soulfuliberty

A response to “Straight Black Men are the White People of Black People.”
Oh really? Do tell.

“We’re the ones whom the first black president created an entire initiative to assist and uplift. “
On the topic of initiative to assist and uplift.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/…/fact-sheet-my…

First and foremost, this was not black male specific, this was for all PoC men. Second of all, the program was created precisely because there were opportunity gaps between PoC boys and boys of color (as well as Women). Of note is that Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls in 2009 to work on issues for them. This was years before MBK was created.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/355186

Neither one of these things are evidence of intragender privilege

Now, since “straight” black men are being brought up:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/…/fact-sheet-obama…

But that’s a different topic, I guess. I wonder if that represents privilege…

“We’re the ones whose beatings and deaths at the hands of the police galvanize the community in a way that the beatings and sexual assaults and deaths that those same police inflict upon black women do not.”

This is not an argument, this a projection. I’m unsure how one would quantify galvanization of the community. Author should be specific.

“We’re the ones whose mistreatment inspired a boycott of the NFL despite the NFL’s long history of mishandling and outright ignoring far worse crimes against black women.”

This is fundamentally misleading. Colin Kapernick’s protest was not a protest for Black Men. It was against police brutality and inspired by BLM which includes gendered violence against women and girls at the hands of the state as a part of its rallying principles. Please explain how this becomes about black men specifically? Does Colin’s experience match even 1% of black men in this country? Colin Kapernick pledged 1 million dollars to charities and grass roots organizations. Two of those organizations, Helping Oppressed Mothers Endure (HOME) and Assata’s Daughters seems to be gendered in their goals. Please explain how his activism becomes BM focused when half of his actions have been for the advancement of causes for BW?

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/870633124711018496/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbnation.com%2Flookit%2F2017%2F6%2F3%2F15735060%2Fcolin-kaepernick-700k-1-million-dollar-pledge-charity-latest-donations

“And nowhere is this more evident than when considering the collective danger we pose to black women and our collective lack of willingness to accept and make amends for that truth..”

Meaning what exactly?

“But when black women share that we pose the same existential and literal danger to them that whiteness does to us; and when black women ask us to give them the benefit of the doubt about street harassment and sexual assault and other forms of harassment and violence we might not personally witness; and when black women tell us that allowing our cousins and brothers and co-workers and niggas to use misogynistic language propagates that culture of danger..”

There is a lot to unpack here. First and foremost, it assumes the position that “Whiteness” poses an existential danger to us. I don’t think that is the case but let’s not focus on that. This paragraph conflates actual danger, perceived danger with things that are disliked and treats them as one cohesive thing. This is an emotional appeal designed to capture the high ground. The real danger of DV is not the same as telling misgynistic language. It simply isn’t the same and to mention them both in the same paragraph (especially given how this paragraph begins) is not responsible.

Yes DV is an issue. Yes rape jokes and the like are an issue. Those can, should and must be dealt with. But the same existential threat BW face from BM BM face from other BM. Let me be clear, BM are the greatest threat to BM. There aren’t enough think pieces and polysyllabic leftist phrases to cover that up. I can evidence my claim a variety of ways and with objective data.

Page 33-34:

Click to access nvsr65_05.pdf

As far as the comments on black men not believing black women, I would love to see some evidence that supported that position. I know it won’t happen but whatever.

Look, what I am not saying is that BW don’t have specific gendered problems in this country. What I am saying is that to pretend that BM are in a remotely privileged position is wrong, misleading and IMO political fantasy designed to garner support away from issues where BM desperately need solutions.

 

So, an obvious question is, why bother at all and what difference would it make?

Well, for one, if there isn’t any significant disagreement between black conservatives and mainline conservatism, that’s important to note. There should be at least some imo. Why? Identity.

Identity augments reality. I mean this in several ways. I believe this is important because I believe all politics is identity politics and the identities that are allowed to enter into the conversation and those that aren’t are important.

Now, Blackness, that’s definitely a social and political identity so, when people call someone an Uncle Tom or a Coon, oftentimes what they are really saying is, “You aren’t one of us.” Some people take this as a badge of honor. In the past, I would troll comment sections and make comments about “Democratic Plantations” and things of that nature and I would get called a coon daily. There was a feedback loop that developed due to other groups I belonged to. I would say something, get called xyz, report back to the groups, get a congratulated and go from there.
What I didn’t understand at the time was that, not only was this tactically idiotic but I was actually providing cover for nastier elements due to my identity.

“Look! This black guy said it!”

In my opinion, a coon is not someone who disagrees with liberalism or votes republicans, a coon is someone who would provide cover for nastier elements when real criticisms are being made for the benefit of those nastier elements, after such actions are explained. That isn’t Party specific or policy specific. Which is not to say that the opposite position of the nastier elements is always right, but if all you ever do is provide cover, you are a coon.

This is why I think the disagreement metric is important because I believe that feedback loop is much bigger than what I experienced a few years ago. I believe there is money to be made in this identity, if one becomes particularly successful and effective. I also think the feedback loop benefits the nastier elements because, let’s face it, no one wants their points challenged, especially on something immutable(1) like identity (think race).

Do you remember this?

https://www.google.com/…/en…/us_5786bfffe4b08608d332eaa0/amp

I do, vividly. I think is a prime example of what I think parts of black conservatism should be able to do. I think it was important to remind republicans that there are parts of reality that you might not experience, due to identity and that the only black senator is still a black man.

That matters. To what degree? That’s the debate. But I don’t think we advance the conversation without an agreement on some fundamental things.

I believe the disentangling modern black political thought from leftist and liberal thought will be important for the future. That will only happen with open and honest conversations and with people that have mutual goals, even if the way to reach those goals are debated.

1: This is why I think postmodernism deconstructionism is going to be difficult for Democrats to deal with. So much of their movement is based around a confederation of identities, what’ll happen when all of them get challenged at once.

I think most black conservatives are worthless (just like most black progressives) for a variety of reasons but I do think engagement with people right of center will be necessary for the future of the Black race in America. I don’t necessarily mean voting republican either (I can expand on this point if anyone asks).

For too long, Black Conservatives in general have been considered Uncle Tom’s. I don’t use this term to describe anyone but I do understand the sentiment being captured (1). Having been a black conservative and imo, understanding conservatism better than many (including non academic conservatives) I have developed a metric that blacks who aren’t a conservatives can use to measure if a conservative is worth engaging. Note this this is to be used outside of the normal measures of a politician (effectiveness, honestly, etc).

 

This is a response to a post I saw that was made on FB.

“What does the post actually say? Read the exact words slowly.

Because I did and I take them seriously.

It’s no different than when conservatives talk about black people. It’s exactly the same.

Toxic masculinity.
Criminal culture.
Black on black crime.
Terrorist men.
Unfit mothers.
Welfare queens.

Privation and composition fallacies run amuck.

But it’s deeper than that. It’s an ideology of the Other.

I see the way you talk about conservatives when they talk about police. I’ve also seen you make comments about black men on Chester’s posts that have blown me away. I’m pretty sure you said you were glad your sister is a lesbian because she wouldn’t have to deal with (those) men or something like that.

How are these consistent? Why are they treated as such?

It’s all the same shit. As always some subset of people is used to determine the fitness of the whole and then, only when pressed, is there anything like a walk back.

No one seems to put this shit together. No one.

It’s amazing to me that I never see the definitions of masculinity by feminist that are anything positive or definitions of black culture that are positive by the most strident conservatives. Well, it use to amaze me but not anymore. Why? Because the terms are redundant and the adjectives only conceal the true connotations anyway. It’s a wink to the crowd.

I reject that bullshit in all forms.

But of course, that’s rarely done because these are really conversation regarding the Powerful and Powerless, the privileged and the oppressed. It’s checkers or connect four, not an actual conversation, where identifying is the end goal and lining up the privilege stack or taking the pieces of the Other by means of labels wins the game.
What are the Others to do? Fight with logic? Sure. Be better people? Of course. But those things don’t work on the Internet. What must you do? Conform and agree or deflect or reject or a combination of those things.

Deflect to race and whiteness.
Deflect to poverty and wealth.
Deflect to heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Deflect to culture.
Explain, nod and agree and run away.

All of these things are a collection of the individuals that practice them. You can’t criticize the Other without criticizing what makes up the collection. You can’t criticize the rich without criticizing Oprah. You can’t say all men are garbage without applying term to your father and brothers, or husband and friends. You can’t say women ain’t shit without insulting your mother, sisters or wife and friends.

I do wonder about the people that accept these criticisms wholesale, all the time charging themselves. It’s the truest definition of self hate.

****
Women being killed is tragic and I make no apologies for murderers. I also don’t make privation fallacies of my own. I do however suspect that you don’t know or care about the thousands of people who are killed who aren’t women just like conservatives don’t actually care about the black people being killed by other black people. It’s a different kind of other. Something separate, a stat that may have some personal significance when examined and personalized but outside of individual impact it’s just facts, like the price of corn per bushel or the gdp of individual states or the crime rate in an area where you don’t live.

It’s jockeying for the position of standing in front of the bully pulpit and it annoys the fuck out of me.

What’s worse is that people allow that shit to go by unnoticed. Perhaps I’m taking social media posts too seriously but these are words and opinions on reality that have to form something like an ideology and I do take that seriously.

It’s obvious to me but it seems invisible to people.”

I’m a liberal because I don’t think that the status quo can be defended on the merits of its own existence. It needs to be challenged on the grounds of its effectiveness.

I’m a liberal because I also believe that one needs to make ones’ case for change and I don’t believe in change for changes’ sake.

I’m a liberal because I believe that wealth creation via capitalism is fantastic but that doesn’t always translate to wealth distribution.

I’m a liberal because I believe that since we do have a State, it’s function should be for the public good.

I’m a liberal because I believe that State does have a role to play in the creation of public goods.

I’m a liberal because I believe the State should protect the weakest among us and work to raise them up and while I really don’t like paying taxes, I’m willing to fund those efforts.

I’m a liberal because I believe in politics that are informed and transformed with the arrival of information.

I’m a liberal because I believe religious liberty and secular Liberty should not stand against one another.

I’m a liberal because I believe in consequentialist arguments and not deontological ones.
I’m a liberal because sometimes the rules need to be challenged.

I’m a liberal because I reject State Socialism and Communism.

I’m a liberal because I reject the idea that the State is a church or anti-Church.

I’m a liberal because I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong and revise my policy prescriptions with new information.

I’m a liberal because I’m willing to change my mind.
I’m a liberal because I will change my mind.

I’m a liberal because I think leftist and right wingers have serious issues of logic and they need to be fleshed out fully.

I’m a liberal because sometimes there is more than one correct answer.

I’m a liberal because I strive to be free of dogma.

I’m a liberal because I seek to understand.

I’m a liberal because I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I know I don’t have all the answers. None of us do.

I’m a liberal because I recognize that the world is full of shades of gray.

I’m a liberal because I think it’s necessary.

I’m a liberal because choice isn’t always freedom.

I’m a liberal because I will learn from the past but I will not be held hostage by the ideas of dead men.

From these things comes an philosophy and from that comes a political philosophy and ideology.

I believe I’ve properly identified the problem I’ve been having for the last few years. It goes something like this:

I’ve had a misallocation of resources due to a skewed perception of value and ROI. Put a different way, the idea the one should spend hours out of the week paying attention to the coming and goings of politicians is foolish at best and hubris at worse. Allocating resources (mainly time) in this way is wasteful and the payoff (knowledge of events) is mostly useless information. Nassim Nicholas Taleb‘s comment about the diminishing returns on constant news watching was 100% dead on. 

I have far more issues with the Men’s Rights movements than I do with Feminist movements. The MRA seem to be comprised of only “Twitter Fingers” activist who will never raise the material condition of anyone. At least there are Feminist that actually do real and important work.

My issues with Feminism are tactical and political. I think Feminist political tactics (in the West) can be changed and it’ll be a better product. From what I’ve read of Feminist theory, there are a lot of hits and a lot of misses. I’ll do some more research of the subject for sure. I also happen to believe in the political and social equality of women and even some forms of redistribution towards that end. However imo the full actualization of ones’ rights greatly depends on the access to capital. So yeah, a poor man might be in a worse place than a rich woman. It depends. I can’t say that I’ve heard to many intersectional feminist speak on that and draw the same conclusions but that could just an investigation issue on my part.

Feminism is a social theory, a political movement based around the idea of the equality of the sexes in social and political spaces. When I say, I have issues with feminism, I’m talking about the first two things and not the last thing. A tactic that I find particularly annoying is acting like feminism is only the last thing and thus, when someone says they have issues with the Feminism, they are treated as if they reject the last thing. My guess is than most people probably don’t. I know that I don’t.

My issues with MRAs/MRMs are mostly structural, meaning, I give them almost no credit.From the first formations of MRMs they were sort of a reaction to the egalitarian efforts of Feminist. I find this to be an issue that carries strong implications into today. If MRAs/MRMs were focused on *poor* men, they could be really effective and I might actually support some of their efforts. In order words, they are just as bad if not worse than the worst of the people they criticize. I don’t think MRMs have generated enough of literature to qualify as a social theory and their political tactics are garbage. I think they skipped a step. They need to step back and create a sound theory and then disseminate it, not simply react. It makes you look silly and vapid.

Note: I recognize that in other parts of the world FGM, Honor Killing are serious issues that need to be addressed. I also recognize that intergender violence is an issue globally and it needs to be addressed. If you don’t know what I mean, ask and I’ll tell you.

I am also not saying that there aren’t issues that men face. I absolutely believe that these are things we should address. The pendulum of social power does swing and sometimes people are hurt or feel hurt. When that happens, it is important that we, as a society hear the claims and seek understanding and elimination of the grievances when possible.

I’ve been off of work for around 10 days due to stragetically applied vacation time. During this time, I’ve reflected on 2016 and done some planning for the year to come. Perhaps my thoughts were of a different sort than the average pondering on the subject. As far back as recollection allows me to travel, I found the end of the year to be a time of mild depression. Another reminder of my fleeting youth and another step towards the grave. This year was not entirely different, although I must say that 2016 was quite the fun time for me. Still, there were things I that I wanted to get done that I definitely didn’t accomplish. For 2017, I have a much smaller list of goals but the goals are nevertheless, as important as the ones from 2016. I have added maintaining this blog in a regularly as one of those goals. That brings me to thoughts about this blog.

Originally, I planned for this place to be a dumping ground for the results  of various pseudo-political musings. I realize now that I don’t really care to treat this in that way. I think the goal of the blog will be public record into three basic questions about myself and how I view the world:

Who am I?
What do I believe?
What am I going to do based on those beliefs?

The answers that I have for former triplet vary in depth and clarity but each are of particular importance to me as the realities of being a new father have created a bit of an identity crisis as the third question causes me to waver, question the pedagogy and culture I will pass down to my child and forces me to seek council from people whom I barely trust. In order for this to end, I have to trust not only in the answers to the questions but in the process in finding the answers. I no longer believe these things can be found externally as virtually every answer I have found have only left me less clear on the subject. This blog will serve as a progress report in  my likely multi-year journey.

Maybe this makes me less woke than most but I wasn’t impressed by the Jesse Williams speech. It didn’t move me, I wasn’t inspired and ultimately, I didn’t think too much of it.

Why? Well that’s twofold:

0: A speech like that, while provocative, was done in the “safest” possible way possible. It’s the *BET* awards, not the Emmy’s. Racial commentary is almost a requirement whenever we gather for any reason in a post Black Lives Matters world.