Last night, I did a long post that covered, among other things, the long, drawn out death of Free Speech at San Francisco State University, a place so radically Left that Angela Davis is a faculty member there. As is so often the case, immediately after I’ve done a post, as I’m reading my usual morning fare, I stumble across things relevant to that post.
First, I found this Jon Sanders article about famous people on the Left who pose as martyrs persecuted by the Government for exercising the First Amendment rights — a position he eventually contrasts with the clamp down on free speech taking place at federally funded college campuses:
“I think people are paranoid” was how former Grateful Dead member Mickey Hart’s comments to Reuters began. Hart was speaking about this year’s Grammy Awards and the Dixie Chicks. Then he provided a sterling example of that very paranoia.
“I think that if they speak out, they think they’re gonna get whacked by the government. It’s pretty oppressive now. Look at the Dixie Chicks. They got whacked.”
What? The government did nothing concerning The Dixie Chicks after they “spoke out” against President Bush while they were in concert in London. The singers were free to say whatever they wanted, just as the buying public was free to say whatever they wanted with respect to what the Dixie Chicks said.
There was public outcry, and indeed the Dixie Chicks lost fans and concertgoers. But they also garnered new fans, including fawning press. Their “naked” cover on Rolling Stone seems to have started a new fad: the Multimillionaire Artist As Suffering Figure of Persecution.
They would be followed in magazine-cover martyrdom by Kanye West, who nearly ruined a Hurricane Katrina fundraiser with his off-the-cuff remarks about Bush hating black people. His cover shot on Rolling Stone showed him wearing a crown of thorns.
Madonna, as is her wont, took the fad to its logical extremes; comparing Bush to Hitler and Osama bin Laden and then hanging herself on a crucifix.
But it’s all vanity. Hart’s comments, the “musical martyrs,” the paranoia — it’s just self-congratulatory hooey. Musicians aren’t getting “whacked” by the Bush administration for “speaking out.” But it’s fun to believe it, because only then could the very mundane act of speaking out in this, the Land of the First Amendment, appear dangerous and brave instead of merely mercenary.
Second, FrontPage Magazine chose this morning to link to information about erstwhile 60s/70s radical, and former SFSU (and current UC Santa Cruz) professor , Angela Davis. Just a few of Davis’ career highlights:
# Communist professor at the University of California’s Santa Cruz campus
# Recipient of the Lenin “Peace Prize” from the police state of East Germany.
# Provided an arsenal of weapons to Black Panthers who used them to kill a Marin Country judge in a failed attempt to free her imprisoned lover, Black Panther murderer George Jackson
# A highly paid professor at UC Santa Cruz and icon of the campus left and frequent guest speaker at anti-war rallies
# Leader of a movement to free all criminals who are minorities claiming that they are political prisoners of the racist United States
# “The only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class.”
Lovely woman, and isn’t it great that she’s in control of young people’s education?
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Education, Free speech
It’s the triumph of narcissism: any criticism, any adverse effects whatsoever, however negligible, is taken as a form of persecution and suffering. It’s absurd. In a world filled with actual sacrifice, repression and violence, to say the Dixie Chicks got “whacked” is a monumentally stupid.
I heard Angela Davis speak at Wake Forest Universary about our nation’s prisons a few years back. She was fantastic!
I promise if they take a one way ticket to Iran and get caught as a spy, that they will see what getting whacked is all about.
People like her tend to be very good at oration.
Ancient times had a time for them. Rabblerousers. People who can say something and a crowd will pay attention.
Angela Davis was fantastic? Doesn’t her advocacy of communism and violent revolution, her acceptance of a prize named for Lenin from a repressive formerly Soviet bloc country, and her complicity in murder, bother you just a wee little bit?
Especially her complicity with murder. Here’s a link to that story, which I remember well, having grown up one county over.
The case was appealed during trial in Magee v. Superior Court (34 Cal. App.3d 201) (1973) on the issue of permitting former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to join the defense team.
From Book’s links.Wow, Ramsey ol buddy ol mine seems to get around, doesn’t he.
Must be Nifong’s role model. Do people get the sense that such folks hang as a pack?
Hi Helen,
Serious, non-judgmental question: Given that Davis advocates the very violence that you so abhor, what made her fantastic? I can understand that you would agree with her violently anti-American, anti-white, anti-capitalist rhetoric, given your own politics, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why you would call her fantastic in light of her support for, and participation in, violence. I think of you as a lovely, gentle soul (albeit one I profoundly disagree with on most issues). I have trouble picturing you taking kindly to violent revolutionaries. Thanks, DQ
I’d like to comment on Helen L.’s statement: “I heard Angela Davis speak at Wake Forest Universary about our nation’s prisons a few years back. She was fantastic!”
Helen, it would be useful if you described for us the ways in which Ms. Davis’ speech was fantastic. That would clear up a lot of the confusion.
I was working at Southwest Airlines when the Islamic terrorists run by Al Qaeda ran planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (and committed such horrific murders). I made the mistake of stating that I admired the terrorists for their ability to accomplish such an audacious, incredible plan.
What I meant was that I respected their abilities to carry out such a plan to harm us. Using the word “admired” was frankly a grotesque misuse of the word. I do not admire anything about them.
I wonder if HelenL might reconsider her use of the word “fantastic” in describing Ms. Davis.
Concerning the Dixie Chicks getting “thumped”.
I wish we could all agree that censorship means that the government has acted to remove from public discourse, or reach, any medium of expression.
By that standard, the Dixie Chicks were not “whacked” by censorship. I can’t recall any National or State representative, of any sort, even introducing a measure to censor the Dixie Chicks, much less getting it passed.
If Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition can boycott Nike, or perform any other of the boycott measures they enacted, then why cannot any other group pressure any institution concerning the Dixie Chicks? It is not censorship.
Many country radio stations refuse to play the Dixie Chicks because their market segment – the PEOPLE who listen – felt utterly violated by Ms. Maines’ statements. Those who ran the stations chose not to play that music by ethical or moral choice; or they simply responded to the hatred of their listeners’ for the Dixie Chicks by not playing the music.
This is not censorship. This is boycott.
fantastique
The following is summary from my notes taken at Angela Davis’ speech, “Civil Rights Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” presented at Wake Forest University March 1, 2000. I have not looked at these for years. This is the best summary I can give.
Angela Davis said that the US has “historical amnesia [with respect to race].” We often think history is “dead” rather than something that is happening now. There is still “unfinished work” left over from the civil rights movement, especially in the area of economics.
Davis then turned to the US prison system and issues of capital punishment. At the time when she spoke there were 4000 people on death row. She identified NC as the state with the most serious “justice problems.” NC had 30,871 prisoners at the time. Of these. 1827 are women. She spoke of the racial disparity that exists and spoke of gender issues. “Women,” she said, “are an afterthought.” When Davis herself was released from prison, there were 200,000 prisoners in the US. At the time of this speech, there were 2 million.
Rather than being able to “rehabilitate themselves,” prisoners were no longer allowed to obtain Pell Grants. When they worked, wages were 40-60 cents per hour.
She spoke of the disproportionate number of blacks among the incarcerated and questioned why certain acts were criminal. “Why drugs?” she asked. She then went on to explain that the poor often has no “other means of living in a miserable world.” Poor people on drugs have fewer choices to get “legal drugs.” Pharmaceutical companies do not profit by helping them do so. Most women who are in prison are there as result of drugs. Davis called the prison system a “part of the structure of democracy” and prison a kind of “negative affirmation” of democratic rights. “Prison,” she said, “is a denial of liberty.”
She then spoke of the privatization of services provided to prisoners. She called prison a “catch-all” solution and a way to “not deal with people who have problems.” She posed the questions, “What do prisons mean as a part of democracy?” and “Why are we afraid to address this issue, when most people in prison are there for non-violent acts?”
She suggested the refusal to address was due to our “inability to cross class lines.” She called the death penalty “barbaric” and pointed out that the US is the only industrialized country where the death penalty is “routine.” Americans think we had instituted “more humane forms of death.” [NOTE: This part is fantastic.] There are no rich people on death row.
Davis spoke of California’s Proposition 22 that allows young people to be tried as adults. “California,” she said, “was #41 in educational spending and #1 on spending for prisons.” She suggested we stop the flow of resources into prisons. She favored education and health care spending over prison spending. Schools should discipline and control their students not “teach them how to be prisoners.” Students are not “excited about knowledge.” “That,” she said, “is a problem.”
We should disarm our police. [!!!!]
Prison is not a deterrent to crime. We need to challenge the idea of the “permanency of prison.” Prisoners need to “face the persons they have harmed and make restitution” not spend the rest of their lives in jail. We need to struggle to move beyond our old thinking patterns. Even MLK learned that we had to do more than just desegregate. We have to remove the “rotten structures.” When King realized this, he was killed. [See. Fantastic.]
Davis received a standing ovation.
Helen: Thank you so much for sharing your notes with us. That was a very nice thing for you to do, since people have been wondering what you mean when you said her speech was fantastic. I have to say that I don’t have the same response to what she says, but it’s too late and I’m too tired to do much analysis. I’ll hit a few points, though, just to grant you the same courtesy that you granted all of us — which is respect for our ideas and requests.
Regarding the absence of rich people on death row — well, she’s probably right. But the fact is that rich people don’t commit that many murders. Keep in mind that most murderers don’t end up on death row. If you have only an infinitesimally small number of rich murderers, the likelihood is that none will end up on death row, regardless of whether they can afford good lawyers or not. And OJ, as you’ll recall, a rich, celebrated, double murderer got off, not because he was rich, but because he was black. There’s a bizarre inversion, right?
It’s also worth remembering that so much crime — especially murderous crime — is black on black. When Tookie Williams went to the electric chair, he left a long trail of black bodies (not to mention some Asian ones) in his wake. The greatest beneficiaries of the judicial system’s work against Tookie were other African-Americans.
As it happens, I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty because it does have inconsistencies. The inconsistencies that bother me, though, aren’t of race, but, for want of a better phrase “quality of the crime.” Depending where you are, you can find someone who committed a heinous torture murder living out his life at the taxpayer’s expense, while someone who did a “clean” gun kill in a bar room is on death row. Until either or both get the death penalty or, alternatively, life imprisonment, I’m going to be uncomfortable with outcomes here. As it is, while Europe always looked down it’s collective European nose at us for our prisons and death penalties, it’s relatively civilized interlude after WWII (funded by the US) is vanishing, and no-gun, no-death penalty, limited-imprisonment Europe is seeing skyrocketing crime rates (especially violent crime) as ours decline. That says something, although maybe I’m drawing the wrong inferences.
I do believe that, where possible, we should direct some resources to training offenders away from crime while they’re in prison. I believe in punishment, so have no problem with prisons, but it’s fairly pointless from a societal point of view that these people come out of prison as useless as when they went in — that inability to function in the mainstream means you’re going to have recidivism.
And now I’m off to bed.
Again, Helen, that was nice of you to take seriously the request that you fill us in on Davis’ talk.
And please everyone, in fairness to Angela Davis, rememeber you are commenting on my seven year old memeory of what she said, not on what she actually said. I was there, and I took notes, but I remember only so much. I did not record her speech.
Hi Helen,
I’m at work, and don’t have time to do your post justice, but I also want to thank you for taking the time to share your notes. You did not, however, address my question of how you can view Davis so positively in light of her violent past and her advocacy of future violence. I’ve always be mystified by the bond between pacifist white liberals and violent black revolutionaries (dating back at least to the 1960s). Perhaps you can help me to under this.
Thanks, DQ
As a Leninist, I suspect Ms. Davis would be quite comfortable with prisons and indeterminate sentences as long as the right people were incarcerated; release people whose crimes have basis in “social origins” and move in people whose crimes are political. Given that Marxism divides society on a class basis then the oppressor class can never be right, nor can they avail themselves of “bourgeoisie” rights, nor can the oppressed ever be wrong. Regardless of how eloquent a speech Davis gives, the political system she represents once in power always makes a large investment in penal systems. Ever heard of gulags?
DQ, There is a very interesting book by James Cone entitled “Martin & Malcolm & America” (Orbis, 1991, might be OOP) that deals with the two men’s views (violence v. non-violence) during the 60s and how, as each grew older, they came to understand each other’s POV and embrace parts of them.. King (after 1963 and his decline in popularity) came to see the racial situation in the US as more complicated than he had once thought. Malcolm X (after his visit to Mecca, when he worshipped with Muslims of all races) began to soften a bit and allow that some white people might be able to help in the changes needed to make the US more equitable for all. Malcolm X was killed before King was, and the two men met only once (the famous picture is the only one). But even though King (whose philosophy I follow) came to understand why some blacks would embrace violence on their way to equality, he never did. That is my position, also. Although I understand why some might do this, I neither condone nor embrace violence. King’s position was molded by his faith, as was that of Malcolm X.
As far as the Black Panthers are concerned, I know only enough not to speak up and no more. In other words, you’ll have to look elsewhere, because I don’t know enough to make an intelligent statement as to what they believe and why. But, just as I disagree with you concerning some issues, doesn’t mean you have nothing to teach me, the same follows for Angela Davis and others whose philosophies I do not embrace. Blacks who deal in violence are also dealing in frustration. Compared to them, I (and you) have little personally invested in the multi-century struggle for racial equality.
I don’t know if this answers your question or not. If not, you need to ask it in different words. I’m not trying to be obtuse. And you are intelligent.
I have to say that I don’t have the same response to what she says, but it’s too late and I’m too tired to do much analysis.
I think I have one reaction from that.
CDR Sala also had up a DP case concerning terrorists on his site. I’ll post it here, cause I agree with him.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-justice-in-germany.html
My reaction is based upon the rabblerouser pattern. Meaning, you have the propaganda rhetoric based upon oration skills. And then you have the reality, the consequences, and the actual policies. Those two are different from each other, separate. You could have someone preach war and destruction, and his actual policies are the reverse, peace and salvation. You could have Jones in his Jonestown preach the salvation of people and the protection of their kids from the horrendous things that the US government will do to them, and his actual policy is enforced murder on hundreds, 300+ of them children who were made to take poison. Kool Aide episode I believe.
So I agree with helen, it is fantastic. It is a fantastic piece of rabblerousing propaganda, although folks might disagree on that clarification.
Everything Angela says sounds right, and I don’t even have to hear her speech to know that it would sound right. It should sound right, if she was doing her job correctly.
But if anything the terrorists have taught me, it is that things that sound righteous and true, can have other depths to them. Hidden, out of view, only available to those who search for them.
I disagree with you, Ymarsakar, but I know what you are talking about. I feel just like this when I hear (I mean read, I no longer listen) to Dubya’s rhetoric. Sounds right, but it’s all wrong.
To me, Bush sounds all wrong. But that wouldn’t really matter, except for the fact that with Bush I know that he means what he says and he says what he means. Not a good thing in today’s world.
What a person says does reflect upon analysis of their actions. So the better a person is at speaking, the more positive his actions are reflected upon. But there’s a limit to that. Angela cannot cover up such ugliness. And Bush’s inadequate talents cannot expose the shine of the silver.
“Given that Marxism divides society on a class basis then the oppressor class can never be right, nor can they avail themselves of “bourgeoisie” rights, nor can the oppressed ever be wrong.” (Zhombre)
Match over, helenl. I think Zhombre has hit the winning serve.
Helen is an advocate for genocidal murderers, the greatest criminals of modern times. I wonder how many people of color Communism has slaughtered?
Excuse me, jg, but you said, “Helen is an advocate for genocidal murderers, the greatest criminals of modern times.” I am a pacifist and not likely to favor “murders” of any kind.
Hi jg,
You corss over the line with that one. Not only is it ad hominem, it is unture. That is what makes her admiration for Ms. Davis all the more inexplicable, although I do appreciate her sincere efforts to explain it above.
It may well be true (indeed, I fear it is true) that if America were ever to follow the path Helen advocates, the genocidal murderers would triumph, but it’s a large unwarranted step from that to saying that Helen herself advocates that outcome. She does not.
I feel not,DQ. Anyone who apologises for communism deservese the charge. She does.
I believe that the distinction with which JG and DQ are struggling is that between those that “advocate” genocide (Communists out of power and their fellow travelers, like Angela Davis), those that “commit” genocide (Communists in power) and those that “enable” genocide (the “gentle pacifists” and “appeasers”, no need to mention names).
I’d comment but I don’t want to harass poor Helen further. I have latent cavalier impulses that preclude that.
Danny got it exactly right. Jg accused Helen of being an advocate. She is not. She is, inadvertently, an enabler, however. The second is a fair charge if you acknowledge that she does not view herself that way and is entitled to her own opinion. The first is not a fair charge.
You split PC hairs, DQ.
I suspect you have not ingested the messages of Bookworm’s two well conceived posts on the Stalin-esque evil at SF state. And about those who traffic in it.
helen stands accused by her own mouth.
I find myself somewhat unconcerned with how people view themselves – what counts are results. I am quite sure that Mao and Stalin did not view themselves as murderous thugs – who, after all, equipped with a human brain does? I am positive that when Stalin sat with his pipe before the fire of an evening and ruminated, he considered himself a pioneering sociological genius – but what he was in fact, however, was a murderous thug.
If you are an enabler, either actively or passively, then you share some piece of that. Certainly in the shrink world, whence comes the concept of “enabler,” there is no difficulty considering them as part – often a major part – of the problem.
I’m uncertain why they should escape opprobrium for those same activities (or lack thereof) in the political arena.
Hear, hear, JJ! Spot on the mark. Hence my absolute distaste for morally vain “pacificists” and appeasers.
Jg, I suspect we’ve beaten the topic to death. Please keep in mind that I’m an attorney so splitting hairs is what I do for a living.
Having said that, it is always easy to demonize someone by misrepresenting their point of view then, when called on it, retreating to a “splitting hairs” defense. This has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with reasoned discourse.
Words matter. Meanings matter. Advocating is not the same as enabling, especially when the enabler truly believes that the proposed course of action will not result in the outcome you and I think it will. If we are to make any progress in discussing these matters, we must first see our opponents as they see themselves, not just as we see them. Helen truly believes that the course of action she proposes for American will not result in genocidal murderers having their way. She’s wrong about that (or, at least, you and I beleive she is wrong) but, believing as she does, she can certainly advocate that course of action without being an advocate for genocidal murderers.
In any event, such personal attacks, even if they were true, do not advance the discussion and are not appropriate here.
I had a pretty good post on notepad about Al Franken and his book Lying Liars and how it connected with Angela, but my computer went down and I didn’t save it to hd. OH well.
In short, Franken is funny, but he is funny in a very peculiar manner. I also understand now why the spiritual leaders of the Left gather so many followers. Even though I was personally resistant to Franken because I knew him for what he is, he was still quite persuasive to me. It was like Chomsky. I thought it was going to be transparent and illogical. But it wasn’t illogical, it was rather logical and reasonable. But their logic is rather self-contained, and it took a lot of thinking to pierce the veil. If it was that hard for me to do so, then I can only imagine what occurs in the young blank mind states of Franken’s and Chomsky’s followers.
I will warn people not to allow their personal beliefs to cloud their judgement concerning helen. Without the adequate personal space, you end up with O’Reilly vs Franken. The point is, to truely understand requires a sublimation of your emotions below your intellect. It is not a repression so much as it is a brake.
The Left, for all their propaganda machinations and resources in the media/harvard research centers/political circles, is limited by their emotions. They dislike, hate, or otherwise avoid that which they do not wish to deal with. In a certain way, this applies to Danny’s view of pacifism just as much as it applies to pacifism’s view of war. Each individual handles it differently of course. And so jg handled it his way, but his way is not my way.
I was thinking about that as I read Franken’s book in the library.
The reason why I wrote what I wrote would be clearer if you read my thoughts on Franken’s book. Or more specifically, what I was thinking while reading his book.
Because a lot of it had to do with emotions, feelings, and distortions. I believe it is a personal benefit to see people as they are not. not for their benefit or to split hairs, but because accurate attack and defense relies upon accurate intel assessments of the enemy. And you cannot have that if your wishes and desires lead you down a path of someone else’s choosing.
Franken had his own Harvard research team called TeamFranken, to dig up dirt on people. I mention this because the only way to keep ahead of these people is with a clear mind. Controlled aggression, you have to maintain your lead because the Left has far more resources in terms of propaganda and word illusions than their competitors. So you have to be better, smarter, and faster. One cannot compete on an emotional level with the Left, unless one has been from the Left. Reagan for example.
“In any event, such personal attacks, even if they were true, do not advance the discussion and are not appropriate here.”
It is not personal, DQ. You are indeed an attorney, but certainly avoid the larger issue. Personal attacks are common in much of the blogosphere. Please check some of them out before misapplying the term here.
I stand by my comments on her thinking. Communism is not open to discussion. It is open to justice. You misuse the term of progress, DQ, and instead live in the past.
Goodness, JG,
“Everyone else does it” — Yes and I very much want this blog to be different than the rest of the blogosphere.
“I attacked her thinking, not her” — Nonsense, you said, “Helen is an advocate for genocidal murderers.” That is an attacking characterization of the person, not the idea.
“You’re living in the past” — Almost funny to launch a person attack on me in a discussion of personal attacks, but I plead guilty. Political discourse today is ruder, cruder, less constructive and less productive. Darn right I’d rather live in a past where people could talk about ideas without personally insulting each other. If that makes this blog as I envision it (and, I believe, as Bookworm envisions it) a throwback to a more civil time, all the better.
I stand by the worth and truth of my comments about Helen, DQ.
I will continue to write freely.
DQ, you have been less than forthright in your characterization of them and me, which I find regrettable
JG, I am NEVER less that forthright, at least not intentionally. I quoted you verbatim. What more could you want in forthrightness? Your own words condemned you and you can stand by them all you want. They are what they are.
DQ, you do me unkindly, especially in a post entitled Free Speech.
I am astonished.
Thanks, however, for the privilege of defending freedom of discussion and more especially the necessity for truth.
JG, You do Helen (and, for that matter, me) unkindly. Freedom of speech is about the expression of ideas, not name calling. For the life of me, I can’t understand why you are having such trouble comprehending the difference. You are smarter than that. I am astonished.
DQ, you are less than forthright. I do not engage in name calling. I do correctly identify Helen’s ideas. And will continue to attack such.
Again my gratitude for the privilege of defending what is fundamentally right against your wrong.
Thanks, DQ. But your astonishment is wasted. I’d call jg a name, if that were my style. As is, I’ll give him what him
what he call himself: two lower case initials!!!
jg, your comments indicate you have no clue as to what I actually think. But go ahead and take what you seem to want: the last word.
One hesitates to enter the lists in situations like this, but I’ve never quite gotten over succumbing to temptation. My brother convinced me of something that is germane at this point…..when there is a clear record of where certain ideas end up, over and over again, then if you will the means, you have willed the ends. You can SAY that you oppose the ends, but you must not be surprised if honest folk refuse to believe you after a while.
Where is there an example of communism EVER leading to good ends, please? It has been tried over and over and over again…..the truly decent folk abandoned it before they reaped the inevitable outcome. Those less decent ended up imposing the Stalinist paradise, or Mao’s China, or today’s North Korea and Cuba.
If one is still capable of saying “But, they didn’t do it correctly, and it will be different when MY ideas are the ones that rule.”, one can hardly blame those who are willing to learn from experience for refusing to take you seriously.
That said, I agree with DQ’s distinction – for the purposes of discussion…..but it’s still true, that in cases like this, if you will the means, you have willed the ends.