Based on a ""conversation" I've gotten myself into on LaShawn's blog, I've noticed a continuing trend that I find fascinating.
"Liberals" call me "conservative".
"Conservatives" call me "liberal".
Define "liberal" or/and "conservative" and then define why I'm classified as such.
I can't, and don't, classify myself. I know most people won't even agree on the definitions of both labels when hard pressed.
I wouldn't put Jesse Lee Peterson and Michael Steele in the same category although they are both conservative Republicans.
And my approach to dealing with both would be radically different.
So, in that case, it wouldn't save time. In fact, since Steele is a strong supporter of Black businesses and Peterson believes the idea of a "Black" business is defeating, I suspect that Black business owners would have to address each man differently.
For example, Steele would address a Black business group and be receptive. Peterson would most likely lecture the business owners on labeling themselves as Black.
Posted by: EBrown at March 9, 2005 11:44 PMthe title of the book on lashawn's post was (i believe) DIMENSIONS OF BLACK CONSERVATISM. Black conservatism, like other black political ideologies (nationalism for example) has a number of different dimensions. you've got your color conscious conservatives like booker t, and your colorblind conservatives like thomas sowell. just like you've got your cultural nationalists like karenga and your revolutionary nationalists like the panthers pre-1968.
so of course if you are looking WITHIN the group you are going to find a great deal of variance. but there is enough agreement between them that when you look at them compared against another group, they will be more alike than different.
Posted by: Lester Spence at March 9, 2005 11:59 PM"Liberals" call me "conservative"."Conservatives" call me "liberal".
Define "liberal" or/and "conservative" and then define why I'm classified as such.
Except that the variance comes into play in the public and private conversations within the larger group of Blacks.
If I'm met by a steady stream of Jesse Lee Petersons, the first time I meet a Cobb or Michael Steele, I'm going to give them hell.
Then, they can turn around, "rightfully" and state asinine stuff because they may have been meeting people who first dealt with people like Peterson.
And seeing the within group battle of Black conservatives was a trip unto itself.
Check out C. D. Ellison's reply to a David Horowitz article.
Ellison and I did some little battles but found a lot of common ground. Ellison and Roderick Conrad were members of Project 21 who founded the defunct web site Politically Black.
Conrad and I had a quick battle, found common ground and moved on from there.
To advance my goals, I could work with Steele, or Ellison or Conrad.
I doubt seriously if Jesse Lee Peterson and I could find common ground. IMO, calling Peterson intellectually lazy would be giving him too much credit.
I doubt I could advance my goals working with Peterson. And if I could, I wouldn't do it because of the garbage that comes out of his mouth.
I guess I'm saying by applying the quick label, I would probably do someone injustice.
Cobb and Peterson in the same mix?
Hell no.
Posted by: EBrown at March 10, 2005 12:21 AMYou remember how I described you on Afroam by comparing your positions there to those you took on SCAA? That you go after what you feel is the greater threat to Black folks...on SCAA, the D'Souza types, on Afroam the too uncritically accepting of Black essentialism.
Yep. I remember.
And I just find it more interesting that those who are claiming to support individual thought, are the ones slapping on the labels to discuss topics in a "group like" way vs. individual way.
Posted by: EBrown at March 10, 2005 12:24 AMI'm with Lester. Those who want to shirk labels are labelled "anti-label." It's really mostly a question of accuracy/degree.
It's no tale out of school to suggest that left-right is more a spectrum, a continuum, than a zero-one, on-off setup. But I can't imagine there's anyone who falls exactly down the middle.
Look at the traditional/mainstraim positions that either side takes on any number of hot-button issues. Abortion. Affirmative Action. Gay Rights. Unions. There's, like, a gajillion you can go over. You may be nearly indifferent to some, so they may not have equal weighting, but surely you'll have some affinity for one side or the other for the vast majority. Now, on which side do the bulk of your views lie? There you go.
Assuming all sides want the same effects, namely, to each according to ablilty and ambition (the fabled meritocracy), I see it as a question of emphasis; which general approach to things makes the most sense given your life experience/outlook?
But does a desire to protect the sheep mean you can't ever root for a sexy wolf? Does the desire to put limits on a wolf mean you don't ever prod the sheep? Does the fact that your name is Joe Lieberman mean you can't push for a phase out of Affirmative Action? No, it doesn't.
Posted by: memer at March 10, 2005 01:29 AMI cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiately cllaed Typoglycemia :)-
Amzanig huh? Yaeh and yuo awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.
So, the brief demonstration above shows the power of the mechanism the *bot* to impose order, and, its predisposition to extract meaning based on strictly mechanical criteria.
NOW
Extrapolate this to labels and reflect on the profoundly debilitating effect of the label as *bot* to absolutely derail clarity of thought.
Not only is the label anti-intellectual, it is a mechanical shortcut to what should ultimately be a conscious engagement with issues.
It's not "liberal", "conservative", "democrat", or "republican" that every matters. All that matters are underlying issues and YOUR capacity to engage with issues consciously.
Labels are antithetical to conscious engagement. Where there is labelling, there also you will find dangerous and mechanical lack of conscious engagement.
I agree with you cnulan, if you’re talking about one who stops at the label. A label, if it is at all accurate, is a starting point. If you’re a true explorer, heading out in a general direction, there’s nothing wrong with taking the occasional shortcut. But if you’ve already predetermined the exact, final destination, that is intellectual laziness. That’s not intellectually honest exploration. You’re not even a tourist. Just an impatient, backseat are-we-there-yetter.
Another way to look at it might be to say that a label’s a hypothesis in an experiment. A guess or sneaking suspicion. But you must be open to being wrong. Can’t twist the evidence to “prove” your theory.
Posted by: memer at March 10, 2005 11:37 AMI agree with you cnulan
Nah memer...,
*bot's* got no spot on Buck's wagon...,
Posted by: cnulan at March 10, 2005 02:21 PM
It's not "liberal", "conservative", "democrat", or "republican" that every matters. All that matters are underlying issues and YOUR capacity to engage with issues consciously.
This is right. But without a sorting process to determine what policies should be thought about judiciously, what should be discarded out of hand, and what should be embraced, then we run the risk of wasting precious energy that we don't have. Again labeling works here. All I need to know about the Bush SS program is that it is BUSH'S program. I'm against it.
Now of course if you press ME I can give you more details...but the regular information starved democrat leaning citizen doesn't actually NEED to know more. By knowing that it is BUsh's policy, and that Bush's policies tend to hurt working class people in general, you can make a solid decision on a little bit of information.
There are occasions when you have to discard the labeling process to deal with individual that don't fit...or with new issues. But why consciously engage any policy that Jesse Petersen (whoever he is--I trust Ed's judgment here) supports?
Posted by: Lester Spence at March 10, 2005 05:12 PMThass iite, C. I know a shortcut ;-)
We'll rendezvous in the Promised Land, yo.
Posted by: memer at March 10, 2005 06:06 PMThere are occasions when you have to discard the labeling process to deal with individual that don't fit...
Hmmm...labelling process...
Perhaps we're really talking more about when you apply a label. For example, I'd place a small wager that cnulan prolly already has a nice, juicy label ready to affix to my forehead. But he (?) don't even know me (yet).
But you can't tell me it doesn't make sense to slap a label on something/someone you've been paying close attention to for a long time. In that case you either stoopid or wildly indecisive.
Labels are often handy when you absolutely, positively need to make a snap judgement. But if the jury's still out on a wide range of things, don't rely on it.
Might miss out on those Conservatives who are pro-choice, or the Liberals who are anti-Affirmative Action.
Posted by: memer at March 10, 2005 06:23 PMNow of course if you press ME I can give you more details...but the regular information starved democrat leaning citizen doesn't actually NEED to know more. By knowing that it is BUsh's policy, and that Bush's policies tend to hurt working class people in general, you can make a solid decision on a little bit of information.
Splain to me again what happened to the huge chunk of the 50 Million working poor white red-staters who failed to realize that Bushco's boot is so far up their asses that their entire sense of taste should be overwhelmed by the flavor of shit and shoe?
There's something else to consider here Spence, namely, that Bush isn't a label. He's an embodiment of a world-view with which many folks in the oppositional camp have had detailed experience transcending the limitations of the intellect. Those again him know he's foul. Those for him believe he's the man in the mirror.
Policy insanity aside, you and I can read between the lines of his body language, his facial expressions, and his speech impediments to *know* on an entirely different plane that what's up with him is not good for us. Other folks read that same gestural signature and put so much stock by it that their policy filtering intellect seems to totally shut down immersing them in the shit and shoe experience...,
It's a cognitive conundrum man, and I think that in the thick of a propaganda war as intense as the one we find ourselves in, we need to be rather more exacting than we heretofore have been - as a matter of political expedience.
Posted by: cnulan at March 10, 2005 06:23 PMI'd place a small wager that cnulan prolly already has a nice, juicy label ready to affix to my forehead. But he (?) don't even know me (yet).
like a splinter in your mind....,
Well eBrown(DarkStar?), if you are called a liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals, maybe it's because you enjoy a good debate.
I know at La Shawn's conservative site, I consider you a liberal because you seem to disagree, or take a questioning stance, in almost all of your comments in response to conservative posts or conservative comments.
If you take an opposite view point stance on liberal sites, then a liberal reader there would consider you conservative.
I don't know if this take on you is even close, but people tend to organize things in the brains filing cabinet(we can't help it, it's natural) using the old adage "if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck....."
BTW, I enjoy your articulate comments at La Shawns site and now here on own posts. You're now on my list of blogs to read. This is not a threat. :)
Posted by: Jim R at March 14, 2005 09:09 AMmaybe it's because you enjoy a good debate.
Guilty.
But what drives me more is lazy logic and what happens more and more today is lazy logic in place of any thought.
It's really maddening when some of those who decry the lack of critical thought then turn around and give a clear display what that lack of critical thought is all about.
we've talked about this before. rather than being "lazy thinking" this is actually efficient and quite effective. there are occasions when we need to differentiate between cherry red and scarlet and burnt sienna. but for the most part "red" will do. it literally saves energy that the brain can use for other functions. for some functions we'd want to differentiate between dells, ibms, and gateways. but for the most part "pc clones" or even just "pcs" will do.
the same thing works with political ideology. i can predict with damn near 99% accuracy what conservatives EN MASSE agree on. And in the case of an individual like LaShawn, I'd have the same degree of accuracy. These labels WORK. Just because they don't work for YOU don't mean they don't work for everyone else as far as predictive capacity goes.
Put it another way. I don't read LaShawn's blog. But I did this once because you linked to it. I could predict every position LaShawn took. Every single one. And once I determined which posters supported LaShawn and which ones didn't, I could predict their positions as well.
If it saves time, is highly predictive, then what is the problem?
Posted by: Lester Spence at March 9, 2005 10:52 PM