quote:Originally posted by Vox:Absolutely. Not only "should they be allowed to do so" (which should go w/o saying), my point was that they should do exactly that.quote:Originally posted by Khalliqa:quote:Originally posted by Vox:
The discussion, at its most intellectually honest, would involve people taking it as a GIVEN that she 1) is a right winger who is dissociated from the AA community, and was involved very deeply in the Bush administration's worst activities; and 2) has a compelling story of growth, academic and career achievement, and rise to prominence and power, regardless of the politics. To disparage the very existence of either of these two truths about Condi is disingenuous. It seems to me that there are arguments to be made one way or another, even when being intellectually honest about it.
Disparaging facts, even incongruous facts, would certainly be intellectually dishonest..
But dialogue should not cease with the presentation and accurate acknowledgment of factual information... certainly one should be allowed in dialogue to analyze and evaluate such facts to form a conclusion as to the deemed weight and worth of each... and enter this opinion as well...Now, does this mean she doesn't/shouldn't have relevance to the black community?quote:Here, imo, her stellar personal academic/political accomplishments pale in comparison to supporting, lying and misleading an entire country into war and further financial hardship under false pretenses which have given rise to suspicions of a possible pawn role (and what a glorious/pretty role it would be eh?)in a right wing xenophobic and greedy agenda...
What does "relevant" mean in this context?
positive or negative relevance?
Joe Louis was a lover of white women but also an abusive man (I think he almost killed Lena Horne once), who is most lauded for his accomplishments as a boxer and his ability to stand up to racism...
Ones assessment of him depends upon the weight they give each trait...
Does overcoming racism hold more weight than abusing women? To some it does..
He is still relevant, but if you are of the former mindset, you will pay short shrift to the latter...
If you value intellectual prowess and political savvy over war crimes (loss of life etc.. ) then you will see her legacy and relevance primarily in a positive light... and its potency will tend to overshadow other parts of her legacy...