Black Public Intellectuals...exactly what are their roles?

[Anthony Davis]

I listen to Tavis and Cornel West every week and it seems as if their main purspose is to "bash" the President (Obama). It appears their main point has to do with the poor and working class segment of the black community, and that Obama should do something legislatively to help them.

I'm not necessarily in disagreement, although this narrow approach would be inconsistent with the role of the "black public intellectual" throughout history. It appears to me that men like Frederick Douglass (whom West seems to pattern himself after), not only moved Lincoln with regards to Emmancipation, but also moved blacks to be prepared to control their own destiny.

Booker T. Washington had the same ideology, as did W.E.B. DuBois, although their methodologies clashed. Again to them black's had the power to control their destinies...this helped fuel the ideology of the "New Negro" after World War I, which was prominent throughout the Harmlem renaissance. We saw Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X though different in approach both say that it was the duty of black America to be prepared to move forward themselves.

This approach that Tavis and West have implemented places the responsibility of black progress soley and in unprecedented fashion on the shoulders of the President of the United States (who ironically is the FIRST black President in history). I argue that this approach will gather listeners to their radio show...but will not lead to black progress. To sit in "ivory towers" such as Princeton and PBS (and everyother media affiliate that Tavis participates) and throw stones does nothing for the disenfranchised and the poor.

Movement starts from the grassroots participating and making things happen...not merely commentating and criticizing. It is my opinion that this does more to line the pockets of so-called "black public intellectuals" than to really offer change. I would argue that this type of leadership is a result of hypocritical men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton subsequent to running for president. Neither thought they would win...they were simply positioning themselves for power in the black community. As a result neither one of these gentlemen are hurting financially and neither are Smiley and West....in the name of the black poor.

 

 

 

[Candace McCarty]

Honest critique is entirely different from "bashing". . . nobody is beyond reproach!

[Anthony Davis]

 

I agree...but this is not honest critique. This is a personal vendetta that began when Obama didn't attend Tavis' State of the Black Union (annual event) in '07 & '08. The black community specifically (well many of us) see this as a gripe that Tavis has with the President. This is a continuation of an on going theme.

 

Candace McCarty said:Honest critique is entirely different from "bashing". . . nobody is beyond reproach!

[Candace McCarty]

You seem to be missing the point. . .hopefully everyday people will be stirred to action!

[E Novia]

I agree that Frederick Douglas, Dr.King, DuBois, etc. etc.  believed it was up to people themselves to make a better future, but there is no doubt that these men also believed that there should be a basic level of freedoms that allows for one to obtain equality.  West and Smiley do not place ALL of the blame on the government leaving little concern for personal responsibility.  They are giving a well deserved critique of the institutional inequalities that affect the masses.  For example, look at the leaders you named... Dr. King critiqued the government and put the civil rights act into law.  In order to "control your own destiny" you should be supplied with the resources to enable that control.  To write that Smiley & West's critique of the government and even Obama is somehow unwarranted or due to a "gripe" is to utterly deny the affects of institutional oppression.  I'm sorry I just cannot agree with you.

[Anthony Davis]

I hear you.... It is not an "either or" proposition when it comes to societal change. But a "both and" proposition when it comes to legislation and grassroots movements. However I do not agree with you that Smiley and West are giving a "critique" of Obama. Neither West nor Smiley were anywhere near this critical of either of the Bush's or Clinton whose policies destroyed black men (i.e. the criminal justice system). More black men went to prison under the Clinton administration than any other administration. His welfare reform destroyed poor black families...I could go on and on. Yet neither West nor Smiley could be heard. Their "critique" is disingenuous.

E Novia said:

I agree that Frederick Douglas, Dr.King, DuBois, etc. etc.  believed it was up to people themselves to make a better future, but there is no doubt that these men also believed that there should be a basic level of freedoms that allows for one to obtain equality.  West and Smiley do not place ALL of the blame on the government leaving little concern for personal responsibility.  They are giving a well deserved critique of the institutional inequalities that affect the masses.  For example, look at the leaders you named... Dr. King critiqued the government and put the civil rights act into law.  In order to "control your own destiny" you should be supplied with the resources to enable that control.  To write that Smiley & West's critique of the government and even Obama is somehow unwarranted or due to a "gripe" is to utterly deny the affects of institutional oppression.  I'm sorry I just cannot agree with you.

[Anthony Davis]

I hope so too Candace!

Candace McCarty said:

You seem to be missing the point. . .hopefully everyday people will be stirred to action!

[Michael E. Brunson]

Their role is simple and it is the same whether they be black, white, green, or purple: speak truth to power, or just speak plain truth.

 

I recall, years ago, when we heard about and talked about a thing called “pollution”. I don’t ever hear that word in public debate any more. We now talk about “global warming”, “climate change” and “carbon footprints”.  The fact is, when we talk about “pollution” we talk about the cause. But when we talk about “global warming” we babble about the symptoms and effects. To cure an illness you must stop it at the causal root, not just alleviate the symptoms. Have we eliminated pollution and its effects? Are we getting there?

 

We used to talk about “inequality”, “poverty”, “injustice”, “institutional racism” and “unemployment “ as the cause of a host of social ills. I now see discussion of these fundamental and causal issues being deflected by the current obsession with  “the achievement gap” in education. Once again we are dealing with a symptom rather than a cause. Not to mention an excuse to privatize a public institution.

 

The first step in resolving any issue is to clarify the language and the concepts that we use. We must first stop using the business model and business language to address what are essentially political, economic, and human rights issues. Put things in their place. Hopefully, our public intellectuals will help us to develop the language of ethics, democracy, and human rights. No superman, super-leader, angel, messiah, or missionary is going to heal the basic problems of inequity, injustice, and gratuitous violence in this society.

 

 We can transform this society by developing informed democratic citizens capable of participating in public debate and effecting public policy. How about participatory democracy? Rather than gearing our system to simply turn out consumers, service workers, entrepreneurs, and corporate agents why not develop engaged citizens? But we must first begin by speaking the truth, hearing the truth, and identifying the ideological filters that shape our comprehension. The most basic question is this:

 

Do we believe what we see, or do we see what we believe?

 

I appeal to educators, poets, public intellectuals, and all other wordsmiths to help deconstruct the Tower of Babel. Be patient sisters and brothers. If there were no such thing as time, everything would happen at once!

[safirah chinwe]

to answer your question, i would simply say to wake the black masses and aware them of societal entrapments. i think smiley and west maybe more critical of obama than clinton because their expectations of his accomplishments are higher? obama's election was like a fantasy/fairytale so several people thought he could be more militant than the presidents that preceded him. i agree that black liberation should not be on the shoulders of one man however its easier to hold a public figure accountable for lack of progress instead of the masses themselves.

[Candace McCarty]

Well said. . .

Michael E. Brunson said:

Their role is simple and it is the same whether they be black, white, green, or purple: speak truth to power, or just speak plain truth.

 

I recall, years ago, when we heard about and talked about a thing called “pollution”. I don’t ever hear that word in public debate any more. We now talk about “global warming”, “climate change” and “carbon footprints”.  The fact is, when we talk about “pollution” we talk about the cause. But when we talk about “global warming” we babble about the symptoms and effects. To cure an illness you must stop it at the causal root, not just alleviate the symptoms. Have we eliminated pollution and its effects? Are we getting there?

 

We used to talk about “inequality”, “poverty”, “injustice”, “institutional racism” and “unemployment “ as the cause of a host of social ills. I now see discussion of these fundamental and causal issues being deflected by the current obsession with  “the achievement gap” in education. Once again we are dealing with a symptom rather than a cause. Not to mention an excuse to privatize a public institution.

 

The first step in resolving any issue is to clarify the language and the concepts that we use. We must first stop using the business model and business language to address what are essentially political, economic, and human rights issues. Put things in their place. Hopefully, our public intellectuals will help us to develop the language of ethics, democracy, and human rights. No superman, super-leader, angel, messiah, or missionary is going to heal the basic problems of inequity, injustice, and gratuitous violence in this society.

 

 We can transform this society by developing informed democratic citizens capable of participating in public debate and effecting public policy. How about participatory democracy? Rather than gearing our system to simply turn out consumers, service workers, entrepreneurs, and corporate agents why not develop engaged citizens? But we must first begin by speaking the truth, hearing the truth, and identifying the ideological filters that shape our comprehension. The most basic question is this:

 

Do we believe what we see, or do we see what we believe?

 

I appeal to educators, poets, public intellectuals, and all other wordsmiths to help deconstruct the Tower of Babel. Be patient sisters and brothers. If there were no such thing as time, everything would happen at once!

[Heddy Keith]

E Novia said:

I agree that Frederick Douglas, Dr.King, DuBois, etc. etc.  believed it was up to people themselves to make a better future, but there is no doubt that these men also believed that there should be a basic level of freedoms that allows for one to obtain equality.  West and Smiley do not place ALL of the blame on the government leaving little concern for personal responsibility.  They are giving a well deserved critique of the institutional inequalities that affect the masses.  For example, look at the leaders you named... Dr. King critiqued the government and put the civil rights act into law.  In order to "control your own destiny" you should be supplied with the resources to enable that control.  To write that Smiley & West's critique of the government and even Obama is somehow unwarranted or due to a "gripe" is to utterly deny the affects of institutional oppression.  I'm sorry I just cannot agree with you.

[Heddy Keith]

President Ombama can not solve the problem of institutional oppression by himself. Since he's been in office he has done a lot to help the poor. I believe he has opened many doors to opportunities. Now it is our responsibility to walk in. Like James Brown once said: "Give me the key and I'll open the door myself." No other president has been asked or even expected to do as much as we expect President Obama to do. Come on be realistic!  Lets stop brow beating him and instead stand behind him.

[Kerra Williams]

Well said! Nobody wants to discuss the root of the problem only what lies on the surface. Until we are ready to go there we will continue to have these debates.



Candace McCarty said:

Well said. . .

Michael E. Brunson said:

Their role is simple and it is the same whether they be black, white, green, or purple: speak truth to power, or just speak plain truth.

 

I recall, years ago, when we heard about and talked about a thing called “pollution”. I don’t ever hear that word in public debate any more. We now talk about “global warming”, “climate change” and “carbon footprints”.  The fact is, when we talk about “pollution” we talk about the cause. But when we talk about “global warming” we babble about the symptoms and effects. To cure an illness you must stop it at the causal root, not just alleviate the symptoms. Have we eliminated pollution and its effects? Are we getting there?

 

We used to talk about “inequality”, “poverty”, “injustice”, “institutional racism” and “unemployment “ as the cause of a host of social ills. I now see discussion of these fundamental and causal issues being deflected by the current obsession with  “the achievement gap” in education. Once again we are dealing with a symptom rather than a cause. Not to mention an excuse to privatize a public institution.

 

The first step in resolving any issue is to clarify the language and the concepts that we use. We must first stop using the business model and business language to address what are essentially political, economic, and human rights issues. Put things in their place. Hopefully, our public intellectuals will help us to develop the language of ethics, democracy, and human rights. No superman, super-leader, angel, messiah, or missionary is going to heal the basic problems of inequity, injustice, and gratuitous violence in this society.

 

 We can transform this society by developing informed democratic citizens capable of participating in public debate and effecting public policy. How about participatory democracy? Rather than gearing our system to simply turn out consumers, service workers, entrepreneurs, and corporate agents why not develop engaged citizens? But we must first begin by speaking the truth, hearing the truth, and identifying the ideological filters that shape our comprehension. The most basic question is this:

 

Do we believe what we see, or do we see what we believe?

 

I appeal to educators, poets, public intellectuals, and all other wordsmiths to help deconstruct the Tower of Babel. Be patient sisters and brothers. If there were no such thing as time, everything would happen at once!