MORROW, Ga. (MyFOX ATLANTA) - The FBI said Monday that they were investigating a potential hate crime at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Morrow. Morrow police said a man yelled racial slurs as he punched and kicked a woman who was going into the restaurant last week.Tasha Hill, who is a U.S. Army Reservist, said she was walking the Cracker Barrel restaurant with her 7-year-old daughter when a man punched her, kicked her and yelled racial slurs.
"I just remember curling up in a ball to protect myself," said Hill. "He punched me several times in the head and I can't remember if that's where he was kicking me."
Hill, a 35-year-old Army Reservist, said she was with her 7-year-old daughter when she was beaten. Morrow police charged 47-year-old Troy West with assault, disorderly conduct and cruelty to children.
"He was coming out of the location, almost hit the girl with the door and real politely the lady says, by all witness counts, 'you almost hit my daughter, will you please excuse yourself.' [West] punched [Hill], put her to the ground and kicked her," said Commander Jimmy Callaway of the Morrow Police Department.
Police said the whole incident was caught on videotape which they say has now been turned over to the FBI. The FBI is investigating the incident as a potential hate crime because of repeated racial slurs. Hill's 7-year-old daughter watched the incident.
"I let him know I was a U.S. service member. I didn't want any trouble, but he continued to call me names and punched me in the face," said Hill.
QUESTIONS
1) If Tasha Hill was attacked not by Troy Dale West, but by Tyriq Lamare Williams ... would you have ever heard about this story?
2) If Troy Dale West had attacked Becky Jergens instead of Tasha Hill would you have heard about this story?
3) If Tyriq Lamare Williams had beaten Tasha Hill and called her a "nigger bitch" while doing so ... would he have been charged with a "hate" crime?
4) Are "Hate Crime" Laws designed to protect the races or to exacerbate tension between the races?
68 comments:
Very good questions.
Here are my answers.
1. Probably wouldn't have heard about it outside of the local coverage area.
2. Would have heard about it in the local coverage area for sure, possibly on the AP wire, but no tv coverage.
3. Tyriq would be a dead nigger and we would be talking about this everywhere. Particularly if they had his picture to use. Pictures and videos make the difference.
4. Given the strange way hate crime laws are used, I'm not sure what their purpose truly is. I think some people saw them as a deterrent, but much like the crack cocaine sentencing laws, things have developed in a different direction. However, I don't think the laws exacerbate tension. Racial tension is a part of the very fabric of this country and every other non-homogenous country. I don't think these lawas cause people to hate more.
Even as a Black woman, I am disturbed by the so called "Hate Crime" laws.
I don't care if I am murdered by a Black man screaming "bitch" or a White man screaming "nigger". Neither is worse and the result is the same. I say send them both down the river with the same heavy hand.
Homegirl is in the Army and couldn't handle this guy? Curled up in a ball? Then how's she going to handle war?
So much for all that baloney about men and women being equal. This story is the ultimate debunking of the extremist feminist garbage that has been spewed in the last generation and that's why the distraction with race.
Insurgent
If she had kicked his ass, would you say it was proof of the all that same feminist garbage?
DV:
About 8 weeks ago 2 Black mothers were shot in their heads, execution style by a gang of pirates in College Park, GA.
This did not go national.
This did not provoke the Soul Patrol into action.
Despite living through a "Bloody Summer" they ONLY came out after boxer Vernon Jones was killed by 3 pirates during a robbery.
Now we see that ONE IGNORANT WHITE MAN attacking a Black woman is enough to get them in their cars and on television.
This speaks of the NON-WHITE WHITE SUPREMACY that they operate under.
The value of a Black life is determined by the race of the assailant and the ideological and partisan opportunity that is available to them.
Questions one through three are particularly pointless and question four is ludicrous.
Which MSM outlet covered this story?
The 2007 FBI UCR on hate crimes reports that 4,956 of these crimes were motivated by race. 908 were identified at anti-white. 3,434 were identified as anti-black. How many of the 3,434 crimes committed against Black’s were covered by the MSM?
Since thousands of heinous crimes of racial violence were carried out before hate-crime laws existed, how can these laws now be considered as exacerbating tension between the races? Hate crime laws did not cause the deaths of Herbert Lee, Louis Allen, Jimmy Lee Jackson and Sammy Younge, Jr.
As usual you’ve missed the big picture, the growing climate of racial hatred in America
[On the day after Barack Obama is inaugurated as the nation's first black president, Keith Luke of Brockton, Mass., is arrested after allegedly shooting three black immigrants from Cape Verde, killing two of them, as part of a racially motivated killing spree.
The two murders are apparently only part of Luke's plan to kill black, Latino and Jewish people.
After being captured by police, he reportedly says he planned to go to an Orthodox synagogue near his home that night and "kill as many Jews as possible." Police say Luke, a white man who apparently had no contact with white supremacists but spent the previous six months reading racist websites, told them he was "fighting for a dying race."
Luke also says he formed his racist views in large part after watching videos on Podblanc, a racist video-sharing website run by longtime white supremacist Craig Cobb. When he later appears in court for a hearing, Luke, charged with murder, kidnapping and aggravated rape, has etched a swastika into his own forehead, apparently using a jail razor.] --SPLC
[ResistNet is a social-networking hub for the armed patriot movement, as well as racists and paranoids of all stripes. On the day we visited, we found one video comparing Obama to Hitler, and another featuring a preacher who called him "a half-breed MacDaddy" and called upon "white folks"; to "riot in the streets."]-- AlterNet
If she had kicked his ass, would you say it was proof of the all that same feminist garbage?
Nah, I'd be laughing that dude had been punished enough by getting his behind whooped by a woman. No need for hate crime prosecutions when he has to live with the humiliation of getting a good ol' fashioned beat down from a woman. :-)
But in reality, that's what this story is about. Women don't belong in war. They don't. And here is the perfect example of why.
Bradley,
And yet from your progressively secular view, the chances of you dying at the hands of a rabid white racist is far smaller than your chances of beIng murdered by a black thug.
Can you explain the discrepancy in your overall threat assessment?
"The 2007 FBI UCR on hate crimes reports that 4,956 of these crimes were motivated by race. 908 were identified at anti-white. 3,434 were identified as anti-black."
And yet still, the number of blacks killed...by blacks...DWARFS the number of blacks killed by anti-black hate criminals.
Face it - a nigga is still safer living amongst the KKK than his own kind in da hood.
What about Joan of Arc II?? Sometimes I trip off what you say.
gtfoh ...
most Russians ... are killed by Russians.
most Chinese ... are killed by Chinese.
most Mexicans ... are killed by Mexicans.
most Eskimos ... are killed by Eskimos.
most black people ... are killed by processed food.
You are statistically retarded.
What about her Mahndisa?
II, if you don't believe that women belong in battle, far be it from me to try to convince you. But nonetheless, I am sure your daughter could benefit from self defense or a martial art, as could my son when they are old enough.
most black people ... are killed by processed food.
Homicide is the No. 1 cause of death for black men between the ages of 15 and 34.
Denmark, you are fucking ignorant.
Mahndisa,
Whether or not my daughter could benefit from a martial art has nothing to do with whether she should take herself to the battlefield.
This story illustrates that point quite well. I'm sure Homegirl received combat training far beyond that of a martial arts class and still resorted to curling up in a ball.
Homicide is the No. 1 cause of death for black men between the ages of 15 and 34.
50% unemployment rates in a racist economy now depressed and contracting is the No. 1 cause of extra-legal economic activity and the extra-legal means of business transaction enforcement engaged in by Black and Latino men between the ages of 15 and 34 resulting in excessive homicide.
Nowhere near Russian, Jamaican, or Latin American levels of violence, but excessive by American standards, just the same.
Comparable to levels of internecine Irish levels around the turn of the century...,
[quote]The two murders are apparently only part of Luke's plan to kill black, Latino and Jewish people. [/quote]
M Bradley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have had my recorder running ALL DAMNED SUMMER LONG!!!
In Atlanta there has been nearly ONE NEGRO KILLED EVERY DAY!!!!
Why do you bring these 2 murder plots that happened WHEN Obama was elected but ignore the BLOODY SUMMER that has been going on in Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore and several other big cities?
I don't understand the LOGIC of some of you where you masturbate yourselves with the logic "Every other race kills their own in the most abundance".
THIS MEANS WHAT?
That Black people are not dying?
That we are killed disproportionate to our numbers?
That the Civil Rights Industrial Complex that didn't say a damned thing all summer long (Until boxer Vernon Forrest was shot 8 times in the back) NOW JUST TO ATTENTION now that ONE WHITE MAN ASSAULTED A BLACK WOMAN - yet she lived to tell about it?
(This is the money shot for you to post up front if you wish to DV):
Hate Crimes Laws = Non-White White Supremacy
They show that the assaults of a White man are SUPERIOR than the assaults of a Black, REGARDLESS of if the latter is far more abundant.
No Black Thug can EVER commit a murderous act against a Black person that is as deadly as when a White man does the same.
No, it doesn't II. That woman was weak in the mind if she curled up in a ball while some asshole assaulted her. She doesn't represent what most women would do, at least not me. I've known a few women who could beat a man of comparable size. And in the celebrity world, the Williams sisters look like they fit that bill.
My husband came across an old acquaintance the other day and she is as broad shouldered as a football player, enjoys mountainbiking and could kick many a man's ass.
Obviously the woman who curled up in a ball went into fright mode, and some men would have done the same.
That's all well and good Mahndisa. But we're not talking about physical size. We're talking about soul. We're talking about feminine nature.
No matter what kind of combat training that woman received, it didn't make a damn bit of difference.
Yeah for her, just like there are weak male soldiers that might trip out and go into fright mode.
And our acquaintances physical size matters; she isn't usually hassled by men because they know she could probably kick their asses! Most women who are violently victimized are specifically targeted due to stature. Obese and larger women aren't usually kidnapped or raped to the degree that smaller women are violently assaulted.
A few years ago I was in a bar fight with a man and was able to grab him in the right places to subdue him. He was about an inch or two taller than me and had more brute strength but was not very agile and he was the sober one! I don't know how I did this, but I got him in a headlock, then pushed him out of the bar and had someone call the police. The experience was surreal.
Orientation is everything. Where I grew up as a kid, girls and boys fought each other...from personal experience, the soul of a fighter cares naught about gender. And with the right strategy, many physical skirmishes can be won by a woman against a man. The key is in recognizing the physical strengths of each gender. A big thighed woman can usually leg press quite a bit, so she might use her legs as pivots and so forth...
I DO think women have a place on the battlefield, if they are so inclined. This is simply a difference in perspective. But if faced with physical violence by myself, I could not rely upon a man or anyone else and would be screwed if I couldn't defend myself somehow.
Insurgent
So, if a woman loses a fight it's proof that woman don't belong in war and shouldn't have certain jobs.
If a woman wins a fight it's proof that the man she fought was a punk.
That's mighty strange.
Oh goodness, goodness. Someone needs to do something about the public schools in this country. This woman is a trained member of the U.S. Army and couldn't handle herself. It speaks for itself.
The lead on the story was about a potential hate crime, which is distracting, lame and cliche.
It would have been a far more interesting story if the lead on the story was: Female U.S. Army Reservist gets her ass whooped and curls up in a ball at Cracker Barrel.
[quote]This woman is a trained member of the U.S. Army and couldn't handle herself. It speaks for itself.[/quote]
I.I.:
Your sentiment is reprehensible.
SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO "defend herself" against this hate filled man in a civilized society.
13 weeks of training does not turn a female into a "man fighter". (Well except for Mahndisa 8). I suspect that my friend Mahndisa has as least one brother that she learned how to scrap with).
Or ...
Big Man.
The fact that women don't belong in war, is self-evident.
Just as a man who gets his ass kicked by a woman is not the toughest of fellas, is also self-evident.
I think the operative question, is not this woman's capacity for combat, but where the fuck is her man? Where is the father of her daughter?
He's the one needs to be dealing with Troy Dale West. Not the FBI and their Socially Engineered Trojan Horse "Hate Crimes".
DV
I understand your argument.
My point to Insurgent was that if you use isolated incidents to prove theories you support, you should also also use isolated incidents to DISPROVE your theories.
If not, that's hypocrisy.
Besides, the idea that this woman getting beaten by a man is proof that men and women aren't equal (which is a loaded term if I've ever seen one) doesn't fly with me.
Personally, I know that men win most physical encouters involving women. But, that only proves that there is inequality between the genders when it comes to physical strength and aggression.
Insurgent wasn't clear what type of equality she was talking about, or what particular feminist theories she thought were being disproved.
She could be talking about the idea that men and women deserve equal pay for doing the same job. Or that women shouldn't be discriminated against when seeking home loans. She could be talking about anything, and this one incident only speaks to one area in my opinion.
13 weeks of training does not turn a female into a "man fighter".
Thank you CF, you just made my point for me!
Insurgent
If the story spoke for itself, why did you feel the need to explain to us that it was the ultimate debunking of the theories of extreme feminists, and proof of the baloney about men and women being equal?
Your argument was poorly constructed and explained. Like I said, a random incident where a man beats a woman up provides no more proof than a random incident where a woman beats up a man.
If you want to talk about patterns, then talk about patterns. But trying to use one random incident to advance an entire theory is just silly.
Most people in the army are not experts in hand to hand combat.
Male and female.
Big Man,
Your lecture about what I should or shouldn't assume or conclude is quite humorous given that it comes on the heels of your assumption that women who falsely cry rape must be White.
Tisk tisk my friend. :-)
Hey
Personally I'm opposed to war and neither men nor women should engage in military combat. But we don't live in that kind of world and war is a reality.
History is littered with examples of women in combat from Red Army in Soviet Russia, liberation movements across Africa, present-day Iraq, the US military et cetera which is ample evidence that women do have a place in war.
The more relevant question in present day; is what is a woman's place in war and by whom is this militarized role constructed and for what purposes? The State in its foreign policy, constructs gender in its militaristic propaganda that tugs at the heartstrings of patriotic duty, honor, humanity and religion.
Its important to be specfic as to which group of feminists you refer to Intellectual Insurgent, because it seems to me that speaking of feminists in this manner assumes a homogeneity of perspective on war, yet the opposite is true.
Throughout history there have been outspoken anti-war feminists like Sylvia Pankhurst, Anita Block and the suffragettes in Britain. Today there are Black womanists like Angela Davis investigate the role of prisoners in war, Alice Walker has written extensively on Gaza and Iraq. Cynthia McKinney is a sharp contrast to Condeleeza Rice.
Others, like Cynthia Enloe and Zillah Einstein recognise how war impacts on women as a function of patriarchy and the national project. Enloe among others, advocates for the recognition of women's rights within the military whether as military wives, girlfriends or as combatants. Her work provides an important understanding of how women are militarised for the imperial project, where the US is concerned.
Feminism as a mouthpiece for war has many different voices; pro-military feminists are contradictory to the very values of feminism as a woman-centred struggle. Women trained for combat are not made to be "man-fighters" but fighters; why this woman was unable to defend herself needs to be probed further but it is no way a reflection on the abilities of other women soldiers - past or present.
...peace
My assumption was based on the picture our blog host decided to use on his post.
Obviously, that's my own fault for assuming that was the accuser, but as my subsequent comments showed, I had was interested in finding out whether the accuser was actually white since the last name released for her was an African one.
Now, since you read my comments, and I'm sure understood why I made that assumption, I'm curious how you think it applies to this situation?
You didn't make an assumption. You made a logical leap about what the incident involving this one woman said about all women. You used a single anecdote to buttress an entire theory. I on the other hand made an assumption about a picture of chick on a blog about a woman recanting a rape accusation.
The only connection between my assumption and your logical leap was that they were both poor decisions.
Konwomyn and Big Man are right. II you are indicting a group of feminists as bad guys but who exactly are you talking about? And a more relevant question would have been, Have you heard of Queen Nzinga?
Your arguments or statements presuppose quite a bit and again use this incident to verify your feelings. Like I said, there are many cases where a male soldier may have melted down like that. It's just that those incidences don't get publisized.
Big Man, growing up in East Oakland as a kid was rough. Despite the fact that we went to church and both parents are together, sometimes you've got to fight and scrap. After getting my ass whipped a few times, I got the hang of it and hope to God my son doesn't turn out to be a pussy who cannot fight.
Maybe I'm old fashioned in this regard but combat arts is something all kids need to learn about!
If I am not mistaken, the soldier was a disabled vet...and if she had a .45 there would be no need for conversation here....
tgn
It’s absolutely guaranteed that when the subject is white-on-Black violence, political Neanderthals (such as Destructive Feedback) - so labeled because their missing frontal lobe limits their intellectual capacity to fragmentation (versus holism)—will attempt to contaminate the discussion with special pleading (an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence) about Black-on-Black violence.
Afrikan American critical thinkers fully acknowledge the devastating impact of, and fully understand the historical, political and economic reasons for, Black-on-Black violence, (the “psychodynamics of Black self-annihilation in service of white domination”), however that is not the subject of this post, which deals with the thuggery of a white punk.
Lucky for this white thug that he didn’t pull that punkyfied move on a conceal weapon permitted, sister friend of mine. Sister Lady qualified as a marksman with her 15round Glock 9mm to get her permit from the sheriff’s dept.
However, in an instance such as this she would have been carrying a 7 round .380 (which I’ve loaded with hollow points) in her purse. Sister Lady would have turned this punk into Swiss-cheese.
Nevertheless, since the Neanderthals went “there” and the warrior CNu laid the smackdown on them, I’ll add my plug nickel.
[50% unemployment rates in a racist economy now depressed and contracting is the No. 1 cause of extra-legal economic activity and the extra-legal means of business transaction enforcement engaged in by Black and Latino men between the ages of 15 and 34 resulting in excessive homicide.]—Bro. Nulan
Brother Nulan’s statement is based on the historical evidence as put forth by scholars such as Dr. Roger Lane (Murder in America). Dr. Lane notes that in the post-Civil War period through the first third of the 20th Century, first Irish-Americans, then Italian-Americans had higher murder rates than Afrikan Americans.
The number one factor in reducing the Irish and Italian crime rates was employment in the industrial sector, which OBTW, basically barred Afrikan Americans until WWII, and then only allowed a certain percentage before it’s erosion.
The Violence Policy Center notes: “For the entire United States, the study found that in 2006 there were 7,425 black homicide victims in the United States. Of these, 6,383 (86 percent) were male, and 1,041 (14 percent) were female. Gender was not recorded for 1 victim.
The homicide rate for black victims in the United States was 20.27 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall national homicide rate was 5.38 per 100,000 and the national homicide rate for whites was 3.14 per 100,000.”
20.27 per 100,000 is horrific, but consider this:
[New data presented at the conference by a Dutch scholar, Pieter Spierenburg, showed that the homicide rate in Amsterdam, for example, dropped from 47 per 100,000 people in the mid-15th century to 1 to 1.5 per 100,000 in the early 19th century.
Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.] –NYT
[Manuel Eisner, a University of Cambridge criminologist, drew all the research together [and], he found the western European murder rate had been at its highest in the 15th century- a frightening 41 murders per 100,000 people.]
Is it any wonder that these violent people became genocidal in America where they were able to project their violence on “cultural others.”
Continued:
[In Philadelphia, for example, the annual average rate of indictments for homicide fell from 4 per 100,000 in the 1850's to 2.2 in the early 1890's, according to research by Roger Lane, a history professor at Haverford College.
The drop occurred as the city became industrialized and despite the greater availability of firearms during the period.
As people began to go to work in factories, their behavior was constrained by the foreman and the whistle, Professor Lane has written. Behavior was also improved by the spread of public schools, which acted as "agents of social control," and institutions like the Y.M.C.A. and Sunday schools, which taught morality.
Then came the 1960's. Around the world, homicide rates did an about-face. When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, for example, the national homicide rate in the United States was 4.6 per 100,000 people. By 1970, it had doubled, and by 1980 had reached 10.1 per 100,000.
Researchers point to several possible explanations. Post-World War II baby boomers came of age in the 1960's, increasing the number of young men, the most violence-prone group, in the population. The 60's also marked a shift among many social, cultural and economic forces that worked against violence in previous eras. America began moving into a post-industrial economy, governmental authority came into question with the Vietnam war, and the traditional family was threatened by things like divorce.]—NYT
All of those things are important factors in the ebb and flow of crime rates in America, but in a nutshell—“it’s the economy stupid” as Bro. Nulan pointed out.
Of course, political Neanderthals, missing that frontal lobe, have extreme difficulty processing information, even as exoteric as this.
"sychodynamics of Black self-annihilation in service of white domination"
Actually, White domination helps to curb Black-on-Black violence.
Without White civilization, Black revert quickly to warring primate behavior as seen all over Africa, where millions of Africans are killed violently annually by each other in genocidal tribal warfare.
KonWomyn, there is no need to distinguish among feminists. The notion of feminism itself presupposes a battle between men and women. Whether some of those man-haters are against war or for war makes little difference with regard the critical unifying feature of their ideologies. Their notion that men and women are equal and can do all things the same is absurd.
Sure there is a woman or two who can play a mean game of football, but it not generally the feminine nature to do so.
Just as it is not the feminine nature to go to war. The size of the woman is irrelevant. Her mastery of martial arts is irrelevant. That she grew up in Oakland in a "rough" neighborhood is irrelevant. A woman - with a feminine nature who appreciates being a woman - would leave battlefield silliness to the men.
When I worked as a trial lawyer, a psychologist we worked with in choosing juries told us the rule of thumb that men are property protective and women are people protective. Which is generally true and why it doesn't even look right to see a woman in an Army uniform.
All the liberal baloney psychobabble aside, a woman in the Army is like a fish on the golf course.
GTFOH, at one time there were no white Homo-Sapiens on the planet Earth. Since history repeats itself, and given the white birth dearth you should probably be more concerned about the psychodynamics of white self-annihilation... The Cronus Complex
[quote]It’s absolutely guaranteed that when the subject is white-on-Black violence, political Neanderthals (such as Destructive Feedback) - so labeled because their missing frontal lobe limits their intellectual capacity to fragmentation (versus holism)—will attempt to contaminate the discussion with special pleading (an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence) about Black-on-Black violence.[/quote]
makheru bradley:
I would LOVE to see you walking the streets of North Philly, get accosted by some Street Pirates and then pull out a piece of paper in your attempts to explain to them WHY THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY DO.
There is little doubt that we would be reading about your behind in the paper.
The ironic part of it all is that the POPULAR MACHINE runs the areas where Black people live in our highest concentrations. IF IN FACT the key to reducing the crime is industrialization - then you need to be scratching your head and trying to figure out why the current machine has been a net job destroyer per their antics.
There is little doubt that we would be reading about your behind in the paper.--Feed
I actually had a friend who used to live off of the 5800 block of N. Broad. I walked around N. Philly the same way I walked around NW DC, SW ATL, and the Westside of CLT—with no fear.
Since you live in the county which borders Clayton County, and Troy West is out of jail, hopefully we won’t be reading about West whipping your ass in downtown Fayetteville.
IF IN FACT the key to reducing the crime is industrialization - then you need to be scratching your head and trying to figure out why the current machine has been a net job destroyer per their antics.—Feed
What current machine are you referring to? The erosion of the US manufacturing base began in the 1970s.
Start this video—The Bastards Of The Party—at the 53 minute mark if you need a refresher.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8238349959209990570#
@ Intellectual Insurgent:
"The notion of feminism itself presupposes a battle between men and women."
No it doesn't that's exactly why the definition of feminism has changed and has multiplied in perspective because feminism(s) exists in the plural. Black feminists see feminism as a woman-centred struggle that NOT in opposition to men but focusses on the concerns of women. It is collective in its outlook and seeks hence this is one definition
Alice Walker uses:
"A womanist loves music, loves the moon, loves the Spirit, loves food and roundness. Loves the struggle, loves the Folk and loves herself. "
Nowhere in that definition is there a trace of Feminist Nazi type ideology. Black feminists like Patricia H Collins, Hazel Carby, Molara Ogundipe Leslie have always distanced themselves from the more radical forms of Anglo feminism(s). Matrophobia as endorsed by Adrienne Rich or Nancy Chodorow, is epistemologically poles apart and unsuitable to describing attitudes towards mothering in the Black, Asian or Arabic communities. Even among different groups of White women this theory is not taken to be a universal truth.
I understand that the bra-burning era of feminism has given feminism(s) a bad rap but it'd be erroneous to paint every feminist with the same brush. Today's feminists - in all their varieties - radicals and all have a different attitude towards men.
And not all of them endorse war; as I pointed out above the work of some of these feminists highlights the how the State plays on femininity to garner support among women for the war as a fighter, wife or girlfriend. Again as I've pointed out Condi Rice is not the same as Cynthia McKinney - even from your narrow view of feminism as a man-hating, power hungry women's movement: there is a stark difference between the two.
As you're a lawyer I'm sure you're familiar with Crenshaw J's term intersectionality which speaks to the multiple, intersecting variables of race, class and gender affecting Black women's live in competing ways. It ain't just about men...Funny thing is that many of the feminist professors I know, Black, Asian and White are straight and in marriages or relationships so man-hating Nazi might make for a good look for radical feminism, but the reality is that alot of feminists are interested more in women's relational role in all areas of society rather than it being a singular focus on man-woman relations.
II said:
"it is not the feminine nature to go to war. The size of the woman is irrelevant. Her mastery of martial arts is irrelevant."
Ummkkaaay so Queen warriors are irrelevant? So irrlelevant that they waged wars; granted they won some and lost some but bottom line is Women were the Generals.
The women warriors of the Amazon are irrelevant? So irrelevant that they hold the prime spot in history as some of the most fiercest fighters ever known.
The women fighting in the Red Army, female Mau Maus, female jihadists are all irrelevant? So irrelevant that they, despite what you see as feminine nature which impedes their ability to fight; they were able to hold a gun and fight for freedom.
Assata Shakur is irrelevant? So irrelevant that SHE is one of Amerikkka's Most Wanted, so irrelevant that the FBI have been itching to get their hands on this female 'domestic terrorist' for over 25 years.
...Wow that's a rich history of some kinda irrelevance right there.
I think your using of this one example as proof for an entire gender of women and a refusal to engage with a host of perspectives on women's experiences makes your analysis irrelevant because it is incorrect.
Whatever you define 'feminine nature' and 'womanhood' has got to be a little more broader to be able to make the connection between being people protective and how/why women go to war - in terms of both the anti-war feminists I've listed and the historical role women have played in war as I've also listed.
And as for growing in East Oakland; we are all a product of our environment albeit in varying degrees. It disproves, yet again the nonsense theory that women cannot or should not fight.
...peace
II, I don't know where you get notions of what femininity is, but clearly we are not in agreement and likely would never be on this issue. I hope to God that you are never in a physical skirmish because apparently you would need someone else to rescue you, because it is not in the 'nature' of a woman to fight.
It is utterly nonsensical to say it isn't in the nature of a woman to fight. You conveniently avoid historical perspectives, even perspectives of women who have been fighting for all their lives!
I also don't feel as though feminism presupposes a battle between men and women. An academic feminist might say that feminism was about destroying the patriarchy, but a PRACTICAL feminist, that is someone who is a wife, student and mother would say that feminism was about equalizing opportunities.
You are a trained attorney. For quite a while it was believed that women did not have the brain power for such technically demanding work. It was said that if a woman had a truly feminine nature she'd stay at home. While I agree that raising children is paramount if you are a Mother, some women aren't cut out for mothering or staying at home and have other gifts that can be explored.
I think it is offensive that you feel as though women have no place on the battlefield. We have always been there and have a place in war, if you believe in war.
What about the Race car driver you have on your sidebar from Iran. She still gets a lot of shit from people that don't think it is feminine or proper for a woman to drive racecars. What is your response to that? In other words how will you explain your inconsistencies?
II,
It's going to be hard to convince radical autonomists that females don't belong on the battlefield. But you'll notice that they are not so radical as to make the following assertion...
Sending women, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters to the battlefield in time of war is a good thing.
Yet, this is the implied meaning of their "right" of females to go to war. They couch this absurdity with a "rationale" equally absurd.
The radical autonomists say women should be able to fight on the battlefield because it is fair, equal and nondiscriminatory for a female soldier to be blown to bits by a roadside bomb just as any male soldier. This is their principal!
TD,
Break it down for me one more time. What exactly is a 'radical autonomist'?
DV,
A radical autonomist is one who believes there is no restraint or should be no restraint on one's free will.
Give me an example of someone who you would consider a 'radical autonomist' and what are the consequences of radical autonomy?
DV,
Craig Nulan is a radical autonomist. He seeks to maximize his autonomy without a notion of restraint. He also attempts to restrain other's autonomy by putting forth a material-based mechanical universe of which they enjoy no real free will . Of course, these material mechanics are very much malleable to those in the know. Therefore, Nulan is not restrained in his autonomy like the masses.
The greatest consequence of accepting a material and
mechanically-based autonomy is that one has no principled reason to restrain their will. In fact, one ends up seeing a will to power as self-evdent truth.
Thordaddy,
Given that Nulan has not said anything on women's place in war, I'm guessing your remark to II was about me, Mahndisa Bigman and in some ways Makheru.
Now I hope you get me:
Acknowledging the presence of women in the army and understanding what gendered memes operate in this regard does not equate to support of the war. As you stated no one said:
"Sending women, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters to the battlefield in time of war is a good thing."
I for one won't ever say that because war is wholly "a good thing"; sometimes war is neccessary, but the loss of life (male and female, civilian and combatant)makes it difficult for me to accept even when there is 'just cause'. Understanding gendered militarism does not equate to the ""right" of females to go to war."
It's a fact that women are fighters - saying they don't belong has thus far in this thread been proven to me, to be an intellectually insufficient perspective in gaining understanding of the existant female soldier. It works for others, but for me, as an articulation of an anti-war position; it has not been adequately shown to be thus.
- Capisce? Brava!
....Now some qsns for you:
I don't understand how you say the radical autonomist would propagate their own freewill yet curtail that of others yet isn't radical autonomism about total resistance to social orders of power and moral norms? Would the person you describe then not be autonomous individualist rather than a radical? Because then that avoids assuming responsibility which is a consequence of that freedom? It seems to me your character sketch is of anarcho-individualist who is a chaotic force rather than a positive one, no?
lol...,
KW,
Josh Farst is a redneck assclown in san diego who's hung up on two simple and incontrovertible facts of life.
a. I unceremoniously yanked him out of his faux online anonymity - denying him the further pleasure of his cowardly racist emanations under the "thordaddy" brand at UBM's spot.
b. I banned his monkey ass from further commenting at my own blog, after he repeated the same stupid drivel for the 15th or 16th time on the subject of climate change.
Over the past couple years since this happened, this obsessive compulsive bathroom tile layer - has found himself incapable of keeping my name out of his mouth.
bottomline,
with the formulation
CNu = Radical Autonomist Prime
this skidmark's life has meaning because in his imagination, he has a nemesis.
On the other hand, without such an imaginary formulation;
1. Josh Farst is consigned to the truth of his own pedestrian nothingness.
2. I clowned this wannabe racist evangelist with a simple whois query on his domain name.
3. That I hold his entire existence in no greater esteem than something nasty stuck to the bottom of my shoe.
Konwomyn,
There are only three "rationales" for a liberal society to send females onto the battlefields in time of war.
1. They are absolutely necessary for any potential victory.
2. It is fair, equal and nondiscriminatory.
3. Our society has an extraneous amount of female fodder.
Number 1 just does not apply and has never been used as a rationale for putting females on the battlefield.
Number 2 is a liberal articulation of WHY women should be allowed on the battlefield. You'll notice that it represents nothing other than modern liberal first principles. Meaning, YOUR ideology tells you how to answer the question of whether females should be on the battlefield. The flaw then becomes one of fundamental principles. Simply stating that two things should be "equal" goes no where in explaining whether a civilized society ought send its
women, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, etc. to the battlefield and whether this is a good thing. Your ideology doesn't allow you to ask such a question let alone answer it.
Number 3 is just the logical consequence of following number 2. Now that there are a sufficient number of Konwmyns, Mahndisas and lil' men, we have females -- mostly radical autonomists -- being blown to bits by roadside bombs and coming back from war mangled from RPG attacks.
And all you can say is that it's fair and equal. This is the highly inadequate explanation.
As for radical autonomists versus autonomist idividualists, I would define a radical as one who attempts to defy reality mainly through propagating falsehoods and suppressing truth.
Think of an AGW open borders fanatic. If you believe that first world nations are creating excess CO2 emissions then a closed border would be the quickest and most assured way of cutting CO2 emissions immediately.
Another example of a radical autonomist would be President Obama and the notion that he is a Christian and ALSO believes in the "fundamental right" of a mother to kill her child in utero.
Nulance,
Yurra radical autonomist...
Propogate falsehoods on the fly
Gainin' freedom
By tellin' lies...
Outed me sucka???
Outed yurself, mother...
Oh, catch my profanity
Dude, just plead insanity
Ya know u got it good
Fo' Sean Hannity
That's me
But smarter and more GQ
Yuzza pot-belly pig
Detective work like Magnum PU
What u thought u knew
Just sum radical meme creation
Lookin' to hem a cracka up
Bring this old stock heart to cessation...
Nah, fat neck!!!
a.cracker.crumb.stuck.to.the.bottom.of.my.shoe..,
Cracker crumb stuck to bottom of his shoe...
Thought I was infected with dopamine hegemony???
Yur evidence leaves yur theory askew
And yet you knew...
Cuz ya operate with a radical worldview
View the world through materialist aspirations
Deny the existence of God
And then demand reparations...
Fat neck hustler
Dude so uncouth
All yur interent autonomous ramblin'
All without an ounce of Truth...
At least without a truth you REALLY believe in...
It's an established fact that you're a cracker crumb stuck to the bottom of my shoe.
Thor
I'm glad you gave a definition of radical autonomy since it's your pet theory.
Now, explain what you consider to be "free will" and define the acceptable limits on free will.
'Cause from what I've seen, you've been mighty aggressive in trying to limit other people's free while at the same time rejecting any limits on your own. Pretty much the same behavior you've ascribed to CNulan.
Lil' man,
Your notion of "free will" is highly contingent while my understanding of free will isn't. Meaning, although you believe in "free will," your exercise of such is for the most part dependent upon the benevolent actions of others. This explains why you can espouse a notion of "free will" and still call for a blanket equality and nondiscrimination. These two liberal first principle are antithetical to pure free will.
I, OTOH, believe that free will in its true essence is non-contingent. Meaning, if I live truthful and righteous, regardless of the actions of others, I can enjoy God-ordained free will. This also means that I need not agitate for laws that restrict other people's free will.
But Thordaddy you believe in closed borders? And you're anti-abortion? (Not Planned Parenthood per se but the whole notion of pro-choice - no?) And you believe that women have not capable of fighting in a war? How is that not restrictive of other people's free will?
... And don't respond bec you're responding what you might think I believe but bec this is your understanding of freewill.
Konwomyn,
I believe real Americans should decide who and who does not get to come into their house. The explanation as to the basis of their decision is irrelevant.
I also believe that a mother DOES NOT have a "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero.
Lastly, the capability of women fighting in war is not the fundamental question that needs answered. The question is whether a society can send its women to fight on the battlefield and still call itself civilized.
Clearly, the implication is that you believe opposite of me. Meaning, you don't think real Americans should decide who comes into their house, mothers have a "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero and a society that sends its women to the battlefield is civilized.
Can you establish why your views are truthful, right, rational, moral or sane without referencing your liberal ideology?
Thordaddy
I believe in open borders. The notion that people shoud be denied the right to a means to earn a living is absurd IMO, considering the unequal way in which wealth is determined and distributed in this world. Maybe being a 'real American' (whatever that means coz its a nation of immigrants anyway apart from the indigenous peoples) gives you the privilege in that you can freely move around many countries without having to hassle with immigration. America being a rich country you don't often have to think of going to another country to seek a better life as compared to South Americans or Africans who risk their lives because the way in which wealth is distributed in this world is totally skewed.
Don't fear for me though, my life allows me the right to say I've no wish to become an American or British citizen - I'm only in the Belly of the West for a limited period of time.
On abortion - I do think things like Planned Parenthood are disguised genocide centres but I believe in women's reprodutive right of choice. There are over 20mill unsafe abortions around the world/year and faced with a choice I'd rather a woman safely aborted that child than risked her own life. Also given the screw-ups raising kids and abusing them in the most horrific ways - I'd much rather that child was never born than to be tortured in that way.
Finally on war - sending women to war is not a mark of civlization if that society still bombs the innocent women and children of another society. Sending males to fight in a senseless war not of their own making and teaching them to be immune to the sufferings of another for purposes of the imperial project is no sign humanity or civilization to me.
The value of a woman's life does not outweigh a man's.
Truthful, rational, sane - have all been reflected somewhat in these answers.
Morality is relative - for me it makes perfect moral sense that the world's wealth should be equally distributed, babies born to unloving abusive parents are better off unborn and neither men nor women should be engaged in war - as victims or as combatants.
peace
Konwomyn,
I think you've pretty much defined yourself as a radical autonomist functioning under a hard leftist, racialist black context.
Let's take your beliefs one by one...
You believe in open borders. The practical consequence of this is that you seek to disenigrate the notion of nation as home. In fact, spiritually and philosophically, you dissolve
the idea of home, period. Your ideology of absolute equality and nondiscrimination (modern liberalism) requires it.
Look how you also suggest that you aren't even sure that "real" Americans exist. This is a sure sign of a radical autonomist.
You claim this is a nation of immigrants. Meaning, there is no "real" American. Yet, the truth is that this is America
with real Americans that have to their own demise let an inordinate amount of aliens into our house.
You also conflate "reproductive rights" with it's antithesis, abortion. And just as you wouldn't send an innocent man to death, why send an innocent child to death because statistically he might be abused and not loved?
And your last point on women in war seems to suggest that women should not be on the battlefield because war shouldn't happen, but because war happens then women should be on the battlefield. Again, this gets us no
closer to answering whether a civilized society should put its women in war.
Thordaddy
A Radical autonomist by your standard is an anarcho-individualist, I'm a communitarian so no Siree I don't fit the script.
A lefty sure, but who said anything about being racialist? Post-Black is the term you're looking for.
No I don't seek to disintegrate the nation - the nation itself is an imagined community whose life extends beyond physical borders. That's why no matter where you go on the planet, you are always rooted to home.
What is a 'real American'? What demise have immigrants (not aliens, immigrants) caused? And at which historical period has damage been done - keeping in mind that America in itself has a cheap wage policy and not the prettiest of human rights records in its treatment of foreigners?
No, Thordaddy pro-life and pro-choice are a sub-set of the reproductive rights of women. A reproductive right is the perogrative a woman has over her choice to pro-create or her present maternal condition.
At what point does a foetus become a child - its more a moral than scientific question. Does the moment of conception of matter as this is the point of creation? Why support condoms and contraception - if you do? Is this not abortion too?
That's what I don't get about some anti-abortionists, only when the egg becomes a foetus do they kick up a fuss. And these are the same people who happily eat veal, eggs and caviar...yea okay.
"Statiscally" - its reality. Why should a child suffer bec they're unwanted? You know how horrific those stories you hear daily are and you know how the system of foster care messes up kids more - added to that resources are inadequate(even moreso in poorer countries). Prevention is better than cure. What would you yourself do with these 'unloved children' or in the way of reforming these abusive parents?
Why should a child be born into a world they are not free? Margaret Garner attempted to murder her children bec she didn't want them to grow up enslaved - a sane, rational, moral choice. For all extremely poor girls who make that same choice through safe abortion today, I can't even hate on them.
And no Thordaddy, your qsn shld be which civilised society goes to war? If Amerikkka didn't have women troops does it automatically become a civilised society? And what of those armies having women who serve only as administrative, culinary and medical personnel in the army? Are they civilised even though they engage in combat? Women's presence or absence is not a marker for being civilised - if that's the standard then Arkan's Tigers might be considered civilized then, huh?
Konwomyn,
There is a lot there and I stand by my description of you as a radical autonomist.
What does "post-black" mean? Is this an evolutionary description?
Who knows their nation as an "imagined community?"
What are "real Americans?" Well, thordaddy of course... But maybe American citizenship is just imaginary?
And "reproductive rights" is the RIGHT TO REPRODUCE. This right has been fundamental to Americans since our conception. Abortion is a mother and doctor intentionally killing the mother's child in utero. The attempt to file abortion under reproductive rights reeks of dishonesty.
I believe, and the science strongly holds,that unique human life begins at conception. If this is an arguable assertion then choosing to abort a potentially unique human being is even more unconscionable. It's like sending a man to death while being uncertain about his guilt.
And if suffering and an unwanted scenario is justification for abortion then why not carry that over to the suffering and unwanted babies and legalize infanticide?
Lastly, since you only believe in imagined nations, it bewilders me that you would advocate the right of women to fight on the battlefield for such an ephemeral entity?
Fighting to one's possible death for nothing but an imagined community...?
Okaay, sorry Thordaddy we need to backtrack are you familiar with Bennedict Anderson? And you're speaking to someone who's temporarily resident in the Nanny State, UK so I think that's why there's such a disconnect insofar as political ideas are concerned.
Here's an extract from Benedict Anderson:
"The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations. No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet."
Post-Black is an intellectual framing for seeing Blackness beyond racial identity or the cultural constructions of that which typifies Black. Its still in recognition of being Black but tries to move away from the trope of Blackness bec sometimes its a singularistic and its burden that limits instead of freeing you. I am Black but Blackness means many things and its transcends many things too. In some ways kinda like how DV's got his thing abt being the Blackest Man on The Internet.
But the idea of being Post-Black hasn't been fully articulated by scholars as yet but in the art of Thelma Golden and Glen Ligon. Recently its been used by Manthia Diawarra - a professor in African Cinema from Mali at NYU, but the 'age of Obama' has kinda hi-jacked that into mainstream discourse and the kind of critical treatment this notion will now get will be in terms of transcending race rather than broadening out what Black means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-black_art
Konwomyn,
I think you've touched upon the dangers of post-black activism. Ultimately, because the individual black doesn't really "see" what a post-black lifestyle entails then it mostly becomes a rejection of black tradition.
The other problem I see is that even though you are attempting to transform something that has been very formative and substantive in your life, it still has not transformed the politics that almost certainly sprang from your racial perspective.
Post a Comment