Questions: Global and Local

globalquestions

1) So you watched Pants on the Ground and laughed. Did you notice that General Larry Platt had on a Justice for Troy Davis button, a National Action Network tee shirt, and Red, Black and Green wristbands? Message!

2) So when you heard that Yele had financial issues did it stop you from donating?

3) How come when you heard that Red Cross had bigger issues it didn’t stop you from donating?

4) How come the resolutions that people make for the new year usually end by Martin Luther King Day?

5) Wait, there’s a rapper named Wacka Flocka? So we naming ourselves after Muppets now?

6) If people read Dyson nearly as much as they hated on him, would they hate as much?

7) Why do you think King’s life work was about integration, when it was really about fighting poverty, war, and racism?

8 ) On Jersey Shore, why did the cops know Ronnie by name?

9) Why didn’t you even notice the Supreme Court eeked closer to putting Mumia to death?

10) Why the hell haven’t you offered your assistance to the cradle of our liberation struggle – Haiti?

Filed under: Ancestors, Food for Thought, General, Haiti, Questions

Share/Bookmark Share with friends
  • cmacden

    My answer to #6 for me personally? I've read all his stuff and the answer is still “yes”

  • dumilewis

    LOL, I think you and @nativenotes share that sentiment. I think folks tend to generally hate on him for being full of hot air and assume him self-aggrandizing. The former is false, the latter I'll let you be the judge of ;)

  • http://twitter.com/nativenotes nativenotes

    Hmm, Dyson. I don't disagree with everything he says. But I think I have a quote that speaks to the vibe I get from self appointed black leaders.

    SHiNE: How do you feel when people say there is no Black leadership?

    KP: It’s an insult, and I think part of the problem is because of the phenomenon of what Dr. King called “Manufactured Black Leadership”. What Dr. King meant by that, was the folks that you see on TV all the time, you hear them on the radio all the time, they’re the ones always leading protests and marches, rallies and stuff like that. They're what we call “ambulance chasers”, when there’s some sort of hype, there they are. But ask yourself a question again, what are the institutions that they have created that are really supporting and sustaining the community? Have they really created some ideas that are taking the conversation in different directions, and are they really out there on a regular basis with the people? NO, NO and NO. Then they’re not leaders they’re spokesmen!

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    7. I think King's early work was about integration. The Movement began in Montgomery, AL with a goal of integrated buses. That goal was met. It moved to other cities with a similar goal. Then came the lunch counters, such as Greensboro, NC. After 1963 and the March on Washington, the thrust of the movement changed to include poverty not just racism. King and some of the other leaders had come to see that poor whites also lacked equality. Then in 1967, King angered LBJ by taking a stand against the Vietnam War. So the movement grew. And King grew. What started as a fight against segregation of schools, buses, lunch counters, etc. became a true fight for equality. Of course, equality was always the goal as King pointed out in his book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community, in which he clearly stated the triple evils: racism, poverty, and militiarism.

  • dumilewis

    I hear what you're saying, but I don't the question is whether Dyson is a Black Leader. I don't think he's purported to lead us to anything other than a deeper form of thought and potential action. He is a public intellectual in that sense and there to beg questions. The irony of King's stance on manufactured leadership is that he was often questioned on the same terms by his peers. Institutions and legacies are real important q's and themes, but we must also admit that folks will disagree with the value of what folks leave behind. After all both Sharpton and Jackson have been very successful at creating organizations that have been engaged in long term activism, but trust folks often don't like them as leaders or what they perceive to be their deeds. But points well taken sir. Thanks for blessing the blog.

  • dumilewis

    Right on the money about the triple evils origins. I just have never read King's earliest work as narrowly concerned with integration. His theological roots and being tutored under Ben E Mays and others makes me think there was a much larger concern and that MIA was the first opportunity that he was “selected” to spearhead. King was in the business of angering the US Gov't, his tradition of ethical agitation is a robust one.

  • cmacden

    My answer to #6 for me personally? I’ve read all his stuff and the answer is still “yes”

    • dumilewis

      LOL, I think you and @nativenotes share that sentiment. I think folks tend to generally hate on him for being full of hot air and assume him self-aggrandizing. The former is false, the latter I’ll let you be the judge of ;)

  • http://twitter.com/nativenotes nativenotes

    Hmm, Dyson. I don’t disagree with everything he says. But I think I have a quote that speaks to the vibe I get from self appointed black leaders.

    SHiNE: How do you feel when people say there is no Black leadership?

    KP: It’s an insult, and I think part of the problem is because of the phenomenon of what Dr. King called “Manufactured Black Leadership”. What Dr. King meant by that, was the folks that you see on TV all the time, you hear them on the radio all the time, they’re the ones always leading protests and marches, rallies and stuff like that. They’re what we call “ambulance chasers”, when there’s some sort of hype, there they are. But ask yourself a question again, what are the institutions that they have created that are really supporting and sustaining the community? Have they really created some ideas that are taking the conversation in different directions, and are they really out there on a regular basis with the people? NO, NO and NO. Then they’re not leaders they’re spokesmen!

    • dumilewis

      I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t the question is whether Dyson is a Black Leader. I don’t think he’s purported to lead us to anything other than a deeper form of thought and potential action. He is a public intellectual in that sense and there to beg questions. The irony of King’s stance on manufactured leadership is that he was often questioned on the same terms by his peers. Institutions and legacies are real important q’s and themes, but we must also admit that folks will disagree with the value of what folks leave behind. After all both Sharpton and Jackson have been very successful at creating organizations that have been engaged in long term activism, but trust folks often don’t like them as leaders or what they perceive to be their deeds. But points well taken sir. Thanks for blessing the blog.

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    7. I think King’s early work was about integration. The Movement began in Montgomery, AL with a goal of integrated buses. That goal was met. It moved to other cities with a similar goal. Then came the lunch counters, such as Greensboro, NC. After 1963 and the March on Washington, the thrust of the movement changed to include poverty not just racism. King and some of the other leaders had come to see that poor whites also lacked equality. Then in 1967, King angered LBJ by taking a stand against the Vietnam War. So the movement grew. And King grew. What started as a fight against segregation of schools, buses, lunch counters, etc. became a true fight for equality. Of course, equality was always the goal as King pointed out in his book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community, in which he clearly stated the triple evils: racism, poverty, and militiarism.

    • dumilewis

      Right on the money about the triple evils origins. I just have never read King’s earliest work as narrowly concerned with integration. His theological roots and being tutored under Ben E Mays and others makes me think there was a much larger concern and that MIA was the first opportunity that he was “selected” to spearhead. King was in the business of angering the US Gov’t, his tradition of ethical agitation is a robust one.

      • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

        King didn’t see “angering the US government” as anything but a means to an end. He didn’t “want” to anger LBJ, but he felt he had to by taking a stand that he thought was moral. (I wrote my master’s thesis on King. “Making All Things New: The Value of Unmerited Suffering In the Like and Works of Martin Luther King Jr.” Wake Forest University, 2000.)

        • dumilewis

          Angering the government was as much a means to an end as integration was. If I had to classify his life’s works tenets those three evils would sum them up well. It was in these tenets that led him to lead the MIA and advocate for integration, which was ultimately a strategy in his fight against government supported racism. That led him to build the Poor Peoples Movement in the face of governmentally supported poverty inducing labor conditions. And it was those tenets that led him to speak out against Vietnam in their unnecessary war that endangered too many lives. King’s work centered on those tenets and the government had an intimate role to play in each of those landmark movements. He is often remembered as a moralist and dreamer when in fact he was pragmatic organizer and worker. The reason the end of his life is so erased and sullied in our memories is the undeniable reality that his work moved beyond moralist appeals to higher selves, it also included an accountability from the structures in place and the powers that be. Thanks for sharing the reference, I’ll try to check out your thesis when I get a chance.

          • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

            “Legislation alone was insufficient to bring about equality. Laws granting rights are useless unless people have the power to exercise them. The right to eat in a restaurant meant little to people who could not afford to eat there. Ridding the world of poverty became a substantial part of King’s dream, and as he matured, his thinking became more inclusive—more global. When he realized that racism was so deeply ingrained in American society that nothing except a transformation of values could bring about freedom, he spoke forcefully, naming racism, poverty, and war as the major ills of America and showing their interconnectedness. The choice was not between nonviolence and violence but between nonviolence and nonexistence. King believed people must stop killing each other and rid the world of war. He had begun to see two kinds of hypocrisy among racists: ignorance accompanied by inconsistent behavior and genuine conviction that equality would not work. He hoped to educate the ignorant, but he had no answer for those who truly believed that masking racism and injustice was enough. How can one aim toward an ideal that does not exist? Exasperated, King became bolder in his prophetic role, using more confrontational language as he questioned America’s ability to distinguish good from evil without a revolution of values.

            Especially during his final years, King was too busy and important to lead a normal life although he longed to do so. He struggled with the dichotomy between his sexual habits and his role as pastor and prophet and with his pending martyrdom. Although he was in a cycle he could not break, he had a destiny he could not deny. Only with a few close friends could he be himself. He suffered not only physical abuse, such as the stoning he and Abernathy experienced during a march in Cicero, Illinois, but mental torture, like the loneliness he experienced in jail and the never-ending fear that a given death threat might result in his death or that his sex life would be exposed. He knew the FBI was listening and waiting for the opportunity to discredit him and to negate the work of the movement. Ironically, King’s liaisons seem to have increased during this period. Perhaps his excruciating loneliness was temporarily lessened in a sexual release.

            In his final days, King spoke with great urgency—casting aside expectations of approval and ignoring the consequences of his radical statements. When he angered civil rights leaders by linking the Vietnam War with the Civil Rights Movement, he lost popularity and became deeply hurt by negative comments from his former allies. He knew the chances of his assassination were increasing. Whenever he was afraid, he fell back on his testimony, retelling the story of his kitchen experience in Montgomery, when, as a young pastor, he had became discouraged and afraid, yet he found, deep in the night when he felt most alone, that God gave him the strength to stand firm and authenticated his call. Another story recalled a letter from a young white girl who was glad he didn’t sneeze after his Harlem stabbing. Criticism and weariness had caused Martin to experience a deep depression, but these stories reminded him that hope was greater than disappointment.”

            from the “Conclusion: of Helen Losse, “Making All Things New: The Redemptive Value of Unmerited Suffering in the Lief and Words of martin Luther King Jr.” (master’s thesis, WFU, 2000)

          • dumilewis

            well stated! you’re going to make me dig into proquest to find that thesis!

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    King didn't see “angering the US government” as anything but a means to an end. He didn't “want” to anger LBJ, but he felt he had to by taking a stand that he thought was moral. (I wrote my master's thesis on King. “Making All Things New: The Value of Unmerited Suffering In the Like and Works of Martin Luther King Jr.” Wake Forest University, 2000.)

  • dumilewis

    Angering the government was as much a means to an end as integration was. If I had to classify his life's works tenets those three evils would sum them up well. It was in these tenets that led him to lead the MIA and advocate for integration, which was ultimately a strategy in his fight against government supported racism. That led him to build the Poor Peoples Movement in the face of governmentally supported poverty inducing labor conditions. And it was those tenets that led him to speak out against Vietnam in their unnecessary war that endangered too many lives. King's work centered on those tenets and the government had an intimate role to play in each of those landmark movements. He is often remembered as a moralist and dreamer when in fact he was pragmatic organizer and worker. The reason the end of his life is so erased and sullied in our memories is the undeniable reality that his work moved beyond moralist appeals to higher selves, it also included an accountability from the structures in place and the powers that be. Thanks for sharing the reference, I'll try to check out your thesis when I get a chance.

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    “Legislation alone was insufficient to bring about equality. Laws granting rights are useless unless people have the power to exercise them. The right to eat in a restaurant meant little to people who could not afford to eat there. Ridding the world of poverty became a substantial part of King’s dream, and as he matured, his thinking became more inclusive—more global. When he realized that racism was so deeply ingrained in American society that nothing except a transformation of values could bring about freedom, he spoke forcefully, naming racism, poverty, and war as the major ills of America and showing their interconnectedness. The choice was not between nonviolence and violence but between nonviolence and nonexistence. King believed people must stop killing each other and rid the world of war. He had begun to see two kinds of hypocrisy among racists: ignorance accompanied by inconsistent behavior and genuine conviction that equality would not work. He hoped to educate the ignorant, but he had no answer for those who truly believed that masking racism and injustice was enough. How can one aim toward an ideal that does not exist? Exasperated, King became bolder in his prophetic role, using more confrontational language as he questioned America’s ability to distinguish good from evil without a revolution of values.

    Especially during his final years, King was too busy and important to lead a normal life although he longed to do so. He struggled with the dichotomy between his sexual habits and his role as pastor and prophet and with his pending martyrdom. Although he was in a cycle he could not break, he had a destiny he could not deny. Only with a few close friends could he be himself. He suffered not only physical abuse, such as the stoning he and Abernathy experienced during a march in Cicero, Illinois, but mental torture, like the loneliness he experienced in jail and the never-ending fear that a given death threat might result in his death or that his sex life would be exposed. He knew the FBI was listening and waiting for the opportunity to discredit him and to negate the work of the movement. Ironically, King’s liaisons seem to have increased during this period. Perhaps his excruciating loneliness was temporarily lessened in a sexual release.

    In his final days, King spoke with great urgency—casting aside expectations of approval and ignoring the consequences of his radical statements. When he angered civil rights leaders by linking the Vietnam War with the Civil Rights Movement, he lost popularity and became deeply hurt by negative comments from his former allies. He knew the chances of his assassination were increasing. Whenever he was afraid, he fell back on his testimony, retelling the story of his kitchen experience in Montgomery, when, as a young pastor, he had became discouraged and afraid, yet he found, deep in the night when he felt most alone, that God gave him the strength to stand firm and authenticated his call. Another story recalled a letter from a young white girl who was glad he didn’t sneeze after his Harlem stabbing. Criticism and weariness had caused Martin to experience a deep depression, but these stories reminded him that hope was greater than disappointment.”

    from the “Conclusion: of Helen Losse, “Making All Things New: The Redemptive Value of Unmerited Suffering in the Lief and Words of martin Luther King Jr.” (master's thesis, WFU, 2000)

  • dumilewis

    well stated! you're going to make me dig into proquest to find that thesis!

  • cmacden

    My answer to #6 for me personally? I've read all his stuff and the answer is still “yes”

  • dumilewis

    LOL, I think you and @nativenotes share that sentiment. I think folks tend to generally hate on him for being full of hot air and assume him self-aggrandizing. The former is false, the latter I'll let you be the judge of ;)

  • http://twitter.com/nativenotes nativenotes

    Hmm, Dyson. I don't disagree with everything he says. But I think I have a quote that speaks to the vibe I get from self appointed black leaders.

    SHiNE: How do you feel when people say there is no Black leadership?

    KP: It’s an insult, and I think part of the problem is because of the phenomenon of what Dr. King called “Manufactured Black Leadership”. What Dr. King meant by that, was the folks that you see on TV all the time, you hear them on the radio all the time, they’re the ones always leading protests and marches, rallies and stuff like that. They're what we call “ambulance chasers”, when there’s some sort of hype, there they are. But ask yourself a question again, what are the institutions that they have created that are really supporting and sustaining the community? Have they really created some ideas that are taking the conversation in different directions, and are they really out there on a regular basis with the people? NO, NO and NO. Then they’re not leaders they’re spokesmen!

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    7. I think King's early work was about integration. The Movement began in Montgomery, AL with a goal of integrated buses. That goal was met. It moved to other cities with a similar goal. Then came the lunch counters, such as Greensboro, NC. After 1963 and the March on Washington, the thrust of the movement changed to include poverty not just racism. King and some of the other leaders had come to see that poor whites also lacked equality. Then in 1967, King angered LBJ by taking a stand against the Vietnam War. So the movement grew. And King grew. What started as a fight against segregation of schools, buses, lunch counters, etc. became a true fight for equality. Of course, equality was always the goal as King pointed out in his book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community, in which he clearly stated the triple evils: racism, poverty, and militiarism.

  • dumilewis

    I hear what you're saying, but I don't the question is whether Dyson is a Black Leader. I don't think he's purported to lead us to anything other than a deeper form of thought and potential action. He is a public intellectual in that sense and there to beg questions. The irony of King's stance on manufactured leadership is that he was often questioned on the same terms by his peers. Institutions and legacies are real important q's and themes, but we must also admit that folks will disagree with the value of what folks leave behind. After all both Sharpton and Jackson have been very successful at creating organizations that have been engaged in long term activism, but trust folks often don't like them as leaders or what they perceive to be their deeds. But points well taken sir. Thanks for blessing the blog.

  • dumilewis

    Right on the money about the triple evils origins. I just have never read King's earliest work as narrowly concerned with integration. His theological roots and being tutored under Ben E Mays and others makes me think there was a much larger concern and that MIA was the first opportunity that he was “selected” to spearhead. King was in the business of angering the US Gov't, his tradition of ethical agitation is a robust one.

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    King didn't see “angering the US government” as anything but a means to an end. He didn't “want” to anger LBJ, but he felt he had to by taking a stand that he thought was moral. (I wrote my master's thesis on King. “Making All Things New: The Value of Unmerited Suffering In the Like and Works of Martin Luther King Jr.” Wake Forest University, 2000.)

  • dumilewis

    Angering the government was as much a means to an end as integration was. If I had to classify his life's works tenets those three evils would sum them up well. It was in these tenets that led him to lead the MIA and advocate for integration, which was ultimately a strategy in his fight against government supported racism. That led him to build the Poor Peoples Movement in the face of governmentally supported poverty inducing labor conditions. And it was those tenets that led him to speak out against Vietnam in their unnecessary war that endangered too many lives. King's work centered on those tenets and the government had an intimate role to play in each of those landmark movements. He is often remembered as a moralist and dreamer when in fact he was pragmatic organizer and worker. The reason the end of his life is so erased and sullied in our memories is the undeniable reality that his work moved beyond moralist appeals to higher selves, it also included an accountability from the structures in place and the powers that be. Thanks for sharing the reference, I'll try to check out your thesis when I get a chance.

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    “Legislation alone was insufficient to bring about equality. Laws granting rights are useless unless people have the power to exercise them. The right to eat in a restaurant meant little to people who could not afford to eat there. Ridding the world of poverty became a substantial part of King’s dream, and as he matured, his thinking became more inclusive—more global. When he realized that racism was so deeply ingrained in American society that nothing except a transformation of values could bring about freedom, he spoke forcefully, naming racism, poverty, and war as the major ills of America and showing their interconnectedness. The choice was not between nonviolence and violence but between nonviolence and nonexistence. King believed people must stop killing each other and rid the world of war. He had begun to see two kinds of hypocrisy among racists: ignorance accompanied by inconsistent behavior and genuine conviction that equality would not work. He hoped to educate the ignorant, but he had no answer for those who truly believed that masking racism and injustice was enough. How can one aim toward an ideal that does not exist? Exasperated, King became bolder in his prophetic role, using more confrontational language as he questioned America’s ability to distinguish good from evil without a revolution of values.

    Especially during his final years, King was too busy and important to lead a normal life although he longed to do so. He struggled with the dichotomy between his sexual habits and his role as pastor and prophet and with his pending martyrdom. Although he was in a cycle he could not break, he had a destiny he could not deny. Only with a few close friends could he be himself. He suffered not only physical abuse, such as the stoning he and Abernathy experienced during a march in Cicero, Illinois, but mental torture, like the loneliness he experienced in jail and the never-ending fear that a given death threat might result in his death or that his sex life would be exposed. He knew the FBI was listening and waiting for the opportunity to discredit him and to negate the work of the movement. Ironically, King’s liaisons seem to have increased during this period. Perhaps his excruciating loneliness was temporarily lessened in a sexual release.

    In his final days, King spoke with great urgency—casting aside expectations of approval and ignoring the consequences of his radical statements. When he angered civil rights leaders by linking the Vietnam War with the Civil Rights Movement, he lost popularity and became deeply hurt by negative comments from his former allies. He knew the chances of his assassination were increasing. Whenever he was afraid, he fell back on his testimony, retelling the story of his kitchen experience in Montgomery, when, as a young pastor, he had became discouraged and afraid, yet he found, deep in the night when he felt most alone, that God gave him the strength to stand firm and authenticated his call. Another story recalled a letter from a young white girl who was glad he didn’t sneeze after his Harlem stabbing. Criticism and weariness had caused Martin to experience a deep depression, but these stories reminded him that hope was greater than disappointment.”

    from the “Conclusion: of Helen Losse, “Making All Things New: The Redemptive Value of Unmerited Suffering in the Lief and Words of martin Luther King Jr.” (master's thesis, WFU, 2000)

  • dumilewis

    well stated! you're going to make me dig into proquest to find that thesis!