|
I'm curious as to what you all think of this. I have a few thoughts on the matter:
-I get that some people might not like what Derrick Bell had to say, but his theory is an important one to explore in terms of race relations, and he was a respected member of the Harvard faculty for many, many years. Why is it somehow damning that Obama may agree with some aspects of this theory?
-Why would it possibly be considered controversial that Obama, in his time as a Harvard professor, would ask his students to read the works of another Harvard professor for his class, and that he would introduce him at an event? Again, regardless of how you feel about Bell's CRT, you can explore it without agreeing with it. As Oscar Wilde put it, "Anything is good which stimulates thought in any age."
-This feels an attempt to stir up an emotional, racial response in white voters. "This scary black guy doesn't like white people! Be afraid of him!"
whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/08/new-breitbart-video-sparks-debate/
|
On March 09 2012 04:13 Vega62a wrote:
-This feels an attempt to stir up an emotional, racial response in white voters. "This scary black guy doesn't like white people! Be afraid of him!"
I wouldn't worry too much about it; the "scared of Obama because he's a black panther in disguise" demographic already votes Republican (and were trumpeting the Rev. Wright stuff last election).
|
This is going to be an interesting story to follow. Breitbart's untimely death has given this story a lot of extra attention, especially after all the conspiracy theories sprung up alleging that Obama had Breitbart killed over this.
|
On March 09 2012 04:33 TheToast wrote:
This is going to be an interesting story to follow. Breitbart's untimely death has given this story a lot of extra attention, especially after all the conspiracy theories sprung up alleging that Obama had Breitbart killed over this.
I don't find this particular story to be particularly interesting on its own. It's a variation on a common political theme. There has, in my memory, almost always been an effort by political opposition to paint their opponents as a sort of "other," as something foreign and incomprehensible and scary. It was prevalent during the Bush years, when opponents of the war and critics of the administration were painted as unamerican. I'm sure the left is not innocent of it either, though I cannot drum up any specific examples of it.
What I find interesting is the direction it's been taken with Obama. They've virtually ignored his relavent political positions in this effort, partially because he's actually incredibly moderate, and actually something of a corporatist. Instead, they have attempted to, very subtly, play on the color of his skin. There has been a lot of moderately subtle racism inherant in some of the pictures they've painted of him - this is one of the more blatant ones, as was the Jeramiah Wright thing - nobody with half a brain actually thinks that Obama hates white people or thinks capitalism is somehow wrong or bad. But the most obvious example that comes to mind aside from those are their assertions that he's "never held a job." Obviously, the outward implication is that he's never had a job in the private sector. (Which, by the way, also marks a career soldier as unqualified for the presidency, ironic when one of our greatest Republican presidents - Dwight D Eisenhower - was a career soldier). But if that's what they mean to say, why do they leave off that qualifier? They are playing on the old stereotype of the lazy black man who doesn't work and lives off of welfare. This is a subtextual narrative that some opponents of the administration have been perpetuating essentially since the 2008 campaign.
|
britBITCH used his powers for evil once one joins the darkside the only redemption is death. and it is untimely that it took so long for that evil man to die
|
First blog post and already the trolls have found me. I get a banhammer here though!
|
i think it's slightly damning that he said:
"open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell."
which implies that he agrees with the man, and thinks we should to. to me this would be like... i don't know, agreeing with some aspects of any racist's theories. and it's not like we're dumb enough to believe that Obama is saying something like:
"well i don't agree with his racism, but his pumpkin pie recipe is to die for!"
obviously, given Obama's previous company, he has a soft spot in his heart for radical racists of the leftist type. which means he has a soft spot for their ideology. personally, i find their ideology to be disgusting and offensive. i am saddened that Obama has yet to explain why he thinks these philosophies and his connection to them should go unquestioned. i don't think saying:
"whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest."
can stimulate any thought in any age. i think that is out and out racism and is specifically designed to entrench people so that his self-fulfilling prophecy can be fulfilled. and even if it could stimulate thought, i don't see how that makes it acceptable in any way. i suppose one could say that any philosophy can stimulate thought. some philosophies are still bad.
|
Hopefully this will stimulate more people to read Derrick Bell's books and other writings. I found "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" to be pretty insightful, if uneven. His most interesting suggestion (more of a thought experiement, really) was that private businesses be allowed to practice racial discrimination in hiring, customer service etc, as long as they paid a certain fee. I didn't get any kind of racist, "kill whitey" vibe from the book at all.
It is hard for me to imagine anybody whose opinion about Obama would actualy be changed by this "revelation", which was never actually hidden, just not well-known.
|
On March 09 2012 06:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i think it's slightly damning that he said:
"open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell."
That would depend on the context. From what I understand, he was introducing the man at an event, not telling his class to do something, and having been through college, I cannot honestly remember a professor of anything but math or science directing me to believe in something. That goes against the point of virtually any other class, and completely opposite to a class on political philosophy. It's simple rhetoric. That's very different from saying "I agree with him and you should too."
which implies that he agrees with the man,
What in saying "This man has things to say, you should listen to what he says and give it due consideration" implies that he agrees with the man? I repeat my quote, "Anything is good which stimulates thought in any age."
and thinks we should to. to me this would be like... i don't know, agreeing with some aspects of any racist's theories. and it's not like we're dumb enough to believe that Obama is saying something like:
"well i don't agree with his racism, but his pumpkin pie recipe is to die for!"
Do you actually know anything about CTR? It's not a particularly racist theory. It is a theory on race relations in the U.S. which raises valid points on the way white people's social and political power is raised and perpetuated disproportionately to other races (specifically african-americans).
obviously, given Obama's previous company, he has a soft spot in his heart for radical racists of the leftist type. which means he has a soft spot for their ideology.
Explain to me why knowing two people whose views you regard as radical means that he has a soft spot for radical leftists, please.
personally, i find their ideology to be disgusting and offensive. i am saddened that Obama has yet to explain why he thinks these philosophies and his connection to them should go unquestioned. i don't think saying:
"whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest."
can stimulate any thought in any age.
Really? You don't read that and honestly wonder whether or not there is still a degree of inherent racism in the way our country conducts itself?
It can only stimulate thought if you actually think about it. Being offended is the first step towards not thinking about something.
i think that is out and out racism and is specifically designed to entrench people so that his self-fulfilling prophecy can be fulfilled. and even if it could stimulate thought, i don't see how that makes it acceptable in any way. i suppose one could say that any philosophy can stimulate thought. some philosophies are still bad.
There is where you and Oscar Wilde (and myself) differ. You would probably be Edward Carson, asking Mr. Wilde after he said this, "Whether moral or immoral?" To which he would reply, "there is no such thing as morality or immorality in thought."
|
On March 09 2012 11:19 HCastorp wrote:
Hopefully this will stimulate more people to read Derrick Bell's books and other writings. I found "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" to be pretty insightful, if uneven. His most interesting suggestion (more of a thought experiement, really) was that private businesses be allowed to practice racial discrimination in hiring, customer service etc, as long as they paid a certain fee. I didn't get any kind of racist, "kill whitey" vibe from the book at all.
It is hard for me to imagine anybody whose opinion about Obama would actualy be changed by this "revelation", which was never actually hidden, just not well-known.
I'm interested to know in what direction Bell took this thought experiment. I'd love it if you elaborated on the topic, although I may pick up the book for myself.
It's not really a revelation at all. Obama was a student at the Harvard school of law who respected a well-known, and well-deserving, professor at the Harvard school of law. It's not really that scandalous. Obama had been eloquent on race relations in America for some time before his election to public office, and there's not a thing wrong with that - anybody who thinks race relations in America are settled and completely harmless towards minorities is speaking with their heads inside the sand. And this is coming from a middle-class, self-sufficient, straight white man. (Grew up in the ghetto, but still.) The common theme that Republicans like to spout is that the only racism left in America is against white people, which is something they've been using primarily to fuel this "Obama hates whites" narrative. The unfortunate side effect of this completely standard political maneuvering is that it's served to stop people from thinking about race relations as they should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
