Do you think the Beatles are controversial now? If Breitbart’s big expose had been that Obama owned a copy of Rubber Soul, do you think that would be a newsworthy issue? If not, how is Derrick Bell different from the Beatles? What did Bell advocate in his day, that we should be concerned about in our day? Do you even know what was controversial about Derrick Bell? Or are you just saying that he’s controversial because someone told you he was?
Miller, That was my entire point about the Beatles, controversial in years past, totally main stream today. Can the same be said about Bell?
The people who say he’s controversial blow the dust off some books he wrote and say “look here”. The people who say he’s not crontroversial say “that was a long time ago and nobody cares”.
But don’t bother answering because the concensus in this thread is that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody’s around it does not make a noise. Meaning that since nobody knows who Bell is or was anything he said or wrote can not be controversial and any connection to him and the President is irrelevant. And in the future if we want to know anything about a presidential candidate we just need to read their autobiography.
“Excuse me, sir, I’ve got that delivery of straw for you. Where would you like me to unload the truck?”
Or you could just answer Miller’s questions. You seem to demonstrate little actual knowledge of Bell’s work and why some people are claiming that he was controversial, and in the next breath dismissing anyone who says he wasn’t controversial and that this is a non-issue being drummed up by the Breitbarts and Hannitys of the world to attempt to make Obama look like some crazed radical. Either present an actual argument why you think Obama’s association with Bell is any sort of issue, or admit that you’re “just asking questions” and therefore can be safely ignored.
No, the people who say he’s not controversial do that; see post #156.
My answers to Millers questions;
No, No, One is mainstream the other is not, Everything, When he said what he said, No.
Bottomline I can never relate to what Derrick Bell went through growing up. I can appreciate and respect his views on race based on his experiences growing up. But that still does not mean they were not controversial at that time, and to some still controversial today. IMHO by the time the Y generation’s children have children he might no longer be considered controversial. Hell there are still people out there that won’t buy a Japanese built car because of WWII.
Now please tell me why he’s not a controversial figure without using the line “it was a long time ago and nobody knows who he is.”
That silly sad fact would not make it legitimately “controversial” if Obama had hugged a Japanese industrialist. There are “some,” no doubt, to whom a clip of Obama hugging MLK would have been every bit as damning, but the less said of them the better and the less heard from them the best.
Because his ideas are not, not any more. “Whites will not support civil rights policies that may threaten white social status” is not a controversy, it is a commonplace, one we have seen demonstrated countless times from the 1970s onward.
That post subscibes to the “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around it doesn’t make a noise” theory.
That happens to be perfectly true, when the “noise” in question = “public controversy.”
I would think that by definition, there can’t be a public controversy around the guy if the public has no idea who he is. I can accept that he could be controversial in academic circles - you know, where people read and debate his work rather than pointing to a couple of sentences or something as part of a debate about a third person - but an obscure figure can’t be the subject of a national controversy. As noted, this outrage is rather phony.
No outrage on my part. Just looking for stimulating discourse.
My closest friend who had very different views of things than I do passed away recently and this is a subject we would have beat each other up over (that’s figuratively) all night and into the wee hours.
If you’re not challenged you’re not growing.
Breitbart’s outrage, then, and that of everybody else who hopped on this story, is phony.
I am not Breitbart or anyone else but me so my views are mine and not theirs. And I make no attempt to speak for anyone but myself.
Perception is reality. If “Breitbart and everybody” else perceives this as a controversy then that it their reality.
I was talking about the general issue, not you specifically.
That’s actually the exact opposite of how it works. Over the years plenty of TV shows and websites and other outlets have tried to generate interest by proclaiming that something is controversial before anybody knows what it is. A controversy is the response. If it turns out that practically nobody gives a shit, then there’s no controversy - it’s just hype. Remember how Breitbart was going around crowing about his explosive discovery about Obama’s college years? Well, this was evidently all he found: video of something that happened 20 years ago and which was aired on PBS four ago, concerning a guy the public hasn’t heard of. This thread has outlasted the “controversy” at this point. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, but like I said, it indicates the public really didn’t care. If almost nobody cares, there is no controversy.
I have not seen anyone point to anything Bell said that would be considered controversial at “that time,” “this time,” or anytime.
Their reality. They might or might not succeed in making it anyone else’s. Should they fail, the (public) controversy does not exist.
I so wanted to let this die but I can’t let this slide.
ANYBODY talking about race relations in the fifties and through the sixties would have been considered a controversial figure. Especially a black lawyer working on school desegregation cases. One could argue he did more for the cause behind the scenes than Dr. King did in front. A nameless warrior is still a warrior.
That’s the nice thing about having a library within walking distance of your house, what you don’t know you can learn.
Which of Bell’s writings have you read?
If anyone agrees or not it’s still their reality. Ultimately I don’t think they are trying to change anyones mind, the goal is to hype up the “believers”. One side is going to latch onto anything they can the other will dismiss it out of hand.
Honestly, they played this card too soon if they really wanted it to have any traction. No “controversy” lasts more than a couple weeks.
Especially during March Madness.
The Derrick Bell Reader.
I admit I skimmed. Not my type of reading. I only read to learn when I have to, I prefer to read to escape reality.