I believe what Robert meant - and, indeed what Jackson and Nader
also meant, was that Obama was parroting certain rhetoric that serves
the interests of the Imperial establishment and harms the interests of
African Americans ( and all oppressed peoples). Jackson rightly ( if
crudely) criticized Obama for doing that and Robert, rightly ,and
without crudity, noted Jackson's hypocrisy in doing the same.
Fannon talked about the socio-psychological phenomenon whereby people of
oppressed groups seek to achieve elevated status by emulating the
behaviors of the oppressors, including bigotry and condescension. The
products of this formula range from Mexican Americans who are suspicious
of recent immigrants from their own regions of origin to colossal
swines like Ward Connerly. In the scale of things I would say that
Obama falls somewhere a notch or two below a Colin Powel while Jackson,
whose politics are far better than Obama's simply has a persistant
fetish for the taste of shoe leather.
The critical difference being overlooked here is that whereas
Jackson or Nader or Cosby can either inspire (a few) people or piss them
off ,Obama, as Senator, candidate or President has the ability to codify
his adopted prejudices in to policy and law as well as to reinforce
their residuality in the American vernacular psyche. That makes Obama
far more dangerous than Jackson, Cosby and Nader combined.
I doubt, however, that Obama's Fanonian starboard list is personal
or even genuine. I think it comes from the Democratic Party. In that
sense where Nader and Jackson, as quoted by Robert spoke of Obama's
"talking white" a more specific descriptor might have been to say that
he is "talking Democratic".
Robert Knight wrote:
>
> */Nalini -/*
>
> You claim that I am the one /"throwing around a lot of huff and puff
> right now, rather than tak[ing] responsibility for using an offensive
> phrase, 'talking white.'" /
>
> Typically, your facts about Jesse Jackson's racist comments are as
> erroneous as your absurd interpretation of my report.
>
> FACT: It was _Jesse Jackson_ -- /not me/ -- who first introduced the
> ugly accusation of Obama's putative "whititude"! /The _State_
> newspaper in South Carolina directly quoted Jackson as saying,
> *"_Obama's acting like he's white_," *as far back as September, 2007/.
>
> I realize facts can be inconvenient things for you. But I'm also
> bewildered by your false attack on me -- and your equally telling
> /silence/, in failing to chastize Ralph Nader, who also arrogantly
> asserted that *"_Obama is talking white_" *just two weeks ago, as I
> accurately stated in my report -- which I hope you eventually get a
> chance to actually read!
>
> I rest my case.
>
> */- Robert Knight/*
>
> On 7/11/08, *LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx <mailto:LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx>*
> <LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx <mailto:LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Robert:
>
> If a black person makes a repugnant comment about cutting off
> Obama's nuts, you are going to twist that into how the guy
> is "talking white"?
>
> I know plenty about racism and imperialism and, for your
> information, I've even studied some of the scholarly papers on the
> subject. But none of that is the issue.
>
> You're throwing around a lot of huff and puff right now, rather
> than take responsibility for using an offensive phrase, "talking
> white." That's not what Jesse Jackson did. He spoke frankly and
> unguarded, using a common but crude slang term to express his own
> feelings towards Obama message to the black community. He thinks
> Obama is talking down to the black community and Jesse's pissed
> about it, that's all. You've moved the whole incident into a
> wide-reaching Oppressor White Man complex syndrome and I think
> it's a bunch of gobbly gook, in this context. Jesse's unguarded
> moment shines light on the fact that people in all walks of
> society are thinking crude, insensitive, ugly, macho slang, even
> if they don't say it aloud in public. "Suck my dick." "You're a
> pussy." "Eat me" are all in the same vein. Crude phrases that
> focus on genitalia are as OLD AS TIME. They are neither "white"
> nor "black" nor "red" nor "yellow."
>
> If you want to go into all these unrelated areas, let's talk about
> how some creeds are cutting female genitals off....not 50 years
> ago, but today. Shall we describe that syndrome and complex and
> define it as "black talk?" I think not.
>
> The reason why this has become creepy is that you are so full of
> yourself that you're unwilling to hear a second opinion with any
> grace or style. You might not have meant to sound racist by
> saying Jesse was "talking white" but that's precisely what you
> did. I'm offended by it. Maybe you thought this was a
> convenient moment to make a reference to Fanon's analytic work and
> the horror of White Imperialism, etc, but I thought it was a
> careless lapse in judgement.....sort of what Jesse did!
>
> Nalini
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/11/2008 2:49:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> theknightreport@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:theknightreport@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> *Nalini -*
>
> Um... I'm not sure you really apprehend the point I was making
> with those
> carefully chosen words.
>
> I deliberately said Jesse Jackson was "talking white" in
> reference to that
> recently-invented term, "*white*" -- a spurious social and
> linguistic
> construct that was cynically used by corrupt power brokers to
> mobilize
> immigrants, sharecroppers and trade unionists of various
> European or
> Caucusoid heritages against the economically-threatening
> advances of African
> slaves and their descendants, particularly in the United States.
>
> (The pseudo-scientific social term "white" was first recorded
> in 1671, and
> the term "whitey" in 1828, according to etymologists).
>
> Had I intended to express invidious, hateful, ignorant
> "racial" assertions
> (as you incorrectly assert, contrary to my entire body of work
> at Pacifica)
> -- I would certainly have employed more precise
> anthropological, tribal or
> nationalistic designations.
>
> I also wonder whether you are *at all* familiar with Fanon's
> analytic work
> in "Black Skins, White Masks" -- or have even ever read his
> seminal
> observations on this issue -- or Sartre, for that matter.
>
> What I find genuinely "creepy" is *your* false attribution of
> "racist"
> intentions to a diagnostic discourse that attempts to put a
> contemporary
> eruption of racist undercurrents into a useful historical and
> linguistic
> context.
>
> *-Robert Knight*
>
>
> On 7/11/08, Nalini Lasiewicz <LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com <http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > "Robert Knight"
> > <theknightreport@...> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > In other words -- it was not Barack Obama, but Jesse
> Jackson who was *
> > really* "talking white."
> > >
> > > From exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight.
> >
> >
> > Robert Knight:
> >
> > Your words above are cruel and racist. I'm not sure how well you
> > thought them through, but you made it sound like only white
> people
> > commit atrocities. I could catalog for you hideous crimes
> committed
> > by people of all colors from every single continent, both in
> current
> > day and in history. The bloated bodies of women macheteed to
> death
> > in Rhwanda, with six dead children on their backs, comes to
> mind. I
> > think your comment about "talking white" is repulsive.
> >
> > Stop your white bashing, please! It's creepy.
> >
> > Nalini Lasiewicz
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Fulcrumsofchange mailing list
> Fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> http://lists.pacificana.org/listinfo.cgi/fulcrumsofchange-pacificana.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
> scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com
> <http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112>!
>
>
>