You asked for columns, so I posted a couple.
Yes, it means a black person talking about issues related to race and poverty. Black writers are called names like these and white ones aren’t. In the comments on “The Real Real America,” Krugman is called a bigot and despicable and evil, but I don’t see any racially loaded nonsense like the terms I mentioned earlier. Do you?
I absolutely believe these are real things and legitimate terms. But that doesn’t prove what you purported to be saying which is that blacks and whites get treated differently for saying the same thing. You seem to be weaseling here.
In sum, a person who has achieved fortune, fame and power primarily by carrying on about poverty/racism is a poverty pimp/race hustler. There is no difference in this regard between black or white (other than that it’s a lot harder for whites to be successful in this field).
No, it means someone who is apparently profiting from advocating against black poverty or injustice.
I’m not weaseling at all. I’m making fun of your belief that these are terms you can use in legitimate discourse when they’re racially loaded taunts. I don’t expect people to actually own up to that, but I find it laughably obvious. Do go ahead and defend them.
I notice a lack of comment on the legitimacy of the issues the person is “carrying on” about. Does that mean if someone achieves political influence by discussing race and poverty in factually accurate ways, he’s still a poverty pimp?
And CarnalK says the same thing: the appearance of profiting is good enough to attract a smear. Interesting. And again, there’s no comment on whether or not the grievances are legitimate. If you speak out against racism or injustice and achieve some measure of influence or renown, it’s OK for people to compare you to a street criminal like a pimp or a hustler. And we’re supposed to believe this is a race-blind criticism even though you agree it’s easier to apply it to black people.
For god’s sake, the phrase is basically an accusation. Whether the accusation is true or not is another question. So it’s not “interesting”. Quit trying to pretend I am some racist apologist just because I’m not buying everything you’re selling.
That’s not what this thread is about.
This thread is about whether black or white anti-racists are treated differently for saying the same things. And your comments about Krugman seemed to be along the same lines, responding to a comment which compared him to Ta-Nehisi Coates. Pivoting to a discussion of whether terms like poverty pimp are legitimate terms or racial taunts because you’d rather not defend the invalid point you made about Krugman is weaseling.
Possibly. That would involve a judgement as to how much of the guy’s carrying on about these things is motivated or at least biased by a desire to achieve political influence. (Most of the actual poverty pimps and race hustlers have also achieved great wealth for themselves and assorted family members and hangers-on along the way, which makes the judgment a lot easier. But there will always be gray areas.)
But - to try to drag this back to the actual thread topic here - it would be the same whether the guy is black or white.
Yes, it is. It’s an accusation that gets made against some people and not others.
My position is that it can’t be true. It’s an accusation that gets made to dismiss someone whose opinion isn’t wanted.
That’s a really oversensitive reaction. Did I strike a nerve? I didn’t call you any kind of racist apologist. I do think you’re defending a garbage accusation.
Sorry, OP. 
Correct: my comment was that those kinds of terms wouldn’t be deployed against a white commentator like Krugman. For example here’s Tucker Carlson calling Sharpton and Jackson “hustlers and pimps” after the trial of George Zimmerman. I don’t think you’ll find that kind of namecalling against a Paul Krugman or a white person. Ta-Nehisi Coates is rather accomplished, but here’s an American Spectator writer calling him a race hustler. (But he does say Coates is eloquent!) I’m not sure why you think it’s not kosher to say these terms are not legitimate when your defense of Krugman was that he’s not a poverty pimp. That does presume there really is such a thing and that it can be determined factually if someone is or is not one. But this is probably tendentiousness for its own sake.
It’s not about the OP. She might be enjoying your act for all I know, makes no difference.
There are other participants in the discussion, and trying to reframe the issue as if it were something else, especially in response to a challenge to something you’ve said, is weaseling.
Of course there really is such a thing. I mentioned that earlier. But it has a specific meaning, i.e. a guy who is profiteering from poverty or racial rabble-rousing. (I mentioned this earlier too.) That’s how these terms are generally used and understood. It’s a lot like a real pimp or hustler, which is why the imagery is used.
For this reason, people like Jackson and Sharpton routinely get called these terms and people like Krugman do not.
The reason you’re so resolutely ignoring this is because the only way to get it to be a racial thing is if you pretend the term means something other than what it means.
I don’t know anything about Ta-Nehisi Coates, never having heard of him prior to this thread. Having read his Wiki entry, I assume the Spectator guy is saying that his main claim to fame is his racial stuff. But he could be wrong about Coates. I’m not here to defend every accusation of anyone as being a poverty pimp or race hustler. But that’s what the terms mean, and the suggestion that a black Krugman would be called that is ridiculous.
See, this “interesting” and “hmm, did I strike a nerve” is what I’m talking about. But ok, I give. Once again the white bearded hipster slacktivist has saved the day. Black people, you may recommence enjoying the internet.
How do Krugman, Wise et al. not fit this definition? They make money off speaking and writing about racism. Books, speaker’s fees, interviews…like, seriously.
It sounds like you’re complaining and flouncing instead of acknowledging that I said I wasn’t calling you a racist. Interesting!
Sure, that weak, bizarrely un-similar similarity must be the reason.
My argument was that you would see those taunts deployed against a black writer who said the kinds of things Krugman did. Julian Bond criticized the same Bush proposals Krugman was criticizing, and since Bond was the head of NAACP, you know it’s easy to find people who called him a race hustler.
Generally, it’s not pure commentators that get called that name though, generally is it? I have only seen it used against organizers and appointed spokespeople like Sharpton. I am not familiar with Wise, but while Krugman talks about race, he’s mainly Economics. That’s what his Nobel Prize was for.
That is not to deny that there are White people devoting most of their writing and time to race issues. So if you want to call them race hustlers, then OK. But as I said earlier, istm that most white “race hustlers” are just racist so that’s what they get called. If you know some White guy who devotes his time and gets paid for his devotion to Black poverty, point him out and I’ll take a look, if you want.
BTW, it is a little bizarre that this is the example that wikipedia gave for “poverty pimp”:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/10333-chc-meets-wal-mart-ceo
Using that as an example is pretty obvious white washing of the term, I gotta say.
Of course.
Bond is the head of a race-issues organization. Krugman is a Nobel-prizewinning economist.
Asa practical matter no white guy is going to be the head of the NAACP. But it’s the position, not the skin color.
If you had a black guy whose claim to fame was that he won a Nobel in economics and on the strength of that became a NYT columnist whose column occasionally touched on racial issues, he wouldn’t be called a race hustler. (OK, maybe on Stormfront.)
Maybe it’s because of a couple things. One thing is white antiracists are accused of suffering from “white guilt”. Another thing is that some white antiracists seem to have a “noble savage” viewpoint of people of color, that they are nature loving, peaceful, compassionate etc compared to white people. I think this attitude is not only patronizing but has permitted the rise of bad people in the black community to take over, such as Mugabe and Amin.
So is it inevitable that the head of a race-issues organization will be deemed a race hustler?
Wow.
Not inevitable. But he’s predisposed to it.
More to the point, if the head of a race-issues organization and an all purpose economist happen to share the same views on a particular issue, and the first gets called a race hustler and the second does not, you don’t need to look at skin color for an explanation.
Unless you’re predisposed to it.
Why would I want to call them that? Lol. The point is that they aren’t called that. You’re not strengthening your position by sidestepping this issue.
Does “poverty pimp” necessitate someone advocating against Black poverty? Why can’t it apply to an anti-poverty generalist? If the term was truly an equal opportunity pejorative, you wouldn’t feel the need to specify Black poverty.
To put it plainer: That you liken “poverty pimp” to someone devoted to black poverty actually supports the argument I’ve been making in this thread.
Let me try it this way: can you name a living black American who talks about matters like race and poverty, but who couldn’t be called a race hustler or poverty pimp?
I never disagreed that the term is generally applied to blacks. That’s why I thought that Wikipedia example I mentioned was bizarre. You shouldn’t have cut off my statement where you did though. What you quoted was just the prelude to the what i think is the major reason that white “race hustlers” don’t get called it - they are usually simply called racist.
If MLK was alive and still out there talking about racism, income inequality, and the like, do you think he’d be casually dismissed as a poverty pimping race hustler?
I certainly do. And you seem to think that’s likely too. But what does that say about people’s attitudes? Just because he was a leader of the Civil Rights movement doesn’t make it fitting to call him a racially loaded term.