There’s a difference between actively trying to inpede the progress of blacks, and having an unpopular opinion. Most people that are considered sell outs by black people do the former, and our considered “less black”.
Of course, **brickbacon[/], it all comes down to how you define “imped the progress of blacks.” I would certainly disagree that what Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et. al., are doing and advocating is “impeding the progress of blacks.” In fact, I would say that the policies advocated by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, et. al., are doing much more to harm the black community than what Clarence Thomas has done.
What this really is about is that some in the black community think that if a black person holds a different view than what other blacks hold, then that person is somehow evil. It’s an ignorant way of looking at politics – I’m right and if you disagree with me it must be because you are trying to suck up to white people or you are benefitting financially from it. This sort of stupidity fails to recognize that perhaps the policies long advocated by black leaders are doing little good for the black community and that new ideas need to be tried. At the very least it fails to recognize that there may be more than one way to structure public policy so that it helps the black community.
And, of course, blacks are the only interest group that succumbs to this. :dubious:
As a non-black person of color (if that matters), I tend to agree with **brickabacon’s ** assessment. And I don’t think you can excuse Thomas’ adversarial relationship with African Americans with Jackson’s misbehavior any more than you can excuse Bush’s idiocy with Clinton’s blowjob.
Basically, they are. They are the only group that basically says that if you don’t hold political views that agree with the majority of the group, then you are a traitor to your race.
My comments had nothing to do with the fact that Jesse Jackson cheats on his wife. In my opinion, the types of government programs supported by Jackson and his ilk do much more harm to the black community than good. They keep people mired in a culture of dependency and do little to promote self-reliance. I can see how people could disagree with me, however. But just because I hold this view does not mean I’m anti-black. And just because Clarence Thomas holds this view does not mean he’s anti-black or a sell-out.
And let’s examine Clarence Thomas’s adversarial relationship with the black community. Why exactly is there such a relationship? Please give me any example of Thomas saying or doing anything that is anti-black or that justifies calling him an Uncle Tom or portraying him as a lawn jockey.
subgroup expectations exists in virtually every ethnic group, though what came to mind at your comment was the strife among Christians, and literal demonizing that occurs when people deviate from conservative thought.
I wasn’t referring to Jackson’s sexual misadventures specifically; I simply meant to say that you saying that he is a bad black leader doesn’t somehow magically excuse Thomas, or make criticisms of him invalid.
Off the top of my head, Thomas’ tenure with the EEOC under Reagan, and his attempts to reduce the size and scope of that agency during his time as it’s head, certainly doesn’t endear him to most African Americans.
Also, and probably the biggest thing people cite, is his disdain for affirmative action, while there is no doubt that he himself was a beneficiary. That speaks of a ‘I’ve got mine, the heck with you all’ mentality.
Added to this are his opinions on constitutional protections for inmates (not subject to cruel and unusual punishment protection), his rejection of Miranda as required police procedure, and his rejection of a federal minimum wage. There are also his religious views- while blacks are a religious people as a group, few that I know of support official religions, even if only sanctioned at the state level.
In light of his predecessor, as well as the general feeling that the Supreme court has been a friend to blacks in their struggle for civil rights, I think it’s natural to find some that take his views personally.
Except there is a big difference between a religious group and a racial group. You join a religious group by believing what the group believes. If you don’t believe what the group believes, it makes sense they would see you as some sort of deviant. A racial group, however, is something one is born into. You don’t have to hold certain beliefs to be black. You simply have to be born to a black parent or two.
You missed my point. My point was that the policies that Jackson and his ilk advocate are harmful to the black community. I wasn’t talking about him being a bad leader in the sense of his style or his morality. I was specifically criticizing him for his political views, which are what is at issue here. I think that the views of Thomas are much better for blacks (and everyone else) than the views of Jackson. Therefore, if one is to criticize Thomas for hurting the black community with his views, then I think it would be much more valid to criticize Jackson and the others.
As I understand it, Thomas moved the agency towards suing on behalf of individuals who had experienced discrimination instead of broad class-action lawsuits. While I understand why some may not like that, I fail to see how moving towards correcting individual cases of discrimination is anti-black.
So because you benefit from something you cannot criticize it? I fail to see the logic in that. It simply makes sense to take advantage of the opportunties that are before you, but you can still hold the view that society would be better off if they were not there. He really had no choice about whether or not he benefitted from affirmative action, but he can still logically hold that affirmative action does more harm than good.
Since blacks suffer from crime at a higher rate than others, it seems very “pro-black” to be in favor of strict enforcement of the law.
Which had done more to hurt blacks than to help them.
So his deeply religious views and his thoughts that the state should allow for more expression of religion is anti-black?
It may be natural, but it’s ignorant.
Even if you disagree with my assertions about his views on public policy, I would hope that you would agree that there is at least room for debate. By labeling Thomas an Uncle Tom or a lawn jockey, his opponents fail to do this. They simply say that the way they think is the only way a sensible black person could think, and if he doesn’t think that way, he’s evil.
But you forget that nobody cares what you say. You’re aren’t black (AFAIK), and thus , are not entitled to have your opinion taken into consideration on such matters. If you want to argue for the intellectual exercise, that is fine, but I can assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It is an ignorant way of looking at things. You can disagree, but rest assured, nobody cares. I’m tired of trying to explain to white people how it is to be black, so this short message will have to suffice.
Are you kidding me? You are basically saying that only the opinions of black people count. That is about as racist a statement as I’ve heard.
A person’s arguments should stand and fall on the basis of that argument, not based on the skin color of the person making that argument.
If you don’t want to listen to me because I’m white, then you’re a racist. Pure and simple.
Whatever. Go hide behind the easy and ignorant posture that “it’s a black thing so you wouldn’t understand.” A better way to go about things, however, is to actually use arguments and logic to assert your point. Don’t simply stand on your race to prove something. That’s not an argument; that’s racism. If you disagree with what I say, tell me why. If you can’t, then concede the point. But don’t hide behind your race and expect to weasel out of an argument that easy.
So I read that article without reading the two in the OP. I have a question, which may be hijacking the thread, but I feel it’s necessary to have it answered in order to give a qualified opinion in this thread.
The sentence in question is:
So what are the views of mainstream black America? Doesn’t that need to be established before we can say Justice Thomas does or does not represent them? Furthermore, is that what we’re looking for in a Supreme Court Justice?
As far as what being black enough is, well, I don’t know. I’ve been called all kinds of names that are references to being white (I know a guy who has me listed in his mobile telephone as KKK, for example) by black people. Clearly the people that do this don’t think I’m black enough. It used to hurt why I was a kid, but now my attitude is fuck 'em. Seriously. I don’t let it get in the way of socializing with them–and by them I mean the black people I know who feel this way about me. If you can’t accept me the way I am just because I speak differently from you, am not poor, went to college, am a Republican and reject calling any perceived slight against black people racism, screw you. And to any white people who may call me ‘enlightened’ or ‘progressive’ or ‘special’ or any of the other countless names I’ve heard that basically says ‘I’m one of the good ones’, screw you, too. I’m not trying to impress you, so get over yourselves.
Your prejudice and bigotry do not prove racism, although there is often a correlation.
You do strike me as someone awfully prejudiced against black Democratic leadership and bigoted in your political thinking along those terms (frankly anyone who tosses around phrases like disparaging a so-and-so ‘and their ilk’ raises red flags in my mind.) On that basis, I might listen to you constructively and critically-- but not to be persuaded or informed, no.
'Course, I suppose much the same can be said about me and the beliefs of conservatives of any race, and any one accussing me of prejudice would probably be correct.
No, I’m saying you are operating from a position of ignorance, and that your opinion should be taken accordingly. It’s not racist, it’s a fact. I’ve listened to many of the arguments you’ve had in other threads, and I feel comfortable saying you have no idea what you are talking about, and that that is further compounded by the fact that you are not black, and probably don’t know many black people.
I wasn’t necessarily making an argument as much as I was stating that the fact that you are full of shit. I’m tired of making the argument because you won’t get it. I don’t plan on arguing with you because it’s a fruitless topic. Nothing will comes of me trying to explain it to you. So, I’m not gonna waste my time. Just thought you should know that nobody cares what you think, and that you are wasting your time making these appeals.
The majority of African-Americans are working class or poor, non college educated, non-property owners, Democratic leaning and endorse (ideologically) things like reparations, affirmative action, civil rights, public education and, um, free shit. Free speech, free press, free love, free lunches, free music, free drugs …
Thomas doesn’t represent the views of American blacks. Not the leadership, not the masses.
Increasingly, a smaller minority within the growing African-American middle class and elite leadership is moderate to conservative, as well as many working class blacks who are expatriates here from other countries, as well as working class African-Americans in the U.S. military.
I should clarify this. it’s my experience and observation that many black expatriates here seem (to me, anyway) to come in two types… moderate to liberal Pan-Africanists who are working class and drive cabs, work hotels, hospitals, operate resturants, vendors stands, are musicians and generally hustle… or those moderate to conservative ‘model minority’ types who come here and study, get corporate, professional or academic careers and generally work the capitalist system we’ve got in place. I see far more of the former than the latter, but that just me be the result of the hippie liberal circles I run in.
Depends on the leadership. The ones who get discussed on this board, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, get nothing but disrepect from me because of their reprehensible political views and tactics. If we were to discuss the new generation of black leadership, such as Harold Ford, Jr., and Barack Obama, you’d probably find me to be more nuanced.
When I say “Jesse Jackson and his ilk” I’m simply talking about the various hustlers who have moved into political positions in this nation and have found leadership in the black community. I could list numerous names but find it easier to simply label them as I have done so. To me they are essentially the same. Whether it’s Marion Barry or Willie Williams here in DC or Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton nationwide, these men have done more harm to race relations in this nation and more harm to the black community. At least, in my opinion.
Sorry to hear that. I would hope I could moderate my rhetoric so we could at least have a rational discussion of the issue.
If that is the case, simply labeling it as ignorance doesn’t prove the case. You must use some logic and reasoning to prove your point.
No, what you said was that since I was a white person, my opinion didn’t count. If I would have addressed this to you, “You are black, and thus, are not entitled to have your opinion taken into consideration on such matters” I would correctly be called a racist.
So being black gives one a special sort of intelligence? Sorry, I was unaware of that. I’ve heard some white racists say that being white gives one a special sort of intelligence that other races don’t have, but I dismissed their ignorance.
If you want to disagree with me, fine. Show me how I’m wrong. Don’t simply say that because I’m white my opinion doesn’t count.
And as to how many black people I know, I’d be careful about making any assumptions.
At least I’m here explaing my views instead of resorting to name calling. I know it’s tempting to hide behind the argument that “white people don’t get it” when you don’t have facts to back up your assertions, but you should realize that only the ignorant will buy that sort of crap.
You haven’t made any argument except that since I’m white my opinion doesn’t count. Not much of an argument.
True, nothing may come of it. Does anything come of any of the threads on this board? We’re not Congress, debating issues and changing the world. We’re a community of people who discuss things on the Internet. It’s not like we have many tangible results fromt this board. In essence, everything discussed on this board is a “waste of time.”
You’ve made it clear that you don’t care what I think. You’ve also made it clear that you don’t care what I think based in large part because of my race.
Don’t speak for others on this board, however. If they don’t care what I think, then this thread will die. If they do, it will continue. I don’t think you get to make the determination that “nobody cares.”
Let me make this argument as succinctly as possible.
Being Black is primarily a function of color, culture, and consciousness. The cultural aspect is the acceptance of a black aesthetic, and appreciation that it is inextricably tied to ethics. These ethics stress collective consciousness and black identity, because, historically, accepting a white standard was to accept and validate a society that will not allow us to breath. Without black culture, black people exist as a set of reactions to white people.
The consciousness aspect is primarily concerned with hastening one’s own, painful dissolution of individuality. Or, as Larry Neal put it, Western culture has “breast-fed us the poison of individual experience”. While the whole concept of individuality has not disappeared, consciousness advocates a radically reordering of these ideas. Being Black means doing this, not only to retard cultural atrophy, and spiritual death, but also out of reverence for our ancestor’s suffering, and respect for their greatness.
So when [insert name of hated Black republican] is called a sell-out, they are most likely being accused of not living up to their responsibilities. It not only their opinions that make them sell-outs, it’s their stubborn refusal to represent our people. Especially when most of these people are in positions, afforded to them because of their blackness, and have authority on black issues because of their blackness; yet they don’t use their platforms as a voice for their less fortunate brothers who live a tongueless reality. They exist as mute matter that could be given force if their perspective was valued, and their humanity was affirmed. Most of these Black conservative commentators fail to do that. You can argue that affirmative action is bad, without being a mockingbird controlled by conservative leaders. It’s the difference between Black people who have non-Black girl/boyfriends, and those that will not date black people. And while I’m sure some Black conservatives have been unfairly painted with that broad brush, I don’t think the concept itself is distasteful.
Why I don’t think your opinion matters is because I don’t think you have any intention of reordering your ideal, or embracing the black aesthetic. In fact, many black people won’t do it. So when you come in a thread playing the “gotcha game” about how Blacks can be racist too, don’t expect for me to consider you anything but a ignorant fool. You are speaking on matters you don’t understand, and thus, are making uninformed arguments. You try to get me to “prove” you wrong about a matter that is not falsifiable. I can’t prove is a sell-out. You can’t even prove that race exists as a biological concept. It’s a construct that exists in the hearts of men, so asking me to prove what the vast majority of black people know is like trying to prove cookies smell good. I don’t need to do it, and I know it won’t get you any closer to understanding where we’re coming from. Sorry, I have better things to do with my time. If it makes you feel better to call me a racist, feel free to do so, I don’t really care.
