http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-scheme-kill-public-housing-and-give-land-banks
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14427357&postID=1500071553651394882
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/selling-precious-0
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=node/11790
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/new-jim-crow-part-1
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/nine-myths-about-socialism-us
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=node/10711
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=node/10661
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/leaving-obamaland
Enlightened Cynic - 12/11/2009 - 12:24
Being somewhat familiar with Mr. Reeds work,-- I haven't read any of his books--, but have read many of his essays, I posit that perhaps some of us are confusing sexism with (IMO) Mr. Reed's decidedly Afro-centric point of view.
What Mr. Reed discerns and articulates is the power, and political and social messaging behind movies, the hidden and not so hidden agendas, and the fact that this "tool" is a powerful cultural, social and political determinant. I surmise it's why he repeatedly cites, "Birth of a Nation," a seminal piece of cinematography if there ever was one.
When President Woodrow Wilson screened this decidedly pro-Klan, anti-Reconstruction, pro-lynching, Black stereotyped movie at the White House, the message was powerful. He in effect endorsed all of it's venality and symbolically signaled to the nation that Black mass murder was acceptable. The Birth of a Nation was no accidental creation.
http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html
It's well documented that the CIA has long-standing connections with Hollywood, just like they have bloggers on the internet, just like they have agents in the ranks of journalism, and so on. To be sure, there are a multitude of poor quality, mass-produced, consumeristic movies created for quick profits and DVD sales and rentals. It's one reason I don't go to the movies. But in a mass media, celebrity-driven culture like America, the purpose of movies subtle and not so subtle political and social messaging. The Harvey Milk movie is one that comes to mind. One cannot ignore the this fact.
Paternalism, especially White paternalism or Elitism is a heavy theme in American movies, perhaps this is what Mr. Reed is dissecting, that, and the political motivations behind those who finance, produce and promote the movie. How can we forget, when has the Right Wing allowed us to forget, the confluence of Hollywood and politics or culture? How many US movies about the invasion of Iraq failed to convey the theme of American virtue and inherent goodness? The gritty, hardened soldiers "saving the day," or a cute little foreigner? Even those with "credible" Black actors like Ice Cube, Terrence Howard, Jamie Foxx, or Don Cheadle.
There's a reason folks, that I couldn't stand to watch "300," a tale of the inherent goodness, virtue and superiority, the superhuman strength of the "West" over the "East." It didn't help one bit that the "Persians," looked like the Temptations and the Greeks like the Gatlin Band. So, even for entertainment purposes, subtle and not so subtle messages are sent.
To ignore that the universal ending of a Hollywood script is a White Person riding in, virtuous, or conflicted, but inherently good, saving the day is to ignore Hollywood's Star System, and the mostly, secondary role of Black actors.
As I said before, admittedly flippantly, "Black incest?" Tell me something I don't already know. Rich White incest? Again, what the f***k was the Hapsburg Dynasty all about? Or any other imperial structure of governance that existed before the advent of modern democracy. So, isn't it appropriate to give Mr. Reed the benefit of the doubt, (or me despite my crudeness), that suppressing the incidence of Black incest or minimizing the struggles of women, Black, poor, White whatever is not the portent of his critique, that what he is critiquing is subtle and not so subtle messaging,-- the propagandizing of the populace, the conveyance of a certain worldview that does not necessarily depict the complexities and nuances of African Americans? But rather resorts to prototypical characterizations? Does anyone here seriously believe attitudes and ideas are not being shaped by mass media?
Think about how ESPN and especially the NFL has d____ near been by adopted by the US military. This is explicit messaging to make warfare more acceptable. The one commodity that we DO export in America folks is "our 'culture,' mass consumed media, particularly films," that's about it. The rest of the economy is based upon us consuming it.
____________________
_____________
___________
What Mr. Reed discerns and articulates is the power, and political and social messaging behind movies, the hidden and not so hidden agendas, and the fact that this "tool" is a powerful cultural, social and political determinant. I surmise it's why he repeatedly cites, "Birth of a Nation," a seminal piece of cinematography if there ever was one.
When President Woodrow Wilson screened this decidedly pro-Klan, anti-Reconstruction, pro-lynching, Black stereotyped movie at the White House, the message was powerful. He in effect endorsed all of it's venality and symbolically signaled to the nation that Black mass murder was acceptable. The Birth of a Nation was no accidental creation.
http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html
It's well documented that the CIA has long-standing connections with Hollywood, just like they have bloggers on the internet, just like they have agents in the ranks of journalism, and so on. To be sure, there are a multitude of poor quality, mass-produced, consumeristic movies created for quick profits and DVD sales and rentals. It's one reason I don't go to the movies. But in a mass media, celebrity-driven culture like America, the purpose of movies subtle and not so subtle political and social messaging. The Harvey Milk movie is one that comes to mind. One cannot ignore the this fact.
Paternalism, especially White paternalism or Elitism is a heavy theme in American movies, perhaps this is what Mr. Reed is dissecting, that, and the political motivations behind those who finance, produce and promote the movie. How can we forget, when has the Right Wing allowed us to forget, the confluence of Hollywood and politics or culture? How many US movies about the invasion of Iraq failed to convey the theme of American virtue and inherent goodness? The gritty, hardened soldiers "saving the day," or a cute little foreigner? Even those with "credible" Black actors like Ice Cube, Terrence Howard, Jamie Foxx, or Don Cheadle.
There's a reason folks, that I couldn't stand to watch "300," a tale of the inherent goodness, virtue and superiority, the superhuman strength of the "West" over the "East." It didn't help one bit that the "Persians," looked like the Temptations and the Greeks like the Gatlin Band. So, even for entertainment purposes, subtle and not so subtle messages are sent.
To ignore that the universal ending of a Hollywood script is a White Person riding in, virtuous, or conflicted, but inherently good, saving the day is to ignore Hollywood's Star System, and the mostly, secondary role of Black actors.
As I said before, admittedly flippantly, "Black incest?" Tell me something I don't already know. Rich White incest? Again, what the f***k was the Hapsburg Dynasty all about? Or any other imperial structure of governance that existed before the advent of modern democracy. So, isn't it appropriate to give Mr. Reed the benefit of the doubt, (or me despite my crudeness), that suppressing the incidence of Black incest or minimizing the struggles of women, Black, poor, White whatever is not the portent of his critique, that what he is critiquing is subtle and not so subtle messaging,-- the propagandizing of the populace, the conveyance of a certain worldview that does not necessarily depict the complexities and nuances of African Americans? But rather resorts to prototypical characterizations? Does anyone here seriously believe attitudes and ideas are not being shaped by mass media?
Think about how ESPN and especially the NFL has d____ near been by adopted by the US military. This is explicit messaging to make warfare more acceptable. The one commodity that we DO export in America folks is "our 'culture,' mass consumed media, particularly films," that's about it. The rest of the economy is based upon us consuming it.
____________________
Comment on Democracy
Nixakliel - 08/01/2010 - 14:59
I have no direct comment on Dr Joseph because I'm not familiar with him or his writings. I do have a comment about 'Democracy'. And I do wonder if Dr Joseph mentioned that Malcolm X called America’s so-called democracy 'disguised hypocrisy'… And MLK in 1963 said his dream was that America’s ‘Democracy’ would live up to its creed that all men were equal in the sight of the law. But in the last year of his life between 4-4-67 to 4-4-68 he clearly indicated that - that American Dream was becoming an American Nightmare.
First the words democracy & republic are of Greco-Roman origins - the Greek city state elites practiced democracy & Rome was a republic [but only male citizens counted- women, slaves & servants didn't]. This may be fine if you are of Euro &/or WASP heritage, but just as the US [under both the Rebublic-ans & Democracy-ats] is now- the Greeks [Democracy] & Romans [Republic] invaded & expanded into Afro-Asiatic lands & became empires. The Greeks under Alexander 'the so-called Great' & the Romans solidified theirs under the Caesars but it began with the Punic Wars ending with the defeat & destruction of the African City State of Carthage [home of the legendary African General Hannibal].
Democracy is sometimes called 'The Majority Rules' rule, but is this always good? Polls show that in pre Iraq War hype the majority of Americans believed Sadaam had WMD's & worked with Al-Qeada on 9-11- both of which were absolutely false. And remember lynch mobs are examples of 'majority rule' because unless the vast majority agrees - there most likely wouldn't be a lynching.
When people like Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez say democracy, they more or less mean that all of the people should have a say or be truly represented in the decisions that governs their lives [IE: Empowering the People]. But Chavez [& Hamas] is called a dictator by people like Slick Willie Clinton, George Water-board Bush, & Bibi Netanyahu, even though non of them were not elected by clear_fair_undisputed majorities- while Chavez & Hamas were [that’s so-called 'Free' Press MSNM Propaganda at work for ya].
Thus when guys like Bush, Cheney, Bliar, the NeoCons, Billary, Obama, etc- say Democratic & 'Free / Civilized World' they mean Westernized Euro / American countries or those that want to be like {&/or liked by} them [IE: Appear to have a 2 or multi-party electoral system with a so-called ‘free’-press {IE: at least 1 ‘significant’ media outlet not directly controlled by that State- though they can be so-called ‘privately’ controlled by foreign Corporations &/or other Governments…IE: VOA, BBC, CNN, etc} and most importantly- open themselves up to so-called global-corporate 'free'-market capitalism & westernization, & are on-board with the US / EU / NATO geo-political agenda... Those that can't 'technically' be called democracies because they don't even pretend to have a so-called 2 party electoral system or so-called ‘free’ press {IE: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc} but more or less go along with the rest of the program are called 'Moderate' {regardless to how they treat or mistreat their people].
So perhaps Black & Brown so-called '3rd World' peoples need to use another word to describe a government that truly serves the just needs of the people besides 'Democracy'.
First the words democracy & republic are of Greco-Roman origins - the Greek city state elites practiced democracy & Rome was a republic [but only male citizens counted- women, slaves & servants didn't]. This may be fine if you are of Euro &/or WASP heritage, but just as the US [under both the Rebublic-ans & Democracy-ats] is now- the Greeks [Democracy] & Romans [Republic] invaded & expanded into Afro-Asiatic lands & became empires. The Greeks under Alexander 'the so-called Great' & the Romans solidified theirs under the Caesars but it began with the Punic Wars ending with the defeat & destruction of the African City State of Carthage [home of the legendary African General Hannibal].
Democracy is sometimes called 'The Majority Rules' rule, but is this always good? Polls show that in pre Iraq War hype the majority of Americans believed Sadaam had WMD's & worked with Al-Qeada on 9-11- both of which were absolutely false. And remember lynch mobs are examples of 'majority rule' because unless the vast majority agrees - there most likely wouldn't be a lynching.
When people like Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez say democracy, they more or less mean that all of the people should have a say or be truly represented in the decisions that governs their lives [IE: Empowering the People]. But Chavez [& Hamas] is called a dictator by people like Slick Willie Clinton, George Water-board Bush, & Bibi Netanyahu, even though non of them were not elected by clear_fair_undisputed majorities- while Chavez & Hamas were [that’s so-called 'Free' Press MSNM Propaganda at work for ya].
Thus when guys like Bush, Cheney, Bliar, the NeoCons, Billary, Obama, etc- say Democratic & 'Free / Civilized World' they mean Westernized Euro / American countries or those that want to be like {&/or liked by} them [IE: Appear to have a 2 or multi-party electoral system with a so-called ‘free’-press {IE: at least 1 ‘significant’ media outlet not directly controlled by that State- though they can be so-called ‘privately’ controlled by foreign Corporations &/or other Governments…IE: VOA, BBC, CNN, etc} and most importantly- open themselves up to so-called global-corporate 'free'-market capitalism & westernization, & are on-board with the US / EU / NATO geo-political agenda... Those that can't 'technically' be called democracies because they don't even pretend to have a so-called 2 party electoral system or so-called ‘free’ press {IE: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc} but more or less go along with the rest of the program are called 'Moderate' {regardless to how they treat or mistreat their people].
So perhaps Black & Brown so-called '3rd World' peoples need to use another word to describe a government that truly serves the just needs of the people besides 'Democracy'.
_____________
Good luck with your contract struggle.
NYCartist - 04/14/2010 - 18:10
It's harder in some ways than when I was a young teacher in 1960. We could strike and did: first for right to collective bargaining, 1961, and then, the following year, 1962, for the first contract. NYS passed the Taylor Law outlawing public workers' strikes. Many teachers had to learn that they/we were workers/working people and join a union. Many were fearful of authority (school administration). Being young helps - less fearful. I wasn't a single working mother at the time and only had to pay my rent and buy food. So, I could strike and "wildcat".
___________
LL (not verified) - 07/23/2008 - 16:00
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-lay-off-black-fathers/
"A month before Obama made this stereotypical and plainly false assertion, Boston University professor Rebekah Levine Coley, in a comprehensive study on the black family, found that black fathers who aren’t in the home are much MORE LIKELY to sustain regular contact with their children than absentee white fathers, or for that matter, fathers of any other ethnic group. The study is not an obscure study buried in the thick pages of a musty academic journal. It was widely cited in a feature article on black fathers in the May 19, 2008 issue of Newsweek. There was no excuse then to spout this myth. The facts are totally contrary to Obama’s knock."
Boojie blacks have been telling these lies to please racist white folks for the past 40 years. Their corporate ideology prevents them from actually trying to solve the systemic problems/racism that afflicts the black community; so, they need excuses and scapegoats to camouflage their lack of concern for those blacks less fortunate than themselves. They have been repeating these segregationist-inspired lies for so long that even most blacks believe this nonsense. The only good thing about Booker T. Obama's candidacy is that it exposes the exploitation of the black community by arrogant, black, corporate hacks. Their day of dictating government policy may soon be coming to an end.
No comments:
Post a Comment