Ta-Nehisi Coates Rules, The Thread

On the other hand, it got unperson to tap out, so mission accomplished.

Oh, I'll still engage with sane people, just not you, you ESL bonehead.

it's not like the rest of us are going to forget that you said this stupid ass shit:

more aimed at shoring up Coates' own position in the media elite than offering any serious critique of American society as it actually exists.

x-post: You write that as if that isn't still a big plus for me. Do you really think anyone here wants to 'engage' with you?

Fred it generally doesn't end well when you start into a rage spiral like this and make it personal and I'm being friendly here mayne

Anyways, back to Coates. Remember how he wrote about the 'Dreamers' in BTWAM? The policeman who killed his friend, he was black. It's not a purely black/white thing, it's who buys into the dream of whiteness, and who does not. And he constantly shows how part of buying into whiteness is obscuring the power of whiteness. That's one of the things Paul Street gets wrong, he just mentions stuff white people has does, as if that was enough. He never questions if it has put a dent in the power of whiteness (it clearly has not) because that is not important to him. White power isn't. White people is. And while that might seem humanistic, Coates looks at it in reverse, because white power is what allows for black people to be killed with no repercussions. Because, as Coates convincingly shows, 'whiteness' is constructed in opposition to blackness, and therefore requires the subjugation of blackness.

a great historical injustice xp

― I Love You, Fancybear (symsymsym),

alright, so that's not what i was saying. i don't care if me or k3v or unperson -- who doesn't like me -- is attacked. but i think that the demand for totally uncritical acquiescence to coates' writing is kind of like a demand for non-engagement and i find it.... odd and somewhat condescending toward coates, whose wriitng i often enjoy

i don't know what's behind it. i don't think coates' writing necessarily supports some kind of "status quo" moralistic politics, making it popular among non-radicals, as the counterpunch article suggests. i don't think that. but i don't really get it. there is no writer who i would try to protect from analysis the way people seem to do with coates.

like either fred or deej ctr+f'd the packer response for the word "intersectional" and said that since that word didn't appear he could be safely dismissed. what kind of a way to read is that

It was me, except it wasn't what I said. At all.

And come on, you seriously don't have any idea what the dynamic is here? No clue? Care to make a guess?

man, my takeaway came at the perfect moment

It be the only worthwhile takeaway from this thread I'd say

Fred keep up the good fight you're 100% right

xp it has to do with the fact that coates is talking about urgent issues in a powerful and public way and people don't want the discussion to be sidelined. i get that. but i also think that his writing won't be able to have a real-life impact if it just gets reified and people aren't allowed to actually read it.

Well maybe 98% I don't entirely get what you were going for w the literary criticism thing but yes more right than the ppl responding to you

Thanks D-40 and I don't get what that meant either. A mistake, got distracted.

alright, so that's not what i was saying. i don't care if me or k3v or unperson -- who doesn't like me -- is attacked. but i think that the demand for totally uncritical acquiescence to coates' writing is kind of like a demand for non-engagement and i find it.... odd and somewhat condescending toward coates, whose wriitng i often enjoy

― Treeship, Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:56 PM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No one is asking for uncritical acquiescence just that the "criticisms" show some understanding of the scope of what's actually being argued, which so far none really have. Coates isn't the only person making these arguments, nor is his version of it the definitive one (although it's arguably the most persuasively written and inarguably the most well known) but people arent really even engaging w the bigger ideas here. That counterpunch article was half "not all white leftists" (cue mordy whining about "twitter arguments")

I think the criticism that Coates narrowly / selectively defines what leftism is is a fair one but it's indicative of a much broader problem that falls outside the piece. there are virtually no actual visible leftists on staff in TV or in major print outlets, which I don't believe is an accurate reflection of the political makeup of america

it really is wild to me that my measured, (imo, at least) thoughtful, and very mild criticism of a writer i greatly admire has triggered such passionate backlash. i'm feeling generous recently so i won't say that the response is *stupid*, but it definitely borders on incurious and imo is reflective of the way we (and i include myself in this) tend to engage in discussion in the twitter era. there is a tendency to view certain figures, and their work, as not merely part of the larger discussion but as actual avatars for an entire belief system. like queens on a chessboard these must be protected at any cost; to make a single concession or find flaw in an argument is apparently to capitulate completely to the other side. this is magnified because coates is at the top of his class. i don't think this is healthy, and tbh i respectfully refuse to be a part of it, at least as much as i can control.

i understand how my criticisms of coates' recent piece can be viewed as shaped by my white privilege. i acknowledge that the ease with which i can separate my very real emotional response to (and agreement with) the article's main point from my qualms about the shaky use of statistics in many ways reflects my status as someone who has not had to experience the brunt of the horrors of white supremacy. but truth and evidence matter to me; my patients depend on my ability to use evidence and understand the literature in order to do my job correctly. and i happen to be very good at that. i am simply not going to ignore what i feel are important questions i have about a particular piece of work or idea because my opinion might be unpopular. and i really, truly promise that the sorts of responses i've gotten in this thread don't bother me. i've got pretty thick skin.

(i havent read the counterpunch article and don't really plan to btw)

basically regarding this meta issue i agree with treeship

I understand, k3vin, but a doctor's slipshod use of evidence may result in the severe injury if not death of a patient; there are a range of interpretations to data but saving the patient is the priority, as I interpret it. Writing doesn't quite work that way. Reasonable people can disagree about what Coates should have emphasized, but at best it's going to get clicks on the internet and a way to spend an afternoon for the rest of us.

To me, it comes down to this: Coates is highlighting dire problems in the US, but a lot of the criticism regarding his article is essentially saying "Yes, but maybe you should shift your lens to this other issue." This feels particularly bad because we are at a point in time where there are constant calls spanning the entire political spectrum to shift focus away from problems of racial injustice.

If I could be directed to some leftists who disagree that systemic/structuring antiblack racism is a thing that would be neat cause this view is supposedly widespread

Some of them seem to be in this thread.

Following that, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote an essay about it recently, you could try to read that, Simon.

I agree with Counterpunch guy that the figures Coates quotes are by and large not leftists.

Well, by that definition leftism isn't widespread, so racist leftism can hardly be widespread either.

I mean if your (and Coates') definition of leftists includes liberals, then...cool, I guess, but there are substantive differences between them!

obv the most important issue in these trying times is determining who the "real leftists" are

I think there are some good pointers in here

http://splinternews.com/i-hung-out-with-juggalos-and-trump-voters-and-saw-our-w-1818520515

I think we should at least settle on a definition that doesn't include Mark Lilla! xp

Can you go do that on another thread? Coates also quotes Charles Murray, he is clearly not claiming everyone he quotes is a leftist.

i think coates' point was that, in his view, the issue he identifies diffusely afflicts the left, from heterodox liberals like lilla to mainstream ones like packer. (leaving aside the uncharitable reading of packer's essay and motives for the moment.) i don't think washing our hands of most of the left-of-center pundit class and saying "well he doesn't speak for DSA members and weird twitter" does much to contradict his point. if anything, as fred said, it demonstrates how widespread the issue is
xp

the point being, pointing out that not all people to the left of center share the views coates attributes to them, solely for the purpose of absolving ourselves, is not helpful. pointing out that significant differences exist between certain subgroups of white people, tying those differences to policy, and demonstrating that this difference contributes to our electoral defeat, is probably a worthwhile exercise for those interested in such things

i think coates' point was that, in his view, the issue he identifies diffusely afflicts the left, from heterodox liberals like lilla to mainstream ones like packer. (leaving aside the uncharitable reading of packer's essay and motives for the moment.) i don't think washing our hands of most of the left-of-center pundit class and saying "well he doesn't speak for DSA members and weird twitter" does much to contradict his point. if anything, as fred said, it demonstrates how widespread the issue is
xp

― k3vin k., Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:17 PM (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

k3v otm here

I just reread the third part of Between the World and Me, the part with the mother of Prince Jones, and it's so powerful.

But you cannot arrange your life around them and the small chance of the Dreamers coming into consciousness. Our moment is too brief. Our bodies are too precious. And you are here now, and you must live - and there is so much to live for, not just in someone else's country, but in your own home. The warmth of dark energies that drew me to The Mecca, that drew out Prince Jones, the warmth of our particular world, is beautiful, no matter how brief and breakable.

The biggest misread of Coates is that he is a hopeless pessimist or that what he writes is a 'Jeremiad'. He is not, so much of the book is brimming with life and power and joy. He just thinks the people who think they are white is a lost cause. Which pisses them off. And even worse, he says that his son shouldn't work for them (which is us, because it includes me, obv), but has to work for himself instead. And in all honesty, that's probably at the roots of the misreads. A black man saying to his son: 'Dreamers are less important than you, you have to be for yourself rather than them.'

Home from a morning viewing of I Am Not Your Negro, a bit disappointed, as almost all the power comes from Baldwins words, but nevertheless a strong experience. This clip from the Dick Cavett show made me think of this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjGyInxfXNQ
This is the evidence. You want me to make an act of faith, risking myself, my life, my woman, my existence, my children, on some idealism which you assure me exist in America, which I have never seen. Like when Paul Street's comeback against the notion that class unity failed against racism in 2016 is the notion that class unity didn't get the chance. But of course there is people fighting for class unity in America, as long as there's just a single true leftist - and Street of course insists there's a lot - there's a power of class unity, which clearly didn't keep out Trump. Street is just saying that it was something else than racism, that this evidence of the weakness of class unity isn't good enough, that class unity could be strong enough to withstand it, and asks, no demands, that Coates believe in that, without having to offer any evidence in return. And of course that only works due to the power of whiteness, because much of the public a priori believes that white people are too good for Coates to be right. But more bluntly, the argument to Coates and Baldwin is that their lifes don't matter enough, aren't precious, powerful, warm, beautiful enough, to be worth it having to give up this idealism, this Dream, that white people at the end of the day are fundamentally good enough.

And Treeship, you can rail as much as you want against 'extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations', but the fact of the matter is that writers like Coates and Baldwin very explicitly include their black bodies in their writing, they are part of the deal, their existence, safety and happiness, is part of the argument, and when you ask us to be 'charitable' to critics, or when Packer says Coates should 'stop thinking he can see into my soul', or when kevin says Coates should write with more 'humility', you are saying that that is more important than the safety and happiness of black people. And you need a real good reason to do that, you need evidence, you need really strong arguments. YOU need humility and carefulness, much more than the least lip service you can get away with ('But I agree with a lot!'). If you don't have that, nobody should be charitable.

And it's not enough, as kevin did, to claim to be a man of reason, of 'truth and evidence' and that therefore you - even inadvertently - dismiss the visceral and emotional power Coates and Baldwin depends on. It's of no use in this argument. Yes, if you summon that 'truth and evidence' in the support of a convincing counterargument, then we might be talking. Until then, you're just offering more idealism, a Dream that 'truth and evidence' does more good for black bodies than specific concern for black bodies. Show the evidence that class unity might help more than it did in the fourties, that it won't be undermined by the power of whiteness, that the new social programs of the new left won't be compromised in the effort to pass them, that metaphorical red lines won't be drawn to ensure black people will be left out as much as possible. Where's the evidence in any state in the US, any city even, that this won't happen? Which part of the social fabric isn't plagued by either redlining or white flight?

I'm actually going to use this Block Poster feature on Zing for the first time ever.

It doesn't work as well as I hoped.

FP'ing deej for encouraging freb

Show the evidence that class unity might help more than it did in the fourties, that it won't be undermined by the power of whiteness, that the new social programs of the new left won't be compromised in the effort to pass them, that metaphorical red lines won't be drawn to ensure black people will be left out as much as possible. Where's the evidence in any state in the US, any city even, that this won't happen? Which part of the social fabric isn't plagued by either redlining or white flight?

― Frederik B, Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:37 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

who ever said these weren't concerns?

also, k3v wasn't even really making an argument for increased "class unity" that transcends race. he simply objected to the way coates elided certain distinctions among trump's voters in order to bolster his argument. the reason k3vin said he objected to this is because he thinks it is important for people to have as complete a picture of what happened in 2016 as possible. this is also what packer said. it has nothing to do with making excuses for the "white working class" or romanticizing them or saying their hand was forced in voting for trump or ANYTHING.

i still agree with coates that people need to remember that it was a broad coalition of white people from all income and education levels that elected trump, and not jus this caricature of "middle americans." so i agree with his thesis but, as k3v pointed out, he misrepresents the data and then he implies that the writers who wrestled with the parts of the data he wanted to ignore were doing so to avoid the question of "whiteness," which is true in some of the cases -- lilla -- but not in others -- packer.

i find it extremely condescending to coates that you would put him on this sort of pedestal. his writing is good, it can withstand scrutiny. also, speaking of uncharitable, it is simply not the case that any objection to any part of his writing constitutes an attempt to discredit his entire body of work, or the issues he has brought to national attention over the past several years. that is not what k3vin was doing.

I didn't say kevin dismissed his 'body of work', I said he dismissed his black body. Even when you want to describe how uncharitable I am being, you elide the actual harsh accusation I am making.

And of course, you don't bother making a counterargument. You just say 'it is simply not the case' and therefore implicitly demand that I put more power in your words, than in the argument I derived from Coates and Baldwin. Don't you find that dismissive?

OK I take it back the Block Poster feature fucking rules

Can it delete the memory of Fred going on about warm beautiful bodies from my brain tho?

It might help if you take those words away from me and give them to Coates, who I was paraphrasing:

"But you cannot arrange your life around them and the small chance of the Dreamers coming into consciousness. Our moment is too brief. Our bodies are too precious. And you are here now, and you must live - and there is so much to live for, not just in someone else's country, but in your own home. The warmth of dark energies that drew me to The Mecca, that drew out Prince Jones, the warmth of our particular world, is beautiful, no matter how brief and breakable."

It's kinda hard to avoid talking about beautiful black bodies when talking about Coates and Baldwin, though, as it's essential to their argument. This is from the final paragraph of The Fire Next Time:

“When I was very young, and was dealing with my buddies in those wine- and urine-stained hallways, something in me wondered, What will happen to all that beauty? For black people, though I am aware that some of us, black and white, do not know it yet, are very beautiful.”

It is not that hard.

Both Baldwin and Coates insists on specifying racism and the power of whiteness, relating it to corporality instead of keeping it as an abstraction. But yeah, I can keep it in the quotes.