If Mort Divine ruled the world

[jimmy101]

France has always been one of the most progressive countries. It's where Jack Johnson (the boxer) sought refuge after he was forced to flee from the USA after they set him up & sentenced him to prison.

 

[Dak]

The "negro problem" (this is Baldwin quoting white writers, politicians, academics, etc.) is specifically an American problem. By the mid-twentieth century, Europe (specifically France) was a much better place for black people to live than America. I take your point, but I don't think it's the case that he made an ill-informed or contradictory decision.

I'm referring to his appropriation of southern and/or pre-emancipation African American identities in his debate I mentioned, as well as selected excerpts. There's a distinct urban/rural divide, as well as one of time and materiality, that he imagines himself to transcend as a matter of narcissism.

France was certainly a better place for a gay man to be, possibly moreso than anywhere else at the time. By contrast, Africa might have been the worst place to be (never mind material aspects). So much for "white sociopathy". Baldwin screamed of torture from a shorter pile of mattresses hiding a pea from those he believed to have a taller pile, while presenting himself to represent those on beds of nails.

So? I'm sorry, I'm still not sure what this says about Baldwin. After all, he simply reiterated what a lot of people in Harlem were expressing.

Sure, he was, but he wasn't expressing it with disbelief himself. He was relaying it because he thought it set up his overarching theme nicely. That African Americans had quite a pessimistic (but accurate!) view, as compared to their Sociopathic White Overlords™. Turned out to be not so accurate. Obviously you can beg Trump after Obama, but I observe that the data doesn't bear that out, no matter how much bloviating from NYT, WaPo, and Vox suggests otherwise.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I'm referring to his appropriation of southern and/or pre-emancipation African American identities in his debate I mentioned, as well as selected excerpts. There's a distinct urban/rural divide, as well as one of time and materiality, that he imagines himself to transcend as a matter of narcissism.

Does he ever actually claim to transcend this divide? I haven't seen the debate. In the case he referred to these identities and invoked their experiences, I hardly see how it would count as appropriation.

France was certainly a better place for a gay man to be, possibly moreso than anywhere else at the time. By contrast, Africa might have been the worst place to be (never mind material aspects). So much for "white sociopathy". Baldwin screamed of torture from a shorter pile of mattresses hiding a pea from those he believed to have a taller pile, while presenting himself to represent those on beds of nails.

Well, it was in any case a more comfortable place for black intellectuals than the US was, and this is not to say that France had clean hands. See Algeria and the French problem with their Arab populations. I see what you're getting at here, but what-aboutisms aren't exactly a sign of a good argument. Given that Africa was still mostly under colonial rule at the time, there were different issues at hand.

Sure, he was, but he wasn't expressing it with disbelief himself. He was relaying it because he thought it set up his overarching theme nicely. That African Americans had quite a pessimistic (but accurate!) view, as compared to their Sociopathic White Overlords™. Turned out to be not so accurate. Obviously you can beg Trump after Obama, but I observe that the data doesn't bear that out, no matter how much bloviating from NYT, WaPo, and Vox suggests otherwise.

I'm not exactly sure why you're throwing presentism in here. Wasn't that debate pre-Civil Rights legislation? I hardly see how pessimism was irrational, defeatist, or fatalist--it certainly wasn't self-serving like you seem to be arguing.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm referring to his appropriation of southern and/or pre-emancipation African American identities in his debate I mentioned, as well as selected excerpts. There's a distinct urban/rural divide, as well as one of time and materiality, that he imagines himself to transcend as a matter of narcissism.

Like BO, I'm confused by your use of "appropriation" here. I think part of your point lies in appropriating the terms of an argument and deploying them in an ambiguous way.

I don't think Baldwin was appropriating the experiences of 19thc slaves or freedmen; but his experiences were still worth discussion, and they weren't unrelated to the historical circumstances deriving from slavery. So I'm not sure why you see him as trying to paint himself as a 19thc slave. If anything, he wanted to paint post-1945 blacks as more independent and self-directed than whites even (hence the sociopathy).

France was certainly a better place for a gay man to be, possibly moreso than anywhere else at the time. By contrast, Africa might have been the worst place to be (never mind material aspects). So much for "white sociopathy". Baldwin screamed of torture from a shorter pile of mattresses hiding a pea from those he believed to have a taller pile, while presenting himself to represent those on beds of nails.

Africa might well have been worse, but race relations aren't even across countries and continents and different regions experience different dynamics (as BO basically already said). Africa being worse off materially has more to do with the historical acculturation of subjects into modern material culture than it does any objective state of modernization (or lack thereof) in Africa.

Sure, he was, but he wasn't expressing it with disbelief himself. He was relaying it because he thought it set up his overarching theme nicely. That African Americans had quite a pessimistic (but accurate!) view, as compared to their Sociopathic White Overlords™. Turned out to be not so accurate. Obviously you can beg Trump after Obama, but I observe that the data doesn't bear that out, no matter how much bloviating from NYT, WaPo, and Vox suggests otherwise.

You're assuming the observations and objections made by Baldwin et al were divorced from the social realities they inhabited. One could argue that Obama's election only occurred because of the energy generated by blacks in the mid-20thc--i.e. mid-20thc African Americans needed to be pessimistic and angry in order for change to actually occur.

 

[Dak]

I'll try to reply to the 3 points without a c/p fest:

1.



There's an additional clip in there I lack the time to find again but he mentions understanding what it means to be from Tennessee better than his surrounding cosmopolitan Europeans. Maybe so, but not really. He sets himself up as an avatar; that's what I mean by appropriating. It's not novel or ambiguous usage, it's precisely the same usage as when it is thrown at people dressing up "problematically" for Halloween.

2. Specifically in response to the differences in culture between Europe/US and Africa in the 1950s and 1960s (and even extending to today), there's no evidence for "white sociopathy" that cannot also be found in the diverse ethnic groups in Africa (or Asia, or South America, etc). Even Baldwin notes that blacks are also capable of all sorts of atrocious behavior and therefore human. So why the myopia?

3. I'm not saying the agitation didn't help propel Obama. I'm just making an observation of irony.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don’t have the time now to listen to the clips, so that puts me at a disadvantage.

There's an additional clip in there I lack the time to find again but he mentions understanding what it means to be from Tennessee better than his surrounding cosmopolitan Europeans. Maybe so, but not really. He sets himself up as an avatar; that's what I mean by appropriating. It's not novel or ambiguous usage, it's precisely the same usage as when it is thrown at people dressing up "problematically" for Halloween.

I think you need to provide an argument for how you think it’s “precisely” the same. Because my reaction is that it’s precisely not the same.

EDIT: you don't need to, but if you want to, that is... I think that would help me understand you better.

2. Specifically in response to the differences in culture between Europe/US and Africa in the 1950s and 1960s (and even extending to today), there's no evidence for "white sociopathy" that cannot also be found in the diverse ethnic groups in Africa (or Asia, or South America, etc). Even Baldwin notes that blacks are also capable of all sorts of atrocious behavior and therefore human. So why the myopia?

That oversimplifies things.

1. All people are capable of atrocious acts, but that doesn’t make all atrocious acts sociopathically equivalent. The racial consciousness of mid-20thc America is a totally different beast than any pathologies of African society.

2. Baldwin lived in America. He was American and concerned with America. There are ideological conflicts in all countries, but not talking about them isn’t a sign of myopia (or if it is, it’s forgivable myopia). It’s virtually impossible for one person to be an expert on the social dynamics of race relations in every country on the globe. Baldwin focused on the country he knew best.

3. I'm not saying the agitation didn't help propel Obama. I'm just making an observation of irony.

Is it still ironic if the logic informing black pessimism was “we need to be pessimistic if we want a black president in 40 years”?

This is a cybernetic model: i.e., black protestors of the mid-20th rejected the optimism of whites because they knew those optimistic visions wouldn’t come to pass if they didn’t put up a struggle.

But respond pessimistically to white optimism, and you add another element to the reaction. Input, output, feedback.

 

[Dak]

I don’t have the time now to listen to the clips, so that puts me at a disadvantage.

Not sure if it indicates on the link but they are set to play right at the point where thing is said, you won't have to spend but a few seconds (unless you want to skip back a little).

I think you need to provide an argument for how you think it’s “precisely” the same. Because my reaction is that it’s precisely not the same.

By a strict definition of "the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission." Baldwin has no claim to these other experiences. I'll provide an analogy (although these seldom seem of use): Despite my status as a USMC veteran, I cannot speak up for "veterans rights" and in the process claim that "I CLIMBED MOUNT SURIBACHI, I STORMED KUWAIT, and I CLEARED FALLUJAH", despite the fact that A. I am a vet, B. I was in the USMC, which did those 3 things, and C. Was even in Iraq, although not in Fallujah. It's a common type of rhetorical device employed by the left, and has no basis in fact and evidences either delusion or guile.

.....The racial consciousness of mid-20thc America is a totally different beast than any pathologies of African society.

2. Baldwin lived in America. He was American and concerned with America. There are ideological conflicts in all countries, but not talking about them isn’t a sign of myopia (or if it is, it’s forgivable myopia). It’s virtually impossible for one person to be an expert on the social dynamics of race relations in every country on the globe. Baldwin focused on the country he knew best.

Different doesn't indicate more/less sociopathy, nor one that is "race" based. I appreciate that he's an American concerned with America, it's just that he's noticed a cluster of symptoms and grossly misdiagnosed and also (maybe or maybe not subsequently) prescribed or subscribed to a wildly ineffectual treatment plan, to put it mildly.

Is it still ironic if the logic informing black pessimism was “we need to be pessimistic if we want a black president in 40 years”?

This is a cybernetic model: i.e., black protestors of the mid-20th rejected the optimism of whites because they knew those optimistic visions wouldn’t come to pass if they didn’t put up a struggle.

But respond pessimistically to white optimism, and you add another element to the reaction. Input, output, feedback.

But was that the primary goal of the struggle? Late in the Obama presidency it was opined that Obama's election may have done more harm than good for the material outcomes of African Americans. I think that's putting too much credit or blame on one person in the current context of US governance, but it speaks to ongoing concerns that something isn't right. So after 40+ years of the same old diagnosis and prescription (actually longer), I think it should be time to critically re-examine it rather than vociferously tripling down on it, as we see in the media around us.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not sure if it indicates on the link but they are set to play right at the point where thing is said, you won't have to spend but a few seconds (unless you want to skip back a little).

They started at the beginning for me.

By a strict definition of "the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission." Baldwin has no claim to these other experiences. I'll provide an analogy (although these seldom seem of use): Despite my status as a USMC veteran, I cannot speak up for "veterans rights" and in the process claim that "I CLIMBED MOUNT SURIBACHI, I STORMED KUWAIT, and I CLEARED FALLUJAH", despite the fact that A. I am a vet, B. I was in the USMC, which did those 3 things, and C. Was even in Iraq, although not in Fallujah. It's a common type of rhetorical device employed by the left, and has no basis in fact and evidences either delusion or guile.

Well, probably needless to say I think this is off-base, and I think it falls back on a quasi-positivist of what it means to speak for others.

As best I can tell, your claim is that because someone didn't have the same experiences as someone else, they're unqualified to speak about the other's experiences. But no one shares the same experiences with anyone else, if we take your point to its logical conclusion. Maybe we both have been pulled over by police, but that doesn't make my experience the same as yours. By extension, no one is qualified to speak for anyone else's experiences no matter how similar they are.

This is the same logical impasse of communication. Ultimately, I can't know what's going on in your head; I can only understand what you tell me. Communication can't be verified factually or definitively. It can only produce agreement or disagreement. This doesn't mean communication is pointless.

Likewise, we do share some sense of communal understanding about certain circumstances, and people of particular communities develop narratives about their circumstances and about those that preceded them. Speaking for others' circumstances isn't pointless, and communities and groups sanction a speaker's "appropriation" of their experiences by either accepting what s/he says or rejecting it.

I disagree that Baldwin can't speak for others, and that you can't speak for veterans' rights. There's nothing factual that says you can't do so; others will simply affirm or deny what you say.

Different doesn't indicate more/less sociopathy, nor one that is "race" based. I appreciate that he's an American concerned with America, it's just that he's noticed a cluster of symptoms and grossly misdiagnosed and also (maybe or maybe not subsequently) prescribed or subscribed to a wildly ineffectual treatment plan, to put it mildly.

I have a very different reaction to his words. And I'm not sure I'd call anything he says a "treatment plan."

But was that the primary goal of the struggle?

Well, goals imply a linear approach, and feedback models are nonlinear. The point of resistance is change; I'm not sure they had specifics in mind, beyond those immediately posing a physical threat.

And today's discourse is a different story for sure.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Anybody remember the PC dictionary published a few years back that replaced words like "poor" with "people experiencing poverty?"

In an interview with CNBC last week, the former Starbucks CEO appeared to take personal offense to being described as a “billionaire.” He said that people should use the softer “people of wealth” or “people of means” to describe his class, which accounts for just 1 percent of the world’s population but controls more than half of its money.

“The moniker billionaire now has become the catchphrase,” said Schultz, who’s been a lifelong Democrat but is pondering an independent run for president. “I would rephrase that and I would say that ‘people of means’ have been able to leverage their wealth and their interests in ways that are unfair.”

Schultz has spent the last few weeks on a press tour for his new book, as he mulls a possible third-party candidacy, giving controversial interviews about embattled billionaires and all the mean, “un-American” progressives making fun of them.

Vice is pretty unashamed with their spin on this, but what a beautiful euphemism this is from Schulz.

 

[Dak]

They started at the beginning for me.

Weird. Well, just to cut to the quote I imitated below, you can go to the 21:50pt and listen for a minute or so.

Well, probably needless to say I think this is off-base, and I think it falls back on a quasi-positivist of what it means to speak for others.

As best I can tell, your claim is that because someone didn't have the same experiences as someone else, they're unqualified to speak about the other's experiences. But no one shares the same experiences with anyone else, if we take your point to its logical conclusion. Maybe we both have been pulled over by police, but that doesn't make my experience the same as yours. By extension, no one is qualified to speak for anyone else's experiences no matter how similar they are.

This is the same logical impasse of communication. Ultimately, I can't know what's going on in your head; I can only understand what you tell me. Communication can't be verified factually or definitively. It can only produce agreement or disagreement. This doesn't mean communication is pointless.

Likewise, we do share some sense of communal understanding about certain circumstances, and people of particular communities develop narratives about their circumstances and about those that preceded them. Speaking for others' circumstances isn't pointless, and communities and groups sanction a speaker's "appropriation" of their experiences by either accepting what s/he says or rejecting it.

I disagree that Baldwin can't speak for others, and that you can't speak for veterans' rights. There's nothing factual that says you can't do so; others will simply affirm or deny what you say.

I'm not saying he can't speak for others, but he cannot speak as others, which is what he does on more than one occasion in this relatively short debate, and what he does as a writer. I wrote that out as I did to mimic what he says in the above referenced clip.

I have a very different reaction to his words. And I'm not sure I'd call anything he says a "treatment plan."

Well, goals imply a linear approach, and feedback models are nonlinear. The point of resistance is change; I'm not sure they had specifics in mind, beyond those immediately posing a physical threat.

And today's discourse is a different story for sure.

I would imagine that African Americans would like, to put it simply, peace and prosperity. All the handouts and handups and victimization rhetoric in the world have made nary a dent in the problem of prosperity for the majority. Haven't helped in any post-colonial nations either to my knowledge. None of that is to say that there isn't some amount of truth in some of the rhetoric, or that some haven't been helped by policies meant to assist. Just that it's not providing any sort of mass conversion to a new paradigm, if you will. Tripling down isn't a move that's supported by the evidence at hand.

 

[Einherjar86]

Cool, I'll listen to the clip a bit later.

I'm not saying he can't speak for others, but he cannot speak as others, which is what he does on more than one occasion in this relatively short debate, and what he does as a writer. I wrote that out as I did to mimic what he says in the above referenced clip.

How do you define "speaking for" versus "speaking as"?

His essays are intensely personal affairs; he's hardly speaking as someone else. He writes as others in his fiction... but then, so does literally every author of fiction.

I would imagine that African Americans would like, to put it simply, peace and prosperity. All the handouts and handups and victimization rhetoric in the world have made nary a dent in the problem of prosperity for the majority. Haven't helped in any post-colonial nations either to my knowledge. None of that is to say that there isn't some amount of truth in some of the rhetoric, or that some haven't been helped by policies meant to assist. Just that it's not providing any sort of mass conversion to a new paradigm, if you will. Tripling down isn't a move that's supported by the evidence at hand.

For the sake of winding this down, I'll concede the apparent futility of current discourses on race relations.

But that doesn't necessarily mean Baldwin misdiagnosed anything, or that his words at that time were unimportant. He's arguably one of the most important thinkers/writers for drawing the questions and contradictions of racial identity to the surface.

 

[CiG]

Crossing the divide. Do men really have it easier? These transgender guys found the truth was more complex.

Interesting article from last year.

Not that it exposes anything most men don't already know.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

T

Crossing the divide. Do men really have it easier? These transgender guys found the truth was more complex.

Interesting article from last year.

Not that it exposes anything most men don't already know.

Huh
The article was written in 2018, and somehow managed to look almost identical to an article that I had already read 10 or 12 years ago

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

https://www.pop.org/forced-abortion-still-mandated-chinas-planned-birth-laws/

 

[Dak]

Cool, I'll listen to the clip a bit later.

How do you define "speaking for" versus "speaking as"?

When you get a chance to listen to the clip, you'll see what I was talking about. Baldwin had his own battles to fight, but picking cotton and building railroads or whatever wasn't one of them.

In other news, in defending her "Green New Deal" magic unicorn cloning program:

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1093702448231804928

 

[rms]

People are really obsessed with her though, her own party doesn't even like her ideas haha

 

[Dak]

 

[CiG]

One of the most insufferable Rogan interviews I've watched in recent memory.

 

[CiG]

Alex Jones And Joe Rogan Are In The Midst Of A Hilarious Feud.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]