The city of Newark, New Jersey just elected its first new mayor in 20 years. Known for its high rate of violent crime, Newark suffered a nasty campaign between golden boy Cory Booker and the candidate anointed by outgoing mayor Sharpe James.
 |
|
Hizzoner Booker T. Coryngton |
Cory Booker swamped his nearest challenger, state Sen. Ronald L. Rice, taking 72 percent of the vote compared with 24 percent for Rice in the nonpartisan election. [Link]Mr. Booker, a chatty former Rhodes scholar who developed his oratorical talents at Yale Law School, has been tagged by fellow Democrats as a rising star in the party. [Link]
Booker is a vegetarian who doesn’t drink… [Link]
… a Democrat who cites the Republican mayor of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg, as a political model, and a churchgoing Baptist who meditates and quotes from Hindu texts… [Link – thanks, Randompedia]
<
p>
Booker won by a landslide, but the campaign was marred by naked racial gibes from his black opponents. Red in tooth and claw, the ‘insufficiently black’ smear sounds a whole lot like desi racialists who question candidates’ authenticity (e.g. Bobby Jindal) and lob the grenade of Selling Out.
Booker is talking about the blacker-than-thou themes that James has been hammering on for weeks… “Sharpe James is running a campaign that uses every attempt possible to distract voters from the issues. He’s making racial allegations; he’s appealing to people’s worst fears…
“Four years ago, they said I was a tool of the Jews and a member of the KKK.” [Link]
… the battle pits the young challenger against an old-style political machine capable of using any means necessary–including personal harassment and police intimidation–to crush its opponents. Though both candidates are African-American, the race becomes racially charged when the mayor accuses Booker–a Rhodes scholar and Yale Law School grad–of not being “really black…” [Link]
… Sharpe James described him — though they are both African-American Democrats — as Jewish, gay, a Republican and a proxy for the Ku Klux Klan… At Oxford, after wandering into a meeting of L’Chaim, a Jewish student organization, he joined the group and was eventually elected its president…
He was a vegetarian in a city where the insiders still made deals over smothered chicken at Je’s, a soul food restaurant near City Hall. “He doesn’t want to create himself just in the mold of a black politician… He wants to be someone that white people, Latino people, who other people just feel comfortable with.” [Link]
<
p>I don’t think it’s how future desi vs. desi campaigns in the U.S. will inevitably turn out, but it is a cheap and easy insult in a mud-slinging campaign. It certainly shows the crude racial smears in white vs. desi political campaigns in a whole new light.
In the end, the electorate grew tired of James’ machine politics, and the better candidate won. You win it, you fix it: let’s hope Booker is a better mandarin than dull Sharpe.
Outside one polling place… a Democratic district leader said he had just voted for Mr. Booker because he was sick and tired of all the crime in Newark. “There are prostitutes on my street corner and I call the police and nothing ever gets done.” [Link]
Someone else:
Thanks, man. You’re always there to back up my Cheap Desi Ass.
Then, Cheap Ass Desi declared me a racist for partially blaming blacks their own plight (#34); much like has been done to Booker, Cosby, and Rice.
Seriously, dude, you’re walking evidence that Bill Cosby was probably wrong and it has consequences what you say in front of people not from your ethnic community. You don’t sound like a mean-spirited person, but your views come across as profoundly racist.
You also come across as extremely ideologically selective–why do you only critique people you perceive to be on the left who are dogmatic about policy and use race politics as a lever? And what about your own choice to play the victim after presenting views that are, at minimum, controversial?
Thanks, man. You’re always there to back up my Cheap Desi Ass.
it’s all for the revolution 🙂
Manju:
To make it easier for you, here is a cogent summary, verbatim, of what you have posted:
Here’s hoping Indians in the US don’t put on the same racist and ideological blinders that our black brothers and sisters have…which certainly doesn’t explain why they find themselves so down and out; but at least partialy explains why they haven’t gotten up.
My apologies for not making it clear that when I referred to the “racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on”, I was not talking about ALL Blacks, just some like Sharpe James and the anonymous author of this article: http://www.blackcommentator.com/poisoned_tree.html . I was not careful to make this distinction, in part because being racist or ideological is hardly a stereotype of blacks in this country, although the same cannot be said of white southerners or conservatives in general.
Then, Cheap Ass Desi declared me a racist for partially blaming blacks their own plight (#34); much like has been done to Booker, Cosby, and Rice. So I grandiously compared myself to them, as I don’t know of any specific example of M.Singh facing such criticisms.
Look closely at what you have written. VERY CLOSELY.
Don’t play the victim.
In addition, someone else nailed it:
why do you only critique people you perceive to be on the left who are dogmatic about policy and use race politics as a lever?
Supposedly, only those on the “left” are ideological and dogmatic. No, no, you’re right: what you have to say is FAR from being ideological:
While much of the world (eastern Europe, china, etc) works to unshackle themselves from outdated and repressive economic systems that keep people in poverty, hereÂ’s hoping Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom—without being called traitors to our people.
While we would all love to believe that those who disagree with us are simply racists or Uncle Toms (this way we do not have to address their arguments);
Hmmm…I have addressed your arguments, USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.
Manju, take your own advice: such blinders only serve to keep our people in bondage.
Or, keep those blinders firmly on and dig away!
Someone else:
it’s all for the revolution 🙂
They may kill the revolutionary, but never the revolution.
–Comrade Cheap Ass Desi
“The Revolution will not be televised. The Revolution will be no rerun, brothers. The Revolution– will be live.”
-Gil Scott-Heron
” Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. They proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
–Mahatma Marx
” Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
–Mahatma Marx
Seriously, dude, you’re walking evidence that Bill Cosby was probably wrong and it has consequences what you say in front of people not from your ethnic community. You don’t sound like a mean-spirited person, but your views come across as profoundly racist.
Did you ever think that NOT (at least partially) blaming blacks for their own plight constitutes the true, if subconcious, racist position. Are we not infanitilizing blacks by denying them the power of responsibility–a power we generally accept for others? I’m not accusing you of anything, just posing a question. Your’re very quick to use the racist label but perhaps it time you looked into the mirror.
You also come across as extremely ideologically selective–why do you only critique people you perceive to be on the left who are dogmatic about policy and use race politics as a lever?
Because we were talking within the context of Newark, where the left holds power and uses race to continue to oppress their own people. But to be fair, this can apply to the right. I’ve heard grumblings among free market desis that those who oppose outsourcing are anti-Indian bigots. This is really unfair. I’m all for outsourcing of jobs but we must acknowledge that those who are more protectionist (like Sen Kennedy) may be motivated by other values (like being pro-union) and don’t deserve the label of “racist.”
And what about your own choice to play the victim after presenting views that are, at minimum, controversial?
Not sure what you’re talking about here. I don’t see myself as a victim at all. In fact I’ve done the opposite of playing the victim by by taking full responsibility and apologizing to CJ for not making it clear that when I referred to the “racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on”, I was talking of some, not all, blacks. I was not careful to use the qualifier “some”, in part because being racist or ideological is hardly a stereotype of blacks (as far as I know) and b/c we were clearly talking within the context of Cory Booker, a brilliant and well intentioned young man who had to endure some of the vilest and ugliest racist mudslinging I can remember, all because he dared to challenge the corrupt Democratic machine in Newark with some vaguely free market policies.
Cheap Ass Desi:
I see you’ve read Marx. I have too. Like you, I didn’t study engineering or medicine (I studied philosophy) but unlike you I don’t see myself as a victim because of it (“imagine how I feel;” you say. Oh boo hoo hoo, you’re quite the oppressed minority for being stereotyped as smart, rich, and upwardly mobile.
But seriously, Marx is a great thinker but is also the poster boy for ideological thinking. Marx believed class interest was a determining factor, much like the way many treat race today. Thus Marxists never had to address the actual argument their opposition made, since the believed the opposition was merely motivated by their own class interest, and this partially explains how the philosophy descended into one of the worlds great madness’—rivaled only by Fascism.
Thus Marxists would look at John Locke–who advocated liberal democracy and Capitalism by pointing out that freedom is the central characteristic of a state of nature–and claim that he is not making a genuine argument, but rather creating a false system of thought that merely advocates values convenient to his own social class: the rising bourgeoisie. Thus Locke was dismissed.
Well, after all these years we’ve seen the consequences of such ideological thinking. We now know Stalin and Mao separately killed more than Hitler. CAD, there were real victims to this philosophy you so cavalierly quote. Perhaps after you’ve read the Black Book of Communism we can work together to free the real oppressed on this earth, like the people in Cuba and N. Korea.
Till then, remember, Marxism is a dangerous philosophy…and children shouldnÂ’t play with fire.
I feel bad about dropping the kooky black commentator link..(1) cuz he’s a kook (2) because it was written for the 2002 matchup of Booker v. James (but I felt that the same smears/accusations were lingering against Booker this time around with his toothless opponent) and (3) because it turned this post into the same boring, non-edifying thread with the Dinesh D’Souza and Vijay Prasad clones.
Sirc:
Sorry to bore you. Political philosphy is not for everyone. Nonethelss, thanks for the link, although it is just one of many examples.
–Dinesh D’Souza Clone
Manju:
I see you’ve read Marx. I have too.
Oh, please. Give me a fucking break. My “revolution” posts weren’t meant to impress you nor to illustrate that I’ve read Marx. They were written in response to “someone else” and DJ Drrrrrty Poonjabi.
Not every single one of my comments is directed towards you, nor is it for your eyes only. Especially since I have nothing else left to say to you.
Manju writes:
I think the correct term is Gandian Socialism (Nehru borrowed almost entirely from him and added some of his own ideas). Incidentally, MartinLutherKing Jr was a Gandhian socialist whose economic views were much more to the left.
The reason Indians could break away from this was that from the very begining there was strong resistance to Gandhi/Nehru. It took forty+ years for this resistance to translate into economic change, but it happened eventually. I think the trouble with the situation with African Americans is that there was absolutely no black resistance to MLK during the civil rights era. No black chose to challenge him on his economic views. Eventually he was assasinated and it became taboo to discuss any of his shortcomings. Morevoer, the culture of debate/argument was not as deeply ingrained in AA’s as it was in Indians. Hence, to this day, free-market blacks who advocate taking personal responsibility face an uphill battle from black leftists who peddle victimhood and advocate Government coddling.
Free-market Indians should take the trouble to reach out to those blacks.
M. Nam
Did you ever think that NOT (at least partially) blaming blacks for their own plight constitutes the true, if subconcious, racist position. Are we not infanitilizing blacks by denying them the power of responsibility–a power we generally accept for others? I’m not accusing you of anything, just posing a question. Your’re very quick to use the racist label but perhaps it time you looked into the mirror.
So you’re not accusing me of anything, but want me to look in the mirror? This might blow your mind: It’s racist both to be paternalistic and to “(at least partially) [blame] black for their own plight.” I reluctantly and freqently look at my own attitudes on race–it’s not that much fun and can be uncomfortable; wish you would do the same, as CAD suggested.
Because we were talking within the context of Newark, where the left holds power and uses race to continue to oppress their own people. But to be fair, this can apply to the right. I’ve heard grumblings among free market desis that those who oppose outsourcing are anti-Indian bigots. This is really unfair. I’m all for outsourcing of jobs but we must acknowledge that those who are more protectionist (like Sen Kennedy) may be motivated by other values (like being pro-union) and don’t deserve the label of “racist.”
So Sharpe James is “the left”? And he’s using “race” to oppress people in Newark? Here’s a more reasonable explanation that gets rid of this cant: Sharpe James is a one-party ruler (in his fiefdom) who prizes personal power who uses any tool available to him to stifle opposition. Again, be honest and just oppose people who do things like this. That, to me, is what leftism is–power to the people! 🙂
🙂
Interestingly, a misquote of Emma. She was still brilliant, though.
M. Nam:
Very interesting take. I thing the major difference between Gandhi and Nehru was that Gandhi’s version of socialism was more communal/agrarian; while Nehru believed in industrialization. Nehru, like many leftist thinkers at the time believed socialism could out produce capitalism. After this did not bear out, socialists fell back on the argument that socialism was simply more just…which did not bear out either.
I think the trouble with the situation with African Americans is that there was absolutely no black resistance to MLK during the civil rights era.
True enough. But sadly the major exception was a hate group called the Nation of Islam, a group that continues to get some sympathy form the American political right (Jack Kemp, in particular) b/c of their free-will/ personal responsibility beliefs. Sadly, their 2nd in command at the time, Malcolm X, was a famous non-ideological thinker, who challenged his own hatred only to pay a heavy price. One wonders if he were alive today, whether he’d be open to a free market solution to black inequality here in the US.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
(“imagine how I feel;” you say. Oh boo hoo hoo, you’re quite the oppressed minority for being stereotyped as .
This is what I had written in comment #43:
In the above comment, where I say, “imagine how I feel”, I now realize that was a poor choice of phrase and requires an explanation. What I mean is that there is this stereotype about Indian Americans being of a certain cut, ie. we are all upper/upper- middle class, doctors and engineers, super nerd geeks, and so on, but when I get questions like this from others, I always get the urge to break it down for them: not all of the Indian American community is rich, not all are doctors and engineers, etc. There is diversity also within the Indian AMerican community, similar to how CJ pointed out that there is diversity in the African American community as well (in every community, for that matter).
I had anticipated the possibility that there might be a misinterpretation, and so I took the initiative to explain myself. I had meant that the Indian American community is not homogenous, and that there are real differenes within our community that do not conveniently fit the stereotype that one has about the community; differences that discredit the assumptions of Indians being “smart, rich, and upwardly mobile”.
Please read all comments before responding.
And now I have nothing else to say to you.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
(“imagine how I feel;” you say. Oh boo hoo hoo, you’re quite the oppressed minority for being stereotyped as smart, rich, and upwardly mobile.
This is what I had written in comment #43:
In the above comment, where I say, “imagine how I feel”, I now realize that was a poor choice of phrase and requires an explanation. What I mean is that there is this stereotype about Indian Americans being of a certain cut, ie. we are all upper/upper- middle class, doctors and engineers, super nerd geeks, and so on, but when I get questions like this from others, I always get the urge to break it down for them: not all of the Indian American community is rich, not all are doctors and engineers, etc. There is diversity also within the Indian AMerican community, similar to how CJ pointed out that there is diversity in the African American community as well (in every community, for that matter).
I had anticipated the possibility that there might be a misinterpretation, and so I took the initiative to explain myself. I had meant that the Indian American community is not homogenous, and that there are real differenes within our community that do not conveniently fit the stereotype that one has about the community; differences that discredit the assumptions of Indians being “smart, rich, and upwardly mobile”.
Please read all comments before responding.
And now I have nothing else to say to you.
Someone else:
It’s racist both to be paternalistic and to “(at least partially) [blame] black for their own plight.
I guess this is the crux of the matter. I simply do not accept this premise. We’ll have to agree to disagree. BTW, wouldn’t “paternalistic” describe your position more than mine…after all, children are the one group all of us do not hold responsible for their own plight.
And yes, sharpe james is “left”…as is Fidel, Stalin, etc. One of the major structural criticisms of socialism is that it creates a system vulnerable to corrption, since economic power is consolidated within the state. Isn’t this what happenned to socialist India too, after all?
someone else:
It’s racist both to be paternalistic and to “(at least partially) [blame] black for their own plight
I think I misinterpreted your comment. I see now that you were (kinda) calling your own position paternalistic. But you don’t leave much room for someone to be non-racist. I just think, in the name of free thought, we have to stop with this expansive definition of racism.
Really, there is no reason for all of us to “reluctantly and freqently look at my own attitudes on race”, as you say. I mean, just chill. How many people really think others are inferior by virtue of the color of their skin. So, someone generalizes or paternalizes, or blames every once in a while…is it really such a big deal.
You did misinterpret my comment to some extent–both times. I was calling the position that you attributed to me paternalistic–to what extent this reflects my actual thinking is something I have to think about. But I was also acknowledging that, in general, my own attitudes towards race and a variety of other topics need work.
Given that you’ve already signaled a fair amount of prejudice in your comments above–whether you meant to or not–you might also want to think about it as well. Free thought is great, but “Free thought” is not; I wish you would engage in the former, rather than using the idea to mask a desire not to deal with complex issues like race, economics, and social change, which is what I think you’re doing. To be quite honest, your ideas come across as simplistic free-market ideology with certain racist tendencies.
And yes, sharpe james is “left”…as is Fidel, Stalin, etc. One of the major structural criticisms of socialism is that it creates a system vulnerable to corrption, since economic power is consolidated within the state. Isn’t this what happenned to socialist India too, after all?
The premise of your argument is that many socialist states are vulnerable to corruption because of the consolidation of economic power. This is a fine argument to make, but it’s not really all that relevant to Newark–Sharpe James was not running a socialist state. As far as I know, he ran a corrupt party machine under the auspices of the Democratic party (which is far from socialist) and controlled Newark.
More to the point, your argument is tautological–if it’s socialist or communist, it must be corrupt and one-party rule; if it’s corrupt and one-party rule, it must be socalist or communist. The words you’re looking for are “statist” or “authoritarian” or “fascistic”, not “left” and even there you would have to justify a higher incidence of corruption.
There are many, many instances in which economic, social, and political power are consolidated within a political structure without tolerance of dissenting views and not all of them are run by people who are nominally communist or socialist. Unless Louis the XIV and the Nazis were communists.
As a result, your injection of “free market” worship into this conversation is, at best, ideological. At worst, it’s red-baiting. Either way, it’s unfair and, more to the point, irrelevant and detracts from the actual point at hand.
Someone else:
sigh…Let Senator Manju McCarthy be. She is set in her ways. It is hopeless. She’s got those blinders firmly in place, and it seems as if it will be impossible to get those damn things off.
Not that this should be an impediment to engaging in a debate. But judging from Senator Manju McCarthy’s comments, it seems as if it is useless to proceed any further because she insists on seeing the world as simply “communists/socialists/leftists” (read: “outdated”, “repressive” murderers, bad people and systems in general vs “free-market capitalists” (read: progressive, benevolent, good system). This method prohibits her from going beyond these ideological labels. Or maybe it is a convenient method to effectively sidestep issues. Look at how she responds to your comments:
See? She writes controversial, simplistic, and provocative comments and then tells you to just chill and relax.
At the risk of starting a conversation about someone in the room, I don’t think she’s as far gone as you think and, to be frank, I find it all very interesting. She sounds very conflicted.
Someone else:
Thank you for replying. Glad to see you’re still open to debate, as opposed to Chairman CAD (his terminology, not mine—I have no interest in falsely labeling anyone a Communist). At the end of the day, this thread was about Newark’s Democratic Machine labeling Cory Booker a racist (among other things) in an attempt to evade discussing real issues facing the community (and, of course, to stay in power). I believe, to a lesser degree, you were attempting to do the same (minus the power stuff) by labeling me a racist.
I then attempted to turn the tables on you by pointing out that your position could also be construed as racist—albeit in a more patronizing form (as in the concept of White Man’s Burden, or in our case, Brown Man’s)—not because I actually believed you are one (I don’t), but rather to expose how slippery the slope of your argument could prove to be. Obviously, your position could be explained by many factors beyond paternalistic racism, such as an awareness of historical oppression or a philosophical predisposition toward social and/or economic determinism, as opposed to the doctrine of individual free will. (I wonder if you can see that such alternatives also exist within those who oppose your view).
You then surprised me by (kinda, somewhat) conceding that it was at least within realm of possibility that you were motivated by a (subconscious) form of racism. I know these small concessions are not easy to make and I really appreciate the honesty, as it shows a genuine desire to be intellectually consistent.
But of course, this was not my intention. Rather, I think the label of racist has become so commonplace that we risk entering an era of racial McCarthyism, where one sees racists under every rock, much the way ‘ol Joe saw Communists everywhere. This is not to say that racism—like Communism, or for that matter Fascism (I know how you hate it when I selectively pick on only left wing totalitarianism)—is not one of historyÂ’s great evils that has resulted in millions upon millions of people denied the right to pursue happiness (or for that matter, the right to life) and thus should be eradicated; its just that I donÂ’t think expanding the definition of racism to include virtually everyone (including you and I) helps in the eradication process. McCarthyism dramatically set back the great cause of Anti-Communism, and I think its racial stepsister may do the same for the civil rights movement—which in my opinion should not end until Blacks have at least achieved economic parity with whites (and then perhaps AmericaÂ’s original sin will have been redeemed).
To that end, all free marketers, with our emphasis on entrepreneurship, school choice, micro loans, free enterprise zones, etc have a lot to add to the conversation. I’ll leave the right vs. left; liberal vs. statist debate for another round but I guess, as I said before, if you believe its defacto racist to only partially “blame blacks for their own plight” there is not much room for conversation. But don’t worry, I’m not offended nor will I “play the victim” as you say. These charges are so common they don’t really have much sway outside a community of like-minded people; and I guess—in a way—this is my whole point.
Manju, I am open to debate as long as it’s fair, and I talk to people who argue similar points as you do on a regular basis and am perfectly capable of understanding the differences between overt bigotry, structural racism, subconcsious prejudice and other notions. I agree that these things often get unusefully subsumed under one label “racist.”
However, I still contend that your arguments–which imo were predominantly about advancing a free-market economic agenda–used race in a somewhat unseemly way. They didn’t draw the same distinctions that I did above to the different types of ways in which race can be counterproductively used in scoiety. Your use of the discourse of “blame,” the reluctance to address race seriously as a social phenomenon (“So, someone generalizes or paternalizes, or blames every once in a while…is it really such a big deal.”), and the belief that free-market economics can somehow be devoid of social context are all problematic to me, particularly since you started this conversation in a fairly unnuanced way (attributing “racist and ideological blinders” to “[Black] people” and saying that this was partly responsible for their “plight” (by which I assume you mean their socio-economic situation)).
What I am left believing is that you either don’t really grasp race as a concept or are being somewhat disingenous; and to this extent, your arguments perpetuate some problematic ideas around race and economics in the Untied States (and presumably other places).
The problem is that you didn’t leave it for another round. You chose to talk about in racial terms with a dose of anti-Communist propaganda injected. And this is what got you in trouble…at least with me.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
I am a she, not a he. And I’m not open to debate with you anymore, because all you do is throw labels and reified political ideologies that are suspiciously too simplistic and clean cut. In my earlier posts, I cut and pasted the very exact things you had said in order to make you see and think about what kind of arguments you were making. Ironically, you accuse people of the being the very things that come across in your own opinions. If you do not realize what you are saying– which is the first step in engaging in any sort of debate or exchange–then it is not my job to break it down to you, and I certainly don’t want to waste my time engaging with someone who doesn’t want to see beyond their own lens. If you can’t move beyond that first point, then there is no use in me continuing to write comments addressed to you.
You call this a “debate”, but it is actually just you having a one way conversation, in that you are continuing with your own stream of opinions without really digesting what the other person is saying. You are responding to what others are saying by simply throwing rigid conceptions and definitions at them– rigid conceptions and definitions formulated in your own mind, of course. This is a method of discounting what others are saying and finding a convenient way so as to brush off the issues that the person is raising.
Have a little bit of imagination, instead of falling back on terms like “free market”, “racism”,”communisim” and “totalitarianism”, etc and give a little more substance when you respond to someone else.
I swear this is the last comment; especially since I’ve been told in the other forum that I’ve posted too many comments.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
Judging from your comments, a question came to my mind: you’re not from the Reagan era, are you? All this talk about Communism/the Evil Empire vs. Capitalism/freedom/justice eerily reminds me of the Cold War years. Your views are suspiciously identical to Reagan’s speeches.Did you grow up during Reagan’s heyday?
Pay no mind to the haters; I, for one, find your logorrheic ramblings to be quite entertaining. @=)
CAD,
Pay no mind to back-handed compliments either. Your politics seem to be solid (i.e. well thought out), and if people mistake your energetic articulation for youthful naivite, forget ’em. I’ve felt on numerous occasions that I’m overstepping boundaries with my comments, and I’m sure that others feel this way as well, but it’s difficult to judge because these boundaries are undefined. But in the end it’s the bloggers’ space, and they define the boundaries, and I appreciate the fact that for the most part they leave them so wide open. We are all guests here, in the end, and if our hosts want us gone I imagine they’ll let us know. From what I can tell, none of them has asked you to leave, so keep it up!
MV:
(Psst…problem is, I’m too sensitive :))
Last,the ultimate last last comment.
CAD:
You write:
“And I’m not open to debate with you anymore” “there is no use in me continuing to write comments addressed to you.” “I have nothing else left to say to you” “And now I have nothing else to say to you.”
Your closed-mindedness saddens me, especially since one of the major themes of this thread is the Newark Democratic MachineÂ’s attempt to shut of debate w/ Mr. Booker.
You write:
“all you do is throw labels”
This is rank hypocrisy. YouÂ’ve labeled me a racist, an ideologue (“congratulations, you’ve already got them [racist and ideological blinders] on,”) and a McCarthyist (“sigh…Let Senator Manju McCarthy be”). I have not done this to you. I saved my labels for the true villain of this story (Sharpe James) and his poor followers—I mean youÂ’d have to have serious blinders on to really believe Cory Booker is member of the KKK.
You write:
“You call this a “debate”, but it is actually just you having a one way conversation, in that you are continuing with your own stream of opinions without really digesting what the other person is saying.”
Really? May I refer you to my original exchange with CJ. She took me to task for my “racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on” comment and I responded by apologizing and clarifying (“ My apologies for not making it clearÂ…).
She, being apparently very open minded, accepted this and wrote:
“okay, Manju, your explanation leads me to relinquish my soapbox, strictly economically speaking, i won’t disagree and i definately hear you on your last paragraph.”
Even someone else weighed in with:
“I don’t think she’s as far gone as you think and, to be frank, I find it all very interesting. She sounds very conflicted.”
CAD, if you bother to read my entries you will see many other examples of me acknowledging the criticisms of others (#75: “I know how you hate it when I selectively pick on only left wing totalitarianism”) but I wonder if the same can be said of you? Can YOU see beyond your own lens, as you say, or is this just a weapon you use against others? I haven’t seen this in you yet, but I could be wrong…so I’m open to examples if you have any.
CAD, I really hope you read this even if you don’t leave any more comments. Don’t be cheap with your love–we need you girl!
Even if you take a break. Even if you leave for years. We really really really need more people like you in the internets world.
And the times, they are a’ changin! Don’t miss the boat–drop me a line 🙂
Manju: I said I wasn’t going to waste my time over exchanging comments with you, but here we go.
There are people, incidentally, who have good cause to also argue that globalization and free trade, the supposed “enlightened path of economic liberalization” has rapidly increased the inequalities and caused the economic situation to deterioate even further. This is not because Indians are stupid, ignorant “leftists”. It’s too easy to denigrate diverse groups’ and their ideas with simple, thoughtless charges.
Your visions of “Indians in the US” and “our black brothers and sisters” are ignorant and bland. Did you ever imagine that there is diversity within our community? In the Black community? In any community, for that matter? And for all of your homogenizing ideologies, that there are differences even in singular political-economic systems? Is Communism everywhere the same? In every part of the world, stretching from Italy to Yemen to China? Korea to Cuba? Even with all of your sweeping generalizations about capitalism, there are various shades of that, too. US capitalism, which you seem to be a zealous devotee of, is quite a unique brand of capitalism. The US is the first industrialized nation where the majority of the poor are children; 40% don’t have health insurance, and higher education’s costs are sky high. Given the US a round of applause for being on this “enlightened path of economic liberalization”. On the other hand, Japan is a form of capitalism which is different from the US’. They guarantee health care, and there are specific social programs in place for every Japanese citizen, something that we in the US are losing little by little. Norway and other Scandinavian countries have successfully experimented with socialist democracies, which is another model. There, a market style economy with a strong social state has ensured a high standard of living for everybody. So your generalized, monolithic conceptualizations of politico-economies are simply unsubstantive.
What the hell do you mean by this? This phrase seems like it came straight out of a “Capitalist Manifesto”, if such a thing exists: propagandistic, metaphorical, and ideological. For all of your “hopes” that “Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom”, you fail to even see what various dynamics and processes play out in these communities, and what issues are important to various substratems. You seem to think that the band-aid to all of the world’s problems and ills is “capitalism”, but there are those who do not agree. If they don’t want it, it doesn’t mean that they are too ignorant to try and “unshackle themselves from outdated and repressive economic systems”. Here, you come of as some grand elitist professor/dictator who is condescendingly belittling those who have different opinions from yours.
When I read this part, it creeped me out, because you really do seem like some idealogue. What the hell are you trying to say, please? Yes, we know Hitler killed a lot of people. Incidentally, the US also killed 3 million Vietnamese under the mantle of “the free world” (read: the free market); has also killed scores in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The part underlined seems, again, straight out of a “Capitalist Manifesto”. Completely ideological without any grounding, manufactured more to rouse the people under vague ideals about “freeing the real oppressed on this earth”
Again, cited from the “Capitalist Manifesto”. Also, don’t patronize me.
Manju, are you being serious here? All of your posts contain eery references to supposedly “socialists”, “leftists”, and “communists” who are lurking everywhere and nowhere; just prancing impatiently around in their pants so that they can drag this planet into misery. Really, this passage beautifully captures just how hypocritical you are: accusing others of seeing “racists under every rock, must the way ol’ Joe saw Communists everywhere” while you continue to make constant references to “leftists, communists” and other unsavory non-capitalists villains.
You say you’ll leave the “right vs. left; liberal vs. statist debate for another round”, but don’t worry, you haven’t left it at all– you’ve been formulating your arguments within these binary frameworks from the very beginning.
I don’t see the “closed-mindedness” part; sorry that it saddens you. But have you read over your posts? How in the world is someone supposed to engage in a dialogue when reified, unsubstantiated, ideological notions are thrown around as the clinchers in an argument? It is an empty argument, which is why I simply don’t bother responding to you.
You levelled this charge of wearing Blacks and Indians wearing “racial blinders”. And you also invited this sort of designation upon yourself because you continued to address issues in a very questionable, controversial nature. If you’re going to slap labels on whole entire communities of diverse peoples, don’t bitch and whine when someone else does it to you.
Conveniently, you forget to include someone else‘s concluding remarks:
I understand that you needed to weed through all of his critical and well-thought out commentaries to salvage one measly point in your favor. Don’t stoop so low, Manju.
You don’t acknowlege other people’s criticisms; and when you do address the criticisms of others under the false guise of “acknowledging” them, you simply revert to political poo-flinging.
You’re open to continuing the debate, I am not. Have a lovely, capitalist, evening.
Someone else:
Aw, schucks! Really, what a sweet comment. Thank you for that.
(P.S. I really like it when you are there to defend my Cheap Desi Ass. It feels like comradeship. Or strategic alliance, if you will. )
(P.S.S. Get a load of my post above).
Madurai Vivekan
(P.S. When I read this comment, I wanted to express my true feelings but was very hesitant, given the atmosphere in the “Before the Wick is Dipped” forum and comment #125, for fear of being misinterpreted and having my comments manipulated into fulfilling and validating comment #125. But I shamefully admit that I was secretly pleased when I read your post. I always read your comments, as well as someone else’s, because I like what you two have to say, and so I get quite excited when you two respond to my posts. But don’t say anything over at “Before the Wick is Dipped”. I’ve truly fallen out of grace there. I hope no one from “Before the Wick” finds me in here and reads this post, particularly the writer of comment #125.)
I literally laughed out loud at this.
It feels like comradeship. Or strategic alliance, if you will.
You can take that to the bank…err credit union…err collectivized microcredit lending agency. You get my point 🙂
Manju:
Judging from your comments, a question came to my mind: you’re not from the Reagan era, are you? All this talk about Communism/the Evil Empire vs. Capitalism/freedom/justice eerily reminds me of the Cold War years. Your views are suspiciously identical to Reagan’s speeches.Did you grow up during Reagan’s heyday?
I would like to know if this is the reason why you continue to see the world through Cold War lens, in terms of gigantic, monolithic politic-economic blocks vying for world supremacy.
I said this because there really seems to be no point in having a “debate” with you. Since you brought someone else into this mess, let me backtrack and situate the comment that you brought up as a brownie point in your favor:
CAD
Someone else:
Someone else was kind enough to be patient with you, hearing you out, and in the end, he conceded:
Turns out I was right in choosing to not exchange in a “debate” with you; I saved myself a lot of time and energy (but made up for it in these two posts).
I second Someone else: we need you. Your posts are often alternately hilarious and passionate, anyone who claims to be offended can go suck on a syrupy pair of gulab jaman. If you decide to reclaim your familial baker’s dozen (a husband and 12 kids? Hai Ram!) and bid SM farewell, please set up a blog so we can read about and gasp at your prurient exploits with the rich and famous.
Backhanded compliment? As evidenced by the above, I happen to have a thing for “logorrheic ramblings.” @=)
DJ Drrrrty Poonaani-jaabi
Don’t think you can mess with me with your snarky comments. Lucky for you, the USSR no longer exists; if it had, I would have notified the Communist authorities in Moscow right away and put the KGB on you so that they could have given you a little bit of “re-education”, Soviet-style.
But since the Evil Empire has fallen, I’ll meet you in front of Walgreen’s tomorrow after class. There, I’ll play your a@* like a tabla, to the likes that even the little boys up at Berkeley have never seen.
Oh don’t worry too much. These things happen…regularly. Everything will be fine–just be/go where you want and worry more about the DHS than the SM censors.
We’re all family…sort of 🙂
CAD
Do you have any reference for this. I am serious.
Manju,
A quick question for you. Since you mentioned you studied Philosophy, by any chance you are a subscriber to Karl Popper and Open Society?
Uhhh…what? I was being completely earnest in my bid to get you to stick around, but hey: I’m always down for some ass tabla, no matter how gross the misunderstanding. My only request is that you leave the tuning hammer at home. (I’m still having trouble explaining the welts from our last encounter.)
Hindutvavadi in California:
No, there are no references, just like there are no references for napalming Indo-china; the A-bombing of Nagasaki and Japan; over a million killed in Cambodia and Laos; genocide in East Timor; US taxpayer funding for colonization of Palestine; over 12 years of repeated bombing of Iraq and devestating sanctions that have killed over 1.5 million Iraqi children; toppling democracy in South Yemen; NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia, the heaviest bombardment since WW II; the peak of US arms sales to Turkey at the height of the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in 1993; a US sponsored coup d’etat on Sept 11, 1973 and subsequent installment of Pinochet rendering the population to live in terror for 30 years; carpet bombing of Panamanian cities and villages; US proxy wars in practically all of Latin America; US military atrocities on US military bases in Italy, Japan and elsewhere; a US brokered sham “peace deal” called Oslo that effectively strengthened Israeli occupation/colonization of Palestine while giving absolutely no sovereignty to Palestinians and its subsequent avatar the “Road Map”, a vague and mysterious map that no one knows exactly what it is; and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No, there are absolutely no references for all of these things.
DJ Drrrrty Poonaani-jaabi: I know what “logorrheic” means. I’ll see you in front of Walgreens. Come prepared.
CAD
I had asked
Hindutvavadi in California:
No wonder it is difficult to discuss with you. Never answer straight but take off on a tangent
Let us break somethings for you:
There are somethings that US is responsible which no one can argue – like Napalming in Indo-China, Repression and supporting fascist regimes in Latin America and Africa. Still you can’t say millions were killed by these policies. I am not saying a few thousand killed is not significant. All the numbers are quite documented. And you can’t still be bringing up Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Lots of things happened 50 years ago and US will not repeat the same thing again without suffering a lot of consequences. Lots of lessons have been learned and that is why even the battlefield Nukes are stil hot potato.
But let us take the other examples
Cambodia – Most of the killing was done by Pol Pot and who is the biggest supporter of that regime was Communist China.
Genocide in East Timor – East Timor wouldn’t have been free without US making it happen. It was the biggest driving force making it happen. And the genocide was perpetrated by Muslim Indonesia.
over 12 years of repeated bombing of Iraq and devestating sanctions that have killed over 1.5 million Iraqi children – There were no 1.5 million Iraqi children killed. Even by the most liberal estimates, the no of Iraqi children affected were in the tens of thousands. And for your consideration – Saddam’s regime killed more than that.
NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia, the heaviest bombardment since WW II – The benefits will depend on which side you ask. The Bosnians, Kosova Albanians and the Croats will say it was a good thing. Should the US have stayed on the sidelines and watch the Serbians do the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnians and Kosovans? Damned if you and damned if you don’t
the peak of US arms sales to Turkey at the height of the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in 1993 – It wouldn’t matter if US sold arms or not, Turkey would still have done the same thing. There are some things that US can’t influence as regimes decide what they want to do no matter what.
US military atrocities on US military bases in Italy, Japan and elsewhere – Come on, you can’t be serious
and the current wars in Afghanistan – Let me put it this way. It should have been done a long time ago unless you think the Taliban is god’s gift to Afghanistan. I would have preferred if the US had done it earlier and not just because of 9/11.
And for God’s sake don’t tell me Cuba and N. Korea are paradises on earth.
Hindutvavadi in California:
Sorry, I thought you were being cheeky..
…and thus, I answered sarcastically with this list, as in “you can’t be serious”.
Are you saying that millions weren’t killed? Please read up a little.
The fact that Nukes still exist leads one to conclude that nuclear warfare continues to be an option.
Yes, you’re right about the Pol Pot having killed millions. Let’s not forget the prior US involvment, though. But yes, your clarification is absolutely right.
You’ve got it the other way around: the US supported the genocide ever since the Suharto regime (propped up by the US) initiated it. until the US under the Clinton Administration finally decided to end its 30 year support of the Indonesian government’s genocide — this is how East Timor became free. This evidence is found in the State Department’s documents.
The estimates that I quoted come from the UN. If you find the UN a questionable source, then I can’t help you with that. Re: Saddam Hussein and his atrocities, in my previous post I was specifically addressing US actions. However, re: Saddam, he had been supported throughout his most grotesque violations with the support, funding, and backing of the US.
First of all, you might want to ask yourself what benefits the US derived from bombing Yugoslavia. Secondly, how are you measuring that millions of Bosnians, Kosovar Albanians, and Croats agree that it was a good thing? Don’t solely base your judgements on what the governments say– I’m talking about the citizens. How you asserting that all the civilians of these now autonomous countries agreed that it was a good thing?
I agree and disagree with you. US arms or no, the Turkish state’s policies towards the Kurds would have not changed. But, the arms given rapidly facilitated the ethnic cleansing/genocide.
I am serious. There have been gross civil and environmental violations that have been carried out by the US on its military bases. Incidents such as the rape of Japanese girls by US military men in Okinawa are just the tip of the iceburg. There has been much resentment by the local populations in, for example, Italy about how the US is grossly violating environmental laws by conducting experiments that ironically, the US wouldn’t want to do on its own soil. Furthermore, under the Protection Act of US Servicemen (or something like that, I can’t remember the name exactly), the US Servicemen who rape, murder, and violate other laws have been guaranteed immunity from being prosecuted in the country where the act has been committed. Supposedly, these servicemen are to be tried under US courts, but many don’t ever get prosecuted (Abu Ghraib human rights violations perpetrators did, though.) As such, the US Servicemen on these bases often commit crimes knowing full well that they are immune from paying the consequences of violating the law, both of the country where they are residing, and domestic law. These occurances have been amply documented (but forgive me, I don’t have all of my references here; left them at home).
And where, may I ask, is the Taliban currently? And what have been the consequences of the war for the Afghani people?
No. But neither is the US a paradise. I am not saying that N. Korea is preferable to the US. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t blind ourselves into thinking that the US was, is, has been, and will be the most perfect nation on this earth.
Lastly, something stands out in your responses: all of your responses deal with regime changes and you speak of the events I brought up in terms of some big political board game. My responses largely deal with the civilian aspects.
Hindutvavadi in CA:
Sorry, forgot to add:
If inventions, wars, supporting regimes etc are conducted by the state and its military (ie government), then it is a policy. And the consequences of these actions, including deaths, are an outcome of these policies. If napalming Indo-China, repression and supporting fascist regimes aren’t policies of governments, than I don’t know what the hell they are. Engaging in a military coup d’etat, bombing civilians with military jets, and state military occupation are certainly not done by NGO’s.
The reason why the US didn’t topple the Taliban prior to Sept. 11 was because the US government had good relations with the Taliban. The Taliban had come to the White Hourse on several occassions in 1992 (or 1993/4?), mostly to solidify energy deals. There had been several groups in the US who had been very informed and aware of the Taliban’s policies in Afghanistan that protested vehemently when the US government allowed the Taliban to come and met with them in the US. The reason why the US came to oust the Taliban following Sept. 11 was because it had 1) already fallen out of the US’ favor); 2) Afghanistan is geostrategically vital to the US’ interests.
And let’s be honest: the Northern Alliance’s policies are not so different from the Taliban’s. Furthermore, I’d like to see what concrete improvements have taken place in Afghanistan; as to date, there are still over a million Afghani refugees living outside of Afghanistan, and the political, social, and economic situation is volatile as ever. Karzai (sp?) is still largely considered to be the “mayor of Kabul” and nothing more.
Moreover, the US had in fact financed, backed, and strengthened the then nascent Taliban in the 1980’s via Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency (ISI) in an effort to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. This fact is painsakingly documented by John Cooley, who used US, Russian, Pakistani, Egyptian, and Afghanistani government sources and documents. (And no, John Cooley is not a “leftist”; in fact, the conclusions that he derives from his entire argument are very mainstream, but his book nonetheless is extremely well-documented).
Your starting point for analysis seems arbitrary, to put it mildly.
But for argument’s sake, sticking to your bounds of excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read William Blum’s Killing Hope for a better account of recent history. I’m sure you’re probably not a fan of the CIA’s alleged attempt to kill Nehru.
Of course, arguably, the real damage is in what the U.S. government does not do but easily could at least attempt to prioritize to the same extent that it does, say, toys–namely stem famines, end easily eradicable diseases, provide money for food, education, and public health, and a number of other things that would do a world of good for, well, the world. That’s where you’ll find your millions.
CAD,
Agreed, but although the US is not a “paradise”, it most certainly is compared to vast swathes of the rest of the planet. While those of us living in the West should not shy away from honest criticism of the dominant nations in this part of the world if such criticism is warranted, we should not declare the US be some kind of “Great Satan” either. There have been far more horrific actions committed against both civilians (their own and those of other nations) and during military warfare by a number of international groups and countries, and in many cases continue to do so to this day. Human rights abuses are, unfortunately, everywhere, but one needs to simultaneously consider the extent, duration, and numbers involved if one is going to assess who is “worse”.
There are much nastier places in the world to live and, given the alternatives, far worse countries (and/or groups) who could be the global dominant power if that role was not currently occupied by the United States.