May 10, 2006
Brutha-on-brutha violencePolitics
The city of Newark, New Jersey just elected its first new mayor in 20 years. Known for its high rate of violent crime, Newark suffered a nasty campaign between golden boy Cory Booker and the candidate anointed by outgoing mayor Sharpe James.
 |
|
Hizzoner Booker T. Coryngton |
Cory Booker swamped his nearest challenger, state Sen. Ronald L. Rice, taking 72 percent of the vote compared with 24 percent for Rice in the nonpartisan election. [Link]Mr. Booker, a chatty former Rhodes scholar who developed his oratorical talents at Yale Law School, has been tagged by fellow Democrats as a rising star in the party. [Link]
Booker is a vegetarian who doesn’t drink… [Link]
… a Democrat who cites the Republican mayor of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg, as a political model, and a churchgoing Baptist who meditates and quotes from Hindu texts… [Link - thanks, Randompedia]
Booker won by a landslide, but the campaign was marred by naked racial gibes from his black opponents. Red in tooth and claw, the ‘insufficiently black’ smear sounds a whole lot like desi racialists who question candidates’ authenticity (e.g. Bobby Jindal) and lob the grenade of Selling Out.
Booker is talking about the blacker-than-thou themes that James has been hammering on for weeks… “Sharpe James is running a campaign that uses every attempt possible to distract voters from the issues. He’s making racial allegations; he’s appealing to people’s worst fears…
“Four years ago, they said I was a tool of the Jews and a member of the KKK.” [Link]
… the battle pits the young challenger against an old-style political machine capable of using any means necessary—including personal harassment and police intimidation—to crush its opponents. Though both candidates are African-American, the race becomes racially charged when the mayor accuses Booker—a Rhodes scholar and Yale Law School grad—of not being “really black…” [Link]
… Sharpe James described him — though they are both African-American Democrats — as Jewish, gay, a Republican and a proxy for the Ku Klux Klan… At Oxford, after wandering into a meeting of L’Chaim, a Jewish student organization, he joined the group and was eventually elected its president…
He was a vegetarian in a city where the insiders still made deals over smothered chicken at Je’s, a soul food restaurant near City Hall. “He doesn’t want to create himself just in the mold of a black politician… He wants to be someone that white people, Latino people, who other people just feel comfortable with.” [Link]
I don’t think it’s how future desi vs. desi campaigns in the U.S. will inevitably turn out, but it is a cheap and easy insult in a mud-slinging campaign. It certainly shows the crude racial smears in white vs. desi political campaigns in a whole new light.
In the end, the electorate grew tired of James’ machine politics, and the better candidate won. You win it, you fix it: let’s hope Booker is a better mandarin than dull Sharpe.
Outside one polling place… a Democratic district leader said he had just voted for Mr. Booker because he was sick and tired of all the crime in Newark. “There are prostitutes on my street corner and I call the police and nothing ever gets done.” [Link]
manish on May 10, 2006 08:17 AM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
manish:
great post... i actually know booker... i've kept tabs on him for the last 14 yrs or so, since i knew when i met him, that he was going places... he was my dorm advisor at stanford eons ago... he was charismatic then..and full of dignity..and amazing character...he impacted me personally a great deal...and this entire racial issue is BS.. he was president of the jewish organization at oxford during his 2 yrs as a rhodes scholar... and he isn't jewish..is that 'black enough' for them...
he's been compared to have the barack obama quality, and i completely agree... he has that 'it' factor.. and the democrats need people like him in their party...
he ran in 2002, and lost... and now.. he's DA MAYOR..
congrats cory, or shall i say Mr. MAYOR ;).
Red in tooth and claw, the insufficiently black smear sounds a whole lot like desi racialists who question candidates authenticity (e.g. Bobby Jindal) and lob the grenade of Selling Out.
I didnt see any evidence of desi racialists smearing Jindal in the media. Of course some of us opposed him because we did not agree with his views. To support him when we did not agree with him on any policy issues would be better evidence of racialism.
Lots in our comments-- due to authenticity rather than the ample policy disagreements.
You don't support rich uncle fundraising? :)
There are currently plenty of signs of this happening in the future. Look at some of the Fob vs ABCD battles around the internet and print publications. People have vehemently chosen sides and there is always the inevitable contest to be won...who is more desi!
When Renu (now Renee) Lobo was running for a city council for a certain part of Queens she didn't gain support in a predominantly white/hispanic neighborhood because they believed being active in the Indian community she was not their "kind" to relate or fight for them. Part of me doesn't blame them. It would be like me going to Jackson Heights and running for some political position there to represent the store owners and desi population. I'm not brown enough for them to be eligible.
I dont think its how future desi vs. desi campaigns in the U.S. will inevitably turn out
Why don't you look at the only desi vs. desi electoral contest in the USA so far. Houston's District F City Council Seat (Old SM post here). MJ Khan, KA Khan, and the odious John Shike (formerly Sheikh). Shike accused MJ of being a terrorist supporter. Desi community politics that I have know have been vicious, dirty and underhanded, just like Desi politics in South Asia.
All-Desi contests in Canada (there have been many -- Mississauga, Brampton, Surrey, Edmonton-Strathcona etc) have been mixed. In BC, Mo Sihota and Ujjal Dosanjh had a tiff, and Herb Dhaliwal remains bitter about how he was squeezed out of his riding. The other man in that scandal, David Basi, is still under investigation for corruption.
Desi's have a tradition of corruption, cronyism, and communalism in politics around the world -- I'm sure it will be the same in the USA.
Ouch that's a bit to melodramatic. You might have this among old school desis especially in India but the newer generation for the most part recognizes this and is just a bit more righteous then our parents generation about corruption and cronyism ESPECIALLY in the west.
And why do people use the term cronyism like it's some kind of a "disease" that only affects the right. Anytime you have a someone within a position of power with a certain belief it is a given that he/she would attempt to surround him/herself with similar people. Isn't that a natural human tendency? Everyone is guilty of it...
Desi's have a tradition of corruption, cronyism, and communalism in politics around the world -- I'm sure it will be the same in the USA.
i doubt there will ever be enough of us in the USofA.
manish,
imagine a city that was 3/4 desi, and 3/4 or those working class or chronically poor, and where an entire generation had direct personal memories of being excluded from access and opportunities because they were desi.
now imagine that city undergoing twenty years of manufacturing stagnation and recession and the globalization of its regional economy.
imagine that non-desis from the nearby metropolis have been coming to this city and establishing their own little enclaves while still viewing the desis with fear and suspicion, sending their children to different schools, setting up their own businesses rather than patronize the existing ones.
imagine that there already existed a century's worth of desi politics and cultural memory in which desis who acted more white, talked more white, looked more white, typically had access to opportunities that others didn't, and often used this to exert political and economic control over the others.
of course that city would develop a corrupt political machine that spun itself as representing authentic desi interests even while it ate away at the city's already threatened economic base.
and of course a dimension of politics -- in which the key is for candidates to distinguish themselves from one another -- would be how desi each competing candidate was, in presumption and in deed.
"blacker-than-thou" tends to get ugly and unproductive, sure. but even the few examples posted in this comment thread so far say that when you have desi-versus-desi campaigns in desi-dominant constituencies, you can bet your desi ass that the politics of authenticity will come into play.
peace
your position violates the axiom that we're all equal in mind, body and spirit.
However, the above is an article of faith - and one has it or one does not - if one does not, i would position that politicians and bureaucrats of all stripes world wide have participated in the 'traditional' activities of your listing at all levels - as evidence i'd offer up political decisions that are not fact-based but are driven by appeasement in form of sexual favor, money or (the cessation of) pain - now that's a definition of tradition you can take to the bank
have a nice day - isnt that a song?
I'm not sure of my stand on this. I don't think it should be a problem that someone chooses to move away from his/her 'original'/parental identity. It's a principle of freedom.
However, it is a bit of a problem with this (hypothetical) person starts using this rejected identity to get successful in politics. I think that is definitely one of the causes for the resentment against Jindal, for instance. I could be wrong, though.
But again, in politics you use every weapon you have, so why not?
"Desi's have a tradition of corruption, cronyism, and communalism in politics around the world -- I'm sure it will be the same in the USA."
but aren't most political campaigns, no matter the ethnicity of the people contesting, essentially negative slugfests? going by the tv ads that come out by both sides, it would seem that finding and piling dirt on your opponent and sinking to low levels really has nothing to do with one's ethnicity. i'm not sure why two desis or two blacks contesting for the same seat would be immune from this. they both want the seat and some people will just do anything to improve their chances and put down their opponent.
However, it is a bit of a problem with this (hypothetical) person starts using this rejected identity to get successful in politics. I think that is definitely one of the causes for the resentment against Jindal, for instance. I could be wrong, though.
look, i'm not a big fan of trading one superstition for another in the interests of self-interest. especially when you speak out of both sides of your mouth to both groups (i.e., smiling at the idolaters to raise money on the one hand, and smiling when people rail against pagan darkness on the other). but why can't jindal's identity as a brown person be that of a christian convert? jindal rejected his natal religion, but he bumps uglies with a brown chick and seems to speak out on brown issues. he rejected hinduism, not brownness (i have gone on record to say that i actually don't like jindal's record, accepting the mainstream religion but marrying within your own kind).
imagine that non-desis from the nearby metropolis have been coming to this city and establishing their own little enclaves while still viewing the desis with fear and suspicion, sending their children to different schools, setting up their own businesses rather than patronize the existing ones.
Are you talking about the Portugeese (and now Brazilian) brothers in the Ironbound district, where there are good times to be had by all? Are you blaming the travails of the African-Americans on them? That is unfair. Besides adding their own unique culture -in song and dance, food, and language - to the cityscape, they have also provided much needed economic stimulus. Ethnicities living separate and apart is commonplace in virtually every East Coast city.
Newark at one time was Irish and Jewish - and as thoroughly stratified and ethnically demarcated as it is today. Phillip Roth, the novelist, recently memorialized the Newark Jews in his novel The Plot Against America. The city was once an industrial hub and boasted a population of over half a million, but like all cities in New Jersey (with the possible exception of the now-reviving Jersey City with its 15,000 desis), the suburbanization of the white middle class and the big busineeses (including the pharma companies) has lead to their current state of decrepitude. Even the Newark Academy - a private school - shifted to Livingston, NJ.
Good luck Corey.
However, it is a bit of a problem with this (hypothetical) person starts using this rejected identity to get successful in politics. I think that is definitely one of the causes for the resentment against Jindal, for instance. I could be wrong, though.
Thats right. The rejection of Jindal among *some* Indian-Americans has nothing to do with "racialism." The man willingly took the support of the Christian Coalition, which has historically been extremely unkind to Hindus. So perhaps his interests and those of a religious minority with limited social capital aren't necessarily aligned. Brownness aint everything - you can't harbor the thought in your heart that I pray to the devil and expect to get my vote.
"accepting the mainstream religion but marrying within your own kind."
i thought his wife was also a catholic?
i mean racial kind.
Razib
Maybe he married the woman he fell in love with and he didnt care she was Indian like him?
Maybe he married the woman he fell in love with and he didnt care she was Indian like him?
the probabilities of random mating are low (ie, number of brown louisianins vs. number of brown louisianisms /(total combinations possible).
wha?? You would be more sympathethic if he married a white christian?
yes! no half-measures. worshipping the same made up being should bring races together.
Ummmm....are you a cyborg or a Vulcan or something?
Booker might or might not be the real deal. Didn't he outspend his opponent 5 to 1 or something? Also, the mud stuck cuz so much of his money came from outside of Newark. Here's a pretty biased take.
of course that city would develop a corrupt political machine that spun itself as representing authentic desi interests even while it ate away at the city's already threatened economic base.
This is the key part in understanding Booker vs. James if you believe Street Fight(which is my primary source). The literal paranoia, insanity, and power of Sharpe James and his machine are what produced the ability to get away with the kinds of racial taunts, anti-media activity and threats that were made against Booker and his supporters. I'm not a big fan of people like Booker rounding up money from NY bankers and running for mayor in poor cities, but James campaign was an affront to humanity if the movie is to be believed (and I do).
siddharth m -- your comments are right on. I don't think we can compare the historical and systemic hardships of the Black experience (and its defectors ranging from Uncle Tom to Clarence Thomas) to the few generations of desi/immigrant struggles.
regarding Jindal... though it sucks, any member of a minority community who breaks into the predominantly white political arena will be laden with much more than his fair share of cultural currency. Jindal is probably regarded as representing the patriotic Indian rather than a single permutation of many possibilities.
Of course, one has to be true to self before considering the larger community he represents simply by virtue of skin tone and bone structure, but its kinda sad (to me, at least) that the first one to who made it doesn't really represent.
Ya can't fault the individual. It just sucks that the rest of us to get saddled with the impression he gives to the lazy majority who are unwilling to take the time to appreciate the sepia spectrum.
There might be another desi angle on a Booker post: =p
"a churchgoing Baptist who meditates and quotes from Hindu texts has also led some to suggest that he lacks strong convictions." [Link]
The documentary on the 2002 campaign is worth checking out. That sharpe guy is one shady dude.
Sorry, [Link]
I haven't as yet developed an opinion on Booker - I have a friend who was working with his campaign - Booker sounded good prima facie, but a bit too sugary for me not to keep a couple of steps back and put off forming an opinion.... I *am* glad, however, to see Sharpe James and his shady behind out the door. All I hope is that Booker keeps up the tradition of keeping parking free during December... I'll be ornery as hell if I have to look for quarters come December...
In a way, the plight of Newark resembles that of India. As, Newark, like India, escapes its socialistic past and enters the enlightened path of economic liberalization; the old leftist reactionaries resort to racist mudslinging in order to try to prop up their corrupt regimes. Booker, although hardly a libertarian, expounds such free market solutions to Newark's problems such as school choice; which explains much of the hatred that is directed against him.
Likewise, in India, the old left claims that capitalism is a white mans philosophy; despite the fact that few things have done more good for India in the last 50 years than globalization and free trade.
Here's hoping Indians in the US don't put on the same racist and ideological blinders that our black brothers and sisters have...which certainly doesn't explain why they find themselves so down and out; but at least partialy explains why they haven't gotten up.
In a way, the plight of Newark resembles that of India. As, Newark, like India, escapes its socialistic past and enters the enlightened path of economic liberalization; the old leftist reactionaries resort to racist mudslinging in order to try to prop up their corrupt regimes. Booker, although hardly a libertarian, expounds such free market solutions to Newark's problems such as school choice; which explains much of the hatred that is directed against him.
In the interests of civility, I will simply say, "I disagree vehemently with the premises of your anology."
I dont think it will ever turn out like that for Indians here. Could you imagine how confused white people would be if a Indian guy ran a smear campaing againt another indian. "Dont vote for Sanjay, his rakhi bracelet fell off his wrist after only 2 days. Did it really fall off Mr. Patel or did you cut it off because it was anooying?" This add was approved by Raj Kumar
someone else:
If the premise you disagree w/ is "Booker expounds such free market solutions to Newark's problems such as school choice; which explains much of the hatred that is directed against him"...may I refer you to a link that "sirc" (commentator #22) first bought to our attention:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/poisoned_tree.html
From the small mindedness of the writer, to his/her conspiracy theories and racist premises...this cloumn almost reads like a left wing version of KKK thought.
i normally just read this site (fabulous site, by the way!) but now i have to comment! maybe i misread this comment, but if not, someone needs to slow down with the negative stereotying of other brown people:
Manju - "racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on"? just because you dont bother to meet enough black folks to know that there are plenty of us who see our peripheries quite clearly doesnt mean we dont exist.
who's wearing the blinders when you say things like, "this partially explains why they haven't gotten up?" no, people who believe stereotypes like THAT explain why black people still face so many obstacles.
i will resist the urge to launch into a list of all the positive contributions that black people have made to the world. yes, the world by the way Eddie, Brazilians have been shamed into denying it, but with the largest Afro-descended population outside of the continent of Africa, the majority (im not kidding, the MAJORITY) of Brazilians would be considered black by American (one drop) standards, just go there and travel a bit, you'll see.
im not saying there are no problems in our community, but we are as diverse as any other group and there are many, many, many of us trying to change the negatives. many of us, like me, are trying to help immigrants in this country too, the more brown people here the better, but many immigrants are quick to believe the worst stereotypes about us. blacks and Native Americans in particular have a long history of being vehemently marginalized in this country, if not terrorized, so excuse us if we havent turned every single problem around in the 50 years that have passed since legalized racism (segregation) was officially ended in this country in 1954 (and it was ended because, contrary to Manju's belief, we actually were standing up, maybe you couldn't tell because they were shooting and lynching us).
1954 was not that long ago! im 30, so basically, my white friends' grandparents were the ones sicking the dogs on my grandparents when they tried to go to school. You think racism dies in 2 generations? i always tell (non black) people, if you think there's no racism in this country, call your mom and tell her you want to marry a black person. and don't worry i won't ask you what she says.
so yeah, Manju, black people are all down and out just like Indians all drive cabs and work at qwik-e-marts. thank you, come again...
cj
CJ:
im not saying there are no problems in our community, but we are as diverse as any other group and there are many, many, many of us trying to change the negatives. many of us, like me, are trying to help immigrants in this country too, the more brown people here the better, but many immigrants are quick to believe the worst stereotypes about us.
You, my man, are on. I have nothing else to add on because you've captured it perfectly.
BTW, there are plenty of Indian Americans like me who agree with your sentiments about how Blacks are treated and seen in this country, as well as how the Indian American community in general regards Blacks. If you would like to learn more about the Indian American community's attitudes towards other ethnic groups in the US (again, not every Indian, but a pretty large majority), I suggest you probe this "model minority" myth that the Indian American community prides itself on. I'm sure you already know what the concept of "model minority" suggests.
Manju
Here's hoping Indians in the US don't put on the same racist and ideological blinders that our black brothers and sisters have...which certainly doesn't explain why they find themselves so down and out; but at least partialy explains why they haven't gotten up
Now who's wearing "racist and ideological blinders", you or Blacks? You're hoping that "Indians in the US don't put on the same racist and ideological blinders" as Blacks have, but congratulations, you've already got them on.
If we continue at this rate, Manju, things aren't looking so good for us Indians in the US.... this will partially explain why we haven't gotten up there yet (Bobby Jindal exempted).
You can refer me to as many links as you want, but when you analogize (yes i made that word up) newark's system to india in four sentences (or however many you used) as poorly as you did, there really isn't much that I can say outside of encouraing you to learn more about newark and more about india. The situations are vastly different (as two different situations tend to be) and generally are not that useful to those who seek to push forward anti-left arguments that lack any coherence.
Agree with Eddie on the above. Did the first Italian or Irish politicians became protestant (and giving up their Catholic faith) to be successful in American politics?? How about the Jewish politicians?? You all know the answer. NO !!! Thats the main beef a lot of people have with Jindal... nothing to do with brownness.
CJ
My apologies for not making it clear that when I referred to the "racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on", I was not talking about ALL Blacks, just some like Sharpe James and the anonymous author of this article: http://www.blackcommentator.com/poisoned_tree.html . I was not careful to make this distinction, in part because being racist or ideological is hardly a stereotype of blacks in this country, although the same cannot be said of white southerners or conservatives in general.
Please notice that I said the same thing about Indians. There is a strain in Indian politics that believes Nehruvian Socialism is the true Indian way, and that those who embrace the free-market are somehow traitors to our people. This partially explains why we haven't gotten up (current progress excluded) eitherIm referring to economics in both cases.
Of course, Newark and India are vastly different but both have had corrupt and incompetent regimes trying to consolidate their power by use of racial/ethnic politics. While we would all love to believe that those who disagree with us are simply racists or Uncle Toms (this way we do not have to address their arguments); such blinders only serve to keep our people in bondage. While much of the world (eastern Europe, china, etc) works to unshackle themselves from outdated and repressive economic systems that keep people in poverty, heres hoping Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom---without being called traitors to our people.
heres hoping Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom---without being called traitors to our people.
Aha! Here's the real agenda ;)
Don't worry--you're not a race traitor if you're a market worshipper--your politics are just poor. Read One Market Under God by Thomas Frank or Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan or any number of other works if you get a chance.
okay, Manju, your explanation leads me to relinquish my soapbox, strictly economically speaking, i won't disagree and i definately hear you on your last paragraph...that's why, at the risk of providing yet more fodder for the model minority camp :), i have to say i think this is one of the best blogs for all brown people to read, of all complexions, you guys often deal with issues that transcend one specific culture and with alot of insight.
Cheap Ass Desi, its funny you mention that because faced with so many negative stereotypes about my community, i dream of a day where i feel an obligation to debunk positive misconceptions about black people :) i used to tutor physics in this little student help center we had in college and invariably, anytime i was helping an asian guy (i'm a girl btw) another student looking for help would come up to the guy and say, can you help me when you're done with her? :)
cj
Maharani Manju:
While much of the world (eastern Europe, china, etc) works to unshackle themselves from outdated and repressive economic systems that keep people in poverty, heres hoping Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom---without being called traitors to our people.
(Applause, applause).
You are just digging your hole deeper....
CJ:
Cheap Ass Desi, its funny you mention that because faced with so many negative stereotypes about my community, i dream of a day where i feel an obligation to debunk positive misconceptions about black people :) i used to tutor physics in this little student help center we had in college and invariably, anytime i was helping an asian guy (i'm a girl btw) another student looking for help would come up to the guy and say, can you help me when you're done with her? :)
I hear you. Imagine how I feel: anytime a stranger learns that I am a student, the person asks within a heartbeat: " Are you studying engineering?" When I respond no, the next question: "Are you studying medecine?" When I tell them that I am not in the sciences, there is always this look of disappointment: "Oh. Because you know, usually Indians are doctors and engineers". Huh.
Hey, if you want the low down on Indian Americans and the model minority fantasy, I suggest you read Vijay Prashad and Arvind Rajagopal, to name a couple of scholars.
Imagine how I feel: anytime a stranger learns that I am a student, the person asks within a heartbeat: " Are you studying engineering?" When I respond no, the next question: "Are you studying medicine?" When I tell them that I am not in the sciences, there is always this look of disappointment: "Oh. Because you know, usually Indians are doctors and engineers".
In the above comment, where I say, "imagine how I feel", I now realize that was a poor choice of phrase and requires an explanation. What I mean is that there is this stereotype about Indian Americans being of a certain cut, ie. we are all upper/upper- middle class, doctors and engineers, super nerd geeks, and so on, but when I get questions like this from others, I always get the urge to break it down for them: not all of the Indian American community is rich, not all are doctors and engineers, etc. There is diversity also within the Indian AMerican community, similar to how CJ pointed out that there is diversity in the African American community as well (in every community, for that matter).
CAD
You are just digging your hole deeper....
Sorry to see you still think I'm a racist (assuming this is what you mean). But at least it puts me in good company...Cory Booker, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby
at least it puts me in good company...Cory Booker, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby
I'm confused. I understand that these are three Black Americans who, in different ways, have some ideologically conservative ideas or approaches to politics. What are you claiming that you have in common with these three folks and why did you pick them, instead of, say, Manmohan Singh?
Someone Else:
Well, this thread is about Cory Booker, or more specifally, the vile treatment he had to endure at the hands of Newark's (mostly black) Democratic Party Machine--and whether or not indians in the US would descend to such tactics.
Then, Cheap Ass Desi declared me a racist for partially blaming blacks their own plight (#34); much like has been done to Booker, Cosby, and Rice. So I grandiously compared myself to them, as I don't know of any specific example of M.Singh facing such criticisms.
But if some left leaning Indian Nationalist has criticied him along these lines for his reformist economic policies, then I would gladly include myself in his league of fellow renegades.
If this is your recommendation for knowing about Indians, I pity CJ.
hindutvavadi in California :
CAD: I suggest you read Vijay Prashad and Arvind Rajagopal, to name a couple of scholars.
If this is your recommendation for knowing about Indians, I pity CJ.
Until Bobby Jindal comes out with his much anticipated autobiograpy, Vijay Prashad and Arvind Rajagopal it is.
Manju:
Then, Cheap Ass Desi declared me a racist for partially blaming blacks their own plight (#34); much like has been done to Booker, Cosby, and Rice.
Manju beti, look at the underlined words carefully. Think long and hard.
Keep digging.....
What CAD said: Hey, if you want the low down on Indian Americans and the model minority fantasy, I suggest you read Vijay Prashad and Arvind Rajagopal, to name a couple of scholars.
What you responded, hindtuvavadi: If this is your recommendation for knowing about Indians, I pity CJ.
Notice the difference? This level of misinterpretation is really hard to fathom.
Someone else:
Thanks, man. You're always there to back up my Cheap Desi Ass.
Then, Cheap Ass Desi declared me a racist for partially blaming blacks their own plight (#34); much like has been done to Booker, Cosby, and Rice.
Seriously, dude, you're walking evidence that Bill Cosby was probably wrong and it has consequences what you say in front of people not from your ethnic community. You don't sound like a mean-spirited person, but your views come across as profoundly racist.
You also come across as extremely ideologically selective--why do you only critique people you perceive to be on the left who are dogmatic about policy and use race politics as a lever? And what about your own choice to play the victim after presenting views that are, at minimum, controversial?
Thanks, man. You're always there to back up my Cheap Desi Ass.
it's all for the revolution :)
Manju:
To make it easier for you, here is a cogent summary, verbatim, of what you have posted:
Here's hoping Indians in the US don't put on the same racist and ideological blinders that our black brothers and sisters have...which certainly doesn't explain why they find themselves so down and out; but at least partialy explains why they haven't gotten up.
My apologies for not making it clear that when I referred to the "racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on", I was not talking about ALL Blacks, just some like Sharpe James and the anonymous author of this article: http://www.blackcommentator.com/poisoned_tree.html . I was not careful to make this distinction, in part because being racist or ideological is hardly a stereotype of blacks in this country, although the same cannot be said of white southerners or conservatives in general.
Then, Cheap Ass Desi declared me a racist for partially blaming blacks their own plight (#34); much like has been done to Booker, Cosby, and Rice. So I grandiously compared myself to them, as I don't know of any specific example of M.Singh facing such criticisms.
Look closely at what you have written. VERY CLOSELY.
Don't play the victim.
In addition, someone else nailed it:
why do you only critique people you perceive to be on the left who are dogmatic about policy and use race politics as a lever?
Supposedly, only those on the "left" are ideological and dogmatic. No, no, you're right: what you have to say is FAR from being ideological:
While much of the world (eastern Europe, china, etc) works to unshackle themselves from outdated and repressive economic systems that keep people in poverty, heres hoping Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom---without being called traitors to our people.
While we would all love to believe that those who disagree with us are simply racists or Uncle Toms (this way we do not have to address their arguments);
Hmmm...I have addressed your arguments, USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.
Manju, take your own advice: such blinders only serve to keep our people in bondage.
Or, keep those blinders firmly on and dig away!
Someone else:
it's all for the revolution :)
They may kill the revolutionary, but never the revolution.
--Comrade Cheap Ass Desi
"The Revolution will not be televised. The Revolution will be no rerun, brothers. The Revolution-- will be live."
-Gil Scott-Heron
" Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. They proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
--Mahatma Marx
" Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
--Mahatma Marx
Seriously, dude, you're walking evidence that Bill Cosby was probably wrong and it has consequences what you say in front of people not from your ethnic community. You don't sound like a mean-spirited person, but your views come across as profoundly racist.
Did you ever think that NOT (at least partially) blaming blacks for their own plight constitutes the true, if subconcious, racist position. Are we not infanitilizing blacks by denying them the power of responsibility--a power we generally accept for others? I'm not accusing you of anything, just posing a question. Your're very quick to use the racist label but perhaps it time you looked into the mirror.
You also come across as extremely ideologically selective--why do you only critique people you perceive to be on the left who are dogmatic about policy and use race politics as a lever?
Because we were talking within the context of Newark, where the left holds power and uses race to continue to oppress their own people. But to be fair, this can apply to the right. I've heard grumblings among free market desis that those who oppose outsourcing are anti-Indian bigots. This is really unfair. I'm all for outsourcing of jobs but we must acknowledge that those who are more protectionist (like Sen Kennedy) may be motivated by other values (like being pro-union) and don't deserve the label of "racist."
And what about your own choice to play the victim after presenting views that are, at minimum, controversial?
Not sure what you're talking about here. I don't see myself as a victim at all. In fact I've done the opposite of playing the victim by by taking full responsibility and apologizing to CJ for not making it clear that when I referred to the "racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on", I was talking of some, not all, blacks. I was not careful to use the qualifier "some", in part because being racist or ideological is hardly a stereotype of blacks (as far as I know) and b/c we were clearly talking within the context of Cory Booker, a brilliant and well intentioned young man who had to endure some of the vilest and ugliest racist mudslinging I can remember, all because he dared to challenge the corrupt Democratic machine in Newark with some vaguely free market policies.
Cheap Ass Desi:
I see you've read Marx. I have too. Like you, I didn't study engineering or medicine (I studied philosophy) but unlike you I don't see myself as a victim because of it ("imagine how I feel;" you say. Oh boo hoo hoo, you're quite the oppressed minority for being stereotyped as smart, rich, and upwardly mobile.
But seriously, Marx is a great thinker but is also the poster boy for ideological thinking. Marx believed class interest was a determining factor, much like the way many treat race today. Thus Marxists never had to address the actual argument their opposition made, since the believed the opposition was merely motivated by their own class interest, and this partially explains how the philosophy descended into one of the worlds great madnessrivaled only by Fascism.
Thus Marxists would look at John Locke--who advocated liberal democracy and Capitalism by pointing out that freedom is the central characteristic of a state of nature--and claim that he is not making a genuine argument, but rather creating a false system of thought that merely advocates values convenient to his own social class: the rising bourgeoisie. Thus Locke was dismissed.
Well, after all these years we've seen the consequences of such ideological thinking. We now know Stalin and Mao separately killed more than Hitler. CAD, there were real victims to this philosophy you so cavalierly quote. Perhaps after you've read the Black Book of Communism we can work together to free the real oppressed on this earth, like the people in Cuba and N. Korea.
Till then, remember, Marxism is a dangerous philosophy...and children shouldnt play with fire.
I feel bad about dropping the kooky black commentator link..(1) cuz he's a kook (2) because it was written for the 2002 matchup of Booker v. James (but I felt that the same smears/accusations were lingering against Booker this time around with his toothless opponent) and (3) because it turned this post into the same boring, non-edifying thread with the Dinesh D'Souza and Vijay Prasad clones.
Sirc:
Sorry to bore you. Political philosphy is not for everyone. Nonethelss, thanks for the link, although it is just one of many examples.
--Dinesh D'Souza Clone
Manju:
I see you've read Marx. I have too.
Oh, please. Give me a fucking break. My "revolution" posts weren't meant to impress you nor to illustrate that I've read Marx. They were written in response to "someone else" and DJ Drrrrrty Poonjabi.
Not every single one of my comments is directed towards you, nor is it for your eyes only. Especially since I have nothing else left to say to you.
Manju writes:
>>There is a strain in Indian politics that believes Nehruvian Socialism is the true Indian way...heres hoping Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom
I think the correct term is Gandian Socialism (Nehru borrowed almost entirely from him and added some of his own ideas). Incidentally, MartinLutherKing Jr was a Gandhian socialist whose economic views were much more to the left.
The reason Indians could break away from this was that from the very begining there was strong resistance to Gandhi/Nehru. It took forty+ years for this resistance to translate into economic change, but it happened eventually. I think the trouble with the situation with African Americans is that there was absolutely no black resistance to MLK during the civil rights era. No black chose to challenge him on his economic views. Eventually he was assasinated and it became taboo to discuss any of his shortcomings. Morevoer, the culture of debate/argument was not as deeply ingrained in AA's as it was in Indians. Hence, to this day, free-market blacks who advocate taking personal responsibility face an uphill battle from black leftists who peddle victimhood and advocate Government coddling.
Free-market Indians should take the trouble to reach out to those blacks.
M. Nam
Did you ever think that NOT (at least partially) blaming blacks for their own plight constitutes the true, if subconcious, racist position. Are we not infanitilizing blacks by denying them the power of responsibility--a power we generally accept for others? I'm not accusing you of anything, just posing a question. Your're very quick to use the racist label but perhaps it time you looked into the mirror.
So you're not accusing me of anything, but want me to look in the mirror? This might blow your mind: It's racist both to be paternalistic and to "(at least partially) [blame] black for their own plight." I reluctantly and freqently look at my own attitudes on race--it's not that much fun and can be uncomfortable; wish you would do the same, as CAD suggested.
Because we were talking within the context of Newark, where the left holds power and uses race to continue to oppress their own people. But to be fair, this can apply to the right. I've heard grumblings among free market desis that those who oppose outsourcing are anti-Indian bigots. This is really unfair. I'm all for outsourcing of jobs but we must acknowledge that those who are more protectionist (like Sen Kennedy) may be motivated by other values (like being pro-union) and don't deserve the label of "racist."
So Sharpe James is "the left"? And he's using "race" to oppress people in Newark? Here's a more reasonable explanation that gets rid of this cant: Sharpe James is a one-party ruler (in his fiefdom) who prizes personal power who uses any tool available to him to stifle opposition. Again, be honest and just oppose people who do things like this. That, to me, is what leftism is--power to the people! :)
:)
Interestingly, a misquote of Emma. She was still brilliant, though.
M. Nam:
Very interesting take. I thing the major difference between Gandhi and Nehru was that Gandhi's version of socialism was more communal/agrarian; while Nehru believed in industrialization. Nehru, like many leftist thinkers at the time believed socialism could out produce capitalism. After this did not bear out, socialists fell back on the argument that socialism was simply more just...which did not bear out either.
I think the trouble with the situation with African Americans is that there was absolutely no black resistance to MLK during the civil rights era.
True enough. But sadly the major exception was a hate group called the Nation of Islam, a group that continues to get some sympathy form the American political right (Jack Kemp, in particular) b/c of their free-will/ personal responsibility beliefs. Sadly, their 2nd in command at the time, Malcolm X, was a famous non-ideological thinker, who challenged his own hatred only to pay a heavy price. One wonders if he were alive today, whether he'd be open to a free market solution to black inequality here in the US.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
("imagine how I feel;" you say. Oh boo hoo hoo, you're quite the oppressed minority for being stereotyped as .
This is what I had written in comment #43:
In the above comment, where I say, "imagine how I feel", I now realize that was a poor choice of phrase and requires an explanation. What I mean is that there is this stereotype about Indian Americans being of a certain cut, ie. we are all upper/upper- middle class, doctors and engineers, super nerd geeks, and so on, but when I get questions like this from others, I always get the urge to break it down for them: not all of the Indian American community is rich, not all are doctors and engineers, etc. There is diversity also within the Indian AMerican community, similar to how CJ pointed out that there is diversity in the African American community as well (in every community, for that matter).
I had anticipated the possibility that there might be a misinterpretation, and so I took the initiative to explain myself. I had meant that the Indian American community is not homogenous, and that there are real differenes within our community that do not conveniently fit the stereotype that one has about the community; differences that discredit the assumptions of Indians being "smart, rich, and upwardly mobile".
Please read all comments before responding.
And now I have nothing else to say to you.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
("imagine how I feel;" you say. Oh boo hoo hoo, you're quite the oppressed minority for being stereotyped as smart, rich, and upwardly mobile.
This is what I had written in comment #43:
In the above comment, where I say, "imagine how I feel", I now realize that was a poor choice of phrase and requires an explanation. What I mean is that there is this stereotype about Indian Americans being of a certain cut, ie. we are all upper/upper- middle class, doctors and engineers, super nerd geeks, and so on, but when I get questions like this from others, I always get the urge to break it down for them: not all of the Indian American community is rich, not all are doctors and engineers, etc. There is diversity also within the Indian AMerican community, similar to how CJ pointed out that there is diversity in the African American community as well (in every community, for that matter).
I had anticipated the possibility that there might be a misinterpretation, and so I took the initiative to explain myself. I had meant that the Indian American community is not homogenous, and that there are real differenes within our community that do not conveniently fit the stereotype that one has about the community; differences that discredit the assumptions of Indians being "smart, rich, and upwardly mobile".
Please read all comments before responding.
And now I have nothing else to say to you.
Someone else:
It's racist both to be paternalistic and to "(at least partially) [blame] black for their own plight.
I guess this is the crux of the matter. I simply do not accept this premise. We'll have to agree to disagree. BTW, wouldn't "paternalistic" describe your position more than mine...after all, children are the one group all of us do not hold responsible for their own plight.
And yes, sharpe james is "left"...as is Fidel, Stalin, etc. One of the major structural criticisms of socialism is that it creates a system vulnerable to corrption, since economic power is consolidated within the state. Isn't this what happenned to socialist India too, after all?
someone else:
It's racist both to be paternalistic and to "(at least partially) [blame] black for their own plight
I think I misinterpreted your comment. I see now that you were (kinda) calling your own position paternalistic. But you don't leave much room for someone to be non-racist. I just think, in the name of free thought, we have to stop with this expansive definition of racism.
Really, there is no reason for all of us to "reluctantly and freqently look at my own attitudes on race", as you say. I mean, just chill. How many people really think others are inferior by virtue of the color of their skin. So, someone generalizes or paternalizes, or blames every once in a while...is it really such a big deal.
You did misinterpret my comment to some extent--both times. I was calling the position that you attributed to me paternalistic--to what extent this reflects my actual thinking is something I have to think about. But I was also acknowledging that, in general, my own attitudes towards race and a variety of other topics need work.
Given that you've already signaled a fair amount of prejudice in your comments above--whether you meant to or not--you might also want to think about it as well. Free thought is great, but "Free thought" is not; I wish you would engage in the former, rather than using the idea to mask a desire not to deal with complex issues like race, economics, and social change, which is what I think you're doing. To be quite honest, your ideas come across as simplistic free-market ideology with certain racist tendencies.
And yes, sharpe james is "left"...as is Fidel, Stalin, etc. One of the major structural criticisms of socialism is that it creates a system vulnerable to corrption, since economic power is consolidated within the state. Isn't this what happenned to socialist India too, after all?
The premise of your argument is that many socialist states are vulnerable to corruption because of the consolidation of economic power. This is a fine argument to make, but it's not really all that relevant to Newark--Sharpe James was not running a socialist state. As far as I know, he ran a corrupt party machine under the auspices of the Democratic party (which is far from socialist) and controlled Newark.
More to the point, your argument is tautological--if it's socialist or communist, it must be corrupt and one-party rule; if it's corrupt and one-party rule, it must be socalist or communist. The words you're looking for are "statist" or "authoritarian" or "fascistic", not "left" and even there you would have to justify a higher incidence of corruption.
There are many, many instances in which economic, social, and political power are consolidated within a political structure without tolerance of dissenting views and not all of them are run by people who are nominally communist or socialist. Unless Louis the XIV and the Nazis were communists.
As a result, your injection of "free market" worship into this conversation is, at best, ideological. At worst, it's red-baiting. Either way, it's unfair and, more to the point, irrelevant and detracts from the actual point at hand.
Someone else:
sigh...Let Senator Manju McCarthy be. She is set in her ways. It is hopeless. She's got those blinders firmly in place, and it seems as if it will be impossible to get those damn things off.
Not that this should be an impediment to engaging in a debate. But judging from Senator Manju McCarthy's comments, it seems as if it is useless to proceed any further because she insists on seeing the world as simply "communists/socialists/leftists" (read: "outdated", "repressive" murderers, bad people and systems in general vs "free-market capitalists" (read: progressive, benevolent, good system). This method prohibits her from going beyond these ideological labels. Or maybe it is a convenient method to effectively sidestep issues. Look at how she responds to your comments:
See? She writes controversial, simplistic, and provocative comments and then tells you to just chill and relax.
At the risk of starting a conversation about someone in the room, I don't think she's as far gone as you think and, to be frank, I find it all very interesting. She sounds very conflicted.
Someone else:
Thank you for replying. Glad to see youre still open to debate, as opposed to Chairman CAD (his terminology, not mineI have no interest in falsely labeling anyone a Communist). At the end of the day, this thread was about Newarks Democratic Machine labeling Cory Booker a racist (among other things) in an attempt to evade discussing real issues facing the community (and, of course, to stay in power). I believe, to a lesser degree, you were attempting to do the same (minus the power stuff) by labeling me a racist.
I then attempted to turn the tables on you by pointing out that your position could also be construed as racistalbeit in a more patronizing form (as in the concept of White Mans Burden, or in our case, Brown Mans)not because I actually believed you are one (I dont), but rather to expose how slippery the slope of your argument could prove to be. Obviously, your position could be explained by many factors beyond paternalistic racism, such as an awareness of historical oppression or a philosophical predisposition toward social and/or economic determinism, as opposed to the doctrine of individual free will. (I wonder if you can see that such alternatives also exist within those who oppose your view).
You then surprised me by (kinda, somewhat) conceding that it was at least within realm of possibility that you were motivated by a (subconscious) form of racism. I know these small concessions are not easy to make and I really appreciate the honesty, as it shows a genuine desire to be intellectually consistent.
But of course, this was not my intention. Rather, I think the label of racist has become so commonplace that we risk entering an era of racial McCarthyism, where one sees racists under every rock, much the way ol Joe saw Communists everywhere. This is not to say that racismlike Communism, or for that matter Fascism (I know how you hate it when I selectively pick on only left wing totalitarianism)is not one of historys great evils that has resulted in millions upon millions of people denied the right to pursue happiness (or for that matter, the right to life) and thus should be eradicated; its just that I dont think expanding the definition of racism to include virtually everyone (including you and I) helps in the eradication process. McCarthyism dramatically set back the great cause of Anti-Communism, and I think its racial stepsister may do the same for the civil rights movement---which in my opinion should not end until Blacks have at least achieved economic parity with whites (and then perhaps Americas original sin will have been redeemed).
To that end, all free marketers, with our emphasis on entrepreneurship, school choice, micro loans, free enterprise zones, etc have a lot to add to the conversation. Ill leave the right vs. left; liberal vs. statist debate for another round but I guess, as I said before, if you believe its defacto racist to only partially blame blacks for their own plight there is not much room for conversation. But dont worry, Im not offended nor will I play the victim as you say. These charges are so common they dont really have much sway outside a community of like-minded people; and I guessin a waythis is my whole point.
Manju, I am open to debate as long as it's fair, and I talk to people who argue similar points as you do on a regular basis and am perfectly capable of understanding the differences between overt bigotry, structural racism, subconcsious prejudice and other notions. I agree that these things often get unusefully subsumed under one label "racist."
However, I still contend that your arguments--which imo were predominantly about advancing a free-market economic agenda--used race in a somewhat unseemly way. They didn't draw the same distinctions that I did above to the different types of ways in which race can be counterproductively used in scoiety. Your use of the discourse of "blame," the reluctance to address race seriously as a social phenomenon ("So, someone generalizes or paternalizes, or blames every once in a while...is it really such a big deal."), and the belief that free-market economics can somehow be devoid of social context are all problematic to me, particularly since you started this conversation in a fairly unnuanced way (attributing "racist and ideological blinders" to "[Black] people" and saying that this was partly responsible for their "plight" (by which I assume you mean their socio-economic situation)).
What I am left believing is that you either don't really grasp race as a concept or are being somewhat disingenous; and to this extent, your arguments perpetuate some problematic ideas around race and economics in the Untied States (and presumably other places).
The problem is that you didn't leave it for another round. You chose to talk about in racial terms with a dose of anti-Communist propaganda injected. And this is what got you in trouble...at least with me.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
I am a she, not a he. And I'm not open to debate with you anymore, because all you do is throw labels and reified political ideologies that are suspiciously too simplistic and clean cut. In my earlier posts, I cut and pasted the very exact things you had said in order to make you see and think about what kind of arguments you were making. Ironically, you accuse people of the being the very things that come across in your own opinions. If you do not realize what you are saying- which is the first step in engaging in any sort of debate or exchange--then it is not my job to break it down to you, and I certainly don't want to waste my time engaging with someone who doesn't want to see beyond their own lens. If you can't move beyond that first point, then there is no use in me continuing to write comments addressed to you.
You call this a "debate", but it is actually just you having a one way conversation, in that you are continuing with your own stream of opinions without really digesting what the other person is saying. You are responding to what others are saying by simply throwing rigid conceptions and definitions at them-- rigid conceptions and definitions formulated in your own mind, of course. This is a method of discounting what others are saying and finding a convenient way so as to brush off the issues that the person is raising.
Have a little bit of imagination, instead of falling back on terms like "free market", "racism","communisim" and "totalitarianism", etc and give a little more substance when you respond to someone else.
I swear this is the last comment; especially since I've been told in the other forum that I've posted too many comments.
Senator Manju McCarthy:
Judging from your comments, a question came to my mind: you're not from the Reagan era, are you? All this talk about Communism/the Evil Empire vs. Capitalism/freedom/justice eerily reminds me of the Cold War years. Your views are suspiciously identical to Reagan's speeches.Did you grow up during Reagan's heyday?
Pay no mind to the haters; I, for one, find your logorrheic ramblings to be quite entertaining. @=)
CAD,
Pay no mind to back-handed compliments either. Your politics seem to be solid (i.e. well thought out), and if people mistake your energetic articulation for youthful naivite, forget 'em. I've felt on numerous occasions that I'm overstepping boundaries with my comments, and I'm sure that others feel this way as well, but it's difficult to judge because these boundaries are undefined. But in the end it's the bloggers' space, and they define the boundaries, and I appreciate the fact that for the most part they leave them so wide open. We are all guests here, in the end, and if our hosts want us gone I imagine they'll let us know. From what I can tell, none of them has asked you to leave, so keep it up!
MV:
(Psst...problem is, I'm too sensitive :))
Last,the ultimate last last comment.
CAD:
You write:
And I'm not open to debate with you anymore
there is no use in me continuing to write comments addressed to you.
I have nothing else left to say to you
And now I have nothing else to say to you.
Your closed-mindedness saddens me, especially since one of the major themes of this thread is the Newark Democratic Machines attempt to shut of debate w/ Mr. Booker.
You write:
all you do is throw labels
This is rank hypocrisy. Youve labeled me a racist, an ideologue (congratulations, you've already got them [racist and ideological blinders] on,) and a McCarthyist (sigh...Let Senator Manju McCarthy be). I have not done this to you. I saved my labels for the true villain of this story (Sharpe James) and his poor followersI mean youd have to have serious blinders on to really believe Cory Booker is member of the KKK.
You write:
You call this a "debate", but it is actually just you having a one way conversation, in that you are continuing with your own stream of opinions without really digesting what the other person is saying.
Really? May I refer you to my original exchange with CJ. She took me to task for my "racist and ideological blinders that black people have put on" comment and I responded by apologizing and clarifying ( My apologies for not making it clear ).
She, being apparently very open minded, accepted this and wrote:
okay, Manju, your explanation leads me to relinquish my soapbox, strictly economically speaking, i won't disagree and i definately hear you on your last paragraph.
Even someone else weighed in with:
I don't think she's as far gone as you think and, to be frank, I find it all very interesting. She sounds very conflicted.
CAD, if you bother to read my entries you will see many other examples of me acknowledging the criticisms of others (#75: I know how you hate it when I selectively pick on only left wing totalitarianism) but I wonder if the same can be said of you? Can YOU see beyond your own lens, as you say, or is this just a weapon you use against others? I havent seen this in you yet, but I could be wrong so Im open to examples if you have any.
CAD, I really hope you read this even if you don't leave any more comments. Don't be cheap with your love--we need you girl!
Even if you take a break. Even if you leave for years. We really really really need more people like you in the internets world.
And the times, they are a' changin! Don't miss the boat--drop me a line :)
Manju:
I said I wasn't going to waste my time over exchanging comments with you, but here we go.
There are people, incidentally, who have good cause to also argue that globalization and free trade, the supposed "enlightened path of economic liberalization" has rapidly increased the inequalities and caused the economic situation to deterioate even further. This is not because Indians are stupid, ignorant "leftists". It's too easy to denigrate diverse groups' and their ideas with simple, thoughtless charges.
Your visions of "Indians in the US" and "our black brothers and sisters" are ignorant and bland. Did you ever imagine that there is diversity within our community? In the Black community? In any community, for that matter? And for all of your homogenizing ideologies, that there are differences even in singular political-economic systems? Is Communism everywhere the same? In every part of the world, stretching from Italy to Yemen to China? Korea to Cuba? Even with all of your sweeping generalizations about capitalism, there are various shades of that, too. US capitalism, which you seem to be a zealous devotee of, is quite a unique brand of capitalism. The US is the first industrialized nation where the majority of the poor are children; 40% don't have health insurance, and higher education's costs are sky high. Given the US a round of applause for being on this "enlightened path of economic liberalization". On the other hand, Japan is a form of capitalism which is different from the US'. They guarantee health care, and there are specific social programs in place for every Japanese citizen, something that we in the US are losing little by little. Norway and other Scandinavian countries have successfully experimented with socialist democracies, which is another model. There, a market style economy with a strong social state has ensured a high standard of living for everybody. So your generalized, monolithic conceptualizations of politico-economies are simply unsubstantive.
What the hell do you mean by this? This phrase seems like it came straight out of a "Capitalist Manifesto", if such a thing exists: propagandistic, metaphorical, and ideological. For all of your "hopes" that "Indians and Blacks can work together toward economic freedom", you fail to even see what various dynamics and processes play out in these communities, and what issues are important to various substratems. You seem to think that the band-aid to all of the world's problems and ills is "capitalism", but there are those who do not agree. If they don't want it, it doesn't mean that they are too ignorant to try and "unshackle themselves from outdated and repressive economic systems". Here, you come of as some grand elitist professor/dictator who is condescendingly belittling those who have different opinions from yours.