Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #27306

Subject: "Towards a class based movement against racism and sexism" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Wed Feb-23-05 01:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Towards a class based movement against racism and sexism"


  

          

I originally wrote this as a response to someone in another post about affirmitive action (AA) after he commented on my suggestion that perhaps AA should be class and income based rather than race and gender based. I essentially argue that we, in fact, don't want AA to benefit black people and women who are already in the middle or upper class, regardless of how small their numbers are. Moreover, we should know by now that people of colour and women who are already well off in society are automatically favoured in AA programs because owners and administrators would rather give a job, position or spot in school to people they perceive as well-to-do comparitively.

Anyway, here is my response to a person on this board who doesn't quite agree with me. I want this as a new thread because I believe it is an important topic for us all to consider and I wanted other people to get involved. I want people to ask themselves, "What's class got to do with it?" Thanks, here it is...

Okay, now this is a discussion! See, I have to agree and disagree with you at the same time. I completely agree that the ruling class is overwhelmingly white but that is not the same thing as saying that the the majority of whites are members of the ruling class? You dig? My point is that despite the whiteness of the ruling population, the majority of white people in this world are struggling workers and I know that this is a difficult concept for a lot of people to accept. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not running to whitey's defense and I certainly understand the impact of white privelege, even within the working class. However, the point is that ALL workers, whether white or black or yellow or brown, all share the same fundemental interests in society. Once again, don't get me wrong I know that black people have interests that whites do not have such as not being viewed as lessers in society. But, even then, as workers (AS WORKERS) have like interests in that they are all deprived of control over what they produce in society as well as over control of their own lives in general.

This leads to my next point. You said that the creation of a class system, in our case capitalism, has nothing to do with racism. Sure, we live under an highly exploitative and racist system but the motive of this system's being is not white superiority. White superiority is an OUTCOME (rather than a motivating factor) of class relations where the majority of one race (say, black) are producers while the majority of owners of productive wealth are of another race (ie, white). But notice how I am careful to explain that the majority of the owning class is white rather than the majority of whites being owners of productive wealth.

Further, class systems have existed the world over, well before the white man conquested anything. In the region we now know as Rwanda, prior to Euro conquest, Hutu and Tutsi were class significations that determined that a Tutsi was one who owned land and cattle and a Hutu owned little of value. However, these groups did not have much conflict until Europeans arrived and immediately favoured the owning-class of Tutsis. In fact, the white man wasn't anything in the global sphere until they arrived in the Americas and accumulated all sorts of wealth in gold and silver. Prior to this the Abbasids, the Mughal Empire, the Dynasties of China, the Ummayads, and so on were the imperialist forces of the world that, by the way, were not one bit peaceful. So, the problem is not one of race but race is certainly an important problem.

The reason I favor class as a nucleas to fight in favour of race and gender struggles has to do with the way people are exploited. Black people, historically, have been exploited not as anything other than a means of producing wealth for a ruling class of whites, however I must repeat that this ruling class is no more than 10 to 20 percent(generously speaking) of the entire white population. Likewise, even though it has been conducted in different manners, white workers have also been exploited by the white ruling class as producers of wealth. That is a strong connection to make.

Despite the similar interests that white and black workers have, the fact that these groups have experienced class exploitation in a such profoundly different ways throughout history serves to distort and obscure their common oppression. I think white labour leaders, as well as many postmodern and postcolonial theorists, are to blame. White labour leaders, it must be said, have historically alienated women and people of colour in the labour movement. I think, however, that many advances have been made in our collective consciousness where it is possible, if we work together as working class people with similar interests, to consolidate our numbers against the ruling class by developing a strong working peoples movement that with women and people of colour at the front of our conscious development.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
it should be a combination of both race and class
Feb 23rd 2005
1
exactly, my thoughts in a minute.
Feb 23rd 2005
2
RE: it should be a combination of both race and class
Feb 23rd 2005
3
people forget AA was designed for gender too
Apr 08th 2005
40
How would this directly speak to the plight of the
Feb 23rd 2005
4
RE: How would this directly speak to the plight of the
Feb 24th 2005
5
yup. Russians got along with Ukrainians just fine.
Feb 24th 2005
7
One point!
Feb 25th 2005
16
i think racism is definitely a great tool to oppress ...
Feb 24th 2005
9
Opression is a tool of advantage.
Feb 24th 2005
12
true, but my point was more about...
Feb 24th 2005
13
RE: i think racism is definitely a great tool to oppress ...
Feb 25th 2005
17
n/m
Apr 08th 2005
41
RE: How would this directly speak to the plight of the
Feb 25th 2005
14
      I believe pure socialism is a farse.
Feb 26th 2005
21
           Please, just show me that you are at least trying to focus...
Feb 26th 2005
22
                Interesting...
Feb 26th 2005
23
                     RE: Interesting...
Feb 28th 2005
25
                          nah man.
Mar 01st 2005
26
                          What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Mar 01st 2005
28
                               RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Mar 01st 2005
29
                               What happened here?
Apr 06th 2005
34
                               who, me? I thought it was done.
Apr 08th 2005
37
                                    RE: who, me? I thought it was done.
Apr 08th 2005
38
                                         well damn. lol....my bad.
Apr 08th 2005
39
                               RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Apr 07th 2005
36
                               RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?
Mar 01st 2005
30
ok so that's what you all think about race
Feb 24th 2005
6
for gender and race relations...
Feb 24th 2005
10
Selma James' work is also useful...
Feb 25th 2005
18
The Wobblies were some decent cats...
Apr 06th 2005
35
RE: ok so that's what you all think about race
Feb 25th 2005
15
Don't just blame white labor unions
Feb 24th 2005
8
I don't think I disagree with you but...
Feb 25th 2005
19
Devil's Advocate
Feb 24th 2005
11
What a great question!!
Feb 25th 2005
20
Globalization.........
Mar 03rd 2005
32
mmm
Mar 03rd 2005
33
great post....
Feb 26th 2005
24
i appreciate the worker thing
Mar 01st 2005
27
RE: i appreciate the worker thing
Apr 11th 2005
44
Up
Mar 03rd 2005
31
The real question is...
Apr 08th 2005
42
RE: The real question is...
Apr 08th 2005
43
      RE: The real question is...
Apr 11th 2005
45

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Wed Feb-23-05 01:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "it should be a combination of both race and class"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

because statistically, the number of poor whites is higher than the number of poor blacks, and the intent of AA was to rectify the oppression of the black underclass

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_



“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday


__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Wed Feb-23-05 03:16 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "exactly, my thoughts in a minute."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

ya'll got some good posts up, I'm in some sort of overload.



______________________________



Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill Gate's Hosted By John Legend.


Feb. 25th: Groove Theory (Final Fridays) @ Djangos OKP's Nabi and spinning downstairs, Upstairs. Free with RSVP before 1am.





_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Wed Feb-23-05 03:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "RE: it should be a combination of both race and class"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Thank you, you summurized what I said almost exactly. However, I would avoid the word "underclass" as it obscures the reality that the poorest of society are in fact fallen members of the working class whose labour power have not been fully realized on the market. "Underclass" suggests that the extremely poor are some class phenomenon that exists outside of the working class and are there for reasons of nature rather than some social reality.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
rawsouthpaw
Charter member
15473 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 05:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "people forget AA was designed for gender too"
In response to Reply # 1
Fri Apr-08-05 05:34 PM by rawsouthpaw

  

          

i would keep gender as a factor. it's spun as a race only program and it's popular perception overlooks how women and especially women of color are impacted by it.

edit- but i'm speaking w/out reading the post yet...



----------------------------

www.summerproleague.com/photo
_gallery.htm


''Ang hindi marunong lumingon
sa pinanggalingan, hindi
makakarating sa
pinaroroonan.'' Those who
cannot see where they came
from will never get to where
they are going.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Wed Feb-23-05 04:12 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "How would this directly speak to the plight of the"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Afrikan in America with such a broadly brushed stroke?

Certainly racism is a tool of oppression in capitalism. Certainly less than 5% of the population controls most of this country's wealth.
Undoubtedly many of the wealthy individuals in this country are white.

But do you think that working class whites also support this system? I feel that due to the feudal mindset of the European and it's inherit imprint on the popular culture, the status quo is buttressed by people who live vicariously thru others that are more successful.

Your prejudiced worker might not be better off than the his black coworker, but he might FEEL better cus his boss is white.

so sure he'll buttress a thought pattern, or economic system, or a tax plan or a bill in congress that help keeps ole boi down...

or maybe I'm just pessimistic. I can't spell it either.


______________________________



Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill Gate's Hosted By John Legend.


Feb. 25th: Groove Theory (Final Fridays) @ Djangos OKP's Nabi and spinning downstairs, Upstairs. Free with RSVP before 1am.





_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mcsinger21
Member since Nov 15th 2004
16 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 05:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "RE: How would this directly speak to the plight of the"
In response to Reply # 4
Thu Feb-24-05 05:42 AM

          

This is precisely why the labor struggle needs to be all inclussive. We instinctively identify with people who are most like ourselves or who can best understand our struggles. If the working class is more unified all of the sudden the white worker might realize that he has a lot more in common with the black person next to them (struggling in the same way to pay mortage, health care, tuition) than the white person who is mananging the operation. It seems a unified class struggle will foster more understanding between the races than government programs ever could (and let it be known that I believe that government programs not only have a place but are necessary in fostering more equality). And you are right, this would not directly speak to the plight of blacks. But it seems that the result could be less deaf ears.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 07:05 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "yup. Russians got along with Ukrainians just fine."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

people, when in competition are always going to find a way to band together to increase they chances of winning.

The assumption with class based socialist structures is that you can somehow eliminate competition from within.

This is impossible.

It goes agains human nature. which is why it hasn't/won't/and doesn't work.



______________________________



Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill Gate's Hosted By John Legend.


Feb. 25th: Groove Theory (Final Fridays) @ Djangos OKP's Nabi and spinning downstairs, Upstairs. Free with RSVP before 1am.





_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 02:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "One point!"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

Good message!

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Fiver
Member since Oct 18th 2004
1090 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 10:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "i think racism is definitely a great tool to oppress ..."
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

..the truly hated: the poor.

see, what you do is take one class, divide it, and then watch the fight stay within that class. as evil as it is, it's pretty effective. Example: take a look at the story of the molly mcguires: irish (scum at that time) formed America's first union. the mining company (with a li'l help from the Pinkerton agency) got some scabs by enlisting the recently emancipated blacks. It makes sense to hate the mining company, but it's a lot easier to hate the scab who is taking your job.

grendel has had an accident, so may you all.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 10:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "Opression is a tool of advantage."
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

folk think they can legislate advantage away. can't happen.


______________________________



Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill Gate's Hosted By John Legend.


Feb. 25th: Groove Theory (Final Fridays) @ Djangos OKP's Nabi and spinning downstairs, Upstairs. Free with RSVP before 1am.





_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Fiver
Member since Oct 18th 2004
1090 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 10:59 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "true, but my point was more about..."
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

...correctly defining the entity that has the advantage.

grendel has had an accident, so may you all.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 02:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: i think racism is definitely a great tool to oppress ..."
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

I think you're completely on the money.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Sarah_Bellum
Charter member
7488 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 07:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "n/m"
In response to Reply # 9
Fri Apr-08-05 07:41 PM by Sarah_Bellum

  

          

.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 02:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "RE: How would this directly speak to the plight of the"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

Everything you just said, about how the white worker sees his/herself as better off than his/her black co-worker because his/her boss is white. Or, that white workers for some reason support capitalism. While I agree that everything you are saying is true, to a certain extent and not even close to completely, you are making the grave mistake as framing the behaviour of black and white robotically as some inherent behaviour rather than a form of cultural development that is constantly subject to change. Further, if this is the case, then the incorporation of race and gender into meaningful class analysis is dependent of the work that we, the people, put into developing it. I don't buy arguments like this is how so and so behave therefore I am going to roll over and take it. That's crap, the labour movement is a movement of people who make conscious decisions, the black movement is a movement of people who make conscious decisions, the women's movement is a movement of people who make conscious decisions. If we, as people within these movements worked a little harder to build a movement that combined these three so-called 'identities' then we would see leap of change in the social behaviour of many groups.

>Afrikan in America with such a broadly brushed stroke?
>
>Certainly racism is a tool of oppression in capitalism.
>Certainly less than 5% of the population controls most of
>this country's wealth.
>Undoubtedly many of the wealthy individuals in this country
>are white.
>
>But do you think that working class whites also support this
>system? I feel that due to the feudal mindset of the
>European and it's inherit imprint on the popular culture,
>the status quo is buttressed by people who live vicariously
>thru others that are more successful.
>
>Your prejudiced worker might not be better off than the his
>black coworker, but he might FEEL better cus his boss is
>white.
>
>so sure he'll buttress a thought pattern, or economic
>system, or a tax plan or a bill in congress that help keeps
>ole boi down...
>
>or maybe I'm just pessimistic. I can't spell it either.
>
>
>______________________________
>
>
>
>Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill
>Gate's
>Hosted By John Legend.
>
>
>Feb. 25th: Groove Theory (Final Fridays) @ Djangos OKP's
>Nabi and
>spinning downstairs,
>Upstairs. Free with RSVP before 1am.
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________
>Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Sat Feb-26-05 03:19 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "I believe pure socialism is a farse."
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

It claims to eliminate differences and societal evils and level the playing field. The problem is human nature. People will always seek adavantage and group together based on that. We are animals. There is no escaping that. Sure we are responsible fo our thoughts and actions, and so what? In the end someone will eff up the system. I'd rather have my bs right up front where I can see it.



______________________________

Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill Gate's Hosted By John Legend.





_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Sat Feb-26-05 06:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "Please, just show me that you are at least trying to focus..."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

First of all, no where in my last statement did I mention anything about socialism -nowhere! Sure, I am a socialist but could you at least wait until that comes up before you decide that you are going to base your whole counter argument on it?

Second you make such strong claims about this phenomenon you call "human nature". Human nature arguments are write off statements for people who don't want to think something through. Personally, I don't believe that there is such a thing as human nature. History has shown us that we behave according to our social structures. There are as many examples of cooperation and unity as there is for division and conflict. In a society where the dogmatic view of human beings is one of individualism and accumulation through greed and competition we are going to have greedy and competitive people. These are learned behaviours not natural ones. If you don't believe me then tell me why 14 hour work days were acceptable 100 years ago but we would regard such a work day with disgust today? Why did American society believe slavery was acceptable 200 years ago but is deplored today? Why weren't women allowed to vote at the turn of the 20th century but now they can? Could these changes possibly have anything to do with the consciousness of people changing as we have collectively fought for them and rearranged the way we live our lives?

Your little claim about humans being nothing but mere animals is as equally unprofound. First of all, if we are the same as most animals, most species of animals do not survive at the expense of other animals within their species. Most animals cooperate for survival. Furthermore, human beings are different from other animals for the sheer fact that we consciously produce things whereas other animals produce instinctively. How many wolves have programmed computers? How many lions have built enormous bridges across large bodies of water?

If what you are attempting to say is true then why even struggle for racial unity? If someone is going to eff things up for everyone else, then surely this applies to the black movement and the womens movement too, no? Why should we reject the war in Iraq? Hell, by your logic Bush is the perfect person in power! Heil frickin Hitler! Come to think of it, I remember you once said that you were once quite a republican. I can see why, the logic is still there.

>It claims to eliminate differences and societal evils and
>level the playing field. The problem is human nature.
>People will always seek adavantage and group together based
>on that. We are animals. There is no escaping that. Sure
>we are responsible fo our thoughts and actions, and so what?
> In the end someone will eff up the system. I'd rather have
>my bs right up front where I can see it.
>
>
>
>______________________________
>
>Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill
>Gate's
>Hosted By John Legend.
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________
>Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Sat Feb-26-05 07:31 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "Interesting..."
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

>First of all, no where in my last statement did I mention
>anything about socialism -nowhere! Sure, I am a socialist
>but could you at least wait until that comes up before you
>decide that you are going to base your whole counter
>argument on it?

We've had another convo about this, I felt I knew where you were headed. I tend to jump the gun sometimes. My bad.

>
>Second you make such strong claims about this phenomenon you
>call "human nature". Human nature arguments are write off
>statements for people who don't want to think something
>through.

Why do you think this? I believe human nature is not ever given enough credit. For some reason people like to forget that we are animals. If you want truth, first look to Allah and secondly look to nature. I believe you can find many answers in nature and social concepts are not excluded.


Personally, I don't believe that there is such a
>thing as human nature. History has shown us that we behave
>according to our social structures.

What are these structures based on? They are a mechanism. When you break down these mechanisms they are based on the simplest of things: 1.) Procreation 2.) Ensuring the next generation.
no?


There are as many
>examples of cooperation and unity as there is for division
>and conflict. In a society where the dogmatic view of human
>beings is one of individualism and accumulation through
>greed and competition we are going to have greedy and
>competitive people.

So greed is only born out of society? This isn't an age old problem found in many different cultures with many different ways of approaching life? Show me a group of people that have never had to deal with greed. Are they any? Do you have evidence of this? You are telling me that you know of or believe to be a group of people that nowhere in their writings, or oral traditions they encountered the concept of greed? Interesting. If so, there might be an argument.


These are learned behaviours not natural
>ones.

Prove it.

If you don't believe me then tell me why 14 hour work
>days were acceptable 100 years ago but we would regard such
>a work day with disgust today?

In which countries, which county, and what particular people?


Why did American society
>believe slavery was acceptable 200 years ago but is deplored
>today?

It was deplored then by many as well. Money is a powerful blinder tho. We don't need slavery money today. If folk needed a slave to pick tabacco in their front yard to make their mortgage TODAY- I bet you'll have some pro slavery folk RIGHT NOW.

Why weren't women allowed to vote at the turn of the
>20th century but now they can?

In which country? In Islamic law women have had the right to vote as well have own title and property rights for over one thousand years. But Islam is supposed to be oppressive to women. So I guess I'm trying to ask, what is your point?

Could these changes possibly
>have anything to do with the consciousness of people
>changing as we have collectively fought for them and
>rearranged the way we live our lives?

I think that every person is mentaly capable of everything the next man/woman is. I feel no consciousness has changed since the beginning of time. People always had the same core values. The only thing that changes is the power structure at the time and what can benefit it. If it wasn't beneficial for someone to allow the womens arguement in the door, it would not have happend. I'm sure folk had it on the brain for years but had no impetus to respond.


>
>Your little claim about humans being nothing but mere
>animals is as equally unprofound.

We aren't animals? Why is that a put down? How do you feel about animals?

First of all, if we are
>the same as most animals, most species of animals do not
>survive at the expense of other animals within their
>species.

Explain. Wolves will kill other wolves bordering their territory on sight because it effects competition for food. So do lions. This isn't a case of animals surviving at the expense of other animals within their species? The very existence of a wolf pup of a bordering clan in fact ultimatley means death to the next. They understand that, and will kill the pup.


Most animals cooperate for survival.

explain what you mean by "most".

Furthermore,
>human beings are different from other animals for the sheer
>fact that we consciously produce things whereas other
>animals produce instinctively.

Explain your proof of this. I do not subscribe to the humans THINK but animals act instinctley arguement. It's hogwash. Explain animals doing great feats of THOUGHT and ACTION out of LOVE for either a human being companion or another animal companion. Explain a crow nursing a lost kitten to adulthood. You can't. Because by all rights that crow should KILL and EAT that kitten and share it with it's murder, but instead I know of a DOCUMENTED case where a crow decided to raise a kitten it found, it left it's flock or "murder" and raised the abandoned kitten feeding it and grooming it, never leaving it's side. and now they are best friends. Is that instinct? Can't be. There is no DNA strand for that. Meanwhile I see humans acting on instinct rather than processed though patterns everyday. You underestimate the animal kingdom.


How many wolves have
>programmed computers?

They have enough mastery of their enviornment and capabilities that they don't NEED to. They can tell you if you have cancer before a computer can tho...and they'll KNOW it's cancer that can kill you. Which is more brilliant?


How many lions have built enormous
>bridges across large bodies of water?

Not any I know of. But ants do it all the time. Beavers have made contraptions our engineers still cant get the math on.


>
>If what you are attempting to say is true then why even
>struggle for racial unity?

I don't want to. I want those capable of understanding to continue in their growth and I want everyone else to live thier life. I don't think you can have a greater good. Because in the end, certain people in a perfect world would have died because of their ignorance/indifference. What we have done with "society" is staved that process off so that we have megadeath cycles instead where millions die in a short time period only to start over again. Fine.

If someone is going to eff things
>up for everyone else, then surely this applies to the black
>movement and the womens movement too, no?

Yup! sure does. But that is a movement, not a style of government- the ramifications can be very different.

Why should we
>reject the war in Iraq? Hell, by your logic Bush is the
>perfect person in power! Heil frickin Hitler!

Why?

Come to think
>of it, I remember you once said that you were once quite a
>republican. I can see why, the logic is still there.

This is unfair. In fact, it's downright crude. Just because I don't agree with socialism u doin all that? Wow. I thought u were bigger than that.

>
>>It claims to eliminate differences and societal evils and
>>level the playing field. The problem is human nature.
>>People will always seek adavantage and group together based
>>on that. We are animals. There is no escaping that. Sure
>>we are responsible fo our thoughts and actions, and so what?
>> In the end someone will eff up the system. I'd rather have
>>my bs right up front where I can see it.
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________
>>
>>Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill
>>Gate's
>>Hosted By John Legend.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________
>>Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


______________________________

Instores Feb. 8th NothernArc's very own Black Bill Gate's Hosted By John Legend.





_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.


"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Mon Feb-28-05 09:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "RE: Interesting..."
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

Alright, once again, lets chop it up...

>>First of all, no where in my last statement did I mention
>>anything about socialism -nowhere! Sure, I am a socialist
>>but could you at least wait until that comes up before you
>>decide that you are going to base your whole counter
>>argument on it?
>
>We've had another convo about this, I felt I knew where you
>were headed. I tend to jump the gun sometimes. My bad.

As you know I believe only through a system of consciously planned production, determined by those who actually produce goods and services in society, can we develop ourselves into full human beings who relate to one another as human beings and not market entities embedded with value on some mystical market. With that said, while I believe in socialism as an end I believe that building it is a long term project. Whether you share this view or not, my argument in this post is still valid as a means of build broad social unity among human beings with similar class interests. If you oppose the policies of right wing capitalists then you must support their one and only set of victims, labourers.

>>Second you make such strong claims about this phenomenon you
>>call "human nature". Human nature arguments are write off
>>statements for people who don't want to think something
>>through.
>
>Why do you think this? I believe human nature is not ever
>given enough credit. For some reason people like to forget
>that we are animals. If you want truth, first look to Allah
>and secondly look to nature. I believe you can find many
>answers in nature and social concepts are not excluded.

Well human nature is given far too much credit by people who have either not studies history or people who have studied history and have failed to understand anything about the changing nature of human beings throughout. This is why in the past you have had cooperative societies and slavish imperialist societies. Surplant yourself onto a plot of land nearly anywhere in the world 500 years ago. When people lived in societies that lacked the concept of individual private property and private ownership, the concept of sharing and producing in common dominated. This is why in America at the turn of the 19th century so many artisans, craftspeople and journeymen revolted against the emerging conditions of capitalism that concentrated wealth and property into the hands of a few wealthy landowners. Before the emergence of industrial capitalism these craftspeople lived in a very cooperative and symbiotic manner with their guild masters. They had views and ideas completely alien to us today and their transformation into wage workers is a testament to the malleability of the nature of human beings.

>Personally, I don't believe that there is such a
>>thing as human nature. History has shown us that we behave
>>according to our social structures.
>
>What are these structures based on? They are a mechanism.
>When you break down these mechanisms they are based on the
>simplest of things: 1.) Procreation 2.) Ensuring the next
>generation.
>no?

Again, read above as your reductions are overly simplistic. Yes, humans need to continue procreation and ensure their survival but your assumption implicit here is that these goals always had to be acomplished under hostility. That couldn't be more false. For thousands of years human beings had different structures to ensure survival, some cooperative and some competitive. Some societies like the Tainos of what we know today as puerto rico and the people of Easter Island before that society transformed where extremely cooperative and peaceful. Other societies like the Aztecs, the Romans and the Ottomans had very centralised and class divided societies that survived via imperialism. The fact that the ideals, morals, values and relations that these different societies had in regard to one another is a strong refutation of any inherent nature existent in human beings.

>There are as many
>>examples of cooperation and unity as there is for division
>>and conflict. In a society where the dogmatic view of human
>>beings is one of individualism and accumulation through
>>greed and competition we are going to have greedy and
>>competitive people.
>
>So greed is only born out of society? This isn't an age old
>problem found in many different cultures with many different
>ways of approaching life? Show me a group of people that
>have never had to deal with greed. Are they any? Do you
>have evidence of this? You are telling me that you know of
>or believe to be a group of people that nowhere in their
>writings, or oral traditions they encountered the concept of
>greed? Interesting. If so, there might be an argument.

No, greed is not only born out of capitalist society but its manifestation under capitalism has by far been the most brutal, alienating and destructive form of greed human social relations have ever known. Even if past societies had to grapple with the concept of greed, it was often looked down upon until the emergence of capitalism. Over the past 300 years of capitalist expansion there has never been so much expression in human philosophy expressing the virtues of selfishness and how greed can be harnessed for good. Of course, these are only justifications of the current regime. If you don't believe such litterature exists check out Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Adam Smith, Hernando de Soto, Francis Fukuyama and the list goes on. In fact, most religions are born as a means of resisting the greed impulse that commercial societies create. Just study protestantism in the 19th century to learn how greed was rejected in society.

>These are learned behaviours not natural
>>ones.
>
>Prove it.
>
> If you don't believe me then tell me why 14 hour work
>>days were acceptable 100 years ago but we would regard such
>>a work day with disgust today?
>
>In which countries, which county, and what particular
>people?

Are you serious? Are you seriously contesting my claim that we have defeated some of the most horrible work conditions in many parts of the world? You cannot be that dense! I mean, I understand abusive labour practices still exist in many countries but 200 years ago those conditions were universal. Today, world standards have changed, albeit not all over the globe.

> Why did American society
>>believe slavery was acceptable 200 years ago but is deplored
>>today?
>
>It was deplored then by many as well. Money is a powerful
>blinder tho. We don't need slavery money today. If folk
>needed a slave to pick tabacco in their front yard to make
>their mortgage TODAY- I bet you'll have some pro slavery
>folk RIGHT NOW.

Fine it was deplored by many then, but not to the extent that it is today! This is factual and if you don't believe it, trying chaining and whipping your neighbor for cotton and see where that gets you. Back then you could do that regardless of what you thought of the institute of slavery. And, yes, I understand the economic reasons why slavery was abolished. With the advent of many productive technologies, it actually became cheaper to produce with wage labour than slave labour. All the more reason to fight in favour of the working class. But in you statement is a great contradiction in what you said earlier. You said that greed and power is a product of human nature but right here you see a complete shift in values regarding slavery as the economic and social conditions of society changed, thus changing our attitudes.

>Why weren't women allowed to vote at the turn of the
>>20th century but now they can?
>
>In which country? In Islamic law women have had the right
>to vote as well have own title and property rights for over
>one thousand years. But Islam is supposed to be oppressive
>to women. So I guess I'm trying to ask, what is your point?

My point is that human beings are not static creatures bound to a certain type of nature. Islamic law was also born out of a highly classist and centralized system just as western misoginy was. However, you and I have a different value system in our treatment of women. Why do I have one view of women that I consider progressive while Osama Bin Laden basically treats women like slaves? If there was a common human nature, shouldn't we both have the same view towards women?

> Could these changes possibly
>>have anything to do with the consciousness of people
>>changing as we have collectively fought for them and
>>rearranged the way we live our lives?
>
>I think that every person is mentaly capable of everything
>the next man/woman is. I feel no consciousness has changed
>since the beginning of time. People always had the same
>core values. The only thing that changes is the power
>structure at the time and what can benefit it. If it wasn't
>beneficial for someone to allow the womens arguement in the
>door, it would not have happend. I'm sure folk had it on
>the brain for years but had no impetus to respond.

Okay think this through. What about before human beings had language, music, art, and culture? Think about it, there really was a time. Human beings are socially creatures whose consciousness is a product of the social conditions around them. Pre-social human beings did not have values because there was no language or communication to express and develop any such systematic thought. You don't believe in pre social human beings or socially defined human beings? Well, I have a little experiment for you. Stick a baby in a dark cave for the next twenty years and ensure s/he has food and water. In twenty years ask that grown person what s/he thinks of the catholic church? What are his/her views on slavery, the inquisition and industrialisation? Does s/he prefer the politics of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr.? As him/her the social significance of the latest songs by Jay-Z, Mos Def and Talib Kweli. See if that grown creature does any more than gurgle at you lifelessly like a nothing more than a living, hungry collection of flesh and organs! That might teach you something about the reality of our nature as human beings.

>
>>
>>Your little claim about humans being nothing but mere
>>animals is as equally unprofound.
>
>We aren't animals? Why is that a put down? How do you feel
>about animals?

It not the fact the you say we are animals that annoys me, we are a type of animal. My issue is that you reduce us to nothing more than animals.

> First of all, if we are
>>the same as most animals, most species of animals do not
>>survive at the expense of other animals within their
>>species.
>
>Explain. Wolves will kill other wolves bordering their
>territory on sight because it effects competition for food.
>So do lions. This isn't a case of animals surviving at the
>expense of other animals within their species? The very
>existence of a wolf pup of a bordering clan in fact
>ultimatley means death to the next. They understand that,
>and will kill the pup.

Show me a wolf whose language and way of life has developed over the past fifty thousand years and I will buy your little argument.

>Most animals cooperate for survival.
>
>explain what you mean by "most".

For a good definition of "most", follow this link:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=most&x=0&y=0

>Furthermore,
>>human beings are different from other animals for the sheer
>>fact that we consciously produce things whereas other
>>animals produce instinctively.
>
>Explain your proof of this. I do not subscribe to the
>humans THINK but animals act instinctley arguement. It's
>hogwash. Explain animals doing great feats of THOUGHT and
>ACTION out of LOVE for either a human being companion or
>another animal companion. Explain a crow nursing a lost
>kitten to adulthood. You can't. Because by all rights that
>crow should KILL and EAT that kitten and share it with it's
>murder, but instead I know of a DOCUMENTED case where a crow
>decided to raise a kitten it found, it left it's flock or
>"murder" and raised the abandoned kitten feeding it and
>grooming it, never leaving it's side. and now they are best
>friends. Is that instinct? Can't be. There is no DNA
>strand for that. Meanwhile I see humans acting on instinct
>rather than processed though patterns everyday. You
>underestimate the animal kingdom.

Even if your crow story is true, would you be able to confidently apply the behaviour of this alleged crow to the entire population of crows? Would you wager on it? Personally, I WOULD wager on the likeliness of being helped by some passerby and taken to the hospital if I was to be hit by a vehicle tonight and left in the street. I wouldn't make a similar wager that if a kitten was ran over that some crow would eventually come to its rescue. Either the story you tell me is false, or there is some sort of animal conditioning there that made the crow familiar with the kitten. Anyway, you have just done a complete 180 degree turn in logic on me. First you argue that animals act upon nature, then you tell me this completely contradictory story of a crow that acted outside of its nature and behaved with social qualities to nurse a kitten to healt. Which one is it Firebrand, nature or social conditioning? I really think you need to think this through further, you seem like a smart guy but there are a lot of blanks you need to fill in.

Also, one proof that human beings think before they produce whereas animals just produce, is in the fact that the design of animal production never varies within a species. For human beings our tools and creations have been under constant evolution since time immemorial. Look at a bee hive or a beaver dam from 500 hundred years ago and you can pretty much assume that it was produced in the same manner and shape as the ones they produce today. The beaver does not ponder are the artistic significance of his/her current dam. The bees do not redo their hives because he would prefer a more impressionist or postmodern motif. These animals JUST produce, and as magnificent as nature is, that is all they will ever be able to acheive.

> How many wolves have
>>programmed computers?
>
>They have enough mastery of their enviornment and
>capabilities that they don't NEED to. They can tell you if
>you have cancer before a computer can tho...and they'll KNOW
>it's cancer that can kill you. Which is more brilliant?

No, they don't have mastery of their environment. We have mastery of their environment. They live in a delicate system of natural balance with other animals and plant life. But our slightest alterations of the natural environment drives the whole animal kingdom screwy! Changes in hunting laws all over has led to spikes and declines of animal populations that have absolutely nothing to do with the animal that the law concentrates on.

> How many lions have built enormous
>>bridges across large bodies of water?
>
>Not any I know of. But ants do it all the time. Beavers
>have made contraptions our engineers still cant get the math
>on.

Show me a society of beavers that can put the design out on paper and build a structure that crosses a body of water several kilometers long, then you may have something. Until then, humans conceive of their products before producing them.

> Come to think
>>of it, I remember you once said that you were once quite a
>>republican. I can see why, the logic is still there.
>
>This is unfair. In fact, it's downright crude. Just because
>I don't agree with socialism u doin all that? Wow. I
>thought u were bigger than that.

The reason I say this is because you subscribe to a very individualistic mode of thought that reduces that actions of individuals to some greedy form of human nature. This is what the whole doctrine of free market capitalism and the republican party of today premise themselves upon.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Tue Mar-01-05 07:26 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "nah man."
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

>Alright, once again, lets chop it up...
>
>>>First of all, no where in my last statement did I mention
>>>anything about socialism -nowhere! Sure, I am a socialist
>>>but could you at least wait until that comes up before you
>>>decide that you are going to base your whole counter
>>>argument on it?
>>
>>We've had another convo about this, I felt I knew where you
>>were headed. I tend to jump the gun sometimes. My bad.
>
>As you know I believe only through a system of consciously
>planned production, determined by those who actually produce
>goods and services in society, can we develop ourselves into
>full human beings who relate to one another as human beings
>and not market entities embedded with value on some mystical
>market. With that said, while I believe in socialism as an
>end I believe that building it is a long term project.

Look. I don't disagree with planned goods and services, if we live in small family groups of no more than 200 to 500 people and abolish countries. But anytime you have a sophisticated buracracy that runs infrastructure you are going to have human maniuplation. There is no way around it. You might even have it on the smaller scale, but when you are dealing with family HOPEFULLY the dynamic is lessened.


>Whether you share this view or not, my argument in this post
>is still valid as a means of build broad social unity among
>human beings with similar class interests. If you oppose the
>policies of right wing capitalists then you must support
>their one and only set of victims, labourers.

I agree socialism is valid as an internet arguement. It isn't, however as a socio-political structure and really never has been. It relies on people to be something they are not: altruistic (in regards to themselves and their interests).


>
>>>Second you make such strong claims about this phenomenon you
>>>call "human nature". Human nature arguments are write off
>>>statements for people who don't want to think something
>>>through.
>>
>>Why do you think this? I believe human nature is not ever
>>given enough credit. For some reason people like to forget
>>that we are animals. If you want truth, first look to Allah
>>and secondly look to nature. I believe you can find many
>>answers in nature and social concepts are not excluded.

>
>Well human nature is given far too much credit by people who
>have either not studies history or people who have studied
>history and have failed to understand anything about the
>changing nature of human beings throughout.

Explain.

> This is why in
>the past you have had cooperative societies and slavish
>imperialist societies.

You still do. I didn't say that human nature is simple. It isn't just one thing, but it does exists. I don't believe that there are a different set of schools of thought existing today that didn't exist SOMEWHERE on earth before and vice versa.


Surplant yourself onto a plot of land
>nearly anywhere in the world 500 years ago. When people
>lived in societies that lacked the concept of individual
>private property and private ownership, the concept of
>sharing and producing in common dominated.

You mean in fuedal Europe, or Asia? Explain.

>This is why in
>America at the turn of the 19th century so many artisans,
>craftspeople and journeymen revolted against the emerging
>conditions of capitalism that concentrated wealth and
>property into the hands of a few wealthy landowners.

This has been an ongoing stuggle world wide, no? This isn't a struggle as old as time itself?


Before
>the emergence of industrial capitalism these craftspeople
>lived in a very cooperative and symbiotic manner with their
>guild masters. They had views and ideas completely alien to
>us today and their transformation into wage workers is a
>testament to the malleability of the nature of human beings.
>
>>Personally, I don't believe that there is such a
>>>thing as human nature. History has shown us that we behave
>>>according to our social structures.
>>
>>What are these structures based on? They are a mechanism.
>>When you break down these mechanisms they are based on the
>>simplest of things: 1.) Procreation 2.) Ensuring the next
>>generation.
>>no?
>
>Again, read above as your reductions are overly simplistic.

They are. But they were done so on purpose. They are the BASE of human intention IMO, hence: "based".


>Yes, humans need to continue procreation and ensure their
>survival but your assumption implicit here is that these
>goals always had to be acomplished under hostility.

Western Economics is based upon the principle that resources are scarce. This isn't always so, but when it is what do you think is the result of competition? What has history told us- Pre Vedic, Biblical, Qu'ranic history.


>That
>couldn't be more false. For thousands of years human beings
>had different structures to ensure survival, some
>cooperative and some competitive.

Agreed.


Some societies like the
>Tainos of what we know today as puerto rico and the people
>of Easter Island before that society transformed where
>extremely cooperative and peaceful. Other societies like the
>Aztecs, the Romans and the Ottomans had very centralised and
>class divided societies that survived via imperialism.

And still other, more simple societies were just as class based as well as aggressive. Be careful not to pair aggressiveness or class based society with imperialism. They (aggresiveness and class) are tools. Sometimes they have been used by imperialist.


The
>fact that the ideals, morals, values and relations that
>these different societies had in regard to one another is a
>strong refutation of any inherent nature existent in human
>beings.

Why? What motivated HOW each group did things? I think the difference with human being human nature, and many other species of animal nature is the variance in how we view things.


>
>>There are as many
>>>examples of cooperation and unity as there is for division
>>>and conflict.

No doubt.


In a society where the dogmatic view of human
>>>beings is one of individualism and accumulation through
>>>greed and competition we are going to have greedy and
>>>competitive people.


"All this mythology of the rugged individual has to be deconstructed. We've got to get at the heart of the essential lie that America was founded on this ethic of personal and private individual achievment. That has to be scrapped because a form of American Protestant communalism is the basis of discourse about American Democracy." Michael Eric Dyson.

>>So greed is only born out of society? This isn't an age old
>>problem found in many different cultures with many different
>>ways of approaching life? Show me a group of people that
>>have never had to deal with greed. Are they any? Do you
>>have evidence of this? You are telling me that you know of
>>or believe to be a group of people that nowhere in their
>>writings, or oral traditions they encountered the concept of
>>greed? Interesting. If so, there might be an argument.
>
>No, greed is not only born out of capitalist society but its
>manifestation under capitalism has by far been the most
>brutal, alienating and destructive form of greed human
>social relations have ever known.

Even in countries such as Canada and England?


Even if past societies had
>to grapple with the concept of greed, it was often looked
>down upon until the emergence of capitalism. Over the past
>300 years of capitalist expansion there has never been so
>much expression in human philosophy expressing the virtues
>of selfishness and how greed can be harnessed for good.

More than the Monarchies and aristocracies?


Of
>course, these are only justifications of the current regime.
>If you don't believe such litterature exists check out Ayn
>Rand, Robert Nozick, Adam Smith, Hernando de Soto, Francis
>Fukuyama and the list goes on. In fact, most religions are
>born as a means of resisting the greed impulse that
>commercial societies create. Just study protestantism in the
>19th century to learn how greed was rejected in society.


Roundheads, I feel you.

>
>>These are learned behaviours not natural
>>>ones.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>
>> If you don't believe me then tell me why 14 hour work
>>>days were acceptable 100 years ago but we would regard such
>>>a work day with disgust today?
>>
>>In which countries, which county, and what particular
>>people?
>
>Are you serious? Are you seriously contesting my claim that
>we have defeated some of the most horrible work conditions
>in many parts of the world?

Yes.

You cannot be that dense!

I didn't think I was, enlighten me.

I
>mean, I understand abusive labour practices still exist in
>many countries but 200 years ago those conditions were
>universal. Today, world standards have changed, albeit not
>all over the globe.


Exactly. "not all over the globe."


>
>> Why did American society
>>>believe slavery was acceptable 200 years ago but is deplored
>>>today?
>>
>>It was deplored then by many as well. Money is a powerful
>>blinder tho. We don't need slavery money today. If folk
>>needed a slave to pick tabacco in their front yard to make
>>their mortgage TODAY- I bet you'll have some pro slavery
>>folk RIGHT NOW.

>
>Fine it was deplored by many then, but not to the extent
>that it is today!

Explain. I believe the same prevailing attitudes exist today. The same folk that woulda stood and let it go on are here, and so are those that would take advantage as well as the victims.
I don't believe this has changed a great deal- perhaps marginally.


This is factual and if you don't believe
>it, trying chaining and whipping your neighbor for cotton
>and see where that gets you.

Interesting.

Back then you could do that
>regardless of what you thought of the institute of slavery.

Everywhere?


>And, yes, I understand the economic reasons why slavery was
>abolished. With the advent of many productive technologies,
>it actually became cheaper to produce with wage labour than
>slave labour. All the more reason to fight in favour of the
>working class. But in you statement is a great contradiction
>in what you said earlier. You said that greed and power is a
>product of human nature but right here you see a complete
>shift in values regarding slavery as the economic and social
>conditions of society changed, thus changing our attitudes.


No, I think it's both/and.

>
>>Why weren't women allowed to vote at the turn of the
>>>20th century but now they can?
>>
>>In which country? In Islamic law women have had the right
>>to vote as well have own title and property rights for over
>>one thousand years. But Islam is supposed to be oppressive
>>to women. So I guess I'm trying to ask, what is your point?
>
>My point is that human beings are not static creatures bound
>to a certain type of nature. Islamic law was also born out
>of a highly classist and centralized system just as western
>misoginy was. However, you and I have a different value
>system in our treatment of women. Why do I have one view of
>women that I consider progressive while Osama Bin Laden
>basically treats women like slaves? If there was a common
>human nature, shouldn't we both have the same view towards
>women?

LOL, you chose Bin Laden. Fanaticism is not exclusive to one belief system. You'd be suprised what I could tell you about Christians I know and their beliefs.

>
>> Could these changes possibly
>>>have anything to do with the consciousness of people
>>>changing as we have collectively fought for them and
>>>rearranged the way we live our lives?
>>
>>I think that every person is mentaly capable of everything
>>the next man/woman is. I feel no consciousness has changed
>>since the beginning of time. People always had the same
>>core values. The only thing that changes is the power
>>structure at the time and what can benefit it. If it wasn't
>>beneficial for someone to allow the womens arguement in the
>>door, it would not have happend. I'm sure folk had it on
>>the brain for years but had no impetus to respond.
>
>Okay think this through. What about before human beings had
>language, music, art, and culture?

When? I don't believe we (as HUMANKIND) were ever without those things.


Think about it, there
>really was a time.

When, and what were other people in other parts of the world doing?


Human beings are socially creatures whose
>consciousness is a product of the social conditions around
>them. Pre-social human beings did not have values because
>there was no language or communication to express and
>develop any such systematic thought.


Defend that arguement. Prove there wasn't language. I don't believe this. Why would we have the mechanisms for language (that bone on our throat) without having language itself. God, nature is not wasteful. That doesn't make sense. In fact they are finding now that Neaderthals in fact used language- but that point is moot considering that they have found that Cro-Magnon man and Neaderthals did IN FACT exist at the same time.

You don't believe in
>pre social human beings or socially defined human beings?
>Well, I have a little experiment for you. Stick a baby in a
>dark cave for the next twenty years and ensure s/he has food
>and water. In twenty years ask that grown person what s/he
>thinks of the catholic church? What are his/her views on
>slavery, the inquisition and industrialisation? Does s/he
>prefer the politics of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr.?
>As him/her the social significance of the latest songs by
>Jay-Z, Mos Def and Talib Kweli. See if that grown creature
>does any more than gurgle at you lifelessly like a nothing
>more than a living, hungry collection of flesh and organs!
>That might teach you something about the reality of our
>nature as human beings.


That's a bit strong, eh? What about babies and cultural differences? ie: Navajo babies like being bundled down while Euro babies hate it. Asian babies having a different rooting reflex than Afrikan and Euro babies? That is genetic, no?

There are limits certainly, but where are they?


>
>>
>>>
>>>Your little claim about humans being nothing but mere
>>>animals is as equally unprofound.
>>
>>We aren't animals? Why is that a put down? How do you feel
>>about animals?
>
>It not the fact the you say we are animals that annoys me,
>we are a type of animal. My issue is that you reduce us to
>nothing more than animals.

What do you mean by "more", exactly?

>
>> First of all, if we are
>>>the same as most animals, most species of animals do not
>>>survive at the expense of other animals within their
>>>species.
>>
>>Explain. Wolves will kill other wolves bordering their
>>territory on sight because it effects competition for food.
>>So do lions. This isn't a case of animals surviving at the
>>expense of other animals within their species? The very
>>existence of a wolf pup of a bordering clan in fact
>>ultimatley means death to the next. They understand that,
>>and will kill the pup.
>
>Show me a wolf whose language and way of life has developed
>over the past fifty thousand years and I will buy your
>little argument.

HA! in fact I saw this just the other day on Discovery. Interesting that you brought it up. Wolves certainly do have dialects of "speech". So do Wales and Elephants. They haven't proved this in the Great Apes (other than us of course) yet in spoken language, but in GSL and CSL sign language groups do develop dialects. Interesting that you brought this up. My fiancee and I were just talking about this the other night.

>>Most animals cooperate for survival.
>>
>>explain what you mean by "most".
>
>For a good definition of "most", follow this link:
>
>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=most&x=0&y=0

Oh. Explain what YOU meant by "most"...


>>Furthermore,
>>>human beings are different from other animals for the sheer
>>>fact that we consciously produce things whereas other
>>>animals produce instinctively.
>>
>>Explain your proof of this. I do not subscribe to the
>>humans THINK but animals act instinctley arguement. It's
>>hogwash. Explain animals doing great feats of THOUGHT and
>>ACTION out of LOVE for either a human being companion or
>>another animal companion. Explain a crow nursing a lost
>>kitten to adulthood. You can't. Because by all rights that
>>crow should KILL and EAT that kitten and share it with it's
>>murder, but instead I know of a DOCUMENTED case where a crow
>>decided to raise a kitten it found, it left it's flock or
>>"murder" and raised the abandoned kitten feeding it and
>>grooming it, never leaving it's side. and now they are best
>>friends. Is that instinct? Can't be. There is no DNA
>>strand for that. Meanwhile I see humans acting on instinct
>>rather than processed though patterns everyday. You
>>underestimate the animal kingdom.
>
>Even if your crow story is true,

It is. It's actually documented and the person who witnessed and video documented it wrote a book about it. If I can find the title I'll refer it to you.



would you be able to
>confidently apply the behaviour of this alleged crow to the
>entire population of crows? Would you wager on it?

I'd certainly wager that a certain PERCENTAGE might think about it. I was just talking to my fiancee about this the other night when I Lioness almost did the same thing for a Leopard cub (an animal by all right Lions usally destroy because of direct competition), but she thought better of it and left the cub to die at the mouths of the oncoming hyenas after some deep thought on the matter.


>Personally, I WOULD wager on the likeliness of being helped
>by some passerby and taken to the hospital if I was to be
>hit by a vehicle tonight and left in the street. I wouldn't
>make a similar wager that if a kitten was ran over that some
>crow would eventually come to its rescue.

Eh.

Either the story
>you tell me is false, or there is some sort of animal
>conditioning there that made the crow familiar with the
>kitten.

I know of no conditioning offered for wild animals. Where do you think this would have come from?


Anyway, you have just done a complete 180 degree
>turn in logic on me. First you argue that animals act upon
>nature, then you tell me this completely contradictory story
>of a crow that acted outside of its nature and behaved with
>social qualities to nurse a kitten to healt. Which one is it
>Firebrand, nature or social conditioning?

It's both/and. But don't give nature such a small role is all I've EVER said.


I really think you
>need to think this through further,

Prolly so.

you seem like a smart
>guy but there are a lot of blanks you need to fill in.

Again, prolly so. I'm not educated on these things, I just know what i know from what I've come across.

>
>Also, one proof that human beings think before they produce
>whereas animals just produce, is in the fact that the design
>of animal production never varies within a species. For
>human beings our tools and creations have been under
>constant evolution since time immemorial. Look at a bee hive
>or a beaver dam from 500 hundred years ago and you can
>pretty much assume that it was produced in the same manner
>and shape as the ones they produce today. The beaver does
>not ponder are the artistic significance of his/her current
>dam. The bees do not redo their hives because he would
>prefer a more impressionist or postmodern motif. These
>animals JUST produce, and as magnificent as nature is, that
>is all they will ever be able to acheive.
>
>> How many wolves have
>>>programmed computers?
>>
>>They have enough mastery of their enviornment and
>>capabilities that they don't NEED to. They can tell you if
>>you have cancer before a computer can tho...and they'll KNOW
>>it's cancer that can kill you. Which is more brilliant?
>
>No, they don't have mastery of their environment. We have
>mastery of their environment.

Correction. We have CONTROL of their enviornment. That's is altogether VERY different.

They live in a delicate system
>of natural balance with other animals and plant life. But
>our slightest alterations of the natural environment drives
>the whole animal kingdom screwy! Changes in hunting laws all
>over has led to spikes and declines of animal populations
>that have absolutely nothing to do with the animal that the
>law concentrates on.

Yeah. what I said above. lol...mastery of an enviornment is dependant upon the enviornment itself. If it changes, the mastery tag doesn't apply, now does it?

>
>> How many lions have built enormous
>>>bridges across large bodies of water?
>>
>>Not any I know of. But ants do it all the time. Beavers
>>have made contraptions our engineers still cant get the math
>>on.
>
>Show me a society of beavers that can put the design out on
>paper and build a structure that crosses a body of water
>several kilometers long, then you may have something. Until
>then, humans conceive of their products before producing
>them.

Gorillas have done this. They've built or drawn what they wanted, and expressed joy when it was created or made to be so.

Yup.


>
>> Come to think
>>>of it, I remember you once said that you were once quite a
>>>republican. I can see why, the logic is still there.
>>
>>This is unfair. In fact, it's downright crude. Just because
>>I don't agree with socialism u doin all that? Wow. I
>>thought u were bigger than that.
>
>The reason I say this is because you subscribe to a very
>individualistic mode of thought

What in the heck makes you think that? Just because I dont subscribe to socialism on the Global/National/State level?


that reduces that actions of
>individuals to some greedy form of human nature. This is
>what the whole doctrine of free market capitalism and the
>republican party of today premise themselves upon.

wow.

******************************

______________________________
"...I'm telling ya these walls are
funny. First you hate 'em, then
you get used to 'em. Enough,
time passes, you get so you
depend on 'em. That's
"institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.







_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Brooklynbeef
Member since May 30th 2002
4649 posts
Tue Mar-01-05 02:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "What protestianism rejected Greed!?"
In response to Reply # 25
Tue Mar-01-05 02:13 PM

  

          

Wait, I thought protestantism was responsible for American styled capitalism and individualism.

"Forget Black History Month, how about live an African History Life"-Ansley Burrows

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Tue Mar-01-05 08:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

Its a very interesting topic and both of our points are correct in some sense. From what I've learned, protestantism enhanced American capitalism, rather than all global capitalism, by instilling an ethic of hard work and individual savings. That is why class mobility was actually more likely for white male workers at the turn of the 19th century than it is today. Also, with a protestant work ethic that instilled hard work and created all sorts of mythologies about laziness, particularly attributed to africans in america, capitalists had a labour pool that was ready to produce goods for them at unprecedented rates while having to pay out next to nothing. It was an ethic of working hard and producing in the present in order to be rewarded in the afterlife. Also, with that hard work was also a culture of thriftiness among the working class where spending and consuming for the sake of consuming was considered irresponsible and sinful. So, for capitalists this mode of thinking was to their benefit because they could get more output from workers. The culture of thrift, however, led to two major economic crises by the 1880s and 1920s where capitalists were overproducing while workers were reluctant to consume. That wasn't the only reason for the crisis but in the 1920s, for the first time in US history, the government involved itself in issues regarding consumption in order to raise demands for ever increasing levels of production. In 1921, before he became president, Herbert Hoover established and served as the head of the Commerce Department. From that point on consumption came to mean something completely different in America and in the world.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Wed Apr-06-05 11:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "What happened here?"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

You never came back to this discussion. I found it interesting...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 04:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "who, me? I thought it was done."
In response to Reply # 34
Fri Apr-08-05 04:26 PM by FireBrand

  

          

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
----------------------
http://www.myspace.com/egyptianknight
******************************
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

<---- It'll cure what ails ya...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 04:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "RE: who, me? I thought it was done."
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

naw, brooklyn

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
FireBrand
Charter member
145739 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 04:41 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "well damn. lol....my bad."
In response to Reply # 38


  

          


******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
----------------------
http://www.myspace.com/egyptianknight
******************************
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

<---- It'll cure what ails ya...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3842 posts
Thu Apr-07-05 07:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?"
In response to Reply # 29


          

My understanding of the hypothesis (Weber I think) is that capitalism developed around and was legitimised by Calvinism (a strand of protestianism) and its principle of pre-destination.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Tue Mar-01-05 08:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "RE: What protestianism rejected Greed!?"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

Also significant is a look at the development of Protestantism as a rejection of catholic excess and ruling class wealth starting with Martin Luther

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Deselune
Member since Aug 12th 2003
236 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 06:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
6. "ok so that's what you all think about race"
In response to Reply # 0


          

but what about gender?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Fiver
Member since Oct 18th 2004
1090 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 10:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "for gender and race relations..."
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

...you might want to check Eugene Debs and the work of the IWW (One Big Union!). take into consideration the antiquity: they were on to something.

grendel has had an accident, so may you all.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 02:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "Selma James' work is also useful..."
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

Also see anything by Michael Zweig. Particularly, The Working Class Majority and What's Class Got to do with it?

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Wed Apr-06-05 11:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "The Wobblies were some decent cats..."
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

nm

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 02:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: ok so that's what you all think about race"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

but I spoke of gender in my original post. Do you have a specific question regarding my thoughts on gender? I think its a form of 'identity' in society that goes beyond the mere existence of the male and female sex. I also believe women are among the most marginalised of the working class. Worldwide, women own only 1% of all property. But exploited as producers of commodities the situation of women can only be improved through a strong incorporation of alll their issues in the labour movement.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Brooklynbeef
Member since May 30th 2002
4649 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 10:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "Don't just blame white labor unions"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

cuz white workers earn more and are worth more the Black workers. Home ownership is a classic example. Discrimination within the GI Bill and housing policy allowed whites to gain property and wealth.

"Forget Black History Month, how about live an African History Life"-Ansley Burrows

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 02:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "I don't think I disagree with you but..."
In response to Reply # 8
Fri Feb-25-05 02:53 PM

  

          

then again, I don't quite think I get what point of mine you are trying to argue against. What you just said seems congruent with what I am saying.

>cuz white workers earn more and are worth more the Black
>workers. Home ownership is a classic example.
>Discrimination within the GI Bill and housing policy allowed
>whites to gain property and wealth.

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Fiver
Member since Oct 18th 2004
1090 posts
Thu Feb-24-05 10:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "Devil's Advocate"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

don't you think - due to the technological revolution, industry on the decline in "first-world" nations, and the globalization of ecnonomies - that class is getting very tricky to define?

also, who would be the "lumpen-prole" of our modern times (remember, marx hated them as much as farmers and jews).

grendel has had an accident, so may you all.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Fri Feb-25-05 03:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "What a great question!!"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

And a topic that interests me greatly. Listen, I don't buy into the type of Leninist Marxism that arrogantly states that only those who work in heavy industry are workers. I think class has been grossly misdefined by such groups. Having said this, I would like to bring your attention to Marx whose definition of a worker was simply anyone who had nothing else to sell on the market than their labour power. There is a really good book by Michael Zweig called "The Working Class Majority" that basically posits that "class" should not be defined by income or lifestyle, but rather, the degree of control one has over their labour and general livelihood in society.

You are right in suggesting that technology has made our job of defining these concepts more difficult but that is not to say that the fundemental relationship between capital and labour no longer exist. I think the technological changes of this century has paved the way for a very regressive emergence of postmodernist postering. The emergence of 'identity' politics has fragmented issues of race, class and gender as unconnected and dislocated narritive issues while ignoring the fact that we do indeed live under a very real totality and that each of these identities are conditioned and informed by very totalistic system of production.

>don't you think - due to the technological revolution,
>industry on the decline in "first-world" nations, and the
>globalization of ecnonomies - that class is getting very
>tricky to define?
>
>also, who would be the "lumpen-prole" of our modern times
>(remember, marx hated them as much as farmers and jews).

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
G_Smooth
Member since Oct 07th 2003
4109 posts
Thu Mar-03-05 01:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "Globalization........."
In response to Reply # 11


          

ain't noting new than White Supremacy with better technology......So the class structure is still the same with Whites STILL at the top..(White Supremacy).....Therefore defining class is still affects the same people it use to affect....even East European nations....

With that said...AmeriKKKa largely benefits from having a racists society because if the US were to shift to a class based structure, the numbers would be astronomical....So when u have rednecks(the poor whites) thinking that they are better than their class counterparts blacks...the whole arguement of a class structure is only abstract.....This is a Racists society which benefits from the racial divisions of the lower classes.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
raool
Member since Jul 10th 2002
12355 posts
Thu Mar-03-05 02:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "mmm"
In response to Reply # 11


          

i don't think so as class is even more of a stronger concept in third world countries in general.


www.port-morgan.com
www.madeinmtl.com
www.darfurinfo.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1113 posts
Sat Feb-26-05 08:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "great post...."
In response to Reply # 0


          

I completely agree that
>the ruling class is overwhelmingly white but that is not the
>same thing as saying that the the majority of whites are
>members of the ruling class? You dig? My point is that
>despite the whiteness of the ruling population, the majority
>of white people in this world are struggling workers and I
>know that this is a difficult concept for a lot of people to
>accept.

Huge, huge point. I wish more people understood this, because it would certainly end a lot of the confusion. The white ruling class banks off of the race struggle/bitterness shared by lower classes, and it's growing increasingly obtuse. Unfortunately, the cultures within the lower classes are so vastly different from one another (at least, on the surface) that we've seen a split in same-class culture that is the first of its kind since Babel, you know? What we have now is a cesspool of culture competition with standoffish communication, and the cheeseball multicultural "awareness" (meaning, "look at how separate and different we all look") being forced on everyone from the workplace to the youth destroys what uniquely noticable ties (low income) these lower classes have to one another. It is my opinion that "celebrating" cultural differences that are already obvious by first-impression physical characteristics make people feel separate from one another, not linked. Our PC mindstate has limited this country from any kind of class movement opportunity. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

LexM
Charter member
28342 posts
Tue Mar-01-05 11:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "i appreciate the worker thing"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

and i agree...to an extent.

but in the peculiar case of america, chattel slavery and its aftereffects makes this an almost impossible concept to work from, imo.

it is going to be exceedingly difficult to get white "workers" to understand these concepts because, in the euro-american model of race relations, poor white is better than ANYTHING black.

there have been times in history where white & black workers banded together. but in the end, the white workers were lulled away from these collaborations thru the mechanisms of white privilege. they couldn't stand up to the pressure, and, when faced with the ability to support their families, i can't say i blame them. but it is what it is.

there's an image problem here. a mental block. white folks have come up with every theory, reasoning, and "scientific" explanation possible to dehumanize blacks and other people of color (see: japanese during wwII, iraqis now, etc.).

yes, i understand the economic reasons behind slavery and all that, but if they had remained *purely* economic, then america would probably look more like, say, south america, where miscegnation was more of a class issue vs. a "purity" issue.

poverty and wealth didn't create two americas in the same way racism has. not by a long shot.

once race entered the picture--call it an artificial construct or whatever u like--the game changed.

ignoring that or trying to skip past it to resolve the class issue first (which isn't going anywhere unless capitalism does) leads to band aid solutions and underdeveloped thinking.

i'm not saying you're doing this personally, but i've heard a lot of white and blk people talk this way who tend to don blinders when it comes to the pervasiveness of racism.


~~~~
5/19/1925-2/21/1965




~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Sarah_Bellum
Charter member
7488 posts
Mon Apr-11-05 11:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "RE: i appreciate the worker thing"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          

da da!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Pinko_Panther
Member since Dec 11th 2002
11808 posts
Thu Mar-03-05 12:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "Up"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Uppity like Erin Brokovich

********************************************
"If you think you're too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Sarah_Bellum
Charter member
7488 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 07:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "The real question is..."
In response to Reply # 0
Fri Apr-08-05 08:11 PM by Sarah_Bellum

  

          

Is racism just a tool or is it the master of the tool?
The type of class based AA won't work because it is based on the same philosophical flaw that socialism has.
The idea that racism and sexism are some how the tools and not the handyman is problematic and tend to be more about some people’s guilt issues (and other shit) then the truth about race, class and gender in America and abroad.
Capitalism IS the tool by which the white majority, regardless of class, has chosen to oppress the aforementioned groups.
While money seems to be their largest goal, it's not. Supremacy is. The acquisition of wealth isn't about money!! It’s about SUPERIORITY! That’s how a white worker making eight dollars an hour can identify readily with his white boss or white CEO making a couple mil before identifying with the Black or Latino that works next to him every day making the same amount of money.
Superiority is the puppet master of Capitalism.
So before we can treat any class issues, we have to nail down their cause and effect, which contray to popular belief, is not capitalism. We have to treat (because its a disese) the white majorities over acrhing need for supremacy. Then, and only then will capitalism and its class constructs be sweapt out of the window.

SheRise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dj TeddyBear you're on my mind.

"As a 51 year old gay black man I'm 'sick and tired' of joining hands and walking with white folks only to realize some 40 years later that each touch and every step alon

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Sarah_Bellum
Charter member
7488 posts
Fri Apr-08-05 08:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "RE: The real question is..."
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

dammit...to late to edit.
SheRise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dj TeddyBear you're on my mind.

"As a 51 year old gay black man I'm 'sick and tired' of joining hands and walking with white folks only to realize some 40 years later that each touch and every step alon

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
The Hammer Man
Member since Apr 09th 2005
1858 posts
Mon Apr-11-05 11:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "RE: The real question is..."
In response to Reply # 43


          

..is rascism not a factor of the class system? I wouldn't want to speculate about America's problems but i don't imagine it's that different, the reason white people move towards right wing or even fascist politics is because they are disenfranchised in the first place. which also relates to sexism is suppose, politically and economically helpless, but filled with the survival of the fittest propaganda of the society they turn on people they can excercise power over. Basically what everybody else has been saying, but from a different point of view. Essentially i don't think society manipulates situations, it creates them and doesn't know how to handle them so they just increase the police powers.

...guess what, you can't swing in scotland either.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #27306 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com