Black Kids and White Kids
In light of the release of Black Kids’ debut LP Partie Traumatic, a solid B album according to the tough-but-fair critics at The A.V. Club, I was thinking about the fact that the band started in a Baptist Church (via WSJ).
The three founding members — singer Reggie Youngblood, drummer Kevin Snow and Mr. Holmes — first started playing music together in the late 1990s after meeting in the baptist church they attended. The three went on to play in various bands, sometimes together, sometimes separately, but they all grew indifferent to the ska and other music styles they were playing.
One of those styles, according to the Journal, was “Christian punk.” We think of Sunday morning as “the most segregated hour in America,” yet I wonder if that’s still true — after all, every other hour is really, really segregated, and my sense is that evangelicals have been making progress in breaking down racial barriers. This has straightforward implications for Christian-inflected popular music. Of course, you have to wonder — what constitutes “Christian music,” given that so much “mainstream” popular music contains powerful religious themes?
Anyway, I’m clearly clueless on this front. Fortunately, we have Patrol Magazine, the brainchild of ex-_Slate_ intern David Sessions, to help sort out the confusion. Patrol, please publish a smart, informed piece about race, popular music, Christianity, authenticity, and the hype machine. And Black Kids.
I have to admit I am a pretty partisan liberal hack. I usually find myself vigorously agreeing with Yglesias, Klein, and their ilk, however when I mossy over to TAS and read your analysis and argument (especially with regard to foreign policy) I tend to find it uncomfortably convincing. It is because of this that I wanted to ask you to address McCain’s recent Anbar=Surge comment and his follow up that he has a broader definition of ‘surge’ than most people. As I see this, from my liberal perch, it is inexcusable and indefensible, but I think that about a lot of things many of which have very smart people arguing for the other side. Is there some aspect of this that I don’t understand? Some explanation that will turn this from outrageous gaffe to misunderstanding? I would really appreciate your input.
— Leigh · Jul 24, 02:56 PM · #
Isn’t that sort of random here, Leigh? Because I like Pop-Tarts, too.
— Sanjay · Jul 24, 03:04 PM · #
Indeed it is, and I apologize. I had some trouble locating an email address so I crassly intruded on the comments section of this post, forgive me. And for the record, I too like Pop-Tarts.
— Leigh · Jul 24, 03:17 PM · #
Or, well, I like Brown Sugar Cinnamon and its frosted cousin, and some of the simple jam-filled kind. There are any number of truly repugnant-looking ones filled with wild colors and then there’s “S’mores” which looks terrible too.
— Sanjay · Jul 24, 04:29 PM · #
Hey guys:
I’ve never had a Pop-Tart. This is despite the fact that I like my food really, really processed.
Leigh — I’ll do my best, perhaps later this week. But I think it’s important to note that I don’t see my role as defending anything John McCain says. I try to approach Iraq and related issues with an open mind, and I find the timetable/withdrawal idea wanting. That said, I’ll definitely revisit this.
Sanjay — you are my hero.
— Reihan · Jul 24, 06:03 PM · #
Thank you. I know your job isn’t to defend the McCain campaign but I do appreciate your input. I leave you both with this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/428435/the_best_ways_to_eat_a_poptart.html?cat=22
— Leigh · Jul 24, 06:31 PM · #
Reihan:
I suspect you might be right. Perhaps it’s a flash in a pan, but I attend a pretty multiracial church. It happens to have a Af-Am former athlete as its head pastor; I suspect that is part of what draws both crowds. One thing I’ve seen is the inclusion of rap techniques into more or less typically ‘white’ praise music.
— Not this time · Jul 25, 04:31 AM · #
Reihan, Katie Perry started out in xian rock, and so did the lead singer from Evanessence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAp9BKosZXs
Interesting to see the transformation going the opposite way.
Leigh, the latest McCain gaffe on Anbar and the Surge is just another in series of senior moments. Like his confusion about Sunni and Shi’ia idealogy during General Petraeus’ televised testimony.
“McCain: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
Petraeus: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
McCain: Certainly not….. an obscure sect of the Shiites…all…overall?
Petraeus: No, no sir.
McCain: Or Sunnis or anybody else then? Al Qaeda continues to try to assert themselves in Mosul, is that correct?”
Reihan, don’t you think McCain should make the same pledge Reagan made, to step down if he develops symptoms of senilia?
McCain is even older than Reagan was.
— matoko_chan · Jul 25, 01:39 PM · #
McCain’s made missteps and howlers aplenty but I have found neither Yglesias nor Klein — and I probably generally vote the same as both those guys — reliable or helpful in identifying them, and they tend to pounce on everything McCain does thoughtlessly and so be only right half the time. The Anbar/surge thing is a nice example, and I have to admit I was a bit off-put by Leigh’s calling it “inexcusable and indefensible” — it’s neither although I heartily agree the Corner crowd has happily risen to the occasion with a mess of, let’s-quickly-fudge-the-surge — but looking at makoto_chan echoing it as some kind of senility — it’s not.
Look, there’s reasonable justification for what McCain said — it’s not tight because McCain really failed to understand what “the surge” currently means in the political dialogue, and understanding that dialogue and how it works is part of being an effective leader, but I’d bite back hard at the idea that McCain was wrong. And don’t just take it from me — real, smart people like O’Hanlon are on board, say, here with that (as are “several foreign policy analysts” whoever them is.)
Part of what makes what McCain said credible is, there actually was a not-inconsiderable local troop surge in Anbar during the awakening, whose success was in part indicative of how the rest of the surge could be played out (and there’s a lot of military documentation of that: see, for example, here in 2007 — they went from “drive by” counterinsurgency to putting a lot of troops on the ground to hold stability to using the calm thus created to win over local leaders in what we’re calling the “Anbar awakening.” So, yeah, Senator McCain is about right.) But more to the point, McCain and others seized — maybe with a certain desperation — on the Petraeus model that the 101st Airborne had initially used so successfully in Northern Iraq (and my knowledge of that comes, frankly, mostly from Tom Ricks’ Fiasco.) And that model — the large-scale implementation of which throughout Iraq under Petraeus’ expanded mandate being what McCain and others really conceptualized as “the Surge” — did in fact involve a lot of buying people off, and having the forces in play and present out of the FOB to make those buy-offs stick. That is, since 2003 you’ve seen any number of potential “Anbar Awakenings” when this or tht faction has aligned itself with the Americans and in fact the Petraeus MO looks to generate and exploit such, but they’re probably only robust and stable when troops are available to serve as guarantors (analogously to how the stability generated by extra troops is supposed to help guarantee any political progress) — so, no surge, no meaningful Anbar Awakening, just another flash-in-the-pan. The irony here is, Yglesias knows that — he’s been among the first to deride the “Anbar Awakening” as essentially a paying-off of tribal leaders: the troop surge is probably the biggest reason it would’ve been costly, this time, for those leaders to change their allegiances. I’m not saying McCain’s a military genius or anything but basically he appears to have the right on this particular issue.
And, deep-fried? Gag me. But I did just buy a deep fryer, and I think there’s some Pop-Tarts somewhere…I wonder if she batters them first with something?
— Sanjay · Jul 25, 03:13 PM · #
sanjay, nice try, but the Anbar/Surge thing IS indefensible.
1. show me a reference where “surging” == increased troop levels prior to McCains senior moment on Anbar.
2. Couric was discussing the Baghdad Surge, in the context of Obama voting against and Mccain voting for.
The Petraeus/Kilcullen model succeded in Anbar AFTER conventional troop lvl increases failed.
Either McCain had another senior moment and confused Baghdad and Anbar, or he is completely clueless about COIN, the Small Wars Kilcullen articles, and social network theory.
I’m afraid the senior moments are just going to get more frequent and more difficult to coverup.
A confused elderly guy with shortterm memory loss episodes (like his confusion over the Sunni/Shi’ia divide during his question to Gen. Petraeus) is just not a good candidate for CinC.
— matoko_chan · Jul 27, 04:09 AM · #
matoko_chan, I gave you the reference. And what you’re saying isn’t right: read the reference! What happened in Anbar wasn’t just the troop level increase, it was the troop level increase and the deployment of the troops into the neighborhoods; it’s exactly the Petraeus model, and the model for the surge writ large.
I’m guessing of the two of us, if one of us is “clueless about COIN” it isn’t me, I read the stuff for a living.
— Sanjay · Jul 27, 05:02 PM · #
toute meme, sanjay, increased troop levels were NOT WORKING IN ANBAR.
and, btw are counterproductive to the concept of trusted networks, giving the perception of top-down control by an alien force.
give me a cite where McCain calls increased troop levels surging prior to the attempt to cover up his latest senior moment and i might find you believable.
lol
— matoko_chan · Jul 27, 11:37 PM · #
here yah go sanjay.
mccain vintage 2006
“The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military’s clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.
We are talking about the fundamental elements of counterinsurgency strategy here. We are not inventing new strategies.”
hmm…thing 1—no use of the word “surge” as equivalent to increase in troop strength.
thing 2— McCain saw no need for the Petraeus/Kilcullen model whatsoever.
— matoko_chan · Jul 27, 11:49 PM · #
btw sanjay, i am not callin you clueless.
i am calling mccain either clueless or confused.
you pick.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 27, 11:52 PM · #
makoto_chan, if the point of your “thing1” is, McCain didn’t call for more troops before late 2006, you’re provably wrong. McCain was ripping Rumsfeld on the need for more troops back in 2004, and he started calling for them back in 2003. “Nice try.” If you want to gig him for not using the word “surge” to describe a troop level increase that’s…interesting.
As for the rest of the quote, what you’re demonstrating is the difference between learning about somthing by googling, and knowing it. makoto_chan, the “military’s clear, hold and build strategy” from that quote is more associated with COL Mac Farland than anyone else — and that’s why I picked the article I did, yes. That strategy involved putting troops thick on the ground and among the populace in Anbar — and you can read that strategy’s author saying that in the stuff I linked. So, yep — McCain’s quote is calling for that to be implemented through Iraq.
But here’s the thing: McCain knows much, much more about COIN than I or damn near anyone else outside the military — again, that doesn’t make him a military genius, but he knows the players and ideas. McCain isn’t learning this stuff through Google (OK, I think that’s obvious) — he’s talked with the generals and strategists as much as anyone else in the Senate. Claiming he’s clueless about it because your college offers you high speed downloading of Yglesias is goofy. And McCain — the guy who so elegantly shivved Myers during testimony — isn’t blindly following doctrine.
He’s made some howlers this campaign (and, given the current stupid ads about Obama stiffing the troops, I’m finding him hard to defend today). But lots of people with lots of political inclinations talk to McCain and they all think his mind is sharp, because it is. He screws up on the campaign trail because as has been pointed out here and elsewhere a lot, he is a sucky campaigner who is uncomfortable as hell on the platform.
In 2000, both parties narrowed their electoral choices to two candidates: one interesting and full of ideas, and one party-line poor candidate. Both parties went with the lesser choice: bravo. Suddenly in 2008 you have two interesting, dynamic, basically decent guys, both of whom probably represent a bit of bucking of the party line, campaigning and they offer very different solutions for America; there’s a lot of substantive areas to critique both on. So if you’re running around telling me that one of these guys is senile or a Muslim extremist or a froth-mouthed warmonger or a closet America-hater, you’re not just drinking the Kool-Aid, you’re selling it.
— Sanjay · Jul 28, 01:23 PM · #