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."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - 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?
4 - 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?
5 - 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.
6 - 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!
7 - 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
8 - 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.
9 - 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.
10 - P6
typo.
racist symbolism OR simple characature?
11 - 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.
12 - 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.
13 - 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.
14 - 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?
15 - 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.
16 - 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.
17 - 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
18 - andy marsh
disinvite this!
19 - P6
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.
20 - 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?
21 - 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.
22 - 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.
23 - 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...
24 - 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?
25 - 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.