quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Lawd, I wish you'd stop writing so that I could stop being pulled into this conversation! :P

Sorry ...

quote:

quote:

But there are SO many other things that we could do (and are not) that would be much more effective - and in some ways easier to accomplish - if we really wish to begin solving our long term problems.

First, though, I would like to say that I agree with these two statements, and, (again, not having read the thread) I don't know if somebody has said something to the contrary where that's concerned, but just so you know my perspective regarding it, I do agree with both of them!

ER, I was replying to what I understood to be claimed in the opening Commentary. Namely that so called "New jack" leadership was not offering "alternatives" or seriously working on the issues ... and somehow needed to "earn" the right just to be heard or taken into consideration.

I have simply tried to indicate that there are some problems with that thinking.

And for some reason that I cannot wrap my brain around some people seem to get upset at the mere suggestion that the type of response we saw in Jena is good but insufficient - if for no other reason than the logical one: that it would be impossible to mount such a mass demonstration every time injustice rears its ugly head.

quote:

quote:

It begins with inclusion and listening to the voices of younger people who have perspectives that you don't (and perhaps can't) have.

Now ... with this one here ...

First of all, I believe you are making some unfair sweeping generalizations. Some of “us” (old folks) may not be listening “you” (young folks) but that’s not true for all of “us”. Some of “us” do listen and hear you loud and clear. But it seems that there is no distinction being given for that. And the same is true for the reverse. Some of “you” are not hearing “us” either, but that is not true for your entire generation. And I think I’ve tried to be fair by making that determination clear. And I don’t think it’s too much to ask that some of “us” be given that same consideration.

ER, this is so very true. And I agree. Well stated. I'm sorry if you feel that I have not heard you.

quote:

When your generation says, "We're looking for answers and y’all won’t give us any."

And my generation says, “True, we dropped the ball … but this is what you need to do to pick it up.”

And your generation says, “No, we don’t want to do that and don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. We have other issues, and we want you to address those.”

And my generation says, “Well, we are trying to address those issues … there are certain steps to it and this is what we feel are the best ways to move your tasks forward.”

And your generation says, “Well, it’s not. We know what we need better than you do. Now, address our issues, please, and stop screwing up!”

The question: What are we supposed to do when you ask for answers, yet reject them when they are offered to you?
.........................................
So, the question (again) is: When, from our vantage point, we are offering solutions, and you, from your vantage point, refuse to acknowledge them as valid, what are we supposed to do next to lessen this divide?[/

I cannot speak for others, but, personally, I * have * tried to learn from previous generations. Not only by talking to older folks. But by reading. I read a lot. I'm currently reading The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual by Harold Cruse. That's very "Old jack".

And my last post above was intended to show appreciation for Cornel West. This is a man whose career I've followed since I was a teenager. I've always admired him.

Throughout my life, my closest friends have been older folks. My best friends here in Kentucky just turned 62. (He's the one, by the way, who has most strongly counseled me to leave this place)

So when I criticize some older people ("Old jacks") there is a certain irony about it. Because, if some of you can't hear me (of all people), then I think it unlikely that these folks are really capable of hearing a whole lot of us (young or old). The scariest thing is that some of these folks have a lot of power and influence - the black clergy is one instance that comes to my mind (notice that both Jesse and Al are "reverends").

But ultimately, I believe it's problematic to begin the discussion by pitting "New jacks" against "Old jacks". Because it is not exactly productive and confuses the issues.

It's more like "New paradigms" vs. "Old paradigms". Some older people grasp the new paradigms. And some young people are still committed to the older ones. There should be room for both.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to answer your question. There seems to be a lot of frustration in the back and forth dialogue that you present.

Maybe the best thing to do is realize that there's sincere frustration and uncertainty all around.

One example in my life of this type of conversation is in the area of religion. Some older folks tell me that if I go to church then I'll have no problems meeting good women. But they don't understand that I cannot relate to the church. They don't really know any other religious paradigms. I wish I could be comfortable in the church ... but for a number of reasons I'm not. For me it's a matter of maintaining my integrity. Many folks don't understand that.

So it goes like this:

A. You need to come to church.

B. You need to change the church.

A. We're not perfect. But you still need to come to church.

B. Not before you change the church.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Like I said, I'm not sure how to answer your question.

quote:

We have been in your shoes, while you have never been in ours. At one time, we were the younger, misunderstood generation. And you can’t possibly know what it feels like to look back and see mistakes being made. While you will one day, you simply can't do that right now.

Speaking for myself, I doubt (for a number of reasons) if too many of you have ever been in my shoes. I know this partly from talking with my older friends. Although it's also true that not too many people in my own generation are in my shoes. And it's also the case that I haven't been in your shoes.

In fact, I think that one thing that has emerged from this discussion is how * local * our point of view can be. It depends upon age, gender, geographic region, and social class among other factors.

We can all learn from each other. We should allow ourselves to be enriched by the experiences of other people.

Leadership should not be about titles and power. Who is or isn't the top dog. Or who gets on TV. I'm afraid that these types of discussions tend to get needlessly tangled up on this type of thinking.

Leadership should be about being responsible for using what we have for the betterment of all and finding the best ways to do that (which sometimes involves making room for new leadership).

Everybody can do that. "Old jack" and "New jack". We should all be encouraged to assume whatever leadership capacity that we can and support one another to the extent possible. To do otherwise is to waste precious human resources.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HonestBrother,

I'M AN ELITIST TOO.

I agree absolutely with everything you've just said! And I have only two comments to make about it! The first is:

quote:

I cannot speak for others, but, personally, I * have * tried to learn from previous generations. Not only by talking to older folks. But by reading. I read a lot. I'm currently reading The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual by Harold Cruse. That's very "Old jack".

I think this is a good thing, and I would encourage you to read more *old* stuff. Particularly because so much of it is relevant and prevalent to society today. And, you may be able to find (or at least think of) new solutions to the old problems that still persist.

quote:

And for some reason that I cannot wrap my brain around some people seem to get upset at the mere suggestion that the type of response we saw in Jena is good but insufficient - if for no other reason than the logical one: that it would be impossible to mount such a mass demonstration every time injustice rears its ugly head.

This I see as a yes and a no. Jena was successful, because it effected change and dialog. It also did bring the masses together ... and unity is a big problem for us. In Jena, we overcame that problem ... if only for a day.

But, moreover, protesting en masse does not have to be a physical (actual bodies) thing. A successful protest can be obtained by a bombardment of emails, phone calls, faxes and things like that. The main point behind Jena was that many voices were heard. Even though most people didn't actually say anything ... their presence signified voices ... just like votes do. And, when there's enough of them, somebody will have to listen.

Now that I think about it, I don't really care about leadership too much as long as it ain't too F'd up (fatally flawed) and as long as I agree with the mission. Still analysis and critique given in a loving and constructive manner are good things.

Let those that are willing to step up to the plate lead...I prefer the background work (no, really)

Besides...we need some followers!