Nixakliel defends truth and the New Jim Crow book (which is a great book by the way)

I've Just Critiqued WSWS Wacked Criticism of the 'New Jim-Crow'

Nixakliel - 10/23/2012 - 08:09

Now WSWS is back at it again w this dubious critique of Univ of TX [UT] top 10% admissions policy. WSWS misrepresents UT's policy by first implying it is a race-based affirmative action policy- when it is NOT. UT’s policy is that the top 10% [based on GPA] of graduating seniors from ALL TX hi-schools are eligible for admission. 80% of UT admissions are based on this policy while 20% are admitted based on other metrics. IMO UT's policy is about as fair across the board as it gets [failing free college Ed for all], yet 2 white [?Jewish?] women, Abigail Fisher & Rachel Michalewicz, are suing UT for racial bias against whites [IE: so-called reverse discrimination]. WSWS goes on to say that: they 'scored higher on the SAT admission exam than other applicants who were admitted.' What WSWS fails to say is what % of those they out-scored on the SATs were white vs Black & Hispanic [that's normally restricted info], nor that SATs have been shown to be consistently biased against Black & Hispanics because that’s how they were designed from the get-go!

These 2 white women fell just outside of the top 10% mark for their graduating classes & thus were denied admission to UT back in 2008. IMO They could have inquired if any of their top 10% class-mates were not going to exercise their UT option & then petitioned their own schools & UT as suitable replacements. And since apparently they came from top ranked TX schools, they should have had no trouble getting into other colleges in TX- or across the US for the matter. Thus IMO there's likely an elite [racist & classist] agenda at play here to halt, not just UT's 10% policy, but ALL Those like it across the US. IMO That's why this case is in the SCOTUS court, even though IMO the court should have rejected it out of hand because UT's 10% policy is NOT a race-based affirmative-action prog. The fact that they did NOT IMO suggests that some/most members of the SCOTUS court are thinking of ruling in favor of these 2 white women [IMO If these 2 women have not entered college after 4 yrs, which I doubt, they could have cut a deal w UT to allow them admission before things got this far- which again makes me suspicious about what the real-deal is.].
Another thing that WSWS ignores is that Slick Willie let the cat out of the bag during the affirmative-action debate on his watch- when he said 'Mend It but Don't End It' -because- 'The truth is that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been White Women...' [also true for welfare]. This fact IMO is the main reason they've yet to phase-out neither affirmative-action nor welfare completely. WSWS justifies its dubious position on this issue by saying that affirmative-action was tailored for a narrow Black & Latino bourgeois class, while ignoring the fact that, as confirmed by Slick Willie, upper middle-class / affluent white women [which most likely describe Ms Fisher & Michalewicz- because WSWS would have made it a point if they were low-income whites] have actually benefitted more from it. }‘Quotas and preferences based on race and ethnicity have benefited a narrow strata among African Americans and Hispanics. Their wealth has shot up even as conditions for the working class have worsened. As a result, social inequality among Blacks has risen even more sharply than among the general population. ‘{. IMO this statement has some validity- but instead of using a bit of finesse & suggesting affirmative-action reform which uses class, regardless of race &/or gender, as a criteria as much as race & gender, WSWS throws out this wild-card:} ‘Sandra Day O’Connor, in 2003, wrote the Grutter decision for a 5-justice majority. That ruling is remarkable for making clear that the purpose of affirmative action is not social equality, but the fostering of a “diverse elite.” "High-ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security..,” - In other words, affirmative action helps US imperialism by making the military more adept at occupying other countries and subjugating their populations.’ [of course this can also be said about the DADT controversy & the Dream Act.] – ‘The brief submitted by the Obama admin argued that affirmative action is in the interests of military-national security. “Officer training programs run by DoD and (DHS)—including service academies and ROTC programs located at civilian institutions…must produce a racially and ethnically diverse range of graduates who are prepared to lead a multiracial force,” the Obama admin argued.
IMO This is a wild-card logical-leap because WSWS fails to make a link between UT’s top 10% admissions policy & the Grutter ruling by the SCOTUS court, especially since WSWS fails to even establish UT’s policy as a race-based affirmative action policy. NOR does WSWS even claim that many/most Black & Hispanics admitted via UT's top 10% policy are enrolled in a ROTC prog at UT. But WSWS does make the following statement w which I can agree: }’A program of genuine social equality requires that quality higher education is freely available to all, regardless of economic status, race, religion or gender. This is the only road to true equality of opportunity. Affirmative action fails to provide equal access to higher education for all...’{
So why didn’t WSWS make this pertinent case from the get-go, by arguing that college admissions based on race-based affirmative-action [which again UT’s admission policy is NOT] is at best an inadequate substitute for the above policy, & should at-least allow for class as much as race & gender??? If the SCOTUS court strikes down UT's top 10% policy [& all others like it], what does WSWS propose to replace it with? IMO WSWS can't be so naive as to believe that free college Ed for all is just around the corner, no matter if Obama or RawMoney gets {s}elected!!!

PS: Its interesting to see that WSWS took a entirely different tone RE: DADT which is directly [rather than a contrived] linked to the US Military Industrial Surveillance Security Complex @ www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d20.shtml [The end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the US military ].

 _____________

Let Me Make My Position Clear to You

Nixakliel - 01/01/2012 - 06:54

First Of All- I mentioned Alex Jones, Pepe Escobar, the Real News, Global Research, etc - NOT TO Muddy the Waters, but rather to illustrate where I [Me, Myself & I - though IMO this is true for many others as well] had to go besides HERE @ BAR [& to a lesser extent WSWS.org] to cut thru the matrix of anti-Khadaffi Propagand & LIES regarding UK-US NATO's assault on Libya.

2nd- I've got a track record here at BAR & on Common Dreams of having a fair & balanced critique of Ron Paul. I don't know if Paul is a bigot / racist or not. I don't personally know him nor have I met him - Have You?... [I don't know nor met Obama either, even though He's from my home town]. But it would be no surprise to me if Paul did have some bigoted views- but IMO no more so than most white main-stream Dims. However- I for one am not prepared to blantantly attack Bro Glen Ford & BAR in defense of white TX GOPer Ron Paul!

 

3rd: Is your beef w WSWS.org [I didn't say a thing about ISO & WSM because I'm not familiar w them] is that they called Khadaffi a dictator? Well Technically he, like Fidel Castro, was a dictator. The problem is that the US main-stream media deliberately conflates, misuses & abuse the terms dictator & tyrant IE: the corp MSNM News always calls Hugo Chavez a dictator- NOT!- Chavez has been constituationally elected Pres 3Xs - thus by definition he can NOT be a dictator -&- They called Khadaffi & Castro tyrannical dictators [I had this discussion w an African blogger who in fact knew that a leader can be a dictator without being a ruthless Tyrant but chose to label Khadaffi as such anyway!]. IMO: Khaddafi & Castro could 'technically' be called dictators, yet that does NOT mean they were corrupt ruthless Tyrants! IMO: Guys like those staunch US allies- the late Shah of Iran & Mobutu, etc were in fact corrupt ruthless Tyrants [IMO also ex-CIA asset Saddam Hussein]! Thus I didn't get upset that WSWS.org called Khadaffi a dictator- their critique of FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya was far more pertainent. If you are going to judge WSWS on that score - go back & see what the Real News' [or even Pepe Escobar] called Khaddafi [the Real New's Paul Jay once said 'I don't much like the guy- BUT It seems everyone is ganging up him']. PLUS- Al-Jazeera & the [AL] Arab League [save Syria & Algeria] sold Khadaffi out BIG TIME! [& Now the AL & Turkey is selling out Assad & Syria - Also Note that Nigeria & even S. Africa voted for UN Res 1973]! Thus the Vicious Assault on Libya can't easily be classfied as merely a US/NATO/Zionist Conspiracy - Many/Most Arab Leaders Were IN On IT BIG TIME! IMO: 'Zionists' {Jews} were /are NOT part of that Racist Lynch Mob [IE: the NTC] that unleashed / are unleashing HELL on Black Libyans & African immigrants- they were/are so-called Al-Qeada / King Idris Affiliated Racist Arab Extremists! And WSWS.org may have initially bought into the hype that this was actually a grass-roots non-violent uprising against Khadaffi [initially even I did to some degree]- But after it became clear that it was actually an armed rebellion in combo w a FUK-US NATO assault, IMO: their later reports reflected that reality! - While DN! & Al-Jazeera never waivered from the main-stream script! [NOTE: I have my own critiques for many white so-called Socialists / Communists based on my own observations regarding their anti- Black Nationalism / Pan Africanism critiques & positions- but that's another discussion.] And I'll go back to The Real News- though Paul Jay's reports on Libya were generally more fair & balanced than DN!'s & Al-Jazeera's, he often had an Arab so-called 'Mid-East' expert on who called Khadaffi a ruthless tyrant & said that he supported the armed rebellion against Khadaffi- his main criticism was the US' & NATO's active involvement - especially beyond the so-called phony 'R2P' No-Fly-Zone.

 

4th: Are you implying that Amy G. & Chomsky readily fall into the AIPAC / Likudnik camp on the Israel / Palestine issue? IF so, then I disagree. My main criticisms [suspicions actually] of Amy G & Chomsky are- How Amy G / DN! mis-reported using proganda & dis-info, FUK-US NATO's assault on Libya in combo that AL-CIAeada / King Idris Affilated Rebel-Rousing Racist Lynch Mob [aka: the NTC]- who she mis-classified as Democratic freedom fighters & intially mis-classified them as non-violent protestors, plus the whole Khadaffi's Viagra Rapes & African Mercs BS while denying that the NTC Rebels were carrying out Racist Lynchings & attacks against Blacks in Libya! [I've got some other issues w Amy G but Libya was the proverbial Last Straw!]... - My main critique [even suspicion] of Chomsky is not so much on Libya though I disagree w much of his take on it [NOTE: Although he called Khadaffi a ruthless dictator, he apparently disagreed w the FUK-US NATO assault- especially when it went beyond the so-called 'R2P' 'No-Fly-Zone'...]. Rather My questions regarding Chomsky began w his disingenous take on 9-11 in combo w his [& some other so-called 'liberal-leftist' talking heads: IE: Alex Cockburn, Ted Rall, Matt Taibbi, & Wikileaks poster-boy Julian Assange, etc] dissing & ridiculing [if not out-right slandering] the entire 9-11 Truth movement [which began w so-called 'leftist' talking-heads Chomsky & Cockburn- by their disingenuously insulting dismissals regarding JFK's assassination]. But I not prepared get into that any further right now.


___________________

Standardized Tests Historic Links to Eugenics & Racism....

Nixakliel - 03/14/2012 - 14:06

Note these key excerpts from Jesse Hagopian’s article Which was posted yesterday March 13 @ CD, BUT Now is posted here @ BAR Today March 14th- 'Occupy Education' Debates the Gates Foundation' [PS: I highly recommend you read the whole article]:

}' Standardized testing entered the public schools in the early 1900s as a way to graft scientific management models used in assembly line production onto the classroom by Taylorists and Eugenicists—the pseudo scientists that believed intelligence is genetic and that whites were biologically superior to other races or ethnic groups.

“Looking back to its origins in the eugenics movement, Standardized testing provided the technological apparatus for the functioning of the production model of education….It is no coincidence that I.Q testing, eugenics and standardized testing all become prominent during the same period....”

While these {phony Education reformers} claim to be part of a 21st century civil rights movement for education—advocating policies they insist are specifically designed to close the achievement gap—the standardized tests they demand were designed by RACIST pseudo-scientists of the early 20th century. As NAACP founder W.E.B. DuBois wrote,

“It was not until I was long out of school- after the WWI that there came the use of the new technique of psychological tests, which were quickly adjusted so as to put Black folk absolutely beyond the possibility of civilization.”

The SAT exam was developed by Carl Bringham—the Army psychologist and RACIST Eugenicist who used WWI data to declare that whites born inside the US were the most intelligent of all peoples and that immigrants were genetically inferior. Contrary to the assertions of corporate education reformers [actually DeFormers].., there is nothing innovative about advocacy for standardized testing; it is merely the repackaging of EUGENICS for the {phony so-called} “post racial” era where it is passé to espouse Racist ideas. American society today—From the PRISONS to the SCHOOLS [or vice-versa]—is dominated by Institutional RACISM! The purpose of standardized tests are the same as they were then: to categorize, sort, and rank Black students, students of color, and working class kids at the bottom, while demonstrating the intellectual superiority of the wealthy and white students who score better on the tests.' {

This Explains IT ALL- This Is why these Phony Education reformers [= DeFormers] Insist on these 'standardized' tests- which they can then use as a Hatchet to break inner city public schools, their teachers & their unions! THIS IS NO MISTAKE! One would have thought in the many articles on NCLB / RTTT Education DeForm posted here @ CD & else-where that this info would have talked about & documented clearly [as has Jesse Hagopian's article]. Talk about slyly playing the 'Race-Card'!!! [NOTE: The original {& likely still} intent of these so-called 'standardized' tests - Was NOT to honestly assess where students are in their studies & what areas of study might need to be focused on for improvement. BUT- Rather to so-called 'objectively & scientifically' give the 'inherent seal of achievement' to designated groups {IE: the white & affluent}, while casting other groups {IE: Blacks, Browns & the poor} as social misfits [IE: Inherent Potential CRIMINALS]- inherently lacking in intelligence!!! Thus if that's what these test were originally designed to do from the get-go - there should be NO surprise that it's been shown repeatedly that's exactly what they do!]

Part of the reason why Parents of inner-city school kids may-be going along w this phony Education Reform [= DeForm] is 1} Because Obama Is 'The One' who's pushing RTTT [they were far more skeptical of Bush & his NCLB] -2} Inner-city schools have been in crisis, because their communities have been in crisis- due to deliberate neglect for decades! Thus many of these parents are grasping at straws- any-glimmer of 'Hope' ['That you really Can't believe in']- especially if its hyped by Obama! BUT- Before we scold the parents of schools kids in these deprived communities- According to Bruce Dixon the US' 2 main teachers unions have Endorsed Obama AGAIN! - even after 3 yrs of his RTTT's assault on teacher & unions spear-headed by his hatchet-man- Sec of ED Arne {'Katrina was the best thing to ever happen to New Orleans' Public Schools'} Duncan! And even though Duncan & ex-Obama Chief of Staff Rahmbo are currently being sued by the CPS' Teachers [Chicago's CPS is the 3rd largest School system in the US]!

     

_______________

We Debated w an Author 2 Weeks Ago RE: Marxist-Leninism vs

Nixakliel - 10/07/2012 - 21:10

Black Nationalism / Pan Africanism. In fact IMO the author on " 'Secularists' & the Black Movement" took a pot-shot [or cheap-shot] at Garvey. White Marxist-Leninists / communists have a track record of hyping class over race even for issues concerning Black & Brown oppression vs the racist system of white-supremacy [which capitalism is part of]. They often fail to even acknowledge that race is at-least as important [IMO more so] as class when analyzing this system's oppression of Black & Brown folk. So if these white Marxist-Leninists can't even acknowledge that simple fact, of-course they're going to have a problem w the concept of Black Nationalism / Pan-Africanism [= Black Self-determination].

Quoting from the WSWS article 'Michelle Alexander's New Jim Crow- A Brief for Racial Politics' - At Length: } Ms Alexander has been lionized in some liberal and “left” circles, including pseudo-socialists [So according to WSWS {& contrary to the author of that article on WEB Dubois} the folks here @ BAR IE: Bro Glen Ford & Bruce Dixon are pseudo-socialists / pseudo-leftists]. These elements of the middle class, prominent in academia, play a major role in propping up the Democrats.

Identity politics is their calling card, counter-posing the issues of race, gender and sexual orientation to the interests of the working class as a whole [IMO in the post civil rights era the LGBT & feminist movements seem to have more clout w the Dims than Blacks- even though we've been the Dims most loyal constituency]. The pseudo-lefts respond with enthusiasm to Alexander’s call for a new civil rights movement, conceived as a vehicle of middle-class protest against what they regard as congenital American racism. Alexander herself is quite clear on this. The driving force of American history is race, in her view, and certainly not the class struggle. “Since the nation’s founding,” she writes, “African Americans repeatedly have been controlled through institutions such as slavery and Jim Crow, which appear to die, but then are reborn in new form, tailored to the needs of constraints of the time. 'It may be impossible to overstate the significance of race in defining the basic structure of American society,” she states categorically.

From the fact that the US Constitution was based on a compromise with slavery, enshrined in the notorious rule defining the slave as 3/5ths of a man, she concludes that “upon this racist fiction rests the entire structure of American democracy.”

So much for Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of the leading figures of the [so-called] American Revolution and its world-shaking impact which reverberated in France a decade after the Declaration of Independence.

For Alexander, it is not a matter of exploring the contradiction between the American Revolution’s proclamation of Enlightenment ideals and the continuation of slavery—a contradiction that did not erase the 'progressive' character of the Revolution—but rather a basis for dismissing the ideals themselves as a “racist fiction.”

The American Civil War, barely merits a mention. That hundreds of thousands gave their lives to end slavery and uphold the promise that “all men are created equal”is treated as a momentary interruption in the relentless reassertion of American racism.

The rise of Jim Crow is seen as the inevitable expression of an unceasing quest for white supremacy. In fact, Jim Crow was bound up not only with the need to divide the white and black poor in the South, but with the emergence of the working class in the North. The federal government called a halt to Reconstruction in 1877, withdrawing its troops from the South, largely in order to deal with a growing threat from the working class. The great railway strike of that same year saw US troops battling masses of industrial workers and poor in the streets of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis and many other cities [My Note: No mention of the deal that was cut between white GOPers & Dixie-crats that effectively sold post civil-war Blacks out to Jim-Crow Southerners & the KKK- even though IMO undoubtedly the crack down against workers’ up-risings in the North was part of the equation].

Alexander repeatedly places the blame for racism on the “lower class whites,” who are portrayed as a popular base for discriminatory policies devised by the ruling establishment. Her aim is to convince sections of the ruling class, along with the upper-middle class layers with whom she clearly identifies, to take remedial action on the issue of mass imprisonment before it leads to a social explosion.

She discusses the prison system in some detail, dealing with racial profiling, the financial incentives for a burgeoning prison-industrial complex to increase the inmate population, the use of prisons to provide jobs in mainly rural areas with high unemployment, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, denial of adequate legal counsel, and legally authorized discrimination against ex-prisoners on such matters as voting rights, jobs and most other aspects of life. There is more that could be added on the increasing privatization of the prison system and the use of prison labor to generate profit.

From these FACTS Ms Alexander makes the leap—an unscientific and politically reactionary one—to characterize many/most African Americans today as a “racial caste…” {

Now there are some that say the Sis Michelle Alexander actually didn't go hard-enough, because she talked in terms of reform rather than revolution [or at-least totally abolishing the Prison Industrial Complex]. Yet according to this WSWS article 'The New Jim Crow' plays the 'race-card' [They didn't actually use that term but they definitely implied it. So maybe WSWS believes the hype of the 'post-racial' USA in the era of Obama?]. The authors see 1776 - USA as an important ?'progressive'? event in World [?socialist?] 'revolution'???- Apparently ignoring the fact that the US has been / is the bastion of the white-supremacist / imperialist / capitalist system- to which chattel slavery was a key component of [as the Prison Industrial Complex is now]. Thus this WSWS article seems to suggest that we [Blacks] should just over-look the fact that key 'Founding Fathers of 1776- USA' [IE: Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc] were slave-owners- who encoded chattel-slavery in their founding document! Thus the Marxist-Leninist @ WSWS have perfectly aligned themselves w {white} patriotic Americans on both the US' political 'left' [IE: Dave Swanson, Dennis Kucinich, etc] & 'right' [Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Paul Craig Roberts, etc] on this issue.

YET- Even White progressive historical analysts IE: Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, etc- have said that what WSWS calls the 'progressive' 1776 US so-called 'revolution' was NOT a very good progressively revolutionary deal for Black slaves nor Native Americans [nor even for many/most working-class whites]. Of course the elitist Founding Fathers talked a good game about 'All Men Created Equal w Unalienable Rights'- but that was mainly propaganda for white indentured servants- because the elitist Founding Fathers needed bodies as foot-soldiers [pawns] in their quarrel w their royal British kit & kin [left unspoken yet clearly understood was that when they said ‘All Men were Created Equal’ they meant ‘All white {WASP} Men’]. 1776 did mark the end to white indentured servitude in the US- but those white ex-servants apparently didn't see the need to insist that those slave-owning elitist founding fathers end chattel slavery, in 'solidarity' w their Black enslaved working-poor brothers.

Then this WSWS article goes on to say that the Civil War was all about [whites] shedding blood to free Black slaves. Not a word about Lincoln's declaration that his objective was to 'Save the Union' NOT to End Slavery! And as Sis Kimberley said in her recent article 'Emancipation' [Proclamation]: 'The Emancipation Proclamation left Blacks in the slave states that had not seceded from the Union still in chains, and might better have been called “the emancipation {but not for everyone} proclamation...” And if the Civil War was mainly about ending slavery why did it take Lincoln 2.5 yrs into a 4 yr war to even come up w the so-called Emancipation Proclamation that did NOT even free all US slaves??? So of course this WSWS article wouldn't touch the key role that the US burgeoning empire's gangstering of the entire SW quadrant of the US from Mexico during the Mexican-American War(s)- played in setting the stage for the North & South's clash over the slavery issue in those newly 'acquired' SW-Territories. Thus this WSWS article essentially regurgitates verbatim the conventional lame-stream myths RE: what 1776 & the Civil War were really all about.

Then this WSWS article glosses over the fact that the US' prison population exploded in the post Civil Rights era- w the phony 'War on Drugs' which targeted mainly Black & Brown folks & communities [since 1970 the US' prison population has increased 4Xs - 5Xs]. In 1970 over 60% of the US' population was white - by 1990 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the prison population was Black & Brown [fully 1/2 is Black - Black & Browns together = just 25% - 29% of the US' population], w the fastest growing inmate population now being Black women- who also now have the highest rates of HIV infection due to so many Black men [& women] being infected in prison [as Sis Kimberley's article points out].

Then there's the 100 to 1 [recently changed to 20 to 1- BUT Definitely NOT 1 to 1] legalized discrimination of crack to powdered cocaine because crack was/is hyped as Black folks' coke while powered is generally perceived as a white folks' coke- even though you first must have powdered coke to even make crack. Plus there's the fact that most Blacks & Browns are in jail due to non-violent simple drug possession- usually marijuana even tough whites smoke weed as much or even more often than Blacks. - Furthermore there's legalized racial-profiling aka 'Stop & Frisk'- w 90% of those stopped by the NYPD being Black & Brown men- even though the stats show that the few whites who are stopped are far more likely to being carrying illegal guns. But according to the WSWS article its a reactionary -unscientific-illogical leap to conclude all of this amounts to a kind of racial-caste system against Blacks [aka Institutionalized Racism- IMO Ms Alexander was actually being diplomatic to use the term racial-caste].

WSWS also glosses over the fact that most Black & Brown inmates are seemingly imprisoned in lily-white good-ole boy type working-class towns, & are key to those towns' economic 'interests'. The fact is too often too many 'working-class / working-poor' whites tend to see themselves as white above all else & thus too often have supported race-tinged policies of the poly-trickal & corp power elites that ultimately were/are against even their own best interests [IE: most Civil War Confederate soldiers were NOT even slave owners- so fighting for the Confederacy was NOT actually in their own interest]! Other-wise how can WSWS explain the success of race-tinged media IE: FOX Noise, Hush Limpballs, etc- which is geared toward 'patriotic' working-class whites, as well as the Repugs race-tinged 'Southern Strategy' which got Nixon, Ford, Reagan &- Bush Sr & Jr elected as POTUS??!