With Uncle Ray. And here's the link to Ray's top 100 albums of all time, which they are counting down. Ray asks Crack what would be on Crack's top 100 albums of all time, and Crack says "Zappa, Zappa, and more Zappa."
ADDED: "What do you have in South Central for breakfast?" asks Ray, and Crack says: "Toast." Later: "How about bread, oatmeal, and hot dogs for breakfast?"
AND: Crack and Ray are debating the age-old music question: "Tusk" or "Rumours"?
UPDATE: Crack says "Meade, Ann, this is for you," as the Aretha Franklin track (from "Lady Soul," #59) begins, and I get the joke, which is that one time I used the word "bellyaching" to describe soul music, and he's never let me forget it. I think the context of my remark was that when I was a teenager in the 1960s, I preferred music that felt more like it was about teenagers in love than the heavy, troubled relationships of adults. Ah, here it is. It all started when Meade was playing the the Garnet Mimms version of "Cry Baby," and I said:
I remember when that song... was on the radio. It was 1963. I was 12. I listened to top 40 AM radio, and I liked the songs that felt like they were about teenagers. There was a brightness and a happiness to the songs that dominated the top 40. Even the songs about crying. The biggest song about crying in 1963 was "It's My Party." Lesley Gore is gloriously triumphant in her claim of the right to cry.
"Cry Baby" seemed to come from a dreary 1950s world of old people and their problems. Meade says he loved music like that. Maybe that look into the weighty, complicated lives of adults was enticing to some really young radio listeners, but I wanted it on a different station. Here, I said, here's my answer to that "Cry Baby":
[Embedded video: The Pretenders, "Stop Your Sobbing."]
I love the original Kinks version too, and you'd better believe I had all the early Kinks albums.Boldface added.Kinks, Kinda Kinks, and Kinks Kontroversy. I still love that kind of [kinda] thing. It still appeals to me more than the anguished bellyaching of soul music.
Posts
107 comments:
I find Frank Zappa to be of very minimal interest, his music alternating between tedious show-boating and too-arch and self-satisfied "humor," (by which I mean, Zappa thinks he's funny...I don't, in the least.)
Any music of actual interest to be found in Zappa's ouevre will be found in the music of his earliest years with his original Mothers. That ere ended about 1969 or 1970.
I can say I thoroughly enjoy every minute and note of the album WEASELS RIPPED MY FLESH, (which scared me the first many times I tried to listen to it...sometimes the biggest enjoyment is in that which is hard won).
Now Captain Beefheart...that's another story...!
I saw the Mothers of Invention at the Fillmore East in 1969.
"The Crack Emcee is on the radio again."
Why should anyone care? Why do YOU care? Your 'promotion' of this guy is very strange. White guilt, perhaps?
Robert Cook, I'll meet your "I find Zappa to of minimal interest" and raise you:
Who is the greater artist: Frank Zappa, or Weird Al Yankovic?
Robert Cook said...
Any music of actual interest to be found in Zappa's ouevre will be found in the music of his earliest years with his original Mothers. That ere ended about 1969 or 1970.
I listened to some Sun-Ra the other day and was impressed how much Zappa took from his style.
Zoot Allures is a great song.
Thanks for the warning.
I have no Zappa albums, but when I saw him live in the 70's, he was excellent, in a very weird way.
Capital Theatre in Passaic NJ - during the week they showed porno.
I'm curious how the rapprochement between Crack Emcee and Shouting Thomas worked out.
"the anguished bellyaching of soul music"
I know that a woman's duty is to help and love a man. And that's the way it was planned. Oh but how can I, how can I, how can I give you all the things I can if you're tying both of my hands?
@Illuninati: I think it ended when Shouty claimed colorblindness while snapping his bullwhip at Crack. Then he gave Crack a come hither look, Crack said something like "uh no thanks, Shouty," and Shouty went away pouting. Pouting Thomas.
Meade said...
"the anguished bellyaching of soul music"
"I know that a woman's duty is to help and love a man. And that's the way it was planned. Oh but how can I, how can I, how can I give you all the things I can if you're tying both of my hands?"
Hey Meade-
This is a family blog. Please keep your and the Professor's bedroom antics to yourselves.
If he talks about music I'm interested. He knows his stuff. I may not agree on all points, but at least he's talking from a historical perpective.
I discovered Zappa in college in 1970. A great musician, and a great loss at a relatively early age to pancreatic cancer.
I saw Frank Zappa with the Mothers of Invention in, I believe, 1971 in the Auditorium Theater in Chicago. His opening act? Chuck Berry!
Meade, ST's stuff is vitriolic, but it's remarkable how much support and encouragement Crack gets, because he's equally bad.
I don't like to see "white guilt" thrown at Ann but is there any other explanation? Crack's continuously denigrating whites for being white (because he's absolutely convinced every last one of them denigrates blacks for being black) but somehow Ann doesn't seem to see that he's coming from the same emotional place ST is (in ST's case, regarding gays).
Was never too into Zappa. It always struck me as fusion jazz for stoners. But Someone mentioned a song of theirs recently so I went back and kind of liked it. Maybe I need to give it a second listen.
Meade said...
"@Illuninati: I think it ended when Shouty claimed colorblindness while snapping his bullwhip at Crack. Then he gave Crack a come hither look, Crack said something like "uh no thanks, Shouty," and Shouty went away pouting. Pouting Thomas."
Too bad it didn't work out. One can always dream.
Gimme soul music anytime. My brother was 10 years older than me and in 1963 when I was 6 he listened to the black music station here in Chicago (I think it was WVON) and I was hooked. "Lonely Drifter" by The O'Jays, "Um,Um,Um..." Major Lance (with music that good he shoulda been a general!!!) It sounds like Meade and I have similar tastes in music.
I really love Zappa. Musically he's very intense and those early albums brought a sensibility that was entirely lacking in any of his rock music peers.
Lyrically it seemed he ran out of gas after those early albums and just got really stupid, but his music continued to evolve. So he wasn't an English major.
Hungry freaks, daddy.
well, good for him, and I mean that sincerely.
The "bellyaching" made me laugh as I fondly(?) remembered his posts here.
It's great not seeing Shouty on here and that Crack is getting some love.
"A historical perspective" works for music, but not for slavery and civil rights?
Jr565, you're something else,...
I saw the Mothers of Invention at the Fillmore East in 1969.
Holy Moly, small world, I was there. You could get stoned just by breathing.
Garnet Mimms' "Cry Baby" and "A Quiet Place" are two of my favorites. I really didn't hear them much in the 60's, but looking back, they are really good. I don't dislike Janice Joplin's version of "Cry Baby," but the original is a different kind of song. "A Quiet Place" has outstanding lyrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJuUUV7TP4E&feature=kp
Lindyhop said...
It's great not seeing Shouty on here and that Crack is getting some love.
Amen.
After listening to some of Crack's recorded work, I'm not surprised he prefers Zappa.
Oh no, Crack - a historical perspective on slavery would be excellent.
You could discuss the role of the Ashanti and Yoruba. Or why it is that the Turks, despite being the dominant force in the Islamic world for centuries and having no qualms with slavery, don't have a black diaspora (funny story there!). Or how every pre-industrial culture solved the problem of 'important but back-breaking tasks' with 'make someone else do it at the point of a weapon'; either inter-racially when one group could exert such force (and not necessarily major ethnic divisions - Romans had white slaves too) or internally, such as in Russia and East Asia.
I would very much appreciate such a historical view. But we never seem to get that, do we. No, "historical" is apparently isolating thousands of years of human nature to Anglo-Saxons, new world, 1600 to 1860, and stemming all evil from that.
.
89. Sonic Youth, “Daydream Nation”
90. Black Sabbath S/T
91. Burt Bacharach Box
.
What the hell kind of list is this??
Alexander,
"I would very much appreciate such a historical view. But we never seem to get that, do we. No, "historical" is apparently isolating thousands of years of human nature to Anglo-Saxons, new world, 1600 to 1860, and stemming all evil from that."
Those dates are important - why would you wish to remove them?
Love me some Frank, but I mainly enjoy his instrumental work, which shows off his abilities as a composer (Hot Rats, Jazz From Hell, etc.)
Crack, I re-read Alexander's comment about 5 times and fail to see where he's suggesting that we "remove" a certain set of dates or places.
What is it with you, Crack? Always stirring up the negrophobia among white folks.
I don't get Zappa and really only like the "pop" Beefheart:
I'm Gonna Booglarize You Baby
The Crack Emcee @2:52
Alexander said no such thing.
I saw 200 Motels at a midnight movie venue when I might have had a bit too much drink, and it fused my head. Fortunately it wasn't permanent although the song about the waitress still echoes from time to time. And (if I remember correctly) the Indians.
And I can't forget Billy the Mountain, the longest continuously running inside joke I ever heard outside of the halls of Congress.
By any definition, Crack is an admitted racist. Why are you associating your blog with his show?
Are you a racist too?
We already had this discussion way back when, when your commenting policy denied racial slurs directed at blacks but not the other races.
Crack even when I compliment you it leads to a fight. You're good at music discussions because those are discussions about musical opinions. You don't tend to demagogue people in those discussions.
The Crack Emcee said...
Those dates are important - why would you wish to remove them?
It is not that you should remove them, just that you should not limit yourself to them, if you truly wish a historic perspective.
Rumours or tusk? The answer to that question is: who are you kidding. "Mystery to Me" and "Bare Trees" are the real contenders for best Fleetwood Mac album.
I offer this "meditation" on slavery for Crack and Ann...
Ahh. Crack's a big Zappa fan. Explains a lot of his musical dislikes. I had my Zappa period in college. Still admire it from a distance, but, like most avant-garde jazz or classical, it leaves me a bit cold. Of course, I've never put the hours in the woodshed necessary to play it, and I can absolutely see how much fun it would be to play.
Bellyaching at its finest: Janis Joplin "Ball and Chain" at Monterey
If Paul Krugman stick just to economoics he's tolerable. It's when he varies into soclal policy that he becomes unberaable. So too with Crack.
Really good with the music, less so with the social/racial policy.
And wouldn't be so bad there either if he simply toned down the rhetoric and didn't make it into an us versus them diatribe.
"I think it's going to rain." "you're a racist!"
Mirth ensues.
Ignorance is Bliss,
"It is not that you should remove them, just that you should not limit yourself to them, if you truly wish a historic perspective."
But he did limit them, as blacks do, to "Anglo-Saxons, new world, 1600 to 1860" - why?
To me, as usual, this direction is merely a distraction from the issue - AMERICAN slavery AKA "the peculiar institution" - which has it's own unique history, and culture, separate from slavery overall. It's a dodge, and an inelegant one at that, making whites look like they're trying to be crafty regarding the sins of this nation and it's people.
Those are not "good optics" for whites to want to be associated with.
Not to mention, if blacks have a problem with Africa, we don't need white guidance on how we should deal with it, or suggestions we deal with them first (when we live with white racism here and now) or anything else - what makes the descendants of slavers feel so entitled? Or, if you're not the descendants of slavers, what makes whites - in general - feel they should (or have a right to) stick their nose in that relationship? Does it ever occur to whites they've done enough, already to destroy that connection, and should just butt out?
Or - is it as it appears - and whites just want the heat turned elsewhere, as though we'd forget them and their contribution to the matter?
Whatever it is, they sure don't want to talk about themselves, or this country, or what we should do to make blacks' lives better. It's GOT to be Africa, or the Turks, or ALL of slavery, or the "red, blue, or purple" people everyone claims they don't care if I am. They only care if I'm black. And then they care a lot. They just "don't think about race" when I ask them. Which makes them think they're great instead of looking ignorant.
Long story-short, when Africans or Turks are responsible for the words "All Men Are Created Equal" (or are seen as part of "The New World") we can talk about them in the context of American history. But - when it comes to what's happened to citizens of these United States - the clock starts at 1620 and not before.
America is the subject - the only subject - so put Greece and all that other stuff out of your heads, and focus:
What Racists Do Here Is All That Matters
Fen,
"Are you a racist too?
We already had this discussion way back when, when your commenting policy denied racial slurs directed at blacks but not the other races."
You've got 2 kids. One white, one black. The white's been beating up the black and taking his money, for no good reason, for 4 years.
Then we make the bully stop - by force.
Now the bully is insisting, not only that he won't give the money back, but the other kid doesn't even have the right to voice his anger at the situation.
And, also, the bully wants to seen as a great guy because - once we made him stop by force - he's barely done so since.
And anybody who thinks he's full of shit is a "racist".
That white version of innocence pleading - truly "playing the victim" at it's finest because it IS only playing - kills me.
You've got 400 years, of an evil white culture to contend with, and you still want to act like you don't get it because 35 years have passed?
Why can't we pick on blacks, Ann? What a request - specifically from whites in America! Hint:
Probably for the same reason Germans can no longer pick on Jews.
For "smart" folks, it's a wonder none of you can think in those terms,...
Crack --
"Now the bully is insisting, not only that he won't give the money back, but the other kid doesn't even have the right to voice his anger at the situation."
It's really remarkable that you see people this way. Well no, I guess that's not remarkable, it's just remarkable how your hate is not called out and addressed.
Since you're resorting to childish analogies, I guess it's necessary to pick it them apart in a direct, simple way:
(1) "right to voice his anger" -- there is no one claiming that anyone doesn't have a right to voice anything, in this situation. That's made up out of whole cloth.
(2) "money back" -- so this is about reparations, for you?
(3) "two kids" -- this is where it really breaks down. There aren't two kids. There are hundreds of millions of them, and, the two that you're talking about have since grown up and moved out of town. All the hundreds of millions of kids are just standing there, aghast, wondering who the hell you're talking at and why you're so damn angry at them because of the accident of their birth.
Now the bully is insisting, not only that he won't give the money back, but the other kid doesn't even have the right to voice his anger at the situation.
There's your problem Crack...man someone should have let you in on this.....sorry to be the one to tell you, but both the bully and the bullied are long dead.
And as for:
he won't give the money back,
Again, he is dead so he can't give the money back, but it must be noted that we have spent the last 50 years transfering money from White people to Black people in this country. We've spent the last thirty discriminating in favor of Black people over White people.
What do we have to do..institute White slavery?
AMERICAN slavery AKA "the peculiar institution" - which has it's own unique history, and culture, separate from slavery overall.
Exactly right. However, while slavery is an unmitigated evil, you seem to be under the impression that slavery was worse for the slave in the United States than elsewhere and that the United States was the primary actor in slavery. If you actually look at the data, the U.S. was a minor actor in African slavery, and conditions for African slaves were much more benign in the United States than elsewhere.
The Crack Emcee said...
Now the bully is insisting, not only that he won't give the money back, but the other kid doesn't even have the right to voice his anger at the situation.
Note that Crack is once again asserting the doctrine of racial guilt. But he thinks it's not racist because it only works on white skin.
Fighting racism with racism is never going to improve things.
Crack, you called me a racist and a Nazi. What had I said? I simply disagreed with your statement that all white people are racist. In what way was I "picking on blacks"? Is disagreeing with you racist?
Your analogy is crap. You are talking about the behavior of two individuals and then applying that to larger groups. No one here has owned a slave nor been a slave.
Somehow I profited on the backs of slaves? That's a neat trick coming from a family of nine wherein the sole bread winner was a school teacher. We did not even have a functioning shower in the house I grew up in. Yet I am an awful exploiter of blacks.
You speak of "evil white culture" as though the is the aggregate. That is such bull and so lazy on your part. It is as though white people existed just to enslave black people! Ignoring the millions who opposed slavery, fought against it and died ending it as well as ignoring all the parts of "white culture" that had nothing at to do with slavery and racism.
I am more than happy to talk about my part in this nation's history of slavery and racism as I had NO PART in it. And I am hardly the only person here for whom this is true. Your constant "RACIST!" attacks are bullshit and only show off YOUR bigotry.
The fact that Professor Althouse endorses your behavior and seeks to promote you reflects terribly on her character. Years ago I had tremendous respect for her. Hell, I even thought her justification for voting for Obama in 2008 was sound, which appeared to place me in the minority here. However, recently her decisions have left me seriously questioning her standards and ethics.
The Crack Emcee wrote -
"But he (Alexander) did limit them"
No, he did not.
"Long story-short"
Too late.
Out-of-his-element Crack said . . . the clock starts at 1620 and not before.
In the 1600's, your ancestors were capturing and enslaving rival tribes, and bringing a good portion of them to the harbors on the coasts (or the caravan departing points) for sale to the Americas ( the comparatively lucky ones), or the Arab countries (the very, very unlucky ones ).
Slaves had to come from somewhere. They came from their fellow Africans.
That's the fact, jack. Meditate on it.
DS,
"There is no one claiming that anyone doesn't have a right to voice anything, in this situation. That's made up out of whole cloth."
Fen,
"We already had this discussion way back when, when your commenting policy denied racial slurs directed at blacks but not the other races."
So which is it? Do whites - in this case, the always racist Fen - deny others grievance or not? And why do whites like Fen, with their history, want to lob racial slurs? And why would the rest of you stand with such a person? Don't you realize that's the problem?
What I'm saying isn't "made up out of whole cloth" but what whites do.
DS,
"money back" -- so this is about reparations, for you?
Man, I hate it when folks are late to a debate and start bringing up shit we've gone over a billion times:
Yes - it's about reparations to me.
DS,
"two kids" -- this is where it really breaks down. There aren't two kids. There are hundreds of millions of them, and, the two that you're talking about have since grown up and moved out of town.
But one set of those kids have all the money and the others don't - and we know how that happened - and, while the whites don't even claim different, they just don't want to do anything about it but point and tease the poor ones.
Oh - and we're supposed to think of them as our "fellow countrymen" under that circumstance, and help with their problems, too.
Now, these kids you say "have since grown up and moved out of town" - they left a stinking pot of something on the stove. What are you going to do, since the perps left it there - let it continue to boil, and make life unlivable, or do something about it?
You didn't put it there, remember - your parents and their parents, etc., have been cooking that steaming pile of shit up for centuries - it's just festering now on your watch.
What do you do? Keep claiming you didn't put it there or, finally, be a decent white person and eliminate the problem for good?
The choice is yours,...
Gahrie,
"We have spent the last 50 years transfering money from White people to Black people in this country."
Wow - 50 whole years to make up for 400 years of theft, rape, and general brutality.
You're the only one who thinks that's fair or generous,...
And that's 50 years of GRUDGINGLY doing it, too!
What wonderful people!
Gahrie,
"While slavery is an unmitigated evil, you seem to be under the impression that slavery was worse for the slave in the United States than elsewhere and that the United States was the primary actor in slavery."
You're putting words in my mouth - which is what "you must think" - not I.
I think I've never met an Arab who's a different color because of slavery in other lands as American blacks are.
I think I've never met an Arab who's carrying someone else's name because of slavery in other lands as American blacks are.
I think I've never met an Arab who's forced to live with their slavers as American blacks are - and still have to take shit from them as though nothing's changed.
I think I've never met an Arab who's under the impression that, because a crime was ended, there was no crime anyone has to answer for because the criminals are happy with it that way.
I think I've never met an Arab who's under the impression that, because murderers have been forced to stop murdering, that's no reason not to entertain their arguments - even when those arguments are the same cultural product that produced the murders to begin with.
And I think I've never met an Arab who denies they're racists when they support the party of the Southern Strategy, support the party that's 90% white, and support the party that can't stop saying and doing racist things.
Nope, I've never met that Arab before,...
Marshal,
"Note that Crack is once again asserting the doctrine of racial guilt."
Another one making me repeat myself - for the billionth time because Right-Wing dogma demands it:
Nobody wants, needs, or is asking for your guilt - we want you to discover "justice".
Whites got enough guilt and blacks don't get enough of the other for us to keep hearing about it,...
Matt said...
Crack, you called me a racist and a Nazi. What had I said? I simply disagreed with your statement that all white people are racist. In what way was I "picking on blacks"? Is disagreeing with you racist?
Yes. Sorry, but I did the "give whitey a chance" dance and you blew it.
Now it's time for you to start agreeing with someone else - other than other whites - for a change,...
CWJ,
"But he (Alexander) did limit them"
No, he did not.
No, he tried to act like the dates aren't important. God, you people are tiring.
Why can't you just cop to the shit? You're racists, with a sick and twisted culture, history, and extreme sense of denial? It's your heritage.
The white racists wanted whites to have the most money - you've got the most money.
The white racists wanted whites to have the most power - you've got the most power.
The white racists wanted whites to have the most say in public affairs - you've got the most say in public affairs.
You're everything they wanted, in just the situation they planned for you - and you want to keep it that way because (like your ancestors) you can't compete in a fair world and the prospect of doing so scares the living shit out of you. As it always has.
That was, is, and will be the problem.
Just ask Hank Aaron,...
Just think:
In America, blacks have had to prove everything to racist whites - from oppression and discrimination all the way down to whether we're human or not - and, still, racist whites think they've got enough of a sense of reality to judge things correctly on their own, like whether or not they're a problem.
It's truly an amazing display of cognitive dissonance or some other mental illness,...
Gahrie said...
. . . while slavery is an unmitigated evil, you seem to be under the impression that slavery was worse for the slave in the United States than elsewhere and that the United States was the primary actor in slavery. If you actually look at the data, the U.S. was a minor actor in African slavery, and conditions for African slaves were much more benign in the United States than elsewhere.
So, while slavery was an unmitigated evil, we need to recognize that American slaveowners did more to mitigate the evil?
David said...
So, while slavery was an unmitigated evil, we need to recognize that American slaveowners did more to mitigate the evil?
I don't see this as a winning or even sensible argument. We were total fuckers but those other guys over there, they were even bigger fuckers. Sounds like something from grade school.
The Crack Emcee wrote -
"CWJ,
'But he (Alexander) did limit them'
No, he did not.
No, he tried to act like the dates aren't important. God, you people are tiring."
So what are they? What did Alexander say? Did he want to "remove," "limit," or say the dates were not "important?" Which? Because after three comments on your part, none of those is what he said.
Sorry, what's tiring is your lazy, inconsistent logic.
If you're going to take people to task, respond to what they actually say, not what you merely think they said, or what you wish they had said.
The Crack Emcee said...
CWJ,
"But he (Alexander) did limit them"
No, he did not.
No, he tried to act like the dates aren't important. God, you people are tiring.
Why can't you just cop to the shit? You're racists, with a sick and twisted culture, history, and extreme sense of denial? It's your heritage.
The white racists wanted whites to have the most money - you've got the most money.
The white racists wanted whites to have the most power - you've got the most power.
The white racists wanted whites to have the most say in public affairs - you've got the most say in public affairs.
You're everything they wanted, in just the situation they planned for you - and you want to keep it that way because (like your ancestors) you can't compete in a fair world and the prospect of doing so scares the living shit out of you. As it always has.
That was, is, and will be the problem.
Just ask Hank Aaron,...
I think the above ignorant diatribe is worthy of one of Ann's "If your next post is not . . . " scoldings, but I will not be holding my breath.
Some people are more equal than others.
"or some other mental illness,..."
Or third, most people just don't care. Of course you care. It hits home. People care about their own pasts and histories and grievances. Human nature to just live life.
That's reality. People just don't care and if you think you find people who care, most are using you.
That's why you're writing about American slavery rather than caring about contemporary versions. There's still people enslaved around the world. You're not writing about the issues with Native Americans, even though they were herded up and slaughtered.
People do what they need to do to get an advantage. It's what you're doing.
Everyone encounters it on the power side and the on the persecuted side. Most people only have the range of emotions within the scope of their own experiences. Everything is relative according to how it helps or hurts me.
Don't look for mental illness or some pernicious reason when the real issue that people just want to get ahead for themselves and their families however they can.
That's America. People coming from crappy backgrounds and doing what they can to get an advantage and make things better for the next generation.
Most of whom carry a lot of anger for the people who cause the problem, like the Irish for the English, but the English don't care either.
Such is life. We don't really care.
There's a better way than that, but that's a whole different topic.
ARM: "We were total fuckers but those other guys over there, they were even bigger fuckers."
What do you mean "we", paleface?
Some of you folks are critiquing Crack's "Weltannshowing" -- he likes to show her his bruises.
A fair amount of that must occur offline though, because her silence regarding how he treats her guests is deafening.
I mean, something doesn't add up.
hey crack emcee, can you tell uncle ray to make the podcast mp3 filesize smaller? 133 MBs? compress it to 32kbps pls!
"So, while slavery was an unmitigated evil, we need to recognize that American slaveowners did more to mitigate the evil?"
I don't see this as a winning or even sensible argument. We were total fuckers but those other guys over there, they were even bigger fuckers. Sounds like something from grade school.
What it is, is fact and history. The racebaiters like Crack have convinced a signifigant number of people that slavery in the U.S. was exceptionally bad and the most significant instance of slavery in the world. It is neither.
Why can't you just cop to the shit? You're racists, with a sick and twisted culture, history, and extreme sense of denial? It's your heritage.
Althouse:
You kind of our us readers an explanation. Just why do you indulge Crack and his racebaiting and highly offense comments? If he was a republican, you'd be demanding that every Republican past present or future condemn him, yet you celebrate him.
Gahrie, you said that slavery is an unmitigated evil. Is it or is it not in your mind? I think you don't really believe what you said because you keep trotting out ideas of mitigation.
The enslavement is the evil. Everything else flows from that. It hardly matters that slave mortality was lower in the United States than (say) Brazil. There were significant differences in mortality in the US between (say) rice plantations and cotton plantations. Was the cotton plantation therefore less immoral, or less destructive to the souls of the slaves?
Comparing the physical effect of the system on the slaves provides no moral relief at all. This is especially true for the United States, where slavery was so clearly contrary to our founding principles, at least as we applied them to whites.
I am no believer in inherited individual guilt. But we do have responsibility for what happens today. You can't understand what is happening today without acknowledging the continuing pernicious effect of the past.
"The racebaiters like Crack have convinced a signifigant number of people that slavery in the U.S. was exceptionally bad and the most significant instance of slavery in the world. It is neither."
So what? It was our slavery. It was the slavery our nation made and perpetuated and profited from. Its effects persist. It was indeed "exceptionally bad" because it happened here under out laws and in contradiction of our asserted beliefs that all men are created equal. It's pointless to compare it to slavery as it existed (exists) elsewhere.
I find it instructive that neither Ann nor Crack seem to have watched the vid I offered earlier. An observer might draw the conclusion that they are not interested in "the truth" but, rather, furthering the rancor...
Which does seem to be the intent of the Obama led progressives.
I sincerely hope that isn't the case with Ann...
Gahrie, you said that slavery is an unmitigated evil. Is it or is it not in your mind? I think you don't really believe what you said because you keep trotting out ideas of mitigation.
I am not attempting mitigation. I have no interest in that because I bear no responsibility or guilt for slavery. But I refuse to allow the racebaiters to continue to argue that there is something especially evil about slavery as practiced in the U.S.
The Crack Emcee said...
Nobody wants, needs, or is asking for your guilt - we want you to discover "justice".
Bringing someone to justice presupposes they are guilty of something. Putting someone in jail can only be justice if they did something to deserve it, and fining them can only be just if they did something to merit it.
The point remains that while Crack may get a gig out of his racism it isn't going to advance the circumstances for blacks generally.
Getting all Biblical here. The blood of America's slave-holding ancestors be upon today's generations. Me, I'm only three generations removed from my great-grandfather and great grand-uncles who immigrated from and fought for the Union in the Civil War, three of them giving their lives for the war that ended chattel slavery in the U.S. Doesn't matter. By God, the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children and the children's children unto the Nth generation. This being Holy Week (and Passover) I guess we should be getting down on the Jews for killing Christ.
David needs to think about who exactly he is talking about when he says "our slavery". Who is the "we" to which "our" refers? All white Americans? Only white Americans? Millions of white Americans are not descended from slave owners, because their ancestors either immigrated after slavery was abolished (my father's family) or fought in the Union Army (my mother's family) or were too poor to own slaves (most white Confederates owned zero slaves). Many black Americans are not descended from slaves, or at least not descended from slaves held by white Americans (example: Barack Obama) and millions are descended from white American slave-owners (again, Barack Obama, on his mother's side). Saying that all white Americans and only white Americans are reponsible for American slavery is the most blatant sort of racism, lumping together guilty and innocent because they belong to the same race or nationality or both.
I am no believer in inherited individual guilt. But we do have responsibility for what happens today. You can't understand what is happening today without acknowledging the continuing pernicious effect of the past.
Thats rich. Slavery was accepted because society deemed them sub-human. Just like the natives were exterminated because they were "savages".
But guess what? Our culture evolved from that. All cultures do. So I'm really sick of people like you holding 19th century to 20th century standards. Its a cheap shot and intellectually lazy.
BTW, do you support abortion? Because before the next century, society will evolve again. And your grandkids will look at you with contempt and ask "You killed babies? WTF was wrong with you ?!"
Crack: "400 years of theft, rape, and general brutality."
Which pales in comparison to the thousands of years theft, rape, and brutality your African ancestors inflicted on mine.
When are you going to pay me for the crimes of your ancestors, hypocrite?
David, who exactly profited? Who wrote civil rights laws and who turned those laws on their heads? Who passed Jim Crow and why? Who passed amendments with nary a vote from the party of slavery?
Most acknowledge that slavery is evil. Most people in this country did not own slaves nor have the political power or money to do anything about it. It was not an easy life for many people.
What does crack want from me without knowing me or
where I've come from?
He is racist and offensive. The black community of today has themselves to blame for falling behind. Government dependency will do that to you. You can't say the effects of slavery persists when the census between the civil war up until LBJ's proclamation of 'having them n*ggers voting democrat for the next 200 years', paint a different picture in education and intact families.
Instead of racebaiting on blogs maybe he should knock the chip off his shoulder and help out in communities in dire need of older male role models. And not spread hate and lies like he does here.
Can we talk more about Zappa? I love Zappa. I especially love the versiin of "Envelopes" on the Drowning Witch album. It is not often that he wrote counterpoint. I wish he wrote more counterpoint. I would love to hear a collection of Zappa fugues.
Annie, of course he offends you. That's the point.
Fen, are you so sure that "society" saw the slaves as sub human? What does "society" see anyway? My reading and study has convinced me that the slave owners, who were the closest observers of slaves among the whites, were well aware that the black slaves were fully human. They saw their slaves marry, raise children, nurture families, pray to God, laugh, cry, mourn, show anger. They saw the human variability in their slaves. They were fully aware of their humanity.
Yet, knowing their humanity, the slave owners (and all whites who profited from slaves) managed to create a different class of people, "destined" for subservience. That is actually a stronger indictment than "sub-human."
I do think about who "we" are. "We" are Americans. We take pride in a American tradition that far predates our own lives and in most cases predates the arrival of our ancestors in this hemisphere. We are part of a history and an idea that is American, and we are rightly proud of its contributions to human freedom throughout the world.
If the best of American history is part of us, why is the worst not also a part? And why deny that the past infuses the present? Our history on race is inglorious overall, with some shining exceptions. The status of race in the society today is not one of those exceptions. The signs of our failure are all around us. You don't have to accept personal responsibility for slavery to acknowledge that.
David said...
Annie, of course he offends you. That's the point.
Offended people people of all stripes vote. Times change. Strategies which relied on collective guilt pass.
Is it strategy or tactics you're seeing so brilliantly in Crack, David?
David:
That is all very true and very pretty to write. But now what? What do you recommend? How do you propose to execute what you recommend?
I don't believe that what Crack or anyone with his views is after agreement or after pretty words. What, exactly, is to be done?
@David -- I just wanted to acknowledge your excellent series of posts. Really well done.
David said...
If the best of American history is part of us, why is the worst not also a part? And why deny that the past infuses the present? Our history on race is inglorious overall, with some shining exceptions. The status of race in the society today is not one of those exceptions. The signs of our failure are all around us. You don't have to accept personal responsibility for slavery to acknowledge that.
Good thoughts, but hardly relevant to Crack. The question on this thread is "is it possible to address the issues with an open racist not interested in doing so"?
Wow, color me shocked.
I point out that Crack's idea of 'historical' debate is to remove the entire historical record except for one chapter.
Crack accuses me of wanting to remove one chapter from the historical record.
No, Crack, I have no desire to do that. I never said anything that would give any reasonable person reason to believe I do. But as usual, you'll twist things completely on their heads if it gives you a chance to be the victim of whitey.
I just keep coming back to the question of why Ann encourages this. She seems so thoughtful and perceptive on most topics. But something about Crack's bona fides -- race, culture, the fact he put "macho" in the title of his web log (and what's more macho than arguing with people on the internet?), some combination of these factors -- just makes her swoon. He gets on the board and spews hate about how white people are afraid because they can't compete with black people -- exactly the kind of crazed rants that you hear from skinheads, about a conspiracy to suppress the white race because they're just sooo damn awesome -- and that's fine, because ooh, a legit black guy!
I mean, that's a very uncharitable way to see it, I suppose. But I'm at a loss as to what the charitable way is. Surely Ann doesn't shut down the anti-gay commenters, but not the anti-white commenters, simply because of her personal situation combined with white guilt? That would be so...boring.
No way to delay there's trouble comin' every day.
Dave Schumann,
"That's a very uncharitable way to see it, I suppose. But I'm at a loss as to what the charitable way is."
A twisted culture will do that to you - most here, except for David, seem to use the same tactics to defend the same quandary -how to break out of it is a mystery. To you. I can say we don't want your "white guilt" and you repeat it anyway, like I never said anything. Here's chickenlitte:
"Strategies which relied on collective guilt pass."
Here's Gahrie:
"I have no interest in that because I bear no responsibility or guilt for slavery."
It IS a Stepford Wife-type mental illness, mixed with a lot of dogma, but regarded as conservative religion.
One blacks ARE expected to endure - charitably - as whites "decide" if we're human, oppressed, discriminated against, or even if they have anything to do with it. Being told they do, directly, isn't enough - being outnumbered 6 to 1, blacks will just have to wait. Some more. While they "decide". I think Federal Marshals ARE probably the only way, to get through, which is why conservative racists hate black's use of government power these days.
Annie says "The black community of today has themselves to blame for falling behind," imagining there was ever a time in American history when we had caught up. Are her beliefs the product of slavery's white conspiracy to deceive her, simple misinformation, or delusional thinking? And how is a black person supposed to talk to whites so utterly clueless she thinks, if justice is granted, someone is going to (I guess) come to her house and take something from her personally?
"What does crack want from me without knowing me or where I've come from?"
I told you that, too - I want you to develop a sense of justice.
That any of you would consider that a personal affront (or like, Dr Weevil, actually having to be told he's part of America) speaks volumes about slavery and the warping of the American character, and/or the "good culture" of white people.
It's Orwell twisted, this sense of patriotism and politics y'all have devised, for yourselves. 3% of blacks agree with you and you don't blink an eye - where does your obstinence to the other 97% come from?
It's definitely not a product of The Civil Rights Movement you claim to admire and (possibly) be part of.
Crack:
"I want you to develop a sense of justice. "
How would we get it and how, once gotten, could it be shown to your satisfaction? Since, you know, we are relying on you to tell us what 97% of a race wants.
If you are looking for pretty words like David has provided then count me in if that is all it takes.
I wonder if M.C. ButtCrack thinks that 97% of blacks agree with him. Do 97% of black Americans (a) demand $100 Trillion in reparations from whites, as he does? I doubt it. Do 97% of black Americans (b) wish that all whites who disagree with them have their mothers raped by black men? I'm quite sure the percentage is far far lower than that. But M.C. ButtCrack has come out in favor of both just this year.
As for (a), I carefully explained a couple of months ago that $100 Trillion is more than the entire wealth of the whole world, to deafening silence from MCB, who can't seem to handle basic arithmetic.
When I called him on his disgusting little rape fantasy (b), he specified that he wished my mother in particular would be raped by black men. I asked him what kind of racist thinks being raped by black men is worse than being raped by white men: no answer.
The fact is that he is hateful, astonishingly ignorant of history, and a plain old-fashioned racist.
Dr Weevil,
"The fact is that he is hateful, astonishingly ignorant of history, and a plain old-fashioned racist."
Because racists should always be met with flowers and candy.
Meanwhile, we're lecturing YOU on what it means to be an American - and a human being - and you still don't get it, preferring to continue to screech and howl your totally-unearned disappointment further. You poor thing.
Racists are amazing,...
Dr. Weevil: I believe the 100 trillion figure was arrived at by multiplying 40 million blacks times 2.5 million dollars and then backing into some rationale. It is improbable that such an exact figure per a population would be arrived at in any other way. As I recall the per hour input for the math was $7.00 which is preposterously high for the time period indicated. One had to have that high a per hour number coupled with the outsized interest rate to parse out to the nice round number.
Michael,
"If you are looking for pretty words like David has provided then count me in if that is all it takes."
Justice to white racists - looking for the least amount of good they can, to fix doing all the bad they could - it's truly amazing how y'all can't even say anything, without sounding like total racists, with evil in every pore of your being.
Tell me, Michael, did David make any sense - or were his words as empty of substance as you propose?
Does anything register with white racists beyond how snarky they think they can get?
Crack:
I know this won't be of interest to you really, but what David wrote is not only what I believe but what most people I know believe. You are not someone who deals in good faith in these discussions so I will leave it that pretty words don't seem to be enough for you, the right beliefs don't seem to be enough for you. You want something that you might not be able to get from other people and when you come to grips with that you might be a happier human being less likely to lump groups together and less likely to bore them when they might already be on your side.
M.C. ButtCrack thinks it's significant that 97% of blacks (supposedly) agree with him, but not significant that 98% of people on this site disagree with him, though the latter (mostly) offer rational arguments. So which numbers count and which ones don't? It all depends on which ones are convenient for the ButtCrack and his hateful racist fantasies.
When will he figure out that wishing gang-rape on the mothers of those who disagree with him makes him a contemptible swine and a sad pathetic not-much-of-a-man? It's interesting that his sexual fantasies about his enemies' mothers don't involve him - he has to fantasize about other people getting the raping done, as if he's incapable.
Crack Emcee wrote:
Nobody wants, needs, or is asking for your guilt - we want you to discover "justice".
I thought desegration WAS justice. What more do you want? Do you want us to do your homework for you too?
Michael,
"Dear Martin Luther King:
I know this won't be of interest to you really, but what the white ministers wrote is not only what I believe but what most people I know believe. You are not someone who deals in good faith in these discussions so I will leave it that pretty words don't seem to be enough for you, the right beliefs don't seem to be enough for you. You want something that you might not be able to get from other people and when you come to grips with that you might be a happier human being less likely to lump groups together and less likely to bore them when they might already be on your side."
jr565,
"I thought desegration WAS justice. What more do you want? Do you want us to do your homework for you too?"
No, jr, "justice" is when you fix what is broke - not just when you stop breaking it.
When M.C. ButtCrack called for the gang rape of the mothers of those he was arguing with, he broke what little was left of his credibility and reputation as a human being. When will he fix that? All signs point to never.
Post a Comment