If YOU have issues with Cornel West-well, what are they?

[JonLP24]

18. The best thing to do, honestly

is read Cornell West for yourself. Reading a recap of Michael Eric Dyson he was very inaccurate of many things described, including the fact he called himself a prophet & went really far with his criticisms. He'd actually go further than West like when the audience turned on him when he said Obama isn't "Moses, he is Pharoah" he'd say "its the office" always with that to cover his criticisms so it wouldn't come across as "ragging on the man". Cornell West was more straight forward so I respect the honestly and it kinda explains why he escaped as an Obama hater now his cheerleaders are his #1 fan for writing this hit piece. You already have someone under the false impression that Cornell West called himself a prophet when Eric Dyson certainly did. There is video evidence of that but that isn't even what the dispute was over. This was it

“Character assassination is the refuge of those who hide and conceal these issues in order to rationalize their own allegiance to the status quo,” West posted Thursday, indirectly addressing Dyson’s claims—namely that West claims to be a “prophet”—without naming his longtime compatriot. “I am neither a saint nor prophet, but I am a Jesus-loving free Black man in a Great Tradition who intends to be faithful unto death in telling the truth and bearing witness to justice.”

<snip>

The source of Eric Dyson's recent column was inspired by West's claim he sold his soul & mention the tradition of black prophets saying nothing about himself being one so so much ink was spilled to say he isn't a prophet therefore we should ignore which was a success for the poster above you. That isn't the only thing



Prophetic Fire articulates West’s fundamental critique of President Obama. “With the black middle class losing nearly 60 percent of its wealth, the black working class devastated with stagnating wages and increasing prices, and the black poor ravaged by massive unemployment, decrepit schools, indecent housing and hyperincarceration in the new Jim Crow, the age of Obama looks bleak through the lens of the black prophetic tradition,” West argues. “This prophetic viewpoint is not a personal attack on a black president; rather it is a wholesale indictment of the system led by a complicitous black president.”

These are words of fire, and West deploys them with a passion and zeal that, at its best, recalls the activist spirit of Ida B. Wells, Ella Baker, Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X, the figures profiled in his book.

The more of Prophetic Fire I read, the more I find myself nodding in agreement. West’s past critiques of Obama have, at times, crossed the line of respectful discourse, but he’s on measured ground here.

Avoiding personal attacks, he takes aim squarely at the depressing state of racial and economic injustice in America, a nation he characterizes as being ruled by rich elites that actively crush democratic strivings and censor radical voices and visions.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/10/cornel_west_s_new_book_black_prophetic_fire.html

For someone who doesn't shit for over 10 years also has a new book out that has excellent reviews talking about issues that I really can't disagree with.

There is The New Republic but its easy to say they have a new editor except when Eric Dyson cities the former editor's opinion of Race Matters which is a book he likes but includes his slams anyway to justify an overall argument but like the above poster said. If something is inaccurate, generally you'd discard the rest but the lies are already traveling all around the world before the truth has a half chance

This Isn't the Same 'New Republic'

The first New Republic I recall seeing erased me. I found it in my local public library during my junior year of high school; the edges were a little bit tattered. The magazine had put a blond, white teenager wearing headphones on the cover and called him “The Real Face of Rap.” People had been reading this, I realized, and I felt acid in my throat. The kid’s expression in the cover image hinted that even he was surprised. The boldness of the contrarian image and the declaration seemed intended to injure. And the article it introduced was not merely ignorant. It bludgeoned me with its wrongheadedness. Not only did I feel that the magazine wasn’t for me: It actively sought to invalidate me.

This was hardly an isolated incident of cultural insensitivity or obtuseness, as Ta-Nehisi Coates reminded us last December. The New Republic archives are rife with it, from an issue devoted to The Bell Curve to Stephen Glass’ inventions to the unconscionable bigotry against Arabs written by former editor Marty Peretz. But by the time the magazine, now my magazine, published its own examination of its racial legacy in February, it seemed to me that things had changed, and I had taken a job here as a senior editor.

I bring all this up because of the discussion that has arisen among readers since the publication of a Michael Eric Dyson essay about Cornel West on our site this past Sunday. The conversation has been wide-ranging, but for me, there has been one stinging question that must be addressed: Why, considering this magazine’s history of a white gaze and a white audience, did it appear in The New Republic?

I first saw that question in a post on my Facebook wall the night we published the essay, which I co-edited with my colleague Theodore Ross. Lamenting the harshness of the critique and the public manner in which it was delivered, author and Vassar professor Kiese Laymon directed this question at Dyson on Facebook: “You do this in the New Republic? This? There? Why?”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121641/why-we-published-michael-eric-dysons-cornel-west-essay

See, they bring up their past history of having racial problems as a reason as to why they needed to publish this essay which is incredibly divisive on those lines.