The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Still More...

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:13:04 -0000

BTW if anyone was offended by the use of the n word - I was paraphrasing Rustin

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:17:52 -0000

@RL . . .

I will carry this convo over to the thread you are referring to. Unfortunately still at work so it will probably be tomorrow. I got some questions for you too.

Re: Still More...

RL — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:25:42 -0000

Imagine me shaking my head in agreement over and over. I thought I remembered him as a traveler, influential beyond the US. Thank you for the book recommendation, I want the entire life, not just a gloss. On to Amazon, again (third time this week -- reading the free literature at T-NC gets expensive.)

Your last para. There is still a little of that; Andrew talks a lot about black views regarding gays. But from my blind perspective (not gay, not black) it feels better today, certainly than for Rustin. My advisor definitely thought the reason he was ostracized was homophobia, combined with some political envy. And I noticed a post on another thread where you took a somewhat gradualist position on gay rights. Do you think this is you, constitutionally, or perhaps some of Rustin's influence, or both?

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:09:17 -0000

@RL,

My last comment was in response to someone else, but it got stuck here at the bottom for some reason.

Rustin is a fascinating person because he was so out of place in just about every important activist movement he was involved in. He was also quite the globe trotter. In this way, he is similar to peripatetic Obama, an outsider that soaked up the ideas of all the cultures he was a part of.

"Lost Prophet" by John D'Emilio is the most recent bio, and it is also the first to seriously consider Rustin's homosexuality. Earlier bios completely gloss over it, as if it was an embarrassing stain to his record.

It is really quite fascinating to see how so many liberals and civil rights agitators were completely disgusted by Rustin's homosexuality, but they *needed* him nonetheless.

To me, it says a lot about people's true intentions for social justice. Do you believe in Civil Rights only to the point where it involves YOU or are you generous enough to extend freedoms to others? Can you fight for a universal application of rights, or as soon as you "get yours" you push the new niggers to the back of the bus? Bayard got it. Other black leaders, sadly, did not.

Re: Still More...

RL — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:57:32 -0000

I agree that we are in agreement. He was clearly more conservative than his peers, as you say. I am wondering where I was misunderstood because I stand by your original argument too! My comment to Kathie was meant only as a suggestion that she read your post to learn more of the man. Didn't know him at all. Not of my generation. But was taught by a man who knew him and the sense I got from him is of a brilliant strategist who was essential early on and then was sort of discarded by some as proactive damage control and by others out of envy for his position of power. I can imagine (searching for how I confused the issue) that what I have been told is incorrect and that the gentleman that Rustin has been described to me just stepped away to do other things because of the "pitting one against the other" approach of some leaders of the 60s. Or that he chose to distance himself because of his more conservative approach. Or indeed perhaps because of his own concerns that others not be attacked for associating with him, there in the days of Hoover. What is the best book about him?

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:46:23 -0000

OK so you obviously had the benefit of knowing Rustin first hand. I will stand by my original argument, though, which is that his post-Civil rights politics was more conservative than his peers. By conservative I mean he advocated for a more gradual, integrationist approach, eschewed Black Power, and identity politics in general. He was a cosmopolitan man who delighted in other cultures. Pitting one against the other just seemed crude to him.

This has been an awesome discussion though. I think we are in agreement, for the most part. It is ironic how Rustin pretty much devoted his life to protesting war but did not make a stand on Vietnam. Haven't talked to many people that know much about Rustin. Just curious - how did you come to know him?

Re: Still More...

tigger500 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:33:24 -0000

That's absolutely correct.

Re: Still More...

brucds — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:15:50 -0000

"If Coates was alive in 1959, why wouldn't he be able to think about these things?"

He might in theory, but it's extremely unlikely that in 1959 anyone with Coates' background would have given a shit about parsing conservative principles. Rustin certainly didn't in '59. Very bad example. And Bayard's reasons for taking the positions he took later (and in 1965 when he wrote "Protest to Politics" - which I read probably the week it was published - neithe was it in any meaningful sense the "post-civil rights era" nor was Rustin's main concern anything other than keepiing together the mainstream "liberal coalition" to press his and Randolph's legislative agenda that was coming apart at the seams over the Vietnam war primarily, and to a lesser degree at that point over black militancy.)

Rustin was one of the most brilliant men ever in American politics and much of his criticism of the movement in '65 was incisive, but it was not his time. The sweep of events and the tragedy of the Johnson administration's committment to the Vietnam war destroyed his credibility. (And don't kid yourself that Vietnam wasn't crucial in legitimatizing the more militant elements of the black protest movement that Rustin was trying to rein in . Ironically, my first thoughts about Vietnam and the beginning of my opposition to the war at the time were inspired by a piece Rustin himself wrote - I think in early '63 - for the WRL. He saw the thing coming - but when he finally had to choose his fight, he stuck with the old Humphrey-Meany "liberal coalition" that undermined everything he was trying to do even as he defended it.) History quite often sucks...

Re: Still More...

brucds — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:01:02 -0000

"There were black conservative civil rights activists in 1959 who would agree with Andrew in 2009. One of them was Bayard Rustin..."

Don't write such an incoherent, ill-informed characterization of Rustin and then explain how much you know about him. I was very, very familiar with Rustin and his comrades long BEFORE anyone was writing books about him...

Re: Still More...

RL — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:51:04 -0000

Kathie - I refer you to the 12:12 A.M. comment above by Acromion about Bayard Rustin.

An ironic, sad, antithetical, contextually understandable expulsion from "All of God's children," a few decades ago. Rustin was apparently put to the side because of fears about how his sexuality would impact the public's support of the larger cause. We have come far enough (not completely there) to have mostly rid ourselves of that division. Speed up that day.

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:48:15 -0000

I happen to know quite a bit about Rustin. I have read every single biography of him as well as everything written by him. Why? Because I wrote my senior capstone on him. You can read it if you really want to.

Rustin was much more conservative and integrationist than his contemporaries in the post-Civil Rights era. Don't want to write an essay about it if you read From Protest to Politics you will see what I mean.

But I'm really more interested in you answering the original question. Why do you think that TNC could only reflect philosophically on affirmative action and conservativism because he lives in a particular time and place? If Coates was alive in 1959, why wouldn't he be able to think about these things?

The reason why I am curious is because it is the same reason that people might think a "wise Latina" could come to a better conclusion than a white man. To me, a judicial decision should be based on sound logic, not your identity.

Re: Still More...

brucds — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:21:19 -0000

And if you don't believe Rustin's refusal to support what was then called "preferential hiring" had nothing to do with his decision to hitch his star to George Meany and the AFL-CIO, circa the late '60s, check out the A. Phillip Randolph Insitute (Rustin's labor-funded perch at the time) today and their current support of affirmative action - which is obviously because the labor movement has evolved. If you think I'm assuming too much about why certain public positions were taken by Bayard at this point in his life, Rustin's lover, close "Schactmanite" political ally and Meany aide, Tom Kahn, once wrote a gay-baiting speech for Meany - because these guys were willing, frankly, to compromise drastically - if not humiliate themselves - in service to their "coalitionist" labor-oriented ideology.

Re: Still More...

brucds — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:11:11 -0000

Incidentally, Rustin's critical stance toward "preferential hiring" was complicated by his financial dependence on and strategic analysis of the labor movement (led by George Meany at the time) and it's place in liberal coalition politics in the late '60s. Far from being a "conservative" - ever - he was always a socialist who unfortunately got ensnared in some arcane ideological disputes generated by splintering followers of the neo-Trotskyite Max Schactman. To call Bayard Rustin a "conservative" - especially in 1959 when he was still a left-wing socialist and a militant pacifist is utter nonsense.

If you're looking for some solace in a "black conservative" who in the 1950s was wildly out of step with the civil rights movement, check out "feminist icon" Zora Neal Hurston - who actually opposed the Brown decision.

Re: Still More...

brucds — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:55:53 -0000

Acromonion - You obviously don't know the first thing about Bayard Rustin...do your homework before bloviating.

Re: Still More...

Billare — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:10:14 -0000

How is treating people unequally "enabling the most basic tenet of the Declaration of Independence"? And of course it is most definitely unequal treatment, because if I randomized the race of candidates for those eligible for some position, affirmative action as it is practiced today couldn't exist.

How is depriving people of some property and muting some of their liberty to supposedly enable the liberty of others' (noticed that this very same argument could be made in the torture debate) endorsed by the Declaration of Independence? Do the Founders really sound as if they had the affectations of the modern progressive to you?

Of course, I know it's nice to say those things, but that doesn't mean they are actually true.

Re: Still More...

Billare — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:04:13 -0000

Are you suggesting that the Laws for Whites and Blacks are different? How so? Please, be forthright and say what you feel.

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:12:40 -0000

Yes - Rustin would have *definitely* been opposed to tort- I mean - "enhanced interrogation." He was first and foremost a peace activist who traveled the globe promoting non-violence. He later became a close confidant to Dr. King, but was relegated to the sidelines because he was gay. King was heartbroken to severe ties with him for political reasons related to Rustin's sexuality. I don't believe King was homophobic and his wife has explicitly stated this.

After the Civil Rights Act, Rustin's politics veered to the right of the burgeoning black power movement so he became unpopular. I believe he was opposed to affirmative action.

Re: Still More...

RL — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:30:07 -0000

Superb reference, in this connection, to Bayard Rustin. Such an influential man. I have not read as much about him as I should but have often wondered whether the MSM, and even historical, neglect of his contribution was due to his sexuality or to his interest in staying out of the limelight (and of course the first may have been the reason for the second; wondered about that too).

Unimaginable that Bayard Rustin would not join Andrew in arguing against enhanced interrogation.

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:12:23 -0000

Why? Do you really believe that our minds are so bound to time and place that our rational faculties are incapable of probing beyond our identities? Do you think that there were no black people with sufficient imagination to distance themselves philosophically from their immediate circumstances?

Also - check your history. There were black conservative civil rights activists in 1959 who would agree with Andrew in 2009. One of them was Bayard Rustin, who was also gay.

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:06:11 -0000

You could also say that the GI Bill was affirmative action for straight men, since gays were not allowed in the military (no DADT back then).

The crux of your argument, Tigger, is faulty because it rests on straight folks' critical misunderstanding of how their heterosexuality functions as everything and yet nothing. Meaning that this appeal to "no categories" is really about "no non-straight categories."

Re: Still More...

RL — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:25:15 -0000

Dr. King would smile and applaud.

Re: Still More...

Kathie Brown — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:08:00 -0000

Just want to say that this was one of the greatest threads in I'net history. Made me tear up for real.

We need, all us posters here, to redouble our efforts to defeat the efforts of the Faux Conservatives to divide us and herd us into our own little racial/gendered/sexed defensive groups. And we need to bring Sully along.

Re: Still More...

Acromion — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:02:20 -0000

As I am reading this again later in life it struck me just how intertwined Christianity was with the Civil Rights Movement. Everyone could count on being welcome at church on Sundays.

Do you think that's why so many blacks must think its a strange contradiction for gays to claim their civil rights whilst opposed to mainstream Christianity?

Re: Still More...

Lemmy Caution — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:02:04 -0000

I do not defend liberalism as such because I believe it is inseparable from capitalism, from the disassociation of economics from society and culture. But I can sympathize with a defense of liberalism: until its appearance in the European enlightenment, the very critiques we are making of it would be impossible.

Liberalism is a secularization of what had previously been an impulse only in universalizing religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism: the idea that humanity itself constituted the most most important category, that the most important rights and responsibilities adhered to the category of the human as human. One might see European liberalism as specifically a secularization of Christianity and Christian universalism in particular, a secularization which adds religion itself to the list of things which do not explode the category of the human.

That liberalism was contradictory in its exercise is no indictment: "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virture." That we critique it by its own standards, standards that we have internalized deeply, attests to its own triumph as an ideology.

But a conservative will fairly respond to a critique of liberalism by noting that only liberalism could make that critique possible; additionally, in the absence of liberalism (and, specifically, the liberal state) life becomes all the more "nasty, brutish, and short." Chauvinistic violence has been the norm in human history, as has the domination of women and, at least since the hunter-gatherers, the stratification of society. The historical conditions by which it became possible to undo these facts of the human condition are, according to a conservative view, fragile and complex, and indebted to the very specific cultural circumstances - the period of European domination of the world, the ascendancy of the bourgeois, the European enlightenment tradition, scientific progress - which are also the objects of its own criticism.

Re: Still More...

Grunthos — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:36:50 -0000

Well, yes and no. Unfortunately, we do not have two separate words for "rule of law as it could be implemented in a society that has somehow overcome these issues" and "rule of law as a guiding ideal for the society that exists." The former is a "pure" concept, and has real value as such... but here I agree with you, the latter is what we are usually talking about, and thus the promotion of the former gets undermined by the path-dependent realities of the latter.

Thus, in argumentation, we get a problem: it is not true that all assertions of the value of the rule of law are, in fact, even an unintentional appeal to the time when white ruled. But we have no way, upon listening to the argument, to discern that; and the vast majority of such appeals are completely unaware of this distinction and thus perpetuate the real-world imbalances.

And so we reach another consequence: in reading your responses above, I have to parse the difference between A) rejection of classical liberal principles as potential solutions to these problems and B) rejection of vague appeals to the rule of law as a mechanism for sweeping things under the rug. You pretty clearly mean B, but rhetorically that can resemble A. This is how people get to talking past each other. (Not that you and I appear to be doing so. :)