Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army
AIM Report | By Cliff Kincaid | April 30, 2008
The revelations about Davis’ poetry will add to the controversy over what kind of role Davis played in shaping Obama’s political views.
Barack
Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the
Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, wrote a poem dedicated to the Soviet Red
Army. “Smash on, victory-eating Red Army,” he declared. He also wrote poems
attacking traditional Christianity and the work of Christian missionaries.
The “Red Army” poem
goes beyond hoping for the communists to beat the Nazis in World War II and
hails the Soviet revolution. It says:
“Show the marveling multitudes
Americans, British, all your allied brothers
How strong you are
How great you are
How your young tree of new unity
Planted twenty-five years ago
Bears today the golden fruit of victory!”
One Davis poem, “Christ is a Dixie Nigger,”
dismisses Christ as “another New White Hope” and declares:
“Remember this, you wise guys
Your tales about Jesus of Nazareth are no-go
with me
I’ve got a dozen Christs in Dixie all bloody
and black…”
The revelations about Davis’ poetry will add to the controversy over what kind
of role Davis
played in shaping Obama’s political views. Davis (1905-1987) seems to have had the same
kind of anti-American outlook that animated Obama’s longtime pastor, Jeremiah
Wright. In fact, Davis
was pro-Soviet, not just anti-American.
The controversial poems
are included in the book, Black Moods, a collection edited by John Edgar
Tidwell, a professor at the University
of Kansas and expert on Davis’ writings and
career. He confirms that Davis
joined the Communist Party but that he publicly tried to deny his communist
affiliations.
Davis’ poem, “To
the Red Army,” says that “rich industrialists” in Washington
and London
wanted Hitler to win and “wipe Communism from the globe.”
One Davis poem, “Onward Christian Soldiers,”
mocks the Christian hymn by the same name. It talks of Africans being killed
with a “Christian gun” instead of a spear by the missionaries following “the
religion of Sweet Jesus.” Another Davis
poem refers to Christians “who buy righteousness like groceries.”
Davis’ writings have become an issue because he became a
father-figure to Obama, who is the leading Democratic candidate for president
of the U.S., during their
time in Hawaii.
Obama acknowledges in his book, Dreams From My Father, that he knew and
accepted advice from a black poet named “Frank” but doesn’t identify “Frank” by
his full name. However, several sources, including Professor Gerald Horne and
Dr. Kathryn Takara, have confirmed that “Frank” was in fact Frank Marshall
Davis. Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and
blogger, first noted evidence that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis in a
posting in March of 2007.
Secret History
In remarks at a reception of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) archives
at the Tamiment Library at New York University, Horne, a contributing editor of the
Communist Party journal Political Affairs, asserted that Davis
had come into contact with Obama’s family in Hawaii and became the young man’s mentor,
influencing his sense of identity and career path.
Obama writes in Dreams
From My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college. He
said that Davis
called college an “advanced degree in compromise,” warned Obama not to forget
his “people,” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity
and the American way and all that ####.”
The record shows that
Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where he
developed his close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, and listened to his “poetry” and
views.
But in the same way
that he fails to identify “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis, Obama says nothing
about the nature of this “poetry.” However, Tidwell says that several of Davis’ poems were viewed
as “subversive” by the FBI and that they help explain why it monitored his
activities. Tidwell says the FBI maintained a file on Davis.
Anti-American
One Davis
poem, “Peace Quiz for America,”
includes the lines:
“Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam
Why did you send me against Axis foes
In the death-kissed
foxholes
Of New Guinea and Europe
Without shielding my back
From the sniping Dixie lynchers
In the jungles of Texas and Florida?”
Tidwell asserts that Davis was a “closet”
member of the CPUSA and that it’s not clear how long he stayed in the party.
The Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee (SISS) reprinted the 1953 and 1954 Reports of the
Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory
of Hawaii, which refer to Davis as “an identified
member of the Communist Party” who was affiliated with a number of Communist
fronts and circulated “inflammatory racial propaganda.” Davis
also wrote columns for the Honolulu Record, a Communist paper, featuring
“unrelenting and unmitigated complaints of racial discrimination in the United States.”
Davis was
labeled “a bitter opponent of capitalism” and “staunch defender” of communists
and communist sympathizers.
Max Friedman, a
longtime writer and researcher on internal security affairs, discovered that Davis testified in 1956
before the SISS and took the Fifth Amendment on his Communist Party membership.
The House Committee on
Un-American Activities (HCUA) took testimony in 1950 from a member of the Honolulu branch of the
NAACP, Edward Berman, who referred to
“Comrade Davis” as someone who “sneaked” into the NAACP meetings “with the
avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist
line.”
Tidwell says that
Davis “felt betrayed” when Soviet dictator Stalin signed the 1939 nonaggression
pact with Nazi Germany, which triggered World War II, but that Stalin’s
eventual decision to join the U.S. and its allies in a war on the Axis
powers “restored a measure of Davis’ confidence in the USSR.”
Another book, The
New Red Negro, by James Edward Smethurst, says that while Davis had said he was disturbed by the
Hitler-Stalin pact, he did not leave the CPUSA in protest over it.
Tidwell maintains that
Davis moved to Hawaii
from Chicago, Illinois, in 1948 under “the governmental
pressure of McCarthyism,” a reference to anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy.
However, the SISS and the HCUA had nothing to do with McCarthy’s committee,
which was the Permanent Investigations Sub-committee of the Senate’s Government
Operations Committee.
In fact, McCarthy
didn’t emerge as a figure in the anti-communist movement until 1950.
The SISS hearings were
held for the purpose of determining the “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States.”
William Rusher, who
served as associate counsel to the SISS in 1956-1957, has written that “It is
hard for most people to imagine the influence that even a relatively small
number of dedicated people can have, but the CPUSA exerted significant power in
its heyday—a heyday, be it remembered, in which the Soviet Union impressed many
people as the wave of the future, destined to overwhelm a weak and fading West,
including the United States.”
This pro-Communist view
appears to have been the mindset of Frank Marshall Davis, who spent many hours
advising and reading poetry to a young Barack Obama.
JOURNALIST
ASKS BUSH TO PROTECT IRAQI CHRISTIANS
On the eve
of the Pope’s visit to the U.S.,
journalist Raymond Arroyo took President Bush to task for his policy toward the
plight of Christians in Iraq.
Arroyo, anchor of the show, “The World Over,” aggressively questioned Bush
about some of the issues we raised in a recent AIM Report. The entire interview
aired on April 11 on the EWTN Global Catholic Network. Here are excerpts from
his tough interview with the President:
Q—I think his [the Pope’s] perspective is going to be
very different from what we’re reading in the newspapers this week. I think
what he’ll primarily talk about, and if my sources at the Vatican can be
believed, he will probably talk about the 40 bombed churches”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.”
Q—40 percent of the refugees being Christian—”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.”
Q—he’s very concerned about that Christian minority in Iraq.”
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.”
Q—When he spoke to you in 2007 he raised this. What is
the administration prepared to do for this fledgling remnant of Christianity—an
ancient community there?”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, absolutely. You know, it’s something we have
been doing all along, is urging the government to understand that minority
rights are a vital part of any democratic society. And by the way, my concern
isn’t just for minority rights in Iraq;
it’s for minority rights throughout the Middle East.
And I have dealt with the Holy Father about—with not only the issue of Iraq, but also the issue of Catholics in—and
Christians in the Holy Land. I can remember
very well, early in my presidency, I think it was Cardinal Egan or maybe
Cardinal McCarrick came to see me about the mosque encroaching on the
Catholic—the great Catholic Church, and would I use my influence with the
Israelis to convince them to be mindful of the need for minority rights? And I
said, absolutely. In my visit to the Holy Land,
this recent time, there’s a lot of concern about the kind of, the—I guess,
non-acceptance. I met Sisters that were in the Galilean area that were just
serving mankind so beautifully, and yet their leadership was concerned about
minority rights. So my view is like—Iraq is important, but I’ve used
our influence all throughout the region. And I’ve used our influence all
throughout the world to promote rights for all religious minorities, including China. ”
Q—We saw that Archbishop Raho, he was murdered in Iraq. This past
weekend”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.”
Q—an Orthodox priest slain on the doorstep of his home.
Is the administration—do you believe that this is religiously motivated
violence?”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do. I believe they’re—I believe what they’re
trying to do is trying to send messages—“they” being the killers—trying to send
messages that it’s not worth your time, that you must abandon the efforts of
helping this free society deliver. I don’t think this is government-sponsored.
I think these are a bunch of thugs and killers who have this kind of dark, dim
view of the world, and are willing to kill anybody who’s willing to stand up to
them. And it’s not just these religious figures. There are a lot of innocent
men, women and children who are being killed by them, as well. This is their
techniques, this is their tactics, and it’s the same type of mentality that
caused people to fly airplanes into our buildings to kill 3,000 of our
citizens.”
Q—What can we tangibly do? What can the administration
tangibly plead with the Iraqi government to do to protect this fledgling
minority? Is there anything we can do?”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one thing we can do is to keep our troops
there long enough to have a civil society emerge, and go after them, and go
after these killers, and bring them to justice so they quit killing people,
including our own troops, because this is a war.
Q—Would you commit our troops to protecting those
communities where they’re endangered?
THE PRESIDENT: I commit our troops to helping the Iraqis provide
safety for all innocent Iraqis. In other words, I—you got to understand that
what you’re witnessing is not just an assault on innocent Christians; you are
witnessing assault on innocent people of all faiths by a group of cold-blooded
killers who want to drive the United States
out of the Middle East because they hate free
societies.
Middle East Online
reported that “Iraq’s
Christians are targeted by both radical Sunnis and Shi’ites. Unlike those
Islamic sects, Christians do not have militias or large tribes to protect them.
That leaves them particularly vulnerable to kidnappings and ransom demands by
criminal gangs, who may pose as Islamic radicals—or by the real radicals who
target Christians because of their beliefs.”
In a new development, Rep.
Frank Wolf (R-VA) has formed a Caucus on Religious Minorities in the Middle
East, a bipartisan Congressional Member Organization dedicated to serving as a
central location for information on religious minorities in the Middle East. A congressional reception for the group
included a 60 Minutes segment highlighting the persecution of Christians in Iraq.
“FREE TRADE”
PROMOTES NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The White House had wanted a quick vote in favor of a
“U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,” saying it would help U.S. business, bolster the anti-communist
government of Colombia, and
deal a setback to the anti-American ruler of Venezuela. The name had been
changed from the “U.S. Colombia Free-Trade Agreement.” But the U.S. can’t fight Colombia’s communist drug-dealing
terrorists, or Hugo Chavez, with trade agreements, especially those that don’t
really promote “free trade.”
Like so many issues, the dispute had become a case of
partisan politics. Congressional Democrats engineered a delay of the vote. But
what was lacking from the media, especially the conservative media, was a
coherent analysis of how flawed the agreement really was. The Colombia
agreement had 18 pages devoted to caring for the environment through new
institutions and arrangements.
You didn’t have to read past the preamble to see that it puts the U.S. further
down the road of sovereignty-destroying “hemispheric integration.” This
agreement also urges pursuit of the “Free Trade of the Americas,” described as an effort to unite the
economies of the Americas
into a single free-trade area. This is free trade at the expense of sovereign
nation-states. Many people forget that our national government originally
raised its revenue through tariffs and didn’t have a federal income tax.
Tariffs, imposts and duties are tools that a nation-state uses to protect
industries critical to the economy and national defense.
Some prominent Democrats such as Bill Clinton and liberal newspapers
like the New York Times were backing the agreement. Clinton forced the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress as an agreement, when he realized that he
couldn’t get the two-thirds he needed in the Senate to pass it as a treaty.
North American Summit
As Bush promoted the Colombia
agreement, he was preparing to host the next “North American Summit” in New Orleans on April 21
and April 22. It was designed to review the progress and give direction to the
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which was launched by Bush and the
leaders of Mexico and Canada in 2005.
The SPP, which has never been authorized or approved by Congress, is a
secretive arrangement to integrate the laws and regulations of the three
countries.
Bush has seemingly embraced veteran Democratic Party
foreign policy specialist Robert Pastor’s vision of a “North American
Community” evolving from NAFTA. Pastor served as one of Clinton’s advisers.
In a speech, President Bush let the cat out of the bag, saying that the
Colombia agreement has
“economic potential” but “even greater national security importance because of Colombia’s
strategic location.” But there are better and other ways to support the
Colombian government politically. One is to provide more military aid to
intensify the war on the drug traffickers and their allies.
Free Trade?
The concept of “free trade” has been transformed into elaborate and
lengthy agreements between nations that do far more than just eliminate
tariffs. They build international institutions of a governmental nature that
manage trade relations between states. They place decision-making in the hands
of international bureaucrats.
This Colombia
agreement is no exception. It sets up a “Free Trade Commission” and
“Environmental Affairs Council” to handle disputes.
Going beyond this, the Colombia agreement declares that “The Parties
recognize that the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
(NAAEC) provides that a person or organization residing or established in the
territory of the United States may file a submission under that agreement with the
Secretariat of the NAAEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation asserting
that the United States is failing to effectively enforce its environmental
laws.” The NAAEC is the environmental side agreement to NAFTA.
It’s one thing
to favor the lowering or elimination of tariffs, but “hemispheric integration”
implies much more. It suggests a political merger of some kind. The U.S. needs
less, not more, of this kind of integration with other countries. We need to
restore U.S.
sovereignty.
Promoting true free trade between nations is relatively straightforward
and easy to accomplish. “The vast majority of Colombian products pay no tariffs
to enter U.S.
markets,” the White House says. On the other hand, it says that “U.S. industrial and consumer goods exported to Colombia face
tariffs of up to 35 percent, with much higher tariffs on many agricultural
products.” The problem, quite clearly, is Colombia’s
high taxes on U.S.
goods. If Colombia wants to
buy more U.S.
products, it should reduce or eliminate those taxes. The U.S. doesn’t
need an elaborate agreement on hemispheric integration or environmental
cooperation to accomplish that.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I hope this comes through as a link to an excellent article found in a recent Don Irving blog. This should be widely read.
Thanks, Pat
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian
Why does the MSM fail to tell us about these things? Why does it fall on Hillary Clinton to have to push a story before the Obamaphiles in the media will pick up the story. Hell, Wright had video and the media elites forgave Obama after reading that fake speech from a teleprompter. When Matthews said that High Schools should have to read that speech, I nearly fell in the floor laughing. Obama could read the dictionary and Matthews and Olbermann would be saying that God himself was speaking through Obama. Maybe Hillary can somehow get this “Frank” in without getting the usual, “your playing too rough!” charges.
Has anyone looked at the LOBBYISTS working for Obama on his payroll and who they represented? It would be interesting to find out given his stance on LOBBYISTS.
Also, why can’t I find the Original Global Poverty Act Bill that Obama introduced. It read totally different that the one now available. This current one does not cite the US Codes. That is where the meat is. Also what do you have on the
UNITED NATION’S LAW OF THE SEA TREATY THAT SENATOR OBAMA, SENATOR BIDEN AND SENATOR LUGAR ARE TRYING TO GET OR HAVE GOTTEN INTO THE LEGISLATURE?
WHY DO NOT PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THEM?
Frank Marshal Davis was a black man. He grew up in a time when the communists seemed to offer no legal barriers to acceptance. He writes that he was determined to wipe out white supremacy, and and worked with all kinds of groups, “...Communist, Socialist, or merely liberal.” He was a man of intelligence, courage, and charisma. I think it is a shame that any source of inspiration blacks might call their own is somehow flawed. I can not believe that this
acquaintance should be conjured as a taint on Obama.
Davis wrote:
“Remember this, you wise guys
Your tales about Jesus of Nazareth are no-go with me
I’ve got a dozen Christs in Dixie all bloody and black…”
????
“One Davis poem, “Onward Christian Soldiers,” mocks the Christian hymn by the same name. It talks of Africans being killed with a “Christian gun” instead of a spear by the missionaries following “the religion of Sweet Jesus””
????
Thats sick, no matter what apologies are contrived.
Anti-American
One Davis poem, “Peace Quiz for America,” includes the lines:
“Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam
Why did you send me against Axis foesIn the death-kissed foxholes
Of New Guinea and Europe
Without shielding my back
From the sniping Dixie lynchers
In the jungles of Texas and Florida?”
[END QUOTE]Davis ASKS why was he sent to fight the Axis when he is subject to lynching at home. It is anti-lynching. How is it “anti-American,” unless you consider lynching to be “American”?
“Davis ASKS why was he sent to fight the Axis when he is subject to lynching
at home. It is anti-lynching. How is it “anti-American,” unless you
consider lynching to be “American”?”
This is Orwellian nonsense. No one who considers Davis to be anti-American has ever made such an argument. Was Davis ever threatened with a lynching? It is disingenuous to attack the U.S. govt in the manner that Davis did. Lynchings were mostly conducted by racist white southerners (a significant minority were committed against whites as well) who sympathized with the former Confederacy. This is the same Confederacy that was destroyed by the U.S. government!!! The war resulted in the abolishment of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.
There was a backlash from southern racists against government policies that included black suffrage. This necessitated the passage of the Force Act of 1870 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The reactionary racists were only temporarily defeated and a struggle lasting another 100 years was necessary to completely defeat them.
Context is important. Would American blacks have fared better under the Nazi regime, which practiced genocide against non-“Aryans”? Even Davis opposed the Nazis who invaded his beloved Soviet Union.
1. You wrote “This is Orwellian nonsense. No one who considers Davis to be anti-American has ever made such an argument.”
Cliff Cincaid considers Davis’ anti-lynching poem to be anti-American. The paragraph heading for this poem, above, is rather clear:
Anti-American
One Davis poem, “Peace Quiz for America,” includes the lines:
“Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam
Why did you send me against Axis foesIn the death-kissed foxholes
Of New Guinea and Europe
Without shielding my back
From the sniping Dixie lynchers
In the jungles of Texas and Florida?”
[END QUOTE]2. You asked “Was Davis ever threatened with a lynching?”
Yes, he was. Google “‘Frank Marshall Davis’ lynching” for hundreds of hits. He was threatened at the age of five. For example: http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2342/Davis-Frank-Marshall.html, second paragraph, titled “Victim of Attempted Lynching.”
3. You wrote “It is disingenuous to attack the U.S. govt in the manner that Davis did.”
Why is it disingenuous to ask such a question? African-Americans did NOT receive equal protection of the law. Blacks were second-class citizens. Whites who lynched blacks were not dealt with as severly as whites who killed whites. Asking why blacks were not shielded is a legitimate inquiry. not an “attack.”
4. You wrote “There was a backlash from southern racists against government policies that
included black suffrage. This necessitated the passage of the Force Act of 1870 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The reactionary racists were only temporarily defeated and a struggle lasting another 100 years was necessary to completely defeat them.”I doubt they have been completely defeated. African American resident James Byrd, Jr. was beaten, chained to a pickup truck and dragged over three miles to his death in Jasper, Texas, ten years ago. The case, which drew international attention and brought back memories of Southern lynchings from decades past, began with the discovery of Mr. Byrd’s body, scattered in pieces along the country road where he was dragged.
4. You wrote “Context is important. Would American blacks have fared better under the
Nazi regime, which practiced genocide against non-“Aryans”? Even Davis opposed the Nazis who invaded his beloved Soviet Union.”Absolutely not. The Nazis were several orders of magnitude worse than Jim Crow America. Being the lesser of two evils, however, does not grant a free pass. It was only through the constant pressure of civil rights activists, like Frank Marshall Davis, that the United States finally came to its senses.
BTW: I cannot find any comments on the AIM website at http://www.aim.org/aim-report/obamas-red-mentor-praised-red-army/. It states “0 comments.” More than half of the page seems to be taken up by a totally unrelated story titled “JOURNALIST ASKS BUSH TO PROTECT IRAQI CHRISTIANS.” I thought AIM deleted my post. I only knew you responded from the AIM notification email.
Mark,
You miss my point. Cincaid never supported lynching as your comment sarcastically stated.
It is terrible that Davis saw such a racist threat by 3rd graders, but someone obviously protected him from a lynching. To blame the federal government is disingenuous, especially when he supported such a human rights violator like the Soviet Union and railed against the Capitalism of his own country. The U.S. government had fought a war to free his people and the racism he experienced was a result of the backlash of southern whites who once resisted the government’s assault on the institution of slavery.
In any case, Davis was clearly a Communist anti-American. As he wrote:
“Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are the specialists who would save us from the dread diseases of socialism and communism. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy.”
http://www.archive.org/stream/reportonhonolulu1950unit/reportonhonolulu1950unit_djvu.txt
The power of the KKK and Dixiecrats are broken forever. The murder of James Byrd, Jr was a crime. Two of the murderers are on death row. Crimes based on racism will happen forever. There never will be an end to such things. Just like the Long Island Railroad Massacre by a black racist. Lets be realistic.
Our democratic ideals will never allow us to persecute individuals for their beliefs unless they are directly attributable to crimes. Therefore, there will always be fringe fanatics advocating all kinds of silliness, but they in no way represent any significant sentiment other than the lunatic fringe.
I experienced the same problem as you finding the comments for this post. They can be seen here:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-praised-red-army/
Cheers
Thanks for your response, but I regret that I may have been unclear. I never stated that he supported lynching. That would be an unwarranted inference. I stated that he “considers Davis’ anti-lynching poem to be anti-American,” and I ASKED “How is it “anti-American,” unless you consider lynching to be “American”?”
It is possible that someone could reasonably consider his anti-lynching poem to be “anti-American,” without considering lynching to be “American,” if (and only if) there were other (non-lynching) elements of the poem that he considered to be anti-American. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any other such elements. The only salient theme I could discern in this poem is anti-lynching.
You wrote “To blame the federal government is disingenuous, especially when he supported such a human rights violator like the Soviet Union and railed against the Capitalism of his own country.”
The federal, state, and local governments all shared responsibility with mainstream society in general for the culture of abuse. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, including laws against murder. The federal government failed to ensure that states protected blacks from lynching, and was therefore culpable.
All countries were “human rights violators.” The United States “supported” the Soviet Union during WWII. Davis did not recognize the degree of Soviet human rights violations until later. Davis railed against the EXCESSES of capitalism in his own country. I have yet to find any of his writing that advocate communism over capitalism.
You wrote “In any case, Davis was clearly a Communist anti-American.” Your quotation, however, does not seem to support your contention.
Davis’ criticism of “divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street” cannot logically be construed as anti-American. He LOVED America because of its promise and potential, but despised the leadership he felt was poisoning America. He warned that America was heading into fascism to escape socialism and communism. This rejection of fascism does not endorse socialism/communism. There is a middle path, which America has wisely taken.
Even today, some pundits misrepresent criticism of national leadership as being unpatriotic. The vast majority of such critics love America, but (especially today) disapprove of the Bush administration. Such misrepresentation may have been conventional wisdom decades ago, but many people today are much wiser.
A parallel may be drawn with criticism in human relations. Parents and supervisors are taught that effective criticism must distinguish between unacceptable behavior and unacceptable people. Reject the behavior but accept the person until their flaws become fatal to the relationship. Unless criticism is carefully made, such distinctions may be difficult to make. Hence, people may conclude that the target is rejected when the critic is only targeting certain behavior of the target.
Davis’ criticism should be viewed in the same vein. Once again: If you find any of his writing that actually advocated communism for the United States, rather than merely criticize existing conditions, please advise Cliff Kincaid and the rest of the world.
Great, now that we can see each other’s comments we can have a real conversation.
You say that, “The only salient theme I could discern in this poem is anti-lynching”. It is more accurate to say that the major theme from this excerpt of Davis’ poem centers on questioning the legitimacy of sending blacks to fight against the Axis because the U.S. government bears the responsibility for lynching.
Much like your sentiment when you stated, “The federal government failed to ensure that states protected blacks from lynching, and was therefore culpable”.
Isn’t this just an excuse to blame the U.S. government? Our government is also responsible for controlling crime, yet crime continues and there has never been a government in all of history that has eliminated it.
Lets take a look at what really happened. The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery and at the end of the war the slaves were freed. Southerners resented their humiliating loss and they retaliated against the easiest target, the freed blacks, who were not only viewed as racially inferior but as economic competitors. By solving one problem, another was created.
In the wake of the Civil War the Union faced a long-term insurgency in the South. Groups like the KKK, the White League and Red Shirts targeted whites as well as blacks. Assassinations, beatings and the intimidation of white Republicans, scalawags, carpetbaggers, election officials and schoolteachers was an integral part of their strategy.
Our government fought hard and past quite a bit of enlightened legislation:
- Freedmen’s Bureau Bill (establishing the Freedmen’s Bureau, which helped former slaves gain housing, food, schooling and social services)
- 13th Amendment (freeing slaves)
- 14th Amendment (giving former-slaves citizenship and requiring states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions)
- 15th Amendment (preserving the right to vote for citizens of any race and forbidding the exclusion of former-slaves)
- Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Protecting Civil Rights - Giving all citizens the ability to make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real estate and personal property)
- Force Act of 1870 (Protecting Freedman’s right to vote)
- Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Protecting Civil Rights and suppressing the Klan)
Yet how can you change a society in one generation?
Slavery and racism were not American inventions. Arabs had been enslaving Africans for 100s of years before Europeans and continued the practice for another century afterwards. Europeans went to war with Arabs to stop them from this practice. It was European colonialism that mostly abolished slavery in Africa (although it still persists to a small degree today).
The caste system in India continues to be a problem even as I write. Prejudice against the Chinese in Asia led to many atrocities by the Japanese during WWII and massacres in Indonesia in recent times. During the Congo Civil War pygmies were hunted like animals. In Sudan the lingering problem of slavery and religious prejudices exploded into a conflict that became a systematic attempt by Arabs to wipe out blacks.
Did the indigenous populations of those countries support the same kind of anti-discriminatory policies that the U.S. government did? I can only think of one example, Gandhi and the INC, but guess where Gandhi received his higher education? During his education in England Gandhi seriously considered converting to Christianity. He was profoundly influenced by the great humanitarian ideals of this religion.
Here is an interesting article that I read today about a mixed African American/Korean man who was brought up in South Korea by his Korean mother. He experienced so much prejudice in his native country that his mother gave him up for adoption to new parents in the U.S., despite the fact that he couldn’t speak English.
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56030
Its time for some proper context when discussing race relations in the United States.
Anyway, when I quoted Davis’ commentary it revealed his true feelings about our country. Just as many critics of the Bush Administration accuse Bush supporters of being unpatriotic as vice-a-versa. No one owns such partisan rhetoric. Yet the sacred right of dissent does not automatically guarantee those who practice it absolute moral authority. When a German Nazi condemns Germany for its anti-Nazi laws, is he or she necessarily right just for the act of defying conventional wisdom? If Davis’ highly paranoid attack on our economic system isn’t militant Communism (especially from a confirmed member of the CPUSA) then Marx was a Capitalist:
“Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are the specialists who would save us from the dread diseases of socialism and communism. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy.”
“Smash on, victory-eating Red Army!!!”
Like politicians and poets across the spectrum, Davis may have exaggerated the ailments of American society. This is poetic license. But much of the specific criticism is unfounded due to misconstrued metaphors, and failure to consider their historical context.
Re: Anti-Lynching Poem: Until the 1950s, racial discrimination was permitted under the law in the United States. Enforcing “equal protection” finally ended discriminatory laws. While the racist action of private citizens was beyond the direct control of the government, eliminating discriminatory laws WAS within their direct control. Their failure to enforce the 14th Amendment may be considered the proximate cause of racist lynching; as such, it does “bear the responsibility for lynching.”
When court decisions and civil rights legislation finally changed the law, attitudes eventually changed, including attitudes towards lynching. When the government finally acted upon its 14th Amendment responsibilities, it discharged the culpability that Davis cited in this poem.
Re: Divident Doctors Poem: But I fear that I failed to make myself clear regarding the “divident doctors” poem in my previous post. If you deconstruct the poem and closely examine his metaphors, you may recognize that:
- Democracy is the patient.
- Socialism and communism are the dread diseases.
- Political and economic leaders are the “divident doctors”
- They fooled the public into believing they are specialists
- They cannot protect against the diseases because their policies are actually poison
- The outcome for THEIR policies would be fascism instead of socialism, communism, or a healed democracy
I do not see this as a “highly paranoid attack on our economic system.” I see it as an attack on current leadership who he thought intended to destroy democracy under the veil of fighting socialism and communism. I find no evidence that this is evidence of “militant Communism.” If you see it differently, and can provide a more plausible examination of his metaphors, please advise.
Nevertheless, one can never truly know a poet’s intention. If indeed this was his intention, then it cannot reasonably be construed as “militant communist” or “anti-American.” It is only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re: Red Army Poem: In the context of the Soviet Army fighting the Germans, is “Smash on, victory-eating Red Army” acceptable from an ally?
Re: CPUSA Membership: There is still no proof that Davis was actually a member of the CPUSA. He was sympathetic to communists, but that does not make him a member. He published in their media, but that doesn’t make him a member. He was named (“accused,” identified,” “confirmed, etc.) as a member by various third parties, but neither the CPUSA nor Davis confirmed his membership. All supplied evidence of his membership is circumstantial. . Repeating a false statement doesn’t make it true.
In fact, the most incriminating evidence from either of them is weak indeed: Gerald Horne’s comment, recent reported by Cliff Kincaid, that Davis “was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member” (see http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/).
I do not object to Davis’ comment, “Smash on, victory-eating Red Army”. It is merely a humorous choice of words that indicates a serious bias in any context in which it may be used. This comment is highlighted solely for victory-eating laughs.
All kidding aside, the meaning of Davis’ “Divident Doctor” statement is rather clear and doesn’t leave much to the imagination…
“Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are the specialists who would save us from the dread diseases of socialism and communism. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy.”
“Divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street” are obviously Capitalists. According to dictionary.com “divident” means “Dividend; share” and these ‘doctors’ presided over the trading of shares and the earning of dividends in the capital and Wall Street. Dictionary.com defines ‘Capitalist’ as, “a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises or relating to capitalism or capitalists; a capitalist nation; capitalistic methods and incentives”.
Davis clearly holds Capitalism in contempt and believes that these “Wall Street” types were destroying the country while using the gullible public’s fear of Socialism and Communism to install their own brand of fascism. Since the “Divident Doctor” quote came from an article that Davis wrote for the Honolulu Record, a Communist front, he was writing to an audience that sympathized with Communism. So his sarcastic labeling of those systems as “dreaded diseases” is merely an attempt to provoke sympathy for them when characterized in opposition to the attacking Capitalists, whom he casts as poison givers despite the fact that our country was beginning to experience a post WWII economic boom of historic proportions. This marked the absolute highest standard of living ever imagined up until that time.
http://www.archive.org/stream/reportonhonolulu1950unit/reportonhonolulu1950unit_djvu.txt
Its not hard to see where such paranoid anti-Capitalist sentiment comes from because Davis was identified as a member of the CPUSA front group, the Civil Rights Congress, and associated with CPUSA affiliated groups like; American Youth for Democracy, Abraham Lincoln School and the League of American Writers… (the National Negro Congress and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties were groups that were merged into the Civil Rights Congress so I didn’t include them in the list. I also didn’t include the Hawaii Civil Liberties Committee because even though Communist sympathizers formed it, I can find no evidence that it was tied to the CPUSA).
Then there is Gerald Horne. The unapologetic Communist educator gives a speech “at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University”. He says he’d like, “to thank both the CPUSA and NYU for this marriage – it is one, perhaps not made in heaven but no less celestial and lofty for that”.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/
At least NYU didn’t receive funding from the Soviet Union and didn’t engage in espionage for them either like the CPUSA did. But we are supposed to give the CPUSA and Davis the benefit of the doubt when they deny that Davis was a member? Did Julius “I’ll take the 5th” Rosenberg and the CPUSA come clean about his activities in the party either? They have a proven track record on this issue.
So a half-century passes and during this speech Horne triumphantly brags about how Communism is becoming mainstream thanks to Davis. It sets off Obama supporters in a panic to rationalize any way they can to hide Davis’ Communist past.
Yet another Kincaid article relates that the, “1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him (Davis) as a CPUSA member”. This is in addition to Davis’ membership in the CPUSA front group, the Civil Rights Congress, and his association with many other affiliated groups (as well as at least one other Communist group, which may or may not be affiliated with the CPUSA).
Well, at least we can all rest easy that the CPUSA doesn’t endorse Obama, at least that’s what they say on their website…
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/
But you would never know it if they didn’t make a disclaimer, because they go ahead and campaign on Obama’s behalf anyway.
They clearly know that their endorsement would be a liability so they endorse Obama without endorsing him. Much like Davis knew that admitting membership in the CPUSA could be damaging to his reputation. In 2008 the CPUSA features article after article that champions Obama and pretty much endorses him anyway (they also coordinate with moveon.org as well!!!):
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/926/
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/938/1/3/
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/883/
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/969/
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/928/
A blog was started to support Obama’s campaign stating, “Also, for the record, we’re not endorsing any Democratic Party candidates (see our 2008 Electoral policy statement) - but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a right to our opinions 
”…
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/
Those opinions amount to the de facto endorsement of Obama across the board. This is just a pit of endless dishonesty…
I have to admit that their article on the 4th of July is an excellent example of Communists who fully understand the electoral process and how to manipulate it. Hugo Chavez was no fluke. Communists have figured out how to play the democracy game. They pander to American patriotism while keeping true to their totalitarian ideals. From the CPUSA blog…
“…love of country and national unity played essential roles in the revolutionary movements of countries such as Cuba and Vietnam.
So, for the Fourth of July, Independence Day, let’s remember the true revolutionary traditions of America.”
Hmmm…
“Smash on, victory-eating North Vietnamese Army”
Hey Mark, this is Freedom Now. For whatever reason the software of this website has labeled me as spam. This is a workaround comment…
I do not object to Davis’ comment, “Smash on, victory-eating Red Army”. It is merely a humorous choice of words that indicates a serious bias in any context in which it may be used. This comment is highlighted solely for victory-eating laughs.
All kidding aside, the meaning of Davis’ “Divident Doctor” statement is rather clear and doesn’t leave much to the imagination…
“Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are the specialists who would save us from the dread diseases of socialism and communism. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy.”
“Divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street” are obviously Capitalists. According to dictionary.com “divident” means “Dividend; share” and these ‘doctors’ presided over the trading of shares and the earning of dividends in the capital and Wall Street. Dictionary.com defines ‘Capitalist’ as, “a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises or relating to capitalism or capitalists; a capitalist nation; capitalistic methods and incentives”.
Davis clearly holds Capitalism in contempt and believes that these “Wall Street” types were destroying the country while using the gullible public’s fear of Socialism and Communism to install their own brand of fascism. Since the “Divident Doctor” quote came from an article that Davis wrote for the Honolulu Record, a Communist front, he was writing to an audience that sympathized with Communism. So his sarcastic labeling of those systems as “dreaded diseases” is merely an attempt to provoke sympathy for them when characterized in opposition to the attacking Capitalists, whom he casts as poison givers despite the fact that our country was beginning to experience a post WWII economic boom of historic proportions. This marked the absolute highest standard of living ever imagined up until that time.
http://www.archive.org/stream/reportonhonolulu1950unit/reportonhonolulu1950unit_djvu.txt
Its not hard to see where such paranoid anti-Capitalist sentiment comes from because Davis was identified as a member of the CPUSA front group, the Civil Rights Congress, and associated with CPUSA affiliated groups like; American Youth for Democracy, Abraham Lincoln School and the League of American Writers… (the National Negro Congress and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties were groups that were merged into the Civil Rights Congress so I didn’t include them in the list. I also didn’t include the Hawaii Civil Liberties Committee because even though Communist sympathizers formed it, I can find no evidence that it was tied to the CPUSA).
Then there is Gerald Horne. The unapologetic Communist educator gives a speech “at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University”. He says he’d like, “to thank both the CPUSA and NYU for this marriage – it is one, perhaps not made in heaven but no less celestial and lofty for that”.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/
At least NYU didn’t receive funding from the Soviet Union and didn’t engage in espionage for them either like the CPUSA did. But we are supposed to give the CPUSA and Davis the benefit of the doubt when they deny that Davis was a member? Did Julius “I’ll take the 5th” Rosenberg and the CPUSA come clean about his activities in the party either? They have a proven track record on this issue.
So a half-century passes and during this speech Horne triumphantly brags about how Communism is becoming mainstream thanks to Davis. It sets off Obama supporters in a panic to rationalize any way they can to hide Davis’ Communist past.
Yet another Kincaid article relates that the, “1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him (Davis) as a CPUSA member”. This is in addition to Davis’ membership in the CPUSA front group, the Civil Rights Congress, and his association with many other affiliated groups (as well as at least one other Communist group, which may or may not be affiliated with the CPUSA).
continued…
continued… (its me again, fighting the filter)
Well, at least we can all rest easy that the CPUSA doesn’t endorse Obama, at least that’s what they say on their website…
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/
But you would never know it if they didn’t make a disclaimer, because they go ahead and campaign on Obama’s behalf anyway.
They clearly know that their endorsement would be a liability so they endorse Obama without endorsing him. Much like Davis knew that admitting membership in the CPUSA could be damaging to his reputation. In 2008 the CPUSA features article after article that champions Obama and pretty much endorses him anyway (they also coordinate with moveon.org as well!!!):
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/926/
(I think I was marked as spam because I originally had 6 links to the CP U S A here, but I had to cut them down to 2 to get past the filter.)
A blog was started to support Obama’s campaign stating, “Also, for the record, we’re not endorsing any Democratic Party candidates (see our 2008 Electoral policy statement) - but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a right to our opinions ”…
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/
Those opinions amount to the de facto endorsement of Obama across the board. This is just a pit of endless dishonesty…
I have to admit that their article on the 4th of July is an excellent example of Communists who fully understand the electoral process and how to manipulate it. Hugo Chavez was no fluke. Communists have figured out how to play the democracy game. They pander to American patriotism while keeping true to their totalitarian ideals. From the CPUSA blog…
“…love of country and national unity played essential roles in the revolutionary movements of countries such as Cuba and Vietnam.
So, for the Fourth of July, Independence Day, let’s remember the true revolutionary traditions of America.”
Hmmm…
“Smash on, victory-eating North Vietnamese Army”
Well, at least we can all rest easy that the CPUSA doesn’t endorse Obama, at least that’s what they say on their website…
(link deleted)
But you would never know it if they didn’t make a disclaimer, because they go ahead and campaign on Obama’s behalf anyway.
They clearly know that their endorsement would be a liability so they endorse Obama without endorsing him. Much like Davis knew that admitting membership in the CPUSA could be damaging to his reputation. In 2008 the CPUSA features article after article that champions Obama and pretty much endorses him anyway (they also coordinate with moveon.org as well!!!):
(I am pretty sure that I was blocked because I had 7 links to the CP u S a site and so I cut it down to one to get past the filter.)
(link deleted)
(link deleted)
(link deleted)
(link deleted)
(link deleted)
A blog was started to support Obama’s campaign stating, “Also, for the record, we’re not endorsing any Democratic Party candidates (see our 2008 Electoral policy statement) - but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a right to our opinions ”…
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/
Those opinions amount to the de facto endorsement of Obama across the board. This is just a pit of endless dishonesty…
I have to admit that their article on the 4th of July is an excellent example of Communists who fully understand the electoral process and how to manipulate it. Hugo Chavez was no fluke. Communists have figured out how to play the democracy game. They pander to American patriotism while keeping true to their totalitarian ideals. From the CPUSA blog…
“…love of country and national unity played essential roles in the revolutionary movements of countries such as Cuba and Vietnam.
So, for the Fourth of July, Independence Day, let’s remember the true revolutionary traditions of America.”
Hmmm…
“Smash on, victory-eating North Vietnamese Army”
Link to CPUSA election page (1st deleted link)
Link to 2nd deleted CPUSA page:
The third deleted link:
and number 6:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/928/
...so yeah, that was the reason why my comment was marked as spam.
Cheers
Freedom Now,
We agree that “divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street” means American capitalist leaders. The critical issue becomes identifying WHICH “divident doctors” Davis was accusing of poisoning democracy.
American has been capitalist and democratic, to a greater or lesser degree, since 1776. Do you believe Davis was accusing just his contemporary (1948) capitalists, or was he also accusing previous generations of capitalists of poisoning democracy?
A “paranoid” personality is characterized by suspicion and distrust of others and a tendency to look for hidden meaning behind other people’s actions.
Hey Mark,
It looks like the moderator finally added my original comment as I originally typed it.
Actually the Davis article was written on July 28, 1949, but Davis didn’t say anything about divident doctors ‘yesterday’. However at the time of the article he publicly admitted to being a member of the executive board of a Communist group, “The Civil Rights Congress”. This group was tangled in the web of CPUSA affiliates. To say that he was a Communist supporter is an understatement.
He clearly loved the Soviet Union and ignored its economic failures:
Show the marveling multitudes
Americans, British, all your allied brothers
How strong you are
How great you are
How your young tree of new unity
Planted twenty-five years ago
Bears today the golden fruit of victory
…While he praised the strength of the Soviet Union, he propagandized against America’s economic well-being. It would take another 40 years for the truth to be fully known thanks to such propaganda.
Davis came from a line of leftwing black activists who could have had a much more positive contribution to our country if they didnt adopt such pro-Communist activism. Take for example his friend Paul Robeson, winner of the Stalin Peace Prize and W.E.B. Du Bois, winner of the Lenin Peace Prize.
This sort of foolishness led Robeson to deny Soviet anti-Semitism even though he knew a good Jewish poet friend of his was murdered in the Soviet purge of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. His eulogy to Stalin is a joke:
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9804/robeson.htm
In addition to similar Stalinist propaganda, W.E.B. Du Bois became a tool for Imperialist Japan and condoned their invasion of China despite the massive human rights abuses by Japanese troops. He incredulously justified it as a fight against white aggression.
It’s fascinating that they would be civil rights activists who supported the world’s most unrepentant civil rights violators. But I am not absolving the US of its guilt because there was a huge civil rights issue that needed to be addressed.
Yet looking back at history, civil rights as a movement was an Anglo creation advocated by both blacks and whites. Abolitionists were amazing visionaries who changed the outlook of the world. Where else in the world did such activists spring up? We judge America’s past by the morals that we created ourselves, which until that time did not previously exist.
On the other hand, the Soviet Union’s one party system was a cesspool of unapologetic oppression. I could go into further detail on this subject, but I don’t think it is necessary. The propaganda machine that Davis was connected to disgusts me.
There are still some who apologize for the Soviet Union today, but such rhetoric is thankfully rare. And yes, I agree that our alliance with them against Nazi Germany was the right thing to do. I don’t even blame Truman for pushing the Soviets into invading North Korea and Manchuria at the end of the war… despite the long-term negative consequences that became of it.
All facts must be held in proper context.
Yes, he was involved in the web of communist-affilitated organizations. Kincaid makes much of the fact that Davis was subpoenaed before the Senate Internal Security Committee on November 27, 1956. He took the Fifth Amendment as was his right under the Constitution but issued a statement on the hearing conducted by Sen. James Eastland of Mississippi. In part, Davis said:
“”I do not like being kicked around, nor do I like to see other people get kicked around. For 30 years as a working newspaperman I have fought for civil rights. In this battle for my rights as a Negro American, I have accepted the aid and support of any man of good will who is willing to fight beside me. I do not care about his color, religion or politics. When the octopus of prejudice crushes me with his tentacles, I will welcome the help of the devil himself in order to get loose.”
Freedom Now,
In the “divident doctors” poem, I believe we can agree that it is unlikely that Davis accused the complete set of American capitalist leaders, because that would mean they were “poisoning democracy” since 1776. Since he was undoubtedly accusing the current subset of leaders, the issue becomes how widely he casts these aspersions. A hasty generalization may be in effect.
Because he specified “democracy TODAY,” it is reasonable to infer that he did not believe that democracy was always “weak and slowly dying” from this poison. Thus, it is also reasonable to infer that he believed earlier capitalist leaders had NOT poisoned democracy. Thus, in this context it is reasonable to infer that he recognized two distinct subsets of capitalist leaders: those who poisoned democracy and those who did not. Thus, the critical distinction between these two subsets is not their capitalistic nature, because they both hold that in common.
The critical distinction must be that these “divident doctors” are poisoning democracy, whereas their predecessors did not. Therefore his poem cannot logically be accusing all capitalists, but only the current “Wall Street types.” Thus, it cannot be a blanket indictment of all capitalists, but only the current capitalist leadership. To extend it to all capitalists may be a hasty generalization.
Those who believe his indictment extends to all capitalists may unwittingly be playing the “identity card,” wherein criticism of a subset is perceived as criticism of the complete set. This gambit is all too common today, whether based on race, gender, age, or some other group status. Whether intentional or not, it deflects criticism from its intended target. At the next level of abstraction, this identity card gambit seems to be based on the logical fallacy of faulty generalization.
Thanks for helping me understand him more fully. I used to roll my eyes at poetry as a youth, but Kincaid’s Crusade has given me reason to dig much deeper.
Regards,
- Mark
Mark,
While your arguments are rational, you are placing way too much emphasis on the word “today”. If Davis thought Capitalists were so bad in 1949, what did he think about them during the stock market crash of 1929? Even the Democratic Party blamed big business for the depression that resulted.
I could say that Communism today lies weak and slowly dying, but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t oppose it yesterday or 20 years ago. Such a statement can emphasize that Communism still hasn’t made a comeback since the fall of the Soviet Union and is weak today as well as two decades ago (yeah, I know the USSR officially fell in 1991, but its close). In any case, it doesn’t really matter what he thought of Capitalism in 1929 or at any other time. In 1949 Davis valued a corrupt one party system of economic oppression that killed millions over market trading. He would indeed make a pact with the devil no matter what the consequences.
The negative metaphor containing the term “divident doctors” indicates highly charged bias against economic activity that relies on stock market trading. Since these doctors are viewed as fraudulent and they are ‘mistakenly’ attacking Socialism and Communism - the intent is to depict Socialism and Communism favorably in contrast to Capitalism. You will note that he didn’t just use the term Socialism, he also used the term Communism. He clearly views Communism as superior to Capitalism.
The CPUSA was a hotbed of subversive activists in the pay of the Soviet Union. Espionage by the Soviets was one of the most successful endeavors of the police state. They stole the atom bomb secrets and thoroughly infiltrated Western countries.
Soviet spies in the CPUSA included:
Whittaker Chambers
Alger Hiss
Rudy Baker
J. Peters
Lee Pressman
Jacob Golos
Elizabeth Bentley
Nathan Silvermaster (only affiliated, not a member)
Louis Budenz
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
And many others…
When Elizabeth Bently defected, a member of the Cambridge Five spy ring informed Moscow so they were able to shut down Bently’s spy rings before surveillance could expose the spies.
So yeah, the government had a good reason to investigate the CPUSA.
Mark,
While your arguments are rational, you are placing way too much emphasis on the word “today”. If Davis thought Capitalists were so bad in 1949, what did he think about them during the stock market crash of 1929? Even the Democratic Party blamed big business for the depression that resulted.
I could say that Communism today lies weak and slowly dying, but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t oppose it yesterday or 20 years ago. Such a statement can emphasize that Communism still hasn’t made a comeback since the fall of the Soviet Union and is weak today as well as two decades ago (yeah, I know the USSR officially fell in 1991, but its close). In any case, it doesn’t really matter what he thought of Capitalism in 1929 or at any other time. In 1949 Davis valued a corrupt one party system of economic oppression that killed millions over market trading. He would indeed make a pact with the devil no matter what the consequences.
The negative metaphor containing the term “divident doctors” indicates highly charged bias against economic activity that relies on stock market trading. Since these doctors are viewed as fraudulent and they are ‘mistakenly’ attacking Socialism and Communism - the intent is to depict Socialism and Communism favorably in contrast to Capitalism. You will note that he didn’t just use the term Socialism, he also used the term Communism. He clearly views Communism as superior to Capitalism.
The CPUSA was a hotbed of subversive activists in the pay of the Soviet Union. Espionage by the Soviets was one of the most successful endeavors of the police state. They stole the atom bomb secrets and thoroughly infiltrated Western countries.
Soviet spies in the CPUSA included:
Whittaker Chambers
Alger Hiss
Rudy Baker
J. Peters
Lee Pressman
Jacob Golos
Elizabeth Bentley
Nathan Silvermaster (only affiliated, not a member)
Louis Budenz
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
And many others.
When Elizabeth Bently defected, a member of the Cambridge Five spy ring informed Moscow so they were able to shut down Bently’s spy rings before surveillance could expose the spies.
So yeah, the government had a good reason to investigate the CPUSA.
Freedom Now,
You asked “If Davis thought Capitalists were so bad in 1949, what did he think about them during the stock market crash of 1929?” That’s a good question. I doubt, however, that his political philosophy was fully formed as a young man of 23. He likely felt that his word was coming apart as the depression hit him, like it did so many other people. But he probably felt that those problems were due to mismanagement of the economy, and not due to inherent problems of democracy.
As fascism grew in Europe, he may have theorized that the primary difference between between democratic capitalism and fascism is not economic, because both encourage private industry built through private capital. Instead, he may have theorized that aside from its abusive social policies and militarism (other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?), fascism is just capitalism with an authoritarian government rather than a democratic government: central planning of privately owned means of production, rather than letting the “invisible hand” guide the economy.
But that is pure speculation. Here I am trying to interpret the meaning of THIS poem, in which he is criticizing leaders in the late 1940’s, not the late 1920’s. If the primary economic difference between fascism and democratic capitalism is their degree of economic freedom, then his warning against fascism (“They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy”) is a 1949 warning against the LOSS of economic freedom inherent in democratic capitalism. Leaders throughout history have inflated threats in order to seize power. That does not mean that the threats were imaginary, only that they were inflated.
You wrote “In 1949 Davis valued a corrupt one party system of economic oppression that killed millions over market trading.” That is unfounded speculation. Once again, because Davis specifically attacks THESE poisoning “divident doctors” as “fraudulent” (your words), it is a false generalization to presume this attack extends to all capitalists. That would require continual poisoning for over a century.
I challenge you, Cliff Kincaid, and anyone else to produce even one shred of Davis’s writing where he literally advocates communism for the United States over capitalism. Just one shred, please, I beg you!!
We both agree that Davis was writing about Capitalism and slamming it while defending Communism.
He clearly favors Communism over Capitalism in this quote:
“Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are the specialists who would save us from the dread diseases of socialism and communism. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy.”
Only bias can led you to a rationalized conclusion that it is not.
The guy was a member of a number of Communist organizations and affiliated with a lot more. He also wrote for a Communist newspaper.
Enough is enough…
Sorry if I was unclear. We do NOT “both agree that Davis was writing about Capitalism and slamming it while defending Communism.” Once again, he was slamming the capitalistic leaders of that time. Slamming some leaders is not slamming the system. Slamming some leaders is not even slamming all leaders. He slammed a subset of a subset. Your conclusion is a false generalization times two.
Further, “dread diseases of socialism and communism” is not evidence that he “clearly favors Communism over Capitalism.” They were “dread diseases.” You are inferring that he means the OPPOSITE of “dread diseases.”
You infer a straw man hidden meaning, then attack the straw man. But a presumption of hidden meanings may support any number of possible conclusions beyond yours, because hidden meanings, by definition, are in the mind of the beholder.
Once again, I challenge anyone to provide even one shred of Davis’s writing where he literally advocates communism for the United States over capitalism. “Literally,” of course, excludes hidden meanings.
Mark,
Ha! Maybe you are Wright. Even though I write a blog that defends Republican foreign policy and I am commenting on a rightwing blog, maybe my statement below doesn’t really mean that I advocate rightwing bloggers over leftwing…
The Internet today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by leftwing pundits who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are specialists who would save us from the dread disease of rightwing blogging. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed Internet.
Compare that to…
“Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believing that they are the specialists who would save us from the dread diseases of socialism and communism. They hope to hand us fascism disguised as the healed democracy.”
Perhaps a rose is not a rose after all.
Interesting! You employ parallel construction, but your analogy breaks down because:
1. Conventional wisdom holds that socialism and communism ARE dread diseases, while conventional wisdom does NOT hold that rightwing blogging is a dread disease. Socialism and communism are threats to democracy, while rightwing blogging is not a threat to the Internet. Pundits cannot poison the Internet, while leaders could poison democracy.
2. Industrial leaders such as Henry Ford could very well have hoped to lead America into fascism, while it is inconceivable that leftwing pundits would have hoped to lead America into fascism.
3. The public trusts that the “divident doctors” are protecting their best interests by protecting democracy. The public does NOT trust that leftwing pundits are protecting their best interests by protecting the Internet.
4. Ambiguity differs. There are no discernable subsets for Internet pundits because the Internet is so young, and because the pundits usually represent only their own views. Attacking institutional leaders, on the other hand, may be interpreted as personal attacks, attacks on everyone who may have held their positions, or attacks on their entire institutions. In your Internet example, there is little risk of false generalization without subsets.
Perhaps if you recast the model with different players it would better match the dynamics of the poem.
BTW: I don’t believe you answered my question in #24: “American has been capitalist and democratic, to a greater or lesser degree, since 1776. Do you believe Davis was accusing just his contemporary (1948) capitalists, or was he also accusing previous generations of capitalists of poisoning democracy?”
As institutional leaders, such criticism may be interpreted as personal attacks, attacks on everyone who may have held their positions, or attacks on their entire institutions.
What in the world does conventional wisdom have to do with Communism?
Communists are the inspiration for Animal Farm and 1984. They are whacked out propagandists and many modern day Communists believe that Communism is a more pure form of democracy. How much do you know about Communism?
Your semantics are way off base. Now you are basically getting into the definition of destroy (or dying or whatever word of the day is). If a bunch of pundits make inane comments they can destroy the comment section of a post. It isnt physically destroyed, but everyone who is human understands what is meant be destroy. If I google for a phrase and all the blog entries that come up are partisan or incoherent rants then I would say that they are destroying the Internet and it is dying. Its understood what I mean. After all, the Internet is only as good as the people who post to it. These high school debate tactics dont serve you well.
Anyway, I’ve already answered your question. The word “today” was not used solely to qualify that capitalists today are bad and not former capitalists. It is merely an expression used to create a sense of urgency that democracy will soon collapse (die) much like I used.
“The Internet today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered by leftwing pundits”
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist. That is history. Revisionism will not last in a democratic society.
I read your response (“The word “today” was not used solely to qualify that capitalists today are bad and not former capitalists”), but it does not directly answer my question. Although the implication is that it includes former capitalists, double negatives leave too much wiggle room.
Since your interpretation insists on hidden meaning beyond the direct meaning, I need you to explicitly commit to one interpretation for the purposes of this discussion. If you subsequently care to shift interpretations, then we may start from zero once again.
Does his use of “today” accuse previous American capitalist leaders or not? The issue is a true dichotomy. It’s a simple “yes” or “no” question, but I understand your reluctance to answer it.
If it includes all capitalists, then the capitalists of 1800 were also “poisoning” democracy against socialism and communism.
If it does not include them, then these capitalists are different from their predecessors. Obviously it does not include them, so obviously these leaders are different, and he is not accusing all capitalist leaders. You can’t have it both ways.
BTW: The Internet is MUCH more than the blogosphere, my friend. Even if the blogosphere were to suddenly vanish, most people probably couldn’t care less.
Calling names is not proof. Once again, my challenge stands! Show me HIS writing advocating communism for the United States. Claiming hidden meaning is evidence of paranoia, not communism.
You are twist and turn all you want, but he is talking about Capitalism. There was no Socialism or Communism in 1800.
Now that I have seen your blog article at a site paid for Obama for America, I know that you are indeed denying that Davis was a Communist. This is not just a wordplay game for you. You have some serious stakes in the matter as a contributor to the Obama campaign. Are you paid or are you a volunteer?
Although a US government investigation concluded that Davis was a member of the CPUSA, you support Davis’ denial and the denials of the CPUSA (which at the time was taking money from Moscow and had dozens of its members involved in espionage against the U.S.).
Well that is bad, but lets forget that for a second. This can all be settled easily…
Davis admitted to being a member of the Communist group, Civil Rights Congress. Not only that; but he was more just a rank and file member, he was a member of the national
executive board of the organization.
Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and no amount of biased disinformation can change that.
True, no communism in 1800. But there was in 1920.
Dictionary.com has three primary definitions for “communist:
1. (initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.
2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
By the third definition, he definitely qualifies. His actual membership is still up in the air. To the best of my knowledge, however, he never advocated communism for the United States.
BTW: You are correct in concluding that I have serious stakes in this issue, but not really as a contributor to the Obama campaign. My stakes are even more serious. Frank Marshall Davis was my father.
Absolutely fascinating, thats a bit of a shocker… Do you know Obama? I guess this is as close as I can get to corresponding with someone so strongly connected to current events!!!
How well did you know your father? My parents broke up just like yours and I have also had some racial identity issues because I am Hispanic and White, but grew up in a Latino household. So I identify myself as Hispanic, but never really felt completely accepted by many Latinos because I never learned the language and I am light skinned. At the same time I never identified with Whites, because I grew up in a predominately black neighborhood in a Hispanic family.
Over time I have come to feel that I am American more than anything else. I have also developed a bit of distaste towards those who use a strong racial identity to create racial division. Obama went looking for answers by embracing black liberation theology, which epitomizes this backwards-looking philosophy. It was slightly encouraging that he left his race baiting church, but it was very disappointing when he stated that he had done so to protect them from controversy.
I’m sure you have experienced a wide range of these feelings. Where has your journey taken you?
No, I never met Obama. During the 1970’s, I was mostly overseas in the Air Force: 1972-1973: Vietnam, 1974-1976: Korea, 1977-1979: Korea. I can closely identify with Obama, though, because we both grew up in Hawaii as biracial children.
I didn’t know my father as well as many other sons knew their fathers, but I lived with him until I joined the Air Force at 18. My parents did not break up until after I left. Thus, I am confident that he did not corrupt Obama’s patriotism.
He did not corrupt mine, as I retired from the Air Force in 1993 after 24 years of service. After fourteen years of enlisted service, I received a commission. I then served ten years as an Air Force Intelligence Officer, and was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Gulf War, where I received deception analysis training. This training allows me to analyze disinformation campaigns.
We have this in common: Over time I too have come to feel that I am American more than anything else, perhaps enhanced more than most by my career in the Air Force. I also have developed a bit of distaste towards those who use a strong racial identity to create racial division.
My first foray into the blogosphere was only this May, after someone advised me that Kincaid was using my father to attack Obama (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/). In post #35, I asked:
Where does the record show that Obama “developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis”?
I am 99.44% sure he is Frank Marshall Davis, but I don’t believe his identity was a point of contention. The issue is the effect of their relationship. The disinformation campaign seems designed to exaggerate a negative effect.
The campaign has three distinct elements: misrepresenting Davis’s character, misrepresenting the Davis-Obama relationship, and misrepresenting Obama’s mention of Davis in “Dreams From My Father.”
The redbaiting campaign took an ingenious twist with Kincaid’s recent “Communist Party Backs Obama” offensive. Based on an Obama Campaign community blog by a single CPUSA member (Alan Maki), who profusely professes his admiration for Davis, Kincaid claims that the actual CPUSA is backing Obama.
Kincaid extensively quotes Alan Maki in two columns. In the second column, Kincaid post’s Maki’s repudiation of Barack Obama, but the “Communist Party Backs Barack Obama” report already has gained thousands of links. For more detail see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha
Its not just Maki, lets not forget Gerald Horne who championed this story at an official CPUSA event at NYU. It was also verified by radical Hawaiian professor Dr. Kathryn Takara.
As you noted these are people who love your father. They are not members of a “right-wing disinformation (red-baiting) campaign” and are great sources for Kincaid to cite with just cause.
Then you complain about Kincaid’s post “Communist Party Backs Obama”, but on your own blog there is a page dedicated to Communism:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama
Yeah, thats the official Obama blog, paid for by Obama for America. There may be dubious disclaimers distancing the campaign from the opinions of those who comment on a site paid for by the Obama campaign, but its really hard to distance itself from an entire page dedicated to Marxists/Communists.
I’ve also extensively documented the support that the CPUSA has given to the Obama campaign in the comments above. The CPUSA supports Obama in everything except in name. This is not a mischaracterization.
Do you also use the name Kaleokualoha or is that someone else?
I hit “submit” too quickly on the above comment.
The first two paragraphs above were not framed in the context in which I meant to frame it. The point was meant to conclude that this story has a wide margin of traction among Communists and I mixed it up with the “CPUSA supports Obama” issue.
The point is that this is not “right-wing disinformation (red-baiting) campaign”. These are people who love Frank Davis and claim him as their own. Kincaid doesnt rely solely on rightwing sources. He can cite Communists and their sympathizers as well.
Yes, I use Kaleokualoha on almost every blog.
The disinformation campaign exaggerates Horne’s comments regarding Davis. It exaggerates Davis’s radicalism, and exaggerates the influence Davis had on Obama.
By the broadest definition, he was certainly a “communist,” because that includes all leftists. But he was misrepresented as:
- A Stalinist.
- A “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA”
- An advocate for replacing capitalism with communism in the United States.
- Obama’s mentor
- Other false attributions listed on the website.
Virtually anyone can post on the Obama blog, just as virtually anyone can post here. This leaves them wide open for disinformation plants.
The support of individual communists, however, does not mean that the CPUSA supports Obama, any more than the support of individual American Nazis would mean that the American Nazi Party supports McCain. Kincaid falsely claimed the CPUSA supports Obama based on Alan Maki’s negative support.
It is conceivable, but unlikely, that every organization left of center may support Obama while every organization right of center may support McCain. Such supports does not invalidate a candidate unless he supports them.
There still is a whole page on that blog dedicated Marxist/Communists. It’s paid for by Obama for America. You cant change that.
This talking point about comparing American Nazis supporting McCain to Communists supporting Obama is disingenuous. Where is there a web page on McCain’s blog entitled, “Nazis for McCain”?
Nazis believe that our country is ZOG, the Zionist Occupational Government. They oppose our support for Israel and are against the liberation of Iraq due to their support for Arab Nationalism against the Jews. They no more support McCain than Communists do. Maybe you can find a Nazi that supports McCain, but I am not aware of a single one. However I can name many Communists that support Obama. Would you like me to list them? (But then you will have to list Nazis supporting McCain.)
I’m sorry but the disinformation campaign is coming from you because you are emotionally involved in this story.
Maki criticizes Obama extensively, but still supports his candidacy. Just like many Republicans criticize McCain for his stance on immigration and other rightwing talking points, but still support his candidacy. From Monday’s blog entry in Maki’s blog:
“What I would like to try to figure out is how we build a bridge of liberals/progressives/leftists to the Obama Administration in a way where the needs of people for peace and social & economic justice take precedence over the warmongering, anti-labor, big-business interests now influencing Obama in a way that has put him completely out of touch, and out of reach, from ordinary people.
It seems to me that since Barack Obama, in his own book, has indicated a great deal of respect for the thinking of Frank Marshal Davis, we should be organizing study groups around Frank Marshall Davis’ two books, “Livin’ the Blues; Memoirs of a Black Journalist and Poet” and “The Writings of Frank Marshall Davis; A Voice of the Black Press.” This will help create a common ground for us to reach out to Barack Obama and the Obama Administration… it is quite apparent Obama is way out of reach of ordinary citizens right now.”
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/from-war-to-war-with-obama-part-way-out.html
Maki has embraced what he calls the “Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change”. This is nothing but an appeal to get the Obama campaign to acknowledge Frank Davis’ radicalism and embrace it.
Like you said Maki is just one member of the CPUSA, but look at the links above for the CPUSA. There is so much enthusiasm for Obama from the rank and file. Additionally their campaign blog (“08 Elections, Marxist Analysis of the 08 Elections from the Communist Party USA Leadership”) is just about dedicated to supporting Obama’s campaign.
Read through all the links to the CPUSA I included in the comments above and their campaign blog:
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/
“Is Obama correct on every issue or every appointment? Of course not, but we should not lose sight of the essence of his campaign. Re-read his speech in Philly on race for one of the most profound insights on race, class, and unity that any person, let alone a major politician, has ever uttered…”
Come on!!!!! They support him. Get real. You know that just like their support of John Kerry they cannot publicly endorse Obama because they know it will hurt him. But they still support him as much as if they had publicly endorsed him. This is politics.
Even a member of the NAACP disparaged Davis for Stalinist activism, while you downplay it…
“I (Berman) was at one of the election meetings at which one Frank Marshall Davis, formerly of Chicago (and formerly editor of the Chicago Communist paper, the Star) suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems” in Hawaii… Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently ‘sneaked’ into the organization with the avowed purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.
These others were the same party liners who tried to take over and dominate an organization known locally as the Hawaii Committee for Civic Unity. The organization collapsed, due to their tactics.
Having destroyed that organization they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.”
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf
According to the Honolulu Record and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, your father was undisputedly a member of the national executive board of the Civil Rights Congress, a Communist group controlled by the CPUSA.
This is something that you need to come to terms with. Disparaging Kincaid as a part of a rightwing disinformation campaign is ludicrous. Revisionism is not the path to reaffirming your love for your father. A person can still love their father if he was a Communist.
Freedom Now,
YOU WROTE: There still is a whole page on that blog dedicated Marxist/Communists. It’s paid for by Obama for America. You cant change that.
ANSWER: I agree that I can’t change that. (I’m not sure if the Obama campaign rejects any pages.) On one hand, Kincaid’s link to Joelle Fishman supports his contention. On the other hand, the Alan Maki blog is both fraudulent AND fails to support his contention.
The only credible evidence of CPUSA support is from CPUSA officials, not Alan Maki. Maki rejected Obama by saying “that, despite announcing a Frank Marshall Davis discussion group on an official Obama community blog website, he wants it known far and wide that he doesn’t support the candidate and wouldn’t walk across the street to vote for him.”
YOU WROTE: “This talking point about comparing American Nazis supporting McCain to Communists supporting Obama is disingenuous. Where is there a web page on McCain’s blog entitled, “Nazis for McCain”?”
ANSWER: Sorry for failing to make myself clear. When I wrote “The support of individual communists, however, does not mean that the CPUSA supports Obama, any more than the support of individual American Nazis would mean that the American Nazi Party supports McCain,” it was a speculative example, not an actual example, to demonstrate the relationship between individual support and Party support.
If it makes you more comfortable, substitute any of these for Nazis: astronauts, belly dancers, comedians, dog trainers, English teachers, firefighters, etc. The relationships remain the same. Support by individuals does not prove organizational support. It is a non sequitur.
YOU WROTE: “Maki criticizes Obama extensively, but still supports his candidacy. Just like many Republicans criticize McCain for his stance on immigration and other rightwing talking points, but still support his candidacy.”
ANSWER: Maki said “he wants it known far and wide that he DOESN’T SUPPORT the candidate and wouldn’t walk across the street to vote for him.”
YOU WROTE: “Maki has embraced what he calls the “Frank Marshall Davis Roundtable for Change”. This is nothing but an appeal to get the Obama campaign to acknowledge Frank Davis’ radicalism and embrace it.
ANSWER: I believe that Maki’s motivation is clear: He considers capitalism to be a “thoroughly rotten system.” Despite Maki’s rubric of “radicalism,” I have found no indication that Davis ever conveyed such sentiments to Obama. Instead, Obama relates Davis’s higher education and race relations attitudes, as indicated here: http://cletuswilbury.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/27/1455786-barack-obamas-friend-frank
Through his “Roundtable For Change,” I believe that Maki is attempting to parlay Obama’s respect for Davis’s social insight into Obama’s support for Maki’s war on capitalism. Obama will never embrace this radicalism. It ain’t gonna happen, buddy!!
YOU WROTE: “Even a member of the NAACP disparaged Davis for Stalinist activism, while you downplay it…
“I (Berman) was at one of the election meetings at which one Frank Marshall Davis, formerly of Chicago (and formerly editor of the Chicago Communist paper, the Star) suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems” in Hawaii… Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently ‘sneaked’ into the organization with the avowed purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.
ANSWER: Berman reported that Davis was SUPPORTED by “others” who had the “avowed purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Berman did not report that Davis was a Stalinist.
The point I made in the blog was that the reasoning cited by Cliff Kincaid is false. He stated “Davis was an unrepentant communist. He stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That’s why I refer to him as “a Stalinist agent” in his interview with Bill Steigerwald. This is a non sequitur.
This is the same interview that claimed he was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA” without evidence, although Kincaid earlier mentioned Tidwell’s claim that Davis joined the Party during WWII. If Davis was NOT a member in 1939, then Kincaid’s “Stalinist” claim is obviously false. Note that Kincaid did NOT make this claim in his original “Obama’s Communist Mentor” column.
YOU WROTE: “This is something that you need to come to terms with. Disparaging Kincaid as a part of a rightwing disinformation campaign is ludicrous. Revisionism is not the path to reaffirming your love for your father. A person can still love their father if he was a Communist.
ANSWER: I have come to terms with the fact that he may be considered a “communist” due to his leftist activities. That is no longer an issue.
On the other hand, Kincaid’s PATTERN of misrepresentation is consistent with a disinformation campaign, especially for someone ostensibly dedicated to “fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting.” He is the master of the non sequitur.
If the pattern of misrepresentation had been random, with some tending to minimize and others tending to exaggerate Davis’ radicalism and effect on Obama, then they could be attributed to sloppy journalism - even for someone dedicated to accuracy. But the body of evidence consistently points in the other direction, which indicates deliberate misrepresentation:
- No evidence that he was a lifelong member of the CPUSA (non sequitur)
- Secondary claim that he was a Stalinist (non sequitur) after initial article without Stalinist claim
- False quotes of Obama, Gerald Horne and Dr. Takara
- Exaggeration of relationship (mentor, almost like a son)
- Association with fraudulent Alan Maki
Thanks for the continuing a civil dialogue. It has helped me fill in some gaps, such as understanding Maki’s game.
- M
It is agreed that Maki has no hope in the world to get any substantial support from the Obama campaign with his ignorant frontal attacks. He lacks the necessary finesse and diplomacy needed to achieve his goals. However, his comrades at the CPUSA sites are very intelligent. Their tactics are mutually beneficial for both the Democratic Party and themselves. They are masterful propagandists.
I figured that you would once again take a semantics approach to the Berman quote. However, as the only named individual of the bunch and since Davis is listed as “supported” by Stalinist agitators, he was clearly the leader of the group.
Its strange that you kinda of admit that Davis was a Communist. You often say it is so due to some sort of broad based misconception of leftwing politics (paraphrased). Yet the evidence is overwhelming, but Davis never disavowed Communism so it is reasonable to say that he was an unrepentant lifelong Communist.
Anyway by using Nazis as an analogy you were basically saying if Obama can be associated with Commies then McCain can be associated with Nazis.
I can hear your often used rhetoric which declares that we can never know anything to be true unless it is written literally, but that song and dance wears thin after a while.
You didnt use astronauts or belly dancers or any other analogies until you pissed me off. And then you act like its no big deal. You cant even name one Nazi that supports McCain and the truth is that Nazis individually or as a group despise Republicans. I’ve heard this analogy one time too many and I will not stand for it any more.
I don’t know how many times leftwing partisans claim that Nazis have an affinity with the Republican Party. As I have mentioned in the comments above, the two ideologies are completely at odds with each other. On the other hand, as the links to the CPUSA site have shown there is active support for the Democratic Party among the leaders and rank n file of the CPUSA.
If you are to be consistent in your loathing for “the big lie” I would suggest that you steer clear of this one as well.
All of this is said from the heart and is not meant to be nasty. Thank you.
Thanks for your response, Freedom Now.
YOU WROTE: “It is agreed that Maki has no hope in the world to get any substantial support from the Obama campaign with his ignorant frontal attacks. He lacks the necessary finesse and diplomacy needed to achieve his goals. However, his comrades at the CPUSA sites are very intelligent. Their tactics are mutually beneficial for both the Democratic Party and themselves. They are masterful propagandists.”
ANSWER: I’m not so sure that his comrades at the CPUSA are master propagandists. They Soviet KGB employed master propagandists. Their “active measures” finesse set the standard for disinformation campaigns everywhere. The mystery of Maki is whether his initiative was sanctioned by the CPUSA, supported by someone else, or totally his own creation.
YOU WROTE: “I figured that you would once again take a semantics approach to the Berman quote. However, as the only named individual of the bunch and since Davis is listed as “supported” by Stalinist agitators, he was clearly the leader of the group.”
ANSWER: In debate, I try to interpret others literally whenever possible, because a “paranoid” personality is characterized by suspicion and distrust of others; a tendency to look for hidden meaning behind other people’s actions.
Group leaders often attend events hosted by other group members, and non-group members, to show their support. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Further, “avowed purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line” is an unsubstantiated allegation. The same goes for the Steigerwald interview’s illogical conclusion that he was a Stalinist because he “stayed with” the Party.
YOU WROTE: “Its strange that you kinda of admit that Davis was a Communist. You often say it is so due to some sort of broad based misconception of leftwing politics (paraphrased). Yet the evidence is overwhelming, but Davis never disavowed Communism so it is reasonable to say that he was an unrepentant lifelong Communist.”
ANSWER: As a general rule, I try to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. In debate, I try to interpret others literally whenever possible. I do not “kinda admit” anything. I unequivocally agree that according to this definition (“a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes”), he was a communist. I do not say it is so “due to some sort of broad based misconception of leftwing politics (paraphrased).” Hopefully, that’s clear enough.
Please note that this applies to “communist,” with a small “c.” “Communist” with a large “C” has a related, but different meaning: an actual member of the Communist Party. The interview said he was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA” (“Communist” with a large “C”), which is another unsubstantiated allegation. Your conclusion that “it is reasonable to say that he was an unrepentant lifelong Communist” does not support the “lifelong member” claim. Another non sequitur.
YOU WROTE: “Anyway by using Nazis as an analogy you were basically saying if Obama can be associated with Commies then McCain can be associated with Nazis. I can hear your often used rhetoric which declares that we can never know anything to be true unless it is written literally, but that song and dance wears thin after a while.”
ANSWER: I believe that the conventional view of the extreme left wing is communist, and the conventional view of the extreme right wing is fascist. Is this correct? If so, then it was completely appropriate to use both extremes as examples in the stated model, because they presented parallel construction.
Substituting other groups for Nazis would lose the parallel construction of extremes, and would therefore present a less accurate model of the concept I was attempting to convey. I regret this pissed you off. I shall try to be more sensitive in my examples with you, even at the expense of accuracy.
I have never “used rhetoric which declares that we can never know anything to be true unless it is written literally.” That is an unjustified inference. Please judge me by what I write and not by your inference of what I actually mean. Once again: I try to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. In debate, I try to interpret others literally whenever possible. A “paranoid” personality is characterized by suspicion and distrust of others; a tendency to look for hidden meaning behind other people’s actions.”
It may prove useful to study Epistemology. According to Wikipedia, it studies the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: “What is knowledge?”, “How is knowledge acquired?”, and “What do people know?” Another view may be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/.
Thanks!
So Mark I see that you have embraced a “big lie”. National Socialism (Nazi) is a leftwing ideology. As someone who insists on literal interpretations you should agree. It is true that the Nazis are very anti-Communist, but this is nothing more than hatred between Socialists. Much like Trotskyites and Stalinists. The Nazi’s social engineering and state control are trademarks of Socialism.
While there is some mutually beneficial cooperation between Communists and the Democratic Party these days, there is none between the Nazis and the Republican Party.
I lean towards the belief that Maki spoke out completely on his own. Almost all CPUSA propaganda on official sites has been friendly towards Obama and even friendly towards Clinton (when they weren’t criticizing the Clinton team for “bashing” Obama).
Its pretty damn hard to deny that the CPUSA supports Obama. The latest article from their online periodical, The People’s Weekly World, “Latinos for Obama maps massive national campaign”, is nothing but an unpaid campaign plug for Obama…
http://pww.org/article/articleview/13385/
The latest article (7/16/08 “1st Step for Autoworkers: win in November) from the CPUSA election blog (written by the CPUSA leadership) states; “Labor needs a Democratic landslide in the November elections”. So there is no doubt that they are pushing for the victory of the Democratic Party. The next article, “Workers Get It”, complains that Walgreens policies favor McCain unfairly and goes on to express optimism about Obama’s campaign.
http://cpusaelections.blogspot.com/
Anyway, you really confused me when you commented that, “Kincaid falsely claimed the CPUSA supports Obama based on Alan Maki’s negative support”. Where has Kincaid made such a claim based on Maki?
Your small “c” communist remark is just too much word play. I had to look it up via google and found this funny comment, “The movement will split up into bickering fractions of small-c sans-serif communists, small-c serif communists, not-so-small-c communists, small-caps-c communists etc. etc. They always do, the commies.”
These semantics are way overboard!!!!
Goodnight
Freedom Now,
YOU WROTE: “Your small “c” communist remark is just too much word play. I had to look it up via google and found this funny comment, “The movement will split up into bickering fractions of small-c sans-serif communists, small-c serif communists, not-so-small-c communists, small-caps-c communists etc. etc. They always do, the commies.”
ANSWER: Dictionary.com says:
“com·mu·nist Audio Help /ˈkɒmyənɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-yuh-nist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. (initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.
2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
4. (usually initial capital letter) a Communard.
–adjective 5. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Communist party or to Communism.
6. pertaining to communists or communism.”
Freedom Now,
YOU WROTE:
“So Mark I see that you have embraced a “big lie”. National Socialism (Nazi) is a leftwing ideology. As someone who insists on literal interpretations you should agree. It is true that the Nazis are very anti-Communist, but this is nothing more than hatred between Socialists. Much like Trotskyites and Stalinists. The Nazi’s social engineering and state control are trademarks of Socialism.”
ANSWER: According to American Heritage New Dictionary:
“fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]
A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.”
Please note: “Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.”
Please don’t shoot the messenger.
Fascism & Nazism from Wikipedia:
“The majority view among both scholars and the general population is that fascism is part of the far right. Fascists themselves sometimes claimed to be right-wing (but not far right), and other times claimed to be a “third force” that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether (see International Third Position). They never identified themselves as left-wing, and usually reserved the term “leftism” for their enemies.”
“Many scholars of fascism, including Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber, are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neo-fascism ally themselves with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the communists, or simple expediency.”
“Nazism, the political movement led by Adolf Hitler in Germany, is widely viewed as a form of fascism. The Nazis shared the extreme nationalism, militarism, corporatism, anti-communism of the Italian Fascists, and Hitler admired Mussolini, going as far as to copy the Roman salute used by Italian Fascists and make it the basis of the Nazi salute. However, the Nazis added racism and anti-Semitism to the original fascist ideas.”
Please don’t shoot the messenger.
YOU WROTE: “Anyway, you really confused me when you commented that, “Kincaid falsely claimed the CPUSA supports Obama based on Alan Maki’s negative support”. Where has Kincaid made such a claim based on Maki?”
ANSWER: I was wrong. Although he extensively cites Maki’s fraudulent blog on the Obama website, Kincaid’s other evidence is conclusive. My earlier research was incomplete. Based on his references, it is reasonable to conclude that the CPUSA does, in fact, support Obama.
I disagree with you on one point. Most people are terribly uniformed and believe anything they hear or read.
April 28 at 11:21 am | #1 | Link
May Obama bear the golden fruit of victory!
Long live Stalin, the only white man that isnt evil. Well… and those who vote for Obama… That is your path to salvation.
So for the first time in our adult lives we can be proud of America when, and only when, it holds our dear Obama in its bosom.
Communism, Change We Can Believe In! Si, se puede!!!!!!
...Surrender is Peace…
...Freedom is Slavery…
...Ignorance is Strength…
Vote for Obama in 2008, or DIE!!!!!!!