Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Regina Belle - Baby Come To Me (Video)

Quote of the Day: St. Augustinus

"It seems to me that an unjust law is no law at all."

 - Saint Augustine

How The Gospel Addresses Inequality and Injustice - Jorge Mendoza

Jorge Mendoza speaks to how the Bible addresses inequality and injustice.

'Colorblindness' Is Lazy and Toxic - Racial Justice Series

Stew, Founding Director of Verge Network, interviews Sho Baraka about racial justice in America today, and how 'colorblindness' is lazy and toxic.

Why White Evangelicals Should Stop Using the Term 'White Guilt' - Racial Justice Series

Soong-Chan Rah explains why we should stop using the term 'white guilt' and gives us a more redemptive path toward justice and reconciliation.

Soong-Chan Rah is the Milton B. Engebretson Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary. Soong-Chan received his BA from Columbia University; his MDiv from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; his ThM from Harvard University; and his ThD froM Duke University.

Why 'Colorblindness' Is Toxic - Racial Justice Series

Why I don't want to live in a 'color blind' society | Mike Tapscott

What would our world be like without race? According to diversity and inclusion professional Mike Tapscott, it would be a world lacking in substance and pride. With anecdotal and professional evidence, Tapscott explores how we think about race right now and how we can think about it better. 

Mike Tapscott directs the Multicultural Student Services Center at the George Washington University and is celebrating his 37th year in university administration work this year.

He and his team lead efforts on campus to improve diversity, inclusion, advocacy, and campus climate. His work on campus includes influencing policy and programs that support the success of underrepresented students, and combining his experience in admissions and minority student affairs. He earned his B. A. in History from Tufts University with a minor in sociology, and attended graduate school at Tufts and American, studying higher education administration and communications.

The Costs of Racial Color Blindness

Michael I. Norton presents a game similar to "Guess Who?"—play along and for a glimpse into his recent research.

Meghan Burke - Seeing Race in a Colorblind Society

Illinois Wesleyan University Student Senate 2013 Professor of the Year Meghan Burke presented a "Back to College" class at Homecoming on Oct. 11, 2013.

Negative reviews of "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" by Jonah Goldberg

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg, in which Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. Published in January 2008, it reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list.

Goldberg is a syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire...philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. ... Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! ... Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

Journalist David Neiwert, wrote in The American Prospect that Goldberg

has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. ... Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. ... Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism...[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote: "Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars."[26]
Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic: "...I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. ... Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. ... However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism".[27]
In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "Apparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist." Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

Gordon's review discovered numerous historical errors that other negative reviews failed to mention. He faults Goldberg's claim that Rousseau is a precursor to fascism and his interpretation of various philosopher's statements. [28]
In January 2010, History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet, and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism.

They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.

For more reviews go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Monday, July 9, 2018

Racing Left and Right: Color-Blind Racism’s Dominance across the U.S. Political Spectrum

Meghan Burke is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University, where her areas of specialty are social theory and race.   Meghan is the author of two books, one about race and whiteness in racially diverse Chicago neighborhoods, and one about the race, gender, and class dynamics in the Tea Party.  

To date there has been very little scholarship that (1) traces the color-blind rhetoric of liberal or progressive communities, or (2) emphasizes the mainstream, color-blind rhetoric of far-right conservative movements. This article compares the racial politics at two ends of the U.S. political spectrum in order to demonstrate how color-blind ideology constitutes the dominant framework for understanding and discussing race and racial inequality in the United States. This racial ideology transcends political party and ideology, but also motivates individuals to do identity work constructing themselves as transcending racism. Grounded in a racial formations framework, I compare two distinct political locations, one consisting of liberal Democrats and progressives in a diverse urban community and the other among Tea Party organizers in one state, in order to demonstrate the similarities in racial discourse and identities, despite differing political orientations and goals.

Meghan A. Burke is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University, where her areas of specialty are social theory and race. Dr. Burke was also recently awarded an ASA Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline grant to host a national Summit on New Frontiers in the Study of Colorblind Racism, which took place in May 2016; she is also Guest Editing an upcoming Special Issue of Sociological Perspectives on this same topic. In 2016, she earned the Midwest Sociological Society Early Career Scholarship Award.

READ MOREhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00380253.2017.1296335

Friday, June 29, 2018

Niskanen Center - When Liberals and Conservatives Use Genetics to Explain Human Difference

(Niskanen Center) Public debate on genetic research often assumes that conservatives will prefer genetic explanations for human differences, while liberals will point to environmental factors—perhaps exacerbating political divides on race. But Stephen Schneider finds that conservatives prefer explanations based on personal choice; attributing individual differences to genetics is associated with liberalism and higher tolerance.

But when asked to explain racial group differences, Elizabeth Suhay finds that conservatives are attracted to genetic explanations if they are exposed to media messages on genetics and race. Both say people choose their political views first and then select the explanations that fit them.


Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Black Conservatism is NOT White Conservatism

"Authentic black conservatism has always had the fundamental and explicit goal of opposing white supremacy." -- Kareim Oliphant

The Atlantic slave trade -- the LARGEST -- long-distance coerced migration in human history is the paradigm, the backdrop for what would become the dissimilar and philosophical differences between what is generally referred to as mainstream-conservatism and that of African or black-conservatism.
 In many ways, just as Burkean conservatism is a response to the explosive chaos following the French Revolution, so, too, black conservatism emerges out of and in response to the far-reaching impact of scientific racism, and the almost unimaginable barbarity of colonialism and slavery.

White supremacy was an essential component of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Jim Crow, and, more than anything, it is black conservatism's long and tempestuous relationship with white-supremacy and bigotry that distinguishes it from other strains of color-blind or mainstream conservatism. As the conservative writer Chidike Okeem emphasized in an interview with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, "When demonstrably immoral structures exist, the black conservative cannot ethically justify attempting to look for the positive aspects of such structures."

Another glaring difference between mainstream conservatism and Black Conservatism is how each one's dissimilar histories informs how each engages the nuances of power and it’s relationship with the larger culture. Due to centuries of blatant injustice and observing white-supremacy's relationship with the authorities many African-Americans have a rational fear and cynicism of court systems and the police. As Forbes writer, and Republican historian Chris Ladd  explains, “The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one’s personal liberties can be protected. He continues: “The dilemma was that African Americans’ repression rose not so much from government as from the culture, ignorance and bigotry of their white neighbors.”

Michael Brendan Dougherty, another conservative writer, in an interview with University Bookmam highlighted some of the problems associated with certain aspects of  “colorblind” Conservatism that's become popular in some white-conservative spaces. He writes, “Most conservatives like to think that they have principles that are color-blind: the eternal verities and such. I think this is a kind of self-flattery that excuses historical ignorance on our part. Enslavement stripped Africans of their ethnicities, their languages, and their religion. He continues his commentary: “That means more than any one other group in this country African-Americans are a people created by the history of our nation and its politics: commerce, slavery, the Civil War, emancipation, the civil rights movement. It is a naïveté bordering on psychosis to suggest that black politics should conform to some imagined color-blind set of principles.”

In short, black-conservatism is more than just a disposition; it's peak into how blacks dealt with racism throughout hundreds of years; and black conservatism became a strategic weapon against white supremacy. It was, and continues to be a diverse and global movement whose fingerprints can be found all over the globe. In America, due to its unique racial history; it is extremely race-conscious, and tends to be skeptical of the color-blind arguments pushed by some within the conservative movement. It includes certain mores, racial dispositions and race-based institutions like black businesses, hospitals, HBCUs and The Black Church, all of which were formed in response to slavery and Jim-Crow.

While not limited to just conservation alone, black conservatism doesn't just conserve anything; it conservatives worthwhile things, not immoral things, but things of value. It also encompasses all the varying debates over the exact attempts at conservation of these institutions, and the actual channels by which to educate the next generation. It is committed to teach lessons learned from the past, lessons that may not be fully appreciated by other strains of conservatism, but that are nevertheless real and of value in the African American community -- lessons that might once again be called upon.

While unmistakably black, black conservatism is grounded in principles so applicable that any people, community, or society facing racism and injustice could draw universal parallels from it; it is a philosophical argument birthed in chains, a universal cry and answer for any
society where some people are believed to be animals, where grown men are referred to as "boys," and where one's skin complexion is considered an unredeemable curse. As one theological writer; Brad Minor, put it, "Black Conservativism has it all. It can argue conservative values and economics without the distinctly American and colonial trappings and power structures. It is truly a model for freedom and self actualization without the need for an underclass."

When one is confronted by a racist, dystopian nightmare and lives to tell about it; where does one go to tell that story? Where does one go for intellectual and spiritual respite? Where does one develop a positive identity of self after centuries of being told your skin color is a curse from God, after being called "nigger" and "boy" by the very society you live in?

Black-conservatism answers this question by arguing that while institutions even “race-and-culturally” based ones, and while never perfect they can nevertheless empower people during their darkest of hours.

--- The Black Conservative

John McWhorter - My take on the Trumpians and those of “tender age” here

John McWhorter takes on the Trumpians and those of “tender age” here ...

(CNN) -- I refer to the idea that children separated abruptly and indefinitely from their parents at the US-Mexico border are being housed in so-called "tender age facilities." The purpose of such language is to mask the cruel detention of these bewildered children in internment compounds, done in an effort to penalize their parents for attempting to enter America, some illegally.

The Trump administration's motivation for this quest to euphemize is hardly obscure. The moral horror of tearing small children away from their powerless parents is so patent and chilling that it cuts across all of us, regardless of political stripe or temperament. The very few among us, as in Trump's minions and writerly defenders, who can apparently neither imagine themselves in the position of the children or the parents subjected to such heartless abuse, stand out now as unfeeling and cynical to an almost staggering degree (which is saying a lot given the amorality of the Trumpians thus far). On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order that he said was "about keeping families together," but it's unclear what that will look like.

Akil Alleyne - Yale, Starbucks, & How Cops Should Respond to Racist Call

Police need to exercise their discretion and consider NOT responding to calls that appear to be based on racial stereotyping.

"Black Conservativism has it all."

"Black Conservativism has it all. It can argue conservative values and economics without the distinctly American and colonial trappings and power structures. It is truly a model for freedom and self actualization without the need for an underclass." — Brad Mason

Frederick Douglass on Remembering the Civil War, 1877

Frederick Douglass on Remembering the Civil War, 1877 Americans came together after the Civil War largely by collectively forgetting what the war was about. Celebrations honored the bravery of both armies, and the meaning of the war faded. Frederick Douglass and other black leaders engaged with Confederate sympathizers in a battle of historical memory. In this speech, Douglass calls on Americans to remember the war for what it was—a struggle between an army fighting to protect slavery and a nation reluctantly transformed into a force for liberation.

"Nevertheless, we must NOT be asked to say that the South was right in the rebellion, or to say the North was wrong. We must NOT be asked to put no difference between those who fought for the Union and those who fought against it, or between loyalty and treason… But the sectional character of this war was merely accidental and its least significant feature.

It was a war of ideas, a battle of principles and ideas which united one section and divided the other; a war between the old and new, slavery and freedom, barbarism and civilization; between a government based upon the broadest and grandest declaration of human rights the world ever heard or read, and another pretended government, based upon an open, bold and shocking denial of all rights, except the right of the strongest.

Good, wise, and generous men at the North, is power and out of power, for whose good intentions and patriotism we must all have the highest respect, doubt the wisdom of observing this memorial day, and would have us forget and forgive, strew flowers alike and lovingly, on rebel and on loyal graves. This sentiment is noble and generous, worthy of all honor as such; but it is only a sentiment after all, and must submit to its own rational limitations.

There was a right side and a wrong side in the late war, which no sentiment ought to cause us to forget, and while today we should have malice toward none, and charity toward all, it is no part of our duty to confound right with wrong, or loyalty with treason.”

If the observance of this memorial days has any apology, office, or significance, it’s derived from the moral character of this war, from the far-reaching, unchangeable eternal principles in dispute, and for which our sons and brothers encountered hardship, danger, and death…"

Frederick Douglass, “Speech delivered in Madison Square, New York, Decoration Day.

1877. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Dr George Ayittey speaking on traditional African systems

Candace Owens is a Bad Actor

Tree of Logic Candace Owens Expsed: Leader Of The Conservative Plantation PART 2

 Conservatives love to recite "Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" when facing liberals.

Will they feel the same way when Tree of Logic lays out the facts about Candace Owens?

Will they acknowledge the truth or call Tree of Logic names because she hurt their fees?

No, the NRA Didn't Help Protect Former Slaves from the Democrats

NOTE: Professor Warren Throckmorton (a white Evangelical) was let go from Patheos not long after writing this critique of the NRA's history with African-Americans.

He writes, 

"At present, I have no way to know for sure but I wonder about the influence of the NRA post. I have learned that the Chairman of BN Media (owner of Patheos) is Joe Gregory. Gregory is the chairman of the National Rifle Association Ring of Freedom donor recognition program. He and his wife are charter members of the Golden Ring of Freedom which means they have donated over $1 million to the NRA."
During the most recent NRA conference, Trump supporters Diamond and Silk claimed that the NRA “helped our ancestors to protect themselves from the Democratic party.” I countered that no evidence can be found to support that claim and called on the NRA to produce evidence or retract the claim.

This claim about the NRA has been debunked several times. The NRA was founded by two Union military veterans to help improve marksmanship. There isn’t any evidence that the NRA assisted post-Civil War freed slaves against the KKK or Democrats or any white aggression. Supporters of the NRA offer this claim without any historical evidence.
At the time, the Democrat party was the party of Jim Crow. However, the NRA claim appears to be made up out of thin air. To fact check the claim, I reviewed the founding documents of the NRA, the biographies of the founders, and historical descriptions of the organization, especially in the South. According to the NRA’s founding document, the aims of the association related to rifle practice: