Afrocentrism?

[Hokulele]

I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.

It has nothing to do with his views, but rather his past admittance of starting flash-paper threads to get people worked up (trolling), and the appearance that this was just more of the same.

In addition, looking at the first several posts in this thread, other than madurobob, it looked like people were trying to address the issue, but DF was more interested in generating conflict rather than discussing the matter. If people had simply discussed this around him, I wouldn't have any problems. If you had chosen to address the issue and not the other posters, I would not have said anything and let people draw their own conclusions.

If you would like me to link to examples, say the word.

 

[slingblade]

Oh, please. I'm sure he's just pointing out the flaws of capitalism just like he's pointing out that racism and sexism also have flaws. Wait a minute...

"It is important to repeat that any solution that evolves must be a collective and community-affirming solution, one that honors the moral demands of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity. "

These quotes are coming from the area on "Black men/women" relationships; nonetheless, the whole "African worldview is collective, communitarian!", the references to Marx, and this stuff isn't painting a rosy picture. I think you're the closed-minded one, bub...

Further down, you give me crap for responding to a thread when I hadn't read the material you were asking about. I rather thought you were going to give us examples, show us some pertinent excerpts so we could get an idea of what you mean.

I wish you'd done it sooner. I wish you'd do it some more.

And then you patronize me with "oh, I was that way once" crap. Thanks. Gonna give me a pat on the head too?

No. I was trying to show you that because I have been where you are now, and recently, I understand your frustration. College can be a crazy place sometimes. That was all I meant to do. I apologize for making you feel patronized and coddled.

Treating me like I'm an idiot that doesn't know how to think for myself isn't going to get you any points with me. The fact is, though, that I can't actually find many criticisms laid out, only very broad ones.

I'm dead serious here: you're about to make me cry. How many times do I have to tell you I don't think you're an idiot? Do I need to flog myself or something to prove my sincerity?

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE AN IDIOT! I think you're frustrated, and being somewhat assumptive in a few areas, and have been pretty rude to me for no reason, so I finally responded in kind. Neither of us likes it so why don't we stop it, okay?

I'm tempted, but maybe later, doing so now would only be giving you what you want

What I want? What the hell do you think I want? You can't just drop off these snide comments and expect me to babysit them.

How about, if you have no idea about the subject matter... don't respond? I don't need a crash course in not trusting everything a professor says, I'm well aware of how college works, thank you very much. What I wanted was essentially someone familiar with Afrocentric garbage to help me sort out nonsense or point to a resource to compare with material taught in the class

Fine. Mea culpa.

Ah, funny how once you get angry you say what you really feel. I wanted more information on the claims of Afrocentrism and criticisms to, y'know, educate myself (this is the James Randi EDUCATIONAL Foundation... right...?) and instead I have people like you clowning around pretending to contribute but instead just insulting my intelligence and telling me I'm wrong when I went through the ****ing class and sat through that garbage. Then, I show a passage lumping capitalism with sexism and racism and you try to find silly, ridiculous ways to justify the statement--and then claiming you have no idea about any of this, because you don't have the text...!

I rather thought you'd give some examples, or point us to an essay or two, as you finally did later on. I could have wished to see that sooner, and once I did, I told you that if that's what you've been learning about, it's crap. I agree. Melanin isn't magic, and people don't have supernatural powers because of it or for any other reason. I can easily agree with your frustration at crap like that. I just thought I'd see these examples from the off.

No, no I'm quite right about you...

Actually, neither of us is right about the other, I think. I know you've misjudged me. If I've done the same to you, I'll apologize and mean it faster than sweat stinks. I promise.

Do you really think I'm going to appreciate stuff like "You're a black and white thinker!

Only if you are one, and my comment starts you considering that. If you aren't and I'm wrong, blow it off. I've been wrong before.

Don't worry, college will fix you right up!"

I didn't say that. If anything, I'd substitute "fix" for another word that starts with F and can't be said here. That's what college will really do to you, in my opinion. It certainly did me.

And then telling me about how some professors are egotistical idiots. Again, telling someone rather obvious things, things they've already seen, as if you're imparting some great wisdom isn't going to make you friends. This isn't exactly my first college course, you know. It feels like you're telling me to dress up and brush my teeth for a job interview as if I couldn't possibly have figured that out for myself. Advice can be insulting if it's obvious, especially since I already came here expressing skepticism...

Never meant to do any of that. I thought you were expressing frustration with how crazy some profs can be, and I was simply saying I know. Oh boy, do I know. That's all. Sometimes when you're frustrated, knowing someone else gets it can help.

That's a mighty small violin...

Sigh. Yeah, I know. Can I borrow yours? (honestly just joking with you.)

 

[LostAngeles]

I'm aware of Dr. Fascism's history. And do not agree with some of the views he expresses.

However, I disagree fundamentally with attacks that are based more on personal dislike, and on carrying over arguments and prejudices from other discussions. Where he says things that we actually disagree with, then we should express our disagreement, and do so vocally.

So tell me -- where do you disagree with a request to discuss where we can find more accurate information regarding black history, especially as it relates to Afrocentric studies? I provided a response that allows for further, intelligent, reasonable discussion of the question -- all that pretty much everyone else has done is engage in personal attacks that accomplish nothing whatsoever.

May I suggest that, besides Dr. Fascism, there will be others reading this thread who may have similar questions. They may be blacks, who've been taught these things as 'fact'; they may be whites, who are trying to understand it, and to put Afrocentric claims into a more accurate historical context.

People who click on this thread are doing so because, presumably, they are interested in a discussion about Afrocentrism.

What has anyone here done to actually engage in or expand upon an intelligent, reasonable discussion of that issue? Pretty much nothing. Instead, if people click on the thread, they just get another batch of petty bickering and personal attacks between Dr. F, and those who dislike him.

Let me ask -- if people had responded by simply answering the question, and pointing out resources that discuss Afrocentrism in a systematic, scientific manner, what would the harm have been? None. What would the benefit have been? Well, anyone reading the thread would have been informed, and hopefully found new information. And, if after presenting that information, Dr. Fascism used it to promote ideas or beliefs with which we disagreed, we could do so based on the facts of his statements, not based simply on "we don't like you, regardless of what you say."

I believe firmly that those who claim to be 'superior' in terms of their beliefs likewise have a responsibility to be 'superior' in terms of how they treat and respond to others. By that standard, people in this thread have failed miserably. It could have been an interesting, insightful, intelligent, and informative thread about an issue that is an important issue.

There are people in these forums who dislike me. That's fine, I don't come here to coddle people, or try to make everyone like me. But if someone who dislikes me comes into a thread that I've started, and responds based purely on their dislike of me, rather than based on what I've actually said, it pisses me off. And it likewise pisses me off when people do the same thing to others.

Excuse me, but if you would kindly go back and identify where in my initial response to this thread or in any other response to this thread along with slingblade's initial response to this thread where we have not attempted to, "engage in or expand upon an intelligent, reasonable discussion of that issue," I would really appreciate it because I thought I was making an attempt to engage in the discussion as to some of the motivations behind Afro-centrism, which is a perfectly valid point in discussing the matter.

Thanks.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

It has nothing to do with his views, but rather his past admittance of starting flash-paper threads to get people worked up (trolling), and the appearance that this was just more of the same.

In addition, looking at the first several posts in this thread, other than madurobob, it looked like people were trying to address the issue, but DF was more interested in generating conflict rather than discussing the matter. If people had simply discussed this around him, I wouldn't have any problems. If you had chosen to address the issue and not the other posters, I would not have said anything and let people draw their own conclusions.

If you would like me to link to examples, say the word.

Are you kidding me? People hadn't even read my first post! I said I was finishing up the class in the very first line, and a few people responded with "oh, so you're starting this class...?"

Yeah, I'm a real ace troll here, trolling over afrocentrism. Man, those skeptics are so going to be TROLLED when I say I suspect I may be being fed afrocentric crap in a Black Studies course.

....What?!

I don't appreciate you trying to psychoanalyze me. In fact, you're not contributing still. Why are you still here?

No, Wolfman is right on the money on this, and he is describing exactly what I think and feel. The responses were not helpful, and instead were insulting, patronizing, and second-guessing my motives--for asking for information I can't really find--look on Google, you'll find very little relevant things and almost nothing concrete or specific.

Hell, there aren't even very many books about this.

 

[Hokulele]

Uh huh.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I rather thought you'd give some examples, or point us to an essay or two, as you finally did later on. I could have wished to see that sooner, and once I did, I told you that if that's what you've been learning about, it's crap. I agree. Melanin isn't magic, and people don't have supernatural powers because of it or for any other reason. I can easily agree with your frustration at crap like that. I just thought I'd see these examples from the off.

I was trying to paint a specific picture rather than find examples, because when you do, people try to find ways to misconstrue it to mean something it obviously doesn't to try to show that I'm wrong (when I'm not). You did that very thing with in the part that lumps capitalism in with sexism and racism--an obvious Marxist position to anyone familiar with Marxist philosophy, but to anyone else, pure hogwash as capitalism is in no way analogous to sexism or racism.

My emphasis was on this "African worldview" stuff, and the fact that the author was a Black Nationalist. It's not really that hard to draw conclusions.

Actually, let me quote something I sent wolfman in a PM...

The book I'm referring to goes through "Black sociology", "Black psychology", "Black economics", etc. Given that the author was a Black Panther and is strongly influenced by black nationalism, among other things I've seen, it's not a leap for me to interpret, I think, that there is the insinuation that "white psychology", "white economics", "white sociology" are racist fields based on the bad, negative, "European worldview".

In my opinion, all that truly exists is "sociology", "psychology", and so on. But again, given the black nationalist roots of the author I'm sure he disagrees.

I've been reluctant to quote specific parts because... well, look what happens when I have? The antagonists will just find a way to interpret it to mean something it could, but clearly doesn't.

OK, here's a choice bit I JUST found:

"Myers contrasts this African worldview to the Eurocentric worldview with the former representing an optimal psychology and the latter a suboptimal psychology. The latter is racist, sexist, materialist, and utterly unworkable. Its fatal flaw is the socialization of its adherents to seek the key values of life, i.e. self-worth, peace, happiness, etc. through externals. But the reality is "identity and self-worth are intrinsic" and peace and happiness are generated from within. This in turn requires self-realization of the spirit within."

I ask, is this really the case? Can you really just brush over "Europe" and Europeans and the various cultures with that? And the same goes for the broad-brushing of Africa and African cultures with a single "African worldview" that is quite strangely in almost complete opposition to a "European Worldview" that is portrayed as some sort of boogeyman philosophy.. I wanna know what it's based on. Pretty sure it's simply political Black Nationalist ideology...

Now, if only I could show the entire chapter on "Black psychology", it makes me wonder what the hell they think "psychology" is. Karenga brings up the "existentialists" as an example of "white psychology" somewhere; I don't think any more needs to be said...

 

[slingblade]

Oh, and just a note: I often read and post in threads on topics I don't yet know much or anything about. I'm learning from them. You've taught me a bit about a new topic tonight, and that's pretty cool.

If I stay only on familiar ground, I see only my own footprints.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Uh huh.

Oh, you're an ace detective! Hokulele, forums investigator extraordinaire!

You do realize that that whole post was making fun of the quality of arguments on the Politics forum, right? Namely, taking political philosophies (and I am referring not to claims of fact but merely the base moral premises not able to be derived from nature) as a sign of whether someone is "skeptical" or not. I'll bring up Penn Jillette--no, I don't think he's the best the skeptical movement has, either, but I'd seen attacks on his skepticism based on his political beliefs on government. It would be like me saying Richard Dawkins isn't a proper skeptic because he's left-leaning. Or Christopher Hitchens, whom I'm no fan of, isn't a skeptic because of his views (or even his pro-Iraq war viewpoint). The fact is, most skeptics are left-leaning and yes, I'm not exactly in that camp, but I'm not going to bring up political beliefs as a litmus test for "proper" skepticism. I don't think they are any more or less skeptical because of that. Skepticism is apolitical, and some people have made comments thinking it isn't.

I'm glad I have good people like you to force me to defend myself over completely irrelevant topics whenever I post. Like an annoying puppy that won't go away--and one that enjoys taking a piss on your shoes.

 

[LostAngeles]

Are you kidding me? People hadn't even read my first post! I said I was finishing up the class in the very first line, and a few people responded with "oh, so you're starting this class...?"

Yeah, I'm a real ace troll here, trolling over afrocentrism. Man, those skeptics are so going to be TROLLED when I say I suspect I may be being fed afrocentric crap in a Black Studies course.

....What?!

I don't appreciate you trying to psychoanalyze me. In fact, you're not contributing still. Why are you still here?

No, Wolfman is right on the money on this, and he is describing exactly what I think and feel. The responses were not helpful, and instead were insulting, patronizing, and second-guessing my motives--for asking for information I can't really find--look on Google, you'll find very little relevant things and almost nothing concrete or specific.

Hell, there aren't even very many books about this.

Well, maybe you can answer where I was insulting, patronizing, and second-guessing your motives. In fact, anyone can answer that for me.

 

[slingblade]

I was trying to paint a specific picture rather than find examples, because when you do, people try to find ways to misconstrue it to mean something it obviously doesn't to try to show that I'm wrong (when I'm not). You did that very thing with in the part that lumps capitalism in with sexism and racism--an obvious Marxist position to anyone familiar with Marxist philosophy, but to anyone else, pure hogwash as capitalism is in no way analogous to sexism or racism.

I did it, because I don't agree. Capitalism has a lot to do with, and is in certain ways analagous to, racism and sexism.

Have you never experienced the power structure of capitalism? Never seen that he who has the most money makes at least some of the rules? In much the same way as he who has the least melanin and the most testosterone makes the rules?

They are connected, they have many similarities, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with comparing those systems and seeing those connections. One informs the others. It's important we understand that, for a few reasons.

My emphasis was on this "African worldview" stuff, and the fact that the author was a Black Nationalist. It's not really that hard to draw conclusions.

Actually, let me quote something I sent wolfman in a PM...

Okay. Did you mean there, or in another post? 'S ok, I'll wait.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your link is a joke too. Eurocentrists believe in a 'distant impersonal god'? Then why is I'm always hearing about 'get closer to Jesus'?

It's not that wrong. There is a distinctive difference between Christianity in Europe and Christianity in the US. Where Christianity in Europe historically was centered around - and therefore controlled by - the Church (be it the Roman Catholic, or the various state churches), religious groups in the US was - and are - much more decentralized. You don't generally have these behemoth, all-encompassing churches.

Roughly speaking, in the US, there is nothing - or very little - standing between you and your God. It may go through your local preacher. In Europe, your way to God goes through the Big Church. It's not as dependent on the person preaching, as much as it is dependent on what the Church decrees.

As for getting closer to Jesus: Jesus isn't (necessarily) seen as God in Europe. He is much more the son of God, especially in the Protestant churches. So, you can get closer to Jesus without getting closer to God.

I know, I know: It makes little sense, but you don't really expect sense to enter the picture here, are you?

It's also funny that with all those Natural African Values that they aren't any more of a harmonious society than anywhere else in the world.

That's because they were stolen!

Well, that's the argument. I didn't say it was coherent, made sense or was true.

 

[Hokulele]

Oh, you're an ace detective! Hokulele, forums investigator extraordinaire!

You do realize that that whole post was making fun of the quality of arguments on the Politics forum, right? Namely, taking political philosophies (and I am referring not to claims of fact but merely the base moral premises not able to be derived from nature) as a sign of whether someone is "skeptical" or not. I'll bring up Penn Jillette--no, I don't think he's the best the skeptical movement has, either, but I'd seen attacks on his skepticism based on his political beliefs on government. It would be like me saying Richard Dawkins isn't a proper skeptic because he's left-leaning. Or Christopher Hitchens, whom I'm no fan of, isn't a skeptic because of his pro-Iraq war viewpoint. The fact is, most skeptics are left-leaning and yes, I'm not exactly in that camp, but I'm not going to bring up political beliefs as a litmus test for proper skepticism.

I'm glad I have good people like you to force me to defend myself over completely irrelevant topics whenever I post. Like an annoying puppy that won't go away--and one that enjoys taking a piss on your shoes.

Sure.

 

[Wolfman]

It has nothing to do with his views, but rather his past admittance of starting flash-paper threads to get people worked up (trolling), and the appearance that this was just more of the same.

In addition, looking at the first several posts in this thread, other than madurobob, it looked like people were trying to address the issue, but DF was more interested in generating conflict rather than discussing the matter. If people had simply discussed this around him, I wouldn't have any problems. If you had chosen to address the issue and not the other posters, I would not have said anything and let people draw their own conclusions.

If you would like me to link to examples, say the word.

First response:

Why are you taking an 'Intro to Black Studies' course?

How does this address the issue, or how is it even relevant?

Second response, Madurobob's which you yourself say wasn't intended to answer the question.

Third and fourth responses, good.

Fifth response:

If you went looking for validation of your conservative beliefs, I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong pew. You need to go find a course on Calvinist/Puritan history; that'll better support your feelings. Careful of that work ethic.

Sixth response...Madurobob again, just poking Dr. F with a stick, blatantly trying to provoke a response.

Up until this point, Dr. F's OP, and his single response, have neither been provocative, nor particularly inflammatory...certainly not as much so as some of the comments by others in the thread. Dr. F does not react negatively to either the third or fourth posts, which seek to answer his question and further the discussion...he responds negatively only to those who have already responded negatively to him. Which, quite frankly, is pretty much the same way I'd respond. His response to Complexity, while angry, is similar to how I'd tend to respond if I asked a question seeking information, and instead of trying to answer, the first response was to question my intent or motivations.

From there, it degenerates pretty damn quickly into personal arguments...but really, I don't see how this can be interpreted as Dr. F trying to incite anything.

Summary:

Dr. F. asks a question.

Out of the first six responses, four are negative, not seeking to answer the question being asked at all, and in most cases directly criticizing Dr. F.

Dr. F's rebuttals, where he gets negative are purely in response to those who did not answer his questions, but rather questioned his motives, and/or directly attacked him.

From there, things go directly downhill. To the point where the entire thread has been hopelessly derailed, and any real hope of a rational discussion is lost.

Had people responded by actually answering the question, and Dr. F had turned around and used their answers to try to start a flame war, I'd agree with you. But I cannot, by any rational examination, see that as a valid interpretation of what happened here. Rather, people poked and prodded him, cast insinuations, refused to answer his question...and then, when he responded angrily, he gets blamed for it?

This thread has pretty much become a waste of time and energy. No decent, informative results are going to come out of it. And while I cannot say for sure what Dr. F's motivations were, one way or another, I can state quite unequivocally that if his intent was to start a flame war, the other members played into it perfectly...and share fully any credit/blame for the results.

Perhaps someone would care to start a new thread on this subject; the topic itself is a worthwhile topic.

 

[LostAngeles]

****. I know I wasn't the third or the fourth response, but I would still love to know what I did wrong.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

Sure.

Similar motivations. I came out and said I was being sarcastic; ironically enough, I got PMs with people expressing sympathy to that idiotic garbage I wrote. It was not without good reason. So I'm sarcastic to make a point. Regardless, that was in NOVEMBER.

If I was trolling, you'd think I'd pick a better topic than being skeptical of possible Afrocentrism on a skeptic's board.

Of course, you know damn well that I was being serious in this topic. You've got some chip on your shoulder and you're just trying to destroy my topic and my credibility when it's completely irrelevent to get your jollies.

Can someone make a new topic since the people that have felt keen to destroy this one seem to have won out?

 

[slingblade]

From there, things go directly downhill. To the point where the entire thread has been hopelessly derailed, and any real hope of a rational discussion is lost.

Pish tosh. We can fix it. I'm trying to discuss it with him right now.

I haven't read his PM reply that he just edited in, or at least, I've only scanned it. I think there are a couple of areas in it where we agree, and a couple where we don't. If I can't discuss with him the parts we don't agree about without it getting nasty, then we can't have a discussion anyway.

Now let me go read that more carefully and frame a reply if I can. I'll try to behave. I promise I will.

 

[slingblade]

****. I know I wasn't the third or the fourth response, but I would still love to know what I did wrong.

Nothing that I can see. Your remarks were more pertinent and to the point than mine, and you were quite civil.

Come sit by me and we'll have tea and suspirations.

 

[Hokulele]

First response:

How does this address the issue, or how is it even relevant?

When you read the OP ("poisoning my mind", "left-wing something or other"), asking why someone is taking such a class is reasonable. If you just read the question as being neutral, it makes perfect sense. If the OP were serious about the topic, why not answer that question?

Are you sure you aren't bringing your issues with other posters into your reading of that post?

Second response, Madurobob's which you yourself say wasn't intended to answer the question.

Yep, agreed.

Third and fourth responses, good.

Yep, unfortunately they were not addressed.

Fifth response:


Sixth response...Madurobob again, just poking Dr. F with a stick, blatantly trying to provoke a response.

Up until this point, Dr. F's OP, and his single response, have neither been provocative, nor particularly inflammatory...certainly not as much so as some of the comments by others in the thread. Dr. F does not react negatively to either the third or fourth posts, which seek to answer his question and further the discussion...he responds negatively only to those who have already responded negatively to him. Which, quite frankly, is pretty much the same way I'd respond. His response to Complexity, while angry, is similar to how I'd tend to respond if I asked a question seeking information, and instead of trying to answer, the first response was to question my intent or motivations.

No, his OP was provocative. Read the language used there. I agree that the topic is interesting, and normally I do post to threads about racism of various stripes. To me, it looked too much like flamebait and as I mentioned earlier, I would have stayed out of it until drawn in by your first post.

From there, it degenerates pretty damn quickly into personal arguments...but really, I don't see how this can be interpreted as Dr. F trying to incite anything.

Read his responses to slingblade in context of her posts.

Summary:

Dr. F. asks a question.

Out of the first six responses, four are negative, not seeking to answer the question being asked at all, and in most cases directly criticizing Dr. F.

Dr. F's rebuttals, where he gets negative are purely in response to those who did not answer his questions, but rather questioned his motives, and/or directly attacked him.

From there, things go directly downhill. To the point where the entire thread has been hopelessly derailed, and any real hope of a rational discussion is lost.

Had people responded by actually answering the question, and Dr. F had turned around and used their answers to try to start a flame war, I'd agree with you. But I cannot, by any rational examination, see that as a valid interpretation of what happened here. Rather, people poked and prodded him, cast insinuations, refused to answer his question...and then, when he responded angrily, he gets blamed for it?

His angry responses were pretty much the only ones. It's a standard pattern judging by his other threads. I just don't like to see people who are seriously trying to hold a conversation such as LA and sling get crapped on for trying to help.

But hey, we can disagree on this.

This thread has pretty much become a waste of time and energy. No decent, informative results are going to come out of it. And while I cannot say for sure what Dr. F's motivations were, one way or another, I can state quite unequivocally that if his intent was to start a flame war, the other members played into it perfectly...and share fully any credit/blame for the results.

Yep, with a caveat. I would say that some posters tried to carry the conversation, many of them were ignored or were sent off on unrelated tangents.

Perhaps someone would care to start a new thread on this subject; the topic itself is a worthwhile topic.

Yes, I completely agree.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

When you read the OP ("poisoning my mind", "left-wing something or other"), asking why someone is taking such a class is reasonable. If you just read the question as being neutral, it makes perfect sense. If the OP were serious about the topic, why not answer that question?

I said that the whole "poinsoned mind" metaphor was bad. Regardless, the meaning is clear: I've been told things and I'm unsure of what is true and false.

The class was highly political, and I feel that's in terrible form because I believe classes should remain as objective as possible. It's not really easy to give ever example or to be able to write down anecdotes from memory. Besides,, it's not exactly unheard of to have an instructor that lets politics interfere with actual content...

Are you sure you aren't bringing your issues with other posters into your reading of that post?

And what about you? Table's turned.

Yep, unfortunately they were not addressed.

I thought I addressed one of them... I was going to reply to the other but forgot--it was basically agreement with me, though--I couldn't really add anything to it. I was hoping someone else would.

No, his OP was provocative. Read the language used there. I agree that the topic is interesting, and normally I do post to threads about racism of various stripes. To me, it looked too much like flamebait and as I mentioned earlier, I would have stayed out of it until drawn in by your first post.

Your dislike of me is causing you to read too much into my post.
Yes, you know my opinions. Great, okay, so I didn't like the ultra-left wing slant that was above and beyond objectivity. That doesn't change the rest of my post.

Read his responses to slingblade in context of her posts.

They were essentially non-replies, more lecturing me for no reason than an actual contribution to the topic, and then accusing me of misreading and misinterpreting things when I've sat through the class and have the book in front of me. I don't like being told I'm closed-minded and reading into things that aren't there when anyone familiar Marx and views on racism, capitalism, etc, would recognize it.

His angry responses were pretty much the only ones. It's a standard pattern judging by his other threads. I just don't like to see people who are seriously trying to hold a conversation such as LA and sling get crapped on for trying to help.

I had almost NOTHING to reply to!

Yep, with a caveat. I would say that some posters tried to carry the conversation, many of them were ignored or were sent off on unrelated tangents.

There was almost nothing relevant, and with slingblade, highly patronizing posts that I felt were pretty insulting. Seriously, go read them and tell me how you can NOT view them as overly patronizing, as if I'm some dumb kid that isn't away of how college works or how clownish some profs. can be? I'm not some naive chump and treating me like I am makes me pretty angry especially when this topic is about something ottally different.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wolfman, you know I respect you. But I think you're wrong in this matter. The first thing that struck me about this thread was DF's response to Complexity. Check it again:

Why are you taking an 'Intro to Black Studies' course?

...why the holy hell does that matter? Unless you're going to make an actual point...

This respose strikes be as a belligerent overreaction to a genuine question. I didn't see Complexity's question as other than legitimate, and as soon as the question was asked, DF's jaws came down.

I think that there's been vitriol on both sides - from DF and from others - but I think that the first shot was fired by DF.