Tuesday, March 07, 2017

Savant's New words in March of 2017

NOte by Me: Not all Christians are responsible for these atrocities, but I understand his frustration at injustice.

By Timothy

Your rant doesn't refute a word of what I said. Christian fanatics DID kill millions of women for witchcraft. Christians even killed millions of other Christians in religious wars. The "West" became less beset by religious persecution mainly as the West became more SECULAR. Even then, new ersatz religions like Nazism and Stalinism not only persecuted women but brought back tortures and massacres when the West had formerly thought ended with the Middle Ages, or at least the early modern period.  (2 hrs ago | post #304)

I don't care about whether or not I'm "mixed" based on who mayor may not have taken advantage of an ancestral grandmother. Most people ("whites " included) may be mixed, if not recently then at some remove. What interests me is whether a person of visibly African descent chooses to identify with Black people and the Black community, and whether they committed to Black liberation. If they are, then I regard them as brothers and sisters even if one of their parents is white and they're lighter than Beyoncé. If not, then they don't interest me even if they had NO white blood and are darker than Michelle Obama. What's important is the shape of your CONSCIOUSNESS  (12 hrs ago | post #46)

At numerous town meetings in the "heartland " of America, constituents of Republican politicos who voted for Il Duce Don Trump are whining. They're discovering that they are losing their health care--care that they wouldn'thave without the Affordable Care Act provisions. Many of these naïve people, most likely blinded by conservatism and racism, didn't even know that the Affordable Care Act WAS Obamacare. They simply hated anything with Obama's name attached to it. Hence many say that they're AGAINST Obama care but FOR the Affordable Care Act. Oh well, some people have to learn the hard way. Other than immigrants and people of color, it is the naïve and benighted members of the white working class, the white poor and the white middle classes who will suffer from Trumpism. Trump and his rich buddies will be laughing all the way to the bank---the banks that are foreclosing on your homes!  (13 hrs ago | post #1638651)

Perhaps what you would have to tell me might be more engaging if it were more directly relevant to the topic of this thread. Frankly, whether or not you "marry up or down" (which expression smacks of class prejudice), Black or non-Black is your own business. And whether a sister (or Black man) marries "in" or "out" doesn't tell me whether she's a revolutionary. Whether she's with a brother with less education than her (like Betty Shabazz) or with equal or more education (like Coretta Scott or my own lady), by itself doesn't tell me whether or not she's a revolutionary black woman. But if you want to dwell on personal relations, let me suggest that I would be marrying "down" if I were married to a Black woman like Condie Rice. For the level of a woman's consciousness has a lot to do with whether or not I'd consider HER a suitable mate. It's obviously not the ONLY thing since hardly anyone mates with someone based solely on their politics. But it's an important element. And frankly, all other things being equal I'd prefer a sister from the projects with a high school education--someone whom many "educated " black women would see as a "hood  "--who has her head on straight, to a pretentious bourgeois girl with a consciousness twisted by status anxiety, vanity, greed and materialistic narcissism. I met many of the latter while at Vanderbilt University, bourgeois girls with about as much social consciousness as an aardvark. And with the vision of a mole. And I found many of them, and the Negro males as well, different from the backward white conservative mainstream ONLY in their skin color. But in truth there are probably REVOLUTIONARY Black women, and revolutionary Black men as well, who marry "out" as well as those who "marry in." And it is THEY who interest me. New movements are not being created by sisters obsessed with IR relations and gender wars. But they do have PROGRESSIVE gender values and politics regardless of with whom they mate. Now that's RELEVANT and REVOLUTIONARY!  (13 hrs ago | post #59)

It certainly is PUBLIC; but with incoherent rantings such as hers, it loses the dignity of a FORUM.  (20 hrs ago | post #300)

Delusional people believe in such entities. At any rate, when Christians were killing MILLONS of women in Europe for witchcraft it had nothing to do with war, and unless it was Christian patriarchy's war on women. When King Leopold slew millions of Congolese in the name of Christianizing and civilizing them, he was not at war. Well...unless we understand colonialism to be perpetual war against the indigenous people by the colonizer--with duplicitous Christian rationalizations, of course. But all that aside, Spotted girl's loony and ignorant rantings is almost enough to make me wonder if there isn't such a thing as demon possession after all. LOL! Naw, there's a more plausible psychological explanation. LOL!  (20 hrs ago | post #299)

Actually, what you take to be the rule is itself the EXCEPTION. Black men and women ane ven CHILDREN could not have created, let alone won significant victories, during the civil rights movement if things were as you say. And neither now or then are most Black men spiting on Black women, or vice versa. Whether or not historical facts "lie," I question whether you have the facts straight. And no matter how much you or others want to dance around this fact, MOST Black men and women relate more to EACH OTHER than to anyone else. Indeed, the problem is less a matter of Black women being left behind than the MASSES of Black men and women alike being left behind (except when hustled for votes or exploited) by the elite Negro political class. White women get more sympathy when victimized or perceived as being victimized. Black people, male or female, do not. It is true that more attention lately has been given to police murders and brutality against Blacks. And most victims of police slayings (about 75%) are Black men, just as most victims of lynching were Black men. But the only reason we even hear of Freddie Gray of Sandra Bland is because a MOVEMENT using contemporary recording technology has exposed it. Until recently such killing were simply dismissed as cops doing what they had to do to contain Black "thugs" and "criminals ". And to stay on topic, we might note that the work of this exposure is primarily that which has been done by millennial Blacks, a majority of whom are REVOLUTIONARY BLACK WOMEN.  (20 hrs ago | post #57)

OK, despite a death in the family. I am back to work and hope to get a leae of absence in Fall. But...the Democrats have NONE of those groups. Black Lives Matter spokespersons even refused to meet with Obama, and Hillary had a BLM woman curtly expelled from a pro-Hillary function. (Hillary supported the 1994 Crime Bill and demonized Black youth as "super predators. BLM and Michelle Alexander reminded the Black community of that. Hence, while Hillary still got most Black votes, a disaffected community simply voted in smaller proportions. In short, we wer excited by Hillary. And I opted to vote Green rather than vote either for a neoliberal opportunist (Clinton) or a whacked out reactionary ,Trump) I actually KNOW some members of BLM, including some who are students of mine. ASK them what they think of EITHER the Democrats or Republicans. (I believe either in AlterNet.org or Truthout.org you can find an article entitled "The Black Struggle in not a Sound Bite." It includes an analysis by a BLM woman who explains why she refused to meet with Obama. On the other hand the Republican Party pretty much have absorbed the Tea Party. As for the NAACP--one would have to be extremely far to the Right to imagine that bourgeois organization to be a fringe--they're an old civil rights organization who were often seen in the 1960s as too stodgy, conservative and cautious to be a reliable force in the Movement. The New Black Panthers seems to have had connections with the Nation of Islam, at least in its early days. If you're original Panthers of the 1960s, you know they were way left of the so-called New Panthers. And the New Panthers have no connection with the Democratic Party. (In fact, they and NOI frequently denounced Obama as an Uncle Tom and sell out. I've seen their leaflets and occasional pamphlets). Frankly, I've had it with both parties. They're both subservient to corporate money and interests, but in somewhat different ways. The Republican party is more like the medieval subservient wife of the corporate overlord. The Democratic Party is more like the subservient courtesan.  (21 hrs ago | post #156)

Or maybe like your fellow reactionary Don Trump you can imply "grab 'em by the p****y". It probably would get their attention more quickly than saying "F**k you."  (21 hrs ago | post #814)

Tell me about it. Ask the Aztec and Inca survivors of genocidal Christian murderers. Or the Congolese survivors of the Belgian Christian holocaust. Or even inside of Christendom. The murders of millions of women for witchcraft. (There were European towns and villages that had nearly exterminated the female population. Or the destruction of the Albigenses in southern France. Or the Crusades which often massacred Jews and Muslims. And I seem to recall a Crusade which massacred thousands of Eastern Christians in Constantinople. Christianity was at one time often LESS tolerant than many Muslim cultures. (For examples, Christian and Jewish scholars and students could work in Moorish universities in Spain. No way Muslim or Christian scholars or students were going to be around in Oxford or Paris in medieval or early modern times.) Christianity actually became more "tolerant " well after the great ages of faith. The Enlightenment had more to do with that than any inherent tolerance of Christendom. In short, as the West became more SECULAR it tended to become more tolerant---at least among Europeans themselves, if not toward non-Westerners, until the rise of Stalinism and Fascism  (21 hrs ago | post #294)

When you speak in general terms about Black men and/or women in this way, the discussion quickly becomes superficial, and laced with stereotypes. Black men and women (like men and women everywhere) have their issues, issues compounded for Blacks by oppressions and social dislocations imposed upon us. But MOST Black men do not hate Black women, and most Black women do not hate Black men. Neither loons like SadButTrue nor self-hating  like Uncle Tom Sotomayor (who prowls around YouTube with his venom) are representative of the MAJORITY of Black men or women. The problem I that you see wedges but no bonds even though the bonds are there, and no less real than the wedges. But, as I stated before, this is not the thinking of most Blacks, and especially not of those revolutionary sisters and brothers who are creating the new movements.  (21 hrs ago | post #55)

Start with FASCISM AND BIG BUSINESS by Daniel Guerin. The author's name escapes my memory, but you might look at AN ANATOMY OF FASCISM. I teach Philosophy, and have since my studies at Vanderbilt U during the 1980s. I've a fair grasp of fascism both as an idea and as a system. However, it is strange that when people who are right of center denounce someone as a Marxist, Communist or even (in the case of Obama) a "Muslim Communist," it never occurs to them that they need to define or explain "Marxism, " "Communism, " or "Islam." They hardly even stop to wonder how someone can be both a Muslim (hence a monotheistic believer in an Abrahamic faith) and a Marxist-Leninist (and thus an atheist). That's one reason I rarely reply either with a definition or a link. I simply say "Go do some homework."  (22 hrs ago | post #54)

26% of Black Americans are polling for Trump.
I guess that poll turned out to be wrong.  (22 hrs ago | post #26)

SadButTrue is as bad with all those profiles as OhReally, an old decrepit white racist whom I used to see in AA Forum. Her hatred of Black men, and especially her obsession with someone (real? Imagined?) called Maceo has eroded her reason and ruined her mind. She even imagines that other black women (or even white women) are Maceo. She has directed anti-Maceo rants against KNOWN white racist men (and women). And you know they all get a kick out of it. (It confirms everything negative they've always believed about Blacks). Now I ask ANYONE who tell me: Has SBT started ANY thread that wasn't a hating rant against Maceo in particular, or against Black men in general? Has she even made a POST that was about ANYTHING else?.


No comments: