Jump to content

Why the Republican Party is a better fit for African Americans


Troy

Recommended Posts

One of my "bots" found this article, Why the Republican Party is a better fit for African Americans, and posted it on Facebook for me. I noticed it got a lot of clicks so I decided to check the article out myself.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm sure there are righteous and kind people in both parties as well as evil ones. I don't think either party really serves the people, so the whole rigid allegiance with one party over the other does not resonated with me.

Because of the way I think, the whole idea that a group of people have so completely embraced the democratic party is something I simply can't fathom. White folks are free to be in either party based upon their belief, but Black people are vilified by other Blacks for being Republican.

Worse, our allegiance to the Democratic party effectively renders our vote useless. It is just a given our vote will go to a democrat who can, in turn, overtly ignore Black issues.

I think we would be better off without parties. Perhaps then, people could vote on candidates based upon issues, and candidates would be unable to take a vote for granted simply because they were Black and democratic.

ccc4345fc20c747f64136ccd269151d6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say about the Republicans the same thing I say about the Afro-centric people, revering the motherland and reaching out to it, WTF have you done for me lately? The only thing Republicans did for black folks was to free the slaves then desert them during Reconstruction.. :huh:

Ol racist, aristocratic, Democrat FDR. pulled black folks along with the rest of the country out of the doldrums of the depression with the National Recovery Act, a program that put my Uncle back to work with the WPA and sent my brother went off to CMTC camp in Ft Riley Kansas an experience he greatly learned from. My parents were the recipient of relief funds that suppied us with oat meal and milk and kept other free food on our table to keep us from starving. I have a copy of a slave narrative that my grandfather who was a freed slave dictated to one of the representatives of the Arts project that was created during the depression era, putting to work people who were dispersed throughout the country to record these documents. Later in life, my parents collected social security pensons. Ol feisty Democrat Harry Truman signed the bill to integrate the arm forces something my air force veteran husband appreciated. Good ol boy Democrat LBJ shoved through congress a massive civil rights bill. Crumbs, I know, but then nobody is this country gets the the whole loaf of bread. A fact of life, in the real world.

Yes, we know the old lecher Bill Clinton hurt Lani Guinier's feelings when she wanted to infuse her radical politics into her appointed position, and enacted the "3 strikes you're out" legislation into the judical system. He also balanced the budget and introduced the family leave provisions into the work place and kept us out of war. Unlike Democrat Jimmy Carter, Republican Ronald Reagan was never a friend to black people. Colin Powell co-signed to the Bush-Cheney non-existant weapons of mass destruction deception that ignited the long costly Iraq war. Democrat Obama approved the mission to bring Osama bi Ladin down.

I'm not here to canonize the Democrat rascals, but I am here to question the idea that Republicans give a damn about the problems of black people and care whether or not we throw in with them, or if we voted for them, they would reward us. What have the people you pictured done for us except to serve as poster children for oreos. :P

BTW, Condi Rice would be a good running mate for Romney but those conservative Republicans are having a fit about the idea of putting a black woman on the ticket. They also treat MIchael Steele like a step child, and they ousted him from his job when he was head of the RNC because he got too uppity. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Troy, you need to add Clayton Bigsby to those images; that looks like a collage of black white supremists.

As an aside... Have we ever thought about how we play into our own dehumanization and our disassociation from our ancestors when we refer to them as "the slave"?

"Even the most enlightened history books about our people refer to us as 'slaves'. We weren't slaves; we were enslaved. We were captive."-Mumia Abu-Jamal

"[That's an important point]. Words like 'slave' allow our humanity to be stripped away. Slaves were brought to America. People were."- Marc Lamont Hill

Some of us are even quick to refer to patriotic land hijackers as "our forefathers" yet when it comes to our own blood, they are "the slaves".-

Sure there are many of us who are called ' Afrocentric' who romanticize Africa, but how can they be blamed for this? All they have known is the life of exiles in a foreign land. Then there are some of us who are not concerned with the romanticization but with the building of solidarity of continental and diasporan Africans in the spirit of those such as Marcus Garvey, who was a man with very great and practical ideas yet he was surrounded by people who could have helped to make them happen had their minds not been so occupied with the work of building for and working in the best interests of others vs themselves. Yet all is definitely not lost.

Some black people are republicans for the very reasons that some black people believe in the democratic party; they appreciate the amenities that it offers them. Many black republicans are businesspeople so while republican initiatives and policies might not be the best for the "regular people" of the black community, they are the best for the businesses/investments that these black republicans are involved in and for the communities that these black republicans live in. Sadly, such black republicans have more incentives to be republicans than black democrats have to be democrats. Yet, the blind allegiance that our people have to the democratic party continues and to make matters worse, those of our people who are democrats are teaching the children to carry the same blind allegiance. It's like something that is done primarily for the sake of tradition.

All that being said, however, here is the take away... and it comes to us from Troy.

I don't think either party really serves the people, so the whole rigid allegiance with one party over the other does not resonate with me

.

On a fun note, Herman Cain would have probably been on Romney's VP ticket had he not "fallen from grace" re: sexual allegations. (Actually most likely NOT!!) :-D ...But here is the republican's party to prove that someone like Herman Cain ever even had a chance. Let's see if Alan West will be on the VP ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised at the name of the person WaterStar quoted who resorted to semantic nit-pickin when it comes to whether or not a person held captive by a master who forces him to do his bidding is a "slave" or not. It's usually people who have divested themselves of their given names who focus on minutiae like this. "Mumia Abu-Jamal 's real name was probably Willie Jones, He probably has dread locks and wears a kofi and sits around spouting gems of wisdom about all the great figures in history who were really black, -while he's eyeing a white woman. He hates this country and everything it stands for, but hasn't relocated to Africa because he doesn't want to give up his amenities. One thing's for sure; if Marcus Garvey had succeeded, we wouldn't have to be debating the merits of the 2-party system, but we might be hoping George Cloony showed up soon so we could get some aid, maybe even hoping Angelina Jolie might pick one of our starving children to be her next pet. :(

Anyhow, guess when ol Abe freed the plantation workers, he uncaptived them. Of course history books refer to the servants on a plantation as "slaves"! These volumes are written in the English language which has a part-of-speech known as a synonym, a perfectly good device that allows words to be interchangeable The people who were captured over in West Africa to be sent to this country were sold into slavery, making their status that of a slave. All people aren't slaves, but all slaves are people because animals can't cook and clean and look after the massa and Miz Ann. It underestimates the intelligence of people to assume that they can't figure this out and know what the word "slave" implies by the context in which it is used. :mellow:

I have never heard any black person refer to the framers of the constitution or the plantation owners as "our forefathers". ( But I guess Thomas Jefferson's black descendants could technically do this.)

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Republicans suck. And my ancestors were "slaves" because they worked without getting paid. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

back-republicans.jpg

Waterstar the original picture was lifted from the original article cited, so I can;t take credit for it. In fact I would never have created such a collage. However your suggestion that I add Clayton made me laugh.

Even through Clayton is a fictitious character and does not really belong, I decided to add him. For good measure, I added Uncle Ruckus another one of my favorite self-hating Negroes.

Cynique, as far as I can tell we were enslaved and therefore slaves. I don't believe the use of either word would change anything. I generally, for PC reasons use "enslaved". In much the way I use Black or African American, when 50 years ago I would have used Negro, much to the same effect. I prefer Black nowadays cause it is shorter. Maybe I'll rename the site to Black American Book Club -- sounds like something from the 60's huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised at the name of the person WaterStar quoted who resorted to semantic nit-pickin when it comes to whether or not a person held captive by a master who forces him to do his bidding is a "slave" or not. It's usually people who have divested themselves of their given names who focus on minutiae like this. "Mumia Abu-Jamal 's real name was probably Willie Jones, He probably has dread locks and wears a kofi and sits around spouting gems of wisdom about all the great figures in history who were really black, -while he's eyeing a white woman. He hates this country and everything it stands for, but hasn't relocated to Africa because he doesn't want to give up his amenities. One thing's for sure; if Marcus Garvey had succeeded, we wouldn't have to be debating the merits of the 2-party system, but we might be hoping George Cloony showed up soon so we could get some aid, maybe even hoping Angelina Jolie might pick one of our starving children to be her next pet. :(

Anyhow, guess when ol Abe freed the plantation workers, he uncaptived them. Of course history books refer to the servants on a plantation as "slaves"! These volumes are written in the English language which has a part-of-speech known as a synonym, a perfectly good device that allows words to be interchangeable The people who were captured over in West Africa to be sent to this country were sold into slavery, making their status that of a slave. All people aren't slaves, but all slaves are people because animals can't cook and clean and look after the massa and Miz Ann. It underestimates the intelligence of people to assume that they can't figure this out and know what the word "slave" implies by the context in which it is used. :mellow:

I have never heard any black person refer to the framers of the constitution or the plantation owners as "our forefathers". ( But I guess Thomas Jefferson's black descendants could technically do this.)

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Republicans suck. And my ancestors were "slaves" because they worked without getting paid. :angry:

Actually, Cynique, my purpose was not at all semantic nit picking. To tell you the truth, I recently brought this point up the other day to an organization that I am a part of and I have thought like that for a very long time, but the point was articulated so well in the book that I had recently read by Mumia Abu-Jamal and Marc Lamont Hill that I definitely wanted to share it to make us consider our use of such a reference as "the slaves". I am aware that you cannot quote any of my words that suggest that I was suggesting that the use of the term negates the fact that our people were forced to be exploited and to provide free labor. On the other hand, I am aware that you could quote the words that I used suggesting that we examine our use of that term in reference to how it negates the humanity of our people and our connection to them.

On Mumia Abu-Jamal, the name that he was given by his parents is Wesley Cook. He had a very notable career as a journalist that went very well until he started using his position in media to give the voiceless a voice. He had been an activist for most of his young life, but his politics really became refined during his college days. As is the case with many of our people, especially the ones who could best articulate the conditions of the people to the people, who were targeted, by covert government operations at that time, Mumia Abu-Jamal was framed for the murder of a police officer just like Angela Davis was, but luckily in the case of Davis, she was acquitted of the bogus charges. Mumia Abu-Jamal, on the other hand, is a political prisoner to this day who had spent the bulk of his prison sentence on death row. In spite of his own personal struggles, Mumia, who is an award winning journalist, continues to resist and struggle to give voice to the voiceless from prison.

At the time of his arrest for the 1981 killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, Abu-Jamal was a well-respected journalist. Philadelphia Magazine named him one of the city's "people to watch," and he was the elected president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. Juan Gonzales, a columnist for the New York Daily News, calls Abu-Jamal "one of the most brilliant and committed journalists I ever met."

TROY! BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You got Uncle Ruckus up there, too!! HILARIOUS!! :D (I swear I can hear that trumbone playing sometimes as I read.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video has the words backward, but I couldn't find another link with the full Bigsby story, so I'm posting it anyway.

The black white supremacist, Clayton Bigsby. :D For those of you who haven't seen this, Bisby is tthe leader of the KKK...and he's black. LOL He's blind. No one had ever told him that he was black and the KKK members didn't know because he'd always worn a hood. Wait until you find out why he left his wife. This is too hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i9iTYe6tEk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains a mystery to me, Waterstar, why you espouse the idea that Blacks today have to be reminded that the transplanted Africans from whom they are descended, were "people" with humanity. Who amongst our race thinks that they were sub-human creatures without souls???? Or, is the word "slave" a label reserved for black servants on white southern plantations. A slave is a slave, and these unfortunate captives, of all colors and circumstances, have existed throughout the ages, and the English word "slave" is one of many used define them.

But, everybody is free to put their spin on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynique, I notice that most of the time that I spend responding to your questions to me is spent on my telling you that I never said or implied the the things that you have inferred.

I certainly enjoy interacting with you for many reasons and I will definitely continue to interact with you as much as you allow me to do so and I view each instance of interaction is always one in which something, even if inadvertently so, can be learned and/or taught.. However, I am not going to continue to go back and forth over things that I never once said and repeating my purpose of stating things that I say when the other party is not really interested in clarification but the further countering of things that I never once said or implied.

In other news, I'm not sure if this guy is a republican, but my wild guess would be yes. Even if he is not, he could make the list as an honorary member. :-)

Ol "Uncle" Joe

(Trust me, it gets more hilarious as it goes along. It's not supposed to be hilarious, but it definitely is. LOL "Coona$$" is a term of endearment.)

In Living Color's Clarence Thomas skit.

(This one is actually "supposed' to be funny.) :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"[That's an important point]. Words like 'slave' allow our humanity to be stripped away. Slaves were brought to America. People were."- Marc Lamont Hill"

The above is the quote that you posted that inspired my response. If you don't agree with what it says, then all you had to do to correct my "inferences", was to say that you didn't.

You are an "artful dodger" who chooses to deny rather than clarify. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynique, I notice that most of the time that I spend responding to your questions to me is spent on my telling you that I never said or implied the the things that you have inferred.

I certainly enjoy interacting with you for many reasons and I will definitely continue to interact with you as much as you allow me to do so and I view each instance of interaction is always one in which something, even if inadvertently so, can be learned and/or taught.. However, I am not going to continue to go back and forth over things that I never once said and repeating my purpose of stating things that I say when the other party is not really interested in clarification but the further countering of things that I never once said or implied.

...

Hey Waterstar, you are aware aren't you, that this is Cynique's Corner?

Seriously though, I understand your point Waterstar. My take is that you can expect to have your posts challenged and/or questioned on this discussion board. Concurrence is typically less interesting. This "feature" of the board is not intended to discourage.

If misunderstood or misquoted try considering it part of a process.

And remember, if you are explaining yourself, you are probably not YET affecting some of your audience as intended.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breathebooks, you get it:

  • "If misunderstood or misquoted try considering it part of a process."
  • "you can expect to have your posts challenged and/or questioned"
  • "This "feature" of the board is not intended to discourage"
  • Concurrence is typically less interesting

This is not to say that Waterstar and Cynique don't get it they do, but your short little post spells it all out quite succinctly.

Your point also explains why many find this type of communication difficult and others find it challenging.

It is not easy to communicate, an opinion clearly and defend it in public -- but that difficulty is what makes it fun. People are less willing to engage in difficult or challenging things, even if it is just reading a challenging book or walking a few blocks...

I've changed my position on various things and learned a few things over the years -- through many of these conversations. Thanks all of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterstar the living color video led me to this video of Clarence Thomas on 60 minutes:

Thomas is perhaps the most vilified Black man, by Black people in the history of the country. While Steve Kroft did a decent job with the interview -- especially when he summed up the public's opinion of Thomas, but a Black person would have a WHOLE 'notter set of questions ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Waterstar, you are aware aren't you, that this is Cynique's Corner?

Seriously though, I understand your point Waterstar. My take is that you can expect to have your posts challenged and/or questioned on this discussion board. Concurrence is typically less interesting. This "feature" of the board is not intended to discourage.

If misunderstood or misquoted try considering it part of a process.

And remember, if you are explaining yourself, you are probably not YET affecting some of your audience as intended.

Greetings, Breathebooks. I am totally aware that this is Cynique's Corner. In fact, this is the brief description of this particular forum:

Culture, Race & Economy Discussion Forum - Cynique's Corner

This board's purpose is to facilitate the exchange of opinions, ideas, facts, and information as it relates to Black people in America, Africa, and the rest of the Diaspora. In 2011, this discussion forum was renamed "Cynique's Corner" to honor a brilliant and prolific contributor to our conversations.

Most of what I post is directly related to black people in America, Africa, and the rest of the Diaspora. In addition, I have no argument a'tall about the honoree being brilliant and profilic. She definitely is.

Beind misunderstood is probably a part of life and being misquoted in a conversation is probably a part of conversation. However, there is difference one being misquoted and one habitually countering points that were never made by you. The latter can be likened to arguing with a delusional person who doesn't have the first penny yet is claiming that you stole $3,000.00 from them. What is the purpose of going back and forth in such a situation?

Someone might go on about that, but it certainly will not be me. Debating is cool, but not constantly over points that I know that I never made and it is just one person that seems to habitually challenge me on points that I never made. lol ("I don't have your $3,000.00. Peace".)

Every response to something that was not said or implied brings another response about something that was not said or ever implied and so if there is anything that I am avoiding, it is the continuation of that cycle. As far as affecting my audience, I worry about that under certain circumstances and trust me, that is quite rare. I have long learned that in this life, we touch those who are for us to touch. Don't like what I say? That's cool. Like what I say? That's cool. Indifferent to what I say? That's cool. Don't like what I never said and expect me to defend it? That is what it is, but I will only do that but so much. There are many things that one can worry about in life and controlling the perceptions of others (especially because it is not something that I can do anyway) is definitely not one of them. There is none so blind as he who will not see and for such a situation, no glasses nor surgery can remedy that. My recognizing this, however, is not synonymous to my being "discouraged". :D I'm young-er, but not that young. Of all the things in life that inspire suicide, what Cynique thinks or what anyone else thinks is definitely not one. (But if anything changes, I promise to scan my suicide not here first. It will likely read, "SEE WHAT YOU DID, CYNIQUE???")

@ Cynique, I don't have any new words for this old situation.

I certainly enjoy interacting with you for many reasons and I will definitely continue to interact with you as much as you allow me to do so and I view each instance of interaction is always one in which something, even if inadvertently so, can be learned and/or taught.. However, I am not going to continue to go back and forth over things that I never once said and repeating my purpose of stating things that I say when the other party is not really interested in clarification but the further countering of things that I never once said or implied.

Troy, it's something that you would post that interview. I had actually started to post it. :-)

I can only imagine how his grandfather feels about the path that Thomas has chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the artful dodger rides on. :ph34r: Just what are your sentiments about the term "slave" "dehumazing" black "people" who were brought here to this country. WaterStar? If you can bring yourself to answer, I won't challenge anything you haven't said. But I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting for you to respond. You're too busy attempting to expose what you think is a tactic on my part, - the rebutting of something you haven't said. Try on. My responses were relative to the quote YOU posted. I didn't distort the gist of it. But in the throes of your vacillation, you have distanced yourself from the opinion of a man who your ensuing words indicated that you respected. Oops! How dare I infer that you respect him!!! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you, but I actually have a thing for keeping my eye on politics. If you have watched politicians go back and forth, you can notice how two politicians can be debating a particular issue and how the craftier politician will twist the other politician's words to shape the conversation into a debate that he really wants to have. The politician who is not as crafty gets so caught up into a whole 'nother debate, one that usually starts with his saying, "You're twisting my words!" nevertheless it often ends in being a debate that the first politician wanted to have about the issues that the first politician wanted to debate about. If the second politician were as crafty as the first, he would tell the first politician that he is aware that his words are being twisted to divert yet that he would stick to the issue that is supposed to be being debated. Often though, the audience, which is in most cases made up of those who are less crafty than both politicians, is won over by the craftier politician and the issue that they came to hear debated is not even debated; they walk out as unclear about the issue as they were when they walked in the room.

Cynique, figuratively speaking, I can't keep telling you that I don't have your $3,000, because you don't believe me, no matter how many times I tell you that I don't. lol IWhat do you expect to come out of the situation when you keep challenging me to return the $3,000 that I never stole, furthermore, the $3,000.00 that you never had? Hey, I have never minded your challenging anything that I have said. It's just that your challenging things that I never say leads to a conversations like the one that we've had in here.

You made something personal that was never intended to be personal. It was not an attack on what you said, certainly not an attack on what you never said. It was simply something that I was sharing with the collective, something that many of us, even the best of us do without having ever given thought to it. You took this as my nit-picking and I clearly told you in my initial response to you what I just recapitulated here, but you kept going on about my saying things that I didn't say. It seems that you have looked at the one that is standing next to you, thinking that she is grasping for straws when it is actually the person adjacent to her who is grasping for straws.

Challenge anything that I say, by all means. For the sake of clarity though, please just quote the specific words that I say, give your interpretation of the words that you have just quoted, and then challenge it. You might feel like all of that is unnecessary. If so, I feel u, because I feel the same way when it is not done in this way.

I will tell you what I will do, though. I will share some expressed thoughts that are in keeping with my intentions for bringing up the our using the term "the slaves" .Even if I hear a young brother or sister say "the slaves", I say the same thing. Maybe you will understand why I said it or maybe you will continue to think that I was merely nit-picking.

The term "slave" turns a human being into an object, so even inadvertently, we play into our own dehumanization by playing into the dehumanization of our people. Furthermore, using "the slaves" in thought and in speech serves to disconnect us from our people.

It seems little, but when we think about it, it is no way some little thing. Let us stop referring to our ancestors who were abducted, enslaved, raped, bred like cattle, beaten, lynched, maimed, etc. (as if that were not dehumanizing enough, imagine your own descendants playing into your dehumanization) as "the slaves". Let us teach the children from early on to never refer to those ancestors who were enslaved as "slaves".

Have you ever thought about when people use the term "slaves" vs "enslaved blacks or Africans"?

Say for example should one say:

"Slaves built the White House." or "Enslaved Africans built the White House."

"My grand mother's mother was as slave." or "My grand mother's mother was enslaved."

"The Williams plantation had over 200 slaves." or "The Williams plantation enslaved over 200 blacks or Africans.

I think when one only says "slaves" they take the condition away from the human condition and the impact of the condition. But, when one always says "enslaved" or "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved blacks" it always gives a full condition of the people and it expresses that these humans were not in agreement to the condition forced upon them.

"The first European country to import African slaves to the Americas was ...."

or

"The first European country to import enslaved Africans to the Americas was ...."

I think when one only says "slaves" they take the condition away from the human condition and the impact of the condition. But, when one always says "enslaved" or "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved blacks" it always gives a full condition of the people and it expresses that these humans were not in agreement to the condition forced upon them.

I came across an interesting article. I will soon post it. As with everything in this forum which is your namesake, you are always welcome to read it.

Back on the collage, can we add Armstrong Williams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I accuse you of having my $3,000 dollars? You, of all people, making inferences about something I never said by framing it in the phrase "figuratively speaking ". :P

OK, WaterStar, I'm done. Quibbling about the merits of using the adjective "enslaved" as opposed to the noun "slave" is an abstract exercise in futility, especially since I wouldn't presume to know how the "people" in question thought of themselves. My point remains that it goes without saying that the progeny of Africa captives are well aware that they are descended from human beings who were victims of the slave trade. Everybody is sympathetic toward these involuntary laborers and debating about which word better describes their servitude strikes me as redundant. But, I have to remind myself, that you are a teacher and this influences your approach to things. :mellow:

BTW, my named being attached to this site affords me no special privileges or obligations. I'm actually too lethargic to come up with things to discuss, and I'm sure Troy appreciates you and boitumelo supplying material to spark my contrariness. <_<

I do have to admit that I ain't had this much fun since my marathon sparrings with Kola Boof! I think you and her would probably get along quite well. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are funny, Cynique. :D

Ant any rate, this is where I got the $3,000.00 dollars thing from:

Being misunderstood is probably a part of life and being misquoted in a conversation is probably a part of conversation. However, there is difference one being misquoted and one habitually countering points that were never made by you. The latter can be likened to arguing with a delusional person who doesn't have the first penny yet is claiming that you stole $3,000.00 from them. What is the purpose of going back and forth in such a situation?

Someone might go on about that, but it certainly will not be me. Debating is cool, but not constantly over points that I know that I never made and it is just one person that seems to habitually challenge me on points that I never made. lol ("I don't have your $3,000.00. Peace".)

Why wouldn't I get along with Kola Boof quite well? She is my sister, as are you. What would keep me from getting along with my sisters; their perceptions about my perceptions? No way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL!

Waterstar, have you considered that you did not post the 60 minutes idea because it presented a more balanced portray of the man. While 60 Minutes did shy away from the controversy surrounding the man they showed another side of Thomas. A side that Black folks want to ignore. People are very complex.

As far as the collage I have no problem with any of the folks in them. Since I've been an adult I have not expected Black people to behave in stereo typical "black" ways. In fact I actually respect Black folks that express and opinion that goes counter to the standard Black position. It takes courage to do this. I don't have to agree with them, but in this regard I do respect them.

MLK was vilified by many if not most in the Black community when he started out. Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and other great leaders were also rejected by the majority of Black people. MLK, Malcolm, had courage -- courage that has not been demonstrated by likes of Obama or the vast majority of other politicians.

As far as the collage, Armstrong Williams is fine. I added the fictional characters in jest. I not sure we are doing ourselves any favors by casting folks like Condi and Colin as traitors to the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually do like Colin and Condi because they are moderates, maybe even Independents masquerading as Republicans.

I appreciate your being fair in not judging Black maveriks, Troy. One of the hardest things I find to do is to be objective enough to respect conservative black Republicans; especially the young hot shots who always strike me as striving too hard to "act white".They actually repel me because it's like they are trying to escape their blackness, rather than diversify the Republican party.

It's true that at first MLK met with resistance from southern black leaders who didn't want to rock the boat because they were the ones who would be the targets of white retaliation. Up North, we just adored Dr. King from the start because he was so eloquent and on point and most of all because we had the luxury of agreeing with him without participating in his activism. Malcolm X didn't meet with that much resistance among blacks because we liked the way he rubbed white peoples noses in their shit, and because he never advised us to turn the other cheek or embrace nonviolence. The Black Panthers never enjoyed widespread acceptance, because they were too radical. Revolution was great as the subject of fiery rhetoric, but nobody ever really believed that we could overthrow the government, even at local levels. Urban police forces had no trouble with fighting fire with fire and would shoot you down in the street or your bed as was the case with Panther leader, Fred Hampton, all of this with the approval of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL!

Waterstar, have you considered that you did not post the 60 minutes idea because it presented a more balanced portray of the man. While 60 Minutes did shy away from the controversy surrounding the man they showed another side of Thomas. A side that Black folks want to ignore. People are very complex.

As far as the collage I have no problem with any of the folks in them. Since I've been an adult I have not expected Black people to behave in stereo typical "black" ways. In fact I actually respect Black folks that express and opinion that goes counter to the standard Black position. It takes courage to do this. I don't have to agree with them, but in this regard I do respect them.

MLK was vilified by many if not most in the Black community when he started out. Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and other great leaders were also rejected by the majority of Black people. MLK, Malcolm, had courage -- courage that has not been demonstrated by likes of Obama or the vast majority of other politicians.

As far as the collage, Armstrong Williams is fine. I added the fictional characters in jest. I not sure we are doing ourselves any favors by casting folks like Condi and Colin as traitors to the race.

No, not at all. When I said that I started to post the 60 minutes interview, I meant that I was going to post it when I came back and the only reason that I did not is because you had beaten me to it. I found the interview interesting. It didn't really spark the altering of my overall views, but I still found it interesting.

:-O Where did the word traitor come from, Troy? I never mentioned that word. You're not suggesting that Uncle Ruckus is a traitor, are you? You know the man got revitaligo! (Oh I forgot about that Color Purple-like episode in which he found out that his mother had been lying to him since he was a baby. lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people feel that real people in the collage are Uncle Toms, traitors to the race -- especially Clarence Thomas.

I think the 60 minutes interview made Clarence a more sympathetic figure, tragic even. Despite all his success he is hated by many, perhaps most, Black people. Who would want to be in that position? He can't even find Black love at home.

Steve Kroft reiterated all of the criticism from white folks about Clarence's qualifications, but left them hanging not really providing evidence that Clarence was indeed qualified. Thomas was too young, no experience on the beach and picked by Bush because he was a Black republican. The man who benefited from Aaffirmative Action,then prevented anyone else from benefiting from it, This is rather sad...

I guess the interview took place before Anita Hill called Clarence's wife up. I'm not sure I ever knew the motivation for Anita's call, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Clarence vehemently denied all of Anita's accusations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh nonsense. They're just saying that because his last name just happens to be Thomas. Uncle Thomas. *In Uncle Ruckus voice "No relation"*

Well I have my own opinions on such stuff, because I have a certain worldview, but that is really neither here nor there.

The grandfather that Clarence Thomas spoke of in that interview really stands out to me. He seems like he was such a strong and dedicated man, one who had a strong sense of responsibility to the collective. "Son, don't you let me down"... Wow. How could Clarence Thomas choose the path that he chose and not be tormented by his grandfather every night? My great grandmother was a strong and dedicated woman, a Black Cross nurse who had a strong sense of responsibility to the collective. I wish I would choose the path of ANY of those in that collage and name my book "My Great Grandmother's Daughter" . Not even in her death would she let me sleep well about that. As much as my parents love me, they would never look me in my eyes and tell me that they were proud of the success that such a path has brought me.

Hey though, we are not all raised with the same backgrounds and with the same set of expectations. What meant a lot in my household might have been as significant as cow dung in the next household. Furthermore, regardless of background and expectations, we still make decisions in this life, even the refusal to make a decision is a decision.

I believe that Clarence Thomas chose his path for the same reasons that other black people in similar positions chose such paths; for themselves,their famlilies, the communities in which they live, for the issues that affect them in their particular situations, and for their generations that have yet to be born.

There are some who are to the ancestral bones and to the ancestral soul, "Keepers of The Way" and they can be neither bought nor sold,because they have no price. They are very few.

For the rest, the price varies, but it is there just the same.

It was cool to see that Clarence Thomas could still skip rocks though.Hey, that takes skill! My friend could do that so well and he still can. I never "got it". :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarence Thomas is kind of an enigma. If you didn't know his backstory, and you were sitting next to him in a bar, just shooting the shit, you probably have no problem with him. I always got the impression that he wasn't that different from the average black man, right down to wanting to tap Anita Hill's ass. :wub:

He was also an opportunist. He is shunned by most of his race, but he is able to insulate himself because of his wealth and privilege. "What does it profit a man to gain the world, if he loses his soul?" I don't think Cousin Tommy cares; except maybe once in a while... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...