That's some straight up #KONY2012 shit right there. Whenever a talking head tells you racism is motivated by evil, look for his agenda. FUN FACT - Martin Luther King was a martyr and a lion of the civil rights movement according to this video, but according to Howard Zinn, whose book your downloading of helps this video, Martin Luther King was an Uncle Tom, the safe "house negro" whose star was made to eclipse Malcolm X so that any civil rights reforms would be safe, nonviolent and meaningless. LOOK - there are a lot of facts in this video, and I'm not going to dispute them. People who aren't white get the shaft in the United States in depressing proportions. What's missed in these discussions is the fact that people who aren't the majority get the shaft in all countries and the United States, as the most multiracial melting pot country in the world, gets to grapple with them for everyone else. That "three caste" system wasn't invented as some evil plot to keep the Black Man Down. As even the narrator says, indentured servitude fucked a whole lot of people who were the exact same color as the people fucking them. What happened was the Enlightenment and reforms against the aristocracy in the Old World which meant fucking over the peasants got harder to do. It simply made it more economical to import slave labor from Africa. Not shown in this video - the fact that the slavers didn't wander into Africa and throw nets over brown people. They traded with Tribe A of brown people to secure Tribe A's help in enslaving Tribe B. The Triangle Trade was driven by craven, equal-opportunity monsters who would have bought anyone for bottom dollar, it's not like it was a race thing. If they could have gotten Dutchmen for Igbo prices, the south would be tall and pale. Check it out. Slavery is color-blind. Sure - once they're down, keep 'em down. And yeah - racists abound in the United States. But let's not conflate racial hatred and economic predation just because they're culturally universal. This is a depressing and complicated discussion that only starts to make sense when you gain a little cynicism and drawing causality where there is none does not lead to a better way.
Of course, the video is an oversimplification. It is hardly trying to be more than that. This is some guy's YouTube channel, not The Journal of Political Opinion, and while the guy is definitely pushing an opinion, he's hardly acting like he's Noam effing Chomsky. He's definitely not telling everyone watching this video to go out and buy his colorful propaganda to hang around your cities and to donate to his cause. The comparison is dishonest. It seems like everyone whose jimmies were rustled by this video had a particularly bad time with his simplified class notions of black people, poor whites, and masters. It's not that complicated of a simplification, and it's really just talk of class: Black people = Lower Class, riddled with minorities.
Poor whites = Middle Class, a more diverse group.
Masters = The Upper Class If you look at it this way, it's not that controversial. It's not like the guy thinks there's no Hispanics, Asians, etc in the country. I don't think it's meant to be literal or academic. Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more. He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky. What does slavery committed by Africans have to do with anything? No one says slavery is inherently a racist institution, but slavery as it was practiced in the United States became a racist institution. That's the reality. And you can't deny there were feelings of supremacy against Africans. Look at White Man's Burden. Look at the colonization of Africa in general. Look at the arguments for slavery but slaveholding Southerners. What does the universality of societal prejudice against minorities have to do with anything? The reality is that the US has racial problems. Being the "melting pot" doesn't give the country a pass. It's quite ridiculous to even contend that it should be given one. Black people in this country are the minority so people should point out how they are disadvantaged. It doesn't matter if, hypothetically, they would be the oppressors in bizarro world where they are the majority. The reality is they aren't, and this is how it affects them. Jim Crow targeted black people because it promoted racist institutions. The War on Drugs disproportionately targets minorities because it's a racist institution. And it is. I never worried about police rolling through when I wanted weed. He's hardly focusing only on how problems affect the black community, as well. He talks about the indentured servitude of white people as you say, he talks about how there are more in prison than ever before, and he talks about how poverty affects the white people. His overall point was how "poor whites" and black people should ally and work for their interests against the upper classes. Also, I've never read A People's History, but if you're referring to this chapter, I'd say your characterization of what Zinn said was quite disingenuous. He never calls him an Uncle Tom or House Negroe. He does put forth the case that MLK was favored by the establishment, and that nonviolence worked only to a point. But that's a bout a thousand times more nuanced than what you said. The guy brought up a bunch of factoids in the middle of the video. You admit they're mostly correct. That's the most important part of the video.
So lemme quote what the original poster said about this video: I'm almost positive that was you. So I gave you my thoughts. You asked for them. There they are. Nowhere did I jump down your throat. So before you continue down this path, kindly unrustle your jimmies, take a deep breath, and know that if you double down with me, it's gonna get ugly. I'm empirically better at being an Internet Dickhead than you will ever be and I'm opting not to be. Pulse below 90? Angry sweat on your top lip wiped? Okay. You're basically making the same argument as the video - economic oppression and racial oppression are linked. THEY'RE NOT. That's my argument ("But let's not conflate racial hatred and economic predation just because they're culturally universal"). Further, my argument is that conflating the two diminishes the understanding of both, which helps to perpetuate them. What does slavery committed by Africans have to do with anything? It illustrates that racism is universal. Igbos hate Yorubas, Jews hate Arabs, Serbs hate Croats and tribalism drives cultures. It also illustrates that there's an economic basis to slavery and oppression. Am I denying "there were feelings of supremacy against Africans"? Hardly. I'm saying every culture on earth feels morally, intellectually and superior to every other culture on earth. I know it's easier to win the argument you want, rather than the argument you have, but meet me in the middle here. By the way - if you're going to claim what I say is untrue, you should probably make sure that your reference is accurate. Page 458, yo. I did it as an audiobook or I'd type it all out for you. So I'll repeat myself: Your video draws useless parallels between economic oppression and racial oppression. These parallels obscure the real reasons for oppression and suggest that there are simple solutions. There are not. The more we look for causality, the less simplicity we should find and when some talking head on Youtube tries to condense it all down to ten minutes, you should doubt his motives. And I'll leave you with this: Read my words: "What's missed in these discussions is the fact that people who aren't the majority get the shaft in all countries and the United States, as the most multiracial melting pot country in the world, gets to grapple with them for everyone else." I'm saying the US gets the opposite of a pass. it's a pretty compelling YouTube video and he backs up his factoids repeatedly with sources.
What are your thoughts?
"Zinn basically declares the high-water mark of the civil rights movement to be Martin Luther Kings sell out moment. He quotes nothing of King’s I have a Dream speech, but gives a full page quote to Malcolm X, part of which reads
“This is what they (the establishment) did with the March on Washington. They joined it… became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost it’s militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all…
Not, it was a sellout. It was a takeover.. The controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown…” (458)
The reality is that the US has racial problems. Being the "melting pot" doesn't give the country a pass. It's quite ridiculous to even contend that it should be given one.
There was nothing in my comment to insinuate anger save maybe using the phrase "effing" as well as calling your comparison to KONY2012 "dishonest" (which it was) and your critique of Zinn "disingenuous" (which it also was). I'll start with Zinn since I just reiterated myself. The critique, again, is disingenuous. Yes, Zinn included a Malcolm X quote critical of the the March on Washington, and yes, he did note that the March was embraced by Washington as a "friendly assemblage." However, he did not "belittles Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream speech" or claim "his star was made to eclipse Malcolm X's." From his book, freely available on the Internet And he incorporated X's words to show how they "probably closer to the mood of the black community" after "as if in deliberate contempt for its [the march's] moderation, a bomb exploded in the basement of a black church in Birmingham and four girls attending a Sunday school class were killed." X's full quote: It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in ... these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off," Kennedy said. "Look you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it." This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it... became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. . . No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. ... They controlled it so tight, they told those Negroes what time to hit town, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make, and then told them to get out of town by sundown.... The point is that the march held back on the angrier rhetoric, and that Washington elites were more inclined to support the toned-down rhetoric and non-violence of King's movement. The example of John Lewis illustrates this. His quotes X, but in doing so, he's only showing what was X's opinion of the march. Should he leave out X's opinion to instead pay fealty to the mainstream narrative on the march? Should he include all the I Have A Dream speech though most know it already? What would be the point in writing this book then? Zinn does look at those who who were more critical of nonviolence and gives them voice (That's pretty much the point of his book), but he never fails to mention that "King's stress on love and nonviolence was powerfully effective in building a sympathetic following throughout the nation, among whites as well as blacks. " Secondly, I again don't think saying that "prejudice is a universal part of humanity" adds anything to any discussion. It's a tautology. People are racist because people are racist. Repeating it doesn't serve to enlighten anyone about the conditions facing actual minorities in actual places around the world. It has nothing to do with the discrimination and inequality faced by minority races in the United States, today except to say "hey, we're not the only ones who do it." That's hardly an argument. To your point that economic oppression and racial oppression are not linked, I cannot help but vehemently disagree. I support the concept of intersectionality, and I do not think you can look at racial oppression without also looking at economic oppression. In fact, your initial comment seems to agree as you point to the "economic basic of slavery and oppression." What was slavery but a severe form of economic inequality? This video did not make the claim that slavery was inherently a racist institution used be whites against minorities, nor did anyone else. It only showed how slavery developed into a racist institution and how more racist institutions (Jim Crow, War on Drugs) developed from there. Racism and economic inequality are definitely linked. In how black names get called back less. How a racial wealth gap exists and how minorities are disproportionately affected by economic downturns. How bias exists in a number of ways that affect minorities and how a history of discrimination and inequality hurts the economics of minorities. In fact, economists have looked at this for a long time. EDIT: I read the Chapter. It's on the Internet. I linked to it in both my comments. Since that is the only chapter that has anything to do with what we're talking about, that's all I'd have needed to read to discuss it with you. You having "read the book" doesn't dismiss my criticisms of your reading, since I have read the same part we are referring to. I will, again, reiterate that I made no claims that "white masters" conspire together to keep blacks down because they don't like black people. And that I do not believe this video did either. What I did claim is that the upper class is mostly white and there are institutional problems that disproportionately affect black people and other minorities. Institutional racism is a thing and it does benefit the mostly white elites that hold most the political, economic, and social power. From my original reply. He does say that the powerful enacted Jim Crow with specific intentions, but, hey, the powerful in the South DID enact Jim Crow with specific intentions of keeping black people down and unequal. And his assertions about the "caste" system seem to be how society became organized so that black slaves were worse off than poor whites, hardly a controversial claim. He says the system benefited the "masters," not that they created it in their basements to harm black people specifically because they thought the color of their skin was icky. Your "broad point" again had little to nothing to do with the discussion. Slavery is not a racist institution inherently. But, again, slavery as practiced in the US in the 18th, 19th Century was a racist institution and it bred new ones, including Jim Crow and the War on Drugs. Interpersonal racism does not matter here. A non-racist slaveholder does not make the institution of slavery no longer institutionally racist when it continues to be applied disproportionately to black people. Same as the other two. Kind of an abuse of the mute function. You could have just stopped replying. You're the one getting defensive here and before. I can call something disingenuous and dishonest without malice. Whatever helps you sleep. Congratulations, you're now joined with Grendel in the illustrious club of People Who Have Muted Me.Martin Luther King's speech there thrilled 200,000 black and white Americans-"I have a dream..." It was magnificent oratory, but without the anger that many blacks felt. When John Lewis, a young Alabama-born SNCC leader, much arrested, much beaten, tried to introduce a stronger note of outrage at the meeting, he was censored by the leaders of the march, who insisted he omit certain sentences critical of the national government and urging militant action.
The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington.... That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.
Nowhere in his video does the guy say the "masters" come together at this hotel every last Tuesday in May to plot how to keep everyone down. It's pretty much the implied argument me and deanSolecki have already gone over. The upper classes act in their own interests, with more access to power centers and influential people, benefiting themselves and creating inequality. He brings up the consolidation of media and growing inequality to show how the upper classes have gotten more entrenched and powerful, nothing more.
Okay, so you can claim not to be outraged and insulted, but you can "vehemently disagree." And I can point out that discussing things calmly will get you further, and you can double down and call my words disingenuous again. And you can ignore that I read the book and you didn't, and spend an hour piecing together a case out of internet quotes... but ignore my broad point, which is "people are racist, people are opportunist, but opportunism isn't driven by racism" by saying Support it all you want. Twelve links that say "blacks have it rough" doesn't say "blacks have it rough because the 'white masters' set out to keep them down." But honestly? If this is you having a civil discourse, we don't need to do it anymore.I support the concept of intersectionality, and I do not think you can look at racial oppression without also looking at economic oppression.
He's just mad you won the argument. It's the classic "trail off into mumbling about thanks for the spirited discussion, that's what makes america great" conversational exit that mean you'll never hear from him again.