Marc Lamont Hill's racist/elitist tirade on O'Reilly

[blackhorse]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/marc-lamont-hill-to-oreilly-poor-white-janitors-are-the-only-republicans-at-columbia/

I am literally speechless over this dolt's brazen racist attacks. Wow.....just, wow. Unf. this is the type of irrational thinking that has infected the black culture at large.

[studiodekadent]

I don't think everything Hill said was entirely unfair.

Most of the Republican "base" (so-cons and most jingoist war-hawks) are rabidly anti-intellectual.

Libertarians/classical liberals are not anti-intellectual, but they're not part of the Republican base and rarely have any say over the nominee. Also, the actual neoconservatives (the ideological higher ups like Irving Kristol etc) aren't anti-intellectual; they're explicitly intellectually elitist.

So-con anti-intellectualism is nothing new. Its endemic of faithists to target anyone that can even put on a pretense of rationality. As Gene Healy pointed out in The Cult of the Presidency, the general American public tends to elect those Presidents that (they believe) embody perfect American-ness (I call this the "Captain-America-for-President Syndrome"). What does it say when the President who is elected believes in folk-wisdom over study, tradition over reason, nationalism over self-determination, etc. etc.. Even if the President doesn't believe in these things, but merely pretends to in order to appeal to the electorate, this says something about the electorate!

And speaking of black culture, that culture can be rabidly anti-intellectual as well (see the term "Oreo").

Anti-Intellectualism vs. Intellectual Elitism (the right and left's attitudes respectively), is a false dichotomy. One can easily revere intellect without believing that the smart people should be allowed to create public policy which micromanages people's lives.

Populism vs. Elitism is a well-known and long-running theme in politics. It should also be noted that no one side has a monopoly on either... the Neoconservatives are explicit elitists (on the right), and the non-progressive, anti-privilege left (to use Roderick Long's terms) tend towards populism rather than elitism. Jimmy Carter was up-front about his own religious beliefs and had a big folksy-ness to him, and he was a Democrat (and also a great deregulator of many industries).

Whilst it is clear Marc Lamont Hill is intellectually elitist himself (and his comments about poor white janitors are clearly indicative of this), the man DOES have a point.

[Backlighting]

Lamont is just another vile collectivist cut from the same cloth as Obama.

[Selene]

Libertarians/classical liberals are not anti-intellectual, but they're not part of the Republican base and rarely have any say over the nominee.

Populism vs. Elitism is a well-known and long-running theme in politics.

Whilst it is clear Marc Lamont Hill is intellectually elitist himself (and his comments about poor white janitors are clearly indicative of this), the man DOES have a point.

For the sake of discussion and argument, could you define "intellectual," so that I can have a sense of what ballpark we are going to argue in?

[Selene]

Lamont is just another vile collectivist cut from the same cloth as Obama.

Ya think? The same as O'biwan?

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is one of the leading hip-hop generation intellectuals in the country.

His work, which covers topics such as culture, politics, and education, has appeared in numerous journals, magazines, books, and anthologies.

Dr. Hill has lectured widely and provides regular commentary for media outlets like NPR, Washington Post, Essence Magazine, and the New York Times. He is the host of the nationally syndicated television show Our World With Black Enterprise, which airs Sunday mornings on TV One and broadcast markets around the country. He also provides regular commentary for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel, where he was a political contributor and regular guest on The O’Reilly Factor. An award-winning writer, Dr. Hill is a columnist and editor-at-large for the Philadelphia Daily News.

Since 2009, Dr. Hill has been on the faculty of Columbia University as Associate Professor of Education at Teachers College. He also holds an affiliated faculty appointment in African American Studies at the Institute for Research in African American Studies at Columbia University.

Since his days as a youth in Philadelphia, Dr. Hill has been a social justice activist and organizer. He is a founding board member of My5th, a non-profit organization devoted to educating youth about their legal rights and responsibilities. He is also a board member and organizer of the Philadelphia Student Union. Dr. Hill also works closely with the ACLU Drug Reform Project, focusing on drug informant policy. In addition to his political work, Dr. Hill continues to work directly with African American and Latino youth. In 2001, he started a literacy project that uses hip-hop culture to increase school engagement and reading skills among high school students. He also continues to organize and teach adult literacy courses for high school dropouts in Philadelphia and Camden.

In 2005, Ebony Magazine named him one of America’s top 30 Black leaders under 30 years old.

Dr. Hill is the author of Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life: Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity and co-editor of Media, Learning, and Sites of Possibility and The Anthropology of Education Reader. He is currently completing two manuscripts: Knowledge of Self: Race, Masculinity, and the Politics of Reading; and First Class Jails/Second Class Schools: Education in the Age of Incarceration.

Trained as an anthropologist of education, Dr. Hill holds a Ph.D. (with distinction) from the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on the intersections between culture, politics, and education. He is particularly interested in locating various sites of possibility for political resistance, identity work, and knowledge production outside of formal schooling contexts. Particular sites of inquiry include prisons, Black bookstores, and youth cultural production.

The red is clearly in the O'biwan mold. Also, O'biwan, contrary to Hill's statement was not a "professor of law," he was allegedly an adjucnt lecturer in a subject we have never seen a syllabus of, nor, to the best of my knowledge, have we ever seen one of his students interviewed.

O'Reilly is pitiful. I gave up watching him years ago and now I know why. Was he playing the white Step and Fetchit role in this disgustingly incompetent interview?

Finally, when I have more time, I will bet that Hill has ties to the Midwest Academy, ACORN or a Soros funded non profit.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

For the sake of discussion and argument, could you define "intellectual," so that I can have a sense of what ballpark we are going to argue in?

The following is my own definition: people that spend a substantial amount of time/effort pondering abstract ideas.

He is a founding board member of My5th, a non-profit organization devoted to educating youth about their legal rights and responsibilities.

Given how police abuse their power and law enforcement has been paramilitarized, and how poorly informed individuals are of their constitutional protections, I don't think that My5th is a particularly bad thing.... its a clear reference to the 5th Ammendment after all. Police abuse and violations of citizen's constitutional rights are things libertarians are properly concerned about (see Radley Balko for more on this).

Dr. Hill also works closely with the ACLU Drug Reform Project, focusing on drug informant policy.

The ACLU includes libertarians, often works with libertarian organizations (such as Cato), and is a fellow traveller with respect to the war on drugs.

Obama has actually escalated the drug war.

That said, yes, the ACLU also shares some nonlibertarian positions, but "he works with the ACLU" is hardly proof that someone's a progressive fascist.

----

All that said, I'm not defending Marc Lamont Hill's every belief or position. I would clearly disagree with him on many issues. Just saying that "he works with the ACLU" or "he works with an organization dedicated to teaching kids about the 5th Ammendment" is hardly something to be scared about.

[Selene]

That said, yes, the ACLU also shares some nonlibertarian positions, but "he works with the ACLU" is hardly proof that someone's a progressive fascist.

All that said, I'm not defending Marc Lamont Hill's every belief or position. I would clearly disagree with him on many issues. Just saying that "he works with the ACLU" or "he works with an organization dedicated to teaching kids about the 5th Ammendment" is hardly something to be scared about.

Whoa...

I did not say he was a progressive fascist.

Secondly, I am not afraid of him at all.

The fact that his snide, oily, effete and conscending presentation on Step and Fetchit's program clearly illustrated to me that he was a typical product of today's inner city "intellectual."

I can work with that definition within a declared parameter of "substantial." I would also believe that Dr. Hill falls short of that label.

I would also submit that George Will, Bill Bennet and Glenn Beck would clearly fall into the intellectual as we are defining it.

Adam

[blackhorse]

Lamont Hill is guilty of what Ayn Rand said was intellectual bankruptcy http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_bankruptcy

Lamont is confusing the term intellectual with the term academic. Not surprising seeing as Orwellian Newspeak has perverted the English language. Hill is an academic, but he is by no means an intellectual in the real sense of the word. His type espouse all sorts of grand idea's and false premises dressed in big jargon, but their whole philosophy is dead and without merit. Reason is not a beacon for these parasites, but they gladly cling to self delusion and grandiosity.

[blackhorse]

"Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority."-Ayn Rand

"A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin."-A.R.

[studiodekadent]

That said, yes, the ACLU also shares some nonlibertarian positions, but "he works with the ACLU" is hardly proof that someone's a progressive fascist.

All that said, I'm not defending Marc Lamont Hill's every belief or position. I would clearly disagree with him on many issues. Just saying that "he works with the ACLU" or "he works with an organization dedicated to teaching kids about the 5th Ammendment" is hardly something to be scared about.

Whoa...

I did not say he was a progressive fascist.

Secondly, I am not afraid of him at all.

I probably miscommunicated my criticism. Mea Culpa.

What I am trying to say is that you went through his Wiki profile, attempting to find "smoking guns" which would prove he's cut from the same cloth as Obama.

All I am saying is that some of the items you highlighted do not prove that whatsoever. Sure, some other items you selected are indeed troubling, but some didn't trouble me.

The fact that his snide, oily, effete and conscending presentation on Step and Fetchit's program clearly illustrated to me that he was a typical product of today's inner city "intellectual."

Forgive my defensiveness, but as an urban cosmopolitan well-educated intellectual that can indeed be condescending (according to some), I have severe distaste for anti-intellectual populism.

Sure, I've dealt with my share of those smug-snake "I'm smarter than you therefore I'm always right and you should accept me as your overlord since I know what would really make you happy and you're just deluded by advertising" types... they absolutely offend the living hell out of me. Their elitism sickens me. I might be an arrogant intellectual but I've never bought into the Constructivist-Rationalist power-lust.

I'm just saying that the problem with those aforementioned smug-snake elitists is not the fact they are cosmopolitan latte-drinking arugula-munchers that hang out at art galleries; the problem is that they believe their intellect entitles them to use the power of the State to remake society in their own image.

I can work with that definition within a declared parameter of "substantial." I would also believe that Dr. Hill falls short of that label.

I'd disagree that he falls short of the label. Intellectuals with which one has massive levels of disagreement are still intellectuals. Its actually a tactic of the social-justice left to accuse anyone that doesn't agree with them of being 'pseudo-intellectual' (Ayn Rand, and modern Objectivists, are frequent victims of this (although I'm at least tempted to think its a fair criticism of the cult-like orthodoxy, but it wouldn't apply to the sane ones like Kelley et. al.)).

[studiodekadent]

Lamont is confusing the term intellectual with the term academic. Not surprising seeing as Orwellian Newspeak has perverted the English language. Hill is an academic, but he is by no means an intellectual in the real sense of the word. His type espouse all sorts of grand idea's and false premises dressed in big jargon, but their whole philosophy is dead and without merit. Reason is not a beacon for these parasites, but they gladly cling to self delusion and grandiosity.

You are aware that not all academics are corrupt haters of the Enlightenment, right? There are plenty of university academics who actually are on the side of Enlightenment values. George Mason University's economics faculty is packed with Austrians and free-marketers of other kinds.

I personally know several academics sympathetic to our positions. My thesis advisor (please read my Masters Thesis under "articles") loved Atlas Shrugged. Not every member of the academy is a cesspool of anti-reason anti-life anti-humanism.

If one wants to win friends amongst academics, a good way to do this is to show the common ground between their perspectives and your perspective. Its a far more productive tactic than walking into class and issuing moral condemnations.

[blackhorse]

The old adage "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is true to a point. The point being it must be a two way street. LIberals such as Lamont are on a one way street. And, no, there are not intellectuals on both sides. It is not an amiguous term, but a distinction that has standards. An intellectual, by its correct definition, is one who incorporates reason into their learning and logic, otherwise anyone could claim to be an intellectual.

An academic is one who has gained much information from their schooling, nevermind the fact the the education may be faulty and erroneous, whereas as an intellectual understands what he is being taught and whether it is consonant with reality or not.

[studiodekadent]

The old adage "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is true to a point. The point being it must be a two way street. LIberals such as Lamont are on a one way street.

Maybe Lamont himself, but not all self-labelled liberals or leftists are immune to argument. I'm speaking from experience, here.

And, no, there are not intellectuals on both sides. It is not an amiguous term, but a distinction that has standards. An intellectual, by its correct definition, is one who incorporates reason into their learning and logic, otherwise anyone could claim to be an intellectual.

I have met many people I regard as intelligent who disagree with me on many issues.

Rand's conception of reason is, in my judgment, correct. However it is scarcely a self-evident conception, especially in a field as complicated as technical epistemology. Honest errors are possible at many points and even very powerful intellects can make mistakes like this.

I'm not going to go into the issue of Lamont himself, but you can't go in with an assumption that someone who systematically disagrees with you is an evader.

I found plenty of people amenable to at least some Objectivist arguments when I was studying philosophy. You just have to use academic vocabulary and tone down the bombastic, sweeping declarations.

It isn't hard to do. Again, read my master's thesis.

An academic is one who has gained much information from their schooling, nevermind the fact the the education may be faulty and erroneous, whereas as an intellectual understands what he is being taught and whether it is consonant with reality or not.

Translation: "Objectivists (or those within the general orbit of Objectivism) are the only true intellectuals."

I'm an Objectivist and even I find that a frankly boneheaded statement.

[Selene]

Andrew:

One of the reasons that Objectivists were, and are, their own worst enemies, is this effete belief that they are the holders of the true path/philosophy/truth etc.

They alienate most folks with that wall of purity. It was one of the reasons that NBI crashed and burned.

Hoffer's "True Believers" in Objectivist robes are, frankly, dangerous to attracting open and honest folks to the open system philosophy of objectivism.

Anyone who gets within three feet of me and in a conversation sooner or later will be exposed to our ideas, Ayn's name and Atlas Shrugged..

Anyone in a phone conversation will also be steered that way, for example, I was settling a debt for a client with a firm in Toronto this week and during our conversation I mentioned the situation in Toronto and its mayor. As I engaged him, I wove Ayn name into the conversation and Atlas Shrugged which he looked up on his computer while we were talking.

He called today to confirm that CitiBank was signing the Stipulation that I sent them and it was being mailed back to me. He also said that he had picked up Atlas and was about 200 pages into it and could not put it down. We exchanged e-mails and will stay in contact.

It has always worked for me and I have brought a lot of folks to Ayn's ideas over the last five decades.

I like your approach and sure you are strongly outspoken. I respect that. You are also thoughtful. I respect that also.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

Hoffer's "True Believers" in Objectivist robes are, frankly, dangerous to attracting open and honest folks to the open system philosophy of objectivism.

I agree.

I like your approach and sure you are strongly outspoken. I respect that. You are also thoughtful. I respect that also.

My sincere thanks. I appreciate the compliment.

[BaalChatzaf]

They alienate most folks with that wall of purity. It was one of the reasons that NBI crashed and burned.

Hoffer's "True Believers" in Objectivist robes are, frankly, dangerous to attracting open and honest folks to the open system philosophy of objectivism.

Open! Open? You just said the "O" word. Treason! Blasphemy!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[blackhorse]

Smart does not always equal intelligent.

[caroljane]

.

Anyone in a phone conversation will also be steered that way, for example, I was settling a debt for a client with a firm in Toronto this week and during our conversation I mentioned the situation in Toronto and its mayor.

Adam

I'm curious - what did this nascent Objectivist have to say about Coach Rob?

[Selene]

.

Anyone in a phone conversation will also be steered that way, for example, I was settling a debt for a client with a firm in Toronto this week and during our conversation I mentioned the situation in Toronto and its mayor.

Adam

I'm curious - what did this nascent Objectivist have to say about Coach Rob?

Carol:

He was just surprised that I knew about the situation. He is a life long Canadian. I complemented you guys on being a solid economy in a world that is economically floundering. He was also quite proud of how well Canada was fairing. He mentioned that his company might be relocating some of its operations back to the US becasuse of the dollar weakness.

He was quite proud of how you have absorbed immigrants into a positive economy. I agreed and complemented the fact that you guys have a legal process that works, unlike us.

I mentioned that I knew a person who lived in Toronto and that was why I was so familiar with his city and the Mayor's "policies." He will be looking into Ayn's works this weedend and he will e-mail me if he has any questions. I will be following up with him mid/late next week when I receive the documents that they signed that I prepared.

I will inquire as to his perceptions of Coach Bob specifically when I speak with him.

Adam

special report from the lower 57 states - I know we have 57 states because O'biwan, the smartest, most brilliant man to ever occupy Wall Street and the Presidency of the US said so!

[caroljane]

.

Anyone in a phone conversation will also be steered that way, for example, I was settling a debt for a client with a firm in Toronto this week and during our conversation I mentioned the situation in Toronto and its mayor.

Adam

I'm curious - what did this nascent Objectivist have to say about Coach Rob?

Carol:

He was just surprised that I knew about the situation. He is a life long Canadian. I complemented you guys on being a solid economy in a world that is economically floundering. He was also quite proud of how well Canada was fairing. He mentioned that his company might be relocating some of its operations back to the US becasuse of the dollar weakness.

He was quite proud of how you have absorbed immigrants into a positive economy. I agreed and complemented the fact that you guys have a legal process that works, unlike us.

I mentioned that I knew a person who lived in Toronto and that was why I was so familiar with his city and the Mayor's "policies." He will be looking into Ayn's works this weedend and he will e-mail me if he has any questions. I will be following up with him mid/late next week when I receive the documents that they signed that I prepared.

I will inquire as to his perceptions of Coach Bob specifically when I speak with him.

Adam

special report from the lower 57 states - I know we have 57 states because O'biwan, the smartest, most brilliant man to ever occupy Wall Street and the Presidency of the US said so!

Thanks for the nice words about our polity. We are very lucky with our economy, due in large part to the shrewd and conservative policies of the previous (ironically Liberal) government who strengthened the coffers during the boom years and guarded them in the downturns. And progressive immigration policies over two generations of post-WWii iimmigration, in the main, are paying off. For example, I think that mandatory free English or French language training for newcomers who are not self-supporting is immeasurably valuable. Of course I would think so since I earn my living from it.

Further ? about your client, what part of Toronto does he live in? In 1998 there was a forcible amalgamation of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in which former boroughs like East York and cities like North York which surrounded the "old" Toronto became Toronto also. This was supposed to save money ("economies of scale") but of course it didn't.

Mayor Ford comes from Etobicoke, a former suburb city, and has an active distrust and dislike of core Torontonians.

[Selene]

Further ? about your client, what part of Toronto does he live in? In 1998 there was a forcible amalgamation of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in which former boroughs like East York and cities like North York which surrounded the "old" Toronto became Toronto also. This was supposed to save money ("economies of scale") but of course it didn't.

Mayor Ford comes from Etobicoke, a former suburb city, and has an active distrust and dislike of core Torontonians.

Carol:

My client is in Brooklyn NY. This is the negotiator for the Bank who works and lives in Toronto that I am interacting with. Sorry if I was not clear.

I will be able to find out that info though. because I am very good at bonding with folks in these types of interactions.

Adam

[caroljane]

Obama's 57 states comment worries me. Maybe it is a glimpse into his despotic marxist mind, More states, a great election coup! Well, he better not think to grab them from the True North Strong and Free! Not even Newfoundland will we give up. Maybe Cape Breton and a couple of villages in Saskatchewan, but that's it.

[blackhorse]

Obama flubs places and people all the time because Obama is only about Obama and his relentless crusade for communism. Plus, he is a collectivist, and all that matters are the ends.-why bother with people, places, or things?

[studiodekadent]

Obama flubs places and people all the time because Obama is only about Obama and his relentless crusade for communism. Plus, he is a collectivist, and all that matters are the ends.-why bother with people, places, or things?

Oh god...

Look, I am NO fan of Obama. However, he is not a "communist."

He's a social democrat, i.e. an advocate of a redistributionist and regulatory State that administrates a mixed economy.

He doesn't want to abolish the price mechanism or private ownership of the means of production.

Yes, social democrats are socialists (in the broad ideological sense) in terms of moral and meta-political principles, but they are advocates of a mixed economy in practice. They've accepted that the central planners LOST the Economic Calculation Debate.

But to abolish the distinction between a social democrat and a Marxist-Leninist is just intellectually lazy.

Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy with a very strong welfare state. Fabian Socialists advocate the use of the democratic process to transition to full State Socialism. Marxists advocate violent revolution to transition to full State Socialism (at first... after that the State is meant to 'whither away' somehow).

I do NOT like Obama, but there are very relevant differences between Obama and "communism."

[caroljane]

Obama flubs places and people all the time because Obama is only about Obama and his relentless crusade for communism. Plus, he is a collectivist, and all that matters are the ends.-why bother with people, places, or things?

Um, Rick Perry flubbed one-third of his entire policy statement -- was that because he is only about Perry and a relentless crusade for communism?