Honoring MLK by Changing the Wind (by Troy Jackson)
Friday, April 4, 2008, marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was 39-years-old, yet had already spent 15 years in a grassroots movement that radically reshaped the racial landscape in the U.S. He was not only a great preacher and civil rights leader, a Nobel Peace prize winner, and a courageous voice for peace and justice - King was also a "windchanger."
Rev. Jim Wallis often notes that politicians determine how to vote by placing their fingers in the air to gauge which way the wind is blowing. As part of the civil rights movement, King helped change the wind in the U.S.! Because of the sacrifice and tireless struggle by thousands of civil rights wind changers in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. became a more just nation.
In his late 20s, King joined grassroots activists in Montgomery to lead a year-long boycott of city buses. He helped launch the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and provided inspirational leadership in Birmingham, Albany, and Selma. He was a windchanger for civil rights.
But King did not stop there. When President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared war on poverty, King was on the front lines of the battle, fighting for fair housing in Chicago in 1966 and mobilizing thousands for the multi-racial Poor People's Campaign (led by Rev. Ralph Abernathy after King's death).
As President Johnson's attention turned to Vietnam, King courageously spoke out against the war. He challenged the war not only because of his commitment to nonviolence, however. As King explained to an audience exactly one year before his death:
There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor—both black and white—through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings.
Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. –Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967, Riverside Church
King did not stop with criticizing a war he could not support. He continued to invest his time, talents, and energy with and on behalf of the poor. King's famous last speech was delivered in the midst of a sanitation worker's strike in Memphis, as King tried to change the wind for the working class.
Forty years after King's assassination, our challenges are eerily similar. Like King, many have expressed frustration with an unpopular war. But King did not stop with criticism. King kept trying to change the wind, working tirelessly to bring new hope to the poor of the richest nation on the face of the earth.
A few months ago, Sojourners invited me to be part of a groundbreaking local organizing effort in the state of Ohio called Windchangers. We are calling on Christians to evaluate candidates based in part on their plans to combat poverty. We are letting politicians know they must make poverty a priority if they want us to cast votes for their candidacies, and that we will be watching to hold them accountable after they take office next January.
I have helped edit the papers of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and have a book about King coming out in the fall. But my participation in Sojourners Windchangers program provides a great opportunity for me to move from ideas and thoughts about King to significant action that honors King's great legacy.
And you can join this movement as well! There is plenty of room on the bus in the effort to change the wind regarding poverty. Sojourners' Pentecost Conference in Washington, D.C., (June 13-15, 2008) will focus on how to organize your local community to confront poverty. On the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's death, let us honor his legacy by changing the wind together!
Troy Jackson is senior pastor of University Christian Church in Cincinnati, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and earned his Ph.D. in United States history from the University of Kentucky. His book Becoming King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Making of a National Leader (The University Press of Kentucky, 2008) will be available in the fall. Troy is a participant in Sojourners' Windchangers grassroots organizing pilot project in Ohio to work on the Vote Out Poverty Campaign.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Some facts need to be corrected -- when King was 25 he was still in graduate school in Boston. The Montgomery bus boycott started Dec. 5, 1955, a little more than a month before his 27th birthday.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 10:28 AM
I think if MLK would have lived the whole Black race would be different now. The fires and looting and utter destruction that happened in alot of cities wouldn't have happened. This is turn would have gave Blacks better jobs and opportunities. This in turn would have left their race in a much better position than it is since then. I don't think that most people understand that when most of these cities were burned and destroyed, they were never rebuilt. That has led to generation after generation of poverty and crime and drugs. I think its a very sad ending after his death. I just wonder why when a person in history does good and brings hope to so many, that after their death, their mission is forgotten and distorted.
Posted by: Jeff | April 3, 2008 4:31 PM
I think if MLK would have lived the whole Black race would be different now. The fires and looting and utter destruction that happened in alot of cities wouldn't have happened. This is turn would have gave Blacks better jobs and opportunities. This in turn would have left their race in a much better position than it is since then.
I disagree, primarily because riots had already broken out in other major cities (L.A. in '66 and Detroit in '67) where King had no real presence. With the hopelessness that was part and parcel of the 'hood -- thanks in part to "white flight" and the economic devastation that resulted -- things were going to blow eventually. (Keep in mind that most Southern cities, on the other hand, always had a strong and vibrant middle-class, even under segregation, which is likely why those cities were spared.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 3, 2008 8:21 PM
I recently read Dr. King's speech/sermon at Riverside Church which Troy quoted. What amazed me is how relevant and timely today. If we substitute 'Iraq' for 'Vietnam', the situation is the same. The war has stolen billions from the poor, from our schools, and from other nations, like Darfur, which need our attention.
This is the aspect of the war that does not get attention. The poor are also victims of this war. Besides the 4000 men and women who have died and the uncounted thousands of Iraqis, those who need aid have been denied.
Troy is correct, the wind needs to be changed. We have the power to make a change. We have the collective ability to make Dr. King's dream come true.
At the Dr, King Holiday celebration I attended this year, the spoeker, who as a teen marched with Dr. King, asked rheotorically, Isn't it time to quit dreaming and make his Dream come true?
Our vote only for politicians who agree to reduce poverty will make the Dream come alive.
Posted by: Jim Bennett | April 3, 2008 10:34 PM
“The war has stolen billions from the poor.”
There are a lot of things wrong with that sentence. First, entitlement and domestic spending has increased significantly throughout the Iraq war. Second, how can anyone have anything stolen from them that they never earned? (or voluntarily given)
“Our vote only for politicians who agree to reduce poverty will make the Dream come alive.”
And I will vote only for politicians who agree to ensure every child has a unicorn will make my dream come alive.
“The fraudulence of the left’s concern about poverty is exposed by their utter lack of interest in ways of increasing the nation’s wealth. Wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty. The reason there is less poverty today is not because the poor got a bigger slice of the pie but because the whole pie got a lot bigger—no thanks to the left.”
-Thomas Sowell
Posted by: DITE | April 4, 2008 12:52 AM
DITE and Jim - I think a more accurate statement is that the war, along with most other government spending, has stolen money from future generations who will have to pay back the national debt at some point.
Posted by: Eric | April 4, 2008 8:13 AM
At the Dr. King Holiday celebration I attended this year, the spoeker, who as a teen marched with Dr. King, asked rheotorically, Isn't it time to quit dreaming and make his Dream come true?
One thing I learned as an adolescent is that, at least in those days, a lot of people weren't willing to take the next step. I personally was an advocate of interracial worship and other relational situations having to do with culture back in the 1970s; however, it shocked me to find out just how many blacks didn't go for that. So for a couple of decades I was a "man without a country."
"The dream" is not simply about power and authority, though it is -- it's about people crossing over racial and cultural lines to build something new and different. (In fact, that to me is the heart of the Gospel message.) Tonight I'm going to a small group Bible study through my theologically conservative, evangelical church; that cell group is about as racially, economically and culturally diverse as it gets, and we've even had foreign nationals as part of the group.
The reason there is less poverty today is not because the poor got a bigger slice of the pie but because the whole pie got a lot bigger—no thanks to the left.
That's an outright lie, for two reasons. For openers, the pie cannot get bigger because the money you make has to come from somewhere -- it doesn't just materialize. Second, while more money is indeed being made almost all of that increase is going to the top 1 percent -- in fact, the poverty rate is growing (a story published just this week mentioned an uptick in the number of families applying for food stamps).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 10:23 AM
Thomas Sowell, heir apparent to Milton Friedman, is so far out of it he's become irrelevant.
His intellect is a mere shadow of Milton Friedman's.
The Hoover institute pays him to generate bogus arguments in support of disaster capitalism.
Sowell believes that raising the minimum wage will just make things worse.
He's against land use planning.
He's against regulation of any kind.
Sowell ignores the real causes of the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan scandal, the Great Enron Energy Swindle and the present collapse of the Mortgage industry.
Sowell cooks the economic data to support his harebrained theories.
You're wasting your time on this failed ideology, DITE.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 10:38 AM
Poverty . . . really?
Is not demanding politicians make poverty a priority just like all of the other groups trying to make their ethical interests the pivotal point of an election . . . abortion for instance? What's different about asking politicians to stand against one injustice over other forms of injustice? I get that poverty has ramifications extending to other issues, but so do other ethical issues.
Poverty itself, however, is not an "ethical" problem; injustice is an ethical problem. So shouldn't the mantra be: stand against injustice and not stand against poverty? I get that poverty in many cases is a product of injustice *but in many cases it is not,* sometimes it's just bad choices. So again, shouldn't the rallying point be against injustice in all of its forms?
On MLK himself, I get that he is a hero here in the USA, but from an outsider's perspective, it appears that sometimes, often even, he is more of a political construct used to marshal those who perceive themselves to be disenfranchised (whether they are or not) against an opponent that may not in fact be always outside the very people being marshaled. I seem to get the impression that MLK was trying to move past that kind of oppositional definition and that his interpretation of Christian peace was a deconstruction of the power structures set up in society, not antagonism of one over against the other. I see his campaigning against injustice to be a campaign against the dynamic processes which set up these oppositions, the very oppositions maintained by the contemporary use of MLK in politics.
So is it really in the spirit of MLK to try to forge political opposition in the quest to make poverty a priority for political candidacy? Would it not be more in the tradition of MLK to focus on the things that enable the oppositional power structures?
JAS
Posted by: Jamie | April 4, 2008 10:57 AM
“For openers, the pie cannot get bigger because the money you make has to come from somewhere -- it doesn't just materialize.”
Wow.
How is it then possible that the world is wealthier than 1000, 500, or 50 years ago? You want to see me make money “materialize?” Say I’m a hat maker and salesman. I can make 3 hats a day and sell each for $5 at a cost of $3 a piece. Then one day I buy a machine that makes 10 hats a day at a cost of $1 a piece. Tada! I just “materialized” $2 for every hat I sold!
“Second, while more money is indeed being made almost all of that increase is going to the top 1 percent -- in fact, the poverty rate is growing (a story published just this week mentioned an uptick in the number of families applying for food stamps).”
Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income quintile of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.
Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he knows a lot more about economics than you or I.
“Sowell believes that raising the minimum wage will just make things worse.
He's against land use planning.”
And he’s right.
“He's against regulation of any kind.”
Not entirely
“Sowell ignores the real causes of the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan scandal, the Great Enron Energy Swindle and the present collapse of the Mortgage industry.”
All of these events happened in a regulated economy, so they could make the argument for an unregulated economy
Posted by: DITE | April 4, 2008 11:45 AM
Would it not be more in the tradition of MLK to focus on the things that enable the oppositional power structures?
Economics have a lot to do with that, as I mention below.
You want to see me make money “materialize?” Say I’m a hat maker and salesman. I can make 3 hats a day and sell each for $5 at a cost of $3 a piece. Then one day I buy a machine that makes 10 hats a day at a cost of $1 a piece. Tada! I just “materialized” $2 for every hat I sold!
No, you certainly didn't.
You have to have customers willing to buy those hats, especially at the price you want to sell them for. Now, if you try to market hats but your customers don't have the money to pay for them you're out of business. The question then becomes: "How do the customers get the money to buy your hats?" Conservative economists don't ask that question -- heck, neither do drug pushers -- but it's a real issue in "at-risk" neighborhoods where good-playing jobs are few and far between if they exist at all.
This is the reason we need "economic justice," to keep resources from being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands they buy the political systems and other institutions as well.
Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income quintile of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.
Not the point, because in this economy you need to earn more just to keep afloat, what with the prices of goods and services (housing, utilities and the like).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 12:25 PM
Just as deficit financing is taxing people too young to vote, expanding the economic pie also steals from future generations. The fossils fuels are not renewable and we are saving none of this for the future. We are thieves living the way we do, and we show no real compassion for those who cannot compete now and taking away any hope for the future. If someone fancies themselves prolife, they should consider this stuff and not listen to hard hearted men like Thomas Sowell.
Posted by: Oak | April 4, 2008 12:27 PM
"Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist."
Thomas Sowell is a deplorable house Negro who sold his fine intellect to the devil a long time ago. The Right keeps him around because he's useful in academic circles the say way Alan Keyes is useful in political circles: a token African American who can be trotted out when the Right is accused of racism.
Posted by: carl copas | April 4, 2008 12:37 PM
"say" should read "same" in above post
Posted by: carl copas | April 4, 2008 12:39 PM
Adding to my reponse to DITE:
You have to have enough money in the first place to buy the machine, which itself needs to spend money to buy raw material and labor plus market the machine to potential customers. And so on, and so on...
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 1:03 PM
"All of these events happened in a regulated economy, so they could make the argument for an unregulated economy"
This is typical of the bogus arguments advanced by Thomas Sowell. Up is down, war is peace, etc.
Friedmanic ideology has had its day.
DITE, If you want to bring your understanding of economics up to date, read one or more of these books:
A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Harvey, David. 2005. Oxford University Press
The Shock Doctrine: The rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein,2007, Henry Holt and Company
The Great Unraveling: Losing our way in the New Century, Paul Krugman 2007
Krugman is econ professor at Princeton
Other Krugman resources:
Microeconomics, 2004
Macroeconomics, 2006
Krugman's op ed columns in the NYT
Nobel Prize winner and Harvard econ professor Amartya Sen has some important ideas about poverty and economics that apply to the real world.
Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen
Good luck,
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 1:04 PM
I have to produce some wealth now.
I'll check back this evening.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 1:22 PM
“You have to have customers willing to buy those hats, especially at the price you want to sell them for.”
I didn’t increase the price. In fact, I could lower the price and still “materialize” money. What technology and innovation do is reduce costs and make things more affordable and, yes, make money. The more money people make the more they have to by things. The more money people have to buy things the more money other people make…and repeat. I still don’t know how you could logically explain the fact that there is more wealth in the world now by any other conclusion than we have created more wealth.
“This is the reason we need "economic justice," to keep resources from being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands they buy the political systems and other institutions as well.”
Marx thought the same thing about the wealthy owning the means of production. He and you are wrong. How about this for economic justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. You disagree? Well then tell me how much I earn belongs to you and why. It sounds coldhearted. But, the reality is whenever a government tries to be philanthropic it subsidizes and bribes people to stay in poverty and make bad decisions. There is a reason why Jesus gave us free will to give to the poor and never advocated giving to the poor by means of coercion.
“Not the point, because in this economy you need to earn more just to keep afloat what with the prices of goods and services (housing, utilities and the like).”
Did you miss the part “adjusted for inflation?” I used expenditures because they are the most accurate measure of wealth.
“The fossils fuels are not renewable and we are saving none of this for the future.”
Who cares? That’s like someone 100 years ago saying, “We have to stop making roads! We are going to run out of cobblestone and our children will have no new roads.” The human imagination is the most abundant resource we have.
Future generations will be richer than we are. They always have been, no matter what we have done with our resources. Asking us to refrain from using our resources now so that future generations can have them later is like asking the poor to make gifts to the rich.
“If someone fancies themselves prolife, they should consider this stuff and not listen to hard hearted men like Thomas Sowell.”
I am, and I have. I still think you’re wrong. Just because Sowell disagrees with you doesn’t make him hard hearted.
Posted by: DITE | April 4, 2008 1:25 PM
The 'Conservative', Thomas Sowell, DITE mindset:
'Anything you could possibly think of to make things better would only make things worse.
So it's best not to worry about economic inequality. Just relax, kick back and enjoy life the way it is. After all, you've got yours.'
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 1:35 PM
“Which itself needs to spend money to buy raw material and labor plus market the machine to potential customers. And so on, and so on...”
Thanks for agreeing with me! The hat maker will pay off the cost of the machine in no time. The hat making machine maker will also have more money. The raw material provider will also get paid and have more money. There will be more laborers demanded and they will all have more money. I’m glad you are able to see the beauty of the “invisible hand!”
“Thomas Sowell is a deplorable house Negro who sold his fine intellect to the devil a long time ago.”
Unbelievable. Is every black conservative a “house Negro” or “Uncle Tom?” The left does this way too often and it’s overtly racist.
Posted by: DITE | April 4, 2008 1:45 PM
I still don’t know how you could logically explain the fact that there is more wealth in the world now by any other conclusion than we have created more wealth.
We haven't -- we have more products but it costs more to buy them so wealth becomes, essentially, stagnant. This was the heart of the Biblical concept of Jubilee, in which wealth was not to be concentrated in any hands for any length of time (and Israel was disciplined for not carrying it out).
But, the reality is whenever a government tries to be philanthropic it subsidizes and bribes people to stay in poverty and make bad decisions. There is a reason why Jesus gave us free will to give to the poor and never advocated giving to the poor by means of coercion.
The Prophets also refer to jimmying the political system (in their words, "bribing judges") to avoid "doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God" -- in this case, economic exploitation -- and Jesus believed the Prophets. It's not about giving to the poor -- it's about changing the system so that the poor can help themselves. And BTW, it's the economic right that wants people to remain poor (and perhaps sick) for that reason above.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 1:50 PM
Is every black conservative a “house Negro” or “Uncle Tom?”
In practice, yes, because there are so few of them that the right recruits heavily and spends lots of $$$ to prop them up -- we would have never heard of most of them were it not for that. (Ten years ago the right tried to recruit me; that's how I know.) Conservatism is hated in the ideologicially-neutral black community because of its knee-jerk opposition to social justice -- in 1964 King called Barry Goldwater "the most dangerous man in the country," with good reason -- but its defenders have tried to explain that away.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 2:00 PM
Carl, I love you man, but that was a little over the top.
Now I'm late and really do have make a buck.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 2:02 PM
DITE,
You are being overly simplistic about the war on poverty. It is not about re-distribution of income. (This is the straw-horse argument that the Right always uses. Listen a little before assuming you know what the Left means.) The War on Poverty would be immensely helped by making the education of all American children a top priority in this country. Barely 50% of high school age kids are graduating. That is scandalous in this country. NCLB is a punitive approach to education. There are 37 factors by which a school is judged and if the school fails to meet the targets on only one of those 37 factors, the school is failed. The school loses funding, which in turn starts a snowball effect. I won't belabor the point but the current educational system is reducing the number of graduates not increasing it. Less graduates makes a permanent underclass who is destined to perpetuate generational poverty.
It is also deplorable how the Right wants to eviscerate public education. It is our country's best interest to educate every child. Education is the best indicator of wealth. Look how India has put their resources into educating their young people. That is one of the reasons they are overtaking this country.
DITE, you are also oversimplifying using your example about creating money. Zimbabwe is a good example. They have money but it's not worth anything. The unbudgeted money for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are undermining our economy. Instead of using that money for infrastructure (roads, bridges, communication systems, etc.) which businesses need in order to move goods, products and services around for sale in the market, we are burning money outside the US economy. I will acknowledge that there are some US businesses who are making lots of money on the war but that money is not generally circulating within the US. In fact, Halliburton is now not a US company.
Also, the regulations in the banking industry didn't get enacted until the Great Depression. They weren't in place during the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Many of those regulations started being rolled back during the Reagan administration (I was a Finance major in business school during that era).
DITE, as a balance to Sowell, why don't you read Ravi Batra's newest book The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos. He's made a number of very accurate economic predictions over the years particularly since 2000.
Posted by: Nuttshell | April 4, 2008 2:35 PM
Justintime, I love you also.
I thought very carefully about my words on Sowell before writing them. His column runs in the local news rag once or twice weekly, so I read him often.
I'm guessing Rick, and I bet Payshun also, know full well what I meant with "house Negro" and "token"; they're harsh words but Sowell is way too smart to actually believe all the unrelentlingly hidebound, hard rightwing stuff he writes.
That's particularly true when he addresses race: if someone even dares mention that racism might play a role in a particular situation, no matter the circumstances, Sowell immediately accuses them of being a whiner who is playing the race card. And his characterizations of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas nomination was absolutely shameful.
Posted by: carl copas | April 4, 2008 3:00 PM
Since when did it become acceptable to use the term "house negro" in referring to an African-American?
Posted by: Eric | April 4, 2008 3:11 PM
Non-blacks have civil rights to be free from the epidemic of black crime!!! Martin Luther said it best, "Do not judge us by the color of our skin, but the conduct of our character" That is exactly how most blacks are judged.Political correctness prevents us from calling a spade a spade. Every black child has an equal opportunity to get a free education so as to improve his chances for a successful life. Blacks can not control the color of their skin, but can control their conduct, including what they decide to do with their life, including studying hard, and working hard.
Posted by: Just me | April 4, 2008 3:43 PM
I didn't know "house negro" was off-limits. I can't I use it often but sometimes it feels appropriate. Is it a word that I would use if I wasn't black, probably not.
Posted by: Nuttshell | April 4, 2008 3:45 PM
My response did not get posted. Are they censuring writers??
Posted by: Just me | April 4, 2008 3:45 PM
“We haven't -- we have more products but it costs more to buy them so wealth becomes, essentially, stagnant.”
You understand that wealth is not just money. Assets also are included as wealth. And technology and innovation have made almost everything cheaper. We just choose to buy more and better stuff. Remember Julian Simon’s bet with Paul Ehrlich?
“It's not about giving to the poor -- it's about changing the system so that the poor can help themselves."
I don’t agree that poor people are that pathetic. Liberal programs like AFDC, however, encourage the poor to be the pathetic versions of themselves that liberals want them to be.
“In practice, yes, because there are so few of them that the right recruits heavily and spends lots of $$$ to prop them up -- we would have never heard of most of them were it not for that.”
Every political party, college, or employer props people up based on race and gender in the name of diversity. That doesn’t make black conservatives “uncle toms” or “house Negros.” Sowell is black, but he is also one of the most professionally and academically accomplished economist in the nation. To take that away from him and say that he is only well-known because of his race is racist. Can conservatives call Obama a “house Negro” without it being racist?
The need to improve education doesn’t excuse harmful entitlement policies. The current liberal strategy of throwing more money at the education system is no solution.
“Zimbabwe is a good example.”
The Zimbabwe government just printed money. That is much different than actually creating wealth.
“As a balance to Sowell, why don't you read Ravi Batra's newest book”
Just because I quoted Sowell doesn’t mean I only read Sowell. I actually enjoy reading liberal economists more because they give me a challenge. That being said I have not read Batra, but I would love to when I get some free time.
Posted by: DITE | April 4, 2008 3:46 PM
Just Me,
There is some truth in what you say but that is not always the case. Instead of strict color discrimination, now we've added economic discrimination. In my city, the schools in the richer neighborhoods have way more amenities. In fact, if you were blind-folded and dropped off in a school here in Albuquerque, you would know instantly whether or not you were in a rich or poor neighborhood. It's not a surprise that the "rich" high school has the best test scores.
Posted by: Nuttshell | April 4, 2008 3:50 PM
Non-blacks have civil rights to be free from the epidemic of black crime!!! Martin Luther said it best, "Do not judge us by the color of our skin, but the conduct of our character" That is exactly how most blacks are judged. Political correctness prevents us from calling a spade a spade. Every black child has an equal opportunity to get a free education so as to improve his chances for a successful life. Blacks can not control the color of their skin, but can control their conduct, including what they decide to do with their life, including studying hard, and working hard.
If that were truly the case we wouldn't be having this conversation. End of that discussion.
I don’t agree that poor people are that pathetic. Liberal programs like AFDC, however, encourage the poor to be the pathetic versions of themselves that liberals want them to be.
My church deals with a lot of poor people, and yes, many of them are in that bad shape -- what I'm telling you we see constiently. In fact, that's one reason why our church, which is blatantly evangelical, nevertheless is no longer ideologically conservative (and our white, Republican pastor rejects the kind of conservative ideology stated in this thread).
Every political party, college, or employer props people up based on race and gender in the name of diversity. That doesn’t make black conservatives “uncle toms” or “house Negros.” Sowell is black, but he is also one of the most professionally and academically accomplished economist in the nation. To take that away from him and say that he is only well-known because of his race is racist.
You miss the point. Conservatives do it because they know full well that their ideology itself is considered racist -- in fact, I personally don't know of anyone who is a racist who isn't a conservative. Thing is, because of that conservatives don't have a ready pool of African-Americans as spokespeople and they have to recruit them, where academia et al can more easily call upon them. Besides, blacks these days -- no thanks to the right -- often are in decision-making positions; my late stepfather was the dean of education at my college alma mater, to give one example. But I dare you to name one black conservative figure who really has any pull, especially in the black community itself.
Can conservatives call Obama a “house Negro” without it being racist?
No, if for no other reason that it would be false. And in fact, doing so would smack of envy and resentment.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 4, 2008 4:14 PM
DITE,
Who said anything about just throwing money at education? We don't really respect educators in this country. If a college student or graduate says that they want to be a teacher, oftentimes they are ridiculed for not wanting to do a "real" job.
"Every political party, college, or employer props people up based on race and gender in the name of diversity."
Are you saying that women or people of color are not worthy of the jobs or positions they are in?"
'That doesn’t make black conservatives “uncle toms” or “house Negros.” Sowell is black, but he is also one of the most professionally and academically accomplished economist in the nation. To take that away from him and say that he is only well-known because of his race is racist.'
This statement seems to negate your first statement. So, which is it?
I've heard this ridiculous line ever since I went to college. According to the white people at my college (Georgetown), black and brown people didn't deserve to be there. I heard that in nearly every job I ever got, until people got to know me. I have a Master's degree in Information Systems and a B.A. in Finance. My brother and sister both graduated from law school. My father was a Harvard MBA. Both of my grandmothers attended college in the 30's, but didn't graduate because of money. My maternal grandfather was a college graduate. My great-grandfather (who was black and Native) was a college graduate in the 1880's. Obviously, education was very important to my family and was expected of all of us. I had the good fortune to be born into that kind of family. I resent anyone suggesting that I was propped up because of my gender and/or race. I was the youngest manager in my division when I started with my organization. Nearly universally, anyone who meets me who describe me as very intelligent. But, I am the recipient of affirmative action because the institutions of higher learning that I attended had little to no minorities or even women attend their schools before I started there. Without conscious efforts to bring in women & minorities, we would have been excluded from the top tier schools. It doesn't mean we couldn't do the work (obviously, I did) but the schools and some employers realized that a diverse environment was a benefit to everyone. I worked in admissions at Georgetown (I'm also an alumni recruiter) and I know that academic ability as well as some other factors which are pre-indicators of success were always required for any student, regardless of gender, color or ethnic status.
Every organization has a finite number of slots for admission or employment. Given that Caucasians are more than 70% of the population, by their sheer numbers they would always be able to predominate those slots. I don't have any problem with having a diversity goal. I don't think slots should be filled by people who won't be successful. At the same time, using raw SAT scores is not necessarily a good predictor of success. My freshman roommate was a good example of that. She had much higher SAT's than me but I was a much more disciplined and dedicated student. How did the school know this? I held jobs and played competitive sports all year round.
Posted by: Nuttshell | April 4, 2008 4:23 PM
The wealth has always been here, we are just getting better at exploiting it. When the wealth is used up then disaster will happen. At the rate we are going it should not take long.
Posted by: Oak | April 4, 2008 4:25 PM
DITE wrote: I didn’t increase the price. In fact, I could lower the price and still “materialize” money. What technology and innovation do is reduce costs and make things more affordable and, yes, make money.
After selling hats at a two dollar profit where soes one come up with the capital to invest in new technology that will eventually reduce the cost per hat? Debt occurs in most cases, which distorts the image of a pie getting larger in some cases. Though the American economy pie has increased incurred debt has most certainly offset the majority of the impact it has had. But only if you look at the true economical picture with eyes wide-open.
Regardless - the wind changing experiences of MLK was significant enough that it sould be cause enough for all of us (house-negros, or not) to pause and ponder what we ourselves can do that will be even slightly as effective in resolving our social issues.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 4, 2008 4:26 PM
I've met poor people of every race, color, gender and ethnic group. One of the things I discovered with many of these people are their learning inabilities. What do I mean? They have a different way of comprehending things. When I try to explain things that I think are perfectly logical, they look at me so quizzedly. I think that's one of the reasons they do poorly in school. Not everyone has the same learning style and if your family or teachers don't recognize that, you will fall behind and lose your confidence in your abilities to do things. Many of the poor do not believe in their abilities. They think they are dumb because people tell them they are either in word or deed. When poverty was just a matter of being denied opportunity, you saw changes when those opportunities were provided. ESPN did a great documentary last month called Black Magic. Guys like Ben Jobe, Bob Love, Earl Monroe, Al Attles, and a host of others grew up dirt poor (mostly in the South). But when they had an opportunity to go to college (usually through basketball), their economic situation changed.
I will probably have more to say later but I've got a meeting to go to now.
Posted by: Nuttshell | April 4, 2008 4:34 PM
DITE,
I would appreciate your reaction to an interesting simulation run by Brian Hayes in 2002 ("Follow the Money," American Scientist, 90(5), 400 (2002). I think you can find it online.)
Hayes mathematically simulated a neighborhood yard sale. Everyone in the set started the simulation with equal wealth. Then random pairings of neighbors resulted in barter exchanges, limited only by the requirement that the transaction was limited to a specified percentage of the wealth of the less wealthy neighbor. No skill was involved, just a random number generator. In every case, if enough transactions were allowed to take place, the result of the simulation was that one neighbor ended up with virtually all of the wealth!
This is a widespread phenomenon in the natural world, related to the distribution of energy, resources, etc. It is called the Pareto distribution. It seems to be limited only by the requirement that the size of a transaction is limited by the resources of the poorer partner, as is typical in economic transactions.
(Notably, the distribution of wealth of all major league ballplayers at the time of the last baseball strike was published in Newsweek, and the distribution fit the Pareto curve, which also described the outcome of Hayes' simulation. Thus the simulation appears to at least approximate economic reality. Also, if you have played Monopoly to completion, this is what happens in that game. We normally interpret it as the result of the winner's skill, but this simulation says that will be the inevitable result even if there is no difference in skill.) That's quite a conclusion!
Hayes looked for ways to prevent all of the wealth being transferred into a few hands. There were only two identifiable mechanisms: either cheating, or taxation.
Thus we are left with a justice question. Should we let the game play out without intervening, knowing that all wealth will ultimately transfer into a few hands, or should we intervene?
Jesus made clear that intervention to level the playing field was necessary. Consider the story of Dives and Lazarus, for example. (And Dives at least allowed Lazarus to have some of his table scraps!)
What is your take?
Blessings!
Posted by: Jim | April 4, 2008 5:15 PM
The Evil Politic Party “The Republican Party” is responsible for all the Racism and Discrimination to African American and Latino community by using the topics: Terrorism, National Security, and Illegal Immigration. Yes the American People we must to Remove all the Anti- Democratic members from this Evil political party from the office, and impeachment for bad Behavior because the U.S constitution say nobody can be about the Law and These parasites of the society are contaminate the nation by using Anti- humanity or Evil Law with intension to damage the African American community and Latino community too.
Now is time to Void all the Evil Law and the Title of these parasites from The Republican Party because these parasites their are only employees from the nation.
By: Activist Chicano/Latino: Manuel s Rivera.
Posted by: Manuel S Rivera | April 4, 2008 6:33 PM
You can say that again, Manny.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 6:50 PM
Thus we are left with a justice question. Should we let the game play out without interventingn, knowing that all wealth will ultimately transfer into a few hands, or should we intervene?
...
Key question!
Isn't this basically what happened to Western Civilization after the collapse of the Roman Empire? The economy fell out of balance and wealth circulated inevitably into into the hands of a few 'noble families' who taxed the serfs into fealty - virtual slavery to maintain power.
The Dark Ages were centuries of constant warring amongst the noble warlord classes bringing cultural stagnation.
In China it was known as the 'Warring States Period', between dynasties.
In order to maintain the health, vitality and creativity of a society, thereby avoiding cultural stagnation, the economy must be balanced, which inevitably requires some form of intervention.
And it's inconveniently, inevitably clear by now, the global economy must have balance and harmony if civilization is to have any future on this planet - if we don't want our progeny growing up in the middle of a perpetual war, leading into the ultimate Armageddon disaster?
...
I'm reading Follow the Money.
I think there's one more arrow for the quiver.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 8:40 PM
Fascinating thoughts on how history repeats its self. Thank you Justintime for your comments re the aftermath of the roman empire.
At the time of the French Revolution, the reformers were caring out their social reforms in Great Brittan. Interestingly most were Evangelical Christians.
Some would say that the ruling classes of Brittan allowed the reforms to proceed as they were afraid that the revolution would come.
Likewise similar thoughts can be applied the 1950's cold war period, the elites of the WEST were afraid that if the revolution came they would be the first against the wall.
Since the end of the cold war, no such fears so the steady concentration with the elites of power. Bit Class warish, well show me why not.
Simplistic thoughts?
The implication that the poor are the only cause of their own poorness is a bit too naive.
"Who is your neighbour?" for a democracy to function fairly well there must be an acceptance of an inclusive social contract. From outside, it seems that the US is reconsidering / renegotiating what is its social contract is - re health, education and access to opportunity. Not to talk about racism.
Interesting times; look at the propaganda carefully - in who’s interest is it for. Time for another scary 'Revolution'? - the War on Terror is not such an event.
Mean wile the rise India and China will strip the US of its current pre-eminence and the wasteful policies of not educating all of its young and wasting treasure in futile wars rather than creating tomorrows solutions to the energy / global warming crises (yes our rainfall has dropped by 20% over the last 25 years) will be to its disadvantage. You will pay for others IP unless you copyITright.
Posted by: JohnH | April 4, 2008 11:13 PM
DITE: Thomas Sowell? How is he relevant to a discussion on Martin Luther King? Where is the Christian agrument to battling poverty? I can always find an economic argument -- I don't want to share would be the first one that comes to mind.
That said. I'd like to know your perspective on the bailout of Bear Stearns? Philanthropic?
What if the hat maker's business (employees' community) was hit by a Katrina like natural disaster?
What if the community that surrounds the hat maker's business changes and he/she can't attract employees (inadequate schools, inadequate transportation options, inadequate or lack of affordable housing)?
Poverty is a complex issue. I applaud any effort that attempts to empower people to live better lives.
Posted by: Stephanie Berry | April 4, 2008 11:50 PM
"Conservatives do it because they know full well that their ideology itself is considered racist -- in fact, I personally don't know of anyone who is a racist who isn't a conservative."
--Rick, you really need to take a course in logic, because this is a classic fallacy (if B is A, then A is B) similar to the guilt by association games you always play. I also know plenty of racists who are liberal.
As for the comments about "house negroes" and "uncle toms" being made...well, the fact that such hateful and demeaning comments are made and tolerated here on a purportedly Christian website says something about those making and condoning them. And it ain't good. You should be ashamed.
Posted by: jesse | April 5, 2008 9:18 AM
Rick Nowlin wrote:You miss the point. Conservatives do it because they know full well that their ideology itself is considered racist -- in fact, I personally don't know of anyone who is a racist who isn't a conservative. Thing is, because of that conservatives don't have a ready pool of African-Americans as spokespeople and they have to recruit them, where academia et al can more easily call upon them. Besides, blacks these days -- no thanks to the right -- often are in decision-making positions; my late stepfather was the dean of education at my college alma mater, to give one example. But I dare you to name one black conservative figure who really has any pull, especially in the black community itself.
Case in point - John McCian's rediculous attempt at repairing his relations with African Americans yesterday in Memphis. Disgusting! Why in the world would anyone vote for this man?????
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 5, 2008 9:37 AM
Jesse - I, too, was chuckling at Rick's faulty logic there. "All the conservatices I know are racist, therefore, conservatism is a racist ideology." tee hee...
I'm wondering if it's acceptable to call any African-American a house negro or other racial slurs if one believes he or she's being used by a white person for his race, or just conservative African-Americans?
Posted by: Eric | April 5, 2008 10:17 AM
jesse -- You didn't read what I wrote. I did not say that conservatives were necessarily racist, only that hard-core racists are almost always conservative. When a Ku Klux Klan leader in Georgia gave his presidential endorsement in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, saying that "the Republican platform could have been written by a Klansman," it spoke volumes about the conservative agenda. (Remember that up until that time KKK members, especially in the South, were registered Democrats.)
I'm wondering if it's acceptable to call any African-American a house negro or other racial slurs if one believes he or she's being used by a white person for his race, or just conservative African-Americans?
It wasn't always; years ago I was accused of being that myself. But ever since the conservative movement started recruiting African-Americans to sell its program, which it knew full well would hurt them -- and paying them a ton of money in the process -- the description is apt. And several blacks who have broken with the right (among them economists Glenn Loury and Robert Woodson, who quit the American Enterprise Institute in 1996 after AEI fellow Dinesh D'Souza published "The End of Racism," which was considered borderline racist in its own right) learned that the hard way. In contrast, there are already more than enough "liberals" in the black community with authority where the charge of being a "Tom" is patently ridiculous.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 11:03 AM
Something else I just remembered.
Had a liberal working for a liberal think-tank written something like "The End of Racism," that person would have been fired -- and a conservative think-tank would have picked him/her up and in the process accuse the liberal think-tank of "political correctness."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 11:18 AM
"I did not say that conservatives were necessarily racist, only that hard-core racists are almost always conservative."
--And you said conservativism is a racist ideology and used this anecdote to support this claim (why else would you mention it?).
"When a Ku Klux Klan leader in Georgia gave his presidential endorsement in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, saying that "the Republican platform could have been written by a Klansman," it spoke volumes about the conservative agenda."
--It actually speaks nothing. Do you think no objectionable person has ever endorsed a Democrat or liberal agenda? Osama Bin Laden likes to quote Chomsky. Does that discredit the entire liberal enterprise? The New Black Panther Party (a racist organization) and Farrakan endorsed Obama. I'm sure you could find lots of terrorists out there who support Obama. What does that mean? You could play this pointless game all day.
btw, "End of Racism" was praised by prominent civil rights activist and former NAACP leader Margaret Bush Wilson, among others. You're right that no liberal think tank tolerates dissension from political correctness. You like to go on about conservatives quashing dissent, yet are completely blind to the intolerance shown by liberals and the black community towards anyone who dares to challenge their prevailing liberal orthodoxy (they are rendered "racist" or "uncle toms").
Posted by: jesse | April 5, 2008 12:08 PM
"in fact, I personally don't know of anyone who is a racist who isn't a conservative. "
I do. Go to Michigan, and sit in on a labor meeting sometime. Go to a liberal arts college, not during a candlelight vigil, but afterward, when the kids have had a few drinks.
btw, it was d.e. sharp who wrote this, not Rick.
"I'm wondering if it's acceptable to call any African-American a house negro or other racial slurs"
It is an insult leveled by people who cannot understand that there is such a thing as honest disagreement in politics. Plus it gives those mentioned above a chance to be racist in public.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 5, 2008 12:42 PM
And you said conservativism is a racist ideology and used this anecdote to support this claim (why else would you mention it?).
I didn't say that -- quit twisting my words. What I said, and I stand by it, is that hard-core racists are drawn generally to modern conservatism, primarily because it demands nothing of itself and everything of everyone else. My remark about the Klansman supporting Reagan has to be considered against a not-so-far-away context of race relations; therefore, your "comeback" about who supports liberals is irrelevant. (Reagan kicked off his campaign in the same county where three civil-rights workers turned up dead -- and came out in support of "states rights," which in that context meant that in his view the civil-rights movement was invalid.)
You like to go on about conservatives quashing dissent, yet are completely blind to the intolerance shown by liberals and the black community towards anyone who dares to challenge their prevailing liberal orthodoxy (they are rendered "racist" or "uncle toms").
Why would an evangelical church allow an atheist to preach a sermon? Why would you allow someone who doesn't believe in civil rights to join the NAACP or a similar organization? (Interestingly enough, the NAACP is one of the right wing's primary targets, precisely because it won't kiss its heinie.) If Karl Marx demanded to join the AEI, would he be accepted? Of course not. This is where conservative arrogance is most obviously diplayed, as though "We're always right and thus everyone is entitled to our opinion." Well, guess what? People are allowed to say that the right doesn't have the moral authority to have a hearing. Political correctness? Puh-leeze!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 1:13 PM
It is an insult leveled by people who cannot understand that there is such a thing as honest disagreement in politics. Plus it gives those mentioned above a chance to be racist in public.
You still don't address the issues of 1) why there are so few conservatives in the black community (Hint: It's not due to ignorance); and 2) many of those that are have to be propped up because they have so little support.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 1:17 PM
"btw, it was d.e. sharp who wrote this, not Rick."
--d.e. sharp actually quoted rick.
ok, rick, you didn't come out and explicitly say conservativism is a racist ideology, though you have clearly implied it here and on numerous other occasions--why else would you make the statements i quoted and repeatedly make the guilt by association inferences? you are very fond of anecdotes, which can be used to support any position. this is why i suggest you take a course in logic.
i also argued that liberals and black civil rights leaders will not tolerate dissent from their established orthodoxy--note their treatment of anyone who dares challenge affirmative action policies--you have presented nothing to refute this claim.
Posted by: jesse | April 5, 2008 1:27 PM
"why there are so few conservatives in the black community"
--Maybe because any black conservative is called an "uncle tom", a "house negro", and is treated with hatred and contempt by black leaders? Because being a conservative automatically makes you a pariah in the black community?
Posted by: jesse | April 5, 2008 1:37 PM
jesse -- I say this again: Quit twisting my words. Truth be told, probably a majority of my friends are politically conservative, yet they will accept criticism from me because they know I know what they believe and why I believe it.
i also argued that liberals and black civil rights leaders will not tolerate dissent from their established orthodoxy--note their treatment of anyone who dares challenge affirmative action policies--you have presented nothing to refute this claim.
And you have said nothing to back it up. On top of that, those few that do -- Ward Connerly is probably the best-known -- flame out fairly quickly. He later went on a crusade to have legacy admissions banned in the UC system, and somehow I don't think he got very far.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 1:39 PM
--Rick, you really need to take a course in logic, because this is a classic fallacy (if B is A, then A is B) similar to the guilt by association games you always play. I also know plenty of racists who are liberal. jesse
Jesse - I, too, was chuckling at Rick's faulty logic there. "All the conservatices I know are racist, therefore, conservatism is a racist ideology." tee hee...eric
I think you both misunderstand what Rick is trying to say. But that's not surprising.
Most of the racist Democrats I know flipped over and became Republicans after Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' gave them permission to continue their racist attitudes.
So are all Republicans racist?
No.
Not any more than all Democrats are free of racist attitudes.
But most Democrats are conscious of the presence of racism and the difficulty of getting beyond it.
However Republican Party election tactics include using code words that appeal to racist attitudes. This is what Karl Rove is all about.
As for Carl branding Thomas Sowell a 'house negro', my first reaction was 'This will be seized on by jesse, kevin and the other reactionaries and lurkers on this site might be turned off by Carl's frankness'.
But after reading Carl and Rick on the topic I can agree, Thomas Sowell is intelligent enough to know exactly what he's doing. He should be ashamed of himself.
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 1:39 PM
An embarrasing fact is that the Republican Party can not win elections in America without appealing to racism.
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 1:45 PM
Maybe because any black conservative is called an "uncle tom", a "house negro", and is treated with hatred and contempt by black leaders? Because being a conservative automatically makes you a pariah in the black community?
It's called cooperating with the enemy. And since we know the enemy of black progress is and has always been conservatism -- which is something most conservatives will deny until they're blue in the face, but (as I have said) will spend a ton of money to do -- there's no good reason to take a black conservative very seriously. The idea of "black conservatives" probably would have been shocking to Dr. King; after all, they were the segregationists and "Commie-haters" of his day.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 1:46 PM
"Truth be told, probably a majority of my friends are politically conservative, yet they will accept criticism from me because they know I know what they believe and why I believe it."
--And I find it hard to believe that you would speak to them as you speak to conservatives on this blog, or else they wouldn't stay around for long.
"And you have said nothing to back it up. On top of that, those few that do -- Ward Connerly is probably the best-known -- flame out fairly quickly."
--Google search any black conservative (including Connerly) and you will quickly find a litany of hate-filled rants by black leaders and liberals.
"And since we know the enemy of black progress is and has always been conservatism"
--Right, Rick, you never said or implied that conservatism is racist. You just said conservatives are "the enemy" and are keeping blacks down.
Justintime, you can agree with their critique of Sowell, but when people start to use dehumanizing words like "uncle tom" and "house negro" they have ceased to treat their opponents as men made in God's image. This is hate. It is sin.
Posted by: jesse | April 5, 2008 2:04 PM
And I find it hard to believe that you would speak to them as you speak to conservatives on this blog, or else they wouldn't stay around for long.
They don't dis me the way you [plural] do. They ask my perspective respectfully and don't assume they know everything based on the prevailing conservatives ethos. The few that refuse to adjust their attitudes don't last in part because, as things turned out, they didn't have the courage of their convictions to get into a battle of wits with me.
Google search any black conservative (including Connerly) and you will quickly find a litany of hate-filled rants by black leaders and liberals.
I won't bother because I'm sure they're hyped up to prove an "anti-conservative" hysteria when in fact they're addressing the long-term ramifications (read: damage) of what such conservatives are doing. Well, guess what? They deserve every ounce of criticism they get. The right can dish it out and has always done so but it can't take it.
Right, Rick, you never said or implied that conservatism is racist. You just said conservatives are "the enemy" and are keeping blacks down.
You're right, but not just blacks. In fact, their whole game is to put out of business everyone who disagrees with them -- look at the right-wing abuse Jim Wallis has to put up with on this blog. Blacks understand this, which is why they protected Bill Clinton during his impeachment even though his policies were less than ideal. When Hillary complained about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," most blacks probably thought, "Tell us something new."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 2:26 PM
jesse,
I understand where you're coming from about calling Sowell a 'house negro'.
Remember though, Carl has to put up with Sowell in his newspaper every week.
I've only read enough of Sowell to know that he's dishonest in his use of statistics and anecdotes to spin his message
and that his economic ideology has been discredited by reality.
If you read his essays relative to social justice you can easily see how he holds minorities and the poor responsible for their own misery,
while excusing the wealthy for their abuse of the disadvantaged.
I'm convinced, and so are many others, that Sowell knows exactly what he's doing -
exonerating the wealthy for their tolerance of, indifference to and complicity with social injustice.
Obviously the wealthy are only too willing to support Thomas Sowell at the Hoover Institute and publish his screeds on Freidmanomics.
In your view, jesse, is this a sin?
Maybe you and I wouldn't call anyone a house negro, but if you really think about it
you might well agree,
the term fits Thomas Sowell pretty well.
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 2:46 PM
I'm reading about Bill Cosby in the current issue of Atlantic Monthly.
Have you seen that, Rick?
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 3:11 PM
Rick,
Let me repeat back to you what you wrote:
"Conservatives do it because they know full well that their ideology itself is considered racist -- in fact, I personally don't know of anyone who is a racist who isn't a conservative."
You then said that, "I did not say that conservatives were necessarily racist, only that hard-core racists are almost always conservative." What you said is that conservatism is a racist ideology and your evidence is that all the racists you know are conservative. Your statement was either poorly written or faulty logic.
And getting back to my question, is it only acceptable to use racial slurs against African Americans who have right-of-center public policy views or can they be used to describe any black person who is being used as a prop by white people? I have no doubt that right-of-center think tanks promote black conservatives because of their race (let's call it their own version of affirmative action). And, in your opion, it's acceptable to use racial slurs to describe these individuals. Is it acceptable to use racial slurs to demean black people who are promoted because of their race, or used in other ways because of their race, at other, non-right-of-center, institutions?
Posted by: Eric | April 5, 2008 3:25 PM
What you said is that conservatism is a racist ideology and your evidence is that all the racists you know are conservative. Your statement was either poorly written or faulty logic.
Neither -- you simply missed what I said. Not all conservatives are racists, to be sure; however, because by its very nature of promoting class warfare, conservatism lends itself fairly easily to racists and racism.
I have no doubt that right-of-center think tanks promote black conservatives because of their race (let's call it their own version of affirmative action).
What irony, let alone hypocrisy -- they oppose affirmative action supposedly on its merits but feel they have to practice it to convince folks they're not racist!
And, in your opinion, it's acceptable to use racial slurs to describe these individuals.
Let's call it by its name and, again, consider history. The term "house Negro" came about during slavery because slaveowners gave certain privileges to certain slaves to keep the others, usually those that worked in the fields, from uniting to overthrow the household and, by inference, the injustice of chattel slavery -- it was a classic "divide-and-conquer" strategy that meant to keep them weak and dependent on the master. The conservative apparatus is attempting the exact same thing by having a few blacks on its payroll in order not to appear racist, but virtually no one is fooled.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 3:55 PM
Rick - If I missed what you said, and I apologize that I did so, it was because your statement was poorly worded. The fact that I wasn't the only one who interpreted it incorrectly is evidence that that just may be the case.
As to the term, house negro, I'll take your answer as a yes, that it is perfectly acceptable to use that particular racial slur in referrence to African-Americans who ally themselves with right-of-center institutions and individuals. So would it be equally appropriate to apply it to African-Americans who are being used as a "divide-and-conquer" strategy by non-right-of-center institutions?
For example, if there was a particular liberal state governor who promoted African-Americans to prominent positions in his administration to make himself look inclusive, but didn't really pay attention to their ideas and didn't focus on issues of interest to African Americans would those individuals be house negros too? Or a CEO of a major corporation who promoted African-Americans to top spots in the company to look inclusive, but didn't really care about the social justice aspects of it, would those individuals (the VPs) be uncle toms?
Posted by: Eric | April 5, 2008 5:14 PM
Justinintime,
I read that article yesterday. What Cosby is trying to do sounds a lot like what the Jewish people have been able to do. Their community has often been on the receiving end of discrimination and persecution so they build solid communities in which they didn't need to rely on others for assistance.
Whether Cosby and those who agree with him will be successful, I don't know. There needs to be a combination of his style of self-sufficiency along with pressure for institutional change. Either one on its own won't solve the problems.
Posted by: Eric | April 5, 2008 5:21 PM
So would it be equally appropriate to apply it to African-Americans who are being used as a "divide-and-conquer" strategy by non-right-of-center institutions?
Non-right-of-center organizations have no incentive to play that game unless they want to move to the right, so the question is moot.
For example, if there was a particular liberal state governor who promoted African-Americans to prominent positions in his administration to make himself look inclusive, but didn't really pay attention to their ideas and didn't focus on issues of interest to African Americans would those individuals be house negros too? Or a CEO of a major corporation who promoted African-Americans to top spots in the company to look inclusive, but didn't really care about the social justice aspects of it, would those individuals (the VPs) be uncle toms?
Again, that's a bad question. In those situations -- and you can add academia to this as well -- the head as a rule will actually consult with such people and various "diversity" task forces to see what needs to be done because folks will hold his/her feet to the fire.
Whether Cosby and those who agree with him will be successful, I don't know. There needs to be a combination of his style of self-sufficiency along with pressure for institutional change. Either one on its own won't solve the problems.
And that's what King supported as well, from the word go. Keep in mind that the original foot-soldiers of the civil-rights movement were actually higher-class African-Americans who had position and money but despite that faced the indignities of overt racism. Boycotts, for example, worked because they had the money. Only when the movement spread from the South did issues of poverty come into it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 5, 2008 5:50 PM
Eric,
There are scads of 'house' negroes and whites and hispanics and asians too, roaming around in our highest public offices and positions in the corporatocrisy.
With proper evidence they might all be termed 'stooges'.
I like stooges better because it's less discriminatory.
I'll get back to you on the Cosby piece.
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 5:59 PM
And if they break any of our laws and get convicted they can be termed 'white' collar criminals.
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 6:03 PM
Jeff I agree with you , except I think we all would have been better off if King lived , not just blacks.
Maybe one day more people will honor his birthday then remember the day he was murdered . He is still bigger then life itself , and his memory is much like the Founding Fathers use to be to this country . remember we use to make siloutes of their faces in First Grade .
When people feel at ease to speak to King's short comings , and there were as many as any other man who walked this earth , I believe we will have come to a time when his dream is real .
Posted by: Mick | April 5, 2008 6:55 PM
Eric,
I admire your attempt to reach understanding . Belief that race has a right or left side to it needs to itis impossible to logically debate with a mindset you are dealing with here .
Obviously growing up in NJ , Spokane Washington, LA , San Diego , or where ever has aspects to develpoing our views , as does race , religion and other life's circumstances.
Liberalism fails and has always failed eventually with a free and a constitutionally protected people /
You see in liberalism their are those worthy of respect , and those who are not . PC is an old method of Liberalism/ or the socialism /communism that some here defend .
To actually believe race HAS to determines your political view point is sad indeed, easily understood how it can , but to proclaim IT HAS TO as a matter judgement on that person's sincerity it indeed makes the segrationalists and commy haters appear to have made sense .
Both line of thinking is destined to the graveyard , with God;s Grace .
The failure of liberalism , now called progressive because of the past failures of liberalism , is it takes debate , and makes it a one way conversation . How many thoughtful comments I have read here by you only to be thrown back in your face . In the name of you not be willing to a two way conversation .
Conservatism has always used ideas , and has always been hurt by bigotry . Liberalsim has always been hurt by ideas , and been helped by bigotry .
As some of the comments here have shown , even by people I respect .
Posted by: Mick | April 5, 2008 9:56 PM
What would better serve the interests of African-Americans and the country is a national conversation about good urban governance -- how to crack down on crime, reform the schools and free the economy from sclerotic government
Posted by: Don | April 5, 2008 10:17 PM
You see in liberalism their are those worthy of respect, and those who are not. PC is an old method of Liberalism/ or the socialism /communism that some here defend.
With all due respect, this is the failure of the conservative ethos, which spends much of its time and energy labeling and ridiculing people who stand in its way because of its own lust for authority. It has no solutions because it's not suppposed to have them -- everybody simply follow us and things will be fine. But in its ignorance and apathy it has always ignored history and how that mindset has caused injury. (Or death, in the case of the war in Iraq.)
To actually believe race HAS to determines your political view point is sad indeed, easily understood how it can, but to proclaim IT HAS TO as a matter judgement on that person's sincerity it indeed makes the segrationalists and commy haters appear to have made sense.
Hear this, Mick: When blacks were oppressed down South they were not asked their political ideology or religion. That blacks generally reject conservatism has to do primarily with experience. King called Barry Goldwater "one of the most dangerous men in the country; in turn, Ronald Reagan despised King.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 6, 2008 8:31 AM
I think I get it -
If you're African-American and we agree with what you say, you're a "prophet".
If you're an African-American and we disagree with what you say, you're a "stooge" or a "house negro".
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 11:54 AM
I don't think you do get it, Gordon.
There is no consensus here for the meaning of the term 'prophet', but:
A stooge is generally defined as a person that is under the control of another.
One who allows oneself to be used for another's profit or advantage; a puppet.
A person of slavish or unquestioning obedience; a lackey.
To act as a stooge, in a compliant or subordinate manner;
"He stooged for the flamboyant Senator".
Being called a stooge is not a form of praise.
origin unknown
The term stooge is more versatile than 'house negro' without carrying ugly racial overtones.
For example, the Republican majority 'rubberstamp' Congress can accurately be described as the 'Congress of stooges'. They earned this by voting for everything Bush put in front of them, regardless of whether it was good or bad for America.
Bush installed incompetent cronies as cabinet members and the heads of US government agencies, who distinguished themselves as 'the administration of stooges'.
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 1:40 PM
Whenever Bush stooges 'wandered off the Bush reservation' they were immediately fired and replaced with loyal dependable stooges.
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 1:45 PM
Gordon, you are correct. I will reiterate that it is difficult if not impossible to have political discussions with people who automatically assume bad faith in their opponents from the start. In fact, conversation is pointless, since they already assume you are holding onto beliefs you know to be wrong. I am sorry I got roped into more pointless debates that get nowhere for these reasons. This is not edifying for anyone.
Posted by: jesse | April 6, 2008 2:15 PM
I will reiterate that it is difficult if not impossible to have political discussions with people who automatically assume bad faith in their opponents from the start.
That's because the track record speaks for itself. When someone comes into a situation demancing that he/she has a right to be heard, even when critics know full well that those views have historically led to continued institutional injustices that will not be addressed in the conversation, that person's motives are to be questioned.
And, Gordon, it's not as simple as you believe. The truth is that, at least in my experience, most conservatives are so deeply insecure in what they believe that anyone who directly challenges their worldview needs to be denigrated, ignored or even destroyed. That's why the right went after Jeremiah Wright and, by inference, Barack Obama this year. That's why they tried to destroy Bill Clinton in the 1990s. That's why they tried to hang the "Communist" label on King in the 1960s. In summary, they've always scorned people who disagree with them.
But now that their critics have a forum of their own (this blog, among others), they still expect their views to be treated with respect and deference? It ain't gonna happen! There's a reason Jesus said, "You reap what you sow."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 6, 2008 2:42 PM
Some claim Shakespeare first noticed the stooge in society, inventing the character,
because many of Shakespeare's characters are stooges or puppetmasters of stooges.
Some even claim Marlowe actually wrote Shakespeare's plays,
using Shakespeare as his stooge.
The word 'stooge' came later though,
long before 'Three Stooges' arrived on the scene.
Looking back, I remember victims in the Greek Plays,
not so much the stooges.
But aren't there stooges in the Bible?
I think stooge is a great word.
I'm not afraid to use it
whenever it's appropriate,
which it is quite often these days,
don't you think?
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 2:55 PM
But aren't there stooges in the Bible?
Yep -- "court prophets" that told the king whatever he wanted to hear.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 6, 2008 3:07 PM
There you have it, Gordon.
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 4:06 PM
So getting back to Thomas Sowell:
Many of us,
after careful and thoughtful deliberation,
cannot escape the conclusion:
He's a stooge for the radical right wing wealthy elite.
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 6:06 PM
Martin Luther King Jr was the real thing.
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 6:09 PM
"The term stooge is more versatile than 'house negro' without carrying ugly racial overtones."
Agreed. It's just rude and irrelevant to call someone a stooge because you disagree with him.
I read Tomas Sowell, agree often with what he says, though sometimes he goes a bit over the top as do all the pundits. Maybe he's right or wrong on any occasion, and perhaps you disagree with what he has to say in general. But calling names doesn't contribute to the discourse. And attributing dishonest motives merely because you find his ideas disagreeable isn't worthy of your usual respectful level of discourse.
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 6:40 PM
"Martin Luther King Jr was the real thing."
I'd agree with that. What "real thing" exactly is a more interesting question.
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 6:44 PM
How would you answer it, Gordon?
Posted by: justintime | April 6, 2008 7:12 PM
A visionary preacher who called us all (long overdue) to repentance.
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 7:17 PM
"Yep -- "court prophets" that told the king whatever he wanted to hear."
They were called false prophets during the time of Master Jeremiah.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 6, 2008 9:29 PM
But calling names doesn't contribute to the discourse. And attributing dishonest motives merely because you find his ideas disagreeable isn't worthy of your usual respectful level of discourse.
That's what we're trying to explain -- his views are disagreeable precisely because of the context in which they occur. Of course the motives are dishonest; were it not for the infrastructure I mentioned earlier, we would never had heard of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Armstrong Williams, Clarence Thomas, Star Parker or any of them.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 6, 2008 10:07 PM
"Of course the motives are dishonest; were it not for the infrastructure I mentioned earlier, we would never had heard of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Armstrong Williams, Clarence Thomas, Star Parker or any of them."
I just don't buy it. Everytime I hear this argument it end up amounting to "they must be stooges because they don't say the kind of things I expect other African Americans to say - and because they;re stooges, they're not worth hearing anyway." The argument is always circular.
I very much doubt there is some cabal out there that goes looking for intelligent and educated African Americans to subvert. It is reasonable to believe that there are African Americans (even educated and thoughtful African Americans) who are genuinely conservative. One would do better to deal with their views, and not call them names.
Posted by: Gordon | April 6, 2008 10:27 PM
I very much doubt there is some cabal out there that goes looking for intelligent and educated African Americans to subvert. It is reasonable to believe that there are African Americans (even educated and thoughtful African Americans) who are genuinely conservative.
Oh, I know for a fact that there is such a cabal; I had first heard about it while reading the wires at work, and in one article some of those folks who were involved told their stories -- it was how I learned that Loury and Woodson quit the AEI for the reason I mentioned.
On top of that, about 10 years ago I wrote an op-ed that was published in my newspaper that supported a conservative position and in which I disagreed with a position the NAACP endorsed. Not long afterward a newsletter, "Issues and Views," from a black conservative group I had never heard of appeared in my mailbox at work; as part of its mission it intended to "take power from [among others] the NAACP." It is no secret that white conservatives deeply despise the NAACP, of which I have never been a member, because of its voting-rights efforts in the South, where it was actually banned in some states. (I know now that the group was trying to recruit me.)
Some years ago we received these faxes at work from what was supposedly a grass-roots group that was trying to remove Jesse Jackson as a civil-rights leader by suing him -- but I noticed that they came from the very same fax as Judicial Watch, a right-wing group which tried to bankrupt Bill Clinton when he was president, also with frivolous lawsuits; later it wanted to send us a communique that would, in its mind, "finish off Bill and Hillary."
Anyway, if there were any region where African-Americans might be ideologically conservative, it would be the South -- after all, most Southern cities always had a thriving black middle-class even under (and perhaps because of) segregation, and Southern blacks are often deeply religious, hard-working and quite disciplined, just what the conservatives hope. But remember that Martin Luther King Jr., whom more than a few conservatives resent to this day, came from that culture -- he was upper-class for that day, as was the church he was pastoring in Montgomery, Ala. when the bus boycott was organized -- and today Democratic candidates of any race have no chance of winning an election without black voters. According to the Washington Post, 90 percent of African-Americans voted for John Kerry for president in 2004.
All in all, blacks and conservatism simply don't mix.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 7, 2008 12:03 AM
I forgot to mention: The Washington Post reported that 90 percent of African-Americans in the state of Alabama voted for Kerry.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 7, 2008 12:05 AM
"All in all, blacks and conservatism simply don't mix."
Your argument was that most African Americans aren't conservative. It doesn't support the above-captioned conclusion. That a small proportion of African Americans is conservative is not presumptive evidence that the conservatives among them aren't right, or that their motives are less than pristine. Perhaps there will a movement sometime in the future in a more conservative direction. Such things have happened.
Your evidence for the "cabal" just sounds to me like a political advocacy group trying to enlist the help of people they think are sympathetic to their views. Nothing wrong with that. I mistakenly signed-up on a liberal Senator's website last year, and got a lot of liberal spam for a while until I let them know I wasn't interested. I didn't hold it against them and didn't blame them - they were just trying to enlist help from their constituency. I still get periodic emails from Sojo. They have no way of knowing I'm as conservative as I am. Most people who sign up with them are.
Posted by: Gordon | April 7, 2008 12:22 AM
That last should have been, " . . .most people who sign up with them aren't."
Posted by: Gordon | April 7, 2008 12:23 AM
Rick,
Thanks for the education on when it's appropriate to use this particular racial slur in polite Christian conversation. I'll keep it in mind.
Posted by: Erci | April 7, 2008 9:22 AM
Your argument was that most African Americans aren't conservative. It doesn't support the above-captioned conclusion. That a small proportion of African Americans is conservative is not presumptive evidence that the conservatives among them aren't right, or that their motives are less than pristine. Perhaps there will a movement sometime in the future in a more conservative direction. Such things have happened.
If such were the case, it would have happened long, long ago. However, as justintime wrote earlier, the GOP can no longer win a major election without pandering to racist sentiments, though couched in less inflammatory language, and since blacks understand the true meaning of those "code words" (e.g. "forced busing," "law-and-order" and "welfare queens"), there's no reason in their view to support conservative policies.
Let's take conservative demigod Ronald Reagan. These things were true about him:
1) When he was governor of California he opposed the civil-rights movement and denigrated King upon his assassination.
2) He kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign at a picnic near Philadelphia, Miss., near where three civil-rights workers were murdered, and announced that he favored "states' rights" -- another of those code words for racist policies.
3) When he signed the bill making Martin Luther King Jr. Day a federal holiday, he turned to ideological ally, then-Sen. Jesse Helms, who opposed it on the ridiculous charge that King was a Communist and had asked him about that and responded, "We'll know soon enough, won't we?" (Interestingly enough, it wasn't enacted until 1989, when he was no longer president.)
4) He refused to meet with black leaders throughout his presidency.
5) He proved a de facto supporter of apartheid in South Africa, again using the excuse of Communism.
As for the newsletter I got, you have to consider: Since it's so small, how could it stay afloat financially? I know the answer to that: About half-a-dozen financiers, the largest one in my city and who in fact publishes a competing newspaper, around the country who have been cutting checks for conservative advocacy groups since the 1960s. (There is as of yet no comparable liberal network.)
And do you know what the real goal of "compassionate conservatism" was? To shut down and shut up people like Jeremiah Wright, who had no love for conservative policies and preached against them in the pulpit -- you know, it looks awfully bad when fellow Christians oppose you.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 7, 2008 9:41 AM
Thanks for the education on when it's appropriate to use this particular racial slur in polite Christian conversation. I'll keep it in mind.
If it were truly a "racial slur" it wouldn't be.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 7, 2008 9:44 AM
Rick -
You do a good job of explaining one of the more entertaining leftist conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Gordon | April 7, 2008 9:50 AM
Mick,
Thank you for your kind words. I agree that race is one of many different factors that influence one’s political views. Who we are and where we come from deeply influences our thoughts and ideas. But to say that because someone is X ethnicity therefore he or she must hold Y political view is ridiculous. And to add insult to this, some people apparently think that if that person doesn’t adhere to the above rule that it is therefore appropriate in polite conversation among Christians to call them racially derogatory or other negative names, instead of challenging their faulty ideas. We all need to make a better effort at not attacking people personally, but challenging people's words and actions.
Some people here have taken this a step further. They’ve decided that conservatism is, as a way of thinking, “racist”. Not just that some conservatives are racist, but that conservatism itself is racist. Others have said that the Republican Party is “evil”. Once someone has come to that conclusion it’s almost impossible to have a rational discussion with them. And why would it be?
I think Nazism was an evil ideology. I couldn’t bring myself to have an open, honest discussion with someone who thought Hitler was really onto something good and just. I just don’t think I’d be able to because of the odiousness of Nazism. Once one has decided that an ideology is that bad that is must be labeled “racist” or “evil” he or she has basically made it impossible to have a decent discussion with people who have sympathies for that ideology. If their ideas are so far beyond the pale one ends up losing a sense of rationality when talking with them.
Posted by: Eric | April 7, 2008 9:59 AM
Rick:As for the newsletter I got, you have to consider: Since it's so small, how could it stay afloat financially? I know the answer to that: About half-a-dozen financiers, the largest one in my city and who in fact publishes a competing newspaper, around the country who have been cutting checks for conservative advocacy groups since the 1960s.
Rick must be referring to Richard Mellon Scaife, alcoholic billionaire heir to the Mellon fortune and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review since 1970.
Scaife spends between $20 and 30 million a year keeping the Tribune Review afloat according to his divorce papers.
With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.
Scaife was the major backer of The American Spectator, whose 'Arkansas Project' set out to find facts about Clinton and in which Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against Clinton were first widely publicized.
Scaife also funded the Western Journalism Center, headed by Joseph Farah. Farah has been connected to reconstructionism, a movement to replace judicial law with Christian Old Testament law. The organization is antigay, and would move to punish "practicing homosexuals" by sentencing them to death.
When Scaife refocused his political giving away from individuals and toward anti-communist research groups, legal defense funds, and publications, the first among these was the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
Through contacts made at Hoover and elsewhere, Scaife became a major, early supporter of the Heritage Foundation, which has since become one of Washington's most influential public policy research institutes.
Another major contributor to conservative disinformation is the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who has dumped billions, yes billions, into the right wing publication "The Washington Times", the favorite news organ of DC Conservatives. He also publishes Insight, another right wing organ that consistently loses money.
It takes a lot of money to keep the truth buried in America.
Posted by: justintime | April 7, 2008 10:10 AM
Rick - You do a good job of explaining one of the more entertaining leftist conspiracy theories.
The 'vast right wing conspiracy' is no longer a theory, Gordon.
Posted by: justintime | April 7, 2008 10:15 AM
Thanks for the education on when it's appropriate to use this particular racial slur in polite Christian conversation. I'll keep it in mind.- Eric
Remember, Eric, this is a political blog, not a Church social.
Posted by: justintime | April 7, 2008 10:20 AM
"Remember, Eric, this is a political blog, not a Church social."
Yeah, but it's a political blog with a Christian outlook that claims to be interested in Christian values.
Posted by: Gordon | April 7, 2008 10:46 AM
Is it OK if you're a Christian and polite with your racism?
Posted by: justintime | April 7, 2008 11:41 AM
Eric,
I can see your point. I actually agree with you. Once someone has labeled something that they don't understand as evil, "new age," "gay..." they tend to elevate themselves above real dialog.
By and large depending on generation, location and culture most black folks are democrats but please don't confuse them with liberals. Most of them aren't. Just look at the south and see that blacks overwhelmingly supported conservative causes when they matched with whatever conservative evangelical crap was coming out at the time.
I am a real black leftist, and I can tell you that many folks in their thirties tend to be extremely left of center (especially the middle class,) and folks become more left leaning the younger they get. But by and large black conservatives are shunned because they don't care much about the community or the people, taking rewards,... in conservative circles while never doing much to reach out and connect to people.
Look at Ward Connerly, he is loved by conservatives (especially the extreme variety) while he is shunned within the black community. For many black people it is easy to see him as someone that hates his own culture. His statements about race tow the conservative line but there are times where he has not chosen to still be apart of the black community. Why would he? Black folks have shown him no love but it's still his responsibility to remember the culture he comes from and since he seems to not care as much then he is not taken seriously.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 7, 2008 1:36 PM
Wow. I log off Sojo late Friday afternoon and don't come back until Monday morning.
Obviously, my "house Negro" didn't sit well with many folks. Calling out moral ugliness and hypocrisy is never pretty.
Thomas Sowell isn't just a well-meaning, sincere conservative who just happens to be black, he's allowed himself--for reasons of money? fame? prestige?--to become a well-paid lackey for the American Right think-tank network.
If you think that ungracious, spend some time reading the man's columns and notice his unrelenting belittling of anyone who disagrees with his ideology.
kevin s, if you've been disowned by family members because you and your wife adopted a child who is part African American, then maybe--just maybe--you have the moral authority to charge me with being a racist.
Posted by: carl copas | April 7, 2008 1:58 PM
"His statements about race tow the conservative line but there are times where he has not chosen to still be apart of the black community. Why would he? Black folks have shown him no love but it's still his responsibility to remember the culture he comes from and since he seems to not care as much then he is not taken seriously."
--I think you bring up an important point, Payshun. While it is important for Connerly and others to be a part of the black community, I think it's easy to underestimate the effect of the animosity, insults, and contempt directed towards black conservatives. Why would they want to be a part of a community that has shown so much hatred towards them? When little effort is made to converse with black conservatives and they are automatically written off as "house