By Dr. Boyce Watkins
I love Tavis smiley and I love the State of the Black Union. I must also admit that my mouth (which my mother used to say will either “make me great or get me killed”) has probably burned any bridge I’ve had with Tavis, thus implying that you will likely never see me on a panel at The State of the Black Union conference. I am ok with that, since I don’t like traveling when I don’t have to, and I don’t like the idea of having to kiss pinky rings of old school leadership in order to fit in (once you accept someone’s support, you can become beholden to them, reducing your ability to be honest). Beyond that, I have a nasty habit of telling the truth, which is neither profitable nor popular. So, the Your Black World Coalition is going to be my venue of choice when it comes to matters of Black Public Policy. Our corporate sponsors are clean, which means that we have a green light to do what’s right without worrying about offending Exxon Mobile, Walmart, The Republican Party, or McDonald’s. Again, I say this with all love and respect for Tavis Smiley.
As a Finance Professor who has spent the last 20 years studying money, I want us to understand the nature of how financial incentives can play a role in the nature of a forum such as The State of the Black Union. This is especially true in the midst of a financial crisis, during which our financial challenges may lead us to make decisions that are not always in the best interests of our constituents. I want to make it clear that my commentary on the State of the Black Union in the past has not been intended to be destructively critical in any way, as I feel that the forum is an important and necessary component of the Black community. But I am going to propose some quick thoughts about the State of the Black Union that should be considered for the future. If this venue is to be considered an important component and gathering of some segments of Black leadership, it is critical that we understand how to properly manage the temptation by some to use the venue as a source of power.
1) Corporate sponsors should be properly vetted: If the State of the Black Union is to be presented as the pseudo-diplomatic forum that Tavis Smiley wants us to perceive it to be, then just any old sponsor simply won’t do. No banks accused of predatory lending using the venue to wash away their sins with a donation to the Tavis Smiley Bank account. No firms trying to sell liquor, tobacco or other products. No companies which appear to get rich from exploiting the poor. All potential corporate sponsors should be evaluated by an unbiased committee and careful consideration should be given to the nature of the donor, where the money is going and other ways that the sponsor must prove their interest in serving the community. President Obama would never allow his State of the Union address to be sponsored by enemies of his country, but that is what we are doing if we allow any dirty corporation to walk through the door to give us money for our forums.
2) Consider the political agendas: I went to a great conference a couple of years ago in Atlanta, and wondered why there were so many videos and speeches being shared that had nothing but good things to say about the Bush Administration. It didn’t take me long to figure out why – The Bush Administration was a major donor to the conference, and in exchange for their money, they wanted the organizers to persuade Black folks to become Republicans and to love George Bush. I don’t think it worked. The lesson to be learned is that taking care of the gatekeepers can mean that those behind the gate are being manipulated. Don’t let another man sell your brain. If your brain gets sold, you should get the money.
3) Be careful with the Obama-Haterology: It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Tavis Smiley was a clear “homie” to Hillary Clinton. This close relationship, as well as some hope that he might be her Press Secretary, led to some “interesting” words being fired across the aisle last year as Barack Obama chose not to attend the conference. This forum is designed for the people and should not be used to reflect the personal agendas of a few powerful men. One must draw the line between carefully considered critiques on The White House vs. politicized attacks in response to being “dissed”. I too have critiqued our president, but I have always wanted him to succeed.
4) Kill the self-righteousness: There is no boss of the Black community. We are not children who need to be told what’s best for us. Being of a strong religious background, Tavis Smiley can sometimes become more of a preacher than a leader. There is this idea that he and a few others know the solutions and the rest of us don’t have a damn clue. Please get over your selves….we’re all smart people. This does not, for one second, imply that strategic and intelligent guidance cannot be meaningful. But this guidance must be balanced with mutual respect for the people you are serving.
5) Kill the “flossing”: Sometimes, when people get on their respective soap boxes, the forum can become a contest of who can make the most earth-shattering, slap-ya-leg, koolaid-coming-out-of-your-nose, “hoo-hoo-she-sure-is-funny!” moment. Due to the presence of media, which many people on the panel are seeking by attending this forum, we can be pressured to entertain more than enlighten. While entertainment is excellent, the focus must be on commentary which educates the public. I encourage the audience to watch the forum and listen to the content and substance of the rhetoric, and not be swayed by distractive inflections, body language or vocal tones. Some of us are very good at saying a lot and saying nothing, all at the same time.
6) FYI – Here is the source of Smiley’s power (for which I congratulate him): He gets C-span to show up and he has access to major White corporations. Were there no media and/or no corporate sponsorship, The State of the Black Union forum would cease to exist. This is not to disrespect the nature of the platform, but to help those who don’t understand business and media to see why so many of our leaders flock to the forum and why many Black leaders gladly appear on Fox News. Since they don’t have any other outlets for their work, this is one of the few provided. This gives a great deal of power to the owner of the platform, sort of like having the only grocery store or hospital in town. When Black folks get more ownership of media (even online media), the need to succumb to the power of others will cease to exist.
7) This is not the only forum in Black America: Kevin Powell, a man who will eventually be elected to Congress, holds Black male empowerment forums in New York City. The “Your Black World Coalition” has done amazing work in the past. “Color of Change” engages in meaningful, effective protest that is not sponsored by any of the corporations known for the exploitation of African Americans. “Dangerous Negro” is a group of young, intelligent brothers who are changing campuses across the world. Tavis Smiley’s insinuation that The State of the Black Union forum is the place you must be if you truly care about Black people is simply wrong. You can be in a lot of places and still care about Black people, which is why there are a lot of Black Bloggers, Black leaders and Black business people who are choosing not to attend The State of the Black Union.
8) The Money Makes a difference: I am a Finance Professor, which makes me the last person to criticize anyone for showing up to collect the cash flow. But the truth is that money is POWER. Money determines what we do and who we do it with. So, the idea that (what some consider to be) one of the most critical forums in the Black community is driven by corporate sponsorship granted by our historical oppressors is a very serious and problematic contradiction. I encourage us to find ways to sponsor other forums without sponsorship from mainstream corporate America so that we can speak real truth to power.
9) The Covenant with Black America: This is a great book. But it is still just a book. It is a book written to make a profit. When you see the book being advertised to you, there is a business model designed to sell the book. It is not the most important book in Black history, it is not necessarily a “must-read” for you and your kids. It’s just a book. Remember that. If the advertisers convince you that it is a “must-read”, then they’ve achieved their corporate objectives.
10) We need Tavis Smiley: Tavis, like most of us, has to make a living. He has done an amazing job with his work and platforms, and like the rest of us, he is not perfect. If you are compelled by his work, you should support him and support The State of the Black Union, I know I will. Also, just because Tavis seemed to have personal reasons for his attacks on Barack Obama, that doesn’t mean that his critiques were invalid. Yes, we have a Black President, but we need Black leaders. The greatest Black leader in the world is the one you see in the mirror. Get out there and do your thing.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.
30 comments:
Some (i.e. people of conscience) would say that this explicit obsession with Tavis Smiley is abundantly harmful to the Black Community--in the midst of all the catastrophic problems we face--but, of course, such people are only seen as Tavis Smiley stans/fans!
Secondly, using Barack Obama as a model of non-corporatism is laughable, at best; and shamefully ignorant, at worst. Here are a list of his top sponsors, for the '08 Presidential Race (see if you can spot any "banks accused of predatory lending"):
University of California $1,201,178
Goldman Sachs $955,473
Microsoft Corp $798,049
Harvard University $789,560
Google Inc $782,964
Citigroup Inc $653,468
JPMorgan Chase & Co $646,058
Stanford University $568,566
Sidley Austin LLP $565,788
Time Warner $544,601
National Amusements Inc $541,285
Wilmerhale Llp $524,292
IBM Corp $515,249
UBS AG $513,919
Skadden, Arps et al $505,774
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $485,823
US Government $479,306
Latham & Watkins $461,511
University of Chicago $457,735
Right On!
I am not sure if Dr Boyce is saying that Barack is a model of non-corporate sponsorship. He is saying that anyone who takes money from donors should be analyzed carefully. Also, Obama is not a Black leader, so his donors should be considere differently from Tavis. But when you sum it up, they are both paid for and bought. Dr B does not seem to be saying that any of these guys are clean.
With the kind of bully pulpit he has, I would think he would devote more time to prescribing antidotes for the problems confronting the Black Community. Two columns, in less than 24 hrs., on Tavis Smiley and the State of the Black Union, seems to erase all traces of goodwill and constructive criticism. If you ask me, it starts to borderline on obsession, at that point. Feel me?
You seem pretty focused on this topic doc, but I understand where you are coming from. The public needs education on this, thank you. In fact, I wanna know more about why you and Tavis don't work together more. You're not that much different, except for the fact that his words are not usually all that insightful.
Thanks for the post.
Thank you guys for your comments. If you want to know if I am obsessed by the State of the Black Union, the answer is yes! I am obsessed by anything so inspirational, as well as critical to our community. When I get obsessed over something, I write about it incessantly. I do this because I think that we should, as a community, ensure that we are in full understanding of where our paths may lead us.
I love Tavis and I love his forum. We really really need it. But we must be sure to understand the nature of corporate sponsorship and the risks, so that we can be effective in how such programs are administered in the future. The last thing we need is an American replica of an African dictatorship, in which the leaders collect the money and sell resources which belong to the people.
Do you want to know if I am flawed? Yes, clearly. I figured you'd know that by now.
Do you want to know if I dislike Tavis? No, I think Tavis is great. I just have a habit of not seeing anything in Black and white, which gets me into trouble with the establishment of Black Leadership. Life is not a dichotomy, it is a continuum.
Do you want to know if I am obsessed by this forum? Again, yes. I am. We need to think these issues through and the Black community must be made aware of how political and financial incentives can dilute our purpose. We can't let such a powerful forum become tainted with this kind of corruption.
By the way - I love the comments on the blog, the haters too. Please, feel free to fight it out, cuss me out, talk about my mama, or whatever you want. I think it's all good and it's all American. Thank you so much for visiting.
"Pretty focused," indeed. But just a few questions to qualify that focus:
1) Does Tavis Smiley have his hands at the helm of the world's largest imperialist machine?
2) Does Tavis Smiley hold a position, today, that can, in a split second, declare war on another country, and prolong the suffering of millions of Black/Brown people--sometimes, for reasons such as refusing to do the bidding of the government he, now represents?
3) Did Tavis Smiley remain mute when $20 billion was cut from the education fund in his recovery package?
4) Does Tavis Smiley equate dropping-out of abysmal public schools with treason, and unpatriotic values?
5) Does Tavis Smiley surround himself with spinsters and pollsters, and find ways, at every opportunity, to lie to millions of people about the conditions they're entrenched in?
6) Did Tavis Smiley refuse to back up a moratorium on foreclosure plan, because he was trying to win an election?
7) Did Tavis Smiley climb to the top by knocking down Black people, and their leaders, at every opportunity presented him?
8) Did Tavis Smiley support bailing out failed banks before stretching forth a hand to the people who needed that money most?
9) Did Tavis Smiley go as far as reducing Dr. King to a mere "preacher from Georgia," to avoid being painted as a Black candidate?
10) Did Tavis Smiley threaten Zimbabwe, a couple of weeks back, against forming a united government, and try to disrupt any plans of unity in the country?
11) Does Tavis Smiley wholeheartedly support "Africom"--a destructive plan to militarize and do to Africa what has happened to Iraq and Afghanistan?
12) Did Tavis Smiley decide to boycott a UN conference on Racism, because Israel's precious feelings might get hurt?
13) Is Tavis Smiley using the same codewords to describe Black people that the right-wing constructed: "People who bought homes they knew they couldn't afford."
14) Is Tavis Smiley purposefully silent (Tavis has done two shows on it, till date) on the genocide being carried out in Sri Lanka?
15) Is Tavis Smiley warning of an escalation of the Afghanistan War, and pledging to leave 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq, after the "mission" is declared accomplished?
@ Anonymous:
From your list, I take it that you don't like our current President?? lol.
I just have one simple question:
Is Tavis Smiley a vindictive hater?
Yes.
Obama is not perfect, he's human and he's a politician. And just because some people are being critical of Tavis does not mean that they don't have any issues with Obama, let's get that straight. Barack isn't a saint and neither is Tavis.
"7) Did Tavis Smiley climb to the top by knocking down Black people, and their leaders, at every opportunity presented him?"
When Tavis was basically telling Black people that they were foolish for supporting Obama during the election, wasn't he "talking down to Black people" too? He wasn't exactly being "objective" in his critiques of Barack. Tavis is still trying to paint Obama as the enemy of Black people for his own selfish motives. Not once, did he mention Barack's voting record as a senator on issues like racial profiling, his support for syringe exchange programs or his housing plan that helps military families (that includes Black families).
He never demanded that we hold Bill Clinton accountable when he was running for President and gaining the support of Black people. And how often did Bill Clinton speak to African Americans about real issues, all I can remember him doing is showing Black folks how "Black" he was by doing superficial crap like playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show. Why all of a sudden is Tavis pushing "accountability" when it comes to Obama?? I'll tell you why, it's because Obama is a Black man, and Bill Clinton isn't. Tavis didn't see Bill as a threat, but in Obama he sees a Black man who threatens to diminish his influence in the Black community.
I didn't agree with the tone of Obama's Father's Day speech, a lot of people didn't. However, it's not that simple. While I do think that, as a politician, he understood that giving that kind of speech would be something that a lot of White people would appreciate, I also think that he genuinely cares about the issue of absent fathers in our community. He can relate on a personal level to this issue.
@ mypov123
It's not about not liking Obama. That's a sentimental and dangerous way to look at things.
It's about knowing who poses a bigger threat to Black America, and the Black World at large. And if anyone would rather nitpick at Tavis, whose actions are much less harmful to the Black Community (really, much less), it begins to borderline on obsession and cowardice, and perhaps, celebrity worship and cheerleadership--regardless of his numerous declarations against being an Obamamaniac. If wouldn't challenge Obama, the man you "endorsed before it became popular" to do so, some might intimate that you're well adjusted to the crimes he's committing around the world (especially in Africa and the Caribbeans), as we speak.
You can't claim you love Black people, but you're hellbent on keeping track of the worst Tavis Smiley has to offer, and refuse to truly acknowledge his good deeds (past and present). Tavis is as much flawed as anyone else, and Dr. Watkins doesn't seem to have taken this charge to heart.
I'm wondering how Dr. Watkins might feel if Tavis Smiley endorsed, inflamed, encouraged, and motivated thousands of online comments (and death threats to his family), against him, for his persistent appearance on, and alliance with, TV channels that do nothing but denigrate and degrade Black people (CNN, FOX News, ABC, CBS, FOX Business Network, etc.). What if this legion wanted to capitalize on Dr. Watkins' strange affiliation with Wendy Williams; a woman who, despite her communication skills, has made a career of sowing destruction and division in the Black Community.
So, you see, any public figure if held to the light, can become relentlessly scorned for things that should be looked upon from broad and multiple angles, but if this obsession with Tavis Smiley doesn't cease, I'm afraid Dr. Watkins' very own chickens will come home to roost someday.
You might own your own business, and website, but each man has too many compartments to feel so secure. If folks begin digging into your personal/academic/professional/relational/social life, what will they find, BROTHER?
Who is the ignant nigga above wit da toilet mouth? Keep it clean bruthas.
@ Anonymous:
I guess you missed that I was joking and being sarcastic about you "not liking Barack". I know it's not about that. I agree that we should be holding Obama accountable just as we should hold other politicians accountable. My main argument is that Tavis is being hypocritical when he lectures Black people about holding Obama accountable. Where was the "accountability" lecture when Bill Clinton was running for President, or when Hillary was trying to hold on to "the Black vote" during this past presidential election? I know what happened, all she had to do was show up to the State of the Black Union event, and that was enough for Tavis to decide that there's no need to hold her (or her husband) accountable for anything they've said or done as politicians.
My honest opinion of the State of the Black Union event (as it is now), is that it is little more than a get-together for the same Black folks to try an out-talk each other in the game of "telling it like it is" to Black folks. We already know what the issues are in our communities, but what are we going to DO about them, where is the plan of action to combat these issues?? Other than that, I don't see what we've accomplished in the last 10 years as a result of this event. It's just a chance for a select group of Black people to get some media attention, and to push whatever book they have coming out to the masses. That's just my honest opinion.
Whether you want to believe it or not, Tavis has a personal vendetta against Barack Obama, for whatever reason. His "critiques" of Obama are not objective or balanced, although he's tried to convince Black people that he is being "fair". Just look at the cover of Tavis's latest book. The image of Obama with an expression on his face that makes him look "shady" in my opinion. Is that what Tavis is trying to insinuate about Obama? I think so.
What makes me sick about the State of the Black Union is that it's always the same old people. They don't have a voice for young leaders, they only bring in the same tired ass people that I've been listening to for the past 10 years. I want to hear some new voices at this forum. In fact, it's a shame that Dr. Boyce and Tavis don't get along, because if he truly cares about the economic prosperity of black people, he would have to have Dr Boyce and other financial scholars on his panels. But then again, I guess Dr Boyce might have made things bad for himself by criticizing Tavis and Tavis is a pretty arrogant dude. I am not watching that shit no more, its tired.
@ Big Earl
I guess you missed the legendary Dr. Julianne Malveaux, and Michelle Singletary, yesterday. It's sad to report that most who have commented on this blog are simply stans of Dr. Watkins. If you think he's the only voice of reasoning for financial advice in Black America, you got some problem.
Dr. Watkins has a PhD in Finance, and neither of those two people have a PhD in Finance. And no, I'm not a stan for Dr Watkins, I don't know the brother.
@ mypov123
The same people who, a year ago, helped Dr. Watkins achieve his goal of obstructing Tavis' call for accountability, vis-a-vis Obama, are the same fools who today, seem not to get the point. Whether Tavis was right or wrong--and the record shows (if you idiots cared enough to listen to his 2007-2008 commentaries) that he did castigate Ms. Clinton and her husband for employing racist charges against Obama--holding Obama accountable was the most important agenda on the table.
Arguing over whether Tavis is an opportunist or not is of no consequence when Obama is scolding Black Women, publicly, for being so poor as to feed their kids popeyes chicken for breakfast, and declaring that there was no racial-tinge to the slow response to Katrina's helpless victims. Arguing over whether Tavis is an opportunist or not is of no consequence when Obama is making Reagan proud by endorsing his ability to wash-out the "excesses" of the Civil Rights movement, and is jumping down the throat of his pastor/mentor/surrogate-father for daring speak the truth.
Arguing over whether Tavis is an opportunist or not is of no consequence when Obama lends credence to the same stereotypes the right-wing constructed to define Black Males, and when he, unashamedly, decided to speak 400 miles away in Indiana, rather than honor Dr. King in Selma, Alabama.
Arguing over whether Tavis is an opportunist or not is of no consequence when Obama is affirming his support for the death penalty, and, simultaneously, telling Black men that they would never be successful entertainers--thus, killing dreams they might have cultivated since puberty.
Arguing over whether Tavis is an opportunist or not is of no consequence when President Obama is threatening African leaders against unity, and promising to keep Brown people, around the world, under the same shadow of domination executed in the Bush years.
-- You half-witted fools just don't get it, do you? You'll rather dance around the campfire, and unleash on Tavis, than face the truth.
@ Big Earl
You don't have to know him personally to be a stan, and I guess Dr. Malveaux's PhD in Economics from MIT doesn't impress you.
Jackass, a PhD in Economics is not a PhD in Finance. Economics can be labor, game theory or other stuff that has nothing to do with money. Go do your homework. Julianne did not get her degree in financial economics and has never done research in areas related to money. Dr Boyce (check his website) has a long list of research papers in areas related to stock markets, money and investing. That is what we need to be talking about in this economy with our market crashing and our financial system breaking down.
Big Earl, both of you guys are asses. Dr Boyce does good work in the community and so does Julianne. They were on the radio with Jessie Jackson discussing good economic policy. What I give Dr Boyce credit for is the fact that he talked about the community and finance, while Julianne was just trying to promo her ragedy ass college. She only talked about student loans, but Dr Boyce talked about the global economy.
But you guys are both asses because you're embarrassing this brother with your ridiculous arguments on this website.
"Julianne was just trying to promo her ragedy ass college."
-- I'm glad Dr. Watkins' stans are finally exposing themselves for what they are--hitmen/hitwomen. He says "shoot!," and they ask,without hesitation, "Which direction?," and, "At whom?"
They would even go as far as denigrating a College devoted to uplifting the Black Female Community as "ragedy ass." Dr. Watkins must be real proud.
@ Anonymous:
Oh, there's no need for name-calling, I hope you are capable of having an intelligent debate without engaging in that, so far it looks like you can't.
Anyway, Dr. Watkins' post is about Tavis Smiley and the State of the Black Union event, this is not so much about Obama. And that one incident of critiquing the Clintons does not equal the many instances in which Tavis has tried to insinuate that Obama is an enemy to Black people, and he's still doing it.
As for the Rev. Wright situation, Wright could have handled that situation differently. Luis Farrakhan said he chose not to speak out during the election because he liked and supported Obama and didn't want to hurt his chances of becoming President. And he didn't just support Obama because he's Black, he's known Obama for some time living in Chicago and knows that Obama cares about the Black community. If he didn't then he wouldn't have cared whether or not he hurt Obama's chances in the election. Wright should have followed the example of Minister Farrakhan and approached the situation at the National Press Club differently. Instead, he played right into the characterization that the media made of him, Obama really had no other choice.
Again, Tavis only started preaching about accountability when the first Black man to ever have a real chance of becoming President of the United States came along, and Tavis (and Dr. Cornel West and some other so-called leaders) felt threatened.
I think Dr. Watkins ought to be extremely proud that his biggest stans/fans are not only Tavis-haters, but they dislike Dr. Malveaux and Dr. West (simply for their timely criticism of the President).
This is the kind of hate that was fostered last year, when Dr. Watkins bragged so effortlessly about his "family," "shutting down" Tavis Smiley. Now, his assassins are ready to pull out the snipers at anyone critical of the Emperor.
Now, you see what I mean? You got some cleaning up to do, Brother. Some thorough house-cleaning!
"This is the kind of hate that was fostered last year, when Dr. Watkins bragged so effortlessly about his "family," "shutting down" Tavis Smiley. Now, his assassins are ready to pull out the snipers at anyone critical of the Emperor."
How hypocritical. So we can criticize Obama but not Tavis, what makes Tavis exempt from any criticism? The last time I checked, he was an imperfect human being like the rest of us. People who are critical of Tavis can also be critical of Obama, neither of these men is exempt from criticism.
You know, it kills me when people say they are tired of the SOTBU, because there is too much talking, too much rhetoric, and not enough strategy, innovative ideas, and problem solving. All people have to do is eliminate some of the excess, and truly key in, and you'll see what you're looking for.
I'll never forget there was a brother on the panel this year by the name of Van Jones, who is an advocate of the environment, and "going green." He laid out a BRILLIANT analysis of available funds, what can be done to get to that money, how it can lead to more jobs, more money, and how it can DIRECTLY BENEFIT BLACK PEOPLE, and that wasn't given enough attention. Shit, I don't know ANYTHING about going green, but after hearing him break it down, it makes me want to learn more. That's a direct example of why this forum is still needed.
I agree wholeheartedly with SoulOnlce, and this is my quarrel with Dr. Watkins' uncritical fixation on SOTBU. He would want you to believe that he appreciates the forum, but when it comes time to getting specific about what he's pleased with, he immediately clings to abstraction. Strangely enough, when he's ready to outline his disagreements with the forum, he takes no prisoners!
@ mypov123
I wish Dr. Watkins' stans/fans were as critical--actually even more, given the reality--of Obama, as you are of Tavis. The reality, however, is that anytime Dr. Watkins, himself, has attempted to lay-out constructive criticism on Obama, he's been rendered a "hater" (a term I'm not sure he's very pleased with), and lambasted as anything but a child of God. Check the records--his previous posts.
Whenever he felt the need to articulate some tepid criticism of the Emperor, the legion he cultivated swarm around him, asking that he not carry out Tavis' agenda (as though holding Obama accountable is strictly restricted to Tavis Smiley). But whenever he speaks in disfavor of Tavis, his popularity poll ascends, and you all, like supplicant's kneeling before their bishop, thank him for his "courage." You treasure this additional opportunity to "put Tavis in his place." What fools!
As much as I can recall, Tavis Smiley wasn't elected president of the world's most powerful country, last November. When you begin enacting the kind of ferocious criticism that I hear on matters relating to Tavis, I'll change my tune. Until then, you'll be hearing a lot of me. (Unless you think Obama is off to a swell start, as most of you nitwits truly believe).
I've heard Boyce criticize Obama actually far more than he criticizes Tavis Smiley. So, you should probably read more of his work and his books before you make an ignorant statement.
As far as this article goes, I don't agree with everything. You need to make sure that Tavis understands that you support his work, so it doesn't sound like you are trying to destroy him. I follow you closely, so I can see the difference, but most people can't.
@ Mary J
Please believe when I say I've, in the past, followed Dr. Watkins more than you probably have. And I can declare that the kind of intensity he shoulders, in his criticism of Tavis Smiley, has been absolutely absent when he's 'criticized' Obama. If you want a debate on this issue, I'll be more than happy to have one with you.
There is no need to debate because you are wrong. He only talks about Tavis Smiley once a year. Tavis doesn't matter very much in the scheme of things. Also it is more important for us to talk about what matters to us than to worry about what Dr Watkins is thinking. As he said in his article, you should think for yourself and not let leaders put ideas in your head. Just like how accused Big Earl of defending Dr Boyce, I can accuse you of being a stooge for Tavis smiley. Get out of his asscrack and see things for what they are. If you think that Obama needs more criticism, then don't look to Dr Boyce to do it for you, do it yourself. Black people need to stop letting leaders think for us, that goes for Dr Boyce, Tavis or Barack shitty-ass-white-man-lovin Obama.
How can you claim that I'm a Tavis "stooge," when I've consistently argued, throughout this post (start from the top lady), that Obama, with is policies, is of more importance than any other force in Black America, and the Black World, today.
How can I be a Tavis stooge, when I have, not once (again, go through the post, lady), fired upon anyone for criticizing Tavis, but simply for missing the point, and lifting their eyes off the prize.
How can I be a Tavis stooge, when I've advocated, relentlessly, that Tavis is just as flawed as anyone else in this world, so any kind of uncritical concentration on him, borderlines on obsession and cowardice, because of the 15 points I listed above.
When you say "Black people need to stop letting leaders think for us, that goes for Dr Boyce," I wish you would say that louder, so Dr. Boyce's stans can hear you. Any criticism of their leader--though they do the same to Tavis, Dr. Malveaux and Dr. Cornel West--is taking as an unforgivable assault on Dr. Watkins' conscience. Many of his stans have no mind of their own. They've displayed this very explicitly, since yesterday.
Strange as it may seem, I actually love Dr. Watkins, and all he does for the younger Black Community (no doubt about that), and this is why I've decided to hold him accountable, whenever I think he's deviating from more pertinent subject matters, such as Obama's selection of Arne Duncan as Sec. of Education--a catastrophic blunder--or Obama's war-mongering (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine).
Compared to the problems confronting Black America, Africa, Latin America, the Carribeans, etc., Tavis should seem, to anyone without their heads in Dr. Watkins' "asscrack" minuscule.
Doc,
I appreciate your commentary.
I want to comment on your first thought regarding vetting corporate sponsors. I think it's naive to suggest that there's such an entity as a "clean" corporation, which would be the desired goal of not allowing "dirty" corporations to sponsor the SOBU. Who would decide what constitutes being a responsible corporation? Would the corporations be judged by their past actions? How far back would the analysis go? Would they be judged solely on current status? As what? Good stewards of the Earth, all of humanity, just US citizens, just their employees, just with their customers...? You would be hard pressed to find any company that has sustainable practices, does not have discrimination, does not pay the CEO 300 times what the lowest wage earner makes, does not lie about it's products in some way, isn't a corporate welfare queen (they ALL are), doesn't try to buy so-called public servants via lobbyists, pays living wages, etc. I think you get my point.
Beyond corporations, we all have a hand in working for the man. Unless you're Amish, you are workin' for the man in just about all that you do. Does that make us all sell-outs? Not if we're trying to do our part to make this world a better place for all while staying conscious of our choices and the effect they have.
The most emailed article for the past two days on nytimes.com has been about this very topic with regard to Harvard Medical School. None of this is black and white.
The SOBU is an imperfect endeavor, but certainly worthy of my time.
Side note - as I watched the SOBU, I couldn't help but think of all of the speaker fees the people on stage gave up to be there, especially in February. Interesting.
I loved your line in 5) about saying a lot while saying nothing. Paging Drs. West & Dyson!
-- Lady J
Post a Comment