This is TOO much!

[archenemy]

A minority encountering violence while conducting a campaign to achieve political ends is one thing, a minority conducting a violent campaign to achieve a political goal is quite another.

 

If all that women or blacks or whoever had going for them was the power to coerce or intimidate, they would have gained nothing. The only reason that they ultimately succeeded in gaining recognition of their political rights is that their leaders recognized that appealing to the moral framework outlined in the nation's founding documents would be the most effective strategy. This made sense, sense they themselves were inspired by the ideals outlined in these documents. Take the same women, armed with the same documents, and transport them to 19th century Arabia and they'd have endured considerably more violence to considerably less political effect. Go one step further and ask yourself whether or not they'd have even been literate, much realize that such ideas existed, if they had born anywhere other than the West.

Good to make the distinction about groups who use violence. In each of these three groups history, they had violence brought upon them. In each of these three cases, it was our government who orchestrated that violence.

 

And I am not sure what your second point is: that dumb girls, stupid niggas, and lazy workers (or, gasp, middle easterners) would have never thought that all people were created equal and should have equal say in how they are governed if they hadn't read that shit that these brilliant white guys wrote? Come on.

[prole]

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

 

 

 

 

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations.

 

If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so.

 

They lack the desire to do so only when subjugating them entails political costs that they are unwilling to bear, namely those which undermine the continuation of their particular party's, class', family's, cabal's, tribe's, etc. power. It is when minority wishes threaten to become mainstream demands that entrenched power takes notice.

 

This, and the fear of this:

 

 

has provided more incentive for "moral reawakening" than enlightened despots suddenly "seeing the light".

[JayB]

A minority encountering violence while conducting a campaign to achieve political ends is one thing, a minority conducting a violent campaign to achieve a political goal is quite another.

 

If all that women or blacks or whoever had going for them was the power to coerce or intimidate, they would have gained nothing. The only reason that they ultimately succeeded in gaining recognition of their political rights is that their leaders recognized that appealing to the moral framework outlined in the nation's founding documents would be the most effective strategy. This made sense, sense they themselves were inspired by the ideals outlined in these documents. Take the same women, armed with the same documents, and transport them to 19th century Arabia and they'd have endured considerably more violence to considerably less political effect. Go one step further and ask yourself whether or not they'd have even been literate, much realize that such ideas existed, if they had born anywhere other than the West.

Good to make the distinction about groups who use violence. In each of these three groups history, they had violence brought upon them. In each of these three cases, it was our government who orchestrated that violence.

 

And I am not sure what your second point is: that dumb girls, stupid niggas, and lazy workers (or, gasp, middle easterners) would have never thought that all people were created equal and should have equal say in how they are governed if they hadn't read that shit that these brilliant white guys wrote? Come on.

 

The fact that it was a bunch of white guys was an accident of history, rather than any particular merit associated with their race. If the orientation of the continents relative to the poles had been different, the distribution of relatively docile herd animals had been different, Roman millitary had been less ruthless and efficient, etc, etc, etc, then the conglomeration of historical accidents that lead to the evolution of these ideas may never have happened, or the people who happened to be around at the time and place where they had their long genesis probably would have been sporting a different complexion. You were the one who originally pointed out their race, not me, so I suspect I'm less fixated on this point than you.

 

As for your second point - who knows whether they would have discovered them or on their own or not - but they were conspicously absent from the globe prior to their genesis in the West, which suggests that they were not entirely self-evident to all peoples at all times. Unless you think that polygamy, genital mutilation, and the female ninja-suit are halmarks of enlightened equality, present evidence suggests that even though people all over the world are aware of these ideas, their enthusiasm for translating them into a legally binding moral code that they impose on themselves varies widely.

 

Pretending that women had nothing to do with their own liberation belittles the role of women in bringing about this outcome, but pretending that the social context that they were able to liberate themselves within belittles the role of society in this process.

[JayB]

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

 

 

 

 

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations.

 

If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so.

 

They lack the desire to do so only when subjugating them entails political costs that they are unwilling to bear, namely those which undermine the continuation of their particular party's, class', family's, cabal's, tribe's, etc. power. It is when minority wishes threaten to become mainstream demands that entrenched power takes notice.

 

This, and the fear of this:

 

 

has provided more incentive for "moral reawakening" than enlightened despots suddenly "seeing the light".

 

You are obviously an intelligent guy, so I hope that one day you aspire to use your intelligence for something more worthwhile than serving as the intellectual equivalent of the towel-boy, or more aptly - the cookie - in Foucault's ideological S&M dungeon where nothing matters except "power relations."

 

Thankfully the leaders of the civil rights movement heeded wiser council than your own and correctly predicted the outcome of an all-out race war waged against the other 90% of society, and chose a moral crusade over a millitant suicide mission.

 

History is full of examples of ruthless minorities that have held subject populations in check indefinitely, but none that I am aware of where a ruthless majority has been brought to heel by a determined minority. If the only perogative that the white majority in this country responded to was power and they were as ruthless and machiavellian as you suggest and seem to believe, then Jim Crow laws would have never gone away. Clearly,and thankfully, MLK did not believe this.

 

How to explain this perspective? Perhaps these political revenge-fantasies are some kind of an intellectual hangover from a youth spent getting one's ass stuffed into a locker - which might explain their enduring popularity amongst academics

 

Have fun playing with words, living the life of the cloistered parlor-radical, and "transgressing the heteronormative boundary conditions" and all that. Yawn.

[Dechristo]

Good natured ribbing is also another facet of communication, one that is encouraged, not a little by yourself and certain others, on this forum. It shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

We can agree to disagree about JayB's tendency to latch on to tangents and produce tomes about them (albeit clear ones), but in the end, everyone draws their own conclusions. In any case, he's a big boy who seems perfectly willing and capable of defending himself.

 

Criticism aside, I enjoy his writing, as I enjoy yours.

 

As for the clarity or lack thereof in my posts, not to worry. Spray provides thorough and rapid notification. If I considered myself untouchable (don't confuse thick- skinned with holier-than-thou), I certainly wouldn't expose myself by offering up actual opinions on real issues for the slaughter.

 

cool.

 

Now, if you'll only admit I can run faster and farther than yourself, I'll let you know where AlpineK hides the spare key to the moderators' righteous party pad.

[prole]

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

 

 

 

 

 

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations.

 

If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so.

 

They lack the desire to do so only when subjugating them entails political costs that they are unwilling to bear, namely those which undermine the continuation of their particular party's, class', family's, cabal's, tribe's, etc. power. It is when minority wishes threaten to become mainstream demands that entrenched power takes notice.

 

This, and the fear of this:

 

 

has provided more incentive for "moral reawakening" than enlightened despots suddenly "seeing the light".

 

You are obviously an intelligent guy, so I hope that one day you aspire to use your intelligence for something more worthwhile than serving as the intellectual equivalent of the towel-boy, or more aptly - the cookie - in Foucault's ideological S&M dungeon where nothing matters except "power relations."

 

Thankfully the leaders of the civil rights movement heeded wiser council than your own and correctly predicted the outcome of an all-out race war waged against the other 90% of society, and chose a moral crusade over a millitant suicide mission.

 

History is full of examples of ruthless minorities that have held subject populations in check indefinitely, but none that I am aware of where a ruthless majority has been brought to heel by a determined minority. If the only perogative that the white majority in this country responded to was power and they were as ruthless and machiavellian as you suggest and seem to believe, then Jim Crow laws would have never gone away. Clearly,and thankfully, MLK did not believe this.

 

How to explain this perspective? Perhaps these political revenge-fantasies are some kind of an intellectual hangover from a youth spent getting one's ass stuffed into a locker - which might explain their enduring popularity amongst academics

 

Have fun playing with words, living the life of the cloistered parlor-radical, and "transgressing the heteronormative boundary conditions" and all that. Yawn.

 

Interestingly, if anyone is guilty of Foucauldian excess in this thread it is you. Your simple majority/minority formula in the case American race relations reeks of “destructuralized power”. Mistaking whiteness for power ignores the ways in which institutionalized racism has subjugated poor and working-class whites throughout American history. Also thrown to the wind are the contributions made to anti-slavery and civil-rights movements by whites. By consigning these folks to the “powerful majority” you turn them into paternalistic do-gooders rather than people fighting what was/is in essence a powerful, highly structured and institutionalized *minority*. Anyway, the Foucault jab was well crafted but way off the mark. Given your easy dismissal of an important thinker coupled with the History Through Fingerpaints you’ve shown us thus far, I think it’s safe to say that you probably haven’t his work or understood it.

 

The reduction of civil-rights struggles to a candy-coated “moral crusade”, the fetishization of non-violence, and simplistic “MLK = civil rights movement” formula speaks volumes about the historical Alzheimer’s disease that passes for the American narrative and conventional wisdom. Where does Malcolm X, SNCC, SDS, the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, race riots in major US cities as well as the smear tactics, clandestine operations, assassination, beatings visited on civil-rights workers by the state fit into your version. Your “moral crusade” and “wise council” wants us to forget that there was actual struggle taking place, that there were elements in the civil-rights movement that scared the shit out of the ruling elite, that history has sharp, pointy, complex edges. But in this turd of a statement

The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

you’d have us believe that social change occurs through the power of superior ideas, through moral persuasion, through asking or begging for a seat at the table. You seem to have mistaken the point I was making with the illustration about violent revolutions with advocacy (It seems the mere mention of these historical figures and events is grounds for hysterical condemnation). The point is that these people did not ASK, nor did many blacks, or women in their historical moment. When their struggles resonated (I think you’re right on about the universality of the promise of Liberalism, BTW) with larger groups and more radical elements effectively threatened established power structures, conciliation with the most moderate fractions took place. It’s your confusion of numerical majorities with power that is the problem.

 

I’m not sure what to make of your anti-intellectualism, though it doesn’t surprise me given your technocratic world-view. Are we to take this to mean that intellect and ideas that compete with your own have no place in the discussion of American problems past and present? Or are we just to apply the correct mathematical formuli? Locker-stuffing, armchair radicals, crying “commie”, and the quick turn of phrase might get you points with the likes of Fairweather, but honestly they just make you look like a sap. Spend more time honing your arguments and less time stroking your ego with pithy comebacks.

 

 

By the way, consigning the rest of the world to barbarity absent Western values is not only offensive AND historically inaccurate, it's also deeply implicated in the endurance of institutions you claim to abhor, such as slavery.

Edited November 10, 2006 by prole

[archenemy]

Exactly.

[JayB]

Glad we settled that.

[Skeezix]

Amen, bro'

[Dave_Schuldt]

WOW all this spray about homos........

[archenemy]

Told you they were a problem.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Should be good for a few more pages....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hiddenlife/

Watched this last week, very good.

Until we accept gays and respect thier relationships just as much as straight ones this shit will continue to happen. Shit like this makes me think if your born gay there's nothing you can do about it. Honos are a fact of life, deal with it.

[archenemy]

I figure you didn't mean to direct this post at me.

I have nothing to deal with. Especially not Honos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEWARE THE HONOS............

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Should be good for a few more pages....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hiddenlife/

Watched this last week, very good.

Until we accept gays and respect thier relationships just as much as straight ones this shit will continue to happen. Shit like this makes me think if your born gay there's nothing you can do about it. Honos are a fact of life, deal with it.

 

Honos = the smell of stinky ho's snatch on a certain hippy- biker's nose after he makes a visit down under

[Dave_Schuldt]

I figure you didn't mean to direct this post at me.

I have nothing to deal with. Especially not Honos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEWARE THE HONOS............

 

That's right, I wasn't talkig about you....

[archenemy]

Don't touch my hono.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Should be good for a few more pages....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hiddenlife/

Watched this last week, very good.

Until we accept gays and respect thier relationships just as much as straight ones this shit will continue to happen. Shit like this makes me think if your born gay there's nothing you can do about it. Honos are a fact of life, deal with it.

 

Honos = the smell of stinky ho's snatch on a certain hippy- biker's nose after he makes a visit down under

 

....I was talking about this guy.