Support NeoGAF

[Random Human]

Such a great writer.

 

[LegendofLex]

Sorry I don't think I got my point across. I wasn't talking about Trump winning, I am talking about Democrats trying to win in the future.

I think this article shines a light on the fact that if there is a large portion of the country that does not want equality. So a Democrat that preaches for equality, that blacks should have the same opportunities as whites, and that a white man is no better than a black man is going to find it hard to win over these people.

If that same democrat instead focuses on working class issues, things that on a surface level don't necessarily work to destroy their perception of being better than other races, they have better chance of securing those voters.

But this, too - this "appeal to broad-based 'working class' issues without confronting white supremacy" - would actually just be "appealing to white voters" (by focusing on issues that do not offend them), not "appealing to the working class."

It would be a capitulation to the Trump strategy - focus on white anxiety at the expense of minority issues - as one that is worthy of being emulated.

Excellent post. It is great to recognize this about ourselves and there is great honesty and soul in what you've outlined here. But what is next is the question I pose? I want all progressives, including white progressives, to push the policy that will help fix these problems. I want to empower minorities to live and work with and amongst white people at large. I can't change hearts and minds over night, though I call out bigotry as I encounter it. But I can champion policy that helps rectify these issues.

I like Coates' article and his writing in general. And he makes fair points about some white progressives. But some, like myself, are trying to make change for the better materialize by supporting good policy.

Not only do we need that come to Jesus moment Lex mentioned, but we also have to be a lot better at not scratching that self-congratulatory, pious itch that breaks out so clearly and strongly on our skin whenever we start to feel like maybe we're not getting enough credit for being "good allies."

Whether you want it to be read that way or not, it looks like you're making sure to take time out and ensure others are noticing your "not all white progressives" status over continuing to put in the work.

If his shoe doesn't fit you don't have to put it on—and you also don't have to stand and let everyone know how poorly he's got your foot size measured.

You can just keep walking the right path.

The instinct in these situations should be to seek out more things that you personally should be doing and to likewise attract others to follow you in doing them, not to hold what you've already done as a counterpoint.

And I'll admit that I'm not there yet, either, not in the sense that I think what I do is enough (it's absolutely not) but in the sense that I allow myself to be paralyzed by doubt and indecision about what it is that I should be doing and don't end up doing anything meaningful at all. That's a habit I desperately need to kick if I really believe what I say I believe.

edit: I realize, Muppet, that the question of "what to do" is already on your mind. I'm just reiterating that that question is one that always needs an answer, and that answer shouldn't ever include a "but."

 

[Father_Brain]

Also:

Packer dismisses the Democratic Party as a coalition of “rising professionals and diversity.” The dismissal is derived from, of all people, Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard president and White House economist, who last year labeled the Democratic Party “a coalition of the cosmopolitan élite and diversity.” The inference is that the party has forgotten how to speak on hard economic issues and prefers discussing presumably softer cultural issues such as “diversity.” It’s worth unpacking what, precisely, falls under this rubric of “diversity”—resistance to the monstrous incarceration of legions of black men, resistance to the destruction of health providers for poor women, resistance to the effort to deport parents, resistance to a policing whose sole legitimacy is rooted in brute force, resistance to a theory of education that preaches “no excuses” to black and brown children, even as excuses are proffered for mendacious corporate executives “too big to jail.” That this suite of concerns, taken together, can be dismissed by both an elite economist like Summers and a brilliant journalist like Packer as “diversity” simply reveals the safe space they enjoy. Because of their identity.

Did the Democratic Party under Obama actually do a particularly good job of "resisting" any of those things? I certainly don't see it.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Those progressive white people actually have a lot of privilege and advantage, in that their lack of wealth, power and debt does not put them in immediate danger of murder by law enforcement. This gives them the luxury of pretending they are helpless to act because they don't control the levers of power.

Black people have never controlled the levers of power and yet somehow found ways to fight unceasingly for civil rights.

And who were/are the whites that fought along side them for civil rights? In large part progressive whites. I am not sure if you are arguing that white progressives do nothing or that there are not enough white progressives. The latter is definitely true, as most whites who consider themselves liberal do not call themselves or act as progressives. They are status quo, n+1 progression liberals.

What about all the protests as of recently led by progressive groups (which have included many progressive whites), as well? I'm not sure where this do nothing sentiment comes from. It may be more apt to call white progressives inept at enacting change, but I don't buy that progressives are not willing to give stuff up to ensure everyone has civil rights and opportunity.

I, in this very thread, suggested a policy proposal to enact change within law enforcement itself. Where are all the policy proposals for such things from centrists? They are non-existent or worse. The Clintons enacted some cynical shit in the 90s that did terrible trauma by imprisoning black males and impacting the black community for generations to come. This is why I am weary of wishy-washy centrists.

I have no doubt that Hillary and Bill are regretting they backed such a thing now. But why didn't they know better back then?

 

[pigeon]

Also:



Did the Democratic Party under Obama actually do a particularly good job of "resisting" any of those things? I certainly don't see it.

Coates does not claim they did, merely that they talked about them, and that that is what these people are labeling as "diversity."

 

[nomis]

this essay was pulled from his new book, out in october

can’t wait for that amazon delivery for more where this came from

 

[LegendofLex]

Coates does not claim they did, merely that they talked about them, and that that is what these people are labeling as "diversity."

And, just to bring your point to its conclusion, that merely acknowledging these issues as issues worth addressing prompted backlash from whites.

 

[Tonedeff]

Every sentence he wrote is Truth. To those who don't know TNC, y'all sleepin

 

[TheGreatDirector]

Here's a NPR interview with him discussing this essay.

It's a very powerful listen.

 

[JZA]

" It is as if the white tribe united in demonstration to say, “If a black man can be president, then any white man—no matter how fallen—can be president.”

I feel like we all knew this subconsciously but I haven't seen it put into words until now.

 

[MrCheez]

Incredible and powerful.

Why must the world be this way?

 

[Father_Brain]

And, just to bring your point to its conclusion, that merely acknowledging these issues as issues worth addressing prompted backlash from whites.

They've talked about those things, sure, to some extent, and it certainly has provoked white backlash. In practice, though, their definition of "diversity" has been more concerned with meritocracy and with ensuring that the 1% is demographically representative of the rest of the population than with crafting policies that directly tackle the material consequences of racism and sexism that Coates enumerates in this particular passage.

It's important to separate leftist critiques of that shallow, facile version of "diversity" from the criticism offered by centrist dipshits like Lilla who genuinely do want to throw minorities and "their" issues under the bus, and I don't think Coates really attempts to do that here.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

That's clear. Essentially he said that Trump would not become president, if he wasn't white or male.

I don't really think so, and that's just my opinion, of course. I perceive Trump as an all out opportunist. He doesn't really stand for anything concrete, there is a goal and there are opportunities to use. Had he not been white, he would have used his skin color to his advantage. One could argue that racism in US would not have allowed him to become so popular, but there is Obama.


What I said was that being white or male doesn't really help you become a president that much.





According to WP article, most quotes there are indirect, although I think he likely did say that.

That you think Trump is the same as Obama but for his skin color is immensely disturbing.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

But this, too - this "appeal to broad-based 'working class' issues without confronting white supremacy" - would actually just be "appealing to white voters" (by focusing on issues that do not offend them), not "appealing to the working class."

It would be a capitulation to the Trump strategy - focus on white anxiety at the expense of minority issues - as one that is worthy of being emulated.





The instinct in these situations should be to seek out more things that you personally should be doing and to likewise attract others to follow you in doing them, not to hold what you've already done as a counterpoint.

And I'll admit that I'm not there yet, either, not in the sense that I think what I do is enough (it's absolutely not) but in the sense that I allow myself to be paralyzed by doubt and indecision about what it is that I should be doing and don't end up doing anything meaningful at all. That's a habit I desperately need to kick if I really believe what I say I believe.

edit: I realize, Muppet, that the question of "what to do" is already on your mind. I'm just reiterating that that question is one that always needs an answer, and that answer shouldn't ever include a "but."

I think Coates is a great articulator of what the issues are and he even ventures into how to rectify and/or mitigate the problem of disadvantage and inequality. I want more people to not just say they are contemplating it, but also to do the hard creative work of suggesting policy to make the fix feasible within society at large. Doing work on the ground is fantastic, yet it alone cannot get us where we want to be.

It was broad sweeping systemic policy that effectively relegated black people to second class citizens. We need counteracting broad sweeping systematic policy to reverse it. And that starts with proposing it, integrating it into the party platform, and then voting for those who have the will to enact it, even at the expense of their political capital.

They've talked about those things, sure, to some extent, and it certainly has provoked white backlash. In practice, though, their definition of "diversity" has been more concerned with meritocracy and with ensuring that the 1% is demographically representative of the rest of the population than with crafting policies that directly tackle the material consequences of racism and sexism that Coates enumerates in this particular passage.

It's important to separate leftist critiques of that shallow, facile version of "diversity" from the criticism offered by centrist dipshits like Lilla who genuinely do want to throw minorities and "their" issues under the bus, and I don't think Coates really attempts to do that here.

Thanks for articulating this. This is what I was trying to get across earlier in the thread. I simply thought that Coates didn't well enough delineate between the 2.

 

[Kthulhu]

Hang on a minute I'm not American, Obama actually presented his birth cert to placate those fuckin tools?! Fuckin hell.

He presented his short form birth certificate and they had the gall to ask for his long form.

 

[theignoramus]

Brutal and wonderfully done. Trump is the most racist President since KKK Lovin' Wilson, and he's revenge from white people for having the first black President. I thought there was no way he could win with such little minority support, given that whites are declining as a percentage of the population, but they simply banded together even stronger to elect one of the most racist and certainly the most unqualified President ever. Stunning, but I and others should have seen it coming.

I like that Coates made the distinction between Trump and past presidents like Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a dedicated racist but he possessed titles of merit and accomplishment that made him qualified to hold public office.
Trump is singularly, the most unqualified man to ever hold the US presidency.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Hell of an article, and some incredible lines.

"It is as if the white tribe united in demonstration to say, “If a black man can be president, then any white man—no matter how fallen—can be president.”

Makes you think.

 

[Htown]

The name Barack Obama does not appear in Lilla’s essay, and he never attempts to grapple, one way or another, with the fact that it was identity politics—the possibility of the first black president—that brought a record number of black voters to the polls, winning the election for the Democratic Party, and thus enabling the deliverance of the ancient liberal goal of national health care. “Identity politics … is largely expressive, not persuasive,” Lilla claims. “Which is why it never wins elections—but can lose them.” That Trump ran and won on identity politics is beyond Lilla’s powers of conception. What appeals to the white working class is ennobled. What appeals to black workers, and all others outside the tribe, is dastardly identitarianism. All politics are identity politics—except the politics of white people, the politics of the bloody heirloom.

Fuck this piece is good.

 

[LegendofLex]

They've talked about those things, sure, to some extent, and it certainly has provoked white backlash. In practice, though, their definition of "diversity" has been more concerned with meritocracy and with ensuring that the 1% is demographically representative of the rest of the population than with crafting policies that directly tackle the material consequences of racism and sexism that Coates enumerates in this particular passage.

It's important to separate leftist critiques of that shallow, facile version of "diversity" from the criticism offered by centrist dipshits like Lilla who genuinely do want to throw minorities and "their" issues under the bus, and I don't think Coates really attempts to do that here.

Because what makes up good diversity policy isn't the subject of this particular essay. The subject of this essay is how the political landscape is shaped by the identity politics of white supremacy.

 

[Deepwater]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

 

[theignoramus]

The arguments in the article are so well presented, anyone trying to obfuscate or distort the meaning and intention behind the words instantly comes off as a charlatan and intellectual deviant.
You cant challenge an essay like this without your response being equally forthright, coherent and intellectually honest.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

I think he does an invaluable service by articulating issues in a very detailed way so they can serve as a sounding board, a reference point, for where to make improvements via policy. His breakdown also helps to create points of attack against right wing talking points, and he clearly outlines what is problematic about the status quo in an academic way, which then can filter down to the media and society at large.

I wish he wrote more on his thoughts about how to mitigate systemic issues via policy, though. His most impactful stuff in my opinion will be essays that take that sort of proactive bent, like his essay on reparations.

 

[tbm24]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

Not written for us, though it's hard not to get caught up reading the whole thing. It's like a Junot Diaz book, I'm turning the page and idk when I'm gonna stop.

 

[Byakuya769]

A haunting take on what Trump and his Presidency represent.

All too true.

 

[Deepwater]

I think he does an invaluable service by articulating issues in a very detailed way so they can serve as a sounding board, a reference point, for where to make improvements via policy. His breakdown also helps to create points of attack against right wing talking points, and he clearly outlines what is problematic about the status quo in an academic way, which then can filter down to the media and society at large.

I wish he wrote more on his thoughts about how to mitigate systemic issues via policy, though. His most impactful stuff in my opinion will be essays that take that sort of proactive bent, like his essay on reparations.

I don't think it really serves as a method to defend against right wing talking points cause half the piece was a critique on white liberalism

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I don't think it really serves as a method to defend against right wing talking points cause half the piece was a critique on white liberalism

Yeah, you're right about half being a critique of the liberal status quo. But the other half of his critique is useful to defend against right wing talking points. The outing of "economic anxiety" in the context of Trump and Republicans at large as code for white supremacy is exactly that. The outing of the things conservatives in general stand for as white identity politics is exactly that.

 

[Trey]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

The fact that it's "duh, of course," is why this piece is so necessary. There is nary a new theme to unearth in this civil struggle. This familiar despair is the ugly truth that many white liberals share with their conservative counterparts in wanting to ignore or deflect from.

 

[roknin]

Giving this a listen in a moment, but just needed to say:

👀

Gawwwwwdddamn. That is a fireball of truth ramming right into the core of America right there.

 

[Valhelm]

Some good takes from R.L. Stephens on the article

Sanders and crew propose class remedies that lack the requisite level of class struggle to shift racism, but that doesn't invalidate them

Just like racisms continued existence doesn't on its face invalidate affirmative action. BUT...

Getting even more technocratically race specific is not a path to victory. Going harder on the class struggle tip, that has real potential

Black people have improved in times of major class struggle. The particularities of race oppression were attached to larger class struggles

US slavery didn't end with a race war. There were conflicting & competing interests at stake--among white folk--and enough for them to kill

Coates can go in on certain left people's racial shenanigans, but he can't propose racial technocracy, he's gotta be a revolutionary

 

[Bronx-Man]

Getting even more technocratically race specific is not a path to victory. Going harder on the class struggle tip, that has real potential

 

[Trey]

Some good takes from R.L. Stephens on the article

There is indeed nothing revolutionary with attaching racial struggles to an overarching class struggle. This has been the vehicle with which most of the gains of blacks in America has been borne, and sure, we can hope for some gains following this moderate paradigm. This essay exists in 2017 to say it isn't enough.

We see time and again the needs of whites to feel exceptional in America has been put before justice at every call, and Trump's election is a referendum of this fact. This Coates essay is not interested in marginal black improvement, but the validation of justice by exposing the damaging truth of moderate rhetoric and neoliberalism.

 

[marzlapin]

Great work as usual by Coates.

 

[Valhelm]

There's a lot of merit to the idea that overturning white supremacy is more effective and attainable through a broader anti-capitalist movement. White supremacy and capitalism were born together, joined-at-the-hip, and are so interconnected that the most effective black movements have had a real class character. Most major civil rights activists, if not outright socialists, have been very critical of capitalism and how it oppresses black people so acutely.

This is why Stephens is skeptical of newer, safer, and more explicitly bourgeois forms of racial advocacy. Technocratic activism, which I think refers to affirmative action and increased representation of black people in high office, two policies which are good and necessary but clearly not enough to even wobble the hierarchy of white supremacy.

The obvious problem with Stephens' alternative is that without democratic participation this can very easily become a situation where non-black leftists tell black people to wait their turn for revolution. While I think the truly radical left is the most racially aware and racially inclusive movement in America, wider left-wing causes like the Bernie Sanders campaign have some serious racial blindspots. This came out during the Netroots Black Lives Matter debacle and some of the Southern primaries, exposing a lot of nasty racism among the Reddit/Young Turks type of Sanders fans.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

There is indeed nothing revolutionary with attaching racial struggles to an overarching class struggle. This has been the vehicle with which most of the gains of blacks in America has been borne, and sure, we can hope for some gains following this moderate paradigm. This essay exists in 2017 to say it isn't enough.

We see time and again the needs of whites to feel exceptional in America has been put before justice at every call, and Trump's election is a referendum of this fact. This Coates essay is not interested in marginal black improvement, but the validation of justice by exposing the damaging truth of moderate rhetoric and neoliberalism.

In order to affect real change you need to attack the power centers of racial oppression: government, law enforcement, religious institutions, educational institutions, financial institutions, corporations, and the media.

Not so surprisingly, those centers maintain their power through money/funding. Money and its distribution through granting of opportunity is the keystone to the enabling racist policy.

That's why Citizens United is such a fucking nightmare. It's why the chipping away of unions and labor rights is a disaster. It's why the unregulated granting of opportunity to mostly whites in education, government, corporations, and by financial institutions is the biggest cancer. It is much easier to systematically oppress a population once they are impoverished. And that's what has been done ever since the institution of slavery was abolished.

 

[Bronx-Man]

The obvious problem with Stephens' alternative is that without democratic participation this can very easily become a situation where non-black leftists tell black people to wait their turn for revolution. While I think the truly radical left is the most racially aware and racially inclusive movement in America, wider left-wing causes like the Bernie Sanders campaign have some serious racial blindspots. This came out during the Netroots Black Lives Matter debacle and some of the Southern primaries, exposing a lot of nasty racism among the Reddit/Young Turks type of Sanders fans.

Bingo, you understand perfectly.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Hell of an article, and some incredible lines.

"It is as if the white tribe united in demonstration to say, “If a black man can be president, then any white man—no matter how fallen—can be president.”

Makes you think.

Damn.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

Agreed, though I was moved in some way only because it's mostly just really affirming. And it's nice to see him call out the failures of punitocracy, the wack ass think pieces that circumvent talking about the elephant in the room, whiteness.

 

[lazygecko]

But I thought he was the first black president?

 

[Systemwarrior]

This article is pure unadulterated ether. Coates is such an amazing writer.

 

[LegendofLex]

There's a lot of merit to the idea that overturning white supremacy is more effective and attainable through a broader anti-capitalist movement.

I mean, the real problem with this is that in order to even make that point you have to start from the assumption that minority struggles exist by default outside of broader anti-capitalist movements, and that they aren't a necessary component of them. (I realize you probably don't really believe this, but the way you've hitched the wagons creates the appearance of an order of priorities.)

To put it another way, this argument sounds like: "Instead of the anti-capitalist movements needing to embrace a race-conscious character, it's the identity politics advocates that need to embrace anti-capitalist class struggle."

You're not wrong that the two struggles are bound together and you can't have one without the other, but I think it's unusually convenient that it's minorities who need to get on board with anti-capitalism and not anti-capitalists who need to get on board with - to put it bluntly - the requirement for reparations and justice, even though anti-capitalism by itself fails to actually achieve racial justice and the failure to achieve racial justice would actually end up being a failure of anti-capitalism at its own mission.

I realize you allude to this later in your post, but it's worth noting that it's not people primarily concerned with race-based issues who overlook class struggle (their race issues are class issues); it's people primarily concerned with class struggle who overlook race-based issues (their class issues are not race issues). This is why Coates remarks on white progressives' willingness to elevate class-based issues as central to the 2016 campaign with skepticism, and (I speculate) probably why lots of people recoiled from Sanders and his coalition when his rise was activated by class-based populism.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Bingo, you understand perfectly.

Yeah, how you gonna have a revolution without black folks. They need our ire

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Goddamn. I normally can't make it through long-form essays like that, but I found the whole thing to be absolutely enthralling and illuminating. I don't think I've read a better analysis of the state of this country and the reason for Trump's rise to the presidency than this.

I feel ashamed for not having known about Ta-Nehisi Coates before this. Definitely going to find other stuff from him.

 

[Dude Abides]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

Guess you should have written it then.

 

[Trey]

In order to affect real change you need to attack the power centers of racial oppression: government, law enforcement, religious institutions, educational institutions, financial institutions, corporations, and the media.

Not so surprisingly, those centers maintain their power through money/funding. Money and its distribution through granting of opportunity is the keystone to the enabling racist policy.

That's why Citizens United is such a fucking nightmare. It's why the chipping away of unions and labor rights is a disaster. It's why the unregulated granting of opportunity to mostly whites in education, government, corporations, and by financial institutions is the biggest cancer. It is much easier to systematically oppress a population once they are impoverished. And that's what has been done ever since the institution of slavery was abolished.

This essay is important because it reveals that even people who are interested in the subversion of a part or whole of the capitalist hegemony still have racial prejudices, and personal privileges, that prevents the attainment of justice in this country.

You cannot attack these institutions while also putting whites before others, because these institutions inherently thrive on whiteness. This is what Bernie missed, this is what that wing of liberalism consistently overlooks. You cannot have a revolution without "identity politics."

 

[Wamb0wneD]

That's a damn good article.

 

[LegendofLex]

You cannot have a revolution without "identity politics."

Yeah, it's true.

There wouldn't have ever been an American revolution without an American identity around which to rally against British rule.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Coates is a white liberal fave, and what he says might be provocative to them (that might be the intent), I was largely...unmoved by the piece. It's greatly written but I'm like "yup, of course, duh" the entire time

I think you should realize that a large percentage of the potential audience for this article probably aren't like "yup, of course, duh" and that this could be quite educating for them.

 

[Valhelm]

I mean, the real problem with this is that in order to even make that point you have to start from the assumption that minority struggles exist by default outside of broader anti-capitalist movements, and that they aren't a necessary component of them.

Instead of the anti-capitalist movements needing to embrace a race-conscious character, it's the identity politics advocates that need to embrace anti-capitalist class struggle.

You're not wrong that the two struggles are bound together and you can't have one without the other, but I think it's unusually convenient that it's minorities who need to get on board with anti-capitalism and not anti-capitalists who need to get on board with - to put it bluntly - the requirement for reparations and justice.

I realize you allude to this later in your post, but it's worth noting that it's not people primarily concerned with race-based issues who overlook class struggle; it's people primarily concerned with class struggle who overlook race-based issues. This is why Coates remarks on white progressives' willingness to elevate class-based issues as central to the 2016 campaign with skepticism, and (I speculate) probably why lots of people recoiled from Sanders and his coalition when his rise was activated by class-based populism.

The movement against white supremacy in America is much stronger and more popular than the movement against capitalism. The closest you can find to this in mainstream politics was the Bernie Sanders campaign, which critiqued capitalism without offering a truly revolutionary replacement. His campaign also lacked a visible articulation of the relationship between race and class, leaving many black people with the impression that their specific concerns were secondary, and many whites with the impression that fighting racism isn't so important as fighting poverty.

Currently, most advocacy against white supremacy exists within our capitalist framework. Some forms of this advocacy, like affirmative action and diversity in representation, are explicitly capitalist. These strategies, which I do not believe have made serious gains for black people at large, are meant to fight white supremacy while leaving every other hierarchy intact. Rather than do-away with the boys' clubs that run America, this kind of praxis seeks to allow some black individuals to gain membership.

What America needs is a new movement that's seriously against capitalism and seriously against white supremacy. So much of the power white people hold over black people comes from their superior economic position. A poorer race is easier to oppress. But beyond this, reformist or technocratic racial struggles exist through the organs of white supremacy. Because many of the powerful people who hold the levers of power in America do not trust or respect black people, attempts to inject black individuals into these circles is rarely effective. Even when people like Barack Obama or Coates himself find themselves with this kind of influence, politicians and intellectuals alone cannot revolutionize society. Mass participation is necessary, through forms of democracy that avoid bourgois and white supremacist organs like Silicon Valley or the US congress and accordingly subvert these hierarchies.

 

[Father_Brain]

I think I misread the post I was responding to, so never mind! Read Valhelm's post above mine for a better response than what I had originally written.

 

[CrackPebbles]

That was great. First time I've read anything by this guy he's a good writer.