Showing posts with label Ta-Nehisi Coates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ta-Nehisi Coates. Show all posts

Thursday, August 18, 2011

On the desire to knock GPS devices out of my students' hands

I'm still here; I've been tied up with settling in, still, into the new place and, this past week, attending meetings that might actually, this year, help me become a better teacher for my students--since, this year, I've heard some things that actually speak to me directly as a teacher.

This weekend, I hope to post something a little more substantial here. In the meantime, ponder this statement, which, though taken a bit out of context, will be my mantra for the coming year: "This is no place for fast-food intellectuals."

(Speaking of Mr. Coates: He has a recurring series of posts titled "The Civil War Isn't Tragic" that in this, the sesquicentennial of the firing on Ft. Sumter, are well worth your time. Reading this man's engaging with James McPherson's writing on the origins of the war and, inspired by that, how a socioeconomic system can shape the thinking and choices of, even, those people not directly invested in the maintaining of it, have been a bracing tonic for the mind of late. You might find that to be the case as well.)

Read More...

Sunday, June 12, 2011

The first (and last) thing I'll say about Anthony Weiner

A good bit of the brouhaha over Anthony Weiner's actions really is being driven by various subtexts: partisanship (or, in the case of House Democrats' calls for Weiner's resignation, trying not to appear partisan); the tangential (but important) debate about what constitutes "public" and "private" space and activities in this electronic-media-saturated world of ours; definitions of fidelity and infidelity; and a discussion of, for lack of a better way of putting it, the etiquette of when/how/to whom one can send pictures of one's body parts to another party. (Miss Manners needs to do some serious updating, methinks.) No doubt there are others.

All that brouhaha is occurring in various contextual vacuums and thus, to my mind, missing a crucial point when assessing what Weiner did. Once Ta-Nehisi Coates dusts off his Locke and reads Weiner's actions through the lens of the space in which they occurred, there's nothing left to discuss except Weiner's fate as a representative of his district. This is from a few days ago, but it's such a clear statement of the matter, and one that I've not seen elsewhere, that it bears repeating (emphasis added):

I think, among those of us who find the strict moralizing about human sexuality offered up in our political discourse repellent, there's an impulse to defend Anthony Weiner. I sympathize with that impulse, but I do not share it.

[snip]

[I]t's important to focus on what Anthony Weiner's specific acts. Weiner, at the very least, sent a unsolicited picture of his thinly veiled privates to a woman. This was not a woman whom he'd met socially, or in some private capacity. This was a college student who "tweeted words of support for him as a politician." In other [words, Gennette] Cordoba was interested in supporting a public official whose positions, and stridency she admired. Weiner took that as invite to forward Cordoba a picture of his privates.

Weiner serves in the aptly named House of Representatives. In the most specific sense, he represents his District here in New York. But in the broader sense he represents a set of policies which progressives like Dana [Goldstein], Amanda [Marcotte] and I generally admire. His skill and tenacity in the media, particularly, made him a darling to those, like Cordoba, who shared his policy positions. When you represent a portion of the public, you are awarded a certain amount of social and cultural power. But the source of that power is always the people you represent; it's called a "base" for a reason.

Using the power of representation to send unsolicited explicit photographs of yourself is reckless. It endangers, not simply your private interests, but the public interests of those you represent. When Anthony Weiner goes on Face The Nation and argues for public option, he represents my policy interests to those who are on the fence. He is, essentially, a spokesperson for my causes and the causes of the party to which I belong. When he commits an act which injures, as he's done here, his allies share that injury.


With that said, we all must draw a line where we deem it appropriate. Early in the 2008 campaign it was argued that by dint of race, Barack Obama would be an effective ambassador for his party. I could see the logic easily being extended to gays or women or other minorities. The difference is that opening up electoral office to all Americans is a part of the liberal agenda. Opening up electoral office to those who would use that office to recklessly dispense unsolicited explicit photos of oneself is not.


Word.

Read More...

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Ta-Nehisi Coates on Obama

Go and read.

These posts, when read within the context of Coates' commentaries on Affirmative Action a while back, make Coates' essential point about Affirmative Action: that it's in essence a cosmetic sop that appears to right historic wrongs with as little cost to The System as possible; it doesn't fix the educational and economic poverty needed to be fixed so as to raise all the boats in the harbor. In its essence, AA isn't intended to make impossible the ascendancy of the economically-disenfranchised into good jobs, much less positions of power, but neither does it make that more possible.

Obama's emergence is the exception that proves Coates' argument about AA. Those cheered by or outraged by where Obama is (and anyone who paid close attention during the primaries know that plenty of Democrats as well as Republicans, blacks as well as whites, fall on both sides of that divide, too) both understand that, even though they may not realize they understand it.

Win or lose, Obama's story is not an AA success story. It's an American success story. Read any behind-the-scene story about his on-the-ground operations during the primaries or the elections, and you'll be stunned. I'm not especially happy that in his Chicago days he has associated with some of the people that he has; but, as has also often been pointed out, the fact that those people are in positions of power now despite their pasts is an indictment on all who have allowed them to acquire their power and positions in the first place--and that goes for lots of conservative Republicans, too. In any even, those people have nothing to do with this campaign. Obama has earned this, by outworking else, by not buying into narratives of inevitability (not just Hillary Clinton's version of that narrative, either). There's simply no other conclusion, and--honest political disagreements aside--whoever says otherwise is ignorant or blind.

Read More...

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Ta-Nehisi Coates on Affirmative Action

Shortly after I wrote this post on Ta-Nehisi Coates, he got picked up by The Atlantic to blog for them. Coincidence???

Anyway, this is Coates' first week, and today he's been engaging his readers on the issue of (some) whites' responses to Affirmative Action. If you've ever given that subject any serious thought, positive or negative (and that, I suspect, would be most people who read this blog), I think you'll want to read his posts. He may not persuade you--he himself is not a full-bore supporter of Affirmative Action--but, like all good writers, he will make you think.

This, I think, is the best summation of Coates' thinking on the matter: "Many of you know where I stand on Affirmative Action--I think it is, how shall we say, problematic. But that feeling does nothing to ameliorate my fundamental distaste for whites who use Affirmative Action as a proxy to "resent" blacks."

Here in order (so far) are the posts:

"White Racism vs. White Resentment"

"Occasionally I do this thing . . . "

"The 'Wasn't Me' Defense"

"For the Record"

Read More...

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Ta-Nehisi Coates and the strange meaning of being black here in the dawning of the Twenty-first Century

After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.--W. E. B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk, "I: Of Our Spiritual Strivings"
To call Ta-Nehisi Coates the Second Coming of DuBois is perhaps a bit much; I think it's nevertheless true, though, that Coates at his best is doing what DuBois is doing in Souls: taking stock of How Things Stand; acknowledging that, yes, the past sucked for black people but it also sucked in very different ways for whites as well; and so now, what can we all do about the Here and Now and beyond to make it less sucky for everyone? [Edit: and pointing needed fingers at those (black as well as white) who are less than helpful in this project.] That's both ambitious and, as Coates works these themes, a whole lot of intellectual and even smile-inducing fun.

Coates is a relatively-new African-American blogger not afraid to speak a bit of truth (as he sees it) to both white and black folks. His is a thinking-outside-the-box take on black politics and culture that, as I'm bumping around his blog's archives, I'm finding enervating and thought-provoking. To be sure, Barack Obama figures prominently among his posts, but have a look as well at this Village Voice piece on Condoleeza Rice--that, in its own way, serves as an interesting chiasmus of the interesting discussion going on among black conservatives about how to respond, as members of the electorate, to Obama.

A couple of examples below the fold.

Here, for example, is the concluding paragraph to a brief take-down of conservative civil-rights icon Shelby Steele (spellings here and below are Coates'):
When I watched Steele talk [at the recent Aspen Ideas Conference], I didn't feele bad for black America, I felt bad for the white people who were there drinking it up. (In fairness, many were not.) It really saddens me to write that. I actually agree with Steele on one thing---the end of the Civil Rights Industrial Complex is great thing for black people everywhere. But Steele is tied to that complex, and his ideas are just as bereft. Like the men he derides as extortionists (which they are) Steel is running a hustle--Sharpton and Jackson traffic in white guilt. Steele traffics in white ignorance. And they keep all the profits. I've never seen "white guilt" or "white ignorance" do a damn thing for black folks.


There's also this discussion of some of the discussion of this recent Emily Bazelon article on class-based integration of schools. Coates signs on, but with a compelling observation about the similarities in how government at whatever level goes about addressing racial and economic inequalities:
Matt, Kevin and Richard Kahlenberg are debating over whether a solution like this could be applied nationally. The consensus being basically, no, because we aren't going to blow up the system of school districts in this country. But to my mind, the piece helps us get out from under the cloud of pessimism that follows any conversation about the gap in test-scores.

But there is something else at work here. [Bazelon's] research on class and achievement is helpful because it really shows (to me) that the real problem of America's racist past is that it basically affected a massive wealth-transfer out of black communities. More than that, I like Emily's piece because it exposes the lie that racial inequality is completely intractable. But that's never really been true. There are two questions here--how are we going to fix the race chasm, and how far are we really willing to go to do it? People like to focus on the former, because the truly frightening one is the latter. We're forever trying to achieve equality by not negatively impacting white people. You can look back at the War on Poverty and see how desperate folks were to make it look color-blind. How'd that work out? I think one of the reasons Affirmative Action was extended to basically everyone by white males, was likely, so it wouldn't be reparations. Ironically, class-based integration uses the same logic. I'm a fan because I believe in it on principle. But the politics of it seem to be captive to ancient formulations: Despite the fact that slavery and Jim Crow crippled black folks, we want to heal those wounds by inconviencing white people as little as possible. It's been this way since Reconstruction. If I'm pessimistic about anything it's not knowing the right thing to do, it's the will to get it done.
I hope you'll go and have a look at more of his work. He's worth your time.

Read More...