On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Darryl Pinckney reviews Coates’ new book against the backdrop of the > “opposing visions of the social destiny of black people” expressed in its > rich literary tradition. > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/11/the-anger-of-ta-nehisi-coates/ Hi Marvin, Thanks for the link, but I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in your reference to "rich literary tradition". I noted with disappointment that in his interview with Adolph Reed, Doug Henwood joined his guest in a mocking reference to Coates' “literary writing style”. In the same interview, there is another unfortunate accusation of pandering to “guilty white liberals". It is sad to see this sort of lazy caricature in places where you'd expect intelligent and thoughtful discussion. -raghu. > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Maxim Linchits <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > And Coates expects a deeply racist, fragmented and economically stagnant > society to pay meaningful reparations to one politically marginalizes > group? What do people even mean by reparations? Cutting a one-time check a > la Friedman, Murray et. al. (which is still utopian, but ideologically > appealing in some quarters)? > > > > I don’t see any meaningful rebuttal from Coates. Wheread Reed is blunt > and to the point – Coates twists and turns and it’s just painful to read. > The racial wealth and income gap is enormous in both Europe and America. > Unless the redistributive policies are thoroughly racialized – as they were > during the New Deal – redistributive and class-affirmative policies will be > a major boon to oppressed racial minorities. And not just Blacks – but also > American Latinos. > > > > Coates asserts that meaningful class-first policies are a mere “band > aid” for racial problems. Why? He cites the example of “failed policies” of > European social Democracy and Clintonism , both of which have failed to > address the plight of racial minorities. Guess what – they also > SPECTACULARLY “failed” to address the plight of working people in general, > in the past decades. And calling class-first policies a “band-aid” for > anything is a truly Orwellian turn of phrase. > > > > As for the Sanders campaign – what would be the point of him calling for > reparations? Just to pander to black voters, making a promise he cannot > possibly keep? To fragment his base and distract people from the problem of > wealth inequality – which hits minorities ten times as hard? > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of raghu > > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 7:24 PM > > To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> > > Subject: [Pen-l] Coates on Sanders and Clinton > > > > Coates directly addresses the stupid claim that anyone criticizing > Sanders is a Clinton stooge: > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-liberal-imagination/425022/ > > -----------------------------------snip > > What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important. > Many Sanders supporters, for instance, correctly point out that Clinton > handprints are all over America’s sprawling carceral state. I agree with > them and have said so at length. Voters, and black voters particularly, > should never forget that Bill Clinton passed arguably the most immoral > “anti-crime” bill in American history, and that Hillary Clinton aided its > passage through her invocation of the super-predator myth. A defense of > Clinton rooted in the claim that “Jeb Bush held the same position” would > not be exculpatory. (“Law and order conservative embraces law and order” > would surprise no one.) That is because the anger over the Clintons’ > actions isn’t simply based on their having been wrong, but on their craven > embrace of law and order Republicanism in the Democratic Party’s name. > > > > One does not find anything as damaging as the carceral state in the > Sanders platform, but the dissonance between name and action is the same. > Sanders’s basic approach is to ameliorate the effects of racism through > broad, mostly class-based policies—doubling the minimum wage, offering > single-payer health-care, delivering free higher education. This is the > same “A rising tide lifts all boats” thinking that has dominated Democratic > anti-racist policy for a generation. Sanders proposes to intensify this > approach. But Sanders’s actual approach is really no different than > President Obama’s. I have repeatedly stated my problem with the “rising > tide” philosophy when embraced by Obama and liberals in general. (See here, > here, here, and here.) Again, briefly, treating a racist injury solely with > class-based remedies is like treating a gun-shot wound solely with > bandages. The bandages help, but they will not suffice. > > > > There is no need to be theoretical about this. Across Europe, the kind > of robust welfare state Sanders supports—higher minimum wage, single-payer > health-care, low-cost higher education—has been embraced. Have these > policies vanquished racism? Or has race become another rubric for asserting > who should benefit from the state’s largesse and who should not? And if > class-based policy alone is insufficient to banish racism in Europe, why > would it prove to be sufficient in a country founded on white supremacy? > And if it is not sufficient, what does it mean that even on the left wing > of the Democratic party, the consideration of radical, directly anti-racist > solutions has disappeared? And if radical, directly anti-racist remedies > have disappeared from the left-wing of the Democratic Party, by what right > does one expect them to appear in the platform of an avowed moderate like > Clinton? >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
