; I’m open to it; but for now I thank you for making your ideological intent clear; hopefully it will also clarify my own ideological understanding.
If your goal is to work for liberation and seize the historical moment, then the Internet ain’t the place to do it; No matter how right or valid your critique of me or white supremacy is or no matter whether you’ve now convinced everyone on the blog, who might even believe it anyway already. You have staked a crucial place for yourself in history; now is the time to go out and sieze that moment. Whatever else you feel about my response (maybe you are shaking your head at my ‘typical white liberalist mindset’) I think we can both agree that action is the ultimate proof of an ideology, so I wish you the best in its implementation.
If you and Brian and others believe its that crucial at this historical moment to 'get out of the burning house' then I hope your attempts to build real economic, political and social institutions as an alternative are successful.
I’m gonna hang around, try and pull a few people from the fire and maybe get burned up in the process. Bests,
Nate
nate, did you get your question answered tho?
what are you projections for western civilization?
where do you feel you'd fit in if it were to crumble? or would you hold out till the end? and even past the end?
i'm interested in hearing those answers.
what are white people's plans for when the west is no longer dominant? i'm seriously curious in what the forced abandonment of whiteness for some will look like since, as we discussed, convincing folks to do it know is almost futile -- unless of course, maybe if we're more gentle. lol.
i definitely think it's crucial to start moving out. but i also think it's crucial to left folks out.
what's your view of this moment?
the way you fit yourself into the burning house metaphor makes it seem like kadiri's observations were correct as far as "fixing" the fire.
but i may not be clear on that... very interested tho in hearing more about that.
there's an interesting article in UTNE that i read last night. it is an excerpt from a book called "how nonviolence protects the state"
it was crazy how much it applied to this conversation. i will post it to the blog for everyone to check out.
seems like kadiri provided a clear answer to your question about "which" civilization he was referring to. anyway, the article i read in UTNE gets into that answer as well, it was almost like deja-vu.
regardless, i think we should be able to get past or at least understand the tone considering the seriousness of the matter.
i read this article by john henrik clarke in the new york times a few days ago, he's really gettin at henry lewis gates. it's comical at times. yes, there were moments where i was cringing too.
but at the same time i had to tell myself to look past the personal shots and see the hard solid argument he put forth.
because ultimately i feel that if i can critique his tone but cannot reproduce his meaning in a gentler more communicative tone, then i ought to keep my mouth shut and let the skilled do the task. or get to work honing my skills so that i can perform it in the way that i see fit. or at the very least have a clear suggestion as to how to both fix the tone and keep the message. alas, i did not see any way that dr. clarke could have fixed his tone and delivered the same information. so i kept my mouth shut and deciphered the message.
Brian, not sure if that was geared towards my comments (it seems so). But I hardly feel the need to reproduce Kadiri's message. The message was clear. What is ultimately important is Kadiri achieving his communication goal.
When a bank robber goes to rob a bank they don't say 'please'. Niceties are unnecessary during that communication because the robber is indifferent to the teller as a human and what they want to communicate is danger and possible violence. The robber's gun is communicating a stronge message as well.
When you have a birthday party you don't yell at your guests, "Give me the money!" They are your friends and would give you your gift without your demand. That kind of communication would be inappropriate and would probably cause some of your friends to feel uncomfortable and want to leave. Instead, if you want your gifts at your party, you might say, "Hey guys, let's open gifts before we eat dessert." And everyone would then give you your gifts.
So communication style is key to achieving a specific outcome. What I was really asking Kadiri was what outcome he desired. Does Kadiri believe that we need whites on our 'team'? Does Kadiri believe it is important to include whites in these kinds of discussions?
If he does not believe whites play an important role, then his communication can express freely the anger he rightfully feels. If his goal was to pull new thinkers who might be defensive into a growing discussion, he might need to rethink his style. Ultimately his goal would dictate his action.
As I repeated before, nothing is wrong with his style at all. In fact I said that both gentle and straightforward communication styles are necessary. But I wanted to reflect on how the manner in which facts are laid out affects their reception. My pointing that out, does not make me responsible for retelling the story at all. It only makes me a part of the growing discussion.
To be very clear: the chaos and violence we are now seeing are a very real result of US and western imperialism through the ages. period. I agree.
But I think this conversation took a needlessly personal turn, perhaps due to the nature of how I phrased the question. I don't really quibble with anyone taking a rough tone, and I don't expect anyone to alter their tone solely in order to placate me. But I do expect a basic respect in order to engage in dialogue. And I think this quote from John Henrik Clarke says a lot about how I feel, "I never use dollar words in twenty-five cent situations"
But I realize that is a small point, and I would prefer to try and explain my views clearly, rather than get caught up in it. I hope I can offer my thoughts on the questions asked by Brian and Tasha.
My opinion, which was not a wholesale pardoning of white supremacy, is that I think to characterize resistance to US occupation simply as a response to global white supremacy does not explain the whole situation. Certainly Iraq's conflicts are exacerbated by the current US occupation, and they also remain implicit in the formation of Iraq itself. (a product of Western imperialism)
Its as if there are a bunch of non-carnivorous animals in the room and the US is a big tiger that all parties are trying to use more or less to their advantage. However advantageous having that tiger is to your side, there is always the danger that he will turn around and eat you.
This dynamic needs to be acknowledged and I think you did so quite brilliantly, Kadiri.
However, it would be reductionist to simply attribute all actions in that room as simply stemming from reactions to that larger power (since, as you pointed out, the transformation of the world is not fated to pass through the West)
In the Iraq situation, other groups have moral agency and competing cultural and political interests. My point about the Kurds is just to underscore that-- the Kurds are not joining a resistance en masse for their survival. They are sitting back and waiting it out to see where the advantage can come from to achieve their goal: a unitary Kurdistan. I happen to think that is a noble (though unlikely achievable in the near future) goal, but they invite reprisal when they seek to use the US to leverage power. I think the same situation could be said for Aristide and his attempts to get back in power after the first coup which removed him in Haiti. So I do not disagree with your fundamental and underlying point.
But in the end, my understanding is subordinate to those people under the occupation in Iraq, and the conflict can only be settled by those parties internally.
The resistance in Iraq is currently not of an equivalent character to that of the national war of liberation for Vietnam (historical conditions are quite different), although the longer the US occupies Iraq the more united the Iraqi resistance will become.
Currently most of the violence is motivated by grabbing power within a situation already destabilized by, as you put it well, ‘the haunting unbroken line of Western intervention’. Western policy in the Middle East (even in Kurdistan) has indeed set in motion a process of violence which will likely only end with 1) A strong leader emerging to unite the country under a ruling ideology or 2) A painful fragmentation of colonial boundaries with Iraq splitting into three states, one of them likely a independent Kurdish nation.
In order to answer your question, Brian, I need to clarify with you this burning house metaphor. When I say pull people from the burning house, I am talking about trying to free political prisoners (ala Mumia), and advocating for the freedom of all those unjustly imprisoned. I'm talking about trying to raise consciousness through discussion and clarification, and I am talking about holding this state accountable (to the degree possible within the law) for its actions. I am also talking about, as I think I have mentioned on here before, about getting people in positions of power who will also represent (as best they can within the limitations of an legal and political system based out of the limitations of English common law.) the interests of the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the sufferers.
I like how you posted in the Forum John Henrik Clarke's piece about Washington and Dubois, because I had always been taught their views were in total opposition to each other, rather than complementary parts of a whole, and thats a little bit how I look at those who choose to work inside the system and those who fight outside of it.
When you say you are finished with the house and are ready to articulate a point of seperation from it, what does that look like now at this historical moment? To be quite honest, (since a gentle tone is not always effective) I havn't heard anything that is concrete about how to build a new house if your goal is to get out of the burning one. If you share my goal of trying to pull people out of the burning house, then lets work together to accomplish that. That is the basis, the bridge of any solidarity: collective action.
However, I am not suggesting you need to ally with me, or white liberals, or whites who may want to get involved with the cause as a matter of principle, but rather as a matter of strategy; unless you believe that every single person of European extraction is too deluded for your purposes.
Since you are reading the Kwame Ture book, read what he says about Bob Zellner; esp p 307-308 and p 567-571 (about the role of whites in SNCC). Actually everyone in this conversation should read it; it was very helpful to my understanding.
If you feel the pacifism of Western liberalism has failed (Ward Churchill also has an interesting essay on this called "Pacifism as Pathology"), what do you propose in its place? Since all options are (and should be) on the table, what is the most strategic way to move now? Is there one unitary ideology that should carry those united in your movement? What are those moments that Robinson mentions when engagement is necessary? And how much engagement is possible without losing your integrity?
If there should be a violent crumbling of US society (ala Parable of the Sower), I will move to protect my family and those close to me.
Further than that, I do not know; how far would you all go for the revolution? Would you kill? Die? What if your family turned you in because of your revolutionary actions? What would you do then? To me your questions raise some other very crucial moral questions which have to be looked at. But I have gone on for too long anyway.
lol. that actually happens to be one of my favorite quotes as well nate. i’m certain that dr. clarke would find it bemusing on how it is being employed in this occasion (perchance, could you identify the “dollar” words for me?)
i guess it is safe to assume that this entire posting is the 25cent ‘situation.’ if i am correct then your last entry proves my point: when placed in a position where one is not reliant or even for that matter desiring of whites analysis then the space is quickly labeled amateurish or overly emotional. if I am wrong, please be more exact with your quotations in the future.
[btw i am familiar with the sections you cited in stokely’s book. the last section tells us more about thelwell’s thoughts on the topic than it does bro. ture considering how the entire four pages are cobbled together statements absent a direct statement from him. i’d read that passage against a speech given by carmichael on “the pitfalls of liberalism.” it is explicitly devoted to that matter.]
it is very sly to take a shot at me and then smoothly move to brian and tasha’s inquiries. that, my friend, is going personal. when I stated to not take it personal, it was actually an attempt to provide room for you to disclaim membership in the group i chose as my subject given that your previous statements were very much aligned with the character of ‘white liberals.’ my ‘assumption’ was derived exclusively from your previous statements. your consequent offense at my remarks simply demonstrates your loyalties.
but as you say that’s neither here nor there. i will not bore you or myself with recounting who or when someone took offense at remarks. my analysis stands on its own. discredit what i offered and we can discuss that.
onto your remarks. fascinatingly, everything you outlined corroborates my earlier analysis. if resistance to u.s. occupation is not ‘simply’ a response to global white supremacy then what else is it. you insist that you are not pardoning white supremacy but in the next breath you commit the ultimate liberal conceit by suggesting iraq’s conflict has an antecedent divorced from the present situation. this is the line being pushed currently by so-called centrist democrats and the like who maintain that the u.s. only “joined” the bloodshed taking place, and thus their presence there must be of some good. show me evidence of a civil war taking place in the country prior to u.s. invasion. in fact, give me one conflict that occurred in the middle east since the creation of these nation-states that did not involve the west. whether it was directly or indirectly supporting anti-communist forces, reactionary nationalists, and/or religious extremists, the west has always had a vested interest in a chaotic middle east and has pushed to achieve this goal from the moment it egotistically carved up the region.
when you say all parties are attempting to take advantage of the u.s. presence, are you talking about “the people” or those the west has groomed to prosecute the very policies they are carrying out? once again, said’s work “orientalism” is useful for context. the saudi kingdom, afghan president karzai, al-qaeda, pakistan’s president musharraf, etc., all share in common their apprenticeship in the west. indeed, the west has done a remarkable job of pushing these so-called “natives” into the spotlight as authentic voices (playing to popular stereotypes) while obscuring the fact that many of these individuals were western-educated or have had substantial dealings with the west along their political odysseys. to be frank, many of these players now jostling for position and seeking to use the u.s. are creatures of the west. the west creates elites, provides them with an army and gives them a green light to preserve power by any means necessary. if this is not feasible, then it indirectly provides the conditions for such people to arise by taking out progressive leadership. (read up on the many communist and socialist parties that were targeted by the u.s. during the cold war era). a recent example is the outbreak of civil war in palestine between fatah and hamas where western countries conspired to cripple the country through economic sanctions because they did not take to their political positions. we are now audaciously being bombarded with images and stories of the brutal civil war taking place between the two political parties with no mention of what type of desperate situation the west put them in. I can go on but I think you get my point.
i find it perplexing how you don’t see the unified opposition in iraq already. many of the insurgents nabbed have passports from other countries. moktada al-sadr, easily the most popular anti-occupation leader, has championed a united front to defeat the imperialists. throughout the region, citizens from every country have pledged solidarity with iraqi resistance and denounced the puppet regimes in their own countries that operate as satellites for the west. this has forced these previously spineless governments to at minimum publicly recognize the injustices of the occupation (the egyptian president and former u.s. puppet hosni mubarak from Egypt is a good example) and in other cases they have been forced to aid iraq by allowing arms to flow through their countries into the region. to be sure, many middle eastern commentators have remarked that the region has not witnessed this type of pan-arabism since the days of gamel nasser. there has also been strong speculation by robert fisk that the fratricide taking place in the country is being engineered indirectly by the u.s. who need chaos to continue establishing permanent military bases in the country and siphoning the resources from the country.
your interest in the kurdistan movement for statehood is also interesting seeing how many in the region view them as collaborators of u.s. imperialism. they make up the bulk of iraqi’s puppet army and police. (both organs have been documented and condemned for their systematic execution killings) pakistanti communist tariq ali has covered this extensively. by focusing on this group, you elide the larger point of iraqi resistance and once again demonstrate a liberal conceit: harping on miniscule and in the larger picture petty identity issues. similar arguments were being advanced when kwame nkrumah asserted that africa must be united. he was denounced as selfish and imperialist; sympathy was extended to the minority groups that would be lost in the enormity of such a project. of course, in propagating this nonsense what was left unsaid was that the west wanted africa (and to a large extent still have it). a point that i will conclude on.
you appear alarmed (and offended) by my championing of an uncompromising black nationalism though show a benign ignorance that the social and political order we now reside in is a product of uncompromising white nationalism. merely taping holes does not solve the problem. certainly, we will continue to agitate and fight for the release of mumia abu-jamal but we cannot and will not divorce his plight (and the millions of our brothers and sisters) behind our bars from the civilization that has made a cottage industry of criminalizing and dehumanizing us. it is not enough for us to lobby for the release of mumia, we must also acknowledge that a civilization, which builds jails to imprison human beings, is a mentally sick civilization. kudos to foucault for acknowledging this recently though edward wilmot blyden peeped game almost two centuries ago. see, what you identify as problems are just mere manifestations of a deeper sickness for us. to challenge others to produce a tangible alternative to this ‘house’ is to smugly imply that the one currently standing is by default the best option. we do not buy this argument. in fact, one thing culture allows oppressed societies to do is to imagine beyond (and consequently work towards realizing those dreams) the heaviness of immediate realities. of course, this is all rehashed arguments. i invite you to read biko’s “i write what i like.” to be sure, he could not predict the south africa that we now see today but he could assess his contemporary reality, stretch it backwards, and comment on what must “not” be done if true freedom was to be achieved.
this also applies to the mistaken notion that my arguments fall into the category of mere naysaying. unlike your stated intent to “save” folk, i have faith in the capacity of human beings and feel that communities will make the best decision when they are aware of what has already been done. many western and western-trained activists give lipservice to the idea of human agency but thier actions illustrate that they do not truly believe it. i do not profess to have all of the answers concerning how to get my people out of this impasse; i am actually deeply skeptical of anyone who claims they do. what I do know is that history has proven that we have risen out of this situation before and possess the “equipment” to do the same here.
lastly, the burning house analogy is a bit misleading because it infers that one must see flames to conclude that the house is on fire. the u.s and by extension white supremacy is already crumbling. (see g. horne’s online article on “the crisis of white supremacy”) all around us we see the closing of schools, hospitals, and all other services that constitute a social contract between citizens and the state. on the international front, it has exhausted itself and after its inevitable defeat in iraq will have to confront the fact that few countries will be as intimidated by its might (it has not “won” a war since world war ii). your commitment to the united states appears to play into your apprehensive views towards my positions. there is an interesting story c. robinson tells in his book, black movements in america, about two enslaved african women who are told by their white ‘baas’ that upon his death he would free them. the next day he was found dead (by poison). for us freedom is and has always been paramount, far transcending any petty loyalties to external “national” projects. going by your third from last paragraph you are asking us to wait until the u.s. finally takes accountability of itself. I ask you, at whose expense?
your questions in the last paragraph are tickling. the short anwser is we will do (and have done) whatever is necessary for us to achieve freedom. however, whether we are willing to die in the process is not a question for us but one for your racial kin. our fight has always been for life. indeed, many of the questions pose illustrate your existential distance from our struggle. the revolution has been a part of our lives since emerging out of the womb. we navigate life acutely aware of each decision made and the larger implications of such.
as dubois states,
"some people envisage revolution chiefly as a matter of blood and guns and the more visible methods of force. but that, after all, is merely the temporary and outward manifestation. real revolution is within. that comes before or after the explosion--is a matter of long suffering and deprivation, the death of courage and the bitter triumph of despair. this is the inevitable prelude to decisive and enormous change, and that is the thing that is upon us now.
we are not called upon to dicuss whether we want revolution or not. we have got it. our problem is how we are coming out of it.
I got it now. Look Kadiri, for real, the reason I used the Clarke quote was that your phrasing (and I wasn't the only one to notice or detect this) seemed specifically designed to alienate someone who you knew was white because they were white.
Your use of 'dollar words' (one of which I identified and am still waiting for you to drop some knowledge on me about) provoked an emotional response from me because I perceived your tone as being very dismissive, and using your considerable intellect to do so.
If that was your intent, because you thought my argument to be diversionary or infantile, then so be it.
But anyway, I don't know that I can add anything to what you have stated; if anyone needs me I will be in the library.
Okay I was trying to stay quiet but I can't!
I really tried though!
1) I think we need to be clear about not only what my bredren (Kadiri) is saying but what THAT means...I think his statements were articulate and to the point. In all intellectual discourse, especially on an academic level, should not ALL the cards be displayed and put out on the table?
2) Why is it that after giving a thorough critique of Western domination (and exposing the very real and oh so said reality for so many of us)...why after ALL that, is the focus on how he said what he said?
I feel that if one can't take the heat, they should get that ass out the kitchen!
Meaning: The Liberator isn't necessarily about the liberation of Africa ONLY (although that is where my personal allegiance and energy lies). However, it is clear that the bulk of our conversation is geared towards exposing the utter madness that is perpetuated against us in the name of Western...um civilization. Hence, this is the SPACE for such discussions. Where else are we even ABLE to have such conversations, such potent interactions where we can honestly discuss what's REALLY going on?
Knowing Kadiri in the way i know him, I know that he is one of the most reserved and collected indivudals walking this earth. He is prone to well thought out analysis more than anything else! While his opinnion is clearly stated, I don't think that signifies anger at all! However, if folks feel uncomfortable about it, then that means we're getting to the heart of the manner.
I will be honest and say this: we don't have the time to say things in a a gentle way ALL the time. And we must remember how raw and CRUDELY things are said and done to us! Why are we held to standards that our oppressors never even ENTERTAIN!!!
We have to be real and to the point. We have to state it plain, make it plain as the elders would say. Tip-toeing around issues won't get us where we need to go.
3) Tasha, you know you my peoples! But I really have to disagree because I don't think we should open the door for the white victim mentality in this space. I'm sorry but I'll tell you what offends ME: the constant exploitation of people of color worldwide! That makes ME cringe, you know? This converation needs to happen because these are real issues.
Trying to defend what you may think was an attack on Nate takes us far away from the point, the meat of this conversation. (Although it clearly wasn't an attack at all because it was a critique of the white left in general, and that isn't something Kadiri invented, others from Du Bois to Malcolm X have said the same things! This isn't new and it isn't personal! It is what it is!)
4)Hell, the post was about a white liberal! So that's the direction the conversation took...we can't get around that point...so why should we sugar coat it? And to take it to the next level...let's say for the sake of argument we conceded to the assumption that Kadiri has spoken in anger...does that change anything, does that somehow make his statements wrong all of a sudden?
I will not concede to that point, however, because I know my bredren.
But I'll make my feelings known...I AM angry! I AM outraged and sickened by the state of affairs that have led us here. I am sickened by the assault on African bodies, the continent of Africa itself, on African civilization and traditions. And I don't apologize. And if it offends Nate or anyone else, they will just have to be offended. The weight of my people bears more on my soul then the feelings of the grandchildren of the founding fathers.
The fact that we even allow Nate's comments to be included and he is given the space to come into OUR conversations speaks to the consistent humanity that African people have ALWAYS extended to the white liberal (inspite of the constant betrayal which history speaks to). Nate can go ANYWHERE on Howard's campus and sit in any space, he has NEVER been excluded (though at times, I don't always feel that it was his place to be there). And that's important because it demonstrates how open our spaces have been to indivudals like Nate. He can safely walk around Howard, participate in activitiesn and have a seat at the table. Nonetheless, I can't do the same thing at the University of Pennsylvania! Period! I'm not welcome in every space and dare I enter in a conversation about white domination disguised as the American nation-state!! Please! I'm shut down and excluded from the gate! I can't walk up in Hebrew school and start questioning Zionism...i may be lucky to escape with my life! Word!
I know from personal experience what that's like! I've sat in circles where discussions completely assasinated my character, my culture, my ancestors, my bredren and sistren...right in my face! With no remorse, no apologies, not even a thought!
Is that what we're doing or even trying to do here?
No...and when compared with those types of situations, this isn't even close.
Its one thing when an oppressed person gets to the heart of the manner because it will naturally make the dominant indivudal feel a bit uncomfortable. And sometimes the humanity in us makes us want to protect the feelings of that dominant indivudal because we feel bad (why I don't know!).
Nonetheless, we must remain steadfast about what we are about (assuming we ARE bout it!).
My ancestor Harriet Tubman knew she had a right to freedom and took that right. She carried a pistol with her and made sure that no thing stood in her way.
We must remember that. We must not forget that feelings are arbitrary, they mean nothing in the great scheme of things.
We are being slaughtered at an alarming rate. ITs absurd really.
And to think that somehow the feelings of the white liberal mean anything in the great scheme of things is misleading.
Our very humanity is in the perpetual STATE of being offended, you know? We don't have time to sugar coat it so that others can feel good.
Rarely do I see that much emphasis put on how WE feel at the virtual slaughter and degradation of our people on a consistent basis!
I participated in a peaceful protest a few weeks ago, and racist bastard construction workers threw bricks and metal objects from a building down at us...they weren't even arrested or fined and the streets were FULL of police!
They were asked to come down, off of the crane and out the building, but that was it!
My point: as Kadiri so eloquently stated, lets' not forget where we are!
thanks ya'll!
uhuru sasa
One more thing, as far as taking action. No worries! The blog is simply a space for intellectual sparing!
To allude to the fact that somehow these discussions are in PLACE of action is absurd and deserves no further explanation.
As one of my homies always says...
Holla!
Honestly, Electric Lady is the only person who answered the questions I was posing. I would apologize for derailing the conversation, but I won't because I think this 2nd conversation was needed and also quite interesting.
So the basic answer that Electric Lady gave was that no, we don't care if whites are comfortable in the discussion, and yes we are going to express our anger without care to the way it might affect white liberals.
It was something I wanted to point out as I think that communication on such important matters should be deliberately done.
And I also feel the need to say again that I have repeatedly supported Kadiri's and anyone else's choice to communicate frankly. But I think that in certain circumstances there might be a need to change up styles. Although it seems, after Electric Lady's response that this is not one of those times. Thank you Electric Lady, for simply responding to my inquiry!
Hello all
I have been following the conversation. As a black woman from Africa, it really puts me to shame to see how the conversation has changed direction in this way. You guys have a lot of anger, and it's justified, but you are really concentrating your anger in the wrong place.
I cannot believe all of this started out because of a valid question about which civilization is the natural inheritor of Iraq. Actually that is the most important question in the Iraq conflict today. In my own country, we have similar problems of ethnicity, culture, religion...(Sudan)
And then the conversation became a bunch of personal attacks...
There is so much that has been done to black people through the years in the hands of white people, it's true.
But that is not the way to fight it or change it. It is just starting to sound like people were harboring resentment towards this one person and they were just venting off.
The second to last lady spoke about the spaces of comfort that Africans always provide for people. and it's true (I know it personally) but at the same time, you tell the guy that he can leave. Why?
where is the spirit of humanity and cooperation? I know the history. I know how people continue to suffer. I know how my own people continue to be divided since the time of colonization, but is this really the way to change things?
I am here to defend this culture of openness that you talk about by saying that all those who want to participate in an open conversation should (whether they are white, black, Iraqi, etc). And I am here to also say that a magazine that calls itself Liberator has a lot to live up to. Stop this fight and get back to the real issue of what ya'll think should happen in Iraq right now. And then remember that it is going to take every person to make that happen (through Iraqi empowerment, revolution, activism, words, etc).
Thank you.
-S. Awadalla
I am pretty sure this conversation is not about Iraqi freedom, liberation or anything else having to do with Iraq. As a matter of fact, sista S. Awadalla, tell me more about whats going on in Sudan, if you don't mind.
--Yofi
Dear S. Awadalla,
I just wanted to repost Kadiri's original statements so that we can be VERY clear on how this conversation started.
Kadiri said...
"This [the Sheehan interview] reveals the very real inadequacies of western liberalism. by constantly viewing events like the iraq war as anomalous, they continue to think the status quo (western civilization) is a perfectly healthy apparatus. they refuse to interrogate the potent strain of barbarism that has been a constant feature of its architecture. as such, rather than examine the deeper roots of the civilization itself, they dally on the surface, become overwhelmed after the moment stagnates for longer than initially thought and end up abandoning the project due to the existential cost. in lieu of this outcome, there is also an adoption of cynicism or in other cases outright denial of any flaws in the civilization (the conservative movement). what's been most interesting these past couple of years is how much more quickly this generation of white liberals are transitioning into status quo politics than their sixties predecessors.
we have yet to come to grips with the obvious fact that if the iraq war had turned out to be a quick success, there would be NO anti-war movement. the u.s. has never shown an aversion for war against cultural and social "others" en masse. indeed, it was not until vietnam "hit back" that resistance to it assumed a mass character (although black radical organizations were railing against it from the very onset). let's never forget where we are. this is the same country that elected a nazi sympathizer and blatant white supremacist to office for five terms (Jesse Helms); a country that has made peace with the fact that the current fascist president executed a coup d'etat in the past two elections by disenfranchising Blacks not once but twice in spite of an abundance of evidence available to confirm these violating actions; a country that has built a civilization based on the negation of entire peoples and refuse to interrogate this pernicious fact for absent this myth this (white) country and its (white) citizens are exposed for the empty shell it is. i am sorry that sheehan's family underwent such stress and hardship. perhaps the thousands of iraqi women that now occupy the status of refugees in syria and have been reduced to prostituting their bodies for subsistence will be sympathetic as well. certainly, their families have also been dealt a cold, harsh hand. their plight underscores the fact that for us "outsiders" (by historical circumstance and deliberate positioning) "retiring" or "walking away" from the struggle is NEVER a possibility. for us, freedom remains a constant struggle—for that very freedom the “modern” world has come to cling to and exalt is based on our negation. a retreat into that freedom spells our ontological suicide.
the (white) u.s. population is and always has been politically naive and easily seduced by the rhetoric of political and economic scum. their investment in whiteness drowns out calls for a sober appraisal of their environment. it has been a long struggle to "educate", from the efforts of formerly enslaved africans during the reconstruction period (and before) to the present debacle in Iraq, not to mention the increasingly blatant class warfare being waged by political and economic elites. yet to this day, it takes merely the hasty and shoddy construction of a “welfare queen” to obviate substantive discussion on class politics with white economic kin. as c. robinson stated, this is nothing short of a cultural marvel. yet, this technique has had a stubborn presence in the globe for the past five hundred years. one can easily collapse time and see how the very issue of enslaving an entire people's has yet to be resolved, or more hauntingly, has already been. its echo is present in this very situation. slaves shouldn't talk or are not capable of articulating their own plight goes the logic. interlocutors are needed because only they can steal into the heart of the matter. and thus, when they "retire," we are supposed to hang our heads and charge it to the game. sheehan is today’s bartolome de las casas. let's be clear: the anti-war resistance will continue as long as iraqi resistance on the ground continues. for we shall strive to never forget that when the anti-war resistance stumbled after bush launched the war, it was resuscitated by the stubborn determination of the iraqi people, the so-called insurgents. no resistance, no anti-war movement. that is the bottom line. freedom is won...by any means necessary and as khalid muhammad often stated, don't focus on the 'by any means' focus on the 'necessary.'"
I did that because you may have gotten lost in the latter portion and lost what the original thrust of the conversation was all about.
With that said, these comments speak to the so-called problem or "War" in Iraq. Essentially Kadiri puts forth some essential food for thought. The Anti-War movement doesn't address the consistent thread of the staus quo, which propagates and extends imperialism at the expense of people of color in particular. Instead, it is simpy dealing with the "bring our boys back" ideology without addressing the fundamental errors that have been supported by the American people since the inception of the United States as an entity.
In other words, I think we ARE trying to get at the root of the problem, that we DO want to see a change. However, I also think that we will not be mislead by shallow attempts at achieving a superficial sense of freedom. As Kadiri put it, had the war been a success, where would Sheehan fit THEN? What would her ideology be at that point?
We're not making about race because America has made it about race. Since we've been on these shores. So I was born into this and as it was also put earlier, I don't have the luxury of running away from that although it would be grand!
Grand!
But that ain't the reality i was born into...
so it is how it is...
And as this statement suggests,
these are some questions to explore in reference to Western liberalism...and not getting sucked into that either, u know?
I have followed this conversation on the Sheehan "resignation" and I found the "Kadiri" response to be simply absurdity masking as " Uncompromising Black Nationalism".
It is absurd because he seeks to project race issues and western white supremacy into practical conflicts that have little or no relevancy to race or white liberalism.
With all his big intellectual words and abstract ideas (of which I think his understanding is cursory at best)I think he totally missed the mark why a mother would be active in an illegitimate war in which she lost her son and choose to take it to another level after frustration with this system.
I think this "Kadire" should write a paper on "Uncompromising Black Nationalism" not project it on every media event.
I too am an "Uncompromising Black Nationalist Woman" by the way.
thanks for your comments steph. insightful and accurate as usual. in fact, i would go so far as to direct people to your statements and tell them to disregard my "abstract postings" as miss anonymous uncompromising black nationalist has labeled them. your comments really get to the heart of the matter.
as you pointed out, none of what i said was original. indeed, all of it is recycled observation from folk who have been heavily involved in the struggle of liberating our people. unfortunately, we are presented with a situation where people simply don't read. thus, when i speak there is a mistaken notion that my words are the imaginaries of an individual mind.
in hindsight, i committed an error in judgment. simply put, i assigned way too much thought to a trivial and (let it be said) ridiculous situation. sheehan, a grieved mother, retired from lobbying politicians and setting up a camp in front of bush's ranch. wow. i maintain that celebrating her efforts is convenient for those that have become comfortable with the untold violence meted out against iraqi people. i have not seen (nor do i expect to see) a celebration of iraqi resistance. that kind of liberation is taboo to those that think the west has a divine license to plunder, rape, kill and murder at its discretion. when societies respond in kind, the castigation that accompanies their resistance more than confirms this fact. case in point: everyone is cool to wax rhetoric about iraqi resistance, yet if a suicide bomber was to make his/her way onto these shores with the idea that it would put pressure onto the country to stop the war, i do not doubt for a moment that a re-invasion of the country would be wholly sanctioned.
but, as my comrade yofi stated, this has never been about iraqi liberation. let's not kid ourselves for even a moment. let me be very straightforward in my next remarks.
nate, you (offensively) insisted that we need you. we don't. you are virtually powerless within this system. in fact, the opposite can be said in that you need 'us' to apply your ideological positions since your racial kin have never been accommodative to such appeals. that has historically been the case with the white left in this country. indeed, our very rise threatens your accrued status as interlocutor of our plight. that has caused resentment and bitterness among many white marxists, socialists, communists, and the like, who have been told in categorical terms by blacks that we are very much capable of articulating our own desires. thus, these groups retreat into their own marginalized spaces, boasting little membership, and seeking to find a middle ground between so-called conservatives and "black extremists." to see how this plays in the academic world, one needs only look at the lamentations of anthropologists who see funds shriveling up because their work is no longer essential for understanding the "native." their profession is also threatened by the reclaiming of dignity among its former subjects.
after re-reading the entire group of postings, it is pointless for me to add anything else. much of what i said has gone without comment and i do not suspect the folk who have taken liberty to criticize it read it all the way for they could not even muster up a tangible example to support their sloppy criticisms. to respond to such would insult my intelligence.
i flirted with defining the word manichaenism for you nate but decided against it. that would truly insult both my and your intelligence since dictionaries are a dime a dozen nowadays. it should work out since you are headed to the library...
holla when you've read more. until then, i'm merely squandering time that could be better spent. (this is not meant solely for you nate but also the anonymous persons that felt compelled to chime in with tepid commentary).
one.
i just want to muse about the communication convo. no one even has to read this. it's more for my own understanding than anything else.
i understand what you're saying tasha about modifying a message to achieve an intent...
but i think the ONLY intent here at least with me, is to tell the truth.
to NEITHER oust white people or embrace them, (a very important point that is being missed i think) but to act appropriately according to the reality i find myself in after an analysis of my situation (that can also apply collectively but of course it started with my journey to realize how i got to today)
i'm not sure that i desire any specific outcome. to me freedom is synonymous with honesty and truth. i just want us to see reality clearly and know our history and how the dots connect. i believe that with that will come a more positive reality. i have my own judgments on what is the best society and what is not, but ultimately who am i to judge? i can advocate for my choice, but this blog post in particular isn't about that.
ultimately i think humans improve their environments and themselves when they know as much truth as possible and are able to understand their reality clearly.
like you suggest, telling the truth can be done sometimes in a way that makes truth swallowable, but all i'm suggesting is that sometimes it cannot.
all i'm suggesting is that asking for presents at a birthday party is communicating a very simple truth.
and that sometimes there are truths that a layperson cannot communicate. and that is okay. some truths take serious study and the acquisition of wisdom in order to articulate them. there are truths that i haven't learned to communicate yet but that my mother or my father may be able to. or perhaps there are truths that i have not yet learned to communicate gently but someone else is able to. and yet still there are truths that no one has yet learned how to communicate gently. yes indeed, i believe there are truths that big and that forceful.
the dr. c