Pat Robertson claims Haiti is cursed; earthquake caused by Haiti's pact with the devil.

[always2late]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

It wasn't rhetorical. Thank you Selly for answering.

I am most concerned not with just this (and many others) remark from Roberston, I am concerned that shows like "Meet the Press" regularly have Robertson and other 700 Club correspondents on as pundits. They are not political figures, have no bearing on the inner workings of the USA or other nations. Yet, they are on show after show spouting this rhetoric as though they have a role in things. As though it was fact.

Lots of people are *sheeple* and believe everything on television. That impact is what worries me and scares me in my heart of hearts.

Its a mistake to believe that the "Pat Robertsons" of the world have no bearing on the inner workings of the US. The man has half a billion dollars coming in yearly for his "mission". Politics (and politicians) are controlled by money and Pat Robertson is heavily invested in politics (not just in the US, he is also heavily invested overseas).

Its a mistake to think that Pat is just a moronic old fool (although he is). That fool and others of his ilk control votes in our Congress and Senate. THAT is what is really terrifying about this.

[labete]

Originally Posted by always2late

Its a mistake to believe that the "Pat Robertsons" of the world have no bearing on the inner workings of the US. The man has half a billion dollars coming in yearly for his "mission". Politics (and politicians) are controlled by money and Pat Robertson is heavily invested in politics (not just in the US, he is also heavily invested overseas).

Its a mistake to think that Pat is just a moronic old fool (although he is). That fool and others of his ilk control votes in our Congress and Senate. THAT is what is really terrifying about this.

Robertson is a man of frightening undue influence, and his ilk are highly influential in U.S. politics. Take a look at Wikipedia on "The Fellowship" aka "The Family" (Google for lots more info, or watch Rachel Maddow give you an overview.)

The United States isn't as politically conservative, especially on social issues, as it is because of the "Moral Majority" or high levels of voter backlash against boogeymen. There is some of that, but it's not where the power is. It is because there are people with loads of power and money who are very invested in ensuring that conservatism, and who network, recruit, support in all kinds of ways, people to do the work to make that happen. Some of the faces change, but the mission statement remains the same. It's like the "good ol' boy network," but specifically for socially conservative Christianist politicians and political workers (lobbyists, Congressional and White House staffers, etc.).

Some of them are cynics looking for a good hook into power, and others are true believers in the cause, but either way the net result is the perpetuation of ultra-conservative mores, especially in circles of influence.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by labete

Robertson is a man of frightening undue influence, and his ilk are highly influential in U.S. politics. Take a look at Wikipedia on "The Fellowship" aka "The Family" (Google for lots more info, or watch Rachel Maddow give you an overview.)

The United States isn't as politically conservative, especially on social issues, as it is because of the "Moral Majority" or high levels of voter backlash against boogeymen. There is some of that, but it's not where the power is. It is because there are people with loads of power and money who are very invested in ensuring that conservatism, and who network, recruit, support in all kinds of ways, people to do the work to make that happen. Some of the faces change, but the mission statement remains the same. It's like the "good ol' boy network," but specifically for socially conservative Christianist politicians and political workers (lobbyists, Congressional and White House staffers, etc.).

Some of them are cynics looking for a good hook into power, and others are true believers in the cause, but either way the net result is the perpetuation of ultra-conservative mores, especially in circles of influence.

I agree with you Labete, but this particular incident went further than conservatism - it's pretty clear racism.

[labete]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

I agree with you Labete, but this particular incident went further than conservatism - it's pretty clear racism.

I understand, but from where I sit, they are inextricably linked. Conservatism is about preserving a way of life based on the kyrarchy; racism is an integral part of that.

Now, many people may call themselves conservative or hold conservative positions without consciously supporting racism, without believing in the most base credo of racism (that there are natural or divinely-given differences among races which result in racial superiority and inferiority), but when their choices and actions support a kyriarchy that reifies positions of privelege linked to race, class, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, national origin, etc., the end result is one of reaffirming those racist beliefs and their power in our culture.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by labete

I understand, but from where I sit, they are inextricably linked. Conservatism is about preserving a way of life based on the kyrarchy; racism is an integral part of that.

Now, many people may call themselves conservative or hold conservative positions without consciously supporting racism, without believing in the most base credo of racism (that there are natural or divinely-given differences among races which result in racial superiority and inferiority), but when their choices and actions support a kyriarchy that reifies positions of privelege linked to race, class, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, national origin, etc., the end result is one of reaffirming those racist beliefs and their power in our culture.

Hope not to derail, but what is kyrachy/kyriarchy? I tried to look it up so I could read your post in context, but can't find a definition.

Much appreciated.

[labete]

Originally Posted by Jess

Hope not to derail, but what is kyrachy/kyriarchy? I tried to look it up so I could read your post in context, but can't find a definition.

Much appreciated.

Sorry, I typed too fast and misspelled at least once. It's kyriarchy.

Kyriarchy – a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.

Patriarchy – Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men do not have control over white wo/men and some women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men (slaves).

- Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001

Basically, it's a more complex model of power-over structures which acknowleges that while someone might have privilege (been misspelling that one all day!) in some areas, that same person may be lacking privilege in others. Under the standard "patriarchy keeps us down" rhetoric, it is understood that the people with most power in our culture (and yes, I'm being somewhat U.S.-centric, as it is what I know best) are white men. But what about white men who are blue collar workers? Or homeless? Or not able-bodied? Or transmen? Or gay? They may all still get privilege on the basis of race and gender, but privilege is not static and is relative and their resulting position in the kyriarchy may be significantly lower than, for example, a successful, able-bodied black male entrepeneur.

Does that help?

[Jess]

Originally Posted by labete

Sorry, I typed too fast and misspelled at least once. It's kyriarchy.



Basically, it's a more complex model of power-over structures which acknowleges that while someone might have privilege (been misspelling that one all day!) in some areas, that same person may be lacking privilege in others. Under the standard "patriarchy keeps us down" rhetoric, it is understood that the people with most power in our culture (and yes, I'm being somewhat U.S.-centric, as it is what I know best) are white men. But what about white men who are blue collar workers? Or homeless? Or not able-bodied? Or transmen? Or gay? They may all still get privilege on the basis of race and gender, but privilege is not static and is relative and their resulting position in the kyriarchy may be significantly lower than, for example, a successful, able-bodied black male entrepeneur.

Does that help?

Thanks a lot! Interesting concept and worth looking up. Many words haven't made it into "traditional " dictionaries yet, so i appreciate the time in helping me with this.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by always2late

Its a mistake to believe that the "Pat Robertsons" of the world have no bearing on the inner workings of the US. The man has half a billion dollars coming in yearly for his "mission". Politics (and politicians) are controlled by money and Pat Robertson is heavily invested in politics (not just in the US, he is also heavily invested overseas).

Its a mistake to think that Pat is just a moronic old fool (although he is). That fool and others of his ilk control votes in our Congress and Senate. THAT is what is really terrifying about this.

Yeah. That was kind of my point.

I was being literal and logical in that he has WAY to much power for a moronic old fool.