Dear Reader:
This is the audience thread. Please feel free to share your comments about the Cobb v Fisher Debate in the comments section for this post. We would like to restrict the comments submitted to the Cobb v Fisher Debate thread to the debaters, Michael Cobb Bowen and Michael Fisher, and the moderators, Craig Nulan and E.C. Hopkins. Thank you for reading the debate.
Sincerely,
E.C. Hopkins
120 Comments
As posted in the pre-debate thread:
I’m ready. Even listened to my motivation tape (Al Pacino’s ‘Inch by Inch’ speech from “Any Given Sunday”) before logging in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rFx6OFooCs
Who’s willing to fight and die for that inch in this debate?
Let’s roll.
I guess Bow is on CP time. Wake me up when he enters the ring.
(Yawn)
I decided to take a seat among the audience and banter a bit with folks to make the time go a bit faster. Is that against the rules, Mssrs Moderators?
I was thinking about being brazen and commenting on the other post to be able to read the debate on email. That is quicker than subscription. Right now my connection is very slow. But since there was quite a discussion about form, I’ll skip it.
Not against the rules so far as I can tell Mr. Fisher.
Hathor, we must insist that you stay out of the ring. (you might try the RSS Comments syndication available at the bottom of the page. Works exceedingly well with the Firefox browser and doesn’t seem to suffer the 30 minute lag that haloscan commenting does.)
What’s up? I’ve been throwing fruit salad at my Dad all night long.
All for nothing?
What a waste, especially the grapes.
“Not against the rules so far as I can tell Mr. Fisher”
Well, ok then. Who is here?
Roll call…
We got Temple, Hathor, Sweet Jones, my daughter, nulan, E.C..
Anyone else?
Just curious.
Those were some good grapes. But you ought to stay far away from the ring, honey. It might get bloody. Maybe. Possibly. Anyone hear from Bow? Did something happen to him?
It’s okay, Dad, cause if he keep hiding, there won’t be anything to bloody up. Anyone check behind the nearest “White” house?
That is NOT nice, child. I done taught you better. You are a child, he is an adult.
If Cobb no-shows, can I lace ‘em up??
Well, it is 12:06 AM out here. We’ve waited for two hours. I’mma gonna pack it in for the night.
I’ll check in tomorrow morning to see whether Bow showed up.
Good night everyone.
“If Cobb no-shows, can I lace ‘em up??”
Fine with me, but he’ll show up… eventually. I think. Certainly. Probably. Maybe. Possibly.
Awwww. What the hell.
This will run for 48 hours UBM.
TheGrayConservative has already volunteered to take up the challenge in the aftermath of this bout, and Denmark Vesey is out prowling the streets looking for side bouts. Consider yourself next in line.
In the house. Where’s Cobb?
Notify for comments comment.
I, for one, don’t mind waiting until tomorrow morning. I’ll be up early drinking a freshly brewed cup of Sweet Unity Farms Coffee. During the weekend, while I’ll be preparing for my law school exams and moderating the debate if necessary, my snack of choice shall be the Blue Diamond Wasabi and Soy Sauce Almonds.
Today might produce more interaction between the two debaters. After a good nights rest they will have all day, and part of tomorrow. Today is when it really gets started.
Good luck gentlemen.
Prince Namor present and accounted for, Sir.
who’s running Atlantis yo?
(yawn, stretch.) I had peeps from out of town come around. Detained me and got me intoxicated. Told me all kinds of drama. (sigh). It’s hard being Clark Kent.
But Cobb is in the hizouse and ret to throw down.
@ comment 17…
Are you trying to sell us something, E.C?
@Mistah Bowen,
I don’t think it was all that hard to get you to go along, Mistah Bowen… What was the REAL reason? You’d have a hangover right bout now…
I must note my strong objection and factually incorrect statements in regards to the existence of race.
“Are you trying to sell us something, E.C?”
:) Naw. I just had that stuff on my mind when I wrote the comment. This was an unusually busy week for me, and I was looking forward to a few treats.
Sondjata:
“I must note my strong objection and factually incorrect statements in regards to the existence of race.”
Thank you for your comment. Please quote in this thread which of statements made in the debate thread that you believe are factually incorrect. We’ll take a closer look.
Cobb Wrote: “It was a set of ideas originating in America during the 1960s whose aim was to establish a positive mindset among African Americans and develop them from an oppressed and dissolute people into a nation.”
An entirely false statement. Garvey was a Nationalist in the 1920’s
Martin Delany was also a Nationalist.
“What are racial features? Who or what decides objectively, non-arbitrarily, what the racial features are which determine a “race”? Any human being possesses a myriad of features which he/she has in common with other human beings.
So what makes up a white person? What common objective characteristics have a group of people that allows them to define themselves as “white”. Skin color? Where does “white “ begin, where does it end? What shades of skin color qualify as “white” . Why?
Hair texture? Where does hair texture begin and where does it end? Where are the beginnings and end objectively determined?
Why these physical attributes? Why not define “race” by diameter, radius, or better even, the depth of people’s anuses? Why not postulate a race of three-inch-radius-anus-having folks? How is such a group construct less valid than that of the “white” group construct?
Clearly then, the notions of “white” and “white race” are non-biological constructs. That means that they are social constructs and social constructs are always political. ”
We (Mike and I) had this discussion on my blog (and his) before. As someone who is “degreed” in biology I’m telling you that the above argument is scientifically unsound.
“This was an unusually busy week for me, and I was looking forward to a few treats.”
Same here, but the treats I want is icecream and chocolate. Too bad Pop isn’t succumbing to my innocent charms.
Sondjata:
Re Comment #27
I understand your point. Indeed, Wilson Moses, contributing author and the editor of Classical Black Nationalism: From the American Revolution to Marcus Garvey, would attempt to persuade us that the institution of Black Nationalism, as he defines it, existed long before the 20th Century. So, it’s clear that when the institution of Black Nationalism began and which were the first Black Nationalist thinkers, activists, institutions, or organizations could be and has been construed differently by different people. Although, I suspect most scholars who’ve studied Black Nationalism would tell us that the institution of Black Nationalism changed in discernable ways during the 1960s. Cobb may want to focus on the post 1960 Modern U.S. Black Nationalist institution. He may believe that the current iteration of the institution began during the 1960s. If that’s what he’s doing (and I’ll assume that’s what he is doing for now), then I believe his claim is reasonable.
If Cobb’s use of this term played a significant role in an argument then we might ask him to be more precise or to cite an authority. However, I don’t believe we need to challenge him on this at this time.
By what I’ve read and what I know so far, Who are the people who are really considered white? And what is New Black Nationalism? I would like Mistah Bowen to paint a clear picture, please.
Mr. Hopkins: I’ll defer to your judgment on this matter.
So will anyone answer my question?
Sondjata:
Re Comment #28
I see your point here as well. However I believe both debaters are reading the following sentence to mean that notions of “white” and “white race” are not merely biological concepts because they are concepts that are colored or influenced by political or cultural phenomena.
Cobb doesn’t appear to have read Fisher’s comments as if he had implied that these concepts were completely non-biological concepts.
Johanna:
“By what I’ve read and what I know so far, Who are the people who are really considered white? And what is New Black Nationalism?”
The debaters have decided to define ‘white people’ as people who define themselves as white people. I suspect you will find this definition unfulfilling; however, for the purposes of this debate, the definition needn’t be more precise than that.
The term, ‘New Black Nationalism’, is a term Cobb introduced. There is no descriptive definition at this time. One has been requested.
However Fisher stated:
“Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a white person. ”
This means that Fisher is stating and has stated in the past, that there is no Biological thing as “race.” Yet he has offered no proof but only a set of questions about anuses.
Again I submit that neither Fisher or Cobb are qualified to discuss biological “race” in terms of proof and ought to restrain there comments on the subject matter UNLESS it is in direct relation to a definition of White supremacy such as given by Dr. Welsing and Neely Fuller in which biology would be relevant to the definition of WS. However as per your previous notes on the subject it was “agreed” that WS as defined by Fuller/Welsing was not going to be used here.
Anyway I wont hog the board with this issue. If you guys aren’t bothered by it then so be it.
@ E.C,
“The debaters have decided to define ‘white people’ as people who define themselves as white people.”
Really now, is that so? I believe that the “true” white people are the Germans and British.
What if Mistah Bowen does not make a clear definition of New Black Nationalism, then would introducing this new concept be null, hm?
@ Dad (Micheal Fisher)
Hey, tell me whan he actually says something that makes sense, will you? I’mma gonna work on my blog.
Johanna:
Cobb provides the following definition for ‘New Black Nationalist’ in Comment #14 from the Debate Thread:
This definition is descriptive.
Note for record:
I believe it is easier to debate using this format than it is to moderate the debaters. This real-time moderation gig ain’t easy.
@ E.C,
Oh, okay. But really, how does the White Supremacy work? I believe if someone could describe how it works, then the whole debate might come to an end. But these is just some randm and inmature observations from a 13 year old girl.
Johanna:
“I believe if someone could describe how it works, then the whole debate might come to an end.”
It might. However, the debaters could agree that it exists, they could also agree on how it works, yet the debate could still go forward. One side could argue that even though it exists and is operational it is not successful enough to obligate the U.S. Black elite to pay it much attention. The other side could argue that it is very successful and the U.S. Black elite would breach a moral duty by failing to work together in order to weaken it.
@ E.C,
I see… But since it will take me a bit to proccess it, I shall say how it looks like to me.
They are being very stubbon.
@ My comment, 29,
“Same here, but the treats I want is icecream and chocolate. Too bad Pop isn’t succumbing to my innocent charms.”
Never mind, looks like he did.
Cobb and Michael Fisher Debate
I have been following the comments of from #1 and #19, based upon the intellectual ability to articulate ones points of view, ability to explain ones points of view and define what one means when they make a statement, ability to to define opinions and terms, ability to articulate ones ideology to the point where the reader understands what you are saying even if they disagree with it, and the ability to express what one is thinking when it comes to the intellectual concepts and ideas that one is trying to express I feel and think Michael Fisher current from comments #1 thru #19 has done better job expressing his mental thought process in a way that is well understood whether you agree or disagree with what he has said.
Michael the Fish’s style of writing and the way he words his words often leaves no room for the average person to not understand what he is trying to say. Michael has expressed his intellectual observations, ideas, concepts, and opinions about various things very well.
Cobb on the other hand has had a few problems when it comes to expressing his opinions, ideas, and concepts in a way that would be considered very clear. Example Cobb mentioned the new black nationalists at first he was very vague about the New black nationalist, Cnulan the moderator ASKED: Cobb, Do you intend to offer a definitive resolution, premise, or conclusion concerning the phenomenon you have termed “New Black Nationalism” - that relates it to the question in controversy?
Some of Cobb statements come across to me as lacking in detailed substance meaning he makes a statement but on close examination the statement is not very strong, and is flawed when compared to the reality. Cobb comes across as having ideas but when put into reality his ideas are not strong enough to confront and help deal with the daily realities of many black folks.
In order for certain Cobb’s opinions and ideas to help black folk,s and even ones individual self, one would have to acknowledge that certain other factors and institutionalized forces exist and are active in semi stifling blacks and keeping them labeled the other (outsider and the rejected). If a black person understood how other forces that are institutionalized play a role in making him second class and read Cobb’s comments and statements then the things Cobb say would make more sense. But left to themselves (some of Cobb’s opinions) some of Cobb’s statements seem very weak.
I am glad that Cobb accepted the debate, at least w can now get a better idea where he is coming from.
Cobb is also possibly a work in progress too. In the future as he gets old and learn more, see society and how people and politics affect it his ideas, opinions, and concepts about economics, race relations, politics, and progress for black folks and non whites will change too.
Good debate guys!! lets us see what will happen from comment #20 on. Comments 1 thru 19 is just the beginning things could change in to another man’s favor we never know. Let get back to the debate.
@ E.C. Hopkins & Cnulan
Cnulan is doing a great job moderating the debate — he is very impressive with skills as a moderator. E.C. Hopkins thank for moderating engaging the commenters who are following the debate by answering their questions regarding some of the statements made by the two debaters. E.C Hopkins you and Cnulan are doing a great job very professional.
I’ve had the twins all day. They just decided to sleep for a minute - so I gotsta be quik…I haven’t read as deeply as I will, but…
Just to echo Sonjata’s point at #27: Nationalism among Black folk (and more appropriately Pan-Africanism) is no more a product of the 1960’s than the Beatles. The origin goes back, as he said, at least as far as Delany. Professor Sterling Stuckey, author of Slave Culture, might argue that Pan-Africanism was born on the way over from the mother land.
I’m going to take a break for about an hour, guys. Gotta do laundry. I also will need to take a break at about 4:45pm to take the kids various places.
i agree with 46, but as i implied in my opening, there are many successes in the history of african american struggle. all of these were not black owned and operated, nor did all of them involve elites.
Cobb: I think you should take a longer break. I appreciate your fundamental agreement with my position at #46 - but if you don’t delve deeper and separate the nationalist/pan-African streams of our history from these others, you two are spinning your wheels.
I had to stop reading your post at #8 because you were going on and on about a 1960’s-based movement that had a very short life span. The roots of our connections to one another as Blacks/as Africans goes all the way back to Richard Allen and Absalom Jones - and their mothers. If you are going to frame nationalist thought and action as an operational phenomenon of antipathy to a white-sponsored CRM which shifted the focus of APR and jobs to the NAACP LDF and education, I’m going to pass.
Ain’t no way I’m gonna read 1,000 posts anchored in that. So, I’d humbly suggest a quick re-assessment of nationalist practice and its historical effectiveness. Any frame of reference that would exclude the legacies of Martin Delany and so many others is bereft of critical value. Simply, nationalists and Pan-Africanists have done far more for far longer than you let on.
I’ll go back to my twins and popcorn (when I get a chance).
I would like to go back to the Nationalist issue. Cobb has said that “New Black Nationalism” is rooted in 1960’s and founded on Welsing/Fuller.
The Isis Papers was not published until 1991. It’s opening page (Dedication) has a quote from Neely Fuller who’s quote is dated 1971.
None of the chapters in the book predate 1979 and Welsing herself said that the book is a compilation of her thoughts “for the past 18 years”. Therefore it is really impossible for 1960’s “New Black Nationalism” to be founded on Welsing/Fuller since their publications did not exist.
Preceeding Fuller and Welsing’s writing would be Bobby Wrights: The Pshychological Racial Personality published in 1974 also outside the “founding” timeframe.
Sondjata:
“I would like to go back to the Nationalist issue. Cobb has said that “New Black Nationalism” is rooted in 1960’s and founded on Welsing/Fuller.”
I see your point here. I’m trying to read both debaters charitably, giving both of them the benefit of the doubt, as it were.
If we assume that Welsing’s and Fuller’s theories are rooted in or are at least influenced by ideas or institutions that existed during the 1960’s (I believe these would be reasonable assumptions), and that Welsing’s and Fuller’s theories founded the New Black Nationalism institution that Cobb is describing, then stating that “the New Black Nationalism is rooted in the 1960s and founded on Welsing/Fuller” would be a reasonable statement.
Cobb’s #17 is a gimme. Are we supposed to weigh in or leave that to the debaters. Lawd, lawd, lawd! I better go watch the game.
Never mind. I see it has been addressed.
Not surprised but disappointed with Cobb.
I find Cobb talking points to be among the same level of a jiving, hoodwinking, store front preacher. Cobb goal is to hope someone will fall hook, line and sinker and ignore the facts. Fisher is not biting down on the neck like a pit bull (my style) and continuing to flow when the basic challenges were not addressed.
As I predicted, straw man, deflection and long-winded. There should be no continued posting until Cobb can meet the challenges presented. And I feel it is up to E.C. Hopkins and Craig Nulan to enforce this. I’m still checking this out and my verdict is not in yet..
I would like the following answered:
How is it that the presence of a supposed 60% black middle class prima facie evidence of the end of WS?
I’m in complete agreement with Chance’s assessment in #44. I find that Mr. Fisher’s commentaries at Assault sometimes tend to be a bit over the top. But today he gave a clinic, a skilled and supple arguement that handily won the day. But who knows? Maybe tomorrow Cobb will emerge like one of the Argives roused from his stupor and carry a spear wet with the blood of the son of Priam. However, I’m not counting on it.
The question I have for Mr. Fisher and others is how can one discern the effects of white supremacy from those that arise from the reservoir of frustration, anxiety, and doubt that are universal to humans? Also, can enlightened self-interest on the part of elite blacks play a role in dismantling SR?
Finally, I welcome E.C.’s adverts. I just hope he drops some suggestions for holiday gift items that are suitable for my wife and five year old daughter.
5 year olds like coffee too…., I know I did.
my chirrens do too.
oh, and contrary to rural kansas mythology, drinking a little coffee won’t stunt your growth or make you turn Black - LOL!!!!
A 60% middle class without a dominant ownership interest in a single industry…let’s not mince words. Sondjata - you nailed it right on the top of the dome.
surprised the nulan babies have had any java…if you haven’t tried the blue mountain stuff from jamaica - make that move.
what….?
make mine some good old french market or cafe du monde - chock-a-block with chicory. a couple big teaspoons of sugar and a gank of evaporated milk BAM!!!!!!
sop that succulent nectar up with a plate of beignets or some big old sunday morning glazed yeast donuts - oh lawd…..,
I’m out of town on a weekend excursion with Mrs. F. Just peeking in from an internet cafe and I’m pleasantly surprised by what I’ve been able to scan so far. I have a lot to digest when I get home. Well done, folks. Hope P6 is able to straighten out his frown.
Cobb never disappoints, he confirms.
I maintained that the notion of restricting the debate to US Blacks would prove counterproductive. It hasn’t. The debate has not progressed far enough for it to be so.
I would appreciate if the moderators would move the discussion forward.
It seems to me that there is agreement that there is a GSWS. It would also seem that there is agreement that this system is not sustained by legality. In other words - can we flag all the backtracking folks make from positions and move forward with a list of agreed positions - and disagreed positions.
A periodic recapitulation of the capitulations would be helpful, is all. I’m sure there are more - but many are smaller and seem less contentious than they need to be. It would nice to see a bit of flow between these two: the medium isn’t helping. Perhaps the debaters could be convinced to use disparaging remarks about one another as a means to accelerate the commentary.
UPDATE on the debate,
Cobb And Michael Fisher Debate
This debate has become even more interesting, partially because according to moderator Cnulan Cobb has no yet to give an counter argument against the statement (argument) made by Michael Fisher in comment 5. In comments 100, 102, and 103 Moderator Cnulan has been asking Cobb to please give an counter intellectual argument against the intellectual statement argument that Michael Fisher made in comment 5. Moderator Cnulan wants this counter argument statement from Cobb so that Michael Fisher can then analyze Cobb’s statement, and then after reading and analyzing Cobb’s statement Fisher can then debate with Cobb about the statement that Cobb made. But Cobb has not offered an counter argument to the comment Fisher made in COMMENT 5. And because Cobb has not done this, this is also to some degree slowing down the debate.
This goes to back what I had said earlier, that Cobb sometimes has trouble explaining his intellectual ideas, concepts, view points, and opinions. It it is showing by way of him not haven offered an counter argument against the statement that the Fish (Michael Fisher) made in comment 5. In comment 100, Moderator Cnulan also has said that Cobb has not yet offered his own counter fundamental deductive argument. Therefore, because Cobb has not offered his fundamental deductive counter argument he is in violation of one of the procedural rules established by E.C. Hopkins.
Michael Fisher has been doing very well for himself and doing a good job at articulating his intellectual points of view and ideas.
Comment 103 Cnulan wrote: Fisher you’re under no obligation to defend the argument you set forth at comment 5 until such time as Cobb sets forth his own fundamental counter argument with respect to the debate resolution.
Comment 11 Cnulan wrote: Fisher has awkwardly stumbled into some reasonable concepts with regard to the definition of ‘white’, although with no sense of temporal constraint, as if whiteness existed from the beginning of time.
Adhering to the debate’s rules, Fisher has submitted his argument in support of the debate’s resolution.
Do you intend to adhere to the debate’s rules;
One debater will argue in order to prove the resolution; the other will argue in order to disprove the resolution.
and take up the counter argument to disprove the resolution?
Why The Debate Is moving Slow (because of Cobb)!
The debate is moving slow in my opinion because of Cobb, he has not offered his fundamental deductive counter argument in based upon the comment Michael fisher made in comment 5.
Comment 100 cnulan wrote: No structured debate can proceed until Cobb satisfies the basic procedural rules and sets forth his own deductive counter argument with respect to the debate resolution.
Let the record show that even a scrupulously objective and impartial moderator will leave you to your own logical and rhetorical devices if you argue with him instead of arguing with your debate opponent. (see comment 58.)
There are no givens!
Chance:
I made a few deletions in the debate thread per Fisher’s request. So, I edited your comments so they would reflect the new comment numbers.
@ E.C. Hopkins,
Thanks E.C. cool I’m with it.
My aha moment came at midnight. I should be wordsmithy and pithy. I think that should speed things up a bit.
One thing that became obvious after reading James Cone’s book on Malcolm and Martin was that from a philosophical perspective, integrationists’ tended to believe the WORDS of white folks. Hence, Cobb’s references to WORDS or the removal of words (albeit, the wrong words). It’s not unlike MLK’s use of the DOI as a frame of reference.
Nationalists have viewed the words of white folks as illustrations of hypocrisy - not as a prelude to inclusion. Instead, nationalists have tended to focus on the intractability of moving institutions - precisely because they ALL operate under a unified cultural framework.
I have read Cobb’s meanderings as a critique of GSWS being interpreted as a living breathing system vs. as one of a series of mutable justifications used by a particular collective for purposes of management. Simply, white supremacy (for Cobb) isn’t so much about contemporary institutions or their use of overt symbols of WS…it’s about the shifting justifications which are employed - but seem to elude a nationalist response because nationalists are focused on the old justification - white supremacy. Of course, this is a mischaracterization of the position held by nationalists. Still, I believe it captures Cobb’s essential critique - that nationalists are missing the boat because the ship of WS has sunk.
The fact that WS was/is the system by which that small faction of Europeans institutionalized their global dominance is not in dispute…It was not the system of mercantilism or capitalism or democracy or militarism or colonialism which was decisive or even unifying. Those practices were mere subsets of the unifying rubric of governance/identity formation that is WS. It’s at the heart of every single academic discipline in the Western academy and serves as a filter for just about everything else.
There can be no doubt that the justifications for exploitation are mutable. Still, the point should not be lost that GSWS is not a trailing indicator for an analysis of capitalism, democracy, globalization, Christianization, modernization, Westernization, blah, blah, blah…it’s all the same stuff.
BTW, I didn’t intend to say this much - and if this is deemed too much by the moderators, I DO NOT mind at all if y’all edit or even cut this particular comment. Once again, thanks for creating this forum for a more detailed discussion of some fundamental stuff.
Temple, the focus on words, particularly those in manuspript (eg, laws, codes), are what has stood out for me as major underlying assumptions of Cobb’s ideology. Taken to one end, it’s as if he believes that the removal of all formal racism or racialism from laws, codes, charters, etc, would similarly erase WS or GWS.
I find Cobb’s views highly idealistic.
I wish the world really was they way he says it is vs. reality. It would make the climb alot easier for us up-and-comers.
I have found that people circumvent laws all the time. As a case in point, look at our vaunted constitution, and how the people who have sworn to uphold it are ignoring it. Any number of tenets and amendments are being violated, yet people still think we have “freedom” because the parchment in the national archives is still there. This speaks to the power of ideology and iconography.
Similarly, taking a black-code off the books or pulling down a confederate flag is seen as “progress” and even defeating WS.
BTW, EC, have started reading Yurugu. It’s great so far. Thanks for the recommendation.
I am oriented towards words in the context of laws and philosophies, frameworks, literature, information systems and systems of belief. I tend to be very process oriented and so I expect that processes are disciplined to those laws, philosophies, etc. Consequentially I tend to debug them by tying actual goings on against their fidelity to their stated objectives. I am particularly aware of exceptions - those one-offs and power moves which are undertaken for their own sake.
As a conservative, I view integration into the mainstream particularly in light of Loury. I’m rather surprised that bringing in Loury hasn’t gone anywhere. But now it’s too late for that anyway. It’s not the words of whitefolks that are impressive but the stability of that part of America which is the mainstream - the very part which white supremacists sought to exclude blacks. The conservative part says, it’s not broke don’t fix it, whereas the ghetto is clearly broke. Broke by design and then left behind the curve of new progress. Black nationalists cannot change the material conditions of the ghetto, but they can prepare ghetto folks for the psychological burdens of integration. Or you would think they ought to. Instead, I think the ‘new’ black nationalists retain a sense of propriety over the ghetto and want it to remain the capital, as it were, of a new, somewhat separate black nation. As such, they reject Cosby’s integration saying that black people just can’t go do those things.
I don’t think it is reasonable to argue for the primacy of WORDS as a pro-integration argument. King was mistaken in that. The operation of Christian charity is insufficient to deal with and reform the institutions of the American mainstream. He was smart to go after the law, but he failed in the psychology department which is where Malcolm shined.
As a conservative myself who considers himself a somewhat inviolate bulwark against the psychological operation of white supremacy, I think my assertion of the previously implied but unrecognized reading of the founding documents makes them real for perhaps the first time. This is what I see that successful integration does. It is not the theoretical presence and power of blackfolks in an idealistic America that makes America great, it is the actual presence and power.
The problem is that if so-called minorities actually believe that the mainstream is a hypocritical scam, that it is rife with the pollution of white supremacist hypocrisy, they become fundamentally unable to defend it as it was meant to be defended.
For example, if you think that the FHA is a white supremacist scam to do for whitefolks at the expense of blackfolks, then you will waste your vote when it comes to FHA reform. You’ll vote to disempower it or nullify its operation. It is therefore this dismissal about the principled nature of the American system that disqualifies a certain politics from righteously inheriting control.
If a redneck is marching with the flag, don’t burn the flag, snatch it away from him and march properly.
Finally I would say that this is something that goes to the core of what Spence was talking about a few weeks ago when we were discussing Amiri Baraka’s interpretation of Newark politics. He saw whitefolks as doing x,y and z corruption to get into power in City Hall, so he threatened to burn it down. This was a one-off power move that established enough mojo for the black vote to matter. Thusly empowered black candidates who finally gained City Hall were doing at the very least, x corruption. So when it came to actually delivering services to black (or white) constituents, there was no developed expertise or experience in the principled ways that the institutions under City Hall should properly operate. A mirror world of racial corruptions exchanging places in a poisoned institution.
Update on Debate
Moderator Cnulan has once again asked Cobb to please give his fundamental deductive counter argument regarding comment 5, in comment 5, Michael Fisher gave intellectual argument about the effects of white supremacy in America and how white supremacy has affected the world (other countries) in general. Cobb has not offered a satisfactory rebuttal nor refute against this argument. Moderator Cnulan is still requesting that Cobb offer a refutation to comment 5, the debate can not move much forward until Cobb does this.
Booth Michael Fisher and Cobb deserve our respect for at least being willing to debate in public on the Internet for all of us to see. This is very gentlemanly of them.
Comment 117 Cnula wrote: Cobb has still not articulated a fundamental deductive counter argument with respect to the core resolution that is comparable to Fisher’s arguments at comment 5.
For instance, Fisher could take the position that a) premise #1 is true, b) premise #2 is true, and c) the subsidiary conclusion is true.
Cobb could take the agnostic position that a) premise #1 cannot be proved sufficiently to convince him it is true yet he is also not convinced that it is not true or that if it were true that the magnitude of the GSWS would be significant enough to make premise #2 sound; b) that premise #2 is untrue; c) and that the subsidiary conclusion is untrue.
In my estimation, Fisher took up such positions at comment 5. It is up to Cobb to similarly adopt clearly defined positions relative to the whole of the resolution, its premises, and conclusions - and on that basis make his counterargument(s)
Instead of constructing your own systematic counter argument Cobb, all you’ve done thus far is make disjointed attacks on parts of Fisher’s arguments and on unsubstantiated positions that you’ve imputed to Fisher.
I will stick with syllogism and debate trickery.
This would be consistent with the stance you adopted from the outset beginning with your introduction of the egregious straw man “New Black Nationalism”. As of your last comment 116 this morning, you continue to refuse to state a fundamental position in respect to the resolution, its premises and conclusions.
Comment 73, Cobb wrote: I don’t think it is reasonable to argue for the primacy of WORDS as a pro-integration argument. King was mistaken in that. The operation of Christian charity is insufficient to deal with and reform the institutions of the American mainstream. He was smart to go after the law, but he failed in the psychology department which is where Malcolm shined.
Chancellor asked: Cobb what do you mean by psychological department? Could you please define it? The statement is very void and vague (not clearly expressed). You have made many statements through out the debate with Michael Fisher that are similar in voidness and vagueness, you make statements and comments but you give no coherent details about your statements, comments, and ideas. The result is, we don’t know what it is, that you want us to comprehend and understand regarding the comments that you make.
Cobb said: Malcolm shined in the psychological department.
Question: what is the psychological department Cobb? You see how that comment does not reveal to the readers what you want them to understand about Malcolm’s shinning. We could guess but our guessing could be wrong.
Wow. Bro. Fisher is giving Cobb that ‘ether’.
Sweet Jones…
“Wow. Bro. Fisher is giving Cobb that ‘ether’.”
I don’t understand that statement. That is, how you use “ether”. Could you please elaborate?
Thanks.
Cobb, thanks for the clarification
My bad, I thought you may have still dabbled in Hip Hop slang a little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_(song)
“”Ether” also known as “Ether (F*** Jay-Z) “is the 2nd track on hip hop artist Nas’ 2001 album Stillmatic. The song was a response to Jay-Z’s “Takeover” - a diss from that rapper towards Nas which appears on Jay-Z’s album The Blueprint. Although many critics had believed “Takeover” to be Nas’ wake up call in light of his less-celebrated post-Illmatic career, “Ether” effectively ended the battle between him and Jay-Z, winning the majority of votes by callers in a radio poll[1], and proclaiming Nas the victor.
The word “ether” subsequently entered the hip hop lexicon as a term for a devastating diss, or an irreversible loss sustained during battle by an MC. ”
and,
” “Ether” grew to be infamous among hip hop circles, becoming synonymous with ruthlessness. Indeed, it has even gained its own slang usage on numerous online hip hop forums (with the term “Ethered” becoming widespread).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_(song)
Please cut and paste full link above into browser to go straight to song entry, instead of the chemical compound one.
Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. I have ceased listening to most Hip Hop long ago, even those Hip Hop artists whom I produced and employed in concerts I promoted. Like I said, somewhere else: Crack dealers ought not to consume their own product.
I certainly don’t want to direct the conversation this way - as I have no intention of dragging this out. Cobb, I believe we covered all of this in 2004-05.
But, with that said, I have news for you. You wrote:
“The problem is that if so-called minorities actually believe that the mainstream is a hypocritical scam, that it is rife with the pollution of white supremacist hypocrisy, they become fundamentally unable to defend it as it was meant to be defended.”
King believed the mainstream was toxic. He said as much in Where Do We Go From Here. That was forty years ago.
The real question that you may eventually need to answer (like years from now in Debate XXXIX) is exactly how many Black folks need to make white folks giggle like Cosby did in order to have their humanity actualized…and how many Black folks can afford to feed, protect and develop their posterity by authentically telling white folks and their bought coons to eat a dick up. Now, ain’t that the question.
The mainstream needs Flomax. It’s been broke for four generations. Whether it’s the overconsumption of resources, food, gas, marriages, or space that paradigm is done. Invitations to black folk in 2007 to catch the tail end of a sinking ship can’t be empirical because the math has been running against that line of argumentation since at least the 1970’s. So what is left: The need for integrationists to put that white phallus down (hard as that may be) and to pick up the discipline of authentic cultural and economic analysis.
That would be a neat trick…but it ain’t gonna happen. The last integrationist to do any serious research was DuBois and he abandoned that position as surely as he was abandoned by his satanic spawn, the NAACP. If I could convince the integrationists to hold their collective breaths until one of their brethren put together a cogent, meaningful piece of work, my work would be done.
Gasp! gasp!
The debate ended at 7pm pacific stnadard time. It is over, job Michael Fisher and Cobb, thank you both.
I do want to thank Michael David Cobb Bowen for this exchange. I also apologize for having called you a Nigger Michael. Though I do reserve the right to apply somewhat less incendiary appellations in the future ;).
Good night, Michael
All is forgiven and new respect granted. Michael Fisher, you have done me the honor of a great intellectual debate that has helped me learn a great deal. I respect your honesty, courage and moral conviction. Thank you.
So can I come visit again? Please? I do miss kicking your behind, ya know? :)
You both did a good job, and it was a pleasure watching you both intellectually debate your opinions and ideas. The fact that you both (Michael and Cobb) were willing to intellectually battle it out for all of us to see shows that you both have courage. Those of us following the debate learned somethings too, and we owe it to you two gentleman. Whatever disagreements that happened in the past between you two I hope you both can put them behind yourselves.
Cobb it would be a good exercise in intellectual testing to visit the blog that Fisher blogs at, and intellectually display your ideas there too. Cobb you may already go by there and comment, I am just saying this just in case you don’t already. You two men and brain storm each other, and gain a lot.
Michael Fisher asked: So can I come visit again? Please? I do miss kicking your behind, ya know?
Could the Fish pay you some vists again Cobb at your blog? Or you come by and visit his blog?
I’ll see you two around in the blog sphere out here in cyber space.
Wow. I sat down last night at midnight and tried to digest the whole thing. I have to say it was painful. I have a totally new perspective on the phrase “exercise in futility”. As a platform for presenting ideas I suppose it wasn’t bad, but that was never supposed to be the point. As a debate, it was truly horrid, because despite the best efforts of some, there was never any significant back and forth. There was a minor debate-like clash over a couple of side issues, i.e. the South Africa/Aparthied portion of the festivities. But it was hard to even put any focus into that because after Cobb threw it out there he steadfastly refused to address the direct points of contention that were raised in response.
Fish I know you were trying to keep it moving, but you would have been better served to simply keep calling him on his sidesteps, and pin him to the one central issue. At least then the audience would have no confusion as to which questions Cobb kept ducking and dodging. You let him drag you out into the sidetracked section where nothing is ever really germane to the issue. You can’t resist craking him over the head with his own nonsense, I know, but it leads you to “debating” minutia or things that you would otherwise dimiss as inconsequential, with the effet of giving those things far more weight than they deserve. I mean really, using JIm Crow and Aparthied as position points in a debate about the GSWS is a tacit admission that you simply don’t get the concept to begin with. I thought you started with the right format to pin him down to some mutually acceptable point of reference, but after the schizophrenic ramblimgs that at one point acknowledged the GSWS, at others flatly denied it’s existance or operation, and all some point taking almost every position between those extremes, I came to realize that the desired rational discussion, of the same issue, by two informed and intellectual parties, was not going to be possible.
It doesn’t qualify as a debate if the two parties are not even discussing the same subject. Seems like the only one willing to call yall out on that consistently was young Johanna, lending credence to the old saying “out of the mouths of babes”. Everyone else appears to want to commend the participants for their effort rather than their efficacy.
Well, Dwight, you done met my knucklehead daughter. She can’t keep her mouth shut. She’s too damn smart. Smarter than me, actually.
@ Exodus Mentality
That’s why I kept giving updates here and there. The debate got stuck at comment 5, Moderator Cnulan kept asking Cobb, to give his rebuttal to Michael Fisher’s intellectual statement argument. According to moderator Cnulan, Cobb kept avoiding giving a rebuttal, and therefore, there was no need to move on to the next question if the rebuttal to the previous question had not been giving. Remember this question started at comment 5, By comment in #117 Moderator Cnulan was still asking Cobb to please give his rebuttal to Micheal the Fish Fisher’s comment. Remember this started at comment 5, but they are now all the way at comment #117, and Cobb had still not answered the question by way of refuting Fisher’s statement regarding white supremacy in comment 5, so Cnulan was letting it be know that the debate can’t move forward until Cobb offers a fundamental deductive counter argument (rebuttal or refute).
It was this that semi slowed down the debate, they really could not address many issues because Cobb could not make it past the question in comment 5, an the question in comment 5 had to do with Fisher saying basically that White racism plays a role in America and even in other countries around the world. Cobb never offered an satisfactory refutation or rebuttal that was acceptable to moderator Cnulan based upon the procedural rules on debate that Cobb, Fisher, E.C. Hopkins, and Cnulan all had agreed upon. Cnulan kept asking Cobb to give his refutation based upon the procedural rules of debate that had been agreed upon, and Cobb could not do that. For what ever reason Michael David Cobb Bowen had trouble giving a refutation to comment 5.
This is what slowed down the debate. But both men do deserve some appreciation and recognition for at least being willing to engage in an intellectual debate publicly.
Comment 76 Chance wrote: Moderator Cnulan has once again asked Cobb to please give his fundamental deductive counter argument regarding comment 5, in comment 5, Michael Fisher gave intellectual argument about the effects of white supremacy in America and how white supremacy has affected the world (other countries) in general. Cobb has not offered a satisfactory rebuttal nor refute against this argument. Moderator Cnulan is still requesting that Cobb offer a refutation to comment 5, the debate can not move much forward until Cobb does this.
Booth Michael Fisher and Cobb deserve our respect for at least being willing to debate in public on the Internet for all of us to see. This is very gentlemanly of them.
Comment 117 Cnula wrote: Cobb has still not articulated a fundamental deductive counter argument with respect to the core resolution that is comparable to Fisher’s arguments at comment 5.
For instance, Fisher could take the position that a) premise #1 is true, b) premise #2 is true, and c) the subsidiary conclusion is true.
Cobb could take the agnostic position that a) premise #1 cannot be proved sufficiently to convince him it is true yet he is also not convinced that it is not true or that if it were true that the magnitude of the GSWS would be significant enough to make premise #2 sound; b) that premise #2 is untrue; c) and that the subsidiary conclusion is untrue.
In my estimation, Fisher took up such positions at comment 5. It is up to Cobb to similarly adopt clearly defined positions relative to the whole of the resolution, its premises, and conclusions - and on that basis make his counterargument(s)
Instead of constructing your own systematic counter argument Cobb, all you’ve done thus far is make disjointed attacks on parts of Fisher’s arguments and on unsubstantiated positions that you’ve imputed to Fisher.
I will stick with syllogism and debate trickery.
This would be consistent with the stance you adopted from the outset beginning with your introduction of the egregious straw man “New Black Nationalism”. As of your last comment 116 this morning, you continue to refuse to state a fundamental position in respect to the resolution, its premises and conclusions.
I think what folks may not understand of want to face is that Michael Bowen could not take the political risk to offer a counter argument as per the debate rules.
It had nothing to do with his supposed inability. He was and is perfectly able to do so. It has to do with his consciously adopted political stance.
Don’t believe the hype that Michael Bowen doesn’t understand or agree with the reality of what we are talking about.
I believe a close and charitable reading (reading the text in a light most favorable to the writer) should persuade most that each debater did indeed attempt to argue for or against the resolution. I believe both debaters addressed each premise, the subsidiary conclusion, and the conclusion. Some arguments were better–more convincing or persuasive–than others, but my charitable reading of both debaters led me to believe there were arguments for each premise, the subsidary conclusion, and the conclusion on both sides. Depending on one’s own debating or writing style or one’s own ideological or philosophical beliefs, one will probably have biases for one form of arguing/writing over another. But those biases can be limited by close and charitable, and patient, reading.
If I’ll have time this week, I’ll summarize, using quoted text, each debater’s treatment of each aspect of the resolution. That exercie would take at least two hours, so I might not be able to get to it.
O.K. fine, Bowen was dissembling the whole time. But if you knew or suspected this you should have called him on it right then and there. Otherwise the both of you are complicit in wasting a fair amount of my time.
And I feel your pain. Your daughter is definitely smarter than you. My 9 year old convinced me that my support of the Nov 2 so called “Blackout” was not sufficient reason for her not to be allowed to go skating that night. I fear she is smarter than me, and what’s worse, she may know it.
But since E.C. has called my objectivity into question, I shall refrain from further condemnation until he has been given ample opportunity to present his charitable interpreteation.
I do agree with you Michael Fisher, it had to do with Cobb knowing that many of the things that black folks of all economic class levels know of about how America things work in America when it comes to relations regarding ethnicity, politics, economics, race relations, etc. Cobb does understand all of this very well, he is an intelligent man. Like you said Cobb could not afford to jeopardize his political so called conservative stance on various issues. He did not want to admit that he sees the reality in America and the world when it comes to various issues. This means that he is practicing a type of political ideology that is not based upon full reality.
It is based upon partially reality, the rest is what Cobb wish things were but in reality they are the opposite of what he wish. Cobb actually also, hurt his political stance during th debate to by not addressing the issues directly. This proves that his political ideology is partially flawed and partially not based upon reality. If he had confidence in his political stance he would have answered and debated differently.
He is following a partially flawed logic and partially flawed reality.
He would be more effective if he accepted certain realities, and went back to the ideological drawing board and reshaped his political stance.
Exodus mentality,
Cnulan called Cobb out about not properly addressing some things and Michael Fisher also called Cobb out about not addressing certain things and dodging the issues. I followed the debate enough.
Dwight, having met your daughter, I can confirm not only that she is smarter than you, but that, thank the Lord, she is a whole lot better looking than you.
Exodus Mentality:
“But since E.C. has called my objectivity into question…”
That’s not what I was attempting to do. There’s no such thing, in my opinion, as 100% objectivity. Those who really are 100% objective are either robots or angels disguised as human beings. For authentic human beings like us, there can only be varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity in our interpretations of prose. Additionally, there are various lenses that may be used and various assumptions that may be made by the reader that could adjust the reader’s degrees of objectivity and subjectivity in response to a writer.
What I wanted to communicate in #94 is that I believe if someone were to use a lens and a set of assumptions most favorable to the debater’s writings, then that person should be able to glean that arguments for or against each premise, the subsidiary conclusion, and the conclusion were made by each debater. However, I’d not argue against any reader who might assert that some of the comments our debaters wrote were harder to glean ideas and arguments from than others. But I believe I could argue persuasively that each debater made the attempt to argue for or against the resolution. It would just take me more than two hours two write up my argument. :)
Don’t take me the wrong way E.C. I actually like haveing my objectivty, logic, and everything else challenged. How else to know if I am being the best that I can be. Take all the time you want to presetn however much clarification you feel appropriate. I need to know if I have been swayed by the specters of subjectivity and personal bias. I’ll admit to having them, but I strive to keep them under control so they son’t casue me to make mistakes in judgement.
Fish said:
“Don’t believe the hype that Michael Bowen doesn’t understand or agree with the reality of what we are talking about.”
At #63, I said:
“Cobb never disappoints, he confirms.”
Now given that, maybe Cobb was the wrong person for this debate. Perhaps it should have been someone like LaShawn Barber or Joe Phillips — true-blue kool-aid consumers — with a political axe to grind and more to lose.
E.C.
When you do your recap, please, please, please be sure to flag Fisher’s argument re: the existence/operation/justification of Jim Crow and Apartheid. That may be one of the better arguments I’ve ever heard for understanding the historical and future tense of this global practice.
LaShawn Barber doesn’t appear to have enough intellectual capacity for such a debate.
E.C.
Just as an addendum to the import of Fish’s assessment of Jim Crow and Apartheid, please note the Gray Conservative’s opposition to that point on the Post-Debate thread.
Folks will inevitably miss this point and it should not be glossed over. It goes to the central point of the discussion. If the most fundamental reality we face is the threat of violence, we will not be liberated by our “disciplines.” The law is no panacea. Finance is not the final balm. Nor will engineering be our salvation. It will be our coordinated efforts (and not every one of us - but a critical mass of an undefined number) around these principles which will produce the necessary change by removing the threat of violence - and eliminating the effectiveness of deception (which increases the likelihood of violence).
I find these formulations refreshingly simplistic. Fisher has removed the rocket science and pontification from much of what goes on…global system driven by persons with a vested interest - sustained by deception and violence…that’s as easy as it gets.
Temple…
“Fisher has removed the rocket science…”
To give credit where credit is due, much of what I argued (that is the distillation of the matter to “deception and violence) is owed to and explained in a much more thoughtful manner by Neely Fuller. I still have not read his book, but you should all check out the following sites:
The Code and
counter-racism
I found the following internet radio program particularly useful:
counter-racism radio
By the way, I think folks might want to join the The Code discussion forum . The discussion forum has a lot of members, but hardy anyone posts there anymore. It is a shame because it appears to be a good resource and a lot of the concepts elaborated over there are worthy of being examined in detail in our discussions.
I suspect it has to do with what I perceive as the stultifying approach and language of some of the moderators over there, (which at times annoys me to no end), but maybe if enough people join up we can shake up the place a bit and give it more of a life.
Fish:
I know it came from Fuller…and he should certainly claim the lion share of the props, but your presentation, patience and capacity to stay on point (more or less) is worthy of recognition. I’m glad you two did this - and moved past that which could have become a “real” obstacle. It’s commendable all around - Fuller and Dr. Wright would be proud.
What’s unanswered in the deflection of the issue of a new black agenda is exactly how reactionary it is. It seems to me that the Fullers of the world have no political clout precisely because they have no moral appeal to people who are not victims of white supremacy. Fuller cannot do what King did because King had a transcendent philosophy (Christianity) to which he could appeal.
I don’t see how Fuller, Welsing , et al can do anything for blackfolks without making enemies of whitefolks. All of that is fine and good if you aren’t really responsible for running a nation, but just a thread of protest in a larger nation. But it is an insufficient philosophy to support a people, it