| Author |
Message |
    
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:35 am: | 
|
What follows was inspired by what my ever-observant Sistah Cynique said, "This country really is shifting to the right" (her "January 12, 2004 - 05:42 pm" response to my "1st Rat 2 Flee The Sinking Ship?" topic.). I would appreciate your informed commentary on what I find to be an interesting phenomenon.
Politically, the GOP is definitely handing the Dem’s their 'nutes'. And short of Bush dropping trou' and wringing his wiener during the next State of the Union Address, he will in all probability run ruffshod of whatever suckah the Democrats toss at him come Nov 2004 (expect a Bush vs Dean face-off to provide a humorously insightful example of why the Dem’s mascot is a 'jack-ASS').
But the political landscape is HARDLY a new phenomenon, as nationally this country has been shifting to the "right" since Nixon was elected President.
Consider the following:
= GOP has controlled the Oval Office 24 of the last 36 year, as five of the last seven Presidents have been Republicans.
= And the 2 Dems who BARELY managed to get elected did so largely because of flukes. Carter was elected primarily in response to Nixon’s Watergate. And as agog as we all have been over Clinton, in truth he was elected primarily because in ’92 Perot stole part of Bush’s vote and in ’96 the dull Dole could bore a statute.
= Even Dem. President Clinton made some very ‘Republicanesque’ decisions (e.g., Welfare Reform, NAFTA, etc.).
= The GOP has controlled Congress for nearly 10 years.
= The ‘almighty’ Supreme Court is decidedly "right".
But what I find interesting is that although the politics of the US are growing more conservative, socially we are becoming much more liberal.
Consider the following:
= Mixed coupling/marriages of all race, religion and even sex/gender are growing in frequency/acceptance.
= Women are garnering more socio-economic might.
= 1/2 of all those who marry divorce/separate.
= Increasing numbers of adults are choosing to remain single and to abstain from raising children.
= 40% of all children (70% Black children) are born out of wedlock.
To what do you attribute this apparent national incongruity? Is this the paradox that many societal observers refer to as the "Culture War"? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 03:20 pm: |
|
ABM:
The incongruity is due to the fact that people are talking "to the right" and then doing whatever the heck they want to. The new morality is just a thinly veiled hypocrisy, in which segregationist racists can have daughters by black women, moral scolds can drop big bucks at the gambling table, and right wing paragons can be dope addicts (Messrs Thurmond, Bennett and Limbaugh).
The fact is that people are just giving lip service to morality--why? Maybe because they think that we need to have some standards or there will be anarchy--but they don't think that they apply to them--the old Elvis Presley "I'm not a junkie because I don't shoot my dope" routine.
But their personal creed is "Do What Thou Wilt"--but the other guy better toe the line. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Good analysis Chris! Furthermore, America has always had a split personality. It is also neurotic, paranoid and ego-centric. But, as opposed to its opponents, The Right Wing is well-organized, fanantical and focused, so it is currently wielding the most influence. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 05:09 pm: |
|
Great post, Cynique!
I have been toying with a theory that the black people in America are not the only ones with a double consciousness (or is it schizophrenia)--that the country itself has a double consciousness. For instance how could people establish a "free" republic and own other people? |
Katrina M.
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 08:12 pm: |
|
Chris you make me laugh!!
You're too smart.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 11:37 am: |
|
Chris/Cynique,
You proffer some very compelling arguments for American's apparent "double consciousness". I guess historians, psychologists and sociologists would partly attribute the nation's moral duplicity to its founders being rejects, criminals and religious fanatics who sought freedom to live/believe free of the British Crown.
And Chris, I suppose if White people can (primarily for economic reasons) convince themselves that Blacks are not full-fledged human beings, it is probably very EASY for them to "own [those] other people". |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 03:08 pm: |
|
chris: We were not people! We were property...and in fact many "republics" have had slaves, though they weren't chattel slavery....
I wouldn't call it a "double conscious"....don't know what i'd call it but not a "double consciousness."
ABM: socalled "criminality" has nothing to do with slavery, unless we're talking about a "universal" notion of what it means to be criminal.
Not of the white settlers were rejects, criminals, and religious fanatics. Remember, these socalled "outcasts" were colonist following the political economic policies of the British. The colonists then continued from where the Brits left off. Also, europeans, africans, and others have slavery....slavery in world history was normal...chattel slavery, however, was different...
|
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:14 am: |
|
Yukio:
I am not talking about and don't care how those people categorized us, to say we were not people when we obviously were was a double consicousness, a deliberate lie, a subterfuge, what have you.
You ought to read about some of the dialogs some of the other founding fathers had with Jefferson and Washington. Even the slaveholders knew that we were people. Even they knew what they were doing was wrong. But to free their slaves would have damaged their "institutions"
And those "republics" in the past--Rome and Venice are the only ones I can think of--restricted their freedom to property owning males. It went without saying.
Call it a triple consciousness if you like (Do you object to my appropriating Dubois' terminology? I may do as I see fit, he is dead--and besides he was the victim of one and did not see it until he was nearly dead.
I agree with ABM in that all the people who came to this country couldn't make it where they were, elsewise why come to an uncivilized hellhole like America (when you had Paris, London, etc) |
|
Email This Page