Race and Class in the USA - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 12-15-2005, 11:32 AM

An interesting speech:
http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/ramg...6196_stream.rm

He has some good points. I actually thought the US civil war was about states rights, at least philosophically, but I appear to be wrong...

Complete articles of succession.

Quote:

OPENING STATEMENT OF MISSISSIPPIS' ARTICLES

""""In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
""""""

Etc. I was ignorant.

The Marxist ... basis ... of the speech doesn't line up with my personal world view.

But the use of "you aren't the bottom of the heap -- you are standing on someone else" to coopt the underclass would be, and probably is, a useful technique.

Hmm...

stevo · 12-15-2005, 12:08 PM

soooo....what exactly is the point of your post? Are you just here to call the US a racist country or do you have some type of dicussion in mind?

Cynthetiq · 12-15-2005, 12:21 PM

I've read your post 3 times and don't get what you'd like to discuss. Please reframe it as a discussion.

filtherton · 12-15-2005, 01:34 PM

He's saying that the common framing of the civil war as being mainly about state's rights is perhaps a tad bit full of shit.

stevo · 12-15-2005, 02:05 PM

and yakk would like to discuss this?

highthief · 12-15-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

He's saying that the common framing of the civil war as being mainly about state's rights is perhaps a tad bit full of shit.

That's what i got out of it.

Locobot · 12-15-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

He's saying that the common framing of the civil war as being mainly about state's rights is perhaps a tad bit full of shit.

Well it was about the States' right to allow slavery, it's not incorrect just incomplete.

Of course the primary argument above, that only blacks can work outdoors in tropical climates, was rendered obsolete with the invention of sunsreen.

roachboy · 12-15-2005, 04:01 PM

well, from what i have been able to figure out, there is nothing controversial in the op, really: that the usual elementary school "history" explanations of the civil war are wrong--i would assume this is given.

that the civil war can be interpreted as being about which type of economic system would be dominant in the states--not really controversial.

that lincoln was not particularly other than racist himself (read the debate with calhoun)--obvious if you have done the research. not if you havent.

that the outcome of the civil war was fundamentally shaped by the debacle of reconstruction--not controversial.

that the way "state's rights" discourse works in contemporary conservative politics owes everything to the racist outcomes of reconstruction--obvious, but potentially controversial.

that among these outcomes was a truly horrific intertwining of class and racism in the states--obvious, but perhaps controversial.

that this intertwining of class and racism is a basic feature of american history--obvious. it should not be controversial, but then again denial is a powerful thing.

that confronting the persistence of this intertwining of class and racism in the present requires a confrontation with its history--obvious, except perhaps to conservatives who actually believe the kind of Hero Worship that the right's "intellectuals" espouse.

that a confrontation with this persistent feature of the american past in the present is desirable--obvious, but perhaps controversial. there are folk who look around the states and see only what they want to see. there are folk who tacitly endorse the squalid history of racism and class conflict in america because they think those who have lost out deserve/deserved to lose out--some crude social darwinism at work that only recoils when it is named---knit straight into the fabric of conservative economic ideology itself.

well maybe there are things that could be debated.
but spaces like politics in a messageboard are not about opening one's mind--they are about looking for affirmation for what one thinks one already knows----even when it comes to that thin veneer of experiences disappeared into the past that we call history (a discourse that is itself a form of compensation--the illusion of recuperation of the past, of the transparency of what is recuperated, the illusion that the past is as close as any other scene reconstituted via reading (novels, recipes, history, harlequins) are all functions of deep anxieties about the present, about instability, about conflict about death--repetitions of the pseduo-transparency television provides its viewers)

you cant force people to see what their politics and/or aesthetic preferences (is there a difference?) prompt them to prefer, how they carve up their world, what they leave out, what they rationalize, how they rationalize it. not in a space like this at least.

if that's true, then what, really, is debate here?
does it really feel like anyone is missing out on anything because there nothing is happening in this thread?

stevo · 12-16-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Well it was about the States' right to allow slavery, it's not incorrect just incomplete.

Of course the primary argument above, that only blacks can work outdoors in tropical climates, was rendered obsolete with the invention of sunsreen.

pretty much, the impact slavery had on large southern agriculture was immense, by just saying "states rights" you aren't getting into it too deep.

I don't see what the problem is here. I just wasn't sure what we were supposed to be discussing. Was it to be Mississippi's reason for entering the civil war or the reason for the civil war itself?

To me the op started by just calling shenanigans on elementary history class. But I thought we all already knew that. I mean, columbus didn't really discover america first and we all know that.

Yakk · 12-19-2005, 10:49 AM

I'm sorry -- the original post wasn't as well written as I would like. ~_~

The speech was quite interesting to me. I don't think I've seen quite as impassioned an arguement for the intertwining of class, race and history in the USA. On the other hand, the speaker seems to be assuming things that I disagree with (marxist philosophy) -- so, dispite the existence of valid arguements in the speech, I cannot assume the arguements I don't have external evidence for are accurate.

Where unions originally an attempt to break the white worker from the black worker, and give the white worker a higher "class"?

Is racism as strong of a force in American politics as the speaker claims?

I know there is racism in the USA. I have evidence for this from both personal (casual conversation with Americans) and impersonal (affirmative action, racial voting demographics, statistics, etc) sources. There is racism in most, if not all, nationsl, to a greater or lesser degree. The question is, how strong is it as a political force?

I do know that Nixon's "southern strategy" was pretty damn recent, and the support gained from it changed the balance of American politics. Is it still happening?

People value their social rank as a relative thing. It makes sense that having "not-us" people "below" them, and identifiying with people "above" them, makes you more content with your social rank.

I really don't know what to think about the topics brought up by the speech. I would post a transcript if I could get my hands on one, so more people could read it without having to listen to the audio.

12-15-2005, 12:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	soooo....what exactly is the point of your post? Are you just here to call the US a racist country or do you have some type of dicussion in mind? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

12-15-2005, 12:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I've read your post 3 times and don't get what you'd like to discuss. Please reframe it as a discussion. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-15-2005, 02:05 PM	#5 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	and yakk would like to discuss this? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

12-15-2005, 04:01 PM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, from what i have been able to figure out, there is nothing controversial in the op, really: that the usual elementary school "history" explanations of the civil war are wrong--i would assume this is given. that the civil war can be interpreted as being about which type of economic system would be dominant in the states--not really controversial. that lincoln was not particularly other than racist himself (read the debate with calhoun)--obvious if you have done the research. not if you havent. that the outcome of the civil war was fundamentally shaped by the debacle of reconstruction--not controversial. that the way "state's rights" discourse works in contemporary conservative politics owes everything to the racist outcomes of reconstruction--obvious, but potentially controversial. that among these outcomes was a truly horrific intertwining of class and racism in the states--obvious, but perhaps controversial. that this intertwining of class and racism is a basic feature of american history--obvious. it should not be controversial, but then again denial is a powerful thing. that confronting the persistence of this intertwining of class and racism in the present requires a confrontation with its history--obvious, except perhaps to conservatives who actually believe the kind of Hero Worship that the right's "intellectuals" espouse. that a confrontation with this persistent feature of the american past in the present is desirable--obvious, but perhaps controversial. there are folk who look around the states and see only what they want to see. there are folk who tacitly endorse the squalid history of racism and class conflict in america because they think those who have lost out deserve/deserved to lose out--some crude social darwinism at work that only recoils when it is named---knit straight into the fabric of conservative economic ideology itself. well maybe there are things that could be debated. but spaces like politics in a messageboard are not about opening one's mind--they are about looking for affirmation for what one thinks one already knows----even when it comes to that thin veneer of experiences disappeared into the past that we call history (a discourse that is itself a form of compensation--the illusion of recuperation of the past, of the transparency of what is recuperated, the illusion that the past is as close as any other scene reconstituted via reading (novels, recipes, history, harlequins) are all functions of deep anxieties about the present, about instability, about conflict about death--repetitions of the pseduo-transparency television provides its viewers) you cant force people to see what their politics and/or aesthetic preferences (is there a difference?) prompt them to prefer, how they carve up their world, what they leave out, what they rationalize, how they rationalize it. not in a space like this at least. if that's true, then what, really, is debate here? does it really feel like anyone is missing out on anything because there nothing is happening in this thread? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-19-2005, 10:49 AM	#10 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	I'm sorry -- the original post wasn't as well written as I would like. ~_~ The speech was quite interesting to me. I don't think I've seen quite as impassioned an arguement for the intertwining of class, race and history in the USA. On the other hand, the speaker seems to be assuming things that I disagree with (marxist philosophy) -- so, dispite the existence of valid arguements in the speech, I cannot assume the arguements I don't have external evidence for are accurate. Where unions originally an attempt to break the white worker from the black worker, and give the white worker a higher "class"? Is racism as strong of a force in American politics as the speaker claims? I know there is racism in the USA. I have evidence for this from both personal (casual conversation with Americans) and impersonal (affirmative action, racial voting demographics, statistics, etc) sources. There is racism in most, if not all, nationsl, to a greater or lesser degree. The question is, how strong is it as a political force? I do know that Nixon's "southern strategy" was pretty damn recent, and the support gained from it changed the balance of American politics. Is it still happening? People value their social rank as a relative thing. It makes sense that having "not-us" people "below" them, and identifiying with people "above" them, makes you more content with your social rank. I really don't know what to think about the topics brought up by the speech. I would post a transcript if I could get my hands on one, so more people could read it without having to listen to the audio. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

12-15-2005, 01:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	He's saying that the common framing of the civil war as being mainly about state's rights is perhaps a tad bit full of shit.