Painful Cenk Uygur Speach on Mubarak's Resignation

[DuracellBunny97]

I actually like this guy a lot of the time, but this is just awful.

ns0S382H4V0

That's not even patriotism, it's plain nationalism, the founding fathers were slave owners, hardly the best advocates for freedom. Freedom isn't concentrated in the United States, freedom it's scattered throughout the world.

[Garret]

He's a liberal, he's not one of the left, what did you expect?

[khad]

fixed it for you.

[Sir Comradical]

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/two-cheers-for-american-exceptionalism/FeaturedImage
http://historyofeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/american-eagle-and-flag-ii.jpg
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/god%20bless%20america.jpg
http://jimrlong.us/BaldEagle-Flag/American_Flag_And_Bald_Eagle.jpg

[DuracellBunny97]

I don't know, I just thought he would be above this 'Merica, Fuck Yeah, attitude

[Political_Chucky]

Cenk has one big problem. He is too naive. Everytime he speaks about Obama, he expresses how he is dissatisfied with Obama, saying he is too "scared" or won't go "far enough" to put his policies in place. What he fails to realize is that maybe Obama just doesn't give a fuck...maybe he has his own agenda rather then the peoples....he is a liberal, he is naive.

[NGNM85]

I actually like this guy a lot of the time, but this is just awful.

That's not even patriotism, it's plain nationalism,..

Not really, or at least, not in the sense (I think.) you mean.


the founding fathers were slave owners,hardly the best advocates for freedom.

Some of them were, some of them weren't. Thomas Paine, both of the Adamses, Alexander Hamilton, and others, never owned slaves. A number of others, like Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, freed their slaves at varying points. Franklin and Jay, for example, were leaders of abolitionist groups. I'm not going to post an essay on the history of slavery in the United States, but, suffice to say, it was more nuanced than what you are choosing to present.


Freedom isn't concentrated in the United States, freedom it's scattered throughout the world. Oh yeah sure, the Egyptian people were the ones protesting for 18 days, but America..........well..........what a dumb ass.

He never suggested the United states was the only 'free' country. Although, it is, comparatively, a very free society. He was pointing out that the United States is somewhat unusual in that it was actually founded on the basis of ideas. This is one of the advantages of the United States, it's a relatively new, and modern country, created on the basis of the ideas of the Enlightenment, including, secularism, democracy, human rights, social equality, etc. He's saying anyone who remotely subscribes to those ideas, which cuts a significant swath across the political spectrum, should support the Egyptian people right now, and admire their achievement.

[DuracellBunny97]

I always go to far on this website, whenever I post something that seams rash, I usually feel a couple notches less pissed than may come across, and I didn't mean to say the founding fathers were not great men in many regards, even if it came across that way, but I don't think it's fair to say they "started" these ideas, which is literally what Cenk said in the video. Democracy has it's roots in ancient Greece, and secularism, human rights, equality, those are just basic Age of Enlightenment ideas, they developed in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and of course, the american colonies.

[khad]

I always go to far on this website, whenever I post something that seams rash, I usually feel a couple notches less pissed than may come across, and I didn't mean to say the founding fathers were not great men in many regards, even if it came across that way, but I don't think it's fair to say they "started" these ideas, which is literally what Cenk said in the video. Democracy has it's roots in ancient Greece, and secularism, human rights, equality, those are just basic Age of Enlightenment ideas, they developed in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and of course, the american colonies.
What is it today and self flagellating leftists? Why do you feel the need to apologize? You said what you said, liberals got pissed, so what?

On that note, that doucheface Cenk is useless trash. I'll stop hating him when he stops being racist. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/open-letter-young-t134005/index.html)

[NGNM85]

I always go to far on this website, whenever I post something that seams rash, I usually feel a couple notches less pissed than may come across,..

Maybe next time you should type a post, save it in Word, take a half hoir or so, then come back to it with fresh eyes.


and I didn't mean to say the founding fathers were not great men in many regards,

In some ways, yes, in some ways no. Like I said, it's nuanced.


even if it came across that way, but I don't think it's fair to say they "started" these ideas, which is literally what Cenk said in the video. Democracy has it's roots in ancient Greece, and secularism, human rights, equality, those are just basic Age of Enlightenment ideas, they developed in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and of course, the american colonies.

These ideas have long histories, you can trace anything back to whenever you'd like. However, the luminaries of the Enlightenment, which includes some of the American revolutionaries, (As well as a number of Europeans.) developed and popularized these ideas in a way that was definitely unprecedented.

[DuracellBunny97]

I'm not trying to apologize, just trying to explain what I really meant

[khad]

I'm not trying to apologize, just trying to explain what I really meant
What explanation is there? That Cenk is a lying sack of shit opportunistically exploiting the events in Egypt to further his Amero-chauvinist agenda?

[NGNM85]

What explanation is there? That Cenk is a lying sack of shit..

While I don't know him, personally, but nothing he said in that video could be accurately described as a 'lie.'


opportunistically exploiting the events in Egypt to further his Amero-chauvinist agenda?

What exactly, pray tell, is his 'Amero-chauvanist agenda'?

[DuracellBunny97]

I need to explain myself because I don't think Cenk is a "lying sack of shit" I just find him infrequently annoying and ignorant

[khad]

What exactly, pray tell, is his 'Amero-chauvanist agenda'?
The Egyptian people pushed for their livelihoods, not for the abstract ideology of a foreign state which oppresses them. To claim so is what Cenk did.

What this thread has proved to me is that revleft's convictions are so weak that many can't even criticize liberals without getting all hung up about the pedantic minutiae.

[NGNM85]

The Egyptian people pushed for their livelihoods,

I don't see where he argued otherwise.


not for the abstract ideology of a foreign state which oppresses them. To claim so is what Cenk did.

I think there is genuine desire on the part of many Egyptians for democracy, etc., so there is a commonality in that sense.

Cenk only emphasized the American figures of the Enlightenment, but I don't think he intended to characterize these as specifically American ideas, in the sense of their origins (I'm pretty sure he's heard of Locke, Rousseau, etc.) or that Americans have a unique monoply on these ideas, in which case, he seemed to be very clearly stating the opposite.

Unfortunately, the United States did support the Mubarak regime. He was one in a long line of similarly favored dictators. I don't think anybody disputed that.


What this thread has proved to me is that revleft's convictions are so weak that many can't even criticize liberals without getting all hung up about the pedantic minutiae.

Well, facts sort of matter.

Just as an aside, I think you should take up yoga or primal scream therapy or something.

[The Red Next Door]

I am one revlefters, who is not weak with his convictions, Here i go.

that guy need to be crown with a brick, that just stupid.

[DuracellBunny97]

Cenk said "I don't know if this is a win for the american GOVERNMENT". no matter what his overall message was, he really lost me from their, why did he even bring that up? of course it wasn't a victory for the american government, they back Mubarak for 30 years and when the Egyptian people finally try to overthrow him, their to "diplomatic" to un-ambiguously take the side of the people. I realize I'm over-simplifying it a bit, but still.

[Political_Chucky]

The Egyptian people pushed for their livelihoods, not for the abstract ideology of a foreign state which oppresses them. To claim so is what Cenk did.

What this thread has proved to me is that revleft's convictions are so weak that many can't even criticize liberals without getting all hung up about the pedantic minutiae.

Hes a liberal and hes catering to a liberal audience. Hes not a leftist by any means, though he(as well as most of his audience) considers himself more left then the status quo(which is utter ignorance imo).

Cenk doesn't have some agenda. Hes an ignorant fool. I'll listen to TYT sparingly when I want to hear a liberals opinion on an issue. To say he has some ulterior motive by connecting Egypt and the U.S. is going a bit too far though. Hes like any Patriotic American who is going to connect everything to their own politics. I just don't think Revleft needs to HAVE strong points against Cenk Uygur.

[RadioRaheem84]

He never suggested the United states was the only 'free' country. Although, it is, comparatively, a very free society. He was pointing out that the United States is somewhat unusual in that it was actually founded on the basis of ideas. This is one of the advantages of the United States, it's a relatively new, and modern country, created on the basis of the ideas of the Enlightenment, including, secularism, democracy, human rights, social equality, etc. He's saying anyone who remotely subscribes to those ideas, which cuts a significant swath across the political spectrum, should support the Egyptian people right now, and admire their achievement.


It was also built on the ideas of manifest destiny and expansion that cared not for the Native American. It barred women, people of color and the poor from engaging in the affairs of the newly found country.

Have you ever even read the Federalist Papers?

France has more of a unique claim to your national exceptionalism logic considering the radical ideals that sprang up from it's revolution.

[RadioRaheem84]

As far as what Cenk said, it was straight garbage. How did he pull American exceptionalism out of the struggle of the Egyptian people? Why the hell do liberals like him believe that any struggle against oppression is tied to America?

If anything their struggle is due to the American government feeding the Mubarak regime with aid.

[Chambered Word]

In case he hasn't noticed, the US was built on the genocide of Natives. Fuck his idea of America - it does not stand for, let alone have the monopoly on, freedom. Cenk simply doesn't have the balls to stand up and denounce everything America really stands for, so instead he pretends there was some innate freedom that America grants people which has been corrupted.

[the last donut of the night]

Some of them were, some of them weren't. Thomas Paine, both of the Adamses, Alexander Hamilton, and others, never owned slaves. A number of others, like Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, freed their slaves at varying points. Franklin and Jay, for example, were leaders of abolitionist groups. I'm not going to post an essay on the history of slavery in the United States, but, suffice to say, it was more nuanced than what you are choosing to present.

I really think your illusions are getting in the way of actual history. You attempt to make the capitalist system at the time into a structure where good, loving people, even if they were rich, could just decide not to be a part of the aforementioned system and sort of "drop out" out of the exploitation whenever they wanted, with no immediate effects on their ideology and class nature. That's insanely wrong. Why? It doesn't matter who owned slaves and who didn't. Hamilton didn't own slaves because he was a rich lawyer, with good money coming from New England commerce (itself profitting massively off the slave system down south). Same for all the other ones. They weren't slaveowners, but they were part of the ruling class. The ruling class in America at the time was built on slavery and the genocide of the Indians of what today we call the colonies. It doesn't matter if some were part of abolitionist groups (even so because these were still pretty racist and not too radical). You have to get this liberal idea that thinks that if you're not ok with the oppression your life is based on, then you can just pretend to do something else and it'd be ok. No. The ruling class exists because there is a ruled class and not too surprisingly because of this the ruling class's ideology is always reactionary. Your defense of the colonial ruling class is pretty sad, but foremost, it's not revolutionary.




He never suggested the United states was the only 'free' country. Although, it is, comparatively, a very free society.

Yes, it's a comparatively very free society that was built on the wholesale genocide of the continent's original inhabitants and the forced importation of thousands of Africans, grew upon the backs of millions of laboring workers, and now tramples upon its own and the workers of the world for its profit.

There is a free American society, but it belongs to the rich. The rich have the freedom to eat, to live well, to have anything they desire, to free speech and to not be harassed by the state. The workers of America, not so much. Or have you heard nothing of the FBI, the police, the Army, the right-wing vigilantes aided by the corporate media? Have you heard of union-busting Pinkerton detectives? What free society do you live in?

Cuba, for all its faults, is a much more free society than the US.


He was pointing out that the United States is somewhat unusual in that it was actually founded on the basis of ideas.

Nation-states aren't really founded on ideas, they're founded by segments of the capitalist classes wishing to protect their own interests. That's America. Now, I know you're thinking of those pretty words the American government loves to mention. Part of those were used to quell a much more revolutionary base of workers, artisans, and farmers that had fought the British and were expecting some pretty radical changes from their leaders. The other is just meaningless bourgeois jargon that doesn't remotely defend the interests of the growing working class at the time. The conclusion, of course, is that no state is founded on ideas. What you said assumes that there is an ideological sphere completely removed from the material substratum -- an essentially Marxist idea.

But even assuming what you think is true, one can find many other countries that were "founded on ideas" that are (or were) much more revolutionary than the US.

1. Revolutionary Russia -- founded on certain ideas, right?
2. Cuba, same as above.
3. China, 1949 -- yep.
4. Although they're capitalist states, even Venezuela under Chavez and Bolivia under Morales are much freer and "unusual" than the US, today or in 1776.



This is one of the advantages of the United States, it's a relatively new, and modern country, created on the basis of the ideas of the Enlightenment, including, secularism, democracy, human rights, social equality, etc.

No, the US was created in the colonial elite's firm belief that it wanted to get rid of British competition on its soil.

Don't give bourgeois political discussion a remotely revolutionary tint. I don't want your rights. I want revolutionary change, where workers will take the power. Then the real rights will come.


He's saying anyone who remotely subscribes to those ideas, which cuts a significant swath across the political spectrum, should support the Egyptian people right now, and admire their achievement.

This is hypocritical and offensive, to say the least. The Egyptian people are sick of America and its "rights" -- after all, it was America and its beautiful freedom that backed Mubarak and his Zionist clique for 30 years. You should admire the Egyptian people not because they fit your liberal wetdream of Third World people engaging in some kind of color revolution. You should admire them because they are workers who have, in the span of two weeks, taken down Mubarak. You should admire them because they've enforced their working class power. You should have immense solidarity with them because they might lead to a revolutionary situation. Not because of your "rights."

[RadioRaheem84]

I remember reading the whole "America was built on an idea" bullshit national exceptionalism in a book by right wing nut Dinesh D'Souza. Much of the book was a defense of US colonialism and imperialism.

NGN, this is a new low.

[Princess Luna]

I don't see why everybody is attacking this guy , sure what he said was bullshit but he is better then all the right-wingers talking about how "it could be dangerous for Israel" , or Michael Savage who said Obama should sent American troops to protect Mubarak.

[Ocean Seal]

America fuck yeah, is an attitude that is unavoidable. Its a rhetoric that is necessary for anyone with a political outlook in the United States. Even though the founding fathers were honestly just looking out for the interests of the ruling class, they cannot be criticized in America. They are seen as perfection, however flawed they were. No American with a career in politics will ever speak ill of them, and I would suggest to leftists that when attempting to point out their flaws take into account the sensitivity of Americans towards this matter.

Don't say things like Jefferson was a reactionary hypocrite who only believed in freedom for the slave owning white male elite, though it may be true.

This will just make people defensive and further establish in their minds a national conscience and a desire to defend their founding fathers.

Say something like while Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence decrying the undemocratic offenses of Great Britain, he, like many others of his time did not take into account that he truly fought only for the freedom of the American ruling class, and at the same time neglected oppressed groups like women and non-whites.

Most will concede to this, and hopefully change their outlook.

[Chambered Word]

I don't see why everybody is attacking this guy , sure what he said was bullshit but he is better then all the right-wingers talking about how "it could be dangerous for Israel" , or Michael Savage who said Obama should sent American troops to protect Mubarak.

Either way, they're pretending America somehow stands for freedom. Plus, Cenk's rhetoric is puke-worthy.

[Jose Gracchus]

America's foundation has nothing to do with the self-emancipation of the Egyptian masses. The latter should be evaluated in its own right, and maybe for once we could refrain from reflexive American self-indulgence and self-worship.