Ta-Nehisi Coates Rules, The Thread

this is an amazing piece

heh

Coates on Obama, Trump, atheism, and becoming the guy “white people read to show they know something.”

Saw this response piece to Coates article https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/obamas-failure-to-mitigate-americas-foreclosure-crisis/510485/

He says: Obama the candidate ran on allowing bankruptcy judges to cut balances on primary mortgages; Obama’s administration actively whipped against the policy. This statement includes a link to another article that notes in part:

After narrowly passing the House, cramdown was defeated when 12 Democrats joined Republicans to vote against it.

Many Democrats in Congress said they saw this as the death knell for the modification program, which would now have to rely on the cooperation of banks and other mortgage servicers to help homeowners.

So while it is true that Geithner, Summers and others including Obama did not push hard for the "cramdown" law (that would allow Bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages downward to prevent folks from getting foreclosed upon), even if they had it is not clear that they would have won over those 12 Dems.

Sometimes when the party leader signals that something is important, then party members have a harder time voting against it

https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/05/17/the-birthmark-of-damnation-ta-nehisi-coates-and-the-black-body/

paging fred

was already posted on the rolling race thread tho I'm sure freddy b won't mind bumping his gums about it again itt

ah my bad for doubling up

it's hard to keep up!

I read something like that when the book came out. At one point iirc the commenter / reviewer actually compared TNC to a nihilist, for similar reasons i.e. arguing that American racism is an immutable constant.

If you read the book as philosophy then maybe I guess the argument could hold up? But taken literally as a letter to his son, the violence-against-blacks-in-our-country-is-basically-the-same-as-gravity is the way ALL parents talk about danger to their children. If you cross the street without looking YOU WILL DIE HORRIBLY. I mean maybe most of us don't get into the morbid details but that's how it's crystallized in your mind and why you can't let the point go without repeated acknowledgement. Being a dad is impossible!

I don't think TNC wrote the book as a logical argument for why blacks in the USA should give up on equality. I haven't seen any signal in his other projects or appearances that he holds that position. He wrote it as a parent trying to be honest to his kids about what they're up against, with a lot of literary flourish, as he does.

^^^

Reading it any other way is straight-up idiotic, particularly if you are also a black American.

yeah but personally i love bad faith essays!

Listen to Episode 113 - Hit and Run feat. R.L. Stephens (5/31/17) by Chapo Trap House #np on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-113-hit-and-run-feat-rl-stephens-53117

Lol, Jacobin reprinted that yesterday: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle And yeah, it's still stupid.

They renamed it though.

I can understand being annoyed with RLS' characterization of TNC's tone/intent but I'm gonna need more substantive criticisms than "lol marxism" to convince me he's not correct about the need to organize to effectively counter discrimination.

Who is even having that argument?

Fred, elsewhere

Maybe that rebuttal should also go elsewhere, then.

Don't take that strawman anywhere.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/?utm_source=atltw

discussing a little bit in one of the 20 threads currently being updated about residual 2016 bullshit

yes this article was mainly about the 2016 primary and the future direction of the democratic party, so that makes sense

they didn't even bother to link it in the other one. great article in any case.

TNC is an increasingly beautiful stylist whose central idea here strikes me as pretty obvious, not sure who really seeks to refute it

some issues raised with one part of his argument (for the record this particular LDR is not white)

The new Ta-Nehisi Coates piece is beautiful, but deeply limited analysis that only comforts the already comfortable.https://t.co/1ESvHGSokn

— Lana Del Raytheon (@LanaDelRaytheon) September 7, 2017

there's an extended monologue from Suzan Lori Parks' 'Father Comes Home From the Wars' where a white confederate colonel talks about how he thanks every day he was born white and how even though he may lose everything and be dirt poor a king will still meet with him because he's white. That paragraph in the T-NC piece about 'if a black man can be president then any white man can be president' really reminds me of that only... not satirical? I know SLP meant that monologue sincerely but it's presented as comedy before it grows grimmer and grimmer. T-NC version is just bleak as f.

I didn't get the impression that Coates was aiming to comfort anyone.

Don't know that pointing out all the ways Trump and Obama are indistinguishable really advances or addresses any of the ideas Coates is bringing.

xp

he's specifically taking issue with the notion of Trump undoing O's "legacy", I don't think it's an unfair or irrelevant criticism to point out the common ground

I've read the "comforts the already comfortable" a few places already. He's not a polemicist!

I don't really like that characterization either tbh

it strikes me as pretty ridiculous to dismiss TNC for not doing enough to "challenge" his audience and then falling back on the argument that trump is rly no different than obama because obama didn't just throw all the bankers in prison, a ridiculous stance but one that's certainly calculated to please an audience made up of left-wing doofs on twitter who can't handle any argument more nuanced than "they're all the same, those bums"

I apologize to straight people for not explaining to them what they should do. I'm not comparing TNC to Baldwin -- he's not at Baldwin's level of erudition or despair -- but Baldwin offered even less than TNC.

I think Coates is right that Trump's presidency is symbolically about undoing Obama's presidency. I think that's what it was about for many of his voters and maybe even for Trump himself, regardless of policy overlap.

Coates is a powerful writer and since, deep down, I probably care more about writing than politics this goes a long way with me. I think his descriptions of the dismal psychology of white supremacy are dead on for a certain kind of person, who clings to whiteness as a desperate way to hold onto some kind of status. I also appreciated how he pointed out that "white working class" voters weren't more into Trump than other demographics of whites, that pinning all the blame on them is a way for the white professional class to distance themselves from Trump while continuing to demonize the working class. Two birds, one stone.

I guess my only issue with this piece is that I don't understand what kind of politics could begin to address any of this. I know this isn't the question he is dealing with here. But it comes up when he criticizes Bernie Sanders for trying to reach out to the "white working class" by identifying himself as such, or when he tries to take apart the argument that part of Trump's appeal comes from "anti-elitism" and that Dems could reach more rural, white voters via economic populism. I feel like the Democrats NEED to do this to regain power from Republicans, especially at the state level. And I don't think it necessitates, for a single moment, backing down on issues like criminal justice reform. Just because the majority of white voters respond to dogwhistle politics, is that the only kind of politics they would respond to? And if it is, what does that mean for the future?

The Republicans are a threat to ALL Americans. If they had it their way, we wouldn't have schools, environmental protections, health care subsidies, anything. If white voters are voting this way JUST because it flatters their sense of relative entitlement, if white supremacy is the main thing they hold dear, if there is NOTHING democrats could do to peel them away from the nihilistic death cult of the GOP, then where does that leave us?

That tweet-thread is kinda bullshit. Just for an example, it says: 'What part of Obama's legacy was negated when Trump continued the already record high level of deportations under our one President of Color?' This is pretty stupid this week, when Trump is annulling DACA.

Time and time again Trump is attacking specific Obama polices, often for seemingly no other reason than that Obama did it, and that thread just says 'yeah, but the intercept said that Obama was shit as well!!!'

I guess my only issue with this piece is that I don't understand what kind of politics could begin to address any of this. I know this isn't the question he is dealing with here. But it comes up when he criticizes Bernie Sanders for trying to reach out to the "white working class" by identifying himself as such, or when he tries to take apart the argument that part of Trump's appeal comes from "anti-elitism" and that Dems could reach more rural, white voters via economic populism. I feel like the Democrats NEED to do this to regain power from Republicans, especially at the state level. And I don't think it necessitates, for a single moment, backing down on issues like criminal justice reform. Just because the majority of white voters respond to dogwhistle politics, is that the only kind of politics they would respond to? And if it is, what does that mean for the future?

The Republicans are a threat to ALL Americans. If they had it their way, we wouldn't have schools, environmental protections, health care subsidies, anything. If white voters are voting this way JUST because it flatters their sense of relative entitlement, if white supremacy is the main thing they hold dear, if there is NOTHING democrats could do to peel them away from the nihilistic death cult of the GOP, then where does that leave us?

I...don't think he's advocating nihilism. Like any good writer or professor, he's explaining the motivations and implications of the things we do, not to mention the unintended consequences. This is not hard.

Like, if he's pissing you white libs off, he's done his job.

mad white lib right here

woo!

get a room

TNC bodied Kristof in this piece, if had any shame, he wouldnt show up for work tomorrow and eat apple jacks and watch judge mathis all day

that tweet thread sucks, and of course it ends w marxist twitter linking to that awful RL stephens piece again

At the same time, Trump's bloody heirloom of whiteness does not explain why he improved with voters of color compared to Romney. pic.twitter.com/iR35cVaE4M

— Lana Del Raytheon (@LanaDelRaytheon) September 7, 2017

what's the contradiction here? the point is that stirring up white resentment wins the right elections. Of course POC can harbor antiblack racism; even black people can. Stirring up white resentment and gaining a slight increase in votes from POC are not remotely contradictory concepts

"How could they have lost ground with POC compared to two elections with the first POC candidate/President." Gee, golly.

I can't see many replies to that, hopefully someone points out that Hillary's reduced numbers maintained Obama's gains with Latinx and Asian-American voters and presumably reverted to non-Obama numbers for African-American voters in elections not on that chart.

If you're going to rely on stats like that, they're pretty simple - white evangelicals voted for Trump at record numbers and they made up an enormous percentage of the electorate.

'dogwhistle' is a dogwhistle

The demographic inevitability argument pre-election was grounded in the belief that the GOP had maxed out its white base (specifically white males) - they're not growing as a percentage of the population and you can't win 100% of a group - only oops, they managed to top themselves one more time.

Whatever good points LDR may have about Obama's real-world legacy in that thread, it's mostly revealing that Twitter is the worst possible way to respond to a writer of TNC's caliber.

Well one of the many points of that thread is good or brilliant writing isn't going to save the day. Treeship points to a lack of what do you do with any of this, and that points to a weakness.

It was a pretty good response, highlighting both positives and negatives. Obama was the first black President, and you can't forget the President bit.

isnt part of the point of coates' piece 'what do you do with any of this'

Only in the sense that recognising the scale of the problem as the first, humble step. That's valuable however he isn't coming up with any solutions nor do I expect him to.