I do like Kanye
Yes, it's a stolen link from someone else that you may have already seen, and no I'm not just trying to laugh at something that's really serious...it just makes me proud to see how sincere he is.
...the man's got guts to do this on live television
and in case you haven't donated
posted by Änna @ 3:11 AM
18 Comments:
i think i did laugh at this. but i did see his sincerity b/c of how flustered he was. i think he's speaking some truth... even though it was presented a little poorly. but he wouldn't have said these things if he didn't notice something. i think that i ask a lot of people to not dismiss him so quickly... though you're not really... i'm just using your site to say so. haha! thanks, anna! =o)
~Dana
i couldn't help but laugh because Mike Myers was put in such an awkward situation
just some food for thought:
would you be saying "this man's got guts to do this on live television" if it was David Duke proclaiming the superiority of whites? no, you wouldn't, because it's ridiculous to say something like that.
there is absolutely no basis -- aside from politically motivated attacks -- for mr. west's comments about bush. willingness to say something absolutely absurd on national television is immaturity, not guts
this is not to blame mr. west for coming up with the idea ... i don't think he's got a political motive ... i don't think he's that much of a political thinker to have a motive. but because of his alleged connection to the victims, he's made himself willing to buy into the political attacks of the left who are trying to use this tragedy as a racial wedge.
i would ask one more question. had the hurricane demolished a large trailer park where mostly white residents lived, would mr. west have taken part in the telethon, felt such a "connection" to the victims or declared that George Bush does not care about white people because their local government didn't respond the way it should have?
how about we hold off on the attacks (and trying to praise the attacks) until after we've done everything we can to rescue the human beings who are still trapped. there'll be plenty of time for people who know what they're talking about to make accusations about who wasn't prepared properly and who responded poorly.
I disagree. The fact that he was willing to say something on TV, and especially the manner in which he said it (ie not very cooly and smooth) said to me that he was nervous about being very honest on national TV, as opposed to having no problem reading off a prepared cue card.
Additionaly, the point of calling Bush out on not caring for the African Community in the past (which is a just accusation, considering the general target of Bush's policies, ie the middle and upper class) is a perfect chance for Bush to prove people who think that way wrong. Or, as is more likely, it's a chance to continue to ignore racial injustice in America.
Kanye is probably more accurately criticizing the media portrayal of the situation than Bush himself. No doubt his comment about Bush was based more on a previous dislike for Bush than just this one situation. To be fair, your comment that you "don't think [Kanye]'s that much of a political thinker" is not really based on anything other than the fact that he is a rapper.
Do his support and sentiments have to do with a racial connection with the victims? I'm sure! (And I don't exactly know why you called it an "alleged" connection either.) I didn't see him raising support for tsunami victims. But so what if his motivation is a cultural or racial bond? Ultimately, that's why we care about things anyways, because we're bonded to people, whether through ethnicity, region, or just the fact that we're all human beings.
He admitted his own self-centeredness, and his sincerity and compassion for the victims was apparent. He obviously cares not only about their physical situation, but also their treatment by the media and government.
Was the Bush comment uncalled for in a Red Cross telethon? Probably. He's still helping people in need and speaking out against an injustice he sees. I like that.
Please don't compare him to someone claiming white superiority, because he never claimed black superiority. That is preposterous. He claimed unfair treatment of black people affected by the hurricane.
And I'm willing to bet Bush doesn't care too much about black people anyway...no particular evidence or anything at this moment; Like yourself, I'm just a little biased.
One more point- 2 years ago, the Army CORP of Engineers did a study about natural disasters, and picked out 3 natural disasters and the cities that would be most affected and hurt by them. Hurricane and New Orleans was one of the results. It was pointed out to the government that a hurricane of force similar to this one would be horrible for the poor and African American communities, since 80% of N.O. is black
FYI ... Kanye was born into upper-middle class. This is a class issue, not a race issue. All Kanye is doing is fueling racial divisons.
Yes, I realize Kanye West was never poor. He still has a connection to the rest of the Black American community.
I think in an effort to not discriminate, a lot of white people adopt this "color-blind" mindset as if race doesn't mean anything, but I think that's a narrow view.
When you are a minority, you kind of become a representative of your race. What you do is often used to make judgments on other people, whether or not you're in the same social class as them. I'm sure Kanye West has been discriminated against because of the color of his skin, no matter how much money he has or where he went to school.
When something affects poor people, who are mostly black, it tends to affect black people. White people might fail to realize this since whiteness doesn't play into our identity as much as blackness does for other people.
And if you're doubting my credibility to say this cause I'm white, then I'm sorry. Maybe we should end the conversation now, cause there's nothing that bugs me more than a bunch of white people arguing with each other about what black people think.
As a side note before I begin: I'm not sure anyone would disagree with me that Kayne West is not a political thinker. The last time I checked, he writes rap lyrics, not books on political theory. He accepts music awards, not pulitzer prizes. Other than his Black Panther father, he has no apparent connection to the political realm and gives us no reason to assume he knows what he's talking about.
My comparison of West's comments to something David Duke might say was to express the ridiculous nature of West's comments. I'm not saying he was claiming black superiority, but he was making charges of racism and military targeting of blacks at a telethon that was meant to raise money for relief aid.
So you're saying it's okay for the only reason for Kayne West to be interested in helping with disaster relief is that he happens to share skin color with many of the victims?
How would you react if this was a tragedy for a majority white community and the black activists were ... poof ... nowhere to be found. (Because, as I mentioned before, I doubt Kayne would be all teary-eyed if the hurricane had been a tornado and New Orleans had been an Arkansas trailer park.) Would it be acceptable for black Americans to not do what they could to help out because they feel no ethnic or racial connection to the victims?
Or, how would you react if in this situation, white people came out and said, "Well, they're poor and black, so since I feel no ethnic or racial connection to them I don't feel obligated to help." You would be outraged, and rightly so.
But I can tell you that white Americans are absolutely not acting like that. This tragedy is not about racial divisions or racism -- no matter how hard people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and my dumb congressman Elijah Cummings try to make it sound that way.
This is about Americans helping Americans, regardless of race ... as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said.
There is no basis for calling George Bush a racist ... unless you're stereotyping him as a racist Southernor or you're buying into the political spin of the left that Republicans don't care about blacks. If you believe that, you're stupid, especially if you can't defend the position.
And his utterance does absolutely nothing to help those victims. I doubt many people said, "Yeah, that's true, George Bush doesn't care about black people. I should give more money." Most people probably reacted like Mike Meyers did ... with a bit of silence and a surprised look.
It's okay to feel a connection with people who are victimized -- even if that connection is based only on the color of your skin. But that doesn't make it okay to make immature, irresponsible, race-baiting comments about anyone.
I wonder, also, if Kayne West asks his financial advisor how much he can afford to donate to poor blacks in other cities when they haven't been hit by a natural disaster. Perhaps he does ... or perhaps his generosity and subsequent outburst are based on a emotional reaction to a spotlighted problem that exists all over the nation in relative shadows.
Another side note you might want to think about: Anna said, "He's still helping people in need and speaking out against an injustice he sees. I like that." Do you "like that" when conservatives speak out against the injustices (that affect minorities, not whites) of affirmative action, or welfare, or a whole slew of other policies we identify and criticize? Is it fair to praise a liberal black person who attacks a person he imagines is a racist and criticize a white conservative who attacks an idea or policy that is harmful to the people it's supposed to help?
I feel like you're making this about something else other than anything I have stated. I didn't say anything about affirmative action or welfare, and I didn't even mention white conservatives. No need to assume anything about what I believe or create arguments that aren't there.
Also, you might wanna check your spelling and possibly pronunciation of the dude's name...not an attack, Nathan; things like that just bother me.
I'm proposing hypothetical situations -- similar to the one in question -- to encourage you to think about how you would react to such a situation.
My point being that you react pleasantly to Kanye West's ridiculous comments simply because he was, as a black man, "speaking out against an injustice he sees" against blacks.
My questions is, how do you react when you see white conservatives speaking out against the injustice of affirmative action or welfare, policies that are widely accepted by the black community but are actually unjust to the minorities they are intended to help. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet your reaction to such protests is less than positive.
I want to encourage you to not just blindly buy into support of an African American leader (or, in this case, Kanye West), simply because they are black and have an emotional or ethnic connection to the affected community.
I know that you are very interested in working for "social justice" and are very supportive of the black student groups on campus ... and it's great that you have a passion for something ... that's better than most people our age. But I would encourage you to avoid accepting something just because an African American leader or person says it. Be your own person while you're working for justice and be willing to admit when someone on your side makes a mistake -- or at least be ready to defend them with a logical argument. It will make you much more effective in your efforts.
I would just ask you to think long and hard about how you would react in different situations. If you're reaction would be different in any of the situations I've proposed than it is in Mr. West's situation, I think there might be a problem you'll want to analyze.
It's dangerous to get into the business of race-baiting and while I understand that Kanye West feels like he has some sort of deep connection to the victims, it's irresponsible of him to make basless claims of presidential racism instead of remaining focused on the important issue of helping out now. There will be plenty of time for the proper people to do analysis of who's to blame (and it won't be President Bush) after things have settled down.
P.S. My repeated incorrect spelling of Kanye West's name was a mistake attributed to fast typing and a lack of thorough editing ... I know how to spell and pronounce his name. Not that it would particularly matter if I didn't know how to pronounce his name ... he still made dumb comments ... and attacking someone's spelling or grammar errors, while usually legitimate (I'm certainly not complaining ... thanks for pointing out my mistake), tend to show a lack of ability to provide a counter argument that actually pertains to the debate.
P.P.S. I want you to know that I have a great amount of respect for you for being so involved in something that's dear to your heart. While I disagree with many of the positions you likely take, I'd rather see people our age involved in something that matters, rather than be apathetic.
I sometimes come off as aggressive in a debate such as this but I want you to know that I'm not trying to attack you at all ... I'm trying to encoruage you to continue examining this particular issue and help you grow in your ability to defend your positions with your own thoughts instead of someone else's.
i can't speak for Änna, but i don't support west's comment just because he's a black man, and not even just because he's a black man speaking out against injustice.
here's one way president bush has hurt Black Americans: enormous tax cuts for the wealthy.
Here's why: whether white people want to admit it or not, there is inherent racism in our social layout. the fact is, if you're born black, there's a very good chance you're poor and always will be. Therefore, whenever something negatively impacts the poor community, a significant percentage of that group is black.
Why West's statement is not only good, but needed: too few people with influence ever use it. The Dixie Chicks blast Bush for an injust war-they're labeled traitors and hated. West vocalizes what a lot of people, black and white, think on National TV-he's criticized all over. It seems to me that when the conservatives jump up and down to defend bush, nobody brands them traitors, but the moment anybody, especially somone who people may listen to, dislikes the president, its national news.
btw, this is the same administration that labeled Cat Stevens as a potential terrorist...
okay, 3 things...and then I hope to be done cause I reeeaaally don't want to argue...especially on a blog; it's actually a little embarrassing:
I don't blindly accept things...I said I was proud to see his sincerity, and it takes guts. I did not even try to provide my own original criticism because I don't even watch the news that often.
When you put things in quotes like "social justice," that is patronizing at best and demeaning and offensive at worst.
And once again, the spelling thing was not an attack. I'm a Grothe. I correct spelling and pronunciation. It's what I do.
For the record, I put "social justice" in quotes because no one has ever explained what "social justice" is. It's a blanket term that everyone pushing liberal ideology uses to describe their ideas. It's a term that is used to make people think that something is inherently good ... because if it's got "justice" in the title, it must be good.
I use the quotation marks because your definition of social justice is very different than mine. I see justice as fairness of opportunity, rule of law. You -- or at least many of the people who throw the term around -- use it to describe equality of outcome as prescribed by government leaders.
(And, as dictionary.com defines it, "justice" isn't about everyone having the exact same as everyone else: "The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.")
The thing about Kanye West is not, as Brian said, that people with influence never use it. It's that people with self-importance think they have influence and use their platform to make stupid comments.
Regardless of whether you're comfortable labeling Bush a racist, which apparently you are ... you simply cannot argue the Kanye West saying "George Bush does not care about black people" will help anyone accomplish anything ... other than the political left accomplishing an attack on the Bush administration.
The comment does not inspire more people to give money. The comment does not inspire upward mobility (which, by the way, is higher in this country than the majority of others). The comment does not make Bush not in charge anymore.
It was an immature outburst ... and when people use their platform to make immature, baseless outbursts, they deserve to be criticized for it.
And another thing ... check your facts because "lot of people, black and white," don't blame Bush for this. The vast majority of Americans (87 percent) are smart enough to realize that it's not George Bush's responsibility to make sure other elected officials are prepared for disasters in their own states.
It's the mayor's job (not George Bush's) to issue and follow through with an evacuation order. It's the mayor's job to deploy hundreds of school busses to help the poor evacuate. It's the governor's job to call in the National Guard to maintain order in the aftermath.
In fact, George Bush called the governor of Louisiana before the storm hit and urged her to make the mayor of New Orleans issue a mandatory evacuation and encouraged her to be prepared. The National Weather Service warned them about what was going to happen. But did the mayor or the governor do anything? No, they sat back and blamed Bush for not doing their jobs.
Brian, I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" hurt blacks. Using a Democratic talking point is not a foundation for debate.
In fact, the reason wealthy people benefit from tax cuts is that wealthy people are the only ones paying taxes. This is a paraphrase of the exact statistics, but something along the lines of the top 20 percent of wage earners pay the top 80 percent of taxes. Poor people don't benefit from tax cuts because poor people don't pay taxes.
Additionally, when the wealthy have more of their own money to spend, they will spend it. They will invest that money back into the economy, which in turn grows the economy. It means more money's flowing around, meaning more jobs for ... wait for it ... poor people.
Almost any sociology professor will tell you that there is no way to get rid of poverty. Even if all the people currently in poverty simply disappeared, a new segment of the population would be considered "in poverty." It's an impossible goal.
Of course, we're called to care for people in need ... and by we I mean the church. But that doesn't change the fact that there will always be poor people. It doesn't change the fact that "tax cuts for the wealthy" is a fake term used to stir up hatred for Republicans. And it doesn't change the fact that Kanye West should not get away with making a baseless charge of racism against anyone simply because he a) has some sort of emotional connection to the victims of a Hurricane or b) has made a platform through entertainment that he now feels he is allowed to use for politics.
Final thoughts: Anna, you said you don't blindly accept things ... then defend them. Defend Kanye West's words, tell me and others who think they're stupid why, in fact, it was a legitimate comment to make. Explain, in more than a talking point, why George Bush doesn't like black people and how you know this.
one problem is that you've restricted your definition of justice to include only worldy interpretations of that word. When most "liberal" Christians use that word, they mean doing what is right for the forgotten and oppressed, as Jesus would do it. That's what I mean when I say social justice. That is God's justice. God levels the playing field spiritually-we are all the same, no one is greater than anyone else. I personally try to view the physical world that way. God loves the poor as much as the wealthy, but for me, loving people doesn't mean just saying it. I personally don't really expect any politician to understand or even put this ultimate concept of justice into practice, because governments are worldly creations that seek to glorify themselves. "Social justice" shouldn't be in quotations, because it certainly isn't liberal ideology, but love.
Your definition of just falls right in line with what the world wants you to think-"rule of law" is what ought to be in parantheses. For us as Christians to rely on the world to be "just" in any sense of the word is just plain wrong. The world's version of justice is usually not loving, but is a cold hearted, objective way of punishing. That's what most people mean by justice-punishment for those who do wrong, and vindication for those who do right.
And justifying giving the people who pay the most taxes the biggest break is pure tomfoolery. Even if there was some good defense of that line of logic, as Christians we know that what we have isn't ours, and everything we have we were given by God. Supporting the mindset of "It's my money, I earned it, I'll do what I want" just throws us into the worldly mix.
Calling social justice a liberal ideology encourages the notion that everything is black and white. If it's not Republican, its liberal, or Democrat. If it's not Demoocrat, its a Republican ideal. We should seek to look above those two extremes and find the Christ-like answer in issues of poverty, and not rely so much on what the world tells us to think.
Yes, Brian, the things we have aren't ours ... they aren't the government's either.
We are called not to reach people with money and food, but with the love of Christ first and foremost. When you employ the government to steal money from the public and use it to feed the poor, you are neglecting the primary goal of the calling to help the poor.
It is the church's job to reach poor people by meeting their physicial and spiritual needs ... something the government simply cannot do thanks to our Constitution.
And let me preempt the arguments that "if we didn't require taxes to be paid, people wouldn't give money to churches and charities." First of all, you don't know that to be true ... it's a guess based on an incredibly pessimistic view of humanity.
Secondly, it's not within your rights to tell non-Christians what to do with their money. It's their decision to be greedy or selfish with their belongings and you have no right to take those belongings from them for your quest to help the poor. If they don't have a heart for helping, they should not be required to help.
No one ever said the church's job was easy ... and we were never given the go ahead to make it easier on ourselves by using the overbearing force of the government to accomplish the church's goals.
Calling the ideal of "social justice" a liberal ideology is completely accurate, because it is an imaginary, uptopian goal that distracts from real work that needs to be done. People use that term to disguise the fact that their policies are impossible, illogical and mostly just silly.
You can't defend a worthless policy or position just by claiming that it's working toward "social justice," or even by claiming it's working for (your view of) "God's justice." It still needs to work, and you haven't convinced me that your side knows how to get it done.
"Secondly, it's not within your rights to tell non-Christians what to do with their money. It's their decision to be greedy or selfish with their belongings and you have no right to take those belongings from them for your quest to help the poor. If they don't have a heart for helping, they should not be required to help."
Wow. That paragraph makes me feel sick. I was avoiding the debate until now because I have homework to do, but SPAN201 can wait.
I'm going to kindly assume you aren't implying that ALL non-Christians are selfish with their money. I'm an agnostic, but even if I was Christian or Muslim or Jewish, that would be offensive. Just so you know.. tomorrow this non-believer is hitting up Costco and emptying her checking account on supplies for Katrina refugees.
- Emily
No, that's not at all what I was saying. And I'm sorry if it carried that connotation.
I was trying to say that as Christians, we have no right to tell Muslims, Jews, agnostics, athiests or any other religion what they can and can't do with the money they earn. We have no right to say to them, "Because Christ called his followers to help the poor, we're going to use the government's power to make you contribute to charity."
I never meant to imply that non-Christians wouldn't do that of their own accord. Indeed as first I said that there is no basis for claiming that without the government's threat of prison people wouldn't give.
It turns out that a lot of people who aren't Christians are more generous than a lot of people who are ... at least in my experience. Which, to me as a Christian, is a rather disappointing way for Christians to be acting. It seems like too many people who call themselves Christians are willing to let the government do a half-assed job to fulfil the church's responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home