BLACKS AND RELIGION?

Newbie Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 22

kmisho wrote:

Well I'm sorry I missed this entire exchange. I had an accidental opporunity to vacaion in the mountains for a full week, which I spent mostly swimming with my daughter.

Richard Wright is one of my favorite authors, a truly revolutionary literary figure and in my view not as acknowledged as he should be only for being black. The Outsider, my personal favorite (I have a first run copy), clealry shows significant existential influence. I think his humanist tendencenies matured only after he rejected the so-called communism soviet-style of the day. In some important ways, the betrayal of soviet communism resembles the betrayal of black slaves under christianity. The rhetoric was love and eventual justice, the reality was mass control ala 1984.

Lackey,
Out of curiosity, how did you find yourself here? I believe I was the first to mention your book in this thread.

Your book actually was an effort, by which I mean the modern spate of New Atheist books I consider largely effortless (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins). I wish there was more like it. I've largely given up reading "atheist literature" as for someone like me it's all too obvious and hardly needs dissertation. The works I return to are typically essays written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries like Bradlaugh and John MacKinnon Robertson. I simply feel like very little has been added since then.

I feel the same about a lot of 'left' politics. Little has been added to feminism since Mary Wollstonecraft, except for, interestingly, the contributions of black female authors like Toni Morrison and Alice Walker.

Kmisho, Thanks so much for your kind remarks about my book. It was exactly as Everbleed said. There has been a person who has been using the title of my book in lectures around the country. I threatened legal action against this person, and I was checking to see if he is still using my book title for his lectures, which is how I happened upon this site. And I'm glad I'm here.

It's funny that you mention Alice Walker. I am currently at work on a long book chapter about Walker's Color Purple and Louise Erdrich's Tracks. I have been doing a lot of work on the role missionaries played in determining political policy from the time of King Leopold II to the emergence of Ghana as an independent nation. Again, Richard Wright has been my inspiration for this project--specifically his book "Black Power." As you claim, he has--unfortunately--been marginalized for too long now, but I think Ralphellectual is right to claim that Paul Gilroy has helped to change things.

By the way, I don't know John MacKinnon Robertson's work. Can you recommend something for me to read? Like you, I think that Bradlaugh is a hero, one of the few politicians to have the courage to stand up against religious coercion, especially as it functions within the formal political sphere.

In a rush, so I gotta go, michael

Newbie Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 22

Everbleed wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that mlackey simply Googled his name and found your post kmisho, which in my opinion was most fortunate. So thank you kmisho! I look forward to reading mlackey's book and he is certainly a wonderful addition to TIG.

BTW. I tend to agree with you about current A literature. I too think it may be beating a dead horse, but at least people seem to be buying it. There is the other benefit that some people who had no faith but were inarticulate as to why, may have benefited as well. I know for a fact that my 13 year old daughter surely benefited from Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. It was short, to the point and kept her interest. That in itself is wonderful considering we are living in the MTV generation.

Unless rational thought is "popularized" pretty soon, we may all find ourselves in deep crap. So write on you Atheist writers, write on. Now what we need are some good movies and music to go with the books and we might have something.

On more thing. How about Tom Paine in your list of early and significant authors? The Age of Reason is a masterpiece, even if it is deist rather than atheist. However it is really one of (if not) the first "readable" English books that could be assimilated by the "common man". Some even argue that it was the foundation of early free-thought movements.

P.s. Just for grins I googled my name and sure enough this thread was number four on the list, unfortunately it had to quote Ralphs insults. My fifteen minutes has started... Very Happy

Everbleed, I think you are right about "The Age of Reason." But here's an interesting thing about teaching that book. I have taught it a number of times, and the first two times, student response was so so. But the last time I taught it was in a course titled, "Bible and Modernism," and the student response was unbelievably positive. The course was intended to explain why so many major modernist intellectuals rejected either the literal interpretation of the Bible or the Bible in whole. I started the course with Bertolt Brecht's "The Life of Galileo," and then I spent a lot of time preparing students for "The Age of Reason." Specifically, I examined historical documents written by Puritans justifying their atrocities against Native Americans. Those justifications were mainly based on the Bible. By the time I went through a number of historical examples illustrating how the Bible could be used to justify genocide, students were ready for "The Age of Reason," specifically Paine's critique of divine revelation. What I am finding with undergraduates is that ideas in the pure abstract do not have much power on their minds, so when I teach Paine as a purely intellectual text, students have a tepid response. But when I link his abstract claims with historical events, his work has enormous power--the students in my Bible and Modernism class simply loved Paine's work.

As far as I can tell, the main issue with the "common man" is abstract thinking. It's not necessarily that many undergraduates fail to understand complex and abstract arguments. I think I can make such ideas accessible to them. The problem is this: complex, abstract ideas do not move them emotionally or psychologically. This is why I spend so much time using historical examples to make the abstract claims concrete and meaningful. And when I am successful at doing that, a book like "The Age of Reason" becomes an immensely powerful work.

It will be interesting to see how your children respond to all these atheist-agnostic-freethinking ideas, especially given how religious our culture currently is. I have two girls, a three-year old and a five-year old, and while I was raised a traditional Catholic, I raise my children as freethinking atheists. But I sometimes wonder if I am setting them up to be attacked by many of their religious peers. I will probably be asking you for some advice on this topic in the future.

Talk to you later,
michael

Newbie Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 22

The "new atheist" literature seems to be of use for weaning doubting Christians away from their indoctrination, but it's mostly the same-old-same-old. But politically these people are horrible, and backwards compared to the freethinkers of old. The science-worship is rather naive and ignorant both of history and politics. I'd prefer to see more engagement with social theory and the humanities--sans postmodernism, of course.

Ralphellectual, I agree with you that much of the new atheist literature is too apolitical (or lacking in insight about the political), and I also agree that much of the old atheist lit was more insightful and political. But I don't understand your hostility towards postmodernism. And please do not think that I am a mindless devotee of postmodernism. Many postomdernists take issue with me because of my stanch defense of humanism, just as many humanists take issue with me because of my defense of postmodernism. But from my understanding of postmodernism, it is rooted in social theory. What do I mean by this? Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze were inspired by the freedom movements in Africa, and their rejection of metaphysical truth was based on their view that metaphysical truth turned out to be Eurocentric 'truth.' I don't know if you have ever seen Drucilla Cornell's book, "The Philosophy of the Limit," but she explains how postmodernist philosophy can be traced back to Frankfurt School social theory. And I think she is mostly right. This is not a defense of all versions of postmodernism. Some versions are just an excuse to avoid rigorous thinking and responsible behavior. But I do think that some versions are as intellectually rigorous and scholarly exact as you will find.

By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to become a postmodernist. I just want to understand why you object to it so vigorously.

Yours,
michael

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:33 am

Everbleed wrote:

On more thing. How about Tom Paine in your list of early and significant authors? The Age of Reason is a masterpiece, even if it is deist rather than atheist. However it is really one of (if not) the first "readable" English books that could be assimilated by the "common man". Some even argue that it was the foundation of early free-thought movements.

Tom Paine did a pretty solid and straitforward job of dismantling the bible. I dont' think it can be denied he was an important free-thought figure.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:42 am

Ralphellectual wrote:

I'm not sure when The Outsider began to be rehabilitated. Paul Gilroy's The Black Atlantic comes to mind. Flawed or not, I found this novel riveting and consumed it in a 24-hour period. You are, however, not quite correct about surfacing of either humanist or existentialist tendencies. I can no longer remember much about his earlier fiction published in his lifetime after all these years, but to my recollection one already finds "existentialist" themes in Native Son (1940). And certainly in "The Man Who Lived Underground" (first versions, 1942), in which overt politics virtually drops out. I think Wright was tiring of the CPUSA about this time, but I don't think he announced this publicly until 1944. But Wright was always trying to inject his sensibility into his work, and it didn't require a formal engagement with "existentialism" to do so. Retracing who influenced whom and exactly when is not always an easy affair. In addition, oral history--personal memory--can be dodgy after several decades.

Of course he need not of necessity have been engaged in the school of existentialism. But existentialism had to come from somewhere and he was obviously dipping into the same stream.

Quote:

The "new atheist" literature seems to be of use for weaning doubting Christians away from their indoctrination, but it's mostly the same-old-same-old. But politically these people are horrible, and backwards compared to the freethinkers of old. The science-worship is rather naive and ignorant both of history and politics. I'd prefer to see more engagement with social theory and the humanities--sans postmodernism, of course.

If it actually has much affect on not-quite-Christians, I'll be pleasantly surprised! I think their main function was to loudly announce we're here and we're queer.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

Briefly for now: I fyou are a staunch devotee of humanism, then Norm Allen really did misread you. He says you defend atheism and attack humanism.

I don't believe for a second that metaphysical truth is Eurocentric truth, or that the overturning of metaphysics in the way it has been done in the Nietzsche/Heidegger/postmodernist vein is a legitimate project.

Haven't seen Cornell. I don't buy the connection with the Frankfurt School, though one could find what one is looking for in Adorno's Negative Dialectics . which, though not completely intelligible, is far superior to what all the Frenchmen combined have to say.

This is getting too esoteric for this forum, so I'll just close by saying that this or any social theory of consequence is anathema to the American atheist/humanist establishment, that apparently has bought into Dawkins' nonsense about memes, Sam Harris' adoption of Huntington's right-wing 'clash of civilizations', Michael Shermer's pseudoscientific "evolutionary economics" (libertarianism), Christopher Hitchens' warmongering, etc. It's as if there's a total censorship on political and social consciousness. I'm looking into the history of "atheism" and "humanism" in the USA, because it seems to me both have been intellectually on the decline since the McCarthy era.

20 years ago I had hoped, perhaps naively, that an infusion of black Americans into this milieu would improve the overall situation, but I don't see it happening. I will keep my speculations as to why I think that is to myself for the moment.

As for my alleged "whining", perhaps not all problems have solutions. There may or may not be a way out, but there can be no progress without consciousness of the problem, and as I see it, atheism/humanism in the USA is barely more conscious than its opposition. I use these two terms because different social types tend to cluster to "atheism" or "humanism". It's not clear to me how much currency the term "freethought" has here today, or whether it retains its militant tradition. Most of the historical works of interest to me have "freethought" in the title.

Best to stop here, before I lose focus.

mlackey wrote:

. . . Many postomdernists take issue with me because of my stanch defense of humanism, just as many humanists take issue with me because of my defense of postmodernism. But from my understanding of postmodernism, it is rooted in social theory. What do I mean by this? Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze were inspired by the freedom movements in Africa, and their rejection of metaphysical truth was based on their view that metaphysical truth turned out to be Eurocentric 'truth.' I don't know if you have ever seen Drucilla Cornell's book, "The Philosophy of the Limit," but she explains how postmodernist philosophy can be traced back to Frankfurt School social theory. . . .

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:15 am

mlackey wrote:

By the way, I don't know John MacKinnon Robertson's work. Can you recommend something for me to read? Like you, I think that Bradlaugh is a hero, one of the few politicians to have the courage to stand up against religious coercion, especially as it functions within the formal political sphere.

An interesting character. Self-taught journalist and historian, member of Parliament, follower of Bradlaugh. He wrote +100 books in the 'free-thought' arena and most known as an early Jesus mythicist. Here's the wiki on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackinnon_Robertson

Some of his books have come back into print and Amazon lists a number of available books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-3172024-8656057?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=john+mackinnon+robertson

He is the author of one of the most famous atheist quotable quotes of all time which appeared in his essay "Godism" (1896), which may be reprinted elsewhere but I know it's reprinted here:
An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism

(gotta love Prometheus books)

"You deny the existence of nine-hundred-ninety-nine alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours."

Newbie Joined: May 18, 2008 Posts: 22

[quote="Ralphellectual"]Briefly for now: If you are a staunch devotee of humanism, then Norm Allen really did misread you. He says you defend atheism and attack humanism.

Ralphellectual, You have no idea how betrayed I feel because of Norm's review of my book. He and I corresponded for a couple years before my book came out, and he knows and knew years ago that I consider myself a postmodern humanist. Why he represented me as anti-humanist, I will never really know. As you can imagine, he and I no longer correspond.

But to give you some background about my take on humanism in the book, let me explain. Many university professors, who have been indoctrinated with simple-minded versions of postmodernism, have been extremely critical of humanism. As I argue in my book, Aime Cesaire set this critique into motion when he claimed that humanism leads to Hitler. Instead of dismissing this critique of humanism as irrelevant, I decided to take it very seriously, so in my book, I detailed the critique of humanism as it has been and continues to be disseminated in universities. But then, I use Richard Wright's work to demonstrate why Cesaire's claim about and the "postmodern" critique of humanism are ultimately unfair and inaccurate. Where did Norm go wrong in his review of my book? He thought, because I detailed the postmodern critique of humanism, that I agree with that critique. But if you read my chapter on Wright, you will note that I argue 1) that Wright was a humanist and 2) that humanism offers us the most hope for constructing a socially just political system. Why did I spend so much time detailing the postmodern critique of humanism? Because I am so immersed in postmodernism, I understand what that critique is, and I can explain why that critique is misguided. In my estimation, Norm simply did not read my book very carefully. He made a couple other ridiculous claims about my book, but I will not address those here.

By the way, the two Frankfurt School books that Cornell considers most important for postmodernism are Negative Dialectics and Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Talk to you later,
michael

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

I have had your book on my want list for some time. Norm's review, which I only came upon in the past couple of weeks, was quite discouraging.

I'm not familiar with Cesaire's remark--sounds like a typical francophone conceit to me--am surprised it came so early. But then this fetish contra "humanism" is a specifically French thing--really sickening. It's a shame it's caught on elsewhere.

There has always been a division between anglophone and francophone African intellectuals, and now that I think of it, the same probably applies to the Caribbean. I vaguely recall that maybe Wright was not so enamored of Presence Africaine ? I can see him having no truck with Negritude, a francophone obsession.

If anyone was a militant defender of Enlightenment reason, it was Wright. No wonder he is so often defamed by many black American profs today, e.g. that pompous preacher-with-footnotes Cornel West.

Yes, Dialectic of Enlightenment , of course. How I hate that book, with the exception of the chapter on the culture industry. The "new atheists" are part of the culture industry, BTW. I also find it regrettable that butterfliesandwheels.com, while it links to some terrific material, is also predicated on the same shallow sound bite mentality that plagues the rest of the culture industry. The would-be defenders of reason seem to be drowning in the same muck as everyone else.

mlackey wrote:

. . . Aime Cesaire set this critique into motion when he claimed that humanism leads to Hitler. Instead of dismissing this critique of humanism as irrelevant, I decided to take it very seriously, so in my book, I detailed the critique of humanism as it has been and continues to be disseminated in universities. . . .

By the way, the two Frankfurt School books that Cornell considers most important for postmodernism are Negative Dialectics and Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:03 am

Quote:

This is getting too esoteric for this forum, so I'll just close by saying that this or any social theory of consequence is anathema to the American atheist/humanist establishment, that apparently has bought into Dawkins' nonsense about memes,

I don't take memes seriously except as a shorthand way of describing certain mental phenomena. Dawkins is better when he sticks to evolution.

Quote:

Sam Harris' adoption of Huntington's right-wing 'clash of civilizations'

I'm no fan of Harris. His constant feigned shock at how stupid christians are is annoying.

Quote:

Michael Shermer's pseudoscientific "evolutionary economics" (libertarianism),

I object to evolutionary economics (a good term for it) as an example of the is/aught fallacy, a far more damning problem in my view.

Quote:

Christopher Hitchens' warmongering

Never read much Hitchens. Don't plan to.

I used to really like Free Inquiry, but I find it's getting quite kooky. Even their secular humanist statement of principles , though a noble effort, has an air of pathetic comedy.

Quote:

It's as if there's a total censorship on political and social consciousness. I'm looking into the history of "atheism" and "humanism" in the USA, because it seems to me both have been intellectually on the decline since the McCarthy era.

God knows I look back on the McCarthy era with misty fondness as virtually a second age of reason.

Are you conscious that most of your posts are simply lists of shit you hate? "It's a free country" as someone once said, probably some dumbass astronaut. Far be it from me to deny your unique means of catharsis.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Ralphellectual wrote:

This is getting too esoteric for this forum,

As for my alleged "whining", ]

Too esoteric? Who you callin' stupid?

I don't know you Ralph but you aren't fifteen and you aren't stupid. But you don't have a single solution or even a hint of one for anything. At least you haven't peeped once in the positive direction. If I didn't know better I would think you are a dear friend of mine who sounds exactly like you. He has read everything... That's all he does.

He has convinced himself we are all doomed. The more he reads the more gloomy and negative he becomes. What pains me the most is he may be right. The pain is in thinking about losing the kids, the art, the music, the food, the fucking God Damn joy of living.

That's what it really is all about. I am working frantically on ideas to help. So, obviously is mlackey and TIG and his friends. What the hell are you doing?

As for your "alleged" whining. You have wa wa wa'ed your way through what is it?... 7 pages on this thread. I am glad there is a public record. You only started mellowing out a little bit when you finally realized there was something "happening" in here. You have bitched about attitude and political immaturity on a few occasions, but you appear to me to be reeking profoundly of what you declare the rest of "us" stink of.

You never did respond to my statement that you would not dare insult me to my face. Of course, I know for someone so brilliant, it would be unseemly to stoop down to my level. You know... the level where men are men. Where men actually have a code. Where men respect men who have codes. And treat them like brothers.

The world is filled with people demanding respect, not the damn least American black urban communities. You wouldn't last a minute. I know.

So let's total up the gaffs in the Ralphellectual tally.
1. "This is getting too esoteric for this forum,"
You pompous blowhard!
2. "As for my alleged "whining","
The evidence is here for the world to read.
3. "You are a coward."
The quotation above is mine.

Remind me not to invite you to dinner. Or into my foxhole.

Good times.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Back on topic.

Could the "black" man, and particularly black modern culture, actually be the catalyst for real "change" in this country? And I mean "real" change, not just the political word "change" (linked with belief) we have heard so often, especially now.

I believe so. I have my reasons. I am working on the "how" every spare minute.

But, being a working stiff, I must return from my lunch.

So stay tuned. I am done with Ralph. But the rest of you...

Good times.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:49 am

Everbleed wrote:

Back on topic.

Could the "black" man, and particularly black modern culture, actually be the catalyst for real "change" in this country? And I mean "real" change, not just the political word "change" (linked with belief) we have heard so often, especially now.

I believe so. I have my reasons. I am working on the "how" every spare minute.

But, being a working stiff, I must return from my lunch.

So stay tuned. I am done with Ralph. But the rest of you...

Good times.

Everbleed,
The first thing I thought when I saw your avatar was of this guy:

Samuel Delany , another very interesting Black intellectual. If he's not an atheist, he is at the very least utterly uninterested in religion per se as I've never seen him discuss the issue at any length in any of his numerous critical books.

I asked a similar question to yours of an admired poster on the other IG forum who goes by Da_Monumental_One. He was being quite pessimistic about future advancement of equal treatment in the US from the black sphere. I mentioned that there was some real change, and a real joining of forces, in the 1960's. What happened? Did the leadership become complacent following a few important though primarily legal, and therefore to some extent cosmetic, victories?

He never answered, but he's a busy guy, one guy behind the actual functionality of IG sites.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Chip is much cuter than I and much smarter. But my fur beats his don't you think?

I have to say that you guys are all going to end up breaking my bank. Even Ralph. I have to buy all these books!

The wife is going to kill me.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

I'm a big fan of Delany's SF. I've seen him a number of times: I think the last time was when Octavia Butler was still alive. Your perception is correct: I've seen no indication of any interest in religion. Delany is one of the greatest intellects alive.

As for the second point, there's much to be pessimistic about. Cracker America is not going to change, though indeed there have been tremendous social changes in the past 40 years. Of course, there were will be advances for an elite, while more and more people are prevented from becoming a part of it and will be driven deeper and deeper down. And, though I am no Obama fan, I am distressed by the double standard by which he is being judged and the likelihood that the very association with his pastor will be enough to sink his campaign, though his competitors are far slimier. We will not see equal treatment in our lifetime. Too bad if this is too much whining for the crackers.

kmisho wrote:

Samuel_R._Delany, another very interesting Black intellectual. If he's not an atheist, he is at the very least utterly uninterested in religion per se as I've never seen him discuss the issue at any length in any of his numerous critical books.

. . . [someone else] was being quite pessimistic about future advancement of equal treatment in the US from the black sphere.....


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore