Off to Great Debates.
Gfactor, General Questions Moderator
pizzabrat, I am afraid that I do not see either the source of you anger or the point of your question. For one thing, I have never encountered the phrase “self-proclaimed black leader.” (I’m sure someone has used it from time to time, perhaps referring to Yahweh ben Yahweh, who did proclaim himself the new, black messiah in the Nation of Yahweh.) It is rather more common to see claims that the news media has anointed someone to be a “black leader,” not that they are “self proclaimed.”
If you are upset about the “self proclaimed” epithet, I think you are attacking a problem that does not really exist as a widespread phenomenon.
As to the phrase “black leader,” I suspect that it simply came into vogue in the 1950s, when several persons did step up as leaders who were black. During that period, there were marches and boycotts and other specific actions that were organized and directed, (and in the case of marches, led), by various people. No newspaer or news show can go out and interview 2,000 or 12,000, or 100,000 people to express their views of a movement or an event, so the microphones and recorders were shoved into the faces of the leaders of those events, they were identified as the leaders, and the label simply hung on into the next generations. In the cases of Jackson anhd Sharpton, they have continued organizing marches and rallies well into the 1990s and even today, so they have both the traditional label as well as undertaking the actions that brought that label out, initially.
Similarly, the leaders of the anti-war movement of the 1960s and early 1970s were labeled “leaders” because they were organizing marches and other forms of rallies, but when the war ended and the movement passed away, the term did not carry over to any next generation of non-existent leaders.
The next large social movement was that of the Christian Right. The people who are most prominent in that movement also garner the title “leaders.” There was, however, a small shift in tactics. With the animosity that many on the political Right felt toward the marches and public rallies of the anti-war movement (and, to a certain extent, the Civil Rights movement), the Christian Right used such rallies far less frequently. Instead, they tended to keep their meetings off the streets and in their own churches and stadiums, organizing there to enter politics at the local level and gain power that way. With far fewer public demonstrations, the people directing those efforts were often described as “spokesmen” instead of “leaders,” although even they still get the “leader” tag more frequently.
Any perceived group is going to be seen as either having direction or not having direction. With the Civil Rights movement, the black community was perceived as having a direction or purpose. That may no longer be true. (It may even be argued how true it was between 1948 and 1968.) However, there are still rallies and marches organized by people within the black community and the organizers are sufficierntly well known to be able to provide quotations when an event concerning that community makes the news. Following the national recognition of UFWOC, there has been no single focus that can be associated with the various Hispanic communities, and one does not tend to see people labelled as “leaders” in national news stories. (The recent rallies against stricter immigration laws sprung up across the whole country, involving both recent immigrants and people of multiple ethnicities who have lived here their whole lives and the movement has not yet produced anyone at the national level who could be identified as a leader. )
However, in language, labels tend to hang on. The one thing that labels provide is recognition. That is how language works in the human brain. Identifying prominent people in identifiable groups as "leaders’ is not really so much a matter of laziness as communication. If you wish to identify that as “laziness,” then I suggest you come up with an alternative way of identifying people in the ways that will bother you less.
The problem isn’t with the leader half. All of the other groups you mentioned (besides “Hispanic” which as you pointed out, doesn’t get the leader treatment) are chosen political alliances, where it’s reasonable to expect someone designated as a leader to be able to speak for the rest of the group members. But black isn’t a political alliance. The leaders of the black civil rights movement were just that, leaders of the black civil rights movement, who easily spoke for those who joined their movement. Why is it so hard to speak that way?
As for whether it can be argued that “the black community” had a direction or purpose even during the civil rights area, the answer no. Aren’t you aware that there was dissent amongst blacks about the movement even then?
Are just answer the question whether you’d feel comfortable with anyone being called a “white leader”, and if no, why not?
Here is a similar “leader” title usage:
I believe Mr Dobson would accept the label. I believe that if he knew he had been referred to by that label and did not actively reject it, he should be assumed to have accepted it. As I mentioned in a prior post, it tends not to be a term which is self-applied, and the external application of it is either as an honorific, or at least as an external judgment call. To self-proclaim it comes across as arrogance and would tend to backfire…
As to what I think your question is above:
In the shorthand context required for conciseness of a story, the term “white leader” would probably be presumbed to be referring to a “white movement or white power” leader–David Duke, say. For that reason it is not likely to be a term embraced by an individual who does not align himself with such a movement.
However, I would argue that there is a particular interest–equality, e.g.; civil rights, e.g.; group-specific poverty, e.g.–which is typically being represented when the term “black leader” is used in the media, and the connotation is not negative or divisive. Further, the license to use “black” as a modifier is much broader than the license to use “white.”
Notice in the USA today story I referenced above that one of the groups was the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity. I do not see the name for this group as a cause for offense but I think the White Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity would have to take some public heat.
I fail to find an adequate reason for the degree of your consternation. I think the average reader worth caring about understands that Mr Dobson does not voice the opinion of every religious conservative about Mr Giuliani, and that the designation of “black leader” does not mean that there are no dissenting voices to an opinion being expressed. It means that the individual involved has a reasonably broad following among a black population.
I have argued elsewhere that we need to get past color. We won’t get past color and get to individuals until all population groups stop identifying themselves by color. (Justice Roberts: “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”) As long as there are black causes there are going to be black leaders.
If you want to argue that there are no black leaders because there are no black causes, I won’t take as much issue with what I believe to be your point.
Knowing that there’s no such thing as an official black leader election, by what process can you imagine that a public figure can emerge where it would be logical to conclude that he has a broad following among a black population?
I felt like I’ve been saying that throughout this entire thread. Wait, I have:
You are claiming that dissension indicates that there can be no direction? I find that odd. Du Bois and Douglass disagreed in methods, but I am not sure it is correct to say that there was no movement or direction because of it–even among their ideological descendants over the next decades.
If you are simply upset that Jackson and Sharpton get called “black leaders,” then tell them to stop running around leading marches and rallies and protests.
I agree that the fact that they wind up as the “face” of the black community when they clearly do not represent the views of many blacks is unfortunate. Fundamentalist Christians are stuck with Dobson, Robertson, and (until recently) Falwell. If anyone paid any attention to Catholics, any more, we might be stuck with Bill Donohue. Atheists, for years, were stuck with Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
I would say that the way to change that is to encourage others in the black community who take issue with those two to stand up and demand attention so that the media recognizes that there is no black community lockstep. Complaining about it, here, makes it seem like this thread should be in the Pit.
But my initial point was that they’ve never really claimed to be the face of the black community it the first place. If someone’s lazy and stupid enough to believe that they are, why is it the responsibility of others in the “black community” to correct them when they had no logical reason to even come to that conclusion?
Surely you would agree that those two in particular have stepped forward to make public comments over issues that are seen as being of particular concern to a membership which self identifies as black? Not all blacks, certainly; on some issues not even most blacks, perhaps.
But to maintain that a media onlooker referring to either of these two as “black leaders” is lazy and divisive is a stretch. Both of them have surely seen that label associated with their names and neither has taken any pains whatsoever to correct the label. If I am repeatedly referred to in the press as a “physician leader” and I am aware of that label, my lack of publicly correcting the label is tantamount to embracing it. The proclivity of Mr Jackson and Mr Sharpton for appearing in the media whenever possible suggests to me that they are anxious to be taken for leaders, and where the cause is of particular concern to a component of their black following I see no reasonable objection to the use of the term. I stand by my original post that it is not only convenient and appropriate shorthand, but it is used with the intention of being complimentary–it errs on the side of being an honorific, not a disparagement.
Any term can be used in a derogatory manner. I well remember as a newbie physician how “Dr Pedant” could and was used to mock and sting by my superiors. But to draw a negative inference from the average use of “black leader” in the mainstream media seems to me to reflect a chip–a log, even–on a listener’s shoulder.
If “black isn’t a political alliance”, then why is there a Congressional Black Caucus? Those people, if anyone, are the true “black leaders”, and they seem to feel the need to band together for political purposes.
Argh - I didn’t say it’s a derogatory term - the implication behind it is though.
Again, try answering the “white leader” question again, which you never did. Would you be comfortable with a bunch of strangers being referred to neutrally as “white leaders”?
This didn’t count?
By CP in Post 25:
"As to what I think your question is above:
In the shorthand context required for conciseness of a story, the term “white leader” would probably be presumbed to be referring to a “white movement or white power” leader–David Duke, say. For that reason it is not likely to be a term embraced by an individual who does not align himself with such a movement.
However, I would argue that there is a particular interest–equality, e.g.; civil rights, e.g.; group-specific poverty, e.g.–which is typically being represented when the term “black leader” is used in the media, and the connotation is not negative or divisive. Further, the license to use “black” as a modifier is much broader than the license to use “white.”
Notice in the USA today story I referenced above that one of the groups was the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity. I do not see the name for this group as a cause for offense but I think the White Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity would have to take some public heat."
While instances of self-proclamation for “black leader” may be unusual, instances of self-identification and self-proclamation for “black” are substantially more common…arguments against the propriety of this should be taken up with those who do so, and not with me.
Here we go, I’ve found someone who’s been able to relay the point I was making perfectly.
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Does that make it clearer, or does he too have a “chip on his shoulder”?
Clear as mud for me, anyway. It’s not a chip, btw, it’s a sequoia.
Isbell has a fundamental complaint about “the nation” viewing its “Black population” as…" essentially, aliens, a group whose experiences, culture and world is so foreign–and monolithically so–that the rest of the country needs some person to bridge the perceived gap."
In other parts of the essay it is apparent that “the nation” is “White America” and that said White America is apparently of one mind on the matter.
Aside from the utter divisiveness of this sort of rhetoric, it’s just plain wrong. Wrong in the fundamental of dividing a heterogeneous nation into only Black and White and wrong in painting the White America portion with the same monolithic brush he has just objected to for painting his group!
To the point of your OP, you can hardly blame the “lazy media” for using a term Black Leader when guys like Isbell (who is obviously fixated on the color of someone’s skin) are out there publishing essays lumping the world into Black and White. He is himself, by virtue of his own lumping, taking a defacto self-appointed leadership role in articulating for what he sees as his group.
I found particular irony that this essay was filed under this header:
“The following is a list of the only black people that count in America. You know it, I know it, so let’s just get over it and admit it. You want details of why? Check out the Isbell Theory below. You want it more scholarly like?”
So it’s OK to talk about “the only black people that count in America” but it’s a lazy convention to call them leaders?
In any case the notion that any group must be so monolithic that it cannot have a leader unless the leader can be said to perfectly encapsulate every position of the entire group is a non-starter.
Fine, just replace “White America” with, “those (non-blacks) who go on about the need for ‘black leaders’” - it wasn’t really his (or my) point to claim some white against black dichotomy - he was just describing the “national dialogue”.
I’m not sure what your issue is with “the only black people that count in America” - he was being ironic, pointing out that these people are wielded by pundits and their constituencies as metaphors or ambassadors for blacks in general.
Here’s a standard bit of rhetoric to dissect for demonstration purposes (it’s alarming in its textbook quality, actually).
Here’s where Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are titled “black leaders” to negatively illustrate the whole “most black problems are self-inflicted, personal responsibility, blah, blah, blah” narrative. The two represent the black person who blames white people for all of their problems (though there’s otherwise no evidence that this is a common sentiment among blacks). The entire purpose of the paragraph, in which the poster goes on about what a good black leader would do, was just to reiterate that characterization of the “black community”. And they’re perfect personifications of this entire dysfunctional community who can be pointed to, reasoned with, hated, etc.
This is obvious when you realize that the rhetoric doesn’t make sense in a real-world, individual scenario. An individual black person doesn’t have black problems, at least not the one’s he’s created for himself. He just has problems, like everyone else. And just like everyone else, we’re all living on the same planet, and have the same ability to compare ourselves with others and make the choice to adopt strategies that provide the results that we want to see. What specific difference would a “black leader” make to an unemployed individual in his early twenties with a light juvenile record, no technical or professional skills, and a touchy, prideful attitude (stereotypical self-inflicted black problems)?
Furthermore, what difference would a “black leader” make to the plenty of blacks without those problems?
If someone had some constructive criticism for you, but characterized your mistakes as “white problems”, would you continue to take them seriously?
Whites are much more adept of dealing with racism, they use it to their advantage i.e. slavery and jim crow. Blacks however have not yet reached this level of sophistication.
I really hope that post was tongue in cheek.
Does this count
It seems like Sharpton doesn’t say “I am a black leader”, but he evidently believes there is such a figure as “black leader”, and apparently is talking about himself when mentioning black leadership:
"Q- Here’s another quote from your book: A black leader must be “part religious leader, part social leader, part social worker and part entertainer.” Do you feel like you’ve leaned too far towards the entertainment part of that equation?
A- I think sometimes, in my younger years, I gave in to being flippant, to shooting from the hip, to overplaying the theatrics and not the issues. And I think that’s one of the things I reflected about in the hospital, after my stabbing, that I should discipline myself. You can honestly be committed, but if you play the theatrics too much, you give people a better sense of the theatrics than the cause. And you get in the way of your own cause."
http://www.salon.com/weekly/sharpton2.html
Or this interview with CNS News:
“There is a difference between a leading black and a black leader,” Sharpton told CNSNews.com. “A black leader must demonstrate a black following, just like a Jewish leader or an Irish leader,” Sharpton said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200302\\POL20030228a.html
The page al-sharpton.com seems to be affiliated with him, although I can’t say for sure. Some of the page titles include the text “civil rights leader”.