By James Thindwa
I have often wondered why the black conservative view has such poor resonance in African American communities. One of the most popular explanations, offered by black conservatives themselves, is that the “liberal media” caters to traditional black leadership at the expense of alternative voices. While there may be a grain of truth to this view, I would like to suggest that the answer is a bit more complex.
2005-10-13
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
=====
the term “welfare mentality,” used in certain contexts, is a provocative term. And for those among Katrina’s victims who work hard and do not receive welfare, I thought it would be particularly offensive.
=====
Why would somebody *not* on welfare be offended by Star Parker disparaging those who have adopted a welfare lifestyle (conceding for a moment that people should only be "offended" by insults directed at them)? And why should Star Parker care if somebody is "offended" if she expresses a harsh truth?
====
Surely, Parker cannot think this kind of attitude will move large numbers of black people to her side.
====
Unlike liberals/leftists, people like Star Parker do not twist their brains into saying things that will avoid "offending" members of mamby-pamby "victim" groups.
====
How often is “welfare mentality” ascribed to white people on the receiving end of government largess after a disaster? How many times have government emergency services been used to rescue white adventurers stranded on mountain tops or snow slopes while engaging in voluntary activity such as hiking or skiing?
====
White people in these situations do not accuse the government of deliberately failing to assist them. Furthermore, conservative critics have been very harsh about "adventurers" getting themselves into these situations, about people purchasing homes in hurricane- and mudslide-prone areas, and turning disasters into huge fraudulent payoff schemes. The author should read conservative commentators more, because she is just dead wrong here. See Thomas Sowell's columns for some very harsh words about the government bailing out people who choose to live in disaster-prone areas.
====
It would be condescending to deny the fact that black people, like any other population group, know and comprehend their self-interest.
====
It would be condescenting to insist that white people can be criticized by leftists for voting against their self-interest in voting for Bush, but blacks are too pathetic and fragile to be criticized by the right for voting against their self-interest in voting for the democrats.
====
Black conservatives seem unable to instinctively convey revulsion over racism or its vivid manifestations.
====
I think the author needs to read the colored conservaties more. They certainly do lash out at racism. Armstrong Williams was livid about Trent Lott's comments. But colored conservatives think that most racist acts are unimportant, because they consider them to be such rare exceptions. Thus when one occurs, they do not muster the outrage of the "race hustlers" who see racism everywhere, and who hold racism at the root of black folks' major problems. Furthermore, the colored conservatives consider that most of these acts are now appropriately addressed by the authorities, such as the racists arsonists in suburban DC.
====
Right or wrong, black conservatives are often seen as defenders of, and apologists for white racism. John McWhorter... has defended, as have many other black conservatives, William Bennett’s recent offensive remarks, dismissing them as just “hypothetical.”
====
Colored conservatives are respecting the intelligence of black folks by not just refusing to label William Bennet's comments as "racist", but defending him against what they consider to be a counter-productive, super-sensitive race hustle machine. Although most black folks are playing that game, the colored conservatives refuse to, and are leading the way for black folks to a more productive perspective.
I give her two or three possible good points, such as advising colored conservatives to tone-down their personal charactorizations of the race-huslters (which would mean having them adopt a double-standard, given the automatic name-calling of colored conservatives as "uncle toms", etc.).
But for the most part, she advises the colored conservatives to stop being conservative, since she claims that they can never have support among black folks as long as they:
- Oppose universal health care;
- Oppose minimum wage;
- Hold the federal government as primarily responsible for preparing, evacuating, and rescuing
people with respect to local disasters;
- Oppose affirmative action;
- View the federal government as crucially constructive to black folks in the modern world.
- Etc.
Thus this isn't really an essay that advises colored conservatives on how to increase their mass appeal amoungst blacks. It is instead an essay that criticizes colored conservatives for their views. If colored conservatives adopted any but two or three of her suggestions, they would violate the very principles that define them as conservatives.
Just what color are those conservatives, Paul? You're such a racist. I don't care if you have black kids. That doesn't give you a pass to use racist language. Asshole.
The author (whose name is James, which I would assume makes him a "he" rather than a "she") is explaining why black folks don't identify with the message that black conservatives (and conservatives of other "colors") are preaching. If their goal really is to sway black voters to their side, they should at least listen to the argument.
However, the lines that he uses to define the interests of "black" people and "poor" people are somewhat intermingled. Most blacks are in the poorer two-thirds of the population, so many of the arguments would not apply to the people who I would consider are the core audience for black conservative commentators - middle class, upper middle class and rich black folks. Black conservatives claim to be speaking to the masses of black folks, but in reality they tailor their message to the people W.E.B. DuBois called "The Talented Tenth", the black elites and those who would become elites.
Paul, I consider you to be a "colored" conservative. Your color happens to be "pink", and since you have chosen to live your life as a "buppie" it is easy to place you in this category.
The arguments that you state as the reasons blacks should accept more conservative view points are meaningless to many poor people who are just trying to make ends meet. You demean us (all black folks) by calling us "lazy" and "ignorant". Perhaps you haven't said "all" blacks are lazy and ignorant, but black people tend to look at an insult against one of us as an insult to all of us. That is a holdover from Africa, and as I've said before is only beginning to change. I personally hope we never lose our sense that all people of African descent are family, but I think that ship has already sailed.
On questions of race, most of which you have no concept of understanding because your color is "pink", you insult our intelligence by stating that even comments which are tainted by the racist history of this society are not intended to be racist. How in the hell would you know what is offensive to me, and who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't be offended? And who are you to state another person's intentions? You've never experienced anything like real racism because you have always been and will always be the beneficiary of "pink" privilege.
Have you ever asked your oldest "colored" child if she has ever experienced racism? Do you even care? Would you tell her that she is imagining things because racism doesn't exist in this country? Would you tell her that because her daddy is "pink" she won't have to deal with people who hate her because her skin is "yellow"?
Let me tell you something that will be a newsflash for you: You are not "black". You have no idea what it is like to be "black". Just because you hang out with "black" people and you read "colored" commentators and you have "colored" children and you like that "nigger juice" doesn't mean you know anything about what it is like to live in "black" skin. You are and will always be the beneficary of "pink/white" privilege. Other "colored" commentators who happen to be of a darker "hue" than you simply believe they will be considered to be "just as good" as the "white" man because they spout his ideas. The old addage that a black person has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good as white folks still holds true for all of us - Sowell, Parker, McWhorter, et al, included.
====
You demean us (all black folks) by calling us "lazy" and "ignorant". Perhaps you haven't said "all" blacks are lazy and ignorant, but black people tend to look at an insult against one of us as an insult to all of us.
====
Well, that is indeed not only an "ignorant" view, it is also a racist view. First of all, I have not classified "ignorance" as a major contributor to the excessive level of black poverty, but I suppose maybe I should, since these people in general are ignoring opportunties. Laziness surely is a problem. Anybody who interprets this veiw as calling all black people lazy or ignorant is indeed "ignorant", as such a person has ignored the clear meaning of the statements.
I cannot and will not modify my language because people like you choose to interpret as personal insults that were not intended. How do you feel about Michael Dyson's receont, "I AM A NIGGA!", exhortation at the Tavis Smiley summit?
Do you consider it "racist" to interpret my use of the words colored and negro based on your catagorization of my "race"? I do.
Do you have enough intellectual and spiritual wherewithall to continue your day productively having encountered a person who you catagorize as "white" calling Tom Sowell, etc. "colored conservatives"?
I am hurt that you call me "racist" and "asshole" becaue I know that you say these things without a smile on your face, and you are serious. I, on the otherhand, use the terms colored and negro with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.
===
Paul, I consider you to be a "colored" conservative.
===
So do I.
===
Have you ever asked your oldest "colored" child if she has ever experienced racism? Do you even care? Would you tell her that she is imagining things because racism doesn't exist in this country? Would you tell her that because her daddy is "pink" she won't have to deal with people who hate her because her skin is "yellow"?
===
Yes, I have asked her, and her answer was "no." But even if it was "yes," this would constitute no absolute evidence that she did experiance racism, even as her "no" answer does not constitute absolute evidence that she has not. The accusation of "racism", like any accusation, is not proven acurate just because it is made, although I agree that thanks to people like you, this accusation does practically carry this absurd, illogical, and "ignorant" (if you like) social charactoristic.
And yes, I care about both the fact of Whitney encountering racism, and her perception of this. And I care about her *being* a racist, for example:
Assessing the actions of others based her racial catagorization of them, such as becoming hostile and "insulted" if her cracker daddy uses terms like "colored" but not if Michael Dyson uses the N-word.
====
Let me tell you something that will be a newsflash for you: You are not "black". You have no idea what it is like to be "black".
====
Let me tell *you* something that will certainly be a newsflash to *you*: I already know that I am not black, and that I have no idea what it is to be be black.
Here's another newsflash for you: being black / knowing what it's like to be black is absolutely irrellivent to making useful, relevent, and entirely valid assessments about the state of race, racism, and the condition of black people in the US today and yesterday, or anywhere on earth. Not only that, but like the examination of any problem, it is useful and essential for participation and input from people of various backgrounds and perspectives.
I do not know what it's like to be fondled by a priest. But I am as valid a person as anybody to assess charges of priest sexual assault, some of which might even be false.
Why do people like you constantly attack this straw man, "you're not black, so you don't know what it's like to be black", when non-black person is critical of your racial assessments? When has such a person ever claimed to either be black, or to understand what it's like to be black?
Your facts and logic are either sound, or unsound, regardless of your critic's so-called racial catagorization. By your reasoning, you cannot assess whether or not a white person has committed a racist act, since "you are not white and you don't know what it's like to be white."
Another preposterous facet of your view is that you must also dismiss the views of crackers who agree with you, since they also "are not black, and don't know what it's like to be black."
I am not smiling when I say, Nadir, you are a racist. You treat people differently based on your racial classification of them, and not only do you treat them differently, you afford one group special privileges that you deny to all other groups, that is: the priviledge of your respect for their opinion. You also reserve ugly name-calling for identical comments made by people who fail to meet your criteria of "black" catagorization.
And by the way, please tell me how I can qualify as black. If my negro children make babies with honkies, will those children meet your criteria? What about those children making babies with crackers, will those offspring warrent your consideration of their racial views?
Oops, I forgot: even if they meet your criteria of "black," if their views fail to match your views, you will have a different set of apsersions to deride them with. They will be "uncle toms" or "sell outs."
===
How in the hell would you know what is offensive to me, and who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't be offended?
===
How in the hell would you know if I am racist, and who the hell are you to tell me what language I must and must not use in order to not have you delcare me a racist? If you are "offended" that I use the words "negro" and "colored" because you consider any such use of these words by all peolpe who you classify as "non-black", then I consider you to be an illogical, racist fool (on this issue) who does not merit my consideration when selecting my language.
I see no difference than if you declared to me that you were "insulted" and "offended" that I have painted my kitchen red, that I drive a South Korean SUV, or that I voted for George Bush. When I commit these acts, I mean you no harm; I would not deny you any right to own yourself and to advance yourself in this world. If you chose to be insulted and offended by things that I say with a smile on my face, then I declare you to have the problem, not me.
===
And who are you to state another person's intentions?
===
I am not! And I do not. You are the one who labels people "racist", when you do not and cannot know their intentions.
===
Would you tell her that she is imagining things because racism doesn't exist in this country? Would you tell her that because her daddy is "pink" she won't have to deal with people who hate her because her skin is "yellow"?
===
I would not tell her these things because I do not believe them. I and the other colored conservatives do not believe that "racism doesn't exist in this country", and I certainly don't think that anti-black racists have a color chart that would enable her to qualify for a pass.
I am afraid that my eldest daughter is so intellectually dull that she does not participate in these sorts of discussions. I sadly report that she is exhibitted that "lazy" charactoristic that I believe plays a major role in the "black underclass." Her black grandmother is paying for her apartment and utilities, while her honkey daddy has given her a car. She is taking a part-time load of remedial classes at a community college this semester, making mediocre grades in a mediocre major, and not working, though she claims that she wants to work and goes on job interviews occassionally. I am certain that her race does not figure into her failure to obtain a job: she has a long and rigid list of requirements for the jobs that she's willing to take, and they exclude the jobs that my honkey brother, sister, and I worked in college.
I will try to engage her this Christmas on the subject of race, and her perception of racial injustices that she has confronted. My input of course will be quite different than yours. I am happy to report that she does not fall to pieces and swell with indignation when I call her a negro or a jigaboo; I consider that to be a sign of intelligence in 2005 America.
===
You're such a racist. I don't care if you have black kids. That doesn't give you a pass to use racist language.
===
1) How the hell do you know that I think I should get "a pass" to use language that you judge to be "racist"?
2) Who the hell are you to confer or deny such passes?
3) Please state a definition of "racism", since you use it so much. Here is mine:
Racism = Classification of people into "races", and subsequently affording or denying rights, privlidges, courtesies, or personal attitudes to individuals based on their race classification. Examples:
1. Denying jobs or public accomidation to people catagorized as "black."
2. Calling people "racists" or "assholes" based entirely on their employ of the words "colored", "negro," or "jigaboo" if they are not catagorized as "black"; becoming upset, "insulted," and "offended" when people of one catagory use these terms, but not people of another catagory.
3. Taking "race" into account when assessing loan applications; includes denying loans to people who are "black" which would have been accepted for a "white" applicant with similar financial attributes.
4. Burning a cross on somebody's lawn because you catagorize the occupants as "black" and you do not want black people to live in your neighborhood.
5. Realters taking people with different "race" catagories to different neigborhoods, based on their race.
6. A director remaking "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and considering only white actors for the parts.
7. Telling people who are not "black" that their opinions on racism in the US are not valid.
Dictionary.com defines racism as:
"1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
3. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
4: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race"
I believe that your use of racial epithets like colored, negro, jiggaboo, cracker, honky and other terms shows at least a racially insensitivity if not out and out racism. The use of these terms exhibits socially unacceptable behavior that is abusive and discriminatory.
I don't use these words commonly, and I certainly don't call anyone by those or any other racially derogatory names. I think anyone who uses those words, whether as an insult or not, is the social equivalent of a neanderthal. My opinion also applies to blacks who use those words with each other. I don't buy the argument that use of these terms desensitizes people to them. I am offended by this as what I deem is primitive, uncivilized behavior.
I think Michael Eric Dyson is an idiot for more reasons than proclaiming "I am a nigga" on the Tavis Smiley show, and that comment confirms it. By the way, my calling Dyson an "idiot" is an insult, and it shows that I am an "asshole", which is completely different from being a racist. I don't call you an asshole because you are a racist. I call you an asshole because you are an asshole. That is independent of your racial attitudes, though your racial attitudes are an example of your assholishness.
The fact that you are "smiling" when you write racist commentary or derogatory comments does not mean you are joking. I was taught that the most dangerous people are those who would "smile in your face and stab you in the back". And you are right. I am not "smiling" when I write that you are a racist and an asshole because I believe both of those things are true. That doesn't mean that I don't still consider you my friend, and in fact, I tell you these things because I am your friend. If I didn't actually "like" you I would right you off, but for some reason, I still engage in these exhausting debates with you.
For the record, I recognize and admit my own prejudices. I don't "hate" white people. "Some of my best friends are white" (he says with a smile on his face). Though my parents never said it directly, I was somehow indoctrinated and taught not to completely trust white people because they are white. Of course, I was also taught that in some ways about black people as well.
I work hard every day to become a better person and to overcome my prejudices because I know that racism is irrational and ignorant behavior. It blurs our judgement of people and situations.
At the same time, I have a great deal of "race pride" which is to say that I am proud of my black skin and my African heritage. I believe this is healthy and does not exhibit racism because I don't believe that I or my race are superior to anyone. I am simply proud of my people, our accomplishments and our perserverance. I have Italian-American, Persian, Latino and Iraqi friends who have the same pride in their respective cultures, and I support and encourage that. Everyone should be proud of who they are and no one should denegrate someone simply because they are different.
As far as black conservatives are concerned, I don't have a problem with people who have different views. I think we are all entitled to our opinions. I do question the motives of some black conservatives, like Clarence Thomas, who seem to act against the interests of other members of their race because it will curry favor with their slavemasters. In America a black person is considered "a nigger". This is regardless of income or class status or intelligence, though the term "nigger" specifically denotes ignorance. You demonstrate this yourself when you call your "heroes" by the racially derogatory term "colored".
I am sure "Uncle Thomas" would take exception to my characterization of him. Maybe he doesn't rule as he does because of any feelings of self-hatred. Maybe he just does it for the money. I don't think that is any better.
If he rules as he does because he believes so thoroughly in this right-wing ideology then he is simply wrong, in my view. The timing and consistency of his actions, however, betray what I would term as self-hatred.
Post a Comment