Not racist white people or lazy black people (Between Obama and Coates: the plight of black America)

[panamaican]

I haven't read the link yet but anyone with an honest interest in America's economic policy and its impact on modern social dynamics really should familiarize themselves with the specific history of race related economic policy. It's impossible to properly understand the economics of this country without doing so.

 

[Brazilian HKD]

The truth is that Obama was as clueless about African Americans, as any other president before him. He wasn't someone whose ancestors were slaves, but came from a very priviledged background from both sides of his family. He had a good PR team.
Also, there is a huge difference between African Americans and Second generation Immigrants from Africa.
We are yet to see an African American president in the White House

 

[ineverpost]

There is no economic mobility in the United States. Race has little to do with it

 

[Rational Poster]

It's not racist, but it's discriminatory. The system is designed to discriminate based on wealth.

And it just so happens black people are far less wealthy since they've been denied the opportunity to accumulate familial wealth for centuries prior.

 

[Gregolian]

There were laws on the books in the Seattle area until well into the 70s about where in the city Asians could live. As I remember it (Could be wrong as it's been a couple years since I have looked into this) Filipino's were welcome but the Chinese and Japanese were essentially run out of town.

The International District TODAY is pretty cool for the Asian grocery store Uwajimiya and all the awesome restaurants but it looks poor and rundown because it was treated like this for years and was the only place the city would allow Asian migrants/immigrants to live for a long time and as such the city never kept up maintenance of the area.

 

[TSO]

Obama was half white.

One drop rule.

 

[Falsedawn]

The truth is that Obama was as clueless about African Americans, as any other president before him. He wasn't someone whose ancestors were slaves, but came from a very priviledged background from both sides of his family. He had a good PR team.
Also, there is a huge difference between African Americans and Second generation Immigrants from Africa.
We are yet to see an African American president in the White House

I disagree strongly. Obama didn't go out of his way to pander to black people, but he "got" us more than any president up to that point. It was pretty obvious there were times where he wanted to speak out simply as a black man, but had to temper his thoughts and speak as the president. The much maligned Trayvon Martin "he could have been my son" soundbite is one of those times where the veil dropped and he got hammered for it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

There were laws on the books in the Seattle area until well into the 70s about where in the city Asians could live. As I remember it (Could be wrong as it's been a couple years since I have looked into this) Filipino's were welcome but the Chinese and Japanese were essentially run out of town.

The International District TODAY is pretty cool for the Asian grocery store Uwajimiya and all the awesome restaurants but it looks poor and rundown because it was treated like this for years and was the only place the city would allow Asian migrants/immigrants to live for a long time and as such the city never kept up maintenance of the area.

There's some really interesting and very recent scholarship on this

 

[xcvbn]

And it just so happens black people are far less wealthy since they've been denied the opportunity to accumulate familial wealth for centuries prior.

Yeah for sure but it doesn't mean we should ignore the larger issue.

 

[JamesRussler]

I highly suggest everyone read this recent (brilliant) article by Dr. Touré F. Reed on the economic conditions of black Americans.

Despite what right-wingers might insist, Barack Obama's position on racial stratification was pretty darn conservative, moralistic, and in-line with conservative white thought. In this article, Reed opines that it is neither black culture (Obama) nor white racism (Coates) that is the primary driver of racial inequality. It's economic policy history.

In the article, Dr. Reed outlines an extremely comprehensive and thoughtful history of economic policy making and its disparate impact on black Americans still reeling at the margins from slavery, economic exclusion, and legal discrimination of previous decades.

Here are some highlights.









https://catalyst-journal.com/vol1/no4/between-obama-and-coates

For a second I thought this was the other Toure', whom I cannot bear to listen to.

I can understand debating whether Obama truly purported to be "post-racial," but Te-Nahisi Coates belongs outside that Overton window of academic critique. It's like debating Herrnstein and Murray – it doesn't lead anywhere nice.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Good article, i appreciate that Reed really didnt push the democratic socialist agenda with severe piety.

His view of Coates was pretty subdued, i thought he should've gone after him harder -- especially critiquing the view that if "all whites are inexorably racist towards black people", by nature, then why would they ever concede any benefits to black people and black people only? Why wouldnt we just cut you off completely from universal programs, isolate you to whatever elba, and move on. Furthermore, why would other races, who also fill the tax coffers be on board with giving to black only government causes?

He also makes a good point that Sanders programs would theoretically benefit black people the most, while still being accessible to all americans who need them -- and that they would've benefited more, today, if Johnson implemented them decades ago.

His critique of Obama, was a bit unfair -- but had merit. Obama had so much on his plate and a hostile congress -- you have to give a man a pass on that. Also, Coates is a sell out for only admiring Obama for being able to "embrace black culture" -- he should be admired for taking advantage of what he had in front of him and succeeding with it. Respect him for what he did in office, and not because he likes basketball and married a dark skinned woman.

The question i have is: are black people voting against their interests by blind supporting the democratic party?

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I highly suggest everyone read this recent (brilliant) article by Dr. Touré F. Reed on the economic conditions of black Americans.

Despite what right-wingers might insist, Barack Obama's position on racial stratification was pretty darn conservative, moralistic, and in-line with conservative white thought. In this article, Reed opines that it is neither black culture (Obama) nor white racism (Coates) that is the primary driver of racial inequality. It's economic policy history.

In the article, Dr. Reed outlines an extremely comprehensive and thoughtful history of economic policy making and its disparate impact on black Americans still reeling at the margins from slavery, economic exclusion, and legal discrimination of previous decades.

Here are some highlights.









https://catalyst-journal.com/vol1/no4/between-obama-and-coates

Intellectuals pontificating without clear purpose.

 

[Trotsky]

Intellectuals pontificating without clear purpose.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you saw the title, scrolled through the OP, saw a couple big scary words, and then decided responding "intellectuals pontificating without clear purpose" would be easier than reading and trying to understand the article.

Kewl.

 

[Trotsky]

Good article, i appreciate that Reed really didnt push the democratic socialist agenda with severe piety.

His view of Coates was pretty subdued, i thought he should've gone after him harder -- especially critiquing the view that if "all whites are inexorably racist towards black people", by nature, then why would they ever concede any benefits to black people and black people only? Why wouldnt we just cut you off completely from universal programs, isolate you to whatever elba, and move on. Furthermore, why would other races, who also fill the tax coffers be on board with giving to black only government causes?

Yeah, I agree, but I understand and agree with his approach. Excoriating black dissidents and theorists is hardly productive and, unfortunately, there is an extensive history of that by and between black intellectuals. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks Coates is an opportunist or is not sincere in his analyses, so going the Cornel West route and gutting him for not seeking the forest for the trees is kind of fucked up.

He also makes a good point that Sanders programs would theoretically benefit black people the most, while still being accessible to all americans who need them -- and that they would've benefited more, today, if Johnson implemented them decades ago.

His critique of Obama, was a bit unfair -- but had merit. Obama had so much on his plate and a hostile congress -- you have to give a man a pass on that. Also, Coates is a sell out for only admiring Obama for being able to "embrace black culture" -- he should be admired for taking advantage of what he had in front of him and succeeding with it. Respect him for what he did in office, and not because he likes basketball and married a dark skinned woman.

I am more comfortable, however, with the critiques of Obama since he is, after all, a president of the United States.

The question i have is: are black people voting against their interests by blind supporting the democratic party?

Yes and no.

Yes, in that the Democratic Party has not been sufficiently pressed to maintain their advocacy and has in the past taken the black vote for granted.

No, in that the Republicans have never at any point offered anything resembling a better alternative. To vote GOP would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

[InternetHero]

Intellectuals pontificating without clear purpose.

Hmm.

"It is better to change an opinion than to persist in a wrong one." - Socrates

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Yeah, I agree, but I understand and agree with his approach. Excoriating black dissidents and theorists is hardly productive and, unfortunately, there is an extensive history of that by and between black intellectuals. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks Coates is an opportunist or is not sincere in his analyses, so going the Cornel West route and gutting him for not seeking the forest for the trees is kind of fucked up.

Im not saying lambaste him, but i would've like to see Reed hammer home more of how dangerous Coates line of thinking is -- and how isolating black people for special privileges is setting them up to fall hard among the people who would pay for said privileges -- He should've absolutely hammered Coates on his views of Bernie.

I am more comfortable, however, with the critiques of Obama since he is, after all, a president of the United States.

Fine, but out of everyone mentioned in that essay, Obama had the biggest obstacles and tasks -- he did the best he could within the environment he was in.

Yes and no.

Yes, in that the Democratic Party has not been sufficiently pressed to maintain their advocacy and has in the past taken the black vote for granted.

No, in that the Republicans have never at any point offered anything resembling a better alternative. To vote GOP would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

I should've clarified, are black people voting against their interested siding with the traditional dems over the progressives -- I mean, Hillary got 70 percent of the over 30 black vote in the primaries and nearly 50 of the under 30 vote.

I dont expect most black people to vote R outside of the affluent

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Hmm.

"It is better to change an opinion than to persist in a wrong one." - Socrates

Not sure how that applies, but ok.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you saw the title, scrolled through the OP, saw a couple big scary words, and then decided responding "intellectuals pontificating without clear purpose" would be easier than reading and trying to understand the article.

Kewl.

Or I read it and that was my response. But people typically jump towards any assumption that is convenient to them. Especially when they feel attacked. A defensive mechanism.

 

[InternetHero]

Not sure how that applies, but ok.

Intellectual discourse leads to greater knowledge through asking and discussing different questions.

Whether you are dealing with Anglo-Saxon empiricism or Central European "high theory" intellectualism, the best answers come from looking at different ideas.

 

[Trotsky]

Or I read it and that was my response. But people typically jump towards any assumption that is convenient to them. Especially when they feel attacked. A defensive mechanism.

If you read it and that was your response (that it had no purpose or internal logic), then it's your reading comprehension that is at fault.

But, let's be real, you didn't read it. You didn't spend 30 minute reading something just to say "meh, elitists."