Booker Rising gets a big hat tip from me.
At some point Cosby's crusade either reaches the level of the street, of people like Kenny and Tate, or it will come to be seen as little more than sound and fury signifying nothing more than the power of an outspoken celebrity to get people talking.
What should Cosby do? He might try shoring up the work of those who have shown they can make a difference in the lives of inner-city youths. Marshall and Holland are splendid examples; but in any large city, there are heroes dedicated to helping young people make wise choices—one crisis at a time. Those who do such work are always chronically underfunded and tragically underrecognized. For Cosby to publicly join forces with them would surely help their cause—and his.
The comedian already has indicated that he would like this crusade to become something more than a one-man roadshow. He has aligned himself with Ras Baraka, the deputy mayor of Newark, N.J., to launch something called "Hip Hop for the PEOPLE" (Providing Education Opportunity, Prosperity and Life Eternally)—an entity that will urge rappers to focus on subjects other than sex and bling.
It's wonderful Cosby has involved himself in a war that has consumed so many young lives. But this war's most meaningful battles will not be fought from floodlit stages. They will be fought in inner-city streets, and in schools and clubs, where souls are saved one at a time, and where the applause of a star-struck crowd is rarely to be found.
=============
More at that link...
See, this is what I've been saying. Talking all the negative doesn't mean jack unless you show off the positive. He doesn't mean a damn thing unless you show what's being done.
I'm about to get real foul.
From my view, "Black conservatives" do nothing but say, essentially, "Look at the niggers, they ain't doing shit right!"
Why don't they show the groups doing positive things?
And the "Black liberals" do nothing but say, essentially, "Niggers can't get ahead because of the system!"
Why don't they show more of the people who are getting ahead? Why aren't they spotlighting more of the groups that help?
Two peas in the same pod, at the opposite ends of the same pod, talking smack and not doing much of a damn thing.
Why didn't I receive so much as a form letter from the NAACP when I sent this note?
Why didn't I receive so much as a form letter from Project 21 when I sent this note?
Posted by at December 21, 2004 06:41 PM | TrackBackWhy didn't I receive so much as a form letter from the NAACP when I sent this note?
Why didn't I receive so much as a form letter from Project 21 when I sent this note?
In the era of relationship as pure commerce, you have no discernable value to either organization?
You exist under the radar of their politicomedia conscious awareness....,
why?
The one motive that is intelligible to [the mob-man] is the desire for profit, and he commonly concludes at once that this is what moves the propagandist before him. His reasoning is defective, but his conclusion is far from wrong. In point of fact, idealism is not a passion in America, but a trade; all the salient idealists make a living at it, and some of them, for example, Dr. Bryan and the Rev. Dr. Sunday, are commonly believed to have amassed huge fortunes. For an American to advocate a cause without any hope of private usufruct is almost unheard of... H.L. Mencken
Posted by: cnulan at December 21, 2004 09:24 PMIt is not about showing positive things. Role modeling doesn't work that way. Nor do whites all of a sudden become more altruistic if they realize that black people can do "positive things."
When Bill Gates recognized that HIV/AIDS was a problem, he didn't go on a whirlwind tour telling Africans to stop having unprotected sex. He created a foundation, poured money into it, and used it to fund innovators.
When Bill Gates recognized that science education was pretty much nonexistent in many urban and rural places he didn't go on tour speaking to teachers about how jacked up they were. he put money into a foundation, let people compete for it, and used the money to directly fund innovation.
Cosby is worth 500 million.
If the best thing he can use his money for is touring to badmouth the poor we are in trouble.
(And I'm talking about the equivalent of means testing programs here...I know that Cosby has given a lot of money to GENERAL causes and institutions.)
Posted by: Lester K. Spence at December 21, 2004 10:32 PMIt is not about showing positive things. Role modeling doesn't work that way.
You misunderstand me.
If Coz comes to the Baltimore area, I would like for him to say, "If you have problems with drugs, you know it's not a good thing to be involved in. Try going to 'I Can't We Can'. Israel Cason is doing a good job at helping addicts."
What's wrong with that? That's the positive view I would like to see.
Or, maybe, "Look. You're young, single, with X kids. You know it's hard out here. How about talking to women in your family who are doing much better and sitting down with them to talk about life and the choices made? How about looking at Empowerment Temple's ministries?"
See where I'm going here?
Ah.
Cosby came to Baltimore for his smackdown tour on Nov. 17. I was there. He smacked the poor around for a bit, suggested some individual level cultural solutions (take care of your kids, don't use drugs, know that school matters) then left. A group of "community leaders" followed up, each touting their own specific programs.
The crowd was filled to capacity. Probably a few thousand folks. It died down by about half after Cosby left. You know how the q & a at these things go. A lot of grandiose questions, a lot of symbolic answers then folks go home educated a bit, and entertained a bit. It goes out the window a few days later.
In this case at an individual level it probably does matter whether Cosby brings up successful programs. If I had a problem and didn't know about X program and that lack of knowledge exacerbated my problem, then having that knowledge helps.
But if we're talking about systemic change, the type that Cosby says he wants, then that type of thing simply doesn't work. You've got to take a cell-based approach, and you've got to reward innovation. Cosby's approach is all wrong for this type of thing.
Posted by: Lester K. Spence at December 22, 2004 04:04 PMYou know, I heard about him coming to town. I missed it. I was told the WOLB morning show was good that day because Cosby was a morning guest.
I forgot about that. I guess because from what I heard, not much public good came from it.
Of course, that doesn't mean things didn't occur at the "cell level" as you say.
As an aside if we are this close to each other we should get together...
Think of it this way. Compare in your head two approaches. Cosby's approach, and the Cosby as Gates approach--where he visits (perhaps) and says "I'm giving a million dollars to solve this issue. 20 grants will be awarded at 50 grand a pop. Whoever offers the most innovative and sustainable solution gets the loot."
Which approach is more likely to lead to cell-based organizing?
Posted by: Lester K. Spence at December 22, 2004 04:38 PMCell-based organizing is not what blackfolks expect. They expect to meet and greet with the leaders and hear a rousing sermon. That's what the whole emphasis is on, because if it were not, Cosby wouldn't be an issue at all. Nobody is *supposed* to look to entertainers for solutions or come out of the woodworks to be scolded.
The solution is the mainstream. That's where the crowds need to shuffle. They will then be mainstream Americans with no special black reasons to complain, and only black pride as extra baggage.
It is not Cosby's nor anyone else's job to mainstream ghetto folks. So perhaps scolding is all they need to hear.
Posted by: Cobb at December 22, 2004 08:21 PMCell-based organizing is not what blackfolks expect.That's beside the point.
It's what Black folks need to do.
I grant the mainstream is A solution. I also grant no alternative exists at the moment. I don't accept that will always be the case, nor that the mainstream must have its current peculiar nature.
Things change.
Posted by: P6 at December 22, 2004 10:48 PMPlease define *mainstream*? (Exemplars will suffice)
also, does the ghetto crowd really have to "shuffle"? (recognizing that pants sagging fashionably low DO produce a shuffling gait.)
Also, who's gonna hold the mainstream in place while these ghetto folks shuffle over in their direction? I mean, you know, when it was Sidney Poitier exemplifying back in the day - the mainstream went scampering to the sub-urbs in their masses. No sagging, rapping, or other minstrel demons haunting their psyches.
Posted by: cnulan at December 22, 2004 10:52 PMCell-based organizing isn't what ANYONE expects. As I'm thinking about it there are only three communities off the top of my head for whom cell-based work is "natural":
*Terrorists
*Software Programmers
*Pledgees for a variety of "secret societies"
Cell-based stuff isn't "natural" to black people, white people, Latino/as, Japanese, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 23, 2004 12:31 AMMore important, *mainstream*, natural, and ubiquitous than the examples you cited Lester, would be the business cell. In my experience - these work very well on an objective and self-governing basis.
The cell is the only configuration capable of viable and sustainable *work* on a go forward basis. In their own way, terrorists, hackers, and secret societies have demonstrated the inarguable power of cell-based organizing. But these are rather poor examples given the more mainstream example of the business cell.
Cells have tremendous practical advantages. Beginning with their tendency to cohere on the basis of self-managed utility and merit. A cell cannot abide useless eating and oxygen thievery.
Given a sufficient number of cells, and common interests, shared utility becomes the basis for cellular aggregation and growth to scale. Going multi-cellular becomes a matter of necessity.
I guess the primary drawback to cellular organization for strongly identified black folks is that *blackness* doesn't have much value in the broader market. Matter of fact, as widely published, packaged, distributed, and emulated as it has become, one could argue and likely demonstrate that *niggerishness* has greater market value in the American and global cultural *mainstream* than the black cultural sensibility of the old school.....,
Posted by: cnulan at December 23, 2004 09:56 AMMaybe I'm missing the significance of how you'all are using "cell-based," but it seems to me that it *is* a tactic of the oppressed.
Further, I can "see" cell-based organizing principles in the broad challenge: "Think globally; act locally."
What is it that the garden-variety community organizer does? Isn't it a form of "cell-based" activity?
Where are we parting company in this discussion?
Posted by: Ward Bell at December 23, 2004 10:11 AMWard writes the same thing I'm thinking.
Didn't MADD start off cell-based?
And lks, we could do that at the start of the new year.
Posted by: EBrown at December 23, 2004 03:33 PMNulan you're right. The consulting industry is, from my perspective, almost totally cell-driven though the activities of these cells are run by corporate heads.
Ward, the question for me is whether Cosby's travelling road tour is the best catalyst to drive the type of activity that I believe will deal with the problems Cosby identifies. The foundation of the Cosby model (go to a place, rent a room, give the word, leave) is in the Revivalist movement. That movement from my impression was really powerful in generating converts, and in generating short-term interest. But where it was weak was in getting people to organize themselves. The model was not designed with that purpose in mind.
So with that said it doesn't matter whether Cosby is dogging the poor, or giving them praise--if the purpose is to create meaningful practice that will lead to meaningful change.
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 23, 2004 03:40 PMI think you have to look/think of a bigger picture, Lester. Cosby has a role to play and he is well positioned and suited to play his role. Others have differing roles to play. They can riff off Cosby or take it 180 in another direction: it is their role. When that is done, there are still other roles.
To look just at Cosby's roll/role and conclude it is wrong and misguided is a mistake, in my opinion. To see it within a larger mosaic is on point, also in my opinion.
Posted by: Ward Bell at December 23, 2004 08:36 PMWard, what I'm doing is looking at this like a social scientist would. The dependent variable here is "change".
Cosby's model looks something like this:
Constant + Revival show= Change.
That is, a whole lot of other stuff that we can't (or don't) measure PLUS the Cosby road show equals change. From Cosby's point of view...or rather from his BEHAVIOR.
Now SOME would take a kind of MMM approach. If ONE person is reached, and that ONE person changes, then the Million Man March is worth it. A couple of problems here--first because it is difficult to actually document whether this change occurs, it is relatively easy for proponents to say that change is everywhere. The MMM worked and continues to work.
I take a hard lined approach, based on a thought experimental model. That is, I compare Cosby's model to a model like I detailed above, and think about results theoretically. It seems to me that theoretically speaking you'd get a lot more results if you created a foundation of some sort, and sent out a call for proposals. You'd winnow out those who are either not serious, or not capable. You'd save time travelling. You'd cut down on ephemeral media time either defending yourself or advertising for the program.
Looking at this scientifically, of course we can measure right and wrong. Because we can ferret out what is efficient and effective and what is not.
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 23, 2004 08:57 PMProblem is, we are not looking at it scientifically: you are proposing a hypothesis and defending it. Your hypothesis sounds good but until it is tested, replicated, and reviewed it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
My point is that Cosby's actions serve a purpose and don't detract from a solution -- while probably not a solution in and off themselves. It is up to others to pick up the ball and take it to the next hand-off and still others to take it from there.
Might there be other ways (better ways) to leverage the time/money/energy that Cosby and his crew expends? No doubt.
Posted by: Ward Bell at December 24, 2004 11:43 AMAll this chatter about whether macro- or micro-approaches is rather moot, given the original question. Is Cosby's recent activism productive? My first reaction is that it's far too early to measure what impact town hall meetings and other public speaking engagements will have on the target audience. There still remains an element of denial and scapegoating within the Af-Am community at large for the by-products of Cosby's tough love message to have crystallized.
I do not believe it's incumbent upon Cosby to create or underwrite new organizations to inspire a widespread value adjustment amongst Black people. One, it's not like an alphabet soup of socio-economic/cultural self-help groups by us for us don't already exist. Two, I'm not sure exactly how one goes about erecting institutions to modify the private attitudes and value systems of adults. There's plenty of evidence from the erosion of traditional institutions (e.g.; churches, schools) that suggests centralized, top-down approaches fail to address individualized needs.
I've noticed that most of Cosby's audiences have been largely comprised of educated and upwardly-mobile. It's this group -- I'll include myself -- presenting ourselves as concerned parties that are to function as the proverbial 'thousand points of light' for change. Cosby's merely given us our marching orders. A MMM-like event or celebrity-laden franchise like the Promise Keepers really isn't necessary as much as Cosby's endorsement, given how the cult of celebrity functions in our society. IMO Cosby's resources are best invested marketing his message as if it were a pair of Air Jordans.
Posted by: MIB at December 24, 2004 12:52 PMMIB, my comments speak to the heart of the central question--does he help or hurt.
There are issues that I have with your analysis:
*"It's too soon to tell....'
No. We've got a long history of events like these. You are presuming an N of 1. Arguing that this particular event is substantively different from church revivals in general, or even the MMM, that it should be rendered analytically distinct from those other events. Now of course there are some very real differences...but the general model remains the same. Leader speaks, gives word to masses. Masses experience profound spiritual/psychological chance. World (or neighborhoods) change as a result.
The research on the impact of church revivals...and on the impact of charismatic leaders...on the hearts, minds, and asses of people is pretty clear. These things work as a short term fix. Folks feel good about themselves for a week or two, then get back to their former habits. This is 101 stuff I'm talking here.
* Cosby's given us our marching orders.
This is right. But again note that we are basically talking about organizing folks who supposedly can't organize themselves. All sorts of deep theoretical problems here...but that's for people like me to deal with. There are also some practical concerns though. Can you tell me the last time that a group was able to be empowered by having some non-state entity do the heavy lifting? There is a paternalism here that makes it very difficult to organize folks.
Finally you may be right in your critique about centralized bureaucracies, though I do believe that the federal government (a centralized bureaucracy if ever there was one) has been far more effective in protecting our rights than individual state bureaucracies (this is bout to change though). But what I am actually proposing is a market based approach that is centrally distributed. This is something very very different. Business schools have contests all the time to generate innovative business startup ideas. What I am suggesting is the same approach here. Very conservative as I'm thinking about it....
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 24, 2004 05:01 PMhmmm.....,
guardianship as commerce...,
cult of personality, brand marketing, resucitating the deceased guardian syndrome which formerly dwelt in once vital though now terminally dis-eased black communities......,
who will value that? why?
most important, who will pay?
Posted by: cnulan at December 24, 2004 06:58 PMWith groups already in place helping out, I don't think the current efforts are helping. More should be placed on getting others to help out and showing groups that are doing just that.
While I don't think it's quite applicable to Cosby given his philanthropy, I agree with much of what you say. That's why our moderate to conservative website regularly emphasizes the positive, as well as our communities' challenges. I'm not surprised that neither the NAACP nor Project 21 responded to your letter though.
Posted by: molotov at December 21, 2004 08:29 PM