(Photo credit: Kassandra Agee-Letton)
At a major national community service forum at Texas A&M today, I got to hear the first sitting president I have ever heard in person. President Obama gave a strong and aggressive speech on the importance of community service and volunteerism. This was a forum sponsored by the Thousand Points foundation set up by President Bush-41 some years back. While such volunteerism has serious limits and certainly is no substitute for major structural reforms and significant action to bring an egalitarian society—and many conservatives do see it as that substitute—it does bring out the best in many Americans. In his speech, actually, Obama was careful to point out the limits of volunteer and service efforts to bring substantial change in society’s big problems of social justice, something rarely heard from politicians on this subject.
Some great organizations and efforts were celebrated today, and are facilitated by this foundation—as well as the usual band-aid organizations. Obama noted too that there have been huge increases in applications for the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, suggesting that even better service organizations might also get lots of applicants. (At Texas A&M University record numbers of students get into volunteer work these days, against much of it limited local community service work but efforts that suggest greater challenges might attract some of them.)
The media coverage I saw (or heard about from my students) of the event and the buildup to it was often lousy and slanted toward the “if it bleeds it leads” school of contemporary journalism. They had played up the conservatism of Texas A&M University and/or the likelihood of thousands of right-wing demonstrators. Actually only 100-200 demonstrators showed up, and there were also numerous supporters of Obama who demonstrated for him. They were mostly kept far away from the campus venue too. And the audience of 3000+ in the university auditorium gave President Obama by far the strongest standing ovation of the ovations given to the many dignitaries there (including Bush-41 and Secretary Gates, members of Congress, etc). 
Also distorted by the mass media is Obama’s political agenda and efforts. I learned today from his speech about huge supportive efforts he and his staff have engaged in to facilitate and increase community service by Americans, especially young Americans—including the Ted Kennedy service Act he signed that expands several of the service corps. See here for some information. Substantial governmental money has been put behind these efforts. Why hasn’t the media covered this rather extensive effort to facilitate community service by Americans of all ages and backgrounds?
Still, I worry that such an emphasis on volunteer service, Obama’s qualifications notwithstanding, does and can deflect our national attention to getting on with the major structural changes we need to make in order to make this the substantially egalitarian society it claims to be.
Can someone explain that line of thought to me? I’m sorry, sometimes I just don’t follow conservative ideology except that it keeps the well off well off. I understand that “conservative” by definition keeps things the same; but what happens when things don’t work?
–
Also, while we’re their, what “values” do conservatives think Obama is destroying? And what “freedoms” is he incroaching upon?
I find the Left’s relative silence on Obama’s continuation of the occupation of the lands of brown-skinned people with predominantly White armies, his facilitation of massive wealth transfers in the form of the bank bailouts from already suffering tax payers to the ultra-wealthy bankers, his indifference to the continuing outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to the Third World, to be curious. Also, on the more mundane level of economic solvency, how will the material well-being of the common (non-White) man be improved without an abundance of high-end manufacturing jobs for him to occupy, and lacking that, where will the funding come from to engineer the proper mindset in Whites, and the improved material condition for Whites themselves for that matter (not to mention facilitating continued wealth creation by Whites so that it can be redistributed at all), that will dispose Whites to acquiesce with enthusiasm to giving away all that they have built and continue to build for the benefit of those that are not, and will increasingly not be, their progeny?
Further, it will be a matter of political necessity to bring into the fold in some way the 50% of White men of IQ 130+ that do not attend college (according to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth) for Obama’s ostensibly planned reorientation of the structures of societal management as organs of social justice to obtain. Why so? Because of the former’s absence from the nexus of egalitarian education and advancement within the very structures which Obama wishes to gain support to reorient. The prospect of them, er, going another way, and leading others in that direction, is too large a potential difficulty to be left to chance. If Obama’s political advisers do not take such calculations into consideration then they should no longer be his political advisers.
I find that what you write is interesting, especially, the part about Obamas ” indifference to the continuing outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to the Third World” Wouldn’t that mean that maybe the manufacturers would come back to the US and help the economy with US working again? If you are are talking about “brown skinned people”, in the Third World countries without jobs; I would think, that as the President of the US that Obama would be a little more concerned about his US citizens. As far as giving it all away we do everyday, and this includes all races that work, not just whites. However, after reading what you have posted, and this truly is not a put down, but your mindset, is that of a Repub. However, they may have been the thoughts that have held true in the past, but are slowly loosing it’s value because of the economical crisis we are in now. As far as white men having an IQ’s of 130 and do not go to school; is because, not everybody is born into that situation where they can go to school…Lucky are those who don’t even know that it’s more of a privileged then a right. (I do agree.). However, there are many other races that don’t have a chance to attend school as well..Also, the reason why there are so many whites in the Armed Services is because there are more whites. In other words, race has not balanced out yet, but will, according to the US Census.. So if you could water some of your thinking, which is very interesting, as mention above ,I would like to learn more. Thanks, 🙂
This is off-topic, but what do you think of experimental theatre groups like The Wooster Group using blackface as a central theme of their performances? http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/the-wooster-groups-emperor-jones-on-dvd/
I actually saw this in person, and there was no hint of criticism in the performance, it was completely sincere. Given that, I wouldn’t say that Elizabeth LeComp is a Klan member, but the fact that it was problematic is rarely discussed.
Captian: I’m all for a well-written and well-thought out response, but c’mon now …. stop trying SO hard.
“I’m sorry, sometimes I just don’t follow conservative ideology except that it keeps the well off well off.”
As always, the real show is behind the curtain of “respectable” (read: enforced by societal and increasingly international elites) political discourse. I pointed out several things contra to what I associate with a hardy Left critique of Western society that are now Obama’s policies. And for the most part, all you hear are the crickets. It should not surprise: The generation of ’68 (a la Blair and Clinton) significantly discarded the principles they held in their youth as they became political and financial elites in a system to which their self-interest is now bound. Apparently this does not exclude Bill Ayers, whom I’m informed once had balls. Bush II presided over the largest increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon Johnson. Was it not Bush II that signed No Child Left Behind into law? Yes. So why the only superficial dissimilarity between the policies of Obama and Bush? Well, one simply does not become president unless one is willing to ‘play the game’.
“I understand that “conservative” by definition keeps things the same; but what happens when things don’t work?”
By that definition, what genuine conservatives will you find in the “respectable” range of discourse? Not many. They’ve all sold out so that their ticket too can be punched for a ride on the neo-liberal express, which is significantly the marriage of global plutocratic capitalism and cultural Marxism (and if Frankfurt School style societal critique did not serve the interests of elites, do you honestly believe they would have any truck with it?). Conservatism is properly the estate of a settled polity – the eternal nation. There can be no genuine conservatism once the thrust of the system leads inexorably to the smashing of the eternal nation. Therefore, all that call themselves that, and serve the system are frauds. If there is nothing left worth conserving then conservatism has lost its raison d’etre, and their banner is properly placed with revolutionaries who seek to reconstitute the eternal nation and a life worth living for their people.
“Also, while we’re their, what “values” do conservatives think Obama is destroying?”
Again, it is not so much Obama as the system, and the power elites (think Rupert Murdock and George Soros – both internationalists, no?) that direct it. Obama is a lightning rod for Pavlovians. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The proximate values, or interests, that the system is treading over are those that make the ability of the eternal nation more likely to endure than not, which is precisely why the system is treading over them – because its propagation depends upon it. And of course the ultimate value, or interest, is (genetic) continuity of a given people, and the homeland they often refer to as the “mother” – or – “father” – land which is the indispensable guarantor of the former.
“And what “freedoms” is he incroaching upon?”
The most important freedom of all, the freedom for our people to continue to be.
LaSmartOne, those uncritical uses of blackface are problematical and suggest just how dominant the white racial framing of society is. Gross insensitivity, at best. But callous indifference to history and opinions of those who are not white is likely central here. What whites with some power decide is “normal” becomes “normal.” Thus, systemic racism is normal to this society.
@ Captain-Agree to disagree. 🙂
@Joe-That’s what I aways thought about people in general. 🙂
I’m sorry, but can someone besides captainchaos answer my question? I don’t make a habit of reading through his posts. I find them scewed by racism.
KState,
That hurts me deeply, you have no idea. I read through yours, c’mon. I realize I don’t have all the answers, only most of them. Whatever my shortcomings, I do do ‘trenchant’ well.
“just how dominant the white racial framing of society is.”
Curse those Japs, with just how dominant the Japanese ethnic framing is in Japan.
“Gross insensitivity,”
The will of the Japanese to be forever themselves is grossly insensitive to the rest of humanity, who are entitled to all the fruits of Japanese labor, including the very existence of the Japanese. Cant (yes, cant) we all just sing along?
once again captainchaos does his best channeling of jared taylor and brings up japanese ethnocentrism as an excuse for the white equivalent here. And just as with taylor he misses the obvious incongruity and fundamental stupidity of the argument: namely, Japan is the nation of the Japanese and the U.S. is the nation for “Americans,” and not whites, as some racial group. The category “American” has long been a fluid thing, not racially limited to whites. Indeed, for the first 150 years of euro colonization here, from the early 1600s until the late 1700s, blacks and native folks would have been about a third of the population in many parts of the country or pre-colonial area. The fact that they were denied real citizenship is because of racial fascism, not because they weren’t here…furthermore, the concept of “american” changed again in the late 1800s to encompass many Europeans who previously wouldn’;t have been thought of as part of the same “team” as Anglos…
So, whether or not we as a nation have the “right” to make America, for Americans, is not really the issue: the question is, should “American” as a category, be a racially exclusive club? Or is it an aspirational term, an ideational concept, a matter of assent, rather than blood? This is different than the Japanese question, although one might make the point that the way the Japanese have mistreated ethnic Koreans and the Burakamin there, is worthy of condemnation, and if those American antiracists posting here were Japanese, we would likely be writing about that…
That’s only a correct answer if conservative ideology involves racism.
@ NKSTATE-While such volunteerism has serious limits and certainly is no substitute for major structural reforms and significant action to bring an egalitarian society—and many conservatives do see it as that substitute—it does bring out the best in many Americans. “Peace Corps and AmeriCorps”.
I would think that meant because of the rise in the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps that people are joining the Armed Forces as much, and the Conservatives see this behavior as a substitute to bring out the best in Americans. This is how I’m reading this statement to be. I guess, the Conservative think that the average American should join the Armed forces, rather then the Peace Corps etc, as long as they don’t have to be required to. However, that’s not suggesting that Conservatives don’t go into the Armed forces, but the Higher Archy of Conservatives would not be on the front line either. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but my son always talks about the “Peace Corps” as his first choice.
Mr. Wise,
It is an honor.
You say:
“…brings up japanese ethnocentrism as an excuse for the white equivalent here.”
Certainly not as an “excuse,” but to highlight the fundamental asymmetry that the Japanese are allowed a life exclusively their own which is self-evidently the sine qua non of their continuity as a people, whilst we are not.
“Japan is the nation of the Japanese and the U.S. is the nation for “Americans,” and not whites, as some racial group.”
I think you’ll notice, if you haven’t already, I do not use the term “American” as synonymous with ‘White’, which I use as synonymous with ‘of European descent’.
“The category “American” has long been a fluid thing, not racially limited to whites.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 establish only “free white persons” as being eligible for citizenship. Blacks were not included until 1870, East and South Asians not until 1952, although the children of Asians born in America were granted automatic citizenship prior to 1952 consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. So, yes, there was a concerted effort to maintain at least majority status and White identity.
“…blacks and native folks would have been about a third of the population in many parts of the country or pre-colonial area.”
And non-Whites will, and most likely sooner than is projected, be a plurality of American citizens. Already nearly half of the children under the age of five are non-White. After a certain point we will no longer be able to control our own fate.
“The fact that they were denied real citizenship is because of racial fascism, not because they weren’t here…”
But if the White man, and his “racial fascism,” which you no doubt purport to be the only expression of identity he is capable of, are the bane of all the peoples of the world then why would they want our “citizenship”? And if citizenship is a right to all present in a given land, then oughtn’t it be the right to renounce one’s citizenship whilst present in a given land yet remain? I speak of self-determination.
“…furthermore, the concept of “american” changed again in the late 1800s to encompass many Europeans who previously wouldn’;t have been thought of as part of the same “team” as Anglos…”
You conspicuously leave the Immigration Act of 1924 out of your narrative, which established immigration quotas as consistent with the ethnic balance of the country at that time. It is true, Northwestern, or Germanic Europeans did wish to preserve their identity and their position in the nation that they had the greatest hand in building. It is precisely that which you wish to strip them of.
“…the question is, should “American” as a category, be a racially exclusive club?”
No, the question is will you and your ilk allow us any space, cultural and terrestrial, anywhere on this earth that is our own – that our people might live. Now even the claim to our ancestral Europe is considered illegitimate, this cannot stand.
“Or is it an aspirational term, an ideational concept, a matter of assent, rather than blood?”
There has been no nation on earth which has endured the passing of its founding folk, and an ethnic core which is essential for its stability. Further, what is more real, our blood or the ephemera of the zeitgeist? Yet it is the zeitgeist which you trumpet, which now apparently demands we give away our very being. We can never have any truck with that. If to be “American” means we must cease to be then we want out.
“This is different than the Japanese question, although one might make the point that the way the Japanese have mistreated ethnic Koreans and the Burakamin there,”
But you do not demand the Japanese cast the gates open to all those they have trespassed against as their due comeuppance. Why? Why ought they not do as you command we do, so they too can aspire to their own destruction?
@NKSTATE I meant to say that more people are now joining the Peace Corps etc, rater then the Armed Forces. The rest, I hope you could understand the point that I was trying to make. LOLO:)
@Captain said:
You conspicuously leave the Immigration Act of 1924 out of your narrative, which established immigration quotas as consistent with the ethnic balance of the country at that time.
Mom said:
@Captain Thank You for that post. I truly enjoyed the fact, in where you stated, the immigration act of 1924 established ethnic balance. It’s was interesting and also the year that Natives of this land had to become citizens? I guess, it was just plain odd “white” of them. And, oddly enough, that was the same year the Natives of this land were allowed to vote. I guess it took all that time for the White Euros to feel comfortable enough to let the Natives, which the White Euros stole land from, to finally have a say about what goes on in their homeland. Imagine That! This is the hypocrisy of the “white frame” that is always being discussed on this site and you just gave us an extraordinary example.
“…White Euros stole land from, to finally have a say about what goes on in their homeland.”
There are a few, I’ll call them, ‘brute facts of reality’ which you neglect to consider:
1. The North American continent was a vast, pristine wilderness largely uninhabited but by nomadic tribes (its population of Amerindians peaking at 13 million if I recall correctly) – it would have been settled by foreign peoples eventually, if not by Europeans, then most likely by East Asians.
2. These scattered tribes themselves engaged genocide, slave-taking, and land theft in the process of resource competition.
3. Europeans were more successful in pursuing those things enumerated in (2) because of superior weaponry and organization – I’ll leave the reason for the latter hanging in the air.
4. Europeans themselves suffered enslavement, land theft and genocide by non-Europeans over the centuries. Indeed, this did not stop them from doing it to others subsequently – by possibly having seen that they didn’t like it themselves, and vowing henceforth not to do that which they did not like to others – yet Amerindians’ own experience with genocide inflicted on each other did not lead to any kind of grand moral revelations either. So, grounded in the historical narrative, it is hypocritical to hold Europeans exclusively responsible for genocide and all its trappings, and also tacitly White supremacist, for it implies only Whites can be expected to act morally and therefore be held accountable.
5. The human rights regiment did not exist at this time, for it was not laid down by Western Europeans yet. It was neither binding in the court, nor in the conscience, so, really, ascribing moral and juridical blame is an act of retrospective imposition. Just as blaming Amerindians for tribal genocides amongst themselves is a retrospective imposition.
“This is the hypocrisy of the “white frame””
I’ll try to be more ‘consistent’ then, at least with respect to the standards you apparently believe enjoy a timelessly inviolate existence: Consistent with compensatory justice, the party wronged deserves to be as well of as he was before having been injured, or as close as can be had. So, in compensation Amerindians deserve the complete restoration of North America to them exclusively. Which will mean that Europeans go back to Europe, Blacks go back to Africa, Asians go back to Asia etc. Any takers?
@ Mom – Yeah, I got your point. : ) And I completely agree. We all know about the chicken hawks.
@Captain-What’s up with the “Amerindians”. Native people, and it did not give the “right” for the Euros to take their land. However, I guess, it wouldn’t bother you because is was not your land. And, yes, true, Natives did not have guns etc., so it was harder for them to defend themselves, from the White” setterlers. I’d be more then happy to take back the land that was taken from my peoples, people. And, I would also be more then happy to stand on the docks of the ships to wish you well too. LOL And, another thing, there were 10, million, and now ony 2.5 full blooded.
Captain Chaos Said:1. The North American continent was a vast, pristine wilderness largely uninhabited but by nomadic tribes (its population of Amerindians peaking at 13 million if I recall correctly) .
OK…how can a continent be uninhabited and still be inhabited? 13 million people doesn’t count? Again, I find your DoubleSpeak confusing.
Captain Said:4. Europeans themselves suffered enslavement, land theft and genocide by non-Europeans over the centuries.
Could you provide some simple documentation here. Which non-Europeans specifically enslaved Europeans? Just asking.
>You also said the ‘human rights regiment did not exist at this time, for it was not laid down by Western Europeans yet’. Really? What was the MAGNA CARTA Then? Were we Once Again asleep during our Social Studies Lessons?
>Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin and is known by its Latin name. The usual English translation of Magna Carta is Great Charter.
>Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
>Magna Carta was arguably the most Significant Early Influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of Constitutional Law Today in the English speaking world. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.[1] Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 19th century.
>Plus, I checked your home website Occidental Dissent and virtually 95% of the Posts state that ‘Jews are responsible for the sad economic condition of the world’. Could you explain your take on this since you are a Regular Commentator there and appear to agree with the crux of the attitudes/tenets posted on this site?
I would Very Much Appreciate Your Responses.
@Captain:
In your post you stated:1. ‘The North American continent was a vast, pristine wilderness largely uninhabited but by nomadic tribes (its population of Amerindians peaking at 13 million if I recall correctly) .’
> Question: When the original European- settled 13 colonies reached the population level of 13 million, how many Europeans would have Defined the Colonies as Uninhabited?
>When North America was inhabited by 13 Million Native Americans you term it ‘Largely Uninhabited’. Yet would you call a continent of 13 Million European Colonists in the 1700’s Uninhabited?
Do Europeans constitute a legitimate Population, but Native American people were what? Just part of the topography..not really people? With all due respect, please answer this question. Thank you very much.
Historian Robert Davis concluded that over one million European slaves were taken by Barbary Muslims between 1530 and 1780.
No1KState Said: I’m sorry, but can someone besides captainchaos answer my question? I don’t make a habit of reading through his posts. I find them scewed by racism.
11.Captainchaos Says:
October 17th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
KState,
‘That hurts me deeply, you have no idea. I read through yours, c’mon. I realize I don’t have all the answers, only most of them. Whatever my shortcomings, I do do ‘trenchant’ well.’
>Shifting blame is very important in these matters. You don’t ever want to have to own up to any responsibility for hurt or distress caused and you most definitely do not want to admit your prejudice or bigotry.
> You also want that Marginalised Person™ to be continuously aware just how “on the fringes” they are, and always will be (providing you get your way – but that’s what Privilege® is for, after all!).
>You can achieve both these things by accusing the Marginalised Person™ of not playing fair, or of not playing with “the team” (i.e.: you and all the other Privileged People® backing you up).
>“C’mon”, you say, “we’re all doing our best to participate in a reasonable, impartial debate. You aren’t joining in. You’re trying to turn this into a fight. You’re ruining it for everyone else!”
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/