Today on Blogcritics
Home » Double Standards On Racism?

Double Standards On Racism?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I find it fascinating that some blacks aren’t defended by the civil rights establishment or other advocacy groups if they do not happen to hew to a designated set of political positions, as if taking political positions outside of this designated dogma somehow renders them fair game for racism. It’s rather astonishing and breathtakingly hypocritical, as pointed out by Project 21, “the national leadership network of conservative African-Americans”:

    Over the past few months, and peaking this week with her appointment, cartoonists have been using Dr. Rice’s race as a point of ridicule. Demeaning political cartoons by Pat Oliphant and Jeff Danziger accentuate Dr. Rice’s black features and feature her speaking in rural southern dialect. Garry Trudeau called her “Brown Sugar” in his “Doonesbury” comic strip. Earlier this year, cartoonist Ted Rall questioned Dr. Rice’s race in a comic suggesting she was President Bush’s “house nigga” and needed “racial re-education.”

    …On November 17, radio host John “Sly” Sylvester called Dr. Rice “Aunt Jemima” and secretary of state Colin Powell “Uncle Tom” on his WTDY (Madison, Wisconsin) radio show. Sylvester, who also is the station’s program director, is refusing to apologize, but has said, “I will apologize to Aunt Jemima.” The station’s owner, the Mid-West Broadcast Group, is declining to discipline him.

    In late October, a conservative host at WISN in nearby Milwaukee was suspended for a week for calling an illegal Mexican immigrant a “wetback.”

    While some local leaders have condemned Sylvester’s comments, the Madison chapter of the NAACP has so far declined to make a statement. Project 21 asked the NAACP’s national leadership to condemn Rall’s racist cartoon in July, but no action was taken. Jesse Jackson and the National Association of Black Journalists were also contacted at the time. They took no action.

    “To hear the leftists tell it, conservative blacks have become the new ‘trash class’ of American society,” said Project 21 [and Blogcritics] member Michael King. “And with the continued cricket-filled silence from the professional civil rights crowd, the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons give tacit permission and acceptance of such language and tactics.”

    King’s comments are echoed by Project 21 member Mychal Massie: “The recent racist attacks and mimicry of Condoleezza Rice are infuriating and despicable. Even more insufferable is the deafening silence of the elite liberals. I believe their silence is proof positive of their personal racist attitudes. Obviously condemning racist attacks against a man and woman who are conservative and black is not a worthy undertaking for them.”

Racism is racism regardless of the political orientation of those involved: one does not somehow “deserve racism” by choosing to be a conservative, does one? Are black Republicans less “black” than their Democratic counterparts? If so, why? If not, why the deafening silence from the civil rights establishment?

Powered by

About Eric Olsen

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple Stark

    You do know all, or most of the leaders of Project 21 are white? Click here for some of the staff photos.

    They are conservative and they have black members but, no, they are not a black conservative group. Your main point is a good one btw, but not new.

  • Eric Olsen

    As I understand it, Project 21 is a subset of the National Center, and has its own leadership, which appears to be African-American.

    But as you mention, the point is valid and that is the issue at hand. And certainly the recent attacks on Rice, in particular, and the recent Wisconsin radio case make it worth repeating.

  • Brave Kelso

    This is a complicated situation and I am on the fence.

    Liberals – white and black – seem to believe that blacks should favour liberal policies either out of enlightened self-interest. When someone breaks those expectations, there is a tendency to react by criticizing her consciousness and calling her false to her race (and gender). There is also a tendency to demean her honesty and sincerity in arguing that she has adopted conservative principles that get her ahead instead of the principles that her critics (liberals, black and white) think that she ought to have.

    Her critics should engage with her values instead of wondering if a black woman should have those values.

    However character does matter. Is she driven by ambition or principles? Who has she hurt and left behind as she has advanced her career?

    The presence of blacks at the top levels of power in government is important as a matter of appearances and as test of America’s commitment to equality. If her presence in the Cabinet is supposed to show that the President Republican party respects able black persons, and that the Republican position on social policy (success by personal competition on a level playing field without government support for any players) are good, the question of whether she has the real respect of the President is relevant.

    In modern politics the question of style and substance is important too. She seems poised and confidant, and is not dogged by questions about her intellect and achievements.

    Surely she can’t play the race card to avoid answering her critics?

  • Eric Olsen

    BK, you bring up many important points, but what does she have to answer for? As far as I can tell, the assumption with these cartoons and verbal assaults is that being black and a Republican or a conservative automatically makes one less “fully black,” a sell-out, not worthy of respect, lacking any call to human dignity, and most specifically, deserving of racist imagery and symbols of the most blatant and ugly kind.

    Who has to answer to whom here?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Project 21, as I have blogged previously, is a front group run by far Right foundations and the GOP. Among those funding it are Olin and Bradley. Both have longterm ties to the eugenics movement — which is usually a ‘polite’ form of advocacy of white supremacy. The fact that there are people of color who can be bought and attached to ventures such as these says nothing positive about the organizations actual character. This sort of thing has been going on since slavery. The phrase ‘rent-a-Tom’ has been around for a very long time.

    That serves these purposes:

    ~ Creates the illusion the GOP is more diverse than it is. (About one percent of elected African-American officials are Republicans. Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for Bush are white.)

    ~ Reassures the conservative white people who are the main audience for shenanigans like Project 21 that the darkies are dumb and not a threat.

    ~ Entertains that audience. The unabashedly white supremacist League of the South uses a black man to carry the Confederate flag for public events for the same reason.

    Kudos to Temple Stark and Brave Kelso. I love it when people are well-informed about civil rights topics.

  • http://squaringtheglobe.blogspot.com Harry Forbes

    I agree with Eric, but would extend his argument to note that ideology trumps both race and gender in some cases.

    Very similar treatment is applied to prominent conservative women by leftist feminist organizations. I recall especially comments denigrating the authenticity of Prime Minister Thatcher “as a woman”, due to her staunchly conservative policies.

    And of course there was a recent US case in which a high-profile Democrat politician was accused of inappropriate office sexual conduct with an low-power intern, and also of a rape earlier in his career. These accusations did not prompt calls for his resignation by NOW. It was only his political opponents who demanded this.

    Perhaps such organizations are not that much about what they profess to be all about. Of course hypocracy is part of being human, IMHO, so those pointing out such offenses should do so with the same gentleness they would hope to receive when (not if) the same correction is required for them.

    Yours is gentle, Eric!

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    fair ponits, but there is something you have missed. Politicians, regardless of race, become “fair game” for cartoonists when they get famous. I’ve never seen complaints about the accentuations of features of famous white politicians (though they probably exist, i suspect in very small numbers). Why should it suddenly become a big issue if the famous politician in question is coloured?
    Your other points are issues i know not enough about to comment

  • Eric Olsen

    The point as it remains — regardless of efforts to shoot the messenger and then call his corpse “Tom” — is that the cartoons and verbal attacks use racist symbolism and language as if it is somehow justified by the political positions of those under attack, and the civil rights establishment is mute on the matter.

    So I guess that means overt racism is okay as long as it’s directed against conservatives and/or Republicans.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    So how do you tell if it’s racist symbolism of simple characature?

    You want the truth, she’s simply not on my side. I don’t defend everything every Black person does, nor do I leap to the defense of those who work against my interest. I’m moral, not stupid.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    typo.

    racist symbolism OR simple characature?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    It looks like I must be more explicit to get my point across:

    African-Americans are not criticizing Ted Rall. Most of the politically aware would agree with what he said. The bought and paid for RATs of Project 21 are — supposedly* — Rall’s critics. The racism in this situation is coming from the handlers of the handerchief heads at Project 21. They are trying to use their Negroes to discredit liberal commentators, both black and white. That is bigotry because it perceives blacks as tools to be used by whites. Supposedly? The words may be issuing from dark faces, but the thoughts are not. They are coming from the white people who actually run Project 21.

    Eric Olsen, a Bush supporter, is tone deaf when it comes to race relations. That is why he is promoting Project 21, even after being informed that it is a front group run by Right Wing white people, claiming to speak for African-Americans.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    More to the point, the people who are questioning the civil rights organizations’ “silence” are the very ones that want them to shut up on every other topic.

    They have no credibility, and in fact besmirch those causes they associate with by their presence.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Sylvester has apologized for calling Dr. Rice an “aunt jemima” and according to the same article Kweisi Mfume the president of the NAACP has also said the attacks from Sylvester “are just as bad as those who hide under sheets and burn crosses.” This was from an article on Yahoo news.

  • Eric Olsen

    Let me see if I get all of this straight: racism is fine as long as the object of the racism is “not on your side,” which I assume is determined by political position.

    Project 21 has “no credibility” because there are white people involved at some level, or because it is a conservative organization? Weren’t white people involved in the founding of the NAACP?

    Who determines legitimacy? And who determines who is and who isn’t “politically aware”?

    And when is “simple caricature” that includes “racist symbolism” okay? Is that also determined by political position?

  • http:macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    your supposed concern about Condoleezza Rice being called ‘Aunt Jemima’ is beyond hypocritical, Eric Olsen.

    For persons genuinely interested in the civil rights/free speech issues, I’ve posted an (a href=”http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/23/100447.php”>entry about the controversy here. I disinvite Eric Olsen and Andy Marsh from participating in the thread. They’ve already made their views in regard to using abusive language toward a woman of color painfully clear.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Live link, hopefully.

    As for the sophistry that Olsen is attempting here — equating the participation of some whites in the NAACP with the far Right setting up and running front groups that operate against the interest of people of color — I believe that any intelligent person can distinguish the difference.

  • Eric Olsen

    speaking of outrageous sophistry, I have ignored being “disinvited to participate” in the above referenced thread and made note of a few, um, discrepancies

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    disinvite this!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    And when is “simple caricature” that includes “racist symbolism” okay? Is that also determined by political position?

    No, that is not the question I asked.

    I asked how can you tell which is simple characature and which is racist symbolism.

    I also make the point that none of this matters to those whining about civil rights organizations not defending Dr. Rice’s honor except as an opportunity to excoriate a couple of Black folks.

    And I’ll go further.

    You can’t show me a genuinely racist portrayal in editorial cartoons…we ARE talking editorial cartoons, not something unimportant like employment, housing or education…that has not been rejected by the civil rights organizations.

  • Eric Olsen

    I see, so symbolism only counts sometimes, as determined by .. whom, exactly?

    What astonishes me is ANYONE having the gall to set themselves up as the arbiter of who is and who is not “legitmate” and worthy of being treated with simple human dignity, based upon, for all I have heard thus far, their political affiliation.

    I guess the 10-15% (or whatever the exact number is) of African-Americans who happen to be Republican or conservative deserve whatever racism comes their way. After all, they asked for it by having the outrageous, automatically delegitimizing nerve, or lack or intelligence, or lack of “political awareness,” or some other heinous crime not yet defined; but whatever IT is, it’s their own fault and they deserve whatever racism comes their way, right?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Treating people with “simple human dignity,’ would mean disciplining Andy Marsh for referring to a Blogcritics member as a “bitch” and an “ass.” To rush to the defense of Condoleezza Rice when she is called ‘Aunt Jemima,’ while supporting much worse behavior deprives anything you have to say on this topic of any legitimacy, Eric Olsen.

  • Eric Olsen

    I see: since I have never kicked anyone out of Blogcritics for content violations, other than the two-week suspension of an individual for calling YOU a vulgar name, everything I have to say can be comfortably ignored. This is remarkably convenient considering not a single logical diescrepancy I have mentioned has been addressed, explained or supported.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “The phrase ‘rent-a-Tom’ has been around for a very long time.”

    Cite?

    “Michael King is barely literate.”

    Another personal attack on a fellow BlogCritic. Cute…

  • Eric Olsen

    ah yes, I missed that claim about Michael. I have read Michael often and can vouch for his literacy, intelligence and apparent sanity. Perhaps he wishes to obtain the exact same goals as you do via different methods; perhaps he is neither stupid, nor uneducated, nor insane, nor bought off, nor illegitimate, nor a front for anyone at all – perhaps he just has different opinions from yours.

    How would this look coming the other way? What if someone accused you of all those things simply because you had different political opinions from theirs?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    There may be legitimate black conservatives. (In fact, I may even know some.) But, the people bought and paid for by Project 21 are toys, pure and simple. Furthermore, someone who thinks that quoting from a press release by Project 21 is superior ‘research’ to tracing its money trail is completely out of his depth. He might as well go spin some records or something.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I would think the bigger issue here is not who Eric referenced in his piece but the blatant racist remarks and editorial cartoons towards Dr. Rice and Gen Powell!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Furthermore, someone who thinks that quoting from a press release by Project 21 is superior ‘research’ to tracing its money trail is completely out of his depth. He might as well go spin some records or something.”

    I guess you’re saying Eric is too stupid to grasp your point, and he should go back to playing music?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    According to Dictionary.com:

    bitch: noun – “A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.”

    ass: noun – “A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person.”

    Do ya’ll know anyone who these terms might be applicable to? :)

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Comment 26: But much more abusive remarks by the person hypocritically whinnying there should be ignored, eh? Beat up poor Sylvester. Buy a Neandertal who refers to women as ‘bitch,’ and ‘ass’ a drink. There is a double standard alright, but it is not coming from “liberals.”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    RJ – I like that site…dictionary.com…I’ve found it to be very useful in the past! theasurus.com is also pretty useful!

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    RJ Elliott.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    did somebody say free drinks???

  • Eric Olsen

    And we know they are “toys” – and I assume therefore dismissable on every level and beneath contempt – how exactly? Who determines toy-ism?

    Would these legitimate black conservatives you may even know approve of these instances of racism against other, apparently illegitimate, black conservatives? Another interesting sidenote – Powell isn’t even “conservative” – he’s about as moderate as it gets.

    There was no “research” involved in quoting a press release, nor did I claim there to be. I received a press release that struck me as addressing an important and interesting subject involving what I see as hypocrisy and double-standards perpetuated by black and white hard-liberals alike when it comes to treatment of conservative, moderate and-or Republican blacks. So I addressed it.

    I have heard not a single syllable that leads me to think otherwise since, not even being called a “disc jockey.”

    My degrees in political science and philosophy, minors in East Asian studies and religion, graduate work in the humanities, 25 years as a journalist, critic, author, radio and TV commentator, 20 years as a parent, 46 years of living on earth, are ALL rendered immaterial by the fact that I have spent some of my time DJing at parties, clubs, and on the radio.

    Dammit, found out and put in my place again!! When will I learn to shut the hell up about anything other than “spinning records”?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Okay, how about I go away until conversation starts again?

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    er…just on the ponit of caricatures again, Eric, check out this definition from (funnily enough) dictionary.com:
    “A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject’s distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect”
    i would figure that, therefore, of course you can expect to see “racial” features present in a caricature of a coloured person. Exactly as you would in a caricature of a white person. Or a martian. Or a cat. That’s the point of caricatures, they exaggerate identifiable features, most often to the ponit of absurdity. And i say again, i bet you’ve never complained about caricatures of white politicans.
    Sure, caricatures are almost universally mean about their subjects, but if you’re gonna complain about one you should complain about them all.

  • Eric Olsen

    jadester, this is a good general point, but I am most concerned about Rall’s characterization of Rice as Bush’s “house nigga,” Sylvester calling her “Aunt Jemima” and Powell “Uncle Tom,” and the apparent acceptance of this from the civil rights leadership (thanks for the update Andy, will include that info) and left in general about this

  • Peter Duncan

    Why can’t we just address the fact or the issue. This isn’t about what Mac or Eric or Andy or does on a personal level. It’s about what constitutes racism and why some orgs are silent when they should be calling the racism out. Now do you think that Eric’s blog (not eric himself) has merit or not.

  • http:macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Good point, Jade. I have generous lips. If someone were to caricature me and not make my lips delectable, I would wonder what was wrong with the cartoonist.

    Peter, Eric’s claim in the blog entry is pretty baseless. The main peopel crying crocodile tears over ‘racism’ against Rice and Powell are white conservatives. Particularly offensive is that Eric wrote it to try to portray himself as a protector of blacks. (The more distant and not in need of protection the blacks are the better, apparently.) Meanwhile, nearly every person of color who has participated in Blogcritics has left because Eric allows his coterie of Right Wing white men to abuse us. He is about as qualified to present himself as a protector of people of color as he is to sprout wings and fly.

  • Eric Olsen

    all I will say to this latest nonsense is that I will ignore it just as I ignore the almost daily calls for your ouster from the group

  • http://jonsobel.com/ Jon Sobel

    I just checked out the Project 21 website. Its tone, at least, supports Mac Diva’s claim that it’s a “front,” in the sense of being a right-wing propaganda machine aimed at black Americans rather than an organization specifically concerned with the well-being of African-Americans. Get this: they put out a press release about a website run by one of their members which “details ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism” with, at the bottom, a description of themselves as a “nonpartisan organization.” I’ll skip making the usual criticisms of such propaganda and merely ask, What the hell does that subject have to do with black people, white people, or any color people?

    Their stated mission is to “promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment.” I’d like to know in what sense the civil rights establishment has not echoed these things. They think the civil rights movement was about anti-family and pro-welfare state? Is that what they’re saying? Pretty darn partisan (and disingenuous) if you ask me.

  • http:macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    John, those of us in the know have been keeping tabs on Project 21 for years. Here is a good summary of what it is — a front group owned and operated by the far Right whites. The fellow who runs the website, who is white, of course, often seems clueless. I don’t believe he has any idea of what to say to real people of color.

    I have written at least a half-dozen blog entries about Project 21 and another front group. Prior to this controversy, they were involved in an ad campaign attacking black fathers. I haven’t even gotten around to blogging Project 21’s ties to the tobacco industry. ‘Misleading’ barely describes what it is.

  • Eric Olsen

    Interesting article and there is doubtless some truth to it, although I would hardly call an article in Alternet written by a college student and editor of USC’s “fiercely progressive voice of reason” “unbiased” – would you? It will color my response to Project 21 press releases.

    However, I never held up Project 21 as an authoritative source on anything, I received a press release from them that brought up very salient points that have only now been partially addressed with the apology from Sylvester for calling blacks, ANY blacks, Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima.

    I gave my own opinions, which still stand: racism is racism regardless if the target is liberal, conservative, middle, or apolitical.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    . . .unless it is coming from “good-natured” Andy Marsh. Then, it is to be applauded.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I gave my own opinions, which still stand: racism is racism regardless if the target is liberal, conservative, middle, or apolitical.

    That’s fine.

    Now, why is it Black people’s job to address it? It’s not Black people doing it, it’s not Black people’s reputation at risk like when Harry Belafonte went there (and ALL the ‘respectable’ organizations tripped over each other separating themselves from that).

    You accuse them of not doing white people’s job. And by now the NAACP is cowed enough to apologize.

    Damn shame.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    and what racist comment have I made??? Can you point to ONE??? Just one! Come on, surely you can come up with ONE comment I made that was racist!

    That’s what I thought, as usual, mac diva attempts to blow smoke up peoples asses again!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I would say that the most blatantly racist comment I’ve seen today was on another thread.

    The one that said ” I do not consider the term ‘Aunt Jemima’ racist if it is used appropriately.”

    That is a racist statement. Made by mac diva. You could replace aunt jemima with any other racial slur and it would sound just as ugly.

    Is it supposed to be any less ugly coming from you???

    You are by far the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading.

  • Eric Olsen

    I believe Andy is basically good-natured and has demonstrated as much toward virtually everyone else he has addressed on this site, including those with whom he disagrees.

    He allowed you to get to him and he said things he shouldn’t have, which were DELETED and for which HE APOLOGIZED.

    You have ignored his apology and repeated the words with a persistence that borders on the autistic ever since.

    As we have gone over ad nauseum, you started it with him at his very first appearance, dismissing him as having nothing whatsoever to add to the conversation, telling him to shut up and go away. He did not take it very well – who would?

    An independent observer would not be insane to conclude that you have a persecution complex, which you then smokescreen with charges of racism.

    What is particularly unfortunate is that there are real incidents of racism, the ghosts of institutional racism still haunt the nation in many REAL forms, and when the term is bandied about casually, it makes it much easier for those inclined to downplay or ignore these real incidents or ramifications.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    ‘Bitch’ and ‘ass’ qualify as both racist and misogynist when targeted toward a woman of color. Perhaps Eric should applaud Andy Marsh as “good-natured” twice for having used them.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I believe when I used them, I actually didn’t even know you were a woman of color…and I’ve never used them to signify any color, just attitude. I don’t think I ever called you an ass. You may have me mistaken for the myriad others that have…As Eric pointed out, I did use the other term to describe you…I later apologized for it, obviously you missed that post…or just chose to ignore it as you do MOST OF THE FACTS that any one might present against any opinion you have.

  • http://HUSSEINandTERROR.com Deroy Murdock

    I am amazed at the bizarre charges being hurled against Project 21. As a black libertarian commentator, I have worked with Project 21 for years. Since 1985, I have known Amy and David Ridenour, the directors of Project 21’s parent organization, the National Center for Public Policy Research. In all this time, the Ridenours, Project 21 coordinator David Almasi, and others involved in this non-profit have treated me with nothing but dignity, respect, and friendship. I have encountered nothing even remotely related to eugenics, white supremacy, or anything that could be confused for that.

    In fact, the entire enterprise is dedicated to the idea that black Americans should be free to think for ourselves and should be liberated from the oppressive notion that being black means one must be a liberal statist.

    Free-market ideas, entrepreneurship, and limited government offer black Americans an alternative to the big-government “solutions” that have failed us for decades (e.g. disastrous government schools, anti-business red tape, collapsing public housing, etc.).

    As for the idea that those of us who work with Project 21 have “sold out,” I have one simple question: Where is my check? Project 21 does a great job of booking me for radio and TV appearances. I don’t believe even one of those engagements has earned me one thin dime.

    Those of us black conservatives and libertarians who work with Project 21 do so because we share a belief in individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, free enterprise, and peace through strength. We do not get paid for this.

    How many black folks would sit around to be mocked by white supremacists for free?

    Those who criticize us should drop the childish hysterics and simply accept the fact that we are free men and women, black Americans all, and we will not stop thinking for ourselves.

    The cottton plantations were liberated in 1863. When will the masters of the liberal plantation let center-right black Americans walk away in freedom?

    Deroy Murdock
    Syndicated columnist,
    Scripps Howard News Service
    New York City

  • Eric Olsen

    Thank you very much for your input Deroy, very sensible and much appreciated.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Anyone who follows the money trail and looks at the stances Project 21 takes can tell that it is a front group funded and controlled by white conservatives (the ‘friends’ Delroy Murdock refers to). The day being a puppet becomes ‘freedom’ will be a strange one, indeed. Case closed.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Mr. Murdock:

    You were doing so well until you lapsed into empty rhetoric at the end.

    You’re not getting paid, you’re getting played. You don’t get paid, but your director does.


    Behind the rhetoric: Bush is bad for Blacks
    By Dara Purvis | RAW STORY COLUMNIST

    …This bizarre belief that blacks are being led around by white liberals saw its flip side in one of the funniest moments C-SPAN ever has aired, when a representative from Project 21 (an organization of black conservatives) came to defend the group against charges that it was a front for the same old white conservatives that normally espouse opposition to affirmative action and other socially conservative views. This accusation is bolstered by the fact that Project 21 is a subsidiary of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an association of those same old white conservatives formed at the height of Reagan-mania. The clear and concrete link between the NCPPR and the very creation of Project 21 led prominent blacks like Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP, to say that the group is a “make-believe black organization.”

    The key to the hilarity of the interview was due to a simple traffic mishap: The representative who was scheduled to appear got a flat tire on the freeway on his way to the C-SPAN studios. So Project 21’s director had to fill in.

    Project 21’s director is, in perfect irony, white.

    Robb Harlston, the host of the show, barely clung to his professional demeanor as he issued what is now my favorite introduction to an interview of all time: “The director of Project 21, a program for conservative African-Americans … you’re not African-American?”

    The director, David Almasi, immediately issued a stream of defensive remarks that only added to the surreal humor. First he explained the tire blowout, and said he called another member of the group trying to get someone else to appear, but nobody was available (guess the flat and the one phone call exhausted the ranks of conservative blacks in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area). Then he gave a tortured explanation that he was only an employee of the group; he took his marching orders from all of these mysterious black conservatives suffering from flat tires and broken phone lines. He didn’t actually “direct” the organization; he was just the director. (As a bonus, this means that the difference between the group of black conservatives and the white guy working for the group of black conservatives is that the white guy gets paid to do it. You really have to love that as an affirmative defense!)[P6: emphasis added] Frankly, it was the best real-world re-enactment of “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain — I am the BLACK CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT!” that I’ve ever seen.

    Luckily, such chimeras of black Republicanism don’t seem to be having any effect on the larger community. A recent poll by BET and CBS news showed that support for John Kerry is almost at the same level as support for Al Gore in 2000. And despite what Bush and other Republicans would have you believe, blacks are not being led astray by white liberals — the views of black Democrats on most issues are generally in line with those of the Democratic Party. Nine out of 10 (roughly the proportion of blacks that voted for Gore in 2000) believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and that the Iraq war was a mistake. The same poll found that black voters, much like white voters, consider jobs and the economy to be “the most important issue,” followed by education, health care and the war in Iraq.

    Furthermore, there was a slight increase in the percentage of those surveyed planning to vote in November over August 2000.

    In short, Bush is wrong to ask blacks what the Democratic Party has “done for them lately,” to borrow a phrase from Janet Jackson, a black woman who recently raised the ire of social conservatives for another reason. Blacks do not vote for Democrats simply because Democrats (unlike Bush) work to create a more racially just society — although that is most certainly one of the reasons. Blacks vote for Democrats because the Democratic program reflects their views on almost all issues: the economy, health care, education, social programs, the justice system, and every other plank in the party platform. Issues that might engage blacks more strongly are not carrots to be dangled to entice black voters toward the grand old elephant waiting to stomp on them; they are integral parts of a larger Democratic philosophy that favors inclusion over divisiveness, fair treatment over prejudice, and one society versus the haves trumping the have-nots.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    In the interest of being thorough, he can be read further:

    •At — you guessed it — Free Republic. How dare Ted Kennedy question Bush
    in regard to WMD? Here.

    •Daring Delroy lobbies for a flat tax and liberation from Marxism in the U.S.A.

    Prometheus 6 has been on to Delroy for a while.

    I would direct you to more, but there isn’t much to choose from. For someone who claims to be a syndicated columnist, Murdock appears to have published very little.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I don’t want to get in a fight here, but when I clicked on the link you gave for Murdock there is a spot on the page right across from his name that says author archive and there are, it would appear to be, a few hundred articles there.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Aw, damn, there’s typos in that post.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    It might help in your google search if you spelled his name right, dimwit.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Mr. Murdock says:
    we share a belief in individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, free enterprise, and peace through strength.

    That’s interesting. Switch out the last one with humanitarianism and those are the values that make me a progressive!
    Individual freedom: woman’s right to choose, keeping government out of the bedroom, etc.
    Personal responsibility: leaving this planet liveable for our children, no driving gas hogs, speaking out and fighting corporate pollution, not snubbing our noses at those less fortunate, but being a responsible good samaritan and giving a helping hand so that they can then begin their own personal responsibility, etc.
    Limited government: see individual freedom. Also opposed to government pandering to big business at the expense of the citizen.
    Free enterprise: I love capitalism, which is why the government needs to ensure there are no monopolies (I consider Microsoft such) or mega-monoliths, (I consider Wal-Mart such) which do more harm than good.
    Peace through strength: I don’t believe in this one, that’s why I’m not a conservative. I don’t believe that being perceived as a big bully to intimidate is the way to achieve peace. It certainly hasn’t worked for us in the Middle East. Replace this value with humanitarism, helping those down and out, being considerate and listening to other people/nations, and you’ve got one heck of a progressive!

  • boomcrashbaby

    oh yeah, and I subscribe to those moral values of that liberal Jesus.

  • cur3t

    comment #22:

    “…since i have never kicked anyone out of blogcritics for content violations, except for the two-week suspension of one individual for call YOU a vulgar name…”

    eric…you do consider yourself a truthful person, don’t you?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Wee One, when someone tells me he is a syndicated columnist, I look in newspapers and magazines. That is what the term generally means. Puff pieces in a Right Wing opinion rag don’t count. Except for that sort of thing, Murdock is practically unpublished. He appears have been a lap dog of white reactionaries since being weaned. Hardly evidence of me being dim. Nor is it my fault that his Mama couldn’t spell, or, that you are so small. Now run off and hide under your bed.

    Greetings, Curt. Good point. I can think of three myself.

    Steve (Boom), it has been quite a day. Eric’s example of a person who represents African-American political thought is amusing, though. Allegations of Marxism in the U.S. Advocacy of a flat tax. Love of any white person who bears a passing resemblance to Simon Legree. Yup. That’s where the brothers and sisters are coming from alright. I wonder where De[l]roy’s family kept the inherited family wealth he is so intent on protecting from taxation — in a hole under the straw mat in the slave cabin? At least when I took Family Wealth in law school, I knew it had nothing to do with me, personally.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Ah yes, like all the work in papers and magazines attributed to Mac Diva. Ta-ta anonymous troll!

  • born

    i dont want to say anything at all, because im scared that somehow someone will become offended and declare me a racist…
    i like poop
    is there anything in that which u can make into a rascial statement?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    You forgot books.

    Enjoy the dust bunnies under your bed, Wee One.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Hi Mac Diva, I don’t want to get in between anything between you and Eric. Both of you have been very good to me. I don’t know Deroy’s history, nor do I care to, I just wanted to comment on the values of liberalism that he supports as reasoning to be conservative.

    I did enjoy seeing your discussion on the BBC awhile back, don’t know if I ever mentioned it.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Oh, Eric is just being himself. He posted this entry without doing any research. Relied on a press release from Project 21. I’ve written about a half-dozen pieces on Project 21 over a two-year period. I know as much about it as just about anyone does. But, that won’t do. The disc jockey must be right — even when he is wrong. This is just like his blunder with saying Kerry is too patrician to know what ‘got your back’ means. (Which incidentally, I did not participate in because enough people were correcting Eric already, and, I don’t believe in piling on.) Anyway, the bottom line is that Project 21 is a phony ‘black’ political opinion group run by white conservatives. You will not find any body more out of touch with African-American political opinion.

    The Log Cabin Republicans on the other hand, though opportunistic, are at least real.

  • http://www.shortstrangetrip.org Joe

    Well, come to think of it I did see a book about folks that never amount to much that create elaborate imaginary personas for themselves to compensate for the fact. Is that your biography?

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Something else amusing from Project 21. Prior to the election, they sent out press releases saying, in advance, claims of suppression of African-American voters were false.

    An intro from Angie Winters:

    First, the African American conservative group Project 21, is inserting themselves into the Florida Bad MoJo Mix. The group is suggesting that the claims of voter suppression are not valid. This is suspect, considering the many different groups who are making the claims and the fact that Florida’s own government has admitted to making ‘errors’ in the process.


    To: National Desk, Political Reporter

    Contact: David Almasi of Project 21

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ — The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing September 17 on the potential for voter disfranchisement in the 2004 general election.

    Project 21 members charge liberal groups are raising the specter of voter suppression in friendly venues such as the Commission to taint the election before it happens. This in itself may keep some voters away from the polls. Furthermore, it creates a climate where these critics can more easily challenge the integrity of the election if they do not approve of the results, even if such charges are groundless.

    “It’s a smear-and-fear campaign,” says Project 21 member Kevin Martin. “The same forces we saw in 2000 – those speaking of a concerted effort to disfranchise minorities – are once again making ridiculous allegations to make up for their lack of substance. They speak of voter suppression and intimidation, but they say nothing about the lax voter registration and identification rules that could lead to voter fraud.”

    In August, the NAACP and People for the American Way released a report alleging an increase in efforts to intimidate and keep minority voters from the polls. Although both groups are non- profit, and therefore barred by IRS rules from engaging in partisan politics, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond pointedly said these tactics “have increasingly become the province of the Republican Party.” Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie offered to help create bipartisan “teams” to ensure fairness at the polls, but his suggestion was rebuffed by Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe.

    The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is scheduled to hold the Friday briefing, issued a highly-critical and highly- criticized report on the 2000 voting in Florida. Project 21 member Peter Kirsanow, who now serves on the Commission, wrote about on the report in a 2003 essay posted on National Review Online: “The myth of a nefarious plot to thwart black voters from casting ballots is wholly unsupported by the evidence. Inconvenience, bureaucratic errors and inefficiencies were indeed pervasive. But these problems don’t rise to the level of invidious discrimination… The consequences of generating suspicion of the electoral process for the sake of partisan advantage are at once insidious and profound. They dangerously undermine the legitimacy of government and encourage rejection of its authority.”

    Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, [Emphasis mine] has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.


    Yes, that is the same David Almasi who couldn’t find a black face to front for his pale one that night. Kevin Martin? The same one who heads a sister front organization, the African American Republican Leadership Council. In fact, these groups are basically the same band of white handlers and black handled over and over again. Read more about both front groups here.

    Why would a nonpartisan group that advocates for African-Americans accuse them of falsely claiming voter suppression? Guess.

  • Peter Duncan

    I thought it was cool that Mr Murdock took the time to visit this site and explain what his ‘take’ on Projct 21 was. I am not saying the rest of you are not entitled to your opinions but it sometime helps to get the facts directly from the ‘horse’s mouth’. This fellow clearly stated why he belongs to the group and what he thought the group’s mission was. Much of what he said directly refuted several bloggers statements. As a reader who is interested in learning more about Eric’s Blog, I felt Mr Murdock did a service and not a disservice to the readers at this site.

  • Eric Olsen

    curt, I was referring to Blogcritics members, which you are not. We ban spammers, comment policy violators, malefactors, etc., on a regular basis. But you knew that.

    Mac, your triumphalism is as unseemly as it is unearned. You can attempt to debunk Project 21 all you want and it will make zero difference to the fact that not all African-Americans share your political beliefs, and they are no less legitimate, authentically black, REAL, or intelligent than you are. Your convoluted attempts to prove otherwise are disingenuous, solipsistic, and vomitous.

    Your endless personal attacks and outrageous rudeness to one and all who dare disagree with you, ever, on anything, is near the top of the list of your least appealing qualities. If you ever hope to convince anyone of anything who doesn’t already agree with you, you might consider your methods; but I hold out hope for such an epiphany similar to that of experiencing the rapture in my lifetime.

    Regarding your drooling blather about my Kerry speech story: I am never afraid to express spur-of-the-moment theories, impressions, concepts or ideas, and then to retract them if they prove incorrect. It’s called “original thinking” and original thinking is often proved incorrect – no shame there. I am certain you didn’t “pile on” because I updated the post with responses I got privately via email and concluded that the my “Kerry doesn’t know what the term means” theory was likely incorrect very shortly after I published it.

    Other aspects of my analysis of why Kerry lost hold up very well and I stand by them. But you know all of this because you know everything.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks Peter, I agree

  • Eric Olsen

    Boom, thanks, your intelligent, informed and reasonable presence is always appreciated

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I have generous lips. If someone were to caricature me and not make my lips delectable, I would wonder what was wrong with the cartoonist.”

    Oh, PLEASE post a pic, MD, so that we may judge your appraisal…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Deroy Murdock is a wonderful human being, and a masterful writer. MD’s vile attacks on him demean not him, but both her, and this site.

    How much longer will this shit be put up with? Because it ain’t gonna just go away on its own…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Wee One, when someone tells me he is a syndicated columnist, I look in newspapers and magazines. That is what the term generally means. Puff pieces in a Right Wing opinion rag don’t count. Except for that sort of thing, Murdock is practically unpublished. He appears have been a lap dog of white reactionaries since being weaned. Hardly evidence of me being dim. Nor is it my fault that his Mama couldn’t spell, or, that you are so small. Now run off and hide under your bed.”

    Unbelievable. MD is caught screwing up Mr. Murdock’s name, and instead of issuing a retraction, she demeans andy.

    This is why people call you names, MD. Because you DESERVE it…

  • Scoota Rey

    Err…

    You just put up three consectutive comments. Is that because no one is responding to you? Do you need someone to talk to?

  • Eric Olsen

    right again RJ, as I said the triumphalism is wholly unearned

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “You forgot books.”

    Name *one* you’ve written that actually got published…

  • Scoota Rey

    I take that back.

  • Peter Duncan

    RJ,

    Maybe she deserves to be called a name and maybe she doesn’t. I think the point we all need to bear in mind is that name-calling detracts from the argument or debate. You see, we are suppose to be discussing the merits of the blog and not the personal short-comings of the person. Myaybe she made a mistake and maybe she didn’t. Still two wrongs don’t make it right. Kindly refrain from name calling and stick to the points of the debate.

    I suppose I will get blasted for what I am about to say but here goes anyway….Ms Diva, you are a enormusously bright individual and I will concede that you are much brighter than me…especially in the area of constitutional law. And although I may not be as bright I still have an valid opinion. The purpose of such a site is to share ‘different’ opinion and perhaps educated another thru what you write. We are all on equal footing in this regard. I mean, each opinion is to be valued equally among the readers. As I have already stated, you are a gifted person, however what the mighty Mac giveth she most certainly taketh away! In almost all of your post, you state your arguments (sometimes very eloquently) and end your post with some sort of demeaning comment against your detractors. JUst my opinion but I think you would carry the day in more argument/debates if you just refrained from sharing some of the hurtful comments and stuck to the well reasoned points we all know you are capable.

    Peter

    PS. The discussion about your lips gets me hot!

  • Eric Olsen

    Peter, an excellent demonstration of the technique I was suggesting, but not holding my breath to see enacted by said party, in #70.

    I refuse to not believe in miracles

  • Newman

    Anyone who takes Mac Diva and P6 seriously and wastes time trying to reason with them deserves the ignorant and ridiculous charges they throw. If you don’t follow their line of what it is to be black, deafness falls. End of story. Please don’t waste good brain cells on this sort.

    Mr. Murdock, thanks for coming onto the board, but what you have to say will be mocked regardless. Best wishes to you.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks Newman, I try to take everyone seriously

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Newman:

    What charge did I throw? Where have I made a statement about what it means to be Black?

    Please, don’t misrepresent me because the conversation has you riled.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Peter, you are an incredibly naive person. What Leroy, Delroy, or McCoy proved, if anything, is that what we’ve said about Project 21 is true. He came in here, did a little puppet dance, saying nothing of substance on any topic.

    • He acknowledged that the group is white-controlled and always has been.

    •He did not refute the funding from far Right or the support of ludicrous causes dear only in the hearts and minds of white reactionaries.

    •Only two of the board of directors of the three front groups they work behind are black. No contradiction there either.

    •He did not refute that the connections back to eugenics, the anti-environmentalism movement and the flat tax movement are solid.

    I would hate to see you on a jury, Peter. You are the kind of person who would think a very bad witness was telling the truth because he was wearing a nice suit. Deroy Murdock is a token opinion writer for a few Right Wing rags. The views he expresses over and over again are mimicries of the most extremist of white reactionaries. That is why he will remain the lawn jockey of such sites.

    As for Eric Olsen’s complete meltdown on this thread, if anyone has any doubts this person is not concerned about a woman of color being treated with respect — the supposed basis for why he wrote the entry — all that person needs to do is review the abuse he has directed at me.

    As for his Eric Olsen’s latest slur, saying I am “drooling,” implying idiocy, let’s look at it closely. I know I am one of the brightest, best writers ever to set foot in the out house Blogcritics often is. His response to that is try to convince people I am stupid. (A word often used in the emails I receive from other people referring to Olsen himself, by the way). Olsen has a problem with bright people, period. That is probably because he knows he is of very modest ability himself, but cannot accept it. Instead, lawyers are not lawyers, writers are not writers, film makers are not film makers, but, a disc jockey is . . . God! In his imagination. He regularly clashes with the bright white male contributors to the site. Some of them avoid participating in comments for that reason. I particularly set him off because he thinks he is superior to me based on race and gender. Having known plenty of men with small ability and big egos, that does not surprise me.

    The reason I have taken time to refute someone who will never be able to hold a conversation about this, or most topics, on a level of informed discourse, is that I will not sit still and let disinformation be spread about civil rights topics.

    But, since I am a generous person, let me restate my adversary’s points in closing my rebuttal:

    •Condoleezza Rice should not be referred to in ways thar reference her gender and race because it is insulting to do so.

    •A woman of color who has been one of the best contributors to Blogcritics should be referred to in ways thar reference her gender and race because it is not insulting to do so. Among terms, Olsen and his companions have used are ‘cunt,’ ‘whore,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘dimwit,’ and ‘drooling.’

    I rest my case.

  • Eric Olsen

    I agree: this thread speaks for itself

  • MGA

    Miguel Estrada was also the victim of this kind of racism. The Democratic memos said he was very dangerous because he had no record and was Hispanic, and “we don’t want to make another mistake like Clarence Thomas.” If a Republican had said something like that about a black Democrat — “we don’t want to make another mistake like Thurgood Marshall” — the Jesse Jacksons of this world would be shrill with fury and the mainstream media would be up in arms.

  • tvd

    The subject was racism toward Condi Rice, not Project 21. Not Delroy Murdock. Not other writers on Blogcritics.

    “I find it fascinating that some blacks aren’t defended by the civil rights establishment or other advocacy groups if they do not happen to hew to a designated set of political positions, as if taking political positions outside of this designated dogma somehow renders them fair game for racism.”—Eric Olsen

    True? False? Discuss.

  • praxis9

    The very idea of condemning blacks who do not see liberal policies as “enlightened” as suffering from “false-consciousness” is, I think, Orwellian. Liberals claim to be defenders of freedom but seek to have everyone accept their definition of self-interest? And anyone who doesn’t see their self-interest as being synonymous with the party is a class traitor? This is not only Orwellian, it’s patently Stalinist.

  • Neo

    The the people over at the NAACP wonder why President George W. Bush has no time for them. By their own actions and inactions, they have made themselves irrelevant.

  • Dan

    It seems obvious. The liberal monopolization of minorities is predicated on the myth that white racism is responsible for any and every negative circumstance that befalls minorities. The attainment of positions of power by unabashedly conservative minorities like Dr. Rice, dispells that myth. Ugliness ensues.

  • http://section9.blogspot.com Section9

    People who oppose Rice’s ascent to State have no problem with racist charicatures used against her precisely because they oppose her politics. One shouldn’t expect partisan stooges like Kweise Mfume to come to her defense, either. As to Project 21, it’s a small organization that has very little voice within the larger black community.

    Rice is an exception to the larger Stalinism that characterizes black politics. Her convictions are a denial of black America’s Soviet style politics and a refusal to accept the General Line of black liberalism. If they could, black liberals would Leon Trotsky the woman, airbrushing her from history.
    When black liberals condemn Project 21, for instance, they do so because Project 21 deviates from the General Line. The fact that P21 has white members and gets money from corporations is only an excuse.

    One of the greatest lies that has been peddled by black liberals and the black intelligentsia is that the black community is politically diverse. Of course, in reality, to understand the black leadership today, one should look at Soviet Politics of, say, the 1930’s. Naturally, the Blood Purges are only metaphorical, but the intent remains: people like Condi Rice are simply not tolerated by both the Inner Party and the Outer Party. The notion of an “enlightened self-interest” within the black community is a laughable falsehood designed to mask conformity on the part of the “broad masses” with the black leadership. It would be in the “enlightened self-interest” of black Americans to put their vote up to the highest bidder. However, the notion that the Democratic Party (the same party that controlled a series of one party regimes in the American south that practiced state terrorism against black citizens up to 1964, at least) is the sole agent for black progress is an essential ingredient to the national success of white Democrats. As such, lip service is allowed to be paid by black Democrats to the notion that the larger white party must be held to account, but serious deviationism is never tolerated by the larger party.

    Right deviationism from the General Line cannot be allowed. Stalin understood this; today’s “black leaders” understand this as well. Conservatives, black or white, should quite whining about these manifestations of intellectual laziness and moral corruption on the part of white liberals and their intellectual toadies in the black community and be about the business of fostering a conservative insurgency within the larger black society. As long as the stooges for the power structure that controls the Democratic Party lead the black community, no change will come to that community politically. They will continue to be marginalized by both major parties.

    Condoleezza Rice will be attacked because she is conservative, Republican, and believes in the values of free markets at home and unrelenting war against Islamic Fascism abroad. She’s a big girl, and her critics will find that she can take care of herself. Besides, she and other black conservatives represent the future of black politics in America. While a vast majority of young black voters went to Kerry this year, just as many were willing to entertain the idea of a more independent politics. As a Republican, one cannot ask for too much at one time. However, it is helpful to recall Lenin’s short explanation of the NEP: “Two steps forward, one step back.”

  • Dorian

    Powell and Rice have transgressed by stepping outside of some imaginary box – a construct of the liberal mindset that allows them to classify “good” blacks and “bad” blacks. Both Powell and Rice are intelligent, hardworking, likeable individuals and both are very successful. So what’s inside the box?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Rice and Powell — likeable? Oh my God! Successful? By whose definition? Intelligent? According to what curriculum?

    Rice and Powell are … Let’s just say they need infinite prayers. This has nothing to do with their melanin levels and everything to do with their willingness to go along with violent, greedy policies. Those who toss pigmentationist slurs at them — including Belafonte — are bigoted, fascist-minded fools who have missed the point. Who cares what they look like? The fruits of their horrible labors endanger the entire planet and ultimately will poison ALL humankind. Powell and Rice — just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et all — have done unspeakable things, have endorsed and allowed unforgiveable actions, and have earned blood-stained hands. All of them should be judged for their crimes against humanity equally, as they are all equal in the eyes of the Creator and in the eyes of anyone with sense.

  • ech

    Mac Diva wrote:”Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for Bush are white.”

    Given that 80% of the population is “exclusively white” according to the census bureau, this means that he got a pretty good chunk of minority votes.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I know I am one of the brightest, best writers ever to set foot in the out house Blogcritics often is.”

    RETCH

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Rice and Powell — likeable? Oh my God!”

    Read the latest polls. Most Americans like both of them, especially Powell.

    “Successful? By whose definition?”

    Uh, by the definition that, if you make it into a US President’s cabinet, you’ve pretty much fucking made it in life?

    “Intelligent? According to what curriculum?”

    One suspects that they are more intelligent than about 90% of humanity. Otherwise, they would not have risen to such high positions of power.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “in the eyes of anyone with sense”

    IOW: Pacifists like me…

  • thecentralcommittee

    Deroy Murdock:

    You’re not getting paid?! Then you my friend are a slave. A slave to the modern day plantation owners at Project 21.

    Oh, you are getting paid? Then you my friend are a sellout and your politics are not sincere.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    How about this:

    Deroy Murdock is a free thinker. He supports those who he agrees with.

    GASP! Could it be? A black man who is his own person, rather than a cog in the wheel of the NAACP?

    The Horror!

  • george

    This is one of those issues that is being settled as we speak. The most important thing, whether the Democrats like it or not, is that we have a black Secretary of State (and she achieved this office as a Republican).

    The Republicans are picking up votes from all minority groups, including African Americans, and there does seem to be a cultural shift here that makes me wonder whether the so called rednecks of the red states haven’t been paying more attention to the reality of racial equality in the United States than the Party that is fixated on hyping and wallowing in victim politics.

    What one senses about the Democrats (and beware, it can happen to any political party) is a certain desperation that is causing them to be offensive to everyone – to patronise blacks over this issue, for example, and so further alienate this constituency.

    In case they’ve forgotten, the Dems need to represent policies that a majority of the American people will support. The Dems are acting like Americas blacks are still picking cotton in Georgia.

  • Paul Gaddis

    If RIce and Powel had been in Clinton’s cabinet( you know the one that ‘Looked like America’) and these same charactures had been used, We would see Jesse et al rise up in total indignation! How DARE those evil, racists make fun of the beautiful, natural features of a proud child of Africa. Who raised themselves out of poverty while struggled with racism to attain offices that no Republican would have EVER allowed them to achieve.

    But, since it is Republican, they get to be smeared and will damn well LIKE IT!
    I dont know who these Project 21 people are, it does not matter.

  • dwshelf

    What we’re observing is that racism is defined, subconsciously, as only applying to those who haven’t much succeeded in life. A successful person is expected to take it as part of the territory. Bad words no power over such a person, such that no protection is required.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    dwshelf:

    You’re precisely right.

    You know, it’s “racist” to not support Dr. Rice because she’s a Republican…

    Wait a minute…being Republican has nothing to do with race. Let me start again.

    You know, it’s racist to oppose Dr. Rice because you disagree strongly with he opinion…

    Wait a minute. Her opinion has nothing to do with race…

    I got it!

    If you’re Black, the only reason you can oppose Dr. Rice is because they are Black and Republican!

    What small-minded…

    But please, continue with the delusions that make you comfortable.

  • Eric Olsen

    I am very pleased to see the train of thought return to my original focus, which was the blatant racism with which Powell and Rice have been attacked by “liberals” and why racism expressed against black conservatives (and moderates) is somehow different or excusable to the civil rights establishment.

    Although I very much disagree with Natalie’s assessment of the individuals involved, she does see the issue for what it is: individuals being attacked for who they are and what they believe, not what they do.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    And the proper response to this:

    Powell and Rice have transgressed by stepping outside of some imaginary box – a construct of the liberal mindset that allows them to classify “good” blacks and “bad” blacks.

    …is “Mr. Pot, I’d like to introduce you to Ms. Kettle.”

    Section9 is almost right while being totally wrong:

    It would be in the “enlightened self-interest” of black Americans to put their vote up to the highest bidder.

    This assumes both parties are interested in the people who vote, not just the vote as a gesture. And it makes no sense to support a political party whose platform militates against what you perceive as your interests. Does it?

    I don’t see the Religious Right changing their interests to match the Republican Party’s, I see them working to change the party.

    However, the notion that the Democratic Party (the same party that controlled a series of one party regimes in the American south that practiced state terrorism against black citizens up to 1964, at least)

    Those who Section9 mention left the party because of that change. Therefore it is NOT the same party and those who make that claim are either unknowledgeable or equivocating.

    is the sole agent for black progress is an essential ingredient to the national success of white Democrats.

    When one party denies the need to address issues that specifically affect you, you are not inclined to see them as essential to your cause.

    As such, lip service is allowed to be paid by black Democrats to the notion that the larger white party must be held to account, but serious deviationism is never tolerated by the larger party.

    Republicans accusing the Democratic Party of lip service after the moderate face on the Republican Convention, after they trotted out all the Black Conservatives to say how the Republican Party is going to change after the Trent Lott Mess and did not a damn thing, Running Alan Keyes because “he can say things we can’t”…

    It is to laugh.

  • dwshelf

    p6, I suppose Condoleezza Rice has no problem if someone doesn’t “support” her, regardless of how they come to that position.

    Now surely expressing such disapproval in disparaging racial terms communicates that the speaker is incapable of constructing a coherent statement of disapproval.

    The question regards a lack of defense by the usual crowd. My observation is that people who succeed in life don’t get much sympathy regarding being the target of bad words. Pretty well independent of race.

    There may well be a political factor, as observed by Eric Olson, but this doesn’t explain the entire phenomenom.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Eric:

    Two things

    why racism expressed against black conservatives (and moderates) is somehow different or excusable to the civil rights establishment.

    1: Give me an example of racism expressed against Black conservatives that has not been rejected by the civil rights establishment.

    2: Give me an example of racism expressed against moderate Black folks (because I think you threw that in there rather gratuitously).

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    dwshelf:

    Now surely expressing such disapproval in disparaging racial terms communicates that the speaker is incapable of constructing a coherent statement of disapproval.

    That depends.

    We’re talking editorial cartoons here, fer chrissake. Can’t we get a grip? Don’t we have enough issues without making up new ones?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I just realized, I should have put a


    tag after saying “you’re right” to dwshelf. That’s going to be misinterpreted, and it’s my fault.

  • dick

    Mac Diva,

    You really need to check into your sources. After all, Margaret Sanger is one of the patron saints of the liberals and she without a doubt was totally in favor of eugenics. In fact, eugenics was one of her prime reasons for supporting abortion on demand.

    What you are doing is trying to obfuscate the whole point of the conservative black organization. After all, George Soros tried to bring down the British monetary system. Does that mean that the Democratic party and the organizations George Soros supported are trying to bring down the British monetary system? The same logic applies as to your point.

  • Eric Olsen

    P6, I am calling Powell a moderate, because all in all he is.

    And I am referring to the incidents cited above, although I am very pleased to hear the NAACP has condemned the Sylvester speech and he has apologized.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I am calling Powell a moderate

    And he was attacked in racist fashion with no response from the civil rights organizations when?

    And I am referring to the incidents cited above, although I am very pleased to hear the NAACP has condemned the Sylvester speech and he has apologized.

    WHich makes the thread about a non-issue, doesn’t it?

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/GOP-CHESS.gif

    I find it interesting that white conservatives have taken it upon themselves to “educate” African-Americans about what they should consider “racist.”
    I laugh at them, of course. There is big money to be made in the “Tommin'” industry, and if you want to crack the big time as a minority in talk radio, cable news, or editorials, self-flaggelation is the way to go! Look at JC Watts? Tom Delay’s GOP Congress’ glass ceiling kept him in the number 4 slot with no prayer of advancing, so he quit. But he remains loyal to the GOP in books and television appearences, well…because he can sell more books and get more television appearances.
    In my view, Condi Rice is just another elitist, self-centered bourgeosie. Nothing to celebrate there.

    –Cobra

  • Dorian

    Natalie,

    “The fruits of their horrible labors endanger the entire planet and ultimately will poison ALL humankind. Powell and Rice — just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et all — have done unspeakable things, have endorsed and allowed unforgiveable actions, and have earned blood-stained hands…”

    So we should have waited to share these “sins” with the UN perhaps, who were engaged in great “sins” of their own, starving those poor Iraqi children with their doomed sanctions while even making a few bucks on the side. Hands become blood-stained in both the commission of “violence acts” and sitting on your hands while violence prevails around you. If you’re going to play the self-righteous hipster there can be no meaningful discussion. I see a sliding scale of righteous indignation tipped irrevocably away from Bush and company merely for the political loss they represent. The world will go on, not in spite of, but especially with “evil” people such as Bush, Rice, Powell and others doing the dirty work needed toward a long-term greater good

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I see a sliding scale of righteous indignation tipped irrevocably away from Bush and company merely for the political loss they represent.

    The political loss is a correlation, not a cause. At least among the vast majority of us who are merely voters.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/recruitment-posterNAT.gif

    Dorian,

    There’s some good reading material on how much Halliburton under Dick Cheney made on the UN Oil for Food program here:
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm
    And if you think that is some “lefty screed site”, try this one:
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

    Now as far as “greater good” is concerned, exactly who is going to benefit from this Iraq War fiasco? Not the tens of thousands(some estimates over 100,000) dead Iraqis. Certainly not the devastated Iraqi families of UNCOUNTED WOUNDED and maimed. Certainly not our THOUSANDS of CASUALTIES in our own millitary, some of whom were earning less than Walmart door greeters.
    Exactly who, besides the multinational corporations poised to rape Iraq through neo-con economic colonialism is thankful for this disaster?
    Condi Rice, who is the first Secretary of State to have an Oil Tanker named after her, has sure seen her fortunes rise. Hell, maybe if another terrorist attack had occured on her watch, she might have surplanted Cheney as V.P. on the ticket.

    –Cobra

  • Dorian

    Sorry about the digression but here goes.

    Halliburton is a straw man. Mr. Cheney is the Vice President of the United States not the CEO of Halliburton. He cannot profit from Halliburton success unless your willing (and I’m sure you are) to make him out a greater villain than he is for simply having been a CEO. If Halliburton is involved in an inordinate amount of government business its because it has the experience and size needed to get to job done properly, and as with any large company it has its share of internal problems.

    The war in Iraq cannot be viewed in terms of the casualties only (and the jury is still out on the actual numbers although 100,000 is an excessive number). If you want to do a tit-for-tat comparison however consider that the regime plus the sanctions were killing people at a rate greater than the collation collateral deaths. Now the regime no longer exists and the coalition forces will eventually be gone. Most of those dying in Iraq now are insurgents (a.k.a terrorists). Iraq is in the process of being transformed from a major destabilizing influence in the Mid East to a stabilizing force. Don’t even get me started about the WMDs. If the intelligence said they were there then we had to act on the available intelligence. Even the liberal idol Clinton said he would have done the same thing as Bush given the circumstances. Altogether we’ve probably saved millions of lives, long-term, in the Middle East. At the same time other barbarous dictatorships are taking notice that the U.S. no longer tolerates tyrants taking refuge in diplomatic frivolity and impotence.

  • dwshelf

    We’re talking editorial cartoons here, fer chrissake. Can’t we get a grip? Don’t we have enough issues without making up new ones?

    I think it’s commendable to ridicule bad arguments regardless of the medium where they are published.

    A cartoonist who focuses on a racial feature to make a political point is highly likely to be making a ridiculous argument.

    But I’ll say it again: it says something negative about the cartoonist. The target can choose to leave it go at that. Or to ridicule the argument. There’s no requirement to silence the dolts of life. Going off like a roman candle says “I announce that this argument has power over me”.

    I suspect neither Rice nor Powell feel any such power. For what it’s worth p6, I also doubt you feel such power, so I’m not going to feel sorry for you either.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    A cartoonist who focuses on a racial feature to make a political point is highly likely to be making a ridiculous argument.

    I haven’t seen go unresponded to. I’ve seen them focus on racial features to make the characature recognizable.

    And the “Color Purple” reference to Dr. Rice wasn’t racial as much as literary.

  • http://urthshu.motime.com urthshu

    This is one of the most offensive threads I’ve read here. “Handkerchief heads”? WTF?

    Eric:
    Don’t delete any of it- leave the trail. Since MD is throwing a fit because you didn’t source HER, having more things to source is always good for the full, hateful picture.

  • dwshelf

    p6, well, so I had to go check out the cartoons for myself.

    Maybe we agree.

    I hope everyone would be able to survive this kind of argument. They were weak arguments. They each did contain a low blow which would never see the light of day if the target were liberal.

    But it’s a gnat attack. We’re discussing powerful people here. People wno don’t need pity or protection.

    I’m sure you didn’t hear it here first, but Condoleezza Rice has an excellent chance to be the first woman president. Elections are won in the middle. Rice would have a far greater center crossover than she would have a defection on the right. Far greater. Contrast to Hillary.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I had to go check out the cartoons for myself.

    Maybe we agree.

    Fine. No need to push you over the edge our first conversation. I got 3+ more years to do that. But I do have to say this:

    Condoleezza Rice has an excellent chance to be the first woman president.

    is nonsense (that I’ve heard elsewhere, yes). It’s as much nonsense as the talk of Powell running a few years back. Rice is the ONLY candidate for President Hillary could beat.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    You people are DELUSIONAL. Condi Rice…President???!? Exactly which social group is going to run out and vote for Condi Rice? She’d NEVER get out of the primaries. White conservative males have NEVER consciously chose to put a minority in the ultimate leadership position, much less a minority female. If you disagree, please cite me an historical example. Hell, Rush Limbaugh lost his mind over a black QUARTERBACK. We’re talking the President of the United States. The only reason white conservatives are cooking up Rice right now is because she is obediant, and in lock step with the Bush, as opposed to Colin Powell, who openly disagreed with Bush and his neo-con kabal in the Iraq War and on Affirmative Action. If she pulled a Powell and went leaking quotes to Bob Woodward, or outing the Iranian Nuke missile program without the Presidential nod, Kristol, Krauthammer, Fox News and Limbaugh would have her out to the woodshed the next day. And if you don’t believe me, find me a FLATTERING right winged article about Powell in the past two months.

    Dorian,

    Dick Cheney DID PROFIT ALREADY. It’s PAST TENSE. Dick Cheney was in bed with Saddam Hussein and, oh my…the FRENCH, through subsidiaries during his tenure as CEO. To me…that’s FAR worse than Whitewater, but I know it’s IMPOSSIBLE for some conservatives to hold their heroes to any reasonable behavioral standards. And if you think that Iraq is “stable” or will be stable in the near future, that ain’t just kool-aid you’re drinking.

    Now as far as this thread’s love affair with black “conservatives” goes,
    have I got a good group for you:

    They promote family values, and are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. They believe in discipline, personal accountabillity and attonement, as well as entreprenuership. They are against the feminist movement, drug and alcohol use, fornication, interracial marriage,(a big plus in those Southern red states) and believe that God and moral values should be the central factor in one’s life.
    You right wingers should be running and embracing these folks…but you won’t, because I’ve just described the Nation of Islam–black conservatives who have NO AFFILIATION, DEBT or SERVICE to rich white right winged overlords.

    So don’t give me this NONSENSE about you folks lovin’ “black conservatives.” This is one African-American from the MAJORITY who thinks you’re all hilarious.

    –Cobra

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Give me an example of racism expressed against Black conservatives that has not been rejected by the civil rights establishment.”

    Uh, have you read the post that leads to this comments section?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Give me an example of racism expressed against moderate Black folks (because I think you threw that in there rather gratuitously).”

    Uh, Colin Powell is a moderate. And he’s been accused of being Bush’s “house slave”…

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    They promote family values, and are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. They believe in discipline, personal accountabillity and attonement, as well as entreprenuership. They are against the feminist movement, drug and alcohol use, fornication, interracial marriage,(a big plus in those Southern red states) and believe that God and moral values should be the central factor in one’s life.
    You right wingers should be running and embracing these folks…but you won’t, because I’ve just described the Nation of Islam

    Man, you should have held out for a minute before telling folks you were describing the NOI.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Look at JC Watts? Tom Delay’s GOP Congress’ glass ceiling kept him in the number 4 slot with no prayer of advancing, so he quit.”

    He rose to the number four spot like a rocket. And he left Congress shortly thereafter.

    I don’t remember him ever suggesting that he left public office because he couldn’t ever rise higher. Cite?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    P6 – it’s not just the way Rice is portrayed in those political cartoons. It’s the message that goes along with it. Using terms like “Aunt Jemima” and “Uncle Tom” and “house nigga” are racist! Period end of sentence. If someone used them to describe you, tell me you would not be offended?

    And the fact that those terms have been used to describe Rice and Powell is racist. and the fact that NO civil rights groups jumped up and defended both of them is wrong. Granted they have since this thread started. But this thread started long after these attacks started. Both Rice and Powell have been attacked by liberal media for years.

    Politics should have nothing at all to do with the argument.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    And the fact that those terms have been used to describe Rice and Powell is racist. and the fact that NO civil rights groups jumped up and defended both of them is wrong.

    Andy, I’m not even going to consider defending someone I think is working against my interests.

    Because racism…excuse me, racial bigotry…affects Black and white folks so differently, white folks need to pick up their end of it the same way we Black folks are told we must. If white Conservatives are concerned about white people saying bad things about Black Conservatives, I say it is on white Conservatives to do something about it. NOT Black folks, nor our institutions.

    If it’s so wrong I should see all the complaints…ALL of them…directed at those who made the statements. Not at those you want to corner politically.

    Granted they have since this thread started. But this thread started long after these attacks started.

    True.

    ALL the Conservative complaints against civil rights organizations (not against Ted Rall, mind you) started long after the cartoons were published.

    What took y’all so long, if it’s all that deep?

    Both Rice and Powell have been attacked by liberal media for years.

    And Jackson has been attacked by conservative media for years. What’s your point?

    They will continue to be attacked. I will continue to attack them. But honestly, how many attacks have you seen that are actually about their race? I’m not talking frippery like what this thread is complaining about.

    Why do Conservatives expect Black people and our institutions to defend folks who support those we feel are working against us? Isn’t the assumption that we must as racist as anything you’d care to accuse the NAACP of? Aren’t you working against the colorblind society Conservatives claim to champion?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “If white Conservatives are concerned about white people saying bad things about Black Conservatives, I say it is on white Conservatives to do something about it. NOT Black folks, nor our institutions.”

    This, frankly, makes no sense.

    It’s not “bad things” some people have said about Ms. Rice or Mr. Powell (both of whom are black). It’s ANTI-BLACK things.

    And any group that claims to be pro-black should denounce such racist attacks. This is NOT an ideological issue.

  • ed

    people seem to forget that 80% of black people in america vote democratic. an overwhelming majority of minorities of americans do the same. when people bad mouth leftists, they always seem to assume that they’re talking about urban, agnostic (or worse) white socialists. the truth is, the democratic party is multi-ethnic. when people call the left racist or anti-semetic, they are speaking about 80% of the jewish population, 80% of the black population, at least 60% of the hispanic population, the majority of women in this country. that’s a lot of folks to make silly assumptions about. the truth is, the democratic party is a minority party made up of our country’s citizen minorities. sure there are some fools in the tent, but overall, we are a diverse group defending our interests against an overwhelmingly white, wealthy, male Republican party.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    It’s not “bad things” some people have said about Ms. Rice or Mr. Powell (both of whom are black). It’s ANTI-BLACK things.

    Oh?

    Such as?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    how about aunt jemima uncle tom and house nigger…that bad enough???opr anti black enough???

    probably not…but as I said before, if someone used those terms to describe you they would be bad enough…

    and the conservative media does go after Jackson, but they never use racial slurs to do it. Because we know that the naacp and every other civil rights group would be screaming and doing it right away, not waiting for ever.

    And lastly P6 – I wouldn’t expect you to defend Powells’ or Rices’ politics, but if you truly are concerned with racism then I do expect you to defend them against hate no matter what side of the poilitical aisle it’s coming from.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    how about aunt jemima uncle tom and house nigger…that bad enough???opr anti black enough???

    1: They were addressed. You guys keep coming back to “problems” that are a non-issue.

    2: They are not anti-Black. They are anti-Rice and anti-Powell. When these two are lauded, no one says it applies to the whole Black race. I don’t assume flattery gets distributed so I don’t assume the insults are. Nor the responsibility…which, given the stuff I could point to, you should all recognize as a Good Thing©.

    Is it that you guys know something about how general such comments are when coming from white folks that I don’t? Because see, I’ll call a sell-out a hanky-head in a heartbeat and I KNOW I’m not talking about all Black folks.

    Another post that no one will comment on is coming, I can feel the subject matter congealing as I type…

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Ah.

    if you truly are concerned with racism

    The next topic.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I think the question that needs to be asked is “Is it possible for a member of a minority community to adopt an ideology that is harmful to that community, without some form of bias present against his/her own community?”

    To me, the answer is no.

    Cobra hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer. Everybody loves Rice/Powell because they support anti-minority Republican ideology and not because they are independent, personal responsibility loving individuals.

    Back when slaves came to this country in ships, there were Africans who sold their own kind to the white man. These individuals showed signs of entrepreneurship, independence, believed in God and most likely were against homosexuality and drug use.

    There are conservative ideologies that I like, stronger borders, etc. but I will not sell out my own family, condemning us to second class citizenship because I believe in strong borders or the right to bear arms. Do Powell and Rice condemn affirmative action as being anti-white, as many Republicans claim it is? Do Powell and Rice both think that EVERY person on welfare is a free loader, as many Republicans claim?

    Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe they are independent entrepreneurs, maybe they are intelligent, etc. AND maybe they are for affirmative action and welfare reform, while keeping welfare in place, etc. BUT it is my belief that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to adopt an ‘over-all’ ideology that is harmful to your own community, without some form of internalized racism/homophobia/gender-bias (insert appropriate minority slant here).

    Again, the question that should be asked here is “Is it possible for a member of a minority community to adopt an ideology that is harmful to that community, without some form of bias present against his/her own community?”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    So P6 – using racist titles is ok if it fits? Hankyhead is ok, if it’s someone that you disagree with politically?

    I’m just trying to clarify here. Racism is ok if you don’t agree with a persons politics. That’s what I got from your last comment.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Andy, I haven’t seen racism in this situation. I’ve seen characatures. That’s all.

  • dwshelf

    Because racism…excuse me, racial bigotry…affects Black and white folks so differently,

    If you’re going to use this as the premise used to derive some greater conclusion, I suggest it needs some support.

    I see no evidence whatsoever that either Ms. Rice nor Mr. Powell have been affected in the slightest by anyting we’re discussing here.

    No more than GW Bush has been affected by claims he’s a latter day Hitler.

    More general than “racial bigotry”, what we see is the use of slurs to make political arguments. Surely “Hitler” is in the same zone as “Uncle Tom”.

    And yet, we see all of Bush, Powell, and Rice apparently totally unaffected. Despite the fact that some are black, some white.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    Andy Marsh writes:

    >>>and the conservative media does go after Jackson, but they never use racial slurs to do it. Because we know that the naacp and every other civil rights group would be screaming and doing it right away, not waiting for ever.< <<

    How many times have you heard Rush Limbaugh insult African-American public figures by emphasizing ethnic language colloquialisms and speach patterns? How many times have we heard Sean Hannity use the term "DNC Plantation", an obvious attempt to paint blacks who vote for democrats as SLAVES. We've heard Bob Grant describe blacks as "savages," and those are just the FAMOUS talkies. Conservative commentators are often condescending, patronizing and dismissive of ANY African American speaker not sanctioned by the Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institute, Cato, or Heritage Foundation. For them, you either sell out or get the hell out.

    RJ writes:
    >>>I don’t remember him ever suggesting that he left public office because he couldn’t ever rise higher. Cite?”

    You won’t get a direct quote from Watts on that, because then his TV appearences and book sales will decline, but take a look at this:

    >>>Watts, Angered by DeLay, Threatened to Quit Post

    Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla) (AP)

    By Juliet Eilperin
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, August 4, 1999; Page A12

    House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts (Okla.) briefly threatened to resign last week over what he considered Majority Whip Tom DeLay’s efforts to usurp his responsibilities.
    As the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, Watts is charged with overseeing the GOP’s effort to forge a unified public message. But during a recent GOP caucus meeting, DeLay (Tex.) distributed talking points to Republican members — so angering Watts that he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a private meeting that he was considering relinquishing his post, according to several sources”

    And so he did. Take a look at this.

    >>>He also occasionally complained that he was not included enough in leadership decisions.

    The congressman, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, recently expressed concern that President Bush did not communicate with him about the administration’s plan to kill the Crusader artillery system. The $11 billion weapon was to be assembled in Elgin and training conducted at Fort Sill, in Watts’ district.”
    http://www.kccall.com/news/2002/0705/Front_Page/008.html

    And here:
    >>>It was frustration. Watts sees himself as a policy guy. He made repeated efforts to increase his role in forming Republican policy, and repeatedly he fell short.

    After rising like a meteor to the No. 4 spot in the House GOP leadership, Watts hoped he could move up. The conference chairman is in charge of forming the Republicans’ message to the press and the public. While Watts has mixed reviews in that regard, the general consensus is that, for a Republican, he did a good job. Certainly, the media has a harder time demonizing congressional Republicans today than they did in 1998. Watts is partly to thank for that.

    But he wanted more. When Majority Leader Dick Armey (Tex.) announced he was retiring, Watts made an almost spastic run for his post and the whip spot being vacated by Tom DeLay (Tex.). Neither of those efforts went anywhere. Soon afterwards, he tried to reshape the conference role so that he would have more say in policy issues.

    Watts was stuck at No. 4, and so time with the family seemed a lot more appealing.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-carney070202.asp

    So there you go. Although JC Watts was faithful to GOP, he was sliced into a eunuch by party leaders who really didn’t want him to do anything except “token-up” at rallies and conventions. Is this the model of the GOP Big Tent?

    Back to the thread at hand on the cartoonists’ depiction of Condi. Speaking as a free lance cartoonist myself, Condi Rice is FAIR GAME. In fact, I think they’re taking it easy on her. It comes with the territory of the position.
    In fact, I’ve got my pencils going on her right now, and I’m not as “forgiving” as most..

    –Cobra

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I don’t listen to rush…personally, I don’t think you should either!

  • dwshelf

    You people are DELUSIONAL. Condi Rice…President???!? Exactly which social group is going to run out and vote for Condi Rice? She’d NEVER get out of the primaries. White conservative males have NEVER consciously chose to put a minority in the ultimate leadership position, much less a minority female. If you disagree, please cite me an historical example.

    When we’re in a long term trend, history doesn’t hold any examples.

    Most conservative white males would be proud to vote for a black woman who thought largely like them. So would black women conservatives. Hispanic conservatives.

    It’s true, our experience with Ms. Rice is that of an excellent lieutenant. But during these four years, we’ve seen a bit of the real Ms. Rice shine though. We’ve seen her on her feet in real time, a master. We’ll see more of this with her as Sec of State. Imagine her appearing as the American Margaret Thatcher.

    There’s no doubt that most of the hard core left would never vote for her. But there’s a whole lot of people in the center who would. Many successful blacks in particular would vote for their first Republican, ever. So would others personally torn between statism vs self reliance. And not just a few people of all races would vote for a black woman simply to be voting for a black woman; these are life long Democrats.

    Contrast to Hillary. Not only is there a hard core on the right who will never vote for her, she alienates the middle. There is no huge demographic segment ripe for the picking. No life long Republicans would vote for Hillary.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    dwshelf:

    I see no evidence whatsoever that either Ms. Rice nor Mr. Powell have been affected in the slightest by anyting we’re discussing here.

    Which is why I find all the complaints totally disingenuous.

    This is simply being used as a lash against folk people want to corner politically. That’s all. Normally I keep coming back to the central topic but I think I’ll indulge in a little drift.

    Because racism…excuse me, racial bigotry…affects Black and white folks so differently,

    If you’re going to use this as the premise used to derive some greater conclusion, I suggest it needs some support.

    There is no greater conclusion applicable. You should read this thread. Some choice quotes (and I’m not picking on you, Eric; in fact I think these quotes are proof we can communicate):

    Eric:Reverse it: I, a reasonably well-educated white man from an upper-middle class background, identify much more with a black person of similar socio-economic status and/or background than with an uneducated, poor white person. I can’t imagine the circumstances – short of race war – where that identification would change.

    P6: It’s not a matter of identifying on the basis of class or common experiences created by being in the particular race box one is in. Because, you see, Black culture was largely shaped by a centuries old race war. The one circumstance under which you can imagine identifying more with a poor white person than a rich Black one, is the very circumstance that is the dominant influence in our history.

    Think about that. Twice.


    P6: Again I ask: can you honestly say, to this day, that the USofA acknowledges Black Americans as full members? And if you think so, survey the cultural landscape and tell me how Black Americans will know this.


    Eric: Unfortunately, we cannot alter the past, only deal with its legacy as best we can.

    P6: No doubt. But understand that you and I are dealing with different aspects of that legacy.

    What problems does racism cause you, a reasonably well-educated white male from a fairly upper middle class background?

    What problems does racism cause me, a 6’2″ 185 lb Black male, self-educated, no degree, had to work up from messenger to Assistant VP at a bank, father a farmer, mother a laborer that eventually got a nice safe civil service job?

    Feel me?


    That last is critical. What you (assuming you’re white) react to and cal racism is not what I react to and call racism. And that’s why I say you guys being concerned about racism coming a white guy just ain’t my problem. It’s yours.

    More general than “racial bigotry”, what we see is the use of slurs to make political arguments. Surely “Hitler” is in the same zone as “Uncle Tom”.

    No, it’s not. Hitler is dead. Uncle Tom is not.

  • dwshelf

    That last is critical. What you (assuming you’re white) react to and cal racism is not what I react to and call racism. And that’s why I say you guys being concerned about racism coming a white guy just ain’t my problem. It’s yours.

    p6, I agree, I don’t know exactly what “racism” is or means. I see it used in so many different, and contradictory ways.

    But slurs I understand a little better. Slurs are only coincidentally racial. The general nature of a slur-based political argument is:
    -ridicule the person; show that the person is different in an undesired way from the speaker and, hopefully, the audience.
    -suggest that the audience should join in the ridicule
    -thus, the person’s political views are discredited.

    Now when the slur is a racial slur, do we have racism? I don’t know.

    I do know we have a very weak argument with no power over even ordinarily intelligent people.

  • http://www.iwt.blogspot.com TheCO

    This is actually a fairly simple question to answer, and for the most part the answer is: No this is not racism.

    It stems from a piece of Americana that is a distorted legacy of the past: The belief that all blacks are sharing the same experiences, and think in the same ways. In short its the belief that the African American race is a monolith. This is false. Just after the Civil War, even up through the sixties this would have made sense. Today its truly insane to hold to this belief. Do you really think Condelezza Rice, Michael Jackson, and the kid who delivers pizza’s in Compton grew up the same way?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I do know we have a very weak argument with no power over even ordinarily intelligent people.

    Then white Conservatives should either deal with the argument or leave it alone.

    Dealing with the argument is NOT a matter of pointing at Black folks to detail how we’re supposed to react, or ask why we didn’t do something about it all.

    Reality check, people. Black folks ain’t the ones who run this puppy. We are not the ones that set the agendas. If we were, things would look considerably different.

  • dwshelf

    p6, near as I can tell, we agree completely. I don’t expect or desire anyone to stop political cartoonists from using slurs.

  • Dorian

    About race as it applies to political groups – I would first say that every party has it factions of racists. That said, I grew up being ambivalent about race and only grew up to notice race mainly due to the actions of liberals. It was predominately liberals who wanted to talk ad nauseam about how enlightened they were and how screwed up everyone else was when it came to race. They held up their race banter as “clever” proof of their open-mindedness as if to say “look at me, I’m not noticing the color of this persons skin. I’m not racist”. They’re like the white “friend” that constantly reminds you “I never think about the fact that you’re black”. The constant chatter is, in a sense, proof that they do think about race constantly. They are drawing lines and drawing attention to these lines. When a black person wins a congressional seat the talk is “good for him he’s black but he made it anyway, let’s hold him up as a shining beacon of how we don’t notice race ”.

    Ted Rall and company, unofficial advocates for the liberals, know what racism is all about – they’re racist to the core. When they’re given license to play the race card they can’t wait to use it. And it exposes how they feel about ALL blacks when they attack particular blacks they way they did.

  • dwshelf

    They’re like the white “friend” that constantly reminds you “I never think about the fact that you’re black”. The constant chatter is, in a sense, proof that they do think about race constantly. They are drawing lines and drawing attention to these lines.

    One might suggest that such people are exposed to input? That they are not, in any sense, “the enemy”.

    We’re not all born with extraordinary social skills. Most of us improve with, no surprise, social interaction.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    dwshelf:

    I picked up that we would agree, at least this far. Now, do you still agree with the basis of this thread, that civil rights groups are somehow negligent in their response to…whoever they haven’t yet upbraided?

    Dorian:

    You’ve demonstrated this isn’t about Black people at all. Thank you, no shit, for the honest response.

  • SFC Ski

    Well, I don’t want to go into the “we were so poor” sketch, but I’d like to answer P6’s question; “What problems does racism cause you…?”

    One problem is that I feel I have to constantly prove I am not a racist. Let me clarify; I am a white male in the military, in a position of authority. AS you can imagine, not everyone likes the orders I sometimes have to give them, and I do sometimes wonder if a minority Soldier thinks they are being singled out for a detail, or not being promoted simply because they are a member of a minorty?(Am I acting like the master with a slave or a Sergeant telling a Private to get teh job done, if you know what I mean?). With superiors who are minority members there is also at times a brief but palpable moment when that superior gives me an order and looks to see if I have problems taking orders from a minority. (Hell no, I asay “Roger that, sir/m’am” and move out smartly). I wouldn’t say I am overly sensitive about it, but I am conscious of this tension, if that is the proper word.

    Fortunately, I can count on one hand the amount of times there has ever been a real or perceived problem in my workplace due to race. Not that there aren’t racial issues in the military, there are, but I can say
    that they few in my experience, and we have some of the best mechanisms in place to address and rectify them.

  • dwshelf

    Now, do you still agree with the basis of this thread, that civil rights groups are somehow negligent in their response to…whoever they haven’t yet upbraided?

    I agree with that too.

    Would you agree that slurs are not a threat to one’s happiness or success, regardless of the race or politics of the target?

  • dwshelf

    Sorry, p6. I read that again, I meant to say that I agreed with you. Civil rights organizations have no duty to protect people from slurs.

  • Scoota Rey

    It seems that you people have a lot to say about this, but, what are you going to do about it? We can go typing our brains out (if that’s possible…err…you know what I mean), but if no one takes a stand, then these 154 (now 155) comments are utterly futile.

  • dwshelf

    Scoota Rey, what would you like to see happen?

    Do you see where any harm has been done?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    SFC Ski:

    I think you (and Dorian) have described THE race issue for white folks. And for the record, I have no doubt Dorian’s experiences are exactly as he described. But that’s not a race issue, that’s a power relationship issue. It just so happens the white folks he was dealing with used Black folks as a cudgel…and Black folks were the recipients of the blow-back when we didn’t do a damn thing to deserve it.

    This was white folks flexing on white folks. It’s ALWAYS been white folks flexing on white folks. And the sole soultion to race problems Conservatives offer address white folks’ concerns–not to be blamed for racism–and specifically exclude any effort to address Black folks’ problem with race–which is to avoid its impact.

    That’s one major reason Black Conservatives are Black Conservatives© instead of conservative Black people.

    Scoota Rey, these guys seem to be listening. That’s a start. That’s all it is, a start on a generation-long project that got deflected by power games. But that’s more than I had last month.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    dwshelf, may I say it has been a pleasure working the conversation with you.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    Dwshelf writes:

    >>>Most conservative white males would be proud to vote for a black woman who thought largely like them. So would black women conservatives. Hispanic conservatives.”

    I respectfully disagree. We’ve seen this in action several times in recent history with the Alan Keyes experiment. Keyes, an arch-conservative who would make Pat Buchanan look like a “Soul Train” line dancer, gets EMBARRASSINGLY low vote counts in any race he enters, despite getting more free media and propaganda exposure of his rhetoric.
    Again…the Red State South, in states like Alabama, where they voted to KEEP the language of SEGREGATION in State legislation this year is a “Rice State?” Separate Proms Georgia? The white NASCAR dads in South Carolina are going to embrace a multi-degreed, single black female intellectual? Like I said…
    She wouldn’t make it out of the primaries.
    More editorial cartoons are needed. I don’t see why reality television programs should be the only medium where outspoken black women can be scrutinized.

    –Cobra

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Cobra – do you really believe that most conservatives think like Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan? Maybe most ultra-conservatives, but not most normal people!

  • http://www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com Mike Kole

    Cobra- I agree with dwshelf that most white conservatives would vote for black or hispanic conservatives. The Keyes example is a poor one, because conservative voters shy from a completely unwound whack-job, as Keyes has become. JC Watts was an apt example, because the voters keep electing him. The leadership that keeps him 4th is distinct from the voters.

    What frustrates white conservatives is not so much black voters but black leadership. If black voters are liberals and then voting Democrat, who could bemoan them? But the NAACP is the Association for the Advancement of Colored People, not for the Advancement of Liberal Ideology, nor for the Advancement of the Democratic Party. When black conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice advance, white conservatives do expect the NAACP to rah-rah that advancement.

    That disappointment would probably fade if these white conservatives took a less literal interpretation of NAACP’s name, but who would bemoan them that? Or, NAACP could just play it straight and come out and say that it is a liberal organization and end the controversy for once and for all.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    andy:

    do you really believe that most conservatives think like Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan?

    Conservatives keep voting for people who hold their position.

    What are we supposed to think?

    Mike:

    What frustrates white conservatives is not so much black voters but black leadership. If black voters are liberals and then voting Democrat, who could bemoan them?

    Do you want a LIST of who does bemoan us?

    But the NAACP is the Association for the Advancement of Colored People, not for the Advancement of Liberal Ideology, nor for the Advancement of the Democratic Party.

    Again, white folks flexing on white folks.

    I’d really prefer not to be a tool in y’all’s power struggles.

    Actually, I’d prefer a fair shot at participating in them struggles.

    Conceptually I’d prefer it. Brothers get shot…

    Okay, that was cynical as hell, but I ain’t had coffee yet.

    When black conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice advance, white conservatives do expect the NAACP to rah-rah that advancement.

    The NAACP isn’t the Nation Association for the Advancement of ‘Couple-of People. These two “advancements” have done nothing to advance “Colored People” in general.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    P6 – have alan keyes or pat buchanan ever actually been elected to anything?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I guess what I’m getting from this whole string here is if the supposed racism is not offensive to most then it’s not really racism. It’s only racism if one particular person views it as such and it better not be a conservative who views it that way because then it’s just a bullshit argument. Sort of like when I said if you don’t like it here then leave. The response I got back was Oh, go back to africa??? It wasn’t what I said, but it was the way someone wanted to perceive it. The fact that I’m white and the “offended” person is a psycho had everything to do with it.

    It’s only racism if a black person is offended by it. People like me can’t possibly identify racism because I’ve never had to experience it. I guess I can use this as an excuse the next time someone calls me a racist. How the hell was I supposed to know? I’m white!

  • Eric Olsen

    as you may have noticed, I largely took the weekend off – I am very pleased to see the form this discussion has maintained, maybe we really are heading in the right direction.

    At this point my primary remaining concern relating to the original topic is the concept of “Uncle Tom” or “Tommin'” – what does this mean exactly? Why is this term so much more freely used by liberals against conservatives than the other way around? Is it a political issue? Can one be a conservative black without being an Uncle Tom?

    If we wish for race to no longer be such a powerful social determinant, why is there still the notion of “betraying one’s race”? What does that mean?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I actually have enjoyed this conversation. It’s amazing that I am allowed to discuss racism without being called a racist!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    It’s amazing that I am allowed to discuss racism without being called a racist!

    That’s what happens when it becomes clear Black folks opinions are being seriously considered.

    It takes time to get to that point though. There’s SO much…like, race is so unavoidably large a part of the life of every Black person who contacts white folks regularly that the idea of colorblindness is BLATANTLY stupid. And I’m drifting…

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    It’s only racism if a black person is offended by it. People like me can’t possibly identify racism because I’ve never had to experience it.

    You’re overfocusing on the personal. On the personal tip, the rule is the same as with white folks…learn from experience.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    At this point my primary remaining concern relating to the original topic is the concept of “Uncle Tom” or “Tommin'” – what does this mean exactly? Why is this term so much more freely used by liberals against conservatives than the other way around? Is it a political issue? Can one be a conservative black without being an Uncle Tom?

    Eric, politics is sea foam.

    Consider your local police department: a heterogenous group of people facing a basically hostile world of which circumstances decree they see mostly the seamy side of.

    Extrapolate.

  • dwshelf

    Does anyone really see Condoleezza Rice as being much like Buchanan and Keyes?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Does anyone really see Condoleezza Rice as being much like Buchanan and Keyes?

    I don’t feel I’ve ever heard her opinion.

    I know she faithfully repeats the words and supports the policies of someone I think is very much like Buchanan and Keyes.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Don’t tell me you see no similarity between Bush’s positions and policies and those supported by Keyes and Buchanan. They just support the positions with different arguments.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    So now Keyes and Buchanan are mainstream conservatives? Damn, I hate it when I keep reading all the wrong stuff! I need to find these X-file kinda places that the rest of the world must be reading!

    It only makes sense though, I mean look at all the votes these two got running on that typical right wing platform!

    Even with his name in the wrong place on the FL ballot Buchanan couldn’t get 5% of the vote!

    And lastly, we’re back to the real issue. Dr. Rice doesn’t spew the liberal message, so she must not be spewing her own message. How could a black female that grew up in Alabama in the ’60’s possibly believe that conservative politics could be a good thing?

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    Eric writes:

    >>>At this point my primary remaining concern relating to the original topic is the concept of “Uncle Tom” or “Tommin'” – what does this mean exactly? Why is this term so much more freely used by liberals against conservatives than the other way around? Is it a political issue? Can one be a conservative black without being an Uncle Tom?”

    I think you’re missing the main point some of us are trying to make. P6 puts it in the correctly when he says it’s about white people flexing on other whites.
    Of course one can be a conservative black without being an Uncle Tom. I presented the Nation of Islam as the most blatant example of a group of blacks who maintain conservative beliefs who aren’t: being sponsored, supported, receiving grants from, seeking approval from, currying favor for, or showing indefatigable, hound dog loyal support for pro-white male socio, economic and political causes.

    Also, most Bible believing black church services on Sunday morning will give you more examples, Eric.

    Lastly, you need to examine a belief system that would lead you to believe that “conservative black” is synonymous with “loyal RNC operative.”

    –Cobra

  • dwshelf

    Can one be a conservative black without being an Uncle Tom?

    Can one be a successful black without being called an Uncle Tom? (where success is in business rather than purely as an entertainer or athlete)

    After all, such success typically requires dropping feelings of hostility or fear toward other people because of their white race.

    By the definition of some, dropping feelings of racial hostility and fear is the essence of Tommin.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Future News:

    (01/30/09) WASHINGTON – President Hillary Clinton responded today to attacks on HHS nominee Al Sharpton from a conservative white blogger.

    “Not since Jim Crow have we witnessed such a patently racist attack made so very publicly and unapologetically. This type of hateful rhetoric must end, even if legislation is required to do so.”

    President Clinton was referring to a cartoon that has been circling the blogosphere of late. It depicts the Rev. Al Sharpton calling Jewish Americans “bloodsuckers” and “Jew bastards.” The Rev. is pictured with a broad nose and very dark skin tone.

    The NAACP immediately denounced the cartoon.

    “There is nothing at all funny about some right-wing white boy drawing a vile, racist caricature of a proud African-American,” said NAACP Chairperson Julian Bond. “And the very fact that so many right-wing white bloggers have linked to this evil depiction of a black civil-rights leader just goes to show you how far we still have to come.”

    Defeated Republican Presidential candidate Condi Rice was unavailable for comment at press time.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    RJ – my question to you is…are you taking art classes right now?

    Will that be YOUR cartoon in ’09?

    It shouldn’t matter, I mean, it will only be a caricature!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Andy:

    So now Keyes and Buchanan are mainstream conservatives? Damn, I hate it when I keep reading all the wrong stuff! I need to find these X-file kinda places that the rest of the world must be reading!

    Don’t tell me you see no similarity between Bush’s positions and policies and those supported by Keyes and Buchanan. They just support the positions with different arguments.

    Dr. Rice doesn’t spew the liberal message, so she must not be spewing her own message. How could a black female that grew up in Alabama in the ’60’s possibly believe that conservative politics could be a good thing?

    How could you think I’d find it an improvent that she actually believes all that crap? I’m trying to give her credit for being a loyal employee.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    dwshelf:

    By the definition of some, dropping feelings of racial hostility and fear is the essence of Tommin.

    When these nebulous “some” post a comment, I’ll respond.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    P6 – I think that Keyes and Buchanan represent the fringe of the right. Sure they support some of the policies trumpetted by the right, but Buchanan is basically an isolationist and Keyes is just plain crazy!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Policies, man, policies.

    If I knew nothing of Buchanan and Bush but the policies the espouse, would I think they agree?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    On some issues I’m sure they would.

    I think you’re trying to do the same thing that probably won Bush the election. It’s like lumping Teddy Kennedy together with all democrats. I was just up in Boston and I was not able to locate a single person that admits to voting for Kennedy.

    You can take the most liberal side of the democratic party and still find plenty of issues that a moderate democrat would agree are good issues. That’s why they are called extreme, they tend to take shit to far!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I think you’re trying to do the same thing that probably won Bush the election. It’s like lumping Teddy Kennedy together with all democrats.

    Yeah, kinda. Not a serious effort, just a gesture to show it can be done.

  • dwshelf

    Rice’s postions are far closer to Bush’s (who is obviously electable) than they are to those of Buchanan or Keyes (who are not electable).

    Maybe it’s a bit of wishful thinking. I see in Rice all the good things I see in Bush, and I don’t see any of the bad things. Reality, as revealed by time, could be different.

    Buchanan is no Ted Kennedy. He’s a Jesse Jackson. A person with a real national constituency, but lacking even modestly broad national appeal. Keyes is, in a word, shrill. He comes off as anti-intellectual, which doesn’t appeal to any but the choir.

    Ms. Rice could disappoint us by materializing like that, but the early indications are not even close.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Hey, some people voted for Nader.

  • dwshelf

    Hey, some people voted for Nader.

    That’s me. Republicans for Nader. I did vote for Nader.

    By the definition of some, dropping feelings of racial hostility and fear is the essence of Tommin.
    When these nebulous “some” post a comment, I’ll respond.

    I’m not surprised p6, that you yourself reject this definition. You wouldn’t be here otherwise.

    Further, I’ll agree with you, very few people would agree to this definition as being their own.

    On the other hand, the observation is that a lot of people slinging around “Uncle Tom” feel no requirement to distance themselves from this definition. They imply that evidence that someone black has a normalized relationship with whites is sufficient to validate the slur as something other than a slur.

    Others would cautiously qualify “whites” as “powerful whites”, as if that really made any difference.

    In the end, we’re mortal, highly imperfect people sharing an experience in time. We should enjoy each other’s company before we die.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    On the other hand, the observation is that a lot of people slinging around “Uncle Tom” feel no requirement to distance themselves from this definition.

    It’s so far from anyone’s meaning there’s no need.

    They imply that evidence that someone black has a normalized relationship with whites is sufficient to validate the slur as something other than a slur.

    That’s your interpretation. They imply no such thing.

    Against my better judgement I’m drop this clue: “you think you’re white” doesn’t mean “you have no idea you’re a Black American.”

  • http://www.thecobralair.com Cobra

    DWShelf writes:

    >>>They imply that evidence that someone black has a normalized relationship with whites is sufficient to validate the slur as something other than a slur.”

    Again, I disagree. “Normalization” has nothing to do with it. Common courtesy, manners and ettiquette doesn’t make a person a “Tom.” Relating to somebody in a civil manner doesn’t make a person a “Tom.”
    In my opinion, it’s conscious currying of favor…boot-licking self-immolation for higher reward or status.
    Whether it be a conscious acknowledgement of racial inferiority, or a machiaivellian minstrel show, most examples of Tommin’ are far beyond a simple “lack of hostillity”, and highly abominable. Outside of a life-threating situation, say violent criminal confrontation, hostage crisis, or occupation/insurgency, tommin’ nothing less than mercenary cowardice.

    I hope that clears up my position.

    –Cobra

  • Eric Olsen

    okay, thanks for the definition – where do Powell and Rice fit into this picture then?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    where do Powell and Rice fit into this picture then?

    Well, as I said, I don’t think I’ve heard Dr. Rice at all.

    I remember these old submarine war movies where the captain would give an order and a guy would repeat the order into a microphone. They followed the orders of the guy on the mike but he really didn’t exist, functionally. He was just The Voice of the Captain.

    Dr. Rice is just The Voice of Bush.

    As for Powell, it’s my observation most Black folks see him more as a soldier than a Tom. Most that are angry at Rice are disappointed in Powell.

    The movie “Amistad” was greatly anticipated in the Black communities, and was a great disappointment because people went looking for an African hero and got an American President instead. This is the same disappointment people have in Powell.

  • dwshelf

    Cobra writes:
    Again, I disagree. “Normalization” has nothing to do with it. Common courtesy, manners and ettiquette doesn’t make a person a “Tom.” Relating to somebody in a civil manner doesn’t make a person a “Tom.”
    In my opinion, it’s conscious currying of favor…boot-licking self-immolation for higher reward or status.

    That sounds disgusting.

    I have no personal observation of such behavior ever. I don’t doubt that it’s occurred, but surely it’s uncommon.

    By this definition, any application to Powell or Rice is a pure slur.

    But to tie things up a bit Cobra, by “normalization” I was suggesting more than politeness. I was suggesting willingness to work with whites in various business roles, including employee. The willingness to derive pleasure from the company of whites.

  • dwshelf

    They imply that evidence that someone black has a normalized relationship with whites is sufficient to validate the slur as something other than a slur.
    That’s your interpretation. They imply no such thing.

    When someone applies this term to either Rice or Powell, and supplies not the slightest hint of anything in Cobra’s definition, what are they implying?

    Even if, as you seem to believe, she’s a brainless twit lucky to be employed at all, but found this well paying job passing on messages from the chief, there’s nothing in that which was covered by Cobra’s definition.

    Nor have you suggested that she’s a Tom. But others have, and not just the current cartoonists under discussion. That’s the “nebulous some” I refer to.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    I was suggesting more than politeness. I was suggesting willingness to work with whites in various business roles, including employee. The willingness to derive pleasure from the company of whites.

    You can’t be serious.

    It is so all about white folks.

    When in the entire history of the Children of Africa’s presence on this continent has this not been demonstrated? I mean, setting aside that whole unfortunate slavery thing.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    Dwshelf writes:

    >>>I have no personal observation of such behavior ever. I don’t doubt that it’s occurred, but surely it’s uncommon.”

    C’mon now. Let’s be realistic here. 36% of the population (white males) controls the VAST majority of the wealth, land and leadership positions in America. This was no “happy accident.” People from all non-white groups learned pretty fast the rules of engagement from the outset, and which group to kiss up to. You’re going to tell me you’ve never come across “yes men” in your life? Office suck ups? Teacher’s pets? Uncle Toms are the interracial version on ‘roids, and you can see it Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander and all other ethnicities here.
    That being said, I would love to see Condi Rice in a detailed discussion on social issues, especially concerning race, by a SKILLED interviewer not involved with the Fox News channel. I watched her twist uncomfortably like a licorice whip when Russert called her on Bush’s Affirmative Action policies last year. Then I think we can fianlly evaluate this black neo-con’s motivations.

    >>>I was suggesting willingness to work with whites in various business roles, including employee. The willingness to derive pleasure from the company of whites.”

    Working with, for, and/or becoming friends with white people doesn’t make somebody a “Tom”, IMHO. That someone’s life holds less value bereft of those things, however, is a thought process far along the road to Tomdom.

    –Cobra

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    When someone applies this term to either Rice or Powell, and supplies not the slightest hint of anything in Cobra’s definition, what are they implying?

    Comment 190.

    And for the record I acknowledge Dr. Rice is brilliant. This isn’t about that. To me, this discussion isn’t about Gen. Powell or Dr. Rice at all. They are specific examples that present the chance to expose a concept here and there.

    Let me disrupt your entire world view. There are liberal Toms. Black people who identify more with party and purse than people. No I will not name them, and no, you shouldn’t speculate. They are extremely rare in comparison to those on the Right the job openings for Black folks on the Right have very few parallels on the Left so there’s less outside impetus to make such a choice.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    You know what y’all need? You need more than politeness. You should be willing to work with Black Americans in various business roles, including employee. You need the willingness to derive pleasure from the company of Black Americans.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    P6 – it would seem to me that it is about Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell for this simple reason.

    Since there would appear to be many more minorities in the democratic party than in the republican party then it would also be logical that there should be many more qualified minority candidates to choose from for posts such as Sec of State and National Security Advisor. Why is it then that it has ONLY happened under a conservative White House? And why is it that the 2 people we have been speaking of are considered lesser minorities because of it?

    The one question that I have yet to see answered here is why is it ok for a radio personality to slur a republican minority? There would be outrage from the left for the same type of slur used on a democratic minority. But I guess it’s like I said before, if you agree with the slur, then it’s not a slur…sort of like how stereotypes become stereotypes?

  • dwshelf

    You’re going to tell me you’ve never come across “yes men” in your life?

    Yes, of course. But it had nothing to do with race. It had to do with pursuit of power and/or money.

    If a black man were a yes man to a white boss, would that make him a Tom?

  • dwshelf

    You know what y’all need? You need more than politeness. You should be willing to work with Black Americans in various business roles, including employee. You need the willingness to derive pleasure from the company of Black Americans.

    I derive pleasure from your reaction, p6.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    You hiring P6?

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    dwshelf writes:

    >>>If a black man were a yes man to a white boss, would that make him a Tom?”

    That depends on what that black man was saying “yes” to.

    –Cobra

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    The one question that I have yet to see answered here is why is it ok for a radio personality to slur a republican minority?

    Coincidentally, the one problem I’ve yet to see is some broad acceptance of racial slurs from radio personalities by the left.

    How manty times to I have to respond the same way to different phrasings of the same baseless claim?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Is everyone on this thread a politician? I have yet to see a straight answer once!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Since there would appear to be many more minorities in the democratic party than in the republican party then it would also be logical that there should be many more qualified minority candidates to choose from for posts such as Sec of State and National Security Advisor. Why is it then that it has ONLY happened under a conservative White House? And why is it that the 2 people we have been speaking of are considered lesser minorities because of it?

    Whole other topic. I’m discussing Black people’s reactions. You’s discussing sea foam.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Is everyone on this thread a politician? I have yet to see a straight answer once!

    What have I not answered directly?

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    But I’ll answer your sea foam.

    Black people have only been legally free since 1964. Takes time, and it had to happen somewhere first. Bush’s need for legitimacy during his first run and the Republican Party’s need to put a moderate face on extremist positions (and you know damn well that what your last two Presidential conventions were about) coincided. You’ll note that Dr. Rice was literally among the first to benefit and suffer from integration as a social tool. And General Powell took no political position at all until he decided he could be the voice of moderation for Bush.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    what exactly is sea foam…keep in mind that I’m from the beach and I was in the navy for 20 years!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    what exactly is sea foam

    Fleeting surface manifestations

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    And what have I not answered directly?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    So then tell me if I’m getting this right…if it doesn’t bother most black people then I shouldn’t get my panties in a wad about it? That seems to be the gist of this whole thing.

  • dwshelf

    I was suggesting more than politeness. I was suggesting willingness to work with whites in various business roles, including employee. The willingness to derive pleasure from the company of whites.
    When in the entire history of the Children of Africa’s presence on this continent has this not been demonstrated?

    Let’s make sure the context is clear. The question regards whether behavior as I suggest is evidence of “Tommin”, not that it’s unusual.

    Further more, I think we all understand that it was offered not as a sincere definition, but rather a ridiculous definition that some seem to be using. It’s those nebulous some again who are the target of this argument.

    Those nebulous some who feel free to claim that Rice or Powell are a discredit to their race because … well because they get along too well with powerful whites.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    That seems to be the gist of this whole thing.

    Truth be told, what I’ve gotten from it is all the discussion about Black folks’ behavior is actually about white folks’ comfort and power.

    This time you get no direct answer because it has no bearing on what white folks have to do to hold up their end of solving the problem.

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    Further more, I think we all understand that it was offered not as a sincere definition, but rather a ridiculous definition that some seem to be using.

    Yet you approach me as though I need to answer for the interpretation you have made.

    Sorry. Not the case.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Hey I’m comfortable and I have no power!

    I personally hold up my end of solving the problem by not using terms I believe would be construed as racist.

    I don’t know what else I as one person can do. I have tried to raise my daughters to be as color blind as possible.

    What else is expected of me as a white male in this world where I have all the advantages?

    I personally believe that the things I’ve heard said about Rice and Powell are racist. The original question asked was why doesn’t anyone else see it that way? Why doesn’t the main stream media beat up on people like they do when an asshole like limbaugh or jimmy the greek say the stupid shit they say.

    I mean, let’s be real here, stupid shit is stupid shit. Now if you want to come right out and say that Powell and Rice are Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima then go ahead and say it! Other wise call it like it is RACIST!

    We’ve beat around the bush for who knows how many days on this stupid shit. And only a few have admitted that calling a black person uncle tom or aunt jemima is a racial slur. The only thing I’m getting out of it is that it’s ok if you don’t agree with the persons politics and that’s straight up bullshit! If you personally believe that the term fits then go ahead and use it?

    The way it was said by the radio personality that said it was as a slur and as such it’s wrong.

    But if the term isn’t racial then let me know so the next time I use it and some really pissed of black person attempts to kick my ass I can tell them that you told me it wasn’t a racial slur because I really believe that about the person!

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    I am tired of the double standards when it comes to double standards.
    Everyone has a certain degree of double standards, but when it applies to someone ELSES double standards people have a double standard about that.

    My big question, does that make it TRIPLE standards or does it become QUADRUPLE standards when speaking about the double standards of others?

  • Eric Olsen

    that is a question for the Bureau of Standards

  • JR

    that is a question for the Bureau of Standards

    It’s the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) now.

  • Eric Olsen

    well then it would have been a question for the Bureau of Standards

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Now we’re back to the same old standard answers!

  • http://www.prometheus6.org/ P6

    As I said Andy, you focus too much on the personal, and therefore least important, aspects of race in America.

    If you think it’s okay, the repercussions of what you do based on that understanding are on you.