Updates from January, 2005 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • 4:39 pm on January 31, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

    movements, notes. capitalism 

    class notes. jan 31. freedom movements

    fr nights, Golden town

    Mapantsula
    visual imagery
    thrown out of the window
    Themba
    “John” speaking Afrikaans
    english had subtitles (also aimed at non-english speaking native audience)
    1976 Soweto’s school students boycott Afrikaans language

    Afrikaans develops not to be understood by masters? but why don’t they speak it then?

    violence / peaceful resolution

    Duck
    1. lower middle class
    2. tails cat the N

    Manning Marable: Race is the modality through which class is expressed.

    Nothing but a man – filmmakers are white
    violence: Tactially to attract (white) sympathy

    every slave had to be zambo =//= need to be tamed?
    Lily: nothing but a man “north” as a safe place
    Pathe: Film noir detective, anti hero (Rosenberg?)
    Priest
    Social history -> women making “stuff” possible
    movement history

    (leola Johnson) extradiotigenic personality
    on Abby Lincoln 1963

    Jesse Goldman on Black Marxism, Cedric Robinson
    freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/linking-racism-and-capitalism-robinson.html
    -Theoretical background: racism & capitalism -> formation of europe
    racism predates capitalism -> influences
    immigratory movements in Africa care about work places of works
    going to another place slavs as natural slaves
    capitalism comes from a social order (racism)
    capitalis is a process of “heteroginization”

    Zach Cheema on Harold Wolpe
    freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/harold-wolpe-capitalism-and-cheap.html
    (P: racial and labor control in tension)
    white domination
    1. capitalist -less pay >>>> anti-capitalis (less efficiency)
    2. af-am / blacks in SA
    af-am considered inferior
    sa considered equals
    Wolpe is fixating in making Apartheid separate from segregation
    strategies to create breaches among black/white workers

    Jonathan Fredor
    Cooper. black ideology
    songs of Zion Tiembo
    (P: Cooper doesn’t like Frederickson)
    doesn’t walk much about U.S.
    criticizes on mechanical comparison, too much white perspective (no black agency)
    interested in how religions and ideology works

    Shula Marks
    freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/white-supremacy-review-shula-marks.html
    -highest agers of white supremacy, John S.
    marks is SA historian
    doesn’t like comparative historical method
    generalizing is bad
    not enough info
    George Frederickson had historical inaccuracies

    Peter: comparative history is only done through a U.S. lens, and when you look at Safundi for example, more broad comparisons (brasil, etc) is done

    I brought up racism and racialism from Anthony Appiah, and said Robinson is opposed to Frederickson.

    group discussion
    (what makes a slave) christians are enslaved too, white slaves
    1900-1942
    rights in he americas
    colored in SA, frederickson p.133

    Alessandra Williams on Manning Marable
    freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-capitalism-underdeveloped-black.html
    phenotype condition
    black migration
    common worldview was destroyed
    white working class gave up
    George Lukacs -> racism
    whitenes -> took hold off of whiteness
    (P: prof of Af-Am in Columbia)

    Leonard Thompson -> good overview
    freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/thompson-history-of-south-africa.html

    • segregation of homelands

    -blacks created their own economic world, niches
    -ANC formation

    Marable & Homeland LEadership

    Lily on Phil Bonner
    http://freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/bonner-delius-posel-shaping-of.html
    Apartheid’s genesis in the 20th C
    processes of social history
    (district 6 was bulldozed after 1946)

    peter: per books, demographic (b/w in sa/am)
    smilarities

    A. Randolph: WWII as a war on racism, going to DC asking for equal jobs
    no jobs! poor jobs

    SA there are jobs, no political power
    structures & mandela/king

     
  • 10:37 am on January 30, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

    RE: Blantant misuse of a paper that I wrote 

    Err, I sent this to you via email, then I recalled I had a BLOG (uh…)

    ========

    Andrew,
    so, I try to comment on your

    Blantant misuse of a paper that I wrote
    andrewsw.com/news/index.php?p=913

    and your comment spam detector thinks I am a spammer. I logged into your blog, with no luck. ):

    ================

    First, my condolences.

    I’ll vent a bit on something similar that happened recently in the south korean blogging circles regarding a web-based RSS feeding service (Daum RSSNet, rss.daum.net) that benchmarked bloglines.

    Something very similar to what was happening to you was done by Daum, and people complained their names were not showing up in the website, etc etc. Do you know what some bloggers suggested in a counterargument?

    1) That it was actually good for them because they were getting publicity (how?)
    2) That following the copyleft tradition, every single blogger on earth should let their stuff flow freely across the internet.
    3) That blogs were designed to be publicly open since they had features such as trackbacks and RSS feeding, and if people didn’t like them (if they didn’t want to be widely publized at the whims of corporations) that they should move over closed, ActiveX based, fucked up private community CMS platforms.

    Bastards.
    Yup, I just bitched about yellow peoples’ problems in front of a white guy. In english. Sue me.

    Ok, I’m done bitching.

    Now back to your case.

    Credit: TechRepublic is being an ass, but doesn’t it look like the problem in the Michigan State U Boad of Trustees? I mean, Tech Republic saw it there, it was listed as authored by MSUBT, and so they gave credit. They
    might not have found your version first. Didn’t they do all that was expected for fair use standards? It seems like MSUBT need to rectify whatever they did with your paper.

    Login: that’s messed up. I’m not sure if that violates any existing law, though. Of course it violates common sense, but customary law doesn’t apply intranational, or?

    Public domain: I just don’t get it that TechRepublic calls your paper a “white paper” and that “they are publicly available on the internet” for the sole fact that your paper is avaliable at YOUR website. There should be a
    semantic difference between the POSSIBILITY of going public and the FACT of being public, the two of them being usually linked together, but not necessarily requiring each other.

    So your papaer is factualy public, but that doesn’t necessarily imply you are giving it free rein (in particular, to be used for commercial or pseudocommercial purposes) in terms of distribution. Some people confuse the two. Some people, blatantly disregard the difference and question back, “what’s wrong with what I did?”

     
    • Andrew 1:24 pm on January 30, 2005 Permalink | Reply

      Yup, I just bitched about yellow peoples’ problems in front of a white guy.

      If it is any consolation, I’m half-yellow and half-white.

    • yongho 7:54 pm on January 30, 2005 Permalink | Reply

      Andrew/ good to know :p

  • 11:56 pm on January 29, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

    on squashed philosophers 

    So today at del.icio.us , this is a site that has been linked 670+ times:

    Glyn Hughes’ Squashed Philosophers
    The books which defined the way The West thinks now
    Condensed and abridged to keep the substance, the style and the quotes, but ditching all that irritating verbiage
    http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/

    There’s nothing new in making condensed versions of the classics. What is different here is that these are neither the opinion of one person nor mere extracts. Instead, each has begun with a very wide analysis of quotations, citations and, especially, past examination papers (including UK A-Levels back to 1976), to establish which passages, which phrases, which lines, which words and which ideas, are generally considered the most important
    http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/about.htm

    Three words:

    Brave New World

    ugh

     
  • 7:46 pm on January 29, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

    it's not only minnesooootans who complain about weather! 

    no somos los minnesotanos los únicos que reclamamos por el frío. es la misma cuestión en nueva york, florida, en los trece estados. y las expresiones son las mismas, igualitas. por cierto: cada uno de esos comentarios están bien humorosos

    bigpinkcookie.com/2005/01/23/ill-just-stop

    ah, encontré su blog referenciado por oneband.80port.net/wp porque según él cristina era quien terminó poniéndole el nombre a wordpress. hay un running joke en la wp dev forums que “wordpress” les encanta a las ladies. ¿será por ella?

     
    • 원맨밴드 11:19 pm on January 29, 2005 Permalink | Reply

      ㅜㅜ 제 블로그의 링크가 걸려 있긴한데, 무슨 얘긴지.. wordpress와 관련이 있나보네요..

    • 용호 11:38 pm on January 29, 2005 Permalink | Reply

      원맨밴드님이 번역하신 wordpress 소개 글에 (제가 쓸때는 about 페이지는 제대로 보지 않았섰습니다) cristine 가 이름을 지었다는 얘기가 있어서 찾아가 보았더니 웬, 뉴욕인들이 날씨에 대해 왈가불가 하는 이야기가 있어서, 아하, 미네소타사람들만 날씨에 대해 얘기하는 게 아니구나, 하는 포스트였어요. 가끔 wp dev 포럼에 wordpress 는 아가씨들이 참 좋아하는 구자, 하는 뒷다마가 보이지 않으세요? 전 궁금했는데 혹시 저런거였는지

  • 1:50 pm on January 29, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

    the definitive problem in information distribution 

    the biggest problem (as in setting up various kinds of media for the SOLE PURPOSE of exposing promotional stuff received through email) facing ¡Adelante!, and other small organizations, is that they distribute OPEN information (events) in a CLOSED environment (emails) that are limited in their expository potential given they can ONLY propagate through a forwarded email.

    aha.

    we need set up a public email account.

    like this groups.yahoo.com/group/adelantemac2

     
  • 11:32 am on January 29, 2005 Permalink | Reply  

    white supremacy, racism, racialism 

    in “White Supremacy: a comparative sutyd in american and south african history”, frederickson makes the distinction between white supremacy and racism.

    first, racism is too ambiguous. second, racism is an essentialistic mode of thought that gives racial attributes to given populations. (frederickson characterizes them as “the fact that populations groups that can be distinguished by ancestr are likely to differn in culture, status, and power” (p.xii)

    racists, then, make the claim that those are natural and bypass historical ciscumstances. white supremacists claim tha these differences favor whites.

    frederickson introduces white supremacy as an alternative, attitudinal term to racism, while leaving racism to the realm of the epistemic.

    the first reason is that in everyday discourse no one admits to being a racist anymore, because it has been conflated with a multitude of overlapping, and differing, meanings. it has been a blind spot for criticism. many administrators in south africa still admit to being white supremacists, however. alabama had a state motto praising the virtues of white supremacy.

    second reason is that scholars can deal more purely with the study of white supremacists practices, without getting stuck at accusing and pointing out the moral wrongs of racism.

    (so both reasons given by frederickson are of a methodological nature, not by some theoretical reason, such as the one given by appiah.)

    kwame anthony appiah claims in “in my father’s house” that racialism is the mode of thought where racial differences exist. then racism, is the judgement involving the placement of blacks and other colored peoples in an inferior relationship to the white race. he argues this in ch.1, “the invention of africa”, p.13, while trying to make a case for Crummell. i think he also mentions DuBois as an example of racialist thought.

    so frederickson seems to be borrowing on appiah’s theoretical framework of the epistemic aspect and activist (?) aspect of racism. but they differ in terminology

    appiah -> concept -> frederickson -> public discourse
    racialism -> epistemic division of races by attributes -> racism -> racism
    racism -> black and other races are inferior -> white supremacy -> racism

    now, rachleff briefly presented the idea of racial prejudice and racial discrimination as sub-branches of appiah’s “racism”, i don’t where he brought it from (his own?).
    appiah -> rachleff -> notion -> frederickson -> public discourse
    racism -> racial prejudice -> to claim some form of hierarchical racial order -> (no term) -> racism (reverse discrimination if the agent is not white)
    racism -> racial discrimination -> to execute out racial prejudice, e.g. school segregation -> white supremacy -> racism (terrorist, if agent is not white)

    now maybe racial discrimination and the rest of the concepts needs to be separated, because racial discrimination is a form of praxis, while the others are forms of cognition?

    back to the book..

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel