Wattree's picture

    These Are the Kind of Black Men Who Sold Black People into Slavery

    By Wattree on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 12:54am |

    To Penguin Board of Directors,

     .
    Here's the follow-up on yesterday's discussion that I promised you. Yes, I'm on an absolute mission, and if I'm successful, which I intend to be, I will have made a huge contribution to the Black community.  So this has gradually become a life's mission for me. As I mentioned in our discussion last night, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West represent the very same kind of Black people who delivered African-Americans into slavery when we were in Africa: "Hurry, everyone, and bring your children! The nice White man wants to take you for a boat-ride!" And these are not opinions I'm putting forward here - these are facts.  Thus, anyone who wants to argue this point, can argue with the facts. 
    .
    So, for me, the exposure of Tavis Smiley and Cornel West as frauds represents a debt that's way past due. And they don't need to be simply admonished. They should to be completely, and permanently, boycotted by the Black community. Because as long as Black people continue to give them a platform, they'll continue to be used by Wal-Mart, ALEC, the GOP, and other enemies of the people to undermine the Black community.  So we need to make examples of them as a warning to anyone who may be contemplating following in their footsteps. We've got to make pimping the Black community an act of treason, and brought to an end, once and for all.  
    .  
    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
    The Real History of The Poverty Tours
    . 
    Dr. Boyce Watkins, a Smiley/West Wannabe
    The hostility that Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have for President Obama is so transparent that if it were glass we would have walked right through it and cut ourselves to shreds. These two are shameless, and it’s not only a national disgrace how the establishment media is allowing them to prance around posing as the savior of the poor and middle class, but they're actually helping them to perpetuate this fraud by providing them constant coverage and millions of dollars worth of publicly supported air time.
    .
    These two thought that they were gonna become the Grand Dragons of the Black Community - which is a very profitable gig when you’re in the business of selling ALEC-connected corporations access to the Black community like Tavis Smiley. Tavis is the biggest corporate shill in the Black community. He fronts for Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, Exxon/Mobile, Allstate Ins., Nationwide Ins., etc. - a veritable who’s who of the corporations that are most responsible for victimizing the poor and middle class in the country, and who are spending millions of dollars to obstruct minority voter rights. That’s what makes it so ironic that they’re trying to portray themselves as the saviors of "the poor minorities."
    .
    During Obama’s first campaign for president Smiley and West had already hitched their wagons to Hillary Clinton. She was 37 points ahead of Obama in the Black community at the time, so they were all set to gain the clout, prestige, and riches of having presidential access and being acknowledged as the new grand viziers of the Black community. But then, Obama won the election - in spite of their most ardent efforts - and caught them by surprise. In fact, Cornel West tried to jump the fence and began campaigning for Obama when it became clear that Obama might actually win, but Obama wasn’t having it. That's what caused the controversy over West not being invited to the inaugural celebration.
    .
    At the time, West tried to frame the issue like Obama was an ingrate for not inviting him to the inauguration after he campaigned for him. But he failed to mention the fact that less than an hour after Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States West went on national television and told the Black community that Obama couldn’t be trusted.
    .
    That’s right - on the very day that Obama went to Springfield, Illinois to maximize the historic significance of announcing his candidacy for president in the shadow of Lincoln's former statehouse instead of coming on Tavis' "State of the Black Union" jibfest, West stood up and did an impassioned rant indicating that Obama couldn’t be trusted to be president because he didn’t come on the Tavis Smiley show, as though Tavis was the gatekeeper of the Black community - and all the while Tavis is standing there grinnin' like a chess cat as though they'd caught Obama committing some sort of unconscionable act.
    .
    Look at the video below and notice how entitled West sounds, as though it was more appropriate for Obama to come kiss Tavis’ ring than to announce his candidacy in the shadow of Lincoln’s former statehouse. I remember becoming slack-jawed at his unmitigated arrogance. Up until that moment I had been a big fan of both Tavis and West, but that was when I first realized that they were egomaniacal fools. That was also the morning that I started investigating them, and I’ve written nearly 30 articles on them since.
    .
    The video is also ironically prophetic. Notice how even as West is lecturing the nation on how Obama is surrounding himself with people who can’t be trusted, you can see Wells Fargo and Exxon/Mobil logos floating by in the background behind him. What makes that so prophetically ironic is Tavis was later involved in the Wells Fargo "Ghetto Loans" scam, where Wells Fargo ended up having to settled a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice agreeing to pay poor and middle-class minorities $175 million as a result of the scam. This is the biggest scandal EVER perpetrated by a Black man on the Black community, but the establishment media is refusing to cover it. That’s why I’ve become so fixated on bringing the machinations of these two demagogues to the attention of the Black community.
    .

    As This Video Was Being Recorded Tavis Smiley
    Was Knee-Deep into Roping 30,000 Poor and Middle-Class
    Minorities into the Wells Fargo "Ghetto Scam"
    That Would Cause Many of Them to Lose Their Homes
    and Life savings.  
    .
    So the Bottom Line is this - when people like myself criticize Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, or Boyce Watkins, we’re not criticizing them because they’re critical of President Obama; our problem with them is they’re cherry-picking their facts and telling half-truths to promote their own agenda.
    .
    HEY, AREN'T YOU THE SAME GUY
    WHO SAID I COULDN'T BE TRUSTED?
    A prime example of that is they are going out of their way NOT to tell the Black community that the United States Constitution gives sole control of spending to the United States House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Republicans. So the only way that President Obama can spend any money to assist the Black community, or anyone else, is to get the Republican House to go along with him.
    .
    That’s why it’s so important for the president to hold together a coalition of Blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, and every other segment of the American population. He needs ALL of us to place pressure on the Republicans to loosen the purse strings in order for him to get anything done. So anytime you hear Tavis, West, or Watkins pointing their finger at what President Obama is doing for any other segment of the population, they’re doing you a disservice.
    .
    Here’s how politics works - "you support me when I need you, and I’ll support you when you need me." So whenever President Obama does anything for other segments of the population, he’s building up political capital so he can help you. But, of course, he doesn’t discuss what he’s doing for the Black community for a very good reason - as Cornel says himself (when it’s convenient), "Race Matters."
    .
    These gentlemen know full well that if President Obama runs around bragging about what he’s doing for the Black community, the Republicans are going to use that as leverage to tear his coalition apart. They would tell women, gays, Hispanics, and everyone else in America that Obama doesn’t care about them; all he wants to do is help his own people, and that message hurts the Black community. Don’t these so-called intellectuals recognize that? If they don’t, they’re dumb. If they do, that means that they’re purposely trying to mislead you. The question, then, is why?
    .
    So the fact is, when people like Tavis, West, and Watkins run around telling you that the proof that President Obama is not working for you is that he refuses to throw his fist in the air, these people are working against you, not for you - and they know it. You see, their primary agenda is NOT about helping the Black community. Their agenda is about tearing President Obama down, and again, that hurts you. But they don't care - and that's the problem.
    .
    .
    RELATED ARTICLES
    .

    Comments

    Tavis and Cornel have been off my radar screen. I should have made the connection between the poverty wages of Wal-Mart and the fact that Wal-Mart provides about $1 million per year to his PBS program. Given the financial status of Wal-Mart workers, we would expect to hear some word on the issue from Tavis.

    Jay-Z was caught in a situation where Barney's was handling merchandise produced by Jay-Z when the department store was accused of racial profiling. The store conducted an investigation and found that the profiling took place by police. Jay-Z continued his association with the store. Profits from the merchandise are geared to a foundation providing education to financially strapped students.

    We are likely getting the sugar-coated version of Barney's role in the profiling, but at least Jay-Z commented on the situation and sales are paying for education. Tavis Smiley has been silent.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 11:17am

    Funny, I thought Cornel West was on Obama's Black Advisory Council as early as Feb 2008 and campaigned for him through the primaries. Your piece makes it sound like West waited until Obama won to switch sides.

    Update: I'm sorry - this NY Times piece makes it clear Obama asked West to join his Black Advisory Council in Feb 2007 after West had some public criticisms about. Funny thing for a guy who's thrown all his backing behind Hillary to do a year before the primaries.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 2:38pm

    The West and Smiley support for Obama was always tepid. West noted that his approach to Obama was to be adversarial from the day after the election. As your NYT article notes, the advisory council included supporters and critics. West was a critic prior to and following the election of Barack Obama.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 4:10pm

    It's not petty to attend the Black State of the Union - it was a focal point of black organizing for more influence. If Obama skipped the AFL-CIO invite or one from a major Hispanic meetup, there'd be certainly howling in those groups.

    I still don't get it - West lobbies for black issues - even Obama early on said something like "you have to make me do it", no? And then someone applies pressure for black issues and he's a traitor, one of those "black men who sold black people into slavery"?

    Wow, every critic is a slave runner - Is this rhetoric a bit overblown, or what?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 5:38pm

    Can you point to anything worthwhile that came out of Smiley's meeting for anyone other than Smiley? The general consensus was that nothing happened after the conferences. It did produce best-selling books for Smiley

    Our dear brother Cornel West said that people were living on plantations, so the rhetoric was heated.. The feeling is that ego more than  concern is the reason and Smiley have been  so critical.

    Tavis Smiley has been silent on the issue of Wal-Mart wages. Does his acceptance of there sponsorship money buy his silence? Compare CostCo to Wal-Mart


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 6:17pm

    The message below was placed on the Smiley/West website a couple of days BEFORE the demonstrations against Wal-Mart:

    TAVIS SMILEY, CORNEL WEST, HERE’S YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST POVERTY.
    Posted by Eric L. Wattree on Novem...ber 28, 2013 at 4:09pm in Speak Out
    View Discussions
    .
    TAVIS SMILEY, CORNEL WEST, HERE’S YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST POVERTY. COME TAKE A STAND WITH THE PEOPLE AGAINST YOUR BUDDIES AT WALMART. GET OUT FRONT AND TELL THOSE SUCKAS OFF. PRETEND THEY’RE OBAMA! .
    .
    THIS BLACK FRIDAY – STAND WITH SO CAL WALMART EMPLOYEES! November 29, 2013• 11:30 AM

    CRENSHAW WALMART• 4101 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90008
    .
    YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE
    .
    If Tavis and West don’t find time to show up at this demonstration against Walmart, it’s sure gonna give us something to talk about. It would mean that the relief of poverty is so important to them that they can ride all across the country on a bus, but now – after the election is over, and they don’t have any books to sell – they can’t even walk across the street from Tavis’ office to confront the biggest abuser of the working class in the ENTIRE country!!!? They’re gonna have to come up with some answers for that. They’ve GOT to know that – and even if they can’t make it to the Walmart down the street from Tavis’ office, similar demonstrations are taking place all across the country.
    .
    So they can run, but they can’t hide.
    Photo: The message below was placed on the Smiley/West website a couple of days BEFORE the demonstrations against Wal-Mart: TAVIS SMILEY, CORNEL WEST, HERE’S YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST POVERTY. Posted by Eric L. Wattree on November 28, 2013 at 4:09pm in Speak Out View Discussions . TAVIS SMILEY, CORNEL WEST, HERE’S YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST POVERTY. COME TAKE A STAND WITH THE PEOPLE AGAINST YOUR BUDDIES AT WALMART. GET OUT FRONT AND TELL THOSE SUCKAS OFF. PRETEND THEY’RE OBAMA! . . THIS BLACK FRIDAY – STAND WITH SO CAL WALMART EMPLOYEES! November 29, 2013• 11:30 AM CRENSHAW WALMART• 4101 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90008 . YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE . If Tavis and West don’t find time to show up at this demonstration against Walmart, it’s sure gonna give us something to talk about. It would mean that the relief of poverty is so important to them that they can ride all across the country on a bus, but now – after the election is over, and they don’t have any books to sell – they can’t even walk across the street from Tavis’ office to confront the biggest abuser of the working class in the ENTIRE country!!!? They’re gonna have to come up with some answers for that. They’ve GOT to know that – and even if they can’t make it to the Walmart down the street from Tavis’ office, similar demonstrations are taking place all across the country. . So they can run, but they can’t hide.
     

    by Wattree on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 10:19pm

    If Smiley complains about Michelle Obama having corporate ties, he should be willing to address his own corporate ties.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/13/2014 - 11:14pm

    Someone noted Dick Gregory's quote that got national attention - yes, something came out of the conference even if you feel spiteful and have to find some reactionary vacuous way of ridiculing everything that might have West or Smiley's imprint on it.

    Still waiting for you to answer whether you think it appropriate to compare West & Smiley to slave traders.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:50am

    Note: the term "plantation mentality" and related are in common use - not even that heated. Saying someone is the kind of black who sold blacks into slavery is certainly another level of ugly.

    But it's okay - tilt the field as you need. I'm finished.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:53am

    You ask me to reply, then you say you are finished. Make up your mind

    Let me address your issues.

    If the he only thing produced by the State of the Black Union other than Tavis Smiley books was a Dick Gregory quote, the meetings were abject failures, wouldn't you agree?

    Compare the books and comedian quote from the meetings to the actual work being done to combat special masters in Michigan, voter suppression in multiple states,  Stop and Frisk, low wages and a host of other issues. None of those protests have been directly led by West or Smiley.

    You express outrage at someone calling a slave catcher but you forgive West for calling Al Sharpton a slave. West called Sharpton a house slave and you did not bat an eye. In fact, you sanctioned placing Sharption on a plantation as a slave. Then you feign developing the vapors when equivalent slurs are used against West and Smiley. Give me a break. 

    The so-called house slave Al Sharpton played major roles in combating voter suppression , Stop and Frisk protests and getting the Trayvon Martin case to trial. The so-called slave catchers were MIA.

    Here is the response to West from the Democratic Underground.. West was out of line, wouldn't you agree? Name calling is unnecessary.

    Now, please address the issue of whether Smiley should address the pay scale At Wal-Mart


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:05am

    No, don't agree - a single good soundbite can be better marketing than a thousand long speeches. In this case, the Gregory soundbite helped vet Obama as okay with the community.

    Sarah Palin got more traction with "death panels" than thousands of hours of negotiations.

    The use of plantation terminology is very common, and gives an idea of someone being bought-and-paid for. Yeah, maybe not the pretties analogy, but gets the point across. Coming out & saying someone's selling his own people into slavery in a fairly literal fashion is quite a bit harsher. But yes, I'd agree that West could have found a calmer metaphor than "House Negro", which for one dismisses any strategy Sharpton might have for placing his cards where he lays them.

    On the other hand, what do you do when people are complacent and you need to stir them up?

    As for Smiley and WalMart and Wells Fargo and whatever, I answered these things several times. Wells Fargo was before Obama was even elected - I don't know if WalMart is any more current.

    As for West being MIA on stop&frisk, I don't think so - I think he appeared. Second, just because you think someone should go off and protest something in particular doesn't mean it's what they're doing with their time. You or Wattree thought it stupid to think Obama should go to Memphis to commemorate MLK or go to the Black State of the Union, but now you're tellilng West where he has to go?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:07am

    You have no problem with West calling Sharpton a house slave. Got it. Seems hypocritical to then chastise someone for using a slur against West and Smiley. Are you really saying that it is OK to call a Black man a slave? You may be unaware that one reason Black Republicans are held in such low regard in the Black community is that a part of their strategy has been to say that Blacks are on the Democratic Plantation. This meme was not received well. As a result Black Republicans have been referred to by some as Uncle Toms. Harsh rhetoric results in harsh rhetoric. Imply that someone is a slave and expect a response full of equal venom.

    Dick Gregory was not Obama's savior. The issue of Obama's Blackness was put forth by some Black journalists, but was not spreading like wild fire in the Black community. It was a major topic for a while in majority media. There was similar journalistic fever over Hillary's drawl during a speech at a South Carolina Church. Eugene Robinson found that Obama's Blackness was not an issue. There was concern that whites might not vote for a black candidate. The idea that a single statement from a comedian at Smiley's love fest made it Ok for the Black community to support Obama is condescending.

    Smiley currently receives support for his PBS show from Wal-Mart. This is not something in his past. If he argues that he cares for poor people, shouldn't he address the wages of Wal-Mart workers? Is he a hypocrite for avoiding the issue?


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:44am

    Reading is fundamental.

    But yes, I'd agree that West could have found a calmer metaphor than "House Negro"

    I noted that plantation rhetoric as a group is less provacative than picking on anyone with this House Negro or Slave Trader jabs.

    As for the Black State of the Union - you think it's worthless, others disagree. Like many things (MoveOn, other Democratic PACs, various union/labor groups...), Obama's campaign took the energy out of it, so they're but a whisper now anyway.

    As for WalMart, yes, he should drop them as a sponsor - they're hurting black communities. Now should Michelle Obama stop doing promos with WalMart for "health food"?

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:04pm

    Plantation rhetoric is definitely not less provocative. Do you have any references to support this point of view?

    Urban and local farming should become a focus of the Let's Move program. Many Black communities live in food deserts. Access to locally grown food would provide a small amount of relief.

    Walmart should be pushed to develop a Costco style pay scale. Government should not have to subsidize Walmart workers. A push towards a higher minimum wage nationally is a start.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:45pm

    Oh come on - saying someone sold blacks into slavery or Wattree's fav, equating Smiley & West with lynching people by showing graphic pictures - is the same as saying someone's at home on the plantation?


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 3:38pm

    Being called a slave is a slur.Being called a House Negro is a gigantic slur. A house Negro is stereotyped as someone who served as an informant for the master. West was calling Sharpton a Black man willing to do the white man's bidding and turn on other Blacks, the equivalent of a slave-catcher.

    This stereotype has a foundation in reality. As one example, the rebellion of Denmark Vesey failed in part because of betrayal of the plan by a House Negro. Cornel West was keenly aware of the message he was sending by calling Sharpton a House Negro.

    Given the words that West has used to attack Obama and a host of other Blacks, I don't find Wattree's title offensive. The title is directed against someone who has no problem placing labels on others.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 4:36pm

    I should have added the translation from the Urban Dictionary

     
    1.
    House Negro
    A black person who rejects their cultural identity to please the White Man. Generally less offensive than house nigger.
     
    "Man, that Condoleeza Rice sold out her people. She's a real house negro.
     

    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 9:26pm

    No, doing the white man's bidding - being servile is not the same as being a slave catcher. Forget it, you simply don't want to see differences if it hurts your preferred point-of-view.


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 8:42am

    I gave you the Denmark Vesey example. The House Negro was doing the bidding of the master by being an informant. You are free to have your opinion. You are free to ignore the fact that the Black community thinks West was disrespectful. West brought the criticism on himself. If you Google al Sharpton+House Negro you will find Conservative websites had a field day with the comparison. You are out of the loop when it comes to how the Black community feels about Cornel West.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 8:59am

    Now should Michelle Obama stop doing promos with WalMart for "health food"?


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 8:45am

    As I noted above, there should be more focus on urban farming. Let's Move has already credited many of these programs. If Michelle notes the Democrats desire for a livable minimum wage from employers like WalMart, she could continue to do promos. If the WH and Democrats cave on an increased minimum wage, she should sever ties with WalMart. At the end of the day, getting WalMart workers an income that allows them to feed their families without government assistance is the goal.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:06am

    Yes, Anonymous,

    I meant that literally. They are turncoats. Turncoats sold their own to slave traders when we were in Africa, and people like Tavis and West are selling their own to Wal-Mart, ALEC, and the Koch brothers here in the United States:

    Ben Carson, Tavis Smiley, and Cornel West are all turncoats, but Ben Carson is a different kind of fool than Tavis Smiley and Cornel West. At least he's being honest and saying, "I'm a Republican." But people like Tavis, West, and Boyce Watkins are trying to pretend to be on our side while working to promote the Republican agenda. It’s no accident that Fox News Loves Tavis Smiley and Cornel West.

    You see, there are two ways that you can help the Republican Party. One is like Ben Carson. He says, "I'm a Republican and I think you should be one too." Then there's Tavis and West's snake-n-the-grass approach. They say, "I'm with you," but then try to divide the party and undermine everything the Democrats try to do. So if Ben Carson is a rattle snake in the garden, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West represent a python in the bedroom.

    You see, the smiley/West technique is what the FBI used to bring down the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties. They called it Operation CoIntelPro. They sent "super-militant" Black provocateurs into the various civil rights groups to convince the members that their leaders were weak Uncle Toms, and it caused dissension within the groups that led to the groups falling apart. That's what Tavis and West are doing, and that’s what makes them such snakes. People of their ilk used to attack Martin Luther King in the same way that Smiley and West are now Attacking Barack Obama. They used to call King, "Martin Luther Coon." So this thing that Smiley and West are engaged in is nothing new. They’re just betting that the people are so ignorant that they won’t realize it. The people didn’t come together to honor King until after he was assassinated.

    Cornel West did the very same thing in the 2000 election to get George Bush elected. West is one of the primary reasons the Black community is in the fix that it’s in today. The Black community was doing pretty well under Clinton. Then during the 2000 election Ralph Nader and Cornel West teamed up and got Bush elected.

    Clinton’s vice President, Al Gore, lost the 2000 election to Bush in Florida by a mere 537 votes, and the Nader/West coalition peeled off 97,488 votes from Gore in Florida alone. That gave George W. Bush the election. And West doesn’t seem to be the least bit apologetic about it. He and Nader tried to team up and do the very same thing against Obama in the last election but this time the people wouldn’t by it. If they had, the election was close enough where we would have had a President Romney today, in spite of his hidden offshore assets to avoid paying his fair share of taxes.

    So, again, Cornel West is one of the big reasons that the Black community is in the shape that it’s in today. Under Bush, the country was hemorrhaging 850,000 jobs a month. So by criticizing Obama about the condition of the country, Cornel West is like a guy who walks into a restaurant and shits on the floor, and then calls the Health Department because the owner is not getting it up fast enough. (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12).

    And please keep this in mind – the worse the Black community is doing, the more money that Tavis and West makes talking about it, because Tavis owns a publishing company where he and West write books about it, a production company, where he and West do televisions shows about it, and he owns a speakers bureau, where Cornel West makes $30,000 a speech just to talk about the Black misery that he helped to create.

    So I’m giving Smiley and West priority because they’re the biggest snakes, but I've got a little something for Ben Carson as well:

    BEN CARSON IS REVEALING HIMSELF TO BE AN IDIOT SAVANT

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/10/dr-ben-carson-is-revealing-himself-t...

     


    by Wattree on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 2:07pm

    I do think that a unifying idea of West. Smiley, Watkins and Carson is that they openly question the intelligence of the Black community. West labels people with different positions as house slaves and Rent-A-Negroes then he claims to represent Christian love. Smiley sold books based on a cut and paste list of things Blacks need to do to be successful. Instead of calling Blacks rent-Negro, Smiley just refers to opponents as "Those Negroes". It is clearly meant as a slur. Smiley then reminds you that he is speaking out of love.

    There is more serious activity by the people organizing Moral Mondays in North Carolina then has been done by word salad produced by Tavis Smiley in a decade. The State of the Black Union was a gathering of the friends of Tavis Smiley with no actual accomplishment.

    People may not get why West and Smiley get the negative response from the majority of the Black community, but they are hard pressed to show actual links to anything of value being produced by the duo. There is nothing concrete to demonstrate anything positive. But they do talk a good game.

    Has there been any follow up to their bus tour that anyone knows about? Smiley promised that tour would be repeated. I am unaware of follow ups to the 2011 photo-op.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 2:35pm

    Photo: The message below was placed on the Smiley/West website a couple of days BEFORE the demonstrations against Wal-Mart: TAVIS SMILEY, CORNEL WEST, HERE’S YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST POVERTY. Posted by Eric L. Wattree on November 28, 2013 at 4:09pm in Speak Out View Discussions . TAVIS SMILEY, CORNEL WEST, HERE’S YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST POVERTY. COME TAKE A STAND WITH THE PEOPLE AGAINST YOUR BUDDIES AT WALMART. GET OUT FRONT AND TELL THOSE SUCKAS OFF. PRETEND THEY’RE OBAMA! . . THIS BLACK FRIDAY – STAND WITH SO CAL WALMART EMPLOYEES! November 29, 2013• 11:30 AM CRENSHAW WALMART• 4101 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90008 . YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE . If Tavis and West don’t find time to show up at this demonstration against Walmart, it’s sure gonna give us something to talk about. It would mean that the relief of poverty is so important to them that they can ride all across the country on a bus, but now – after the election is over, and they don’t have any books to sell – they can’t even walk across the street from Tavis’ office to confront the biggest abuser of the working class in the ENTIRE country!!!? They’re gonna have to come up with some answers for that. They’ve GOT to know that – and even if they can’t make it to the Walmart down the street from Tavis’ office, similar demonstrations are taking place all across the country. . So they can run, but they can’t hide.  Thank you, RM.


    by Wattree on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 7:25pm

    So should Michelle Obama stop doing photo-ops with WalMart?


    by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 8:43am

    Maybe Cornell and Tavis represent all that you would hope to vanquish in the arguments they take on.

    Likening them to those who willingly sent people into slavery is an accidental defense to those who actually did that because it compares one sin with another. Comparison is equivocation and it should not be done without a heavy heart and a baneful need.

    I would prefer to really dislike those people who did the sending into slavery thing without qualification.


    by moat on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 9:18pm

    In order to understand the responses West ans Smiley have gotten, you need to know the years long history of the words thy have used to describe other Blacks. There are links above that connect to other who express their dismay with the words West and Smiley have used. Study what has gone before then comment on the post title.

    Regarding West and Smiley vanquishing stuff, they have been ineffective. In fact by proposing a link with Nader to mount a challenge, they could have ended up bolstering Romney. Given what we have seen from the GOP, I feel that would have been disastrous.

    I noted above that there are active campaigns against special masters, voter suppression, Stand Your Ground, etc. In none of these cases is the first call for help made to West or Smiley. It is often Al Sharpton, the man labeled a House Negro by Cornel West, who is able to get the ball rolling.

    On voter Suppression Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry, radio host Tom Joyner and a host of others were the visual forefront of the battle. There were hotlines setup to deal ith problems.

    Perhaps if West and Smiley were more respectful to Blacks, they would get more respect from the Black community. The duo's radio program has low viewership. If they had the respect of the Black community, the State of the Union meetings would have continued.

    I think you are only focused on one aspect of the discussion about west and Smiley. Wattree is definitely not a lone voice in the criticism.

    Google Cornel West in combination with Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry, Hose Negro, rent-A Negro, Republican in Blackface, Fear of a Strong Black Man, Mascot for Plutocrats to get a hint of the discussions that have gone before.


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:00pm

    Fair enough. I will look.


    by moat on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:07pm

    Moat,

    Maybe the comparison is an "accidental defense" in your eyes, but not mine. I consider the actions of both groups despicable. You seem to be assessing the two acts based on the gravity of their consequences. I’m not, because first, at this point, it’s impossible to assess the consequences of the actions of Smiley and West; and secondly, because many of us are still trying to mitigate those consequences. I believe in keeping both life, and analysis, simple. So I’m comparing the two sets of actions for what they are - two acts of treachery, period. Treachery is treachery, regardless to how light or how severe the resulting consequences turn out to be.


    by Wattree on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:23pm

    You have my attention. I need to look into it in my own way.

     


    by moat on Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:44pm

    It seems to me that maybe your problem, moat, is that you are not an aficionado of hyperbole. I'm not a big fan myself. But whether or not one does, there's a key thing to get here, mho: neither Wattree nor West nor Smiley has insulted anyone's mother yet; there's probably many more insults to come.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 1:51am

    Probably meant in jest, but it comes across as dismissive and condescending. There have been discussions about Woody Allen and Mia Farrow that were given serious attention, why the ridicule?


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 10:55am

    It's just the way I see Wattree's style of writing, and  what I also see as the equivalent modus operandi of West/Smiley. (And actually, I made a comment on the Farrow thread that addressed the meta of that situation as well, i.e., we have made celebrities our role models.)

    Any dismissiveness is in your head, not mine. I'm not the one throwing insults right and left, calling Obama a house negro and calling Cornel West names in return.

    If one wants to be taken seriously, one writes serious. If one wants to be seen like an entertaining ranter and milk crate pontificator deriding Afro-American political celebrities with insults, or lauding them with plaudits, one writes like that...


    by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 2:30pm

    Wattree is responding to West's insults. A blog seems a good place to voice an opinion. West's insults get carried by MSM. There is a significantly different level of scale.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 3:11pm

    A difference in scale, sure. But a difference in degree? I think the pendulum swings the other way. Suppose someone photoshopped a bone into the mouth of Wattree. Or found one of your pictures and photoshopped a bone into your mouth. "Arf Arf" rmrd. I guess you'd consider that serious intellectual discourse too?


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 4:25pm

    There were discussions about Woody Allen and Mia Farrow concerning a twenty year-old charge of child molestations. We had two entertainers with psychological quirks, a botched initial infestation of child molestation, changing stories, and parents who supported a child molester who was in exile avoiding sentencing. There were knock down drag out discussions in those blogs and Wattree is over the top?

    There are a multitude of Obama critics. Ron Christie, a prominent Black Republican, has voiced his opposition to Obama. Christie denies that there is racism in the Tea Party. Read the article to see the tenor of his argument. Now compare our dear brother Cornel West live on "Real Time With Bill Mahrer". West appears with Christie. Mediate describes West's behavior. West is an embarrassment.

    After glancing over exchanges in the Allen-Farrow blogs, then reading and watching West, Wattree does not need to apologize.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:33pm

    I myself was not asking him to apologize! I started out by reacting to moat's "j'accuse" of hyperbole, when I see Wattree as someone who purposefully uses hyperbole, that's it's basically a major part of his whole shtick.

    I'll admit I don't care if Wattree doesn't see it that way. This reader does see it that way, and I bet a lot of others do. It's as clear as a bell to me, it's like a game of The Dozens. And if he doesn't intend it, or doesn't like it that that's the way he comes across, then he should change his style.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:49pm

    I don't think Wattree cares that you don't caresmiley


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 6:02pm

    True! Ain't that what blogging without intent of ever being paid for it is all about?  enlightened


    by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 6:28pm

    OK posted, "A difference in scale, sure. But a difference in degree? I think the pendulum swings the other way. Suppose someone photoshopped a bone into the mouth of Wattree. Or found one of your pictures and photoshopped a bone into your mouth. "Arf Arf" rmrd. I guess you'd consider that serious intellectual discourse too?"

    rmrd posted, "There were discussions about Woody Allen and Mia Farrow concerning a twenty year-old charge of child molestations."

    Yeah and than Ramona in a paroxysm of rage photo-shopped a naked 5 year old girl onto a pic of woody. Oh wait, that didn't happen. So how exactly does your comment address my comment? Just more misdirection and obfuscation to avoid answering.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 6:23pm

    Two examples from a quick google about how to do "serious" on this and do it without getting in a game of The Dozens:

    Ta-Nehisis Coates

    Toure

    Again, to be clear, I find Wattree's chosen role as doppelganger to West/Smiley amusing, it is exactly like watching two guys playing The Dozens. I see it that way precisely because he goes for the hyperbolic insult. No one would seriously equate West with blacks who helped sell other blacks into slavery (moat's point.) To do so, that's taking trollishness and feeding it, with more trollishness. It becomes a spectacle, fun to read (or watch, as in The Dozens.) It is the same syndrome being addressed by Godwin's Law, where once the tossed insults grow to the level of Nazis or Hitler, no one can top that and real discussion ends. (Back to moat's point--eventually, equating a massive sin of history over and over to lesser sins would eventually tend to de-sensitize people to horror of the massive sin, that's what Godwin's Law also addresses. When people use hyperbole, and it becomes common usage, that's what happens, that was sort of what moat was pointing to.)


    by artappraiser on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:31pm

    See response above. 

    I think within limits, blogs can include Wattree's style. Wattree gets to post and you can post your objections. You were able to cite other authors who have a style more to your liking. Should Wattree be silenced? Should Wattree change his style to please you?

    Those who object to his writing don't seem to have a problem expressing displease. When Wattree responds to his critics on his current post I have not seen him  be as disrespectful as Cornel West has been to his critics.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 5:42pm

    wow, Now I'm embarrassed. Censorship is wrong and I'd like to apologize for all the times I vigorously argued that Wattree be silenced. I'd also like to apologize for asking him to apologize. Full disclosure: below you will find a list of everyone of those times.

     

     

    As a service to the community I'd also like to apologize for every time AA and others posted that Wattree should be silenced. Every example of that I can find or remember listed below.

     

     

     

    Hmmm, could this just be misdirection and obfuscation by a wattree sycophant to avoid actually dealing with the criticisms?


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 6:11pm

    I thought that I had addressed the criticisms. I think they are much ado about nothing. 

    The verdict on the Jordan Davis is coming in so I'm going to leave briefly to deal with something important. Will return after reviewing the verdict.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 7:16pm

    I thought that name-calling was bad. Apparently not. Feel free to name call.

    You kept mentioning Cornel with a bone in mouth image. I didn't make a connection. I went back and found. Wattree's post from July 2013 with the offending image. I saw a website printed on the image and noted the the image appears to go back to 2011 at least and appears not to have originated with Wattree. 

    The image is offensive. I note that I commented on the blog, so I can't say that I didn't see the image. The image didn't remain  as a permanent fixture in my brain. Apparently neither did a NY tabloid picture of a dead chimpanzee until Ted Nugent called Obama a chimpanzee. In that case I did remember the controversy because it was talked about in multiple places. 

    I wasn't avoiding you when I didn't address the Cornel bone image, I didn't remember the offensive image. 

    The verdict was as disappointing as I expected. Hopefully Dunn will be retried


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 9:01pm

    Especially in light of today's events, I still think there is an overreaction to Wattree blog posts.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 9:04pm

    Yes, in light of an American snowborder crashing yesterday, I still think there is an overreaction to Wattree blog posts. It just proves it - blogging and skiing are dangerous. Carry on.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 1:26am

    Artappraiser,

    I think a much more serious problem in this society than how I portray Cornel West (and I was dead serious, by the way) is how some people will allow some guy like Godwin - probably, sitting up at his computer in his draws - to come up with some sort of arbitrary rule saying that if one mentions either Hitler or the Nazis in a debate one automatically loses that debate, and then they blindly adopt the rule like it was handed down from Mt. Olympus. What if the group under discussion, like many neo-cons and radical conservatives, indeed ARE comparable to Nazis? What are we suppose to do, remain blind to it until they start heating up the ovens? Any rule that prevents us from making an honest assessment of reality is a dumb rule. It's designed to purposely prevent us from thinking certain thoughts - or in short, control our minds.

    I think Godwin’s law is part of a transparent attempt by some radical Zionists to make sure that they always corner the market on having been most horribly abused. Because, as it has worked so far, that gives Israel carte blanche to commit its own little Nazi-like atrocities with impunity. Now, I know all hell is probably going to breakout over that statement, but it’ll only make my point. In many quarters it’s considered heresy to even suggest that Israel is capable of anything other than the virtuous defense against the second coming of Hitler, and that's a trough of gross, and unmitigated bullshit.

    So you see, Artappraiser, what you may see as hyperbole, I see as unvarnished truth. Why tiptoe around truth in order to reinforce the arbitrary standards of "polite society?" That’s the primary reason that we can’t resolve our problems - it’s considered "bad form" to accurately define them. For example, the GOP is a confluence of corporate thugs, racists, and the blindly deluded. Is that hyperbole, or truth? If it’s truth, we need to address the issue head-on, not tiptoe around it.

    I'm a Black man, and for the most part, Black people think differently than Europeans. We come from a tradition of calling a hat a hat, and I purposely incorporate that tradition into my writing. So while you may not understand it - in fact, I don't expect you to - Black readers understand it perfectly. We approach thinking much like we do music. We don't tinker around the notes with a lot of embellishments like they do in "classical" music. We simply hit the note we want to hit and move on. 

     


    by Wattree on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 1:52am

    Wow, Wattree ups the ugly - now Mike Godwin is a transparent Zionist plot at victimhood?

    First (and mostly irrelevant), I think Godwin's a good ol' Texas boy of English descent, but maybe he has Jewish heritage - still doesn't make him a Zionist & I think you misunderstood his "law" almost completely - that basically if a conversation gets to the point of talking about Nazis - or maybe discussing the Civil War - it's "jumped the shark" (perhaps an ultra-Zionist Henry Winkler expression) and ceased to be a productive discussion.

    Second, aside from "all hell breaking loose", I'd think maybe your understanding that this is controversial would cause you to consider for a millisecond whether it even makes sense. Jews campaigned hard for civil rights, many Jews dislike Israel's handling of the Palestinian issue, and nothing in that handling rises close to the appalling level of exterminating millions of people in a factory-organized cold-blooded and cold-hearted process, or even the horrifying mass field rampages that killed millions in Rwanda, Cambodia and Congo. In fact, comparably very few Palestinians have been killed under capture by the Israelis, and the death toll from strikes has been far below even most conflicts like Iraq.  (200 Iraqis stomped themselves to death on a bridge trying to escape a bomb scare - 1 single incident that would make up a high percentage of Palestinian casualties over 50 or so years of fighting.)

    In short, I think you suck, your attitude sucks, and you really need to get your head together before throwing such stupid shit out on this blog. You get away with showing lynched people and casting sick assertions against blacks because I guess they're your own, but here you're participating in standard anti-Jew slander by some part of the Black community, and it's really ugly, I must say.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 3:51am

    Although I think you've actually captured the popular representation of Godwin's Law, the law actually simply states that

    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

    It doesn't interpret what that means or that anyone has lost the conversation, just that it will happen. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the larger point, however.)


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 8:28am

    Hmmm. Sometimes I should challenge the things I think I know. From the Wikipedia article:

    Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written.

    See also this article at Jewcy.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 8:34am

    I agree that the Holocaust renders Nazi references off limits. As we learn more about the true violence that occurred during slavery in the United States, should people who compare Obamacare, Executive orders, etc to slavery also be condemned? 


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:28am

    Yes.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:31am

    Yeah, Godwin's Law really does address what is being talked about here. Only it wasn't intended to be high and mighty thoughts about morality or proportion of crimes, just a rule for the "game" of internet discussion/debate. On the basis that the discussion is basically over when the Nazis arrive.  There is similarity with what goes on in The Dozens, where game is over when the opponent can't top an insult about his mother. In both cases: game over. Both are about rhetoric.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:39am

    I just don't know what to say about this spew that would complete my thoughts.  Let me try this  because it strikes me you are hiding behind others.  You don't speak for African American men.   You speak for Wattrree the bigot.   You've just shown hatred and it isn't mitigated by the nonsense that black guys call a hat a hat.  You act like you're writing to a bunch of readers who just fell off the turnip truck and don't know other black people -- never spoke to one.  For a smart guy your understanding of Jewish history makes it seem like you're the one who fell off that truck.  

    P.S.  To all, enuf said here please.  Wattree predicted all hell would break loose over his observations.  Let's deny him that pleasure, please. 


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 6:48am

    Bslev, it's too late. I've already been called a bigot, and my point is made.


    by Wattree on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:11am

    No, you are a bigot, so all you're doing is waving your bigotry around and doing some weird "I told you so" when someone acknowledges it. You're not "proving your point", you're proving you're weird.

    Comparing Godwin's Law to some "transparent Zionist trick to corner the market on victimhood" [paraphrased] is not "calling a hat a hat", it's just bat-shit loony tunes crazy. Obviously people have humored you way too much over the years so you're emboldened to speak even more rudely and irrationally.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:30am

    You act like you're writing to a bunch of readers who just fell off the turnip truck and don't know other black people

    Having read a decent number of his posts, I've got to say that I've seen him address his Afro-American brothers and sisters like they fell off a turnip truck, too. Equal opportunity pomposity. devil


    by artappraiser on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:56am

    Let's deny him that pleasure, please.

    I'm sorry Bruce, I respectfully disagree and I have to weigh in. I think the overwhelming response and unanimity of that response is the only thing that might open his eyes. I don't think he will find pleasure in that despite what he claims.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:15pm

    Thanks OK.  That was a presumptuous request on my part.  


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 6:57pm

      A rational person would see that neo-cons, bad as they are, are not Nazis. The only people on the right who are truly comparable to the Nazis are the ultra-right lunatic fringe like the Klan(and the Nazis). Of course you think your invective is the unvarnished truth; who doesn't think they are speaking the truth? How many other people would think that comparing West to a slave dealer, or Republicans to Nazis, is a reasonable formulation?


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 8:19am

    I would suggest the Klan is only comparable to early Nazis (i.e. the bullies in the 20's, up to when they turned pro during Kristalnacht). 

    Peak lynching of blacks by the Klan was 161 in 1892. A horrific practice, but still small potatoes compared to the scope of Nazi actions or even arguably South African apartheid where for example the single Sharpeville Massacre killed 69 protesting blacks.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:38am

    What about United States Slavery?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:51am

    First of all, why "United States Slavery" instead of "Slavery in the New World" or more appropriately "post-Renaissance African slavery"? only about 6% of Africans exported to the Americas went to the US - 70% went to the Caribbean and Brazil instead, even though by 1860 2/3 of New World slaves were in the US south. Or as Henry Louis Gates Jr. notes, most of the inland slave trade was conducted by blacks themselves, and the trans-Saharan and Eastern African slavery persisted to the 1930s. The theory of more benign slavery in the Caribbean seems to be belied by the higher death rate in the Caribbean and that "freed" slaves there tended to be the unwanted aging or ill blacks who were pushed out to fend for themselves.

    Second, while I can accept comparisons, especially in the factory sense and mass scale of slavery, the primary focus of the Nazis became to eliminate a whole people, which they to some extents successfully did, while the barbarity and abuses of slavery were primarily to use slaves' work, and not to kill them. The theories of racial superiority of whites or Arabs over blacks vs. Aryans over Jews and gypsies are similar, but in the end, heading to a gas chamber was without doubt typically a much more awful and unrecoverable end. That Jews have largely been eliminated from Central and Eastern Europe, while blacks make up a vibrant part of Americas culture from Brazil to the Caribbean to the US makes it pretty clear that the Nazis like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other mass murderers had a much more debilitating and destructive effect than most practices of slavery.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 12:43pm

    Thank you. You have confirmed my opinion of you. 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 1:20pm

    TOS warning. Insinuation does not mask the ad hominem. 


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 1:38pm

    I note a peculiar response to a question of slavery and get shut down?

    There has been a tradition of some people to point out that Africans participated in the slave trade. Somehow, African-Americans are supposed to feel some guilt when confronted with that fact. Why should there be guilt? Wattree's post centers on a sense that Blacks are not a monolith. The idea that some Blacks would do things that harm other Blacks is the point of the post.

    African slave traders and slave owners were evil. The Europeans and European descendants who were slave traders and slave owners were evil. As noted in the Gate's link above, Frederick Douglas felt that was a flaw in Lincoln's plan to return former slaves to Africa. 

    There are stories about Africans fighting for their freedom like the mutiny on the Amistad. There are stories of slave revolts. Those are the stories African-Americans take to heart. There is no love for slave traders and owners of every stripe.

    My comment about the preceding post was simply to note, that I wasn't surprised by the post, I did not name call. 

    Slavery was a brutal institution. I think a discussion about how evil is healthy. The Holocaust was evil. Slavery was evil. Neither is diminished by discussing the evil of the other. The ongoing impact of Slavery continues to be borne out in the United States. The Stand Your Ground Law and the inability of a jury to find the murderer of Jordan Davis guilty of murder in the first degree.

    Again I did not name call. I was noting that I want surprised that someone gave a certain response, just as I was disappointed but not surprised by a jury verdict.

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 2:18pm

    Slavery was a brutal institution. I think a discussion about how evil is healthy. The Holocaust was evil. Slavery was evil. Neither is diminished by discussing the evil of the other.

    I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. However, I believe that both are diminished when we start talking about which event was worse, a mistake that I believe PP made, but which was already being closely danced towards before he wrote what he wrote.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 2:27pm

    One limitation that US slavery faces is that there is very little photographic evidence of brutality directed at slaves. Additionally, the brutality stories are not felt to be proper fare for students in classrooms.

    People who saw 12 Years A Slave have visceral responses. I have friends who will not see the movie because they don't think that they can sit through the imagery.The other thing missing from the picture are the number of lives lost during the Middle Passage.

    The history of US slavery is painful. It does no one any good to dodge the issue.


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 3:02pm

    I'm older than 12, so can have an opinion about and discuss which types of historical events are worse. There's Stalin's purges & exiles to Siberia vs. Mao's millions killed in the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Then there's Pol Pot's smaller version but on a per capita basis with 1 million of 3 million citizens killed, even more horrid, and the use of machetes in Rwanda to kill 600,000 (as also used in Burundi to kill 400,000 a few years before) shocks the mind with its savagery. I do start to lose ability to rank these in horridness and cruelty. But awful as slavery was, I just can't place it at the same level as starvation-grade work-people-to-death-camps with gas ovens and human incinerators and other mass killing devices that wiped out 6 million of one race - half the number of slaves sent across the Atlantic over centuries - in a matter of 5 or 6 years.

    The Great Plague wiped out 1/3 of Europe over a decade or 3 I believe - in terms of human tragedy, probably worse than Stalin or Mao, but not manmade. The tsunami that wiped out 300,000 in Indonesia around 2005 was a greater tragedy than us losing 3000 in the WTC, despite our excessive doting over our tragedy. Controversial? not really, but some will complain.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:04pm

    It's not about age, but about sensitivity. Both the holocaust and slavery are emotionally tinged subjects with a wide range of results, and lacking many clear demarcations. If you try to argue the holocaust was worse than slavery, you choose demarcations that improve that argument, typically (if not always) resulting in a reduction of the horrors of slavery. Likewise, if you try to argue that slavery was worse than the holocaust, you will likely choose demarcations that improve that argument, typically (if not always) resulting in a reduction of the horrors of the holocaust.

    One can be older than 12 and still respect others' feelings. Feel free to have opinions about which was worse, but when choosing to express those feelings, ask yourself three questions:

    1. Am I being respectful of other people's feelings?
    2. Am I sure that I have all the facts?
    3. Why in the world do I feel a need to express this particularly divisive opinion? I.e., what is my purpose, and will my argument achieve that purpose?

    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:23pm

    Look, the facts are pretty well established - the many years of physical labor for slaves, sometimes worked to death depending on the setting, more times just used for a lifetime, removed from home, shipped to another continent, often the kids and other family taken away, etc. Versus a hyper-focused mass extermination machine including human medical experimentation/torture. I make my reasons clear why I think the former is awful but preferable, but don't discount someone thinking the opposite. Keeping some perspective on human atrocity is useful, even if not a very upbeat daily occupation.

    But you also ignore what precipitated this - Wattree's overt calling Godwin's Law a way for Zionists to monopolize victimhood and deny the suffering of other groups (presumably blacks with slavery). And this is just an upping of the ante from earlier perverse comparisons, where talking about a plantation mentality is the same as saying someone's electoral choices are just as horrid as selling your own people into slavery. 

    Yes, I want to know which is worse, Israeli treatment of Palestinians or Palestinian attacks on Israel. Maybe it's equal, maybe it's not. Maybe justified, maybe overreaction - at some point, the questions come out. Zimmerman getting a trial and released based on well-deliberated jury vote is not the same as a vigilante lynching where the killers are never even unmasked. Is a sexist societal framework analogous to a raciest one, and if so, what can be done about it? Sane people draw contrasts between dissimilar situations and similar ones. 

    Why discuss a divisive opinion? Responsibility, informed choice, human curiosity, tough decisions. Right now we have people wanting to give up our right to privacy because they think the threat of terrorism is so great. Are they right? Am I naïve about terror? Was Osama bin Laden worse than Brezhnev and all his tanks and missiles? Was 9/11 worse than all the atrocities of communism? Is the latest anti-semitic or racist act a "slippery slope" on the way to more anti-semitism and racism and possible atrocities, or just background base level racism that stays roughly the same? Was Snowden right for releasing info on our mass dragnet, for us to make responsible decisions, or was he irresponsible and hurt our security? Or even, "should reparations be paid for slavery?" or "what if anything can be done to reduce entrenched black unemployment?" 

    As for respecting feelings, well, I don't go trying to hurt people on ethnic or gender issues, and not digging into any of these atrocities in excessive detail, so I'm not really sure why adult conversation should hurt rather than enflame passions or bring new perspectives.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:59pm

    Thanks


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:23am

    You think it's a "peculiar" response confirming some kind of implied desultory opinion.

    I took the time to try to reason about a real topic, including links from Henry Louis Gates Jr and others. Sure, there were hundreds of slave mutinies. These do nothing to diminish his point that 90% of slaves were captured by other black Africans. He also points out the minority of Atlantic slave trade going to the US - 

    "There has been a tradition of some people to point out that Africans participated in the slave trade. Somehow, African-Americans are supposed to feel some guilt when confronted with that fact. Why should there be guilt? Wattree's post centers on a sense that Blacks are not a monolith. The idea that some Blacks would do things that harm other Blacks is the point of the post." That in itself is a bit peculiar. Whites of course are not a monolith either, but there's a lot of implied guilt of whites, especially Southerners, for our institution of slavery over the first 100 years. Your first question was about US slavery, not the much bigger realm of colonialist slavery. I only expanded the topic to note the historically documented much farther reach of the problem - not to diminish any complicity by my ancestors or wash away the unjust advantages I still derive as a white person over blacks around me. 

    "Slavery was a brutal institution. I think a discussion about how evil is healthy. The Holocaust was evil. Slavery was evil. Neither is diminished by discussing the evil of the other." Yet when I discuss it, you seem to expect a rote answer that fits your framing, and simply reject a point-of-view that's basically regurgitating respected black scholars on the issue. What gives?

    "The idea that some Blacks would do things that harm other Blacks is the point of the post." No, the idea that Tavis & Smiley are as bad as slave traders is the point of this post. There is no attempt at rational comparisons and proportion of issues. WalMart is a problem for Smiley - but not for Michelle Obama. West supporting Ralph Nader is a problem - not Al Sharpton having Nader over to speak at his National Action Network HQ the same election. And somehow criticizing Obama and doing a poverty tour rises to the same level of slave-herders.

    And Wattree of course ties his attacks in with the half-myth version of history and then labels this as "facts":

    "Tavis Smiley and Cornel West represent the very same kind of Black people who delivered African-Americans into slavery when we were in Africa: "Hurry, everyone, and bring your children! The nice White man wants to take you for a boat-ride!" And these are not opinions I'm putting forward here - these are facts.  Thus, anyone who wants to argue this point, can argue with the facts. "

    Uh, well, there are a few who'll take that guantlet:

    The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.

    Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in “Roots.” The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike.

    "The ongoing impact of Slavery continues to be borne out in the United States. The Stand Your Ground Law and the inability of a jury to find the murderer of Jordan Davis guilty of murder in the first degree." - uh, well, no, your sad at not getting the exact verdict you wanted isn't relevant to the question of Slavery's impact. Jordan Davis' murderer received 3 2nd-degree murder convictions at 20 years each, plus a 15-year shooting conviction. 75 years for 3 murders does bring justice except for death penalty supporters, whether the 1st degree charge was adequately presented or not. Stand Your Ground has been used as much by blacks as by whites, so is irrelevant to the story. It's a bit like climate vs. weather - we start off talking about global warming/entrenched racism, and we end up discussing individual anecdotal evidence re: a heat wave or a shooting. The second doesn't validate the first.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 3:54pm

    See reply below


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:02pm

      Well, okay, the Klan didn't kill nearly as many people as the Nazis, but there were similarities in their respective ideologies. I concede that the Klan(to my knowledge) didn't advocate extermination.

      The United States may have actually outdone South Africa in murders; over four thousand people were lynched from 1882 on(there wasn't a systematic effort to keep count before 1882).


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 12:45pm

    I'd suggest the Nazi attitude towards Jews, gypsies and homosexuals was much more virulent - blaming them for all of Germany's problems (except those of the Communists, but I guess the Jews were all considered Communists as well). The Klan had its theory of superiority, but seemed to be most worried about blacks getting equality and northerners messing with their system, not with blaming blacks for everything.

    Re: SA vs. south - max 8 lynchings a year from 1936 on - almost 80 years ago - and none listed after 1964, vs. the mass machinery of apartheid that was dismantled just 25 years ago. As for the numbers, I suspect South Africa's are underestimated, but that's more hunch than anything.  (note - your 4000 figure includes lynching of over 1000 whites as well - but of course these figures are likely quite a bit higher than what was reported)  I think police treatment in South Africa was much worse on average as well.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:27pm

      I should have mentioned that the figure included lynchings of whites, but all the lynchings testify to American brutality. I didn't know we were supposed to stick to recent times, but, yeah, America since the 1960s has been a lot different from pre-1994 South Africa. There were, in fact, some differences between South African apartheid and American apartheid.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:37pm

    The hope re: modern times is that we're improving, but that's not a given and wasn't a pre-requisite for your comments. As stats re: racism, the white lynchings likely shouldn't count unless done for helping blacks.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 5:00pm

    Since words are what we use to communicate I have this interest in how we use words, their multiple definitions and connotations. Your first error in misunderstanding Goodwin's law is misunderstanding the use of the word law.  Its not used in the legal sense, as a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.    Its used as a scientific term, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

    Goodwin's Law was a somewhat satirical attempt to use the scientific method and terminology to describe the readily observable phenomenon of hyperbolic claims, attacks, and flame wars that regularly occurred in unmoderated usenet forums.

    There was no "arbitrary rule saying that if one mentions either Hitler or the Nazis in a debate one automatically loses that debate" that is part of Goodwin's Law. Staying within the game of the scientific method that was a proposed corollary and just part of the conversation.

    Your question, "What if the group under discussion, indeed ARE comparable to Nazis?" was actually a large part of that conversation that you have ignored to instead propagate your antisemitic conspiracy theory.

    There was and is no "they" that "blindly adopt(ed)  the rule like it was handed down from Mt. Olympus." It was nothing more than an extended dialog about hyperbolic flame wars starting with the use of Nazi and Hitler for minor or nonexistant offenses to other hyperbole. This dialog in some degree is what led to our current system where there are virtually zero forums that are unmoderated.

    Just 20 or 30 minutes of research on Goodwin's Law would make all this clear. Its obvious you are totally clueless about meaning, purpose, or the dialog Goodwin's Law generated. Its a minor issue in the world though it is significant in understanding the development of the internet. Those no reason you should be conversant on the subject. Though why you would chose to post on a subject you are absolutely clueless about is a mystery. And why would you post this even more astonishing.

    "I think Godwin’s law is part of a transparent attempt by some radical Zionists to make sure that they always corner the market on having been most horribly abused."

    This is classic antisemitism. You have no idea what Goodwin's law means nor any clue how it came about. Out of complete ignorance you invent a totally fallacious conspiracy theory of a cabal of jews inventing the "law" for their benefit and subscribe to them  the power and control to convince or impose it on the billions of internet users.

    I sometimes wonder if there aren't times some Jewish people have wished they actually had as much power and control as the bigots ascribe to them. Then they might be able to stop people targeting them for regular abuse. The reality is these lies about their power and control are used as an excuse for the abuse.

    You are clearly antisemitic though I'm sure you are convinced you are not. Such unconscious bigotry is the hardest to discover in oneself and the hardest to root out and change. You really should spend some time researching this issue and on honest self evaluation. I think you have just identified a fault line in your psyche and closer personal analysis of it would result in significant psychological growth.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:08pm

    yes well done.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:33pm

    Ocean-Kat, I said,

    "I think Godwin’s law is part of a transparent attempt by some radical Zionists to make sure that they always corner the market on having been most horribly abused."

    What's antisemitic about that? Don't Zionist come in radical? Is there anything I can say that’s critical of Israel of Zionism that wouldn’t constitute antisemitism?

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
     

    Jews, Zionism, and the Stupidity of Bigotry
     

    I guess I'm going to have to retrace my steps, yet again. Last week I reprise an article on Zionism (Maybe I'm Dumb, but Could Somebody Please Tell Me the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?).  Due to a response to the article by a young Black man the first time it ran, I found it necessary to write a follow-up article the following week. That seems to be necessary once again:

    I try to Avoid addressing the same issue in consecutive columns - that's my only defense against my natural tendency to be tedious and predictable. But this past weekend a young man, let's call him Rob, came up to me and said, "Brother, I got to give you props - you really stuck it to those damn Jews last week." As soon as the words came out of his mouth I knew I had to clarify my message by revisiting the issue of Zionism. I didn't have the time, at that moment, to stand there in front of the store and explain to the young man that my article wasn't against Jews, but on the other hand, I wanted to make sure that he understood the distinction between hating a philosophy, and hating a people. So I asked the young man to be sure to pickup the following week's paper because I was going to write an article especially, and specifically, for him. So Rob, as promised, this one's for you - and I sincerely hope that God gives me the skill to make my point.

    Rob, while my last article had to do with a segment of Judaism, it wasn't intended as a diatribe against Jews. I'm not against Jews, or any other group of people. I'm against various behaviors.

    It would be a pity to go through the pain and suffering that Black people have experience in America and not come out the other end with at least some measure of wisdom. One would think that we would have learned through the blood, sweat, and tears that we've shed, that trying to paint any group of people with the same broad brush, whether it's to say that they're all good, or they're all bad, is not only the height of stupidity, but is the very mindset that has caused Black people so much misery here in America. How can I claim to detest racism, only to turn around an embrace that very same ignorant philosophy?

    No, I'm not against Jews, I'm against the injustice of Zionism - a philosophy which dictates that one group of people are entitled to the land of another by virtue of their religious beliefs alone. But while I argue passionately that Zionism is a gross and unjust philosophy, I always keep in mind that all Jews are not Zionists. In fact, many Jews are more adamantly opposed to Zionism than non-Jews.

    It's important to recognize that fact, because efficient thought requires that we always recognize subtle distinctions. While knowledge is power, knowledge can only yield its power when combined with the wisdom of truth. Evident of that is the fact that one of the most prolific problems that we have in this vast world filled with knowledge, is our tendency to circumvent that knowledge through thinking with our brain stems. Instead using our higher cognitive abilities and taking the time to be precise in our thinking, we find it easier to lob preconceived generalizations at every problem - and more often than not, those generalizations cater to the very darkest side of our nature. Look at what we're doing with our knowledge in the Middle East. Instead of using that knowledge to enhance the quality of life for all of humanity, we're using it to spread death and destruction around the entire world.

    We've got to learn to stop thinking in terms of Black and White, Jew and Gentile, or whether a person is Gay or Straight. As long as we think in those terms and continue to antagonize one another, we sabotage every opportunity to form coalitions to fight for our common good. That's why people like Bush, Cheney, and much of the GOP crowd thrive in a hostile environment. They love keeping us ignorant, because ignorance keeps us divided, and that very division allow them to step in and conquer all of our hopes and dreams as a people. It is a must, therefore, that we develop the wisdom to understand that there are only two kinds of people in this world - good people, and bad people.

    Now, I'm not suggesting that Black people forget their history and engage in a rousing chorus of Kumbaya, that would be fool hearty. But it behooves Black people to not only understand, but remember, that while malevolent White men did indeed place us in shackles, it was malevolent Black men who made us available to be shackled. We must also recognize that we commit a gross injustice by forgetting the sacrifice, and the families, of the thousands of White men of good character who gave their lives to unlock those shackles . . . (MORE)
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2010/07/jews-zionism-and-stupidity-of-bigotr...


    by Wattree on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 6:20am

    Zionism is simply a movement to return to Israel's roots in Galilee/Samaria/Judaea. There's nothing inherently racist in that, just as there was nothing inherently racist in some blacks returning to Africa to set up Liberia & other settlements.

    Zionism could have rebuilt Jerusalem in Argentina or chosen the real Jerusalem - neither desire is racist, but both have their practical difficulties.

    The treatment of the people who might have settled the land in your absence might be racist, but trying to find a stable home is what's led billions of people in migration throughout the millenia. Inevitably this wandering leads to conflicts between the newcomers (or returnees) and the locals.

    The US of course was built on land theft - most Americans don't realize the French-Indian War was about us stealing the land west of the Appalachians already more or less colonized by the French, even knowing we stole settled the original 13 colonies. Spanish Florida of course was stolen, including some of the Dixie cotton belt, and while the Louisiana Purchase was more or less bought, all the Spanish territories out west were stolen as well. It's really hard to lecture Israelis on land theft of a few hundred square miles when we stole tens of thousands. Granted there might have been some easier choices, but then again, the British and the Ottomans went in and carved up the Middle East and the Balkans, while the Russians gobbled up much of Asia, and a number of European countries carved up Africa (with Islam taking the north a millenium earlier), and we're stuck with their lines and legacies as well - none of it makes for any easier history. What makes Israel exceptional in this, I'm not sure, except the small size of their conquest. Think big, guys - peccadillos are picked to death, outrageoous acts are praised!

    Anyway, tap-dancing into a debate with a lead-in about Zionism=racism is really a bone-headed move, an obvious turd-in-the-punchbowl move expecting what, rational dialogue?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 8:03am

    I am staying out of the "hyperbole" debate because I accepted Rm's challenge to learn more before asserting you were applying a false equivalence. I won't be able to complete that learning process in the course of a discussion board conversation.

    But the following is a whole other kettle of fish:

    I'm a Black man, and for the most part, Black people think differently than Europeans. We come from a tradition of calling a hat a hat, and I purposely incorporate that tradition into my writing. So while you may not understand it - in fact, I don't expect you to - Black readers understand it perfectly.

    Accepting that a conversation within a community may be misunderstood by those who are outside the thick of that community's politics is a fair observation. Here in NYC, that sort of thing is happening all the time in all kinds of directions.

    But claiming that Black people reason differently than "Europeans" is ridiculous. We are talking to each other in a "European" language where the phrases you and I use are the most recent formulations of ideas that have their roots in many previous cultures. Many of those antecedents aren't actually "European."

    The 'calling a hat a hat' trope is not a recent invention of rhetoric but was done by Gorgias in Plato, the Miller in Chaucer, and Martin Luther King Jr. in Why We Can't Wait. The above is not obviously not a complete list.

    As someone who self-identifies themselves as a Progressive, meaning that I think we could make things better for all of us if we applied ourselves, I have to start with the assumption there is a commons through which the changes needed could be recognized. Anything less is the politics of party and special interests.

    I think you need to pick a lane, fellow driver of the highway.

     


    by moat on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 5:39pm

    Moat,

    The implication wasn’t that we Black people and Europeans "reason differently," after all, logic is logic. What I’m saying is that - traditionally, culturally - we tend to have a different way of looking at issues. We have a more cut-n-dried way of viewing things. We’ve developed a tradition of going straight to the bottom line after three hundred years of listening to the White culture trying to split hairs in order to justify racism, while still trying to claim that "freedom and justice" is the America way. I can still hear my parents while sitting up watching the news saying, "Will you listen to that bullshit?"

    Actually, it shouldn't be that hard to understand. Try to imagine what it must have been like for Black American war heroes to have to give up their seats on the train for Nazi prisoners of war. And even here, I read RM being admonished for making the innocuous comment that "You've just confirmed my opinion of you," after I'd been called a bigot more than once - even though I referred to RADICAL Zionists - and we didn't hear anything but crickets.

    So Black people see the world through a different set of eyes than you do. We see gross hypocrisy so routinely that we don't even bother to comment on it. In fact, it’s become a form of entertainment for me, to watch people who only see, hear, or read, what they want to see, hear, or read, and not even recognize what they are doing. It’s an educational process for me, and it’s made me a better writer.

    That’s why you won’t see me jumping up-and-down with my veins popping out of my neck at some of the comments that are made. I expect them, so I don’t get involved. Instead, I look upon it like I’m observing an ant farm, and use it to study human behavior. My philosophy is, never let a good insult go to waste. Always examine it, and see what you can learn about the person who delivered it. Sometimes I even follow them to other threads to observe how they deal with frustration on other issues.

    One of my most interesting subjects is Peracles. I haven’t responded to anything he’s said in months. It doesn’t make sense to, because I could say the Sun is hot, and he’s find a way to disagree. Yet, he reads everything I write. Go figure it. But I love him, because by studying people like him, it gives me insight into human nature, and that’s always been my interest - my educational background is in psychology.

     

     

    　

    　

    　

    　

    　

    　

    　

     

     


    by Wattree on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 7:24am

    I think this is confusing Nazi prisoners getting front section seats for entertainment while black soldiers were put at the back, but maybe there's a case where Nazis got to sit in the white car with white American soldiers - somehow trains & buses are a bit different in the scenario as you can have a 1st class car at the end of the train, but riding the back of the bus is a bumpy ride.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 7:45am

    I found the TOS warning strange as well. It did, however, serve to remind me that I was spending time dealing with the opinion of one person. I have seen previous peculiar responses from that individual on issues of slavery in the past. When I say peculiar, I am not name -calling. I merely note that is differs from the majority response at dagblog.

    Some people who have views outside the norm at dagblog receive more pushback and negative comments than others.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:17am

    RM,

    Perhaps this will explain the TOS, and many other things. Just a little research goes a long way. This is from September of last year:

    Please Forgive Me, But Please Respect Me Going Forward

    by bslev 9/12/2013 - 6:04 pm

    I want to thank the Michaels for their patience and kind words after I lost it last week, and particularly I would like to thank Michael M. for our private correspondence today on the issue of dog whistles and anti-semitism. He is a gentleman and I am honored to participate on his blog.

    That said, those of you who know me for many years of blogging understand my weak spot, and that is that I am proud and unashamed of my zionist essence. Additionally, I am not at all shy about how proud I am for the choices I have made in life professionally--at great economic cost to myself and my family. The management attorneys who sit across the table from my colleagues and me make a helluva lot more money than we do. And we are the best at what we do. But I wouldn't trade my life with a challenged American labor movement for all of the money in the world.

    Given that, I am concededly troubled by how difficult it is to reconcile my two passions in "polite" company, and I will work on that. Here is what I ask from each of you:

    1. Next time I have a complaint about something I consider to cross an inappropriate line with respect to Jewish people, I only ask that you do your best--try really hard--to consider my complaint as you would consider a similar complaint from an African American, a Native American, or someone in the LGBT community. I object to a presumption on issues of prejudice that I believe is assigned exclusively to that issue when it comes to Jews.

    2. Please just try to understand that I am not crazy for objecting to certain things, even if the word Jew is not mentioned, and even if the criticism purports to relate to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is not serious about peace is not anti-semitic. The blockade of Gaza is wrong is not anti-semitic. On the other hand, to say that Benjamin Netanyahu (whom I personally loathe and hate saying that because it sounds like I am looking for props--I'm not), or that Israel as a whole is the biggest threat to world peace, is just dumb and is also a dog whistle grounded in centuries upon centuries of similar allegations made against Jewish people. Similarly, it is perfectly appropriate to express concern, frustration and even anger at Israel for its settlement policies. My friends, it is antisemitic, I submit. to assert that the Israelis, like the Nazis, are engaged in a war of extermination. Ick.

    3. I am baffled by my experience last week and I am convinced that politics have prevented good people from accepting an invitation from me to consider the significance of historical tropes. I believe that many smart people are incredibly ignorant about the history of Jews. That's fine, but ignorance should not and does not excuse reliance on ugly historical tropes. As I once told one of our respected readers whom I believe unfairly casts me as one who doesn't follow protocol, I do not want to be the House Jew. It's not my job to presume your ignorance. I say if you want to comment on Jews or Israel, the Jewish State, you have a duty to read beyond what is said in this or that journal of choice. It is not my job to spend time I don't have teaching you about the sentiment in Britain that the Ottomans chose to side with Germany in WWI because the Jews of the Ottoman Empire, less than 1 percent of the population, controlled the strings. Anyone read what Lucky Lindberg had to say about the role of the Jews in pushing the U.S. into WWII? Perhaps you should, unless you just think that I'm just another Hebe blowing smoke to avoid talking about whatever.

    4. Finally, the Michaels are busy men and they don't have time to police on my behalf and I am not a rat. If somebody objects to my view on chemical weapons, focus on my views. I do not have the urge to kill.

    5. I am proud of my heritage. If you cannot deal with that, respectfully, leave me alone.

    Thank you and may you all be blessed with health and happiness in the year ahead.

    Respectfully,

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York


    by Wattree on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 11:19am

    In responding to the peculiar post about slavery and the Jordan Davis verdict, I noted that we are still dealing with the aftermath of a slavery system that had to de-humanize Blacks. I think that members of the Michael Dunn jury had a hard time seeing the teenager as a non-threatening human being. I can't escape the idea that if Justin Bieber, a young man with some troubles in his past, had been killed in that vehicle, we would have a first-degree murder verdict.

    I'm providing a link to an article that contains a video of the impressions of African-American students at UCLA law student. The feelings of isolation, there are 33 Black students in a student body of 1100. The message that the mistrial on the first-degree murder charge sends to Black youth cannot be over estimated.


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 11:41am

    You have trouble understanding that the Anglo judicial system focuses on the merits of case against the accused, not the sympathy for the victim. The victim may or may not be well-represented in the trial. The accused is the focus. Presumably, anyone bringing a court case is focused on convicting the accused, not on bringing sympathy for the victim unless that's essential to conviction. The accused is de facto innocent until proven guilty. That's the system as defined hundreds of years ago. Deal with it, work through it. That part hasn't changed based on race or other factors, even if making sure a qualified jury assesses the case has evolved.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 2:29pm

    And while you're first out of the gate with the Jordan Davis verdict or other white-perpetrated incidents, I imagine getting a comment when someone like Adrian Broadway gets wasted is too much to ask. Too many assholes with guns or tasers, white or black.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 2:59pm

    If Michael Dunn had murdered Jordan Davis and not shot at the other three teens, the trial could have ended in a mistrial. That is what is upsetting. Jordan Davis' life didn't count as outright


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 8:47pm

    My response was placed in the wrong thread.  I'll reinsert it below.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:55am

    I can't vouch for the veracity of what you say here, Eric...

    I have no idea what Smiley and West's agenda(s) is except, I imagine, influence and probably making money...

    I do think the comparison to slave sellers is over the top, even if it's true that S&W don't have blacks' best interests at heart...

    Maybe "selling blacks down the river" would have been better...

    All this said, I don't see your article as hyperbolic at all. It's pretty well argued and not a game of Dozens. That is, aside from your opening slaver seller salvo, you're not name calling. You have a serious beef with these guys which you state.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 02/15/2014 - 7:02pm

    Well, Peter,

    As I said above, I see neither the logic nor value of qualifying treachery on an hierarchal scale. Treachery is treachery. There’s no such thing as being "just a little" treacherous.


    by Wattree on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 1:47am

    Yes, there's such a thing as being "just a little" treacherous.

    Sneakily cheating on an exam or sports event or even to win a political race isn't the same the treachery to get someone killed or maimed or put in captivity the rest of their lives. Even discussing proportion is difficult with you.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 5:33am

    1. T reason , sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. T reason is ANY attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. S edition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.


    by Wattree on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:29am

    If it's either treacherous or not treacherous, then I'd have to go with "not treacherous". I don't see any attempt by them to overthrow the government (and yes, I see there's more to the definition, but if we're going to oversimplify, let's go whole hog). I mean, if there is no scale.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:37am

    Where would you place voter suppression and corporations are people too with the ability to influence elections on the scale of things?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:53am

    If I wasn't forced to adhere to a binary treacherous/not treacherous decision, I'd say it'd rank as quite treacherous, but not as treacherous as actively advocating for the death of the President, which itself is not as treacherous as actually trying to kill the President, or many other things that one would label as Treason with a capital T. (By that, I mean acts that, if I supported the death penalty, would rise to the level of meriting it.)


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:01am

    Well, my mistake then. All along I was giving you too much credit with on West/Smiley posts. I thought you were cleverly using the principles of The Dozens as a rhetorical device. West might be doing it, but you've made it clear here that you're not.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:43am

    You also might investigate the rhetorical theory behind Godwin's Law before brushing it off as internet stupidity. Ever notice how the comments on your posts about West and Smiley don't end up talking about your points about West and Smiley but about other things? Your style of rhetoric caused that, and that phenomenon, that's what Godwin's Law addresses. If what you intend is for people to get outraged about West and Smiley, what you are doing isn't working. Instead people are getting all het up about your style of attack, so it's your rhetoric that is distracting from your message.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:05am

    Considering the origins of the phrase "selling someone down the river", I don't see how that would be any better…


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 9:34am

    Response to PP above

    Gates' article was written in 2010. There were responses disagreeing with his point of view published shortly thereafter. One response appeared in Colorlines Historian Eric Foner had a response as well. I have no guilt because some African sold other Africans to greedy Europeans. I do feel sorrow over the souls lost in the Middle Passage. Most Whites have the same distaste for dead Europeans involved in the US slave trade as I have for dead Africans involved in the slave trade. The Slave traders and slave owners were evil scum, don't you agree? 

    On the issue of Michael Dunn's mistrial on the first degree murder charge, the prosecutor's office is disappointed as well and seems set to retry Dunn. Perhaps you should write a letter to the Florida prosecutor.

    WalMart is a problem for Smiley because he presents himself as an advocate for the poor. Since WalMart has a substandard pay scale, it is clear that if Smiley does not speak out about it he is a hypocrite. This is not a conditional situation. An advocate for the poor receiving funding from a corporation providing substandard pay is absurd. If you want to argue that Smiley and Michelle Obama are equals, have at it.

    If the push for a national minimum wage pushed by Barack Obama is successful, Michelle will have an out. What will be Smiley's excuse for remaking silent?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 4:43pm

    Yes, agree on slavetraders, except don't see comparing people in 2014 to slavetraders for having a political opinion as very nice. I thought the poverty tours were nice. Your complaint is that West & Smiley aren't continuing them, but then you and many others gave them shit for having them in the first place. Sounds as consistent as the GOP undermining ACA and then complaining ACA isn't working well.

    Re: Dunn - he's 46 and going to jail for 75 years - do the math. Better things to focus on than a retrial.

    Michelle presents WalMart as helping with good eating choices, which is ludicrous considering the wave of crap consumer goods and foods WalMart brings in and its contribution to obesity. Screw Michelle's "out" - my wife plans on winning the lottery next year, so I'm blowing all my money today, eh?  Hers is just as hypocritical as Smiley's, and Barack's deals with Big Pharma and bailouts for Wall Street and poor managing of illegal mortgage confiscations have been much more costly to the community than any Smiley deals with WalMart or WellsFargo. His trademark was "changing Washington as we know it", and somehow I don't see it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 5:12pm

    I realize that I don't care what you think. I am not learning anything new. The Gates article was from 2010 and led to me pulling up articles that addressed Gates' perspective from that time. I learned nothing new.

    I found your slavery response offensive.

    I have been reading a book on the religious crisis slavery created in the antebellum period, catching up on some Melissa Harris-Perry shows that I missed and watching some episodes of the new season of "House Of Cards". All of these activities are much more enlightening.

    Given past exchanges between us, there is nothing to be gained by further communication. I don't learn anything from you and I don't care what you think. I realize that many exchanges have provided an escape from boredom. But there are things that I need to catch up on since I returned from vacation.

    Maybe another time.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 6:31pm

    You don't say what about the slavery response you found offensive - just dismiss. So you looked up some responses to Gates - yet no response to Wattree blaming it all on the Pied Piper "get in the boat" White Man. You're not interested in what offends other people either.

    Pretty hard to get anything out of an unstated opinion, as a response to several hundred words, and I noted I had no problem with other people evaluating these historical events in a different way - not saying mine is the only viewpoint.

    You're an enabler for Wattree, constantly riding in his wake, first in line giving him attaboys, never pushing back when he goes over the line, only begrudgingly accepting some criticism after 20 comments with a "yeah, but" rejoinder to segue into some other topic.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 1:18am

    Wattree,

    You and  I had a an extensive discussion about Zionism and racism back at the Cafe.   You just didn't accept that we  Jews are a People.   We are just a religious group in your mind.  Your real question should be  about how that justifies what happened in 1948.  But you didn't listen to me or accept what I said.  At this point, who cares?   You're having fun.  You said so yourself. 

    I mean how can a black dude ever come to understand how shared experience over thousands of years create a People?

    By the way as the member of a People I understand perfectly well why a presumably decent human being like RM defends you even under these circumstances.  Been there and done that except then I go home and wash.   That's what we do, we who live amongst others. 

    And now I really am done.  

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York

    P.S. This was first placed in the wrong thread.  I didn't realize that Wattree has several articles up at once.  In rereading this I think I give you too much credit Wattree, because in comparing Jews to Nazis it would be anything but productive to discuss 1948 with you. 

    Enjoy yourself.  


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 10:12am

    BSLev, You said,

    "Wattree,

    "You and I had a an extensive discussion about Zionism and racism back at the Cafe. You just didn't accept that we Jews are a People. We are just a religious group in your mind. Your real question should be about how that justifies what happened in 1948. But you didn't listen to me or accept what I said. At this point, who cares? You're having fun. You said so yourself.

    "I mean how can a black dude ever come to understand how shared experience over thousands of years create a People?

    "By the way as the member of a People I understand perfectly well why a presumably decent human being like RM defends you even under these circumstances. Been there and done that except then I go home and wash. That's what we do, we who live amongst others.

    "And now I really am done."

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York

    by bslev 2/17/2014 - 9:02 am

    Is that really what you think of the labor clients that you represent before administrative judges and the National Labor Relations Board, that when you’re done you have to go home and wash!!? That’s very enlightening.

    I’ve represented many people in that very same venue (I lost one case in 12 years), and when I was done I felt like I needed to go home and wash as well, but because of having to deal with the management team, not the people I represented. Wow! I'd hate to have you as an attorney - and you haven't demonstrated very good judgment either.


    by Wattree on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 10:23am

    I can assure Wattree, you will never have to worry about having me as your counsel.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 11:30am

    Let me leave you with something, BSlev - and this goes for ANY group, regardless to whether they are Black, White, Jews, or Eskimos. Fanaticism over ANY issue is ALWAYS a dangerous, ugly, and undesirable thing.
    .
    Have a good life.
    Photo: Let me leave you with something, BSlev - and this goes for ANY group, regardless to whether they are Black, White, Jews, or Eskimos - Fanaticism over ANY issue is ALWAYS a dangerous, ugly, and undesirable thing. . Have a good life.

                                                      


    by Wattree on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 3:21pm

    No, there are people wildly in love with Led Zeppelin or The Smiths or Prodigy, or those who live and breath hockey or snowboarding or bungie jumping - fanaticism by itself doesn't kill.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 3:39pm

    Latest Comments