If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Those are all great rebuttals, and I don't have definitive answers to them; but I see them as complements to the series of questions I already ask myself when dealing with works of African American literature.

All I'll say is that I regularly teach Flannery O'Connor's "The Artificial N--er," excerpts from Ellison's Invisible Man, and George Schuyler's Black No More, and I don't think speaking the n-word aloud in class allows students to better understand the historical dynamics of the word. I think they get that already from reading the assigned works.

When I think of respecting these authors and their work, I have difficulty reducing that to simply reiterating what's on the page without second thought. Yes, Baldwin wanted white people to read his work; but I think his point of cordoning off the n-word with quotation marks and italics is that he's calling out the non-necessity with which the word is used. Baldwin always said that the word didn't illuminate or identify a specific situation or problem in the world, but a sociological pathology of white people. The word is a construction of the white worldview, and the point is to move beyond it. I think that comes through powerfully in the writing, and I'm not sure that repeating the word in class pays respect to the work; in fact, I think you could argue that not saying it pays respect to the author and his work.

This isn't to define my position on the issue, just to highlight what I see as the unstable social dynamics of using the word in an educational setting.

 

[CiG]

I don't envy the people who have to make these choices and consider these angles. I do see what you're saying about the way Baldwin always frames the slur in his writings as if it should be questioned by the reader rather than simply enunciated. It's also clear to me that Baldwin preferred to use "negro."

 

[Dak]

sociological pathology of white people

And yet he was never so affected so as to remove himself from the company of white people. If anything, he sought the opposite.
He was a rather eloquent speaker, but he never gleaned a frame of reference outside of his own (actually relatively fortunate one) of which to speak, excluding appropriating that which he imagined to be the experiences of other Caucasian Americans and African Americans, both past and (then) present.

I watched his debate vs Buckley in '65. There's some irony when he references a comment by another that there may be a black president in 40 years, which he noted was a suggestion met with laughter and anger in "Harlem". The commenter was only 3 years off.

 

[Einherjar86]

And yet he was never so affected so as to remove himself from the company of white people. If anything, he sought the opposite.
He was a rather eloquent speaker, but he never gleaned a frame of reference outside of his own (actually relatively fortunate one) of which to speak, excluding appropriating that which he imagined to be the experiences of other Caucasian Americans and African Americans, both past and (then) present.

If I may--what makes you say this? What biographical evidence are you basing this on? Just because he consented to interviews with white people? That doesn't mean he only ingratiated himself to whites, though. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I mean, do you know anything about his upbringing, education, interaction with other blacks, etc.?

I watched his debate vs Buckley in '65. There's some irony when he references a comment by another that there may be a black president in 40 years, which he noted was a suggestion met with laughter and anger in "Harlem". The commenter was only 3 years off.

I'm not understanding your point.

 

[Dak]

If I may--what makes you say this? What biographical evidence are you basing this on? Just because he consented to interviews with white people? That doesn't mean he only ingratiated himself to whites, though. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I mean, do you know anything about his upbringing, education, interaction with other blacks, etc.?

When not living in the US he preferred to reside in an even more white and therefore sociopathic place: Europe. Why not move to less sociopathic places?

As far as his appropriation, his taking on of the "trials" of those who lived before his birth and in very different environment paints a questioning light on the rest.

I'm not understanding your point.

The suggestion which was met with such derision turned out to be pretty damn accurate. A young, minimally accomplished black man beat an established white male of the Senate, and a war veteran no less. I'm sure if those particular additional details had been provided in the suggestion, the original commenter might have been involuntarily committed.

 

[Einherjar86]

When not living in the US he preferred to reside in an even more white and therefore sociopathic place: Europe. Why not move to less sociopathic places?

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.

As far as his appropriation, his taking on of the "trials" of those who lived before his birth and in very different environment paints a questioning light on the rest.

I'm still a bit unclear. He was raised in precisely the kind of environment he wrote about. You think he didn't experience "trials," or know people who did?

The suggestion which was met with such derision turned out to be pretty damn accurate.

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.

 

[rms]

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.

doesnt he admit that France, while a different racial experience, was akin to that in America?

 

[CiG]

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.

Reminds me of the film Paris Blues, with Sidney Poitier playing a black musician who moves to France because of what was going on in America, meets a woman (a black American tourist) who convinces him to stop running from America and to come home and help fix it. Great film.

 

[Einherjar86]

doesnt he admit that France, while a different racial experience, was akin to that in America?

France definitely isn't post-racial or anything like that, but I think he found Paris far more accepting of both his race and sexual orientation. While France was a colonial power, it didn't have the same history of slavery to the extent America did. I think that plays a role in a country's racial consciousness.

Reminds me of the film Paris Blues, with Sidney Poitier playing a black musician who moves to France because of what was going on in America, meets a woman (a black American tourist) who convinces him to stop running from America and to come home and help fix it. Great film.

Baldwin was friends with Poitier, if I recall correctly. Haven't seen the film, have to look for it.

 

[CiG]

Baldwin was friends with Poitier, if I recall correctly. Haven't seen the film, have to look for it.

Really? That's interesting, the film came out in 1961 or '62. It's a nice romantic film, probably good to watch with your s/o.

 

[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.