April 1, 2011
THE IRRELEVANCY OF IDENTITY AND SKIN POLITICS
By Adaoma
While the world watched the US and allied forces invade Libya, an article entitled "America's 1st Black President Invades Africa" was posted to one of e-forums that is frequented by Africans and African immigrants and some discussion followed.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NIgerianWorldForum/message/101021
This provocative title caught my attention because it seemed to suggest a contradiction. The contradiction was that the first Black President that had come to power in a nation built on the brutalized backs of African slaves, segregated sharecroppers, tradesmen and wage workers lynched and disenfranchised in struggle for civil rights... that the first Black President would/could, invade Africa, a continent ravished of its human and natural resources by colonialist, imperialists and capitalist.
Under the racialist framework that the title suggested, this would be a contradiction. But often identity politics presents contradictions where there are none.
IDENTITY POLITICS - DEFINITION
"The laden phrase "identity politics" has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/
It is the "shared experiences of injustices" amongst women, amongst immigrants, amongst handicapped, amongst seniors, amongst Hispanics, amongst African Americans that gave birth to the special interests that is now called "Identity politics".
"Skin politics" was born out of those "shared experiences of injustices" and special interests, in the category of race.
Obama's campaign never claimed to address issues of any of the categories above. Obama's entire presidential campaign was founded on the premise that there were no special interests, nor any lobby that merit nor commanded his attention. He campaigned on the premise that the remedy for complaints from any particular community could be satisfied by providing education, health care and jobs for all. Black people, never-the-less, overwhelmingly, voted Obama into office without question nor query of his position on US foreign policy toward Africa, on MUMIA, on AFRICOM, or on police killings in the Black Community. Well, one group in St. Petersburg, Florida confronted Obama on some of these issues.
Demonstration outside the Obama rally
http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=uhuru-movement-challenges-obama-for-not-speaking-to-african-community-interests
This group held a demonstration at a Obama presidential rally to ask Obama "What About the Black Community, Obama"? (See the entire video)
a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTcPLQ7MorA
Snippet:
"The McCain, Obama, Hillary Clinton...there's really no difference in the candidates who represent the interests of white power. We're rising up. We're tired of this relationship that we have with US imperialism. Whether we are in Afghanistan, Iraq or even in Detroit or in Harlem. We're tired. And the fact is, that as masses of African people, we're suffering. We're suffering from attacks that the US Government is making on our people. They are taking everything we got and locking us up in the process. And, while these attacks are being made, under normal circumstances we'd be talking about making a revolution. We'd be talking about how we gone get free...the same way everybody else on the planet is talking about how they gone get free. But, now, out of nowhere, comes Barack Obama, who tells you, don't worry about revolution. Don't try to be free. But, follow me back into the bloodsucking system we trying to get away from. "Follow me, to the Democratic Party."
PRESIDENT - REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE
Obama is not a representative of "White Power" or of "Black Power". The Presidency is an office which represents the interests of the American ruling class. The ruling class is integrated (Secretary of States Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Republican Michael White, and Susan Rice, to mention a few). The President of the United States is the representative of the State. That is the capacity in which he serves. The State invades other countries based on its national, political and economic interests.
The US invaded Libya for oil. When Obama invaded Libya, he was doing what the State does, what the Commander in Chief does, what capitalists do. It would not matter if Obama was black or blue! In his capacity as Commander in Chief, Obama is not a Kenyan "son-of-the-soil" who would refrain from invading his "Fatherland". No! Obama is an American, a member of the Democratic Party and has pledged to uphold the US Constitution, nothing else.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Oath_of_office_of_the_ President_of_the_United_States
In the 2008 US Presidential election, Barack Obama no more represented African American issues, than did Hillary Clinton represent women's issues. Since both are representatives of the Democratic Party and its material interests, it mattered not if they were hermaphrodites! Any part of identity politics, male, female, gay, straight, black, white, or brown...only that they toe the party line, that is, the factional and partisan interests of the Democratic Party.
One of the paramount issues in the 2008 election was the economy, i.e., recession, loss of jobs, health and social security threatened. Poverty and privilege in America are issues of class, which impacts both male and female, black white and all ethnic groups. A contentious voter would look to candidates positions that best represent ones economic interests, i.e. lowering taxes, living wage, housing, health, job creation, college tuition, etc.
If more people considered their class interests, special interest groups would not be able to manipulate candidates with lobby money.
Race and gender remind us of what's different about us. Class reminds us of how we are the same and share the same interest.
This is 2011, not 1950. Many efforts, many movements have raised and resolved issues of race and gender. Institutional racism, for example, has a legal recourse, as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and the Constitutional Amendments that followed. Where the novelty of electing the "first" African American president or the novelty of electing the "first" woman president would have been a landmark event... weightier matters of economy and war should have been paramount to workers.
Class trumps race and gender. It is the working poor that are homeless, fighting wars for profit, unable to afford higher education, without living wages, and are sick and tired of being sick and tired. It includes men, women, children, blacks, whites and others.
In the 2008 election, whether we voted race or gender, it is still the Democratic Party that received the votes. Democrats represent big business on the domestic front. Republicans represent big business on the international front. There is no difference between the two parties. The question to workers should be...who represents working class people?
Workers may consider a change of paradigm when analyzing the present Administration. Though it may a novelty, in that, an African American is the President of the United States, novelties wear off. Have no illusions that the US presidency is an office that serves the interests of working class people. Have no illusions that the present two party system serves or protects the interests of workers.
As workers, we must work to serve and protect our own interests.
Obama sends 30,000 troops to Afghanistan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/12200912212640413208.html
Obama approves 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242187/
Obama will strike Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkAEkA81TUA&feature=related
Obama orders killing of Somali Pirates
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/obama-orders-snipers-to-shoot-pirates-20090413-a463.html
Obama renews Zimbabwe sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7925240.stm
Obama's latest, AFRICOM's first, NATO's African War
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m76041&hd=&size=1&l=e
I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432
Netters please follow this thread to a discourse between working class African Americans and African immigrants. The thread is entitled Illusions of Panafricanism, but , its context also addresses issues of identity politics.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laborpartypraxis/message/20469
ITS TIME FOR A THIRD PARTY - LABOR PARTY
The fact that a third party emerges from the populous indicates that interests are not being addressed in the other parties. The interest of working class people are not addressed in America's Democratic and Republican parties. In this capitalist society that is run by exploitation of wage labor, the interests of domestic corporations and multinational corporations are represented, by the Democrats and the Republicans, respectively. There is a need for a worker's party to address the needs and protect worker's interests.
The Electoral College is a hindrance to the election of third party candidates. It has been shown that given a popular majority, a candidate can still loose a Presidential election.
A candidate must have 15% in several polls in order to debate with other candidates in the national forum. The current presidential debate format locks in Democrats and Republicans as having the predominant presence in the media. The current format shuts out those groups that represent enviornmental intersts, civil liberties, labor interests and the political/economic interests that socialists represent.
The internet is enabling more third party voices to be heard. It is unfortunate that some of these parties are endorsing Democrats rather than running their own candidate.
Campaigning is very expensive, which is all the more reason workers should support the group, the party, the candidate that most represents worker's interests, rather than to throw more money at parties who have and never will represent worker's interests.
Choosing the "lessor of two evils", is not voting in your best interests, it is not voting your conscience. Choosing the "lessor of two evils" is no "choice" at all, it is an endorsement.
Some third parties have shown great potential to win.
Socialist Leader Eugene Debs ran for president 4 times. The last time he ran was from prison and got a million votes.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/laborhall/evd.htm
Even so-called radicals and progressives campaigned to persuade
workers to the Democratic Party, rather than running candidates of their own.
Now, they are coming out in opposition to what they have been instrumental
in putting in place.
These same people need to be held accountable for foreign and domestic
policies of this present Administration.
They should be taken note of when they come creeping around in 2012,
trying, once again, to convince workers to vote Democrat. Their tactics are endorsing
the Democratic Party (as the lesser of two evils and endorsing the Democratic Party
as a way to avoid 'fascism".
Workers should be encouraged to be informed, for their conscience and their own interests.
Workers should be encouraged, not discouraged from voting out of the two party
system. If neither party serves their working class interests, we should be encouraged
to build a party that does. We need a labor party!
http://www.seeingblack.com/article_485.shtml
Amiri Baraka: The New Invasion of Africa
Posted by voxunion.com on March 24, 2011
Amiri Baraka is now seeing Barack Obama differently.
More than two years ago he appeared on our program and was slightly less than patient
with a pre-election critique of Obama that placed the then candidate in a neo-colonial context.
That afternoon he joined Tom Porter and Rosa Clemente for a rousing debate on the future president,
electoral politics and where the political Left should seek to place itself. Then we were chided for our soft and antiquated analysis. Now Baraka says, the president has joined the “colonial powers” and is “delivering us into slavery…”
*This show originally aired October 6, 2008.
The New Invasion of Africa
So it wd be this way
That they wd get a negro
To bomb his own home
To join with the actual colonial
Powers, Britain, France, add Poison Hillary
With Israeli and Saudi to make certain
That revolution in Africa must have a stopper
So call in the white people who long tasted our blood
They would be the copper, overthrow Libya
With some bullshit humanitarian scam
With the negro yapping to make it seem right (far right)
But that’s how Africa got enslaved by the white
A negro selling his own folk, delivering us to slavery
In the middle of the night. When will you learn poet
And remember it so you know it
Imperialism can look like anything
Can be quiet and intelligent and even have
A pretty wife. But in the end, it is insatiable
And if it needs to, it will take your life.
http://www.voxunion.com/?p=377
--- On Sat, 3/26/11, adaoma_o
I was wrong, too. I thought this was an apology. I thought this was an apology from one of the "Left", "Progressives", "Social Democrats, so-called socialists, so-called communists and so-called 'anarchists' who talk 'anti-empire', 'class struggle', and 'anti-capitalist' until its time for US presidential elections. Then they endorse, campaign, and make speeches against independent candidates and rally would be supporters of them to vote for the Democratic Party candidate (as a 'lesser of two evils').
Since when did the Democratic Party, as a party policy, struggle for democracy, labor rights, women's equality, racial justice, ecology, peace or worker's economic empowerment? Since when has the Democratic Party opposed to capitalism and imperialism? Since when has the Democratic Party, as policy, advocate collective bargaining and a living wage. The Democratic Party is not a labor party. Workers need a labor/workers' party.
Obama asks Americans to Support the Bail Out
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/politics/main4490303.shtml
Obama sends 30,000 troops to Afghanistan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/12/200912212640413208.html
Obama approves 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242187/
Obama will strike Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkAEkA81TUA&feature=related
Obama orders killing of Somali Pirates
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/obama-orders-snipers-to-shoot-pirates-20090413-a463.html
Obama renews Zimbabwe sanctions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242187/
Obama's latest, AFRICOM's first, NATO's African War
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m76041&hd=&size=1&l=e
I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432
For years, African nations vehemently rejected USA promises to give mosquito netting
and medicines for AIDs in exchange for a home base on the continent in Africa. African nations were not unaware that oil interests and militaristic agendas were being masked by the promises. Bravo for them!
Yet, Obama has done what all of Africa tried desperately to prevent, that is, the invasion of Africa by AFRICOM, whose first mission is LIBYA. AFRICOM no longer needs a home base in Africa, now that it can go in and do whatever it please.
On February 15, 2006, the Nigerian Government bombed the Niger Delta from the air. There was no call for U.S. invasion of Nigeria to come to deal with the then 'nutty' president, Olusegun Obasanjo, as has been called on Gadhafi and Libya.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChatAfriK/message/13595
Should some other nation have come to invade the US when it 'killed its own people' in Waco, Texas or when it bombed an entire black community in what was called "The Black Wall Street" or "Little Africa"?
When will "Leftists" stop supporting the Democratic Party, pushing their war and poverty agendas on working class people and support those who have the forethought, courage and desire to represent working class interest by running for office. Workers need a clear analysis that will enable us to serve our own interests.
"I was wrong". Bill Fletcher
You got that right!
Adaoma
From today's Black Commentator, 03/23/2011:
I Was Wrong: Obama Actually Carried Out the Attack on Libya!
The African World
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
I have to admit it, and I do so publicly, that I was wrong. I did not believe that the USA and their European allies were going to attack Libya. Please do not misunderstand me: I was clear that the USA and its European allies were quite capable of carrying out the attack and I was never fooled by their professions of morality. It is just that I thought that they understood the potential implications, from their own standpoint, of such an attack.
A few weeks ago, as the Libyan insurrection was under way, Secretary of Defense Gates suggested that it would be poor judgment for the USA to engage in another land war. I took this seriously, not at the level of morality, but more at the apparent realization within the US ruling elite of the potential financial and political costs involved in an intervention in Libya. Events, however, moved very quickly and in a different direction.
Let's leave aside the hypocrisy of the attack on Libya. The ruling class in Bahrain is, along with their Saudi allies, crushing the peaceful opposition. The Yemeni allies of the USA are killing opponents. Yet the West chooses to focus on Libya.
Libya is in the midst of a civil war. It is one that pits a broad front of pro-democracy rebels against the irrational tyranny of Col. Qaddafi. The lack of coherent social movements and the vicious repression against peaceful protesters by Qaddafi's regime led to a violent reaction that evolved into a full-blown insurrection.
While it appeared that the rebels were close to winning, they lacked organization and military training. Qaddafi's forces, on the other hand, were well organized, well-equipped and obtained mercenaries. The rebels lost the initiative. Had there been a more significant split within Qaddafi's forces, the rebels might have rolled onto victory but things did not play out that way.
The sabers that have been rattling around Libya by the West have been justified as not being about regime change or an outright invasion, but in order to enforce a cease fire. But this is a civil war. Leave aside the tyranny of Qaddafi, the bottom line is that this is a matter that the Libyan people must themselves address. While there is people-to-people support that can be offered to those fighting for democracy, the moment that governments get involved, things change, and often change quite dramatically, particularly when those governments are from the West.
I had an argument the other night with a good friend who was telling me that a US-led intervention was important to prevent Qaddafi from murdering thousands. My question to my friend is this: when has the US led an intervention, since World War II, that has actually addressed a humanitarian disaster and left the country independent and stronger than before they arrived? I know of no such examples and neither did my friend. If there was a genocide being prepared, along the lines of Rwanda 1994, I would still argue that the USA should not intervene unilaterally, but should be in support of an internationally recognized force.
Which, come to think about it, actually raises a few questions. The Arab League voted in favor of a no-fly zone but now says that they are against the attacks. This feels like a distinction without a difference. You cannot tell me that they passed a resolution in favor of a no-fly zone without thinking through the ramifications, particularly when the US and its European allies were making noises about military action.
Additionally, what about the African Union? Ironically, Libya was one of the principal founders of the African Union. Why was this matter not handled by the African Union? How did this fall to Obama to resolve?
It is far from certain where this intervention will end. Libya could find itself divided into an eastern and western zone. The rebels could go on the offensive. This could end up being a drawn out conflict. So, how long will the USA and its European allies remain involved? And toward what end.
We are told that we face budget deficits here in the USA and that, as a result, there is no money to do anything positive, yet there are resources to launch this aggressive attack. While the Obama administration may believe that this is a short-term venture, the facts on the ground may prove this to have been a major miscalculation. So, how does yet another war get funded?
We have witnessed an Arab democratic uprising spread WITHOUT the support of outside forces. And now the USA and its allies enter the fray potentially destabilizing the situation, including giving opportunists in North Africa and the Middle East (such as Iran's President Ahmadinejad) a credible (but false) argument that the revolts are actually the work of the West.
How foolish. How arrogant.
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and co-author of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice(University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkNigeria/message/128334
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEOm3NiNCAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTFGrVz0wkc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
It is this split between the left and near left that is being exploited by the right with war and Depression threatening to dump this whole nation on its head, so that Obama will be defeated, McCain elected and with the McCain opening plummet the country headlong into the far, far right. Bush 2 has already obviously set the stage for this. Those elections were stolen out of desperation. The fact that Gore and Kerry were such weak liberals, tied clearly and obviously to the ruling class of this imperialist state allowed that theft to take place with minimum real struggle.
So that is the real struggle unfolding before us. First, to oppose the empty idealism which allows the elitist base to claim to represent the masses but actually have as little to do with them as possible. Allowing seemingly intelligent people to throw their votes away on McKinney or even the racial chauvinist, Nader, thus formalizing a hole in an actual progressive constituency, which allowed Bush 2 to seize power in 2000.
Obama & The Tragic Errors of The Weimar Republic
By Amiri Baraka
Jul 16, 2008, 15:04
http://www.seeingblack.com/article_485.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR9fvDNGLMs
BILL FLETCHER: I support the candidacy of Senator Obama. I believe that both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are outstanding advocates for social justice. I don't think that you build political movements largely through national presidential elections. I think that if they really want to build a challenge, they could have run and should have run within the Democratic primary, but also that it's a longer-term process of building a movement. And so, these once-every-four-years let's appear and say the right issues and expect that people will rally, I don't think it makes any sense, and there's no historical basis, looking at the United States on the right or the left, to see such a phenomena working. So on the—given what we have, given the kind of change that I think we can make in this country, I'm with Senator Obama."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/23/a_debate_on_the_2008_race
October 20, 2008
Noam Chomsky Endorses Obama
By Ben Cohen
Noam Chomsky has long been a critic of the false choice presented to voters, maintaining that the two parties are essentially the same. But in Chomsky's opinion, John McCain represents such an extreme vision for America that he is coming out for Barack Obama.
"I would suggest not voting for McCain which means voting for Obama" Chomsky told The Real News. Chomsky believes that a continuation of Bush style policies would have a significant impact on the public, and although both candidates are well to the right of the population in terms of actual policy 'There is nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils".
http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/10/noam-chomsky-en.html
Teary-eyed communists cheer Obama victory
Celebrate 'biggest political realignment since 1930s … first step toward a new society'
Read more: Teary-eyed communists cheer Obama victory http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=82036#ixzz1HebPhtlr
Jarvis Tyner, executive vice chairman of the Communist Party USA, speaks in Ellis Auditorium about politics in America. Tyner iterated how President Barack Obama was not a communist but a healthy choice for America during rough times.
http://www.themaneater.com/photos/2009/11/12/952485/
Adaoma
__._,_.___
LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe
