« A Little 'Mo on Fryer | Main | Pay Attention »

July 06, 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cobb

I think you have wandered directly into the existential black hole. Run away.

It's probably not useful at all to throw these questions back and forth, because in the end we don't have conservatives talking about what they think is important, or progressives or liberals either. Instead it's that "well if you love her so much why don't you marry her" kind of projection. Non-conservatives saying 'why dont conservatives do x' is a kind of non-starter.

fzample, i could [not]answer question #1 by saying that the exact same thing is true of the US Senate, and so what.

now that i've given reasons not to answer your questions, i'll answer them as a conservative.

DarkStar

Oh, I agree with what you wrote, totally.

Cobb

#2 I think it's because there is a strong perception with black conservatives that blacks matriculating through the NAACP are taking the easy path. The NAACP for better or worse represents the status quo of black politics. Not say, the Black Radical Congress or the New Black Panthers.

#3 Because I think although we are trying to build infrastructure, we are not yet established enough to rely on many other institutions than conservatives in the emregent media. If black conservatives sound too much like white conservatives it's because they have their own think tanks and we don't. I'll let you know when I'm ready to ask Sciafe for money.

#4 I think being misidentified as lockstep with white conservatives is better than being misidentified as lockstep with black liberals or any liberals. Ideology trumps race on a wide range of issues, especially if they are issues trailing the WOT, Iraq and Bush.

#5 Assuming you meant why conservatives *haven't* given a more accurate picture, there's two answers. The first is that in political activism you're always reducing your opponent. Everything is 'red' vs 'blue'. The second is that Republicans are playing a very studied numbers game, and cost/benefit says it's only necessary for them to do *some* reaching out. Plus they acknowledge their incompetence.

#6 That's my job and the job of The Conservative Brotherhood. When I get money for doing so, everybody will call me a sellout. Mark my word.

#7 I'm down for Earl's economic program from what I know of it and the magazine - not that I look so often. I know he gets props from the WSJ Editorial Board, a den of heathen right wing propaganda.

-
B1. Because they are dying for some new blood, new ideas and new directions.

B2. Because they don't have the context or tools to move past criticism into construction.

B3. Because cats who know better are deathly afraid of or grossly incompetent in the media spotlight, and this is a media game.

Dell Gines

Hummm....good questions. One thing that is missed is how the Pubs (and Dems) use pigeonholing polarized concepts and words to psychologically pin their positions. It is classic strategy.

If I can Pin and generalized concept in someones mind, that person is alleviated from thinking through the concepts that are generalized and instead can draw upon the pigeonholed/polarized concept.

For example, lets look at the term, 'victim mentality'. How often have you seen a conservative black or white simply say, that is just them expressing their 'victim mentality' when I brother says x,y, or z about the government or the governments responsibility.

This does a few things, 1) It alleviates the need for critical thought as 'its just' name your pigeon holed over generalized concept or word. So instead of adequately evaluating the statement or argument put forth, the premise and conclusions are ignored for a fallacious generalization.

2) It reinforces superiority. If I can pigeonhole your perspective as a negative 'mentality' without ever considering the merits of you 'mentality' and the rational behind it, it allows me to avoid cognitive dissonance, and it reinforces my esteem and feelings of superiority from having 'the right way'.

3) It makes you part of the club. All cults, and institutions have what is called "loaded" language, that is specific to the group and helps bind the group together. Let me toss out some: Race Baiter, Playing the Race Card, Victim Mentality, Poverty Pimp, etc. You have heard them. THey are all loaded language tools of the neo-conservative ideology used to marginalize blacks who opposed their particular view.

The bottom line is this, and why I wrote the three part analysis called

"The Black Concussed Conservative" On my blog www.dellgines.com and as a local editorial series in a newspaper up here in Omaha.

The current standard public or visible black conservative, doesn't represent the views of the grassroots conservative view holding black. Similar to how black conservatives criticize Jesse for being out front without really speaking for blacks, so to are the so-called media black conservatives, armstrong, sowell, hamblin etc.

They are concussed myopic and irrational.

ShoeDawg

I think Dell is correct about the "loaded" language of black conservatives. Whenever I try to move them beyond talking points and cliches and get to specifics - the only response is questions about my philosophy.

I asked for specific policies and I have yet to get one from a black conservative. So, what is the point in joining a political movement if there is no political benefit to it? Most black people are social conservatives - so what.

Cobb

I'm not convinced that liberals or progressives are much better on that score with regard to non-professionals. Did SNCC have a lobby on K Street? Were any of the manifestoes of the radical sixties really anything that could stand up to a college educated political science sniff test?

Understand that all black politics is 'underfunded' when it comes to creating and maintaing policy. There's only Bositis and his crew doing their lefty thing, and the rest is just high minded press releases. Which is basically loaded language.

Understand that's why Jesse Jackson speaks for you , because you have yet to do anything that handles American media better.

Yes, exactly, most black people are social conservatives and so what? If there is not a political machine that is well funded and staffed doing the business of policy creation, thinktankery, wedge issue research, funding rallies, having conferences, publishing papers and all the rest, then all you have is jackleg demogogeury. It might be smart and it might be right, but it's not institutional and isn't that the whole problem with 'black leaders' left and right?

Quite frankly, I was expecting some of that seriousness to happen here - which means maybe we ought to build a wiki in addition to doing our podcasts.

Negrorage

1. Because the NAACP has never been actively involved in improving contemporary U.S. Black culture. Period. The way I see it, there are only two real obstacles to success: economics and education. I think that by now, those individuals who can realize in less steps, the importance of these two for individual success, are of a higher rank. Simply put, there is a generational disconnect between what the NAACP is aiming for and what they need to seriously address. They have been so fixated on eliminating White supremacy in order to create Black opportunity for so long, that they have neglected the basic upkeep of Black culture. I mean, insofar as they claim to be leaders who are about the advancement of "colored" people, isn't cultural "advancement" subsumed under the larger rubric of the NAACP? I can't speak for my entire generation, but I have a sinking suspicion that most of them feel the same way I do about the NAACP. Like other 20-somethings, I lead a type of double-life. I'm essentially in between two worlds and the cultural road which facilitates travel between campus and 'hood is a lonely one. Speaking standard English is accepted in one place, while it is damn-near vilified in the other. People my age know damn well that something is wrong: its the culture. Not a lack of opportunity.

http://www.nykola.com/archives/000069.html -another 20 something shows whats wrong.

People my age who are educated, from middle-class families, and who have career skills, have already made it. We don't need the NAACP to fight white supremacy for us. But at the same time, when I think about what myself and others had to go through simply because of the way we talked, I start wondering to myself, who ELSE has had to put up with this shit? Are "Blacks" being held back by other "Blacks" at this point? I want the NAACP to do better studies. I want them to study the degree to which other colored people are potentially holding other colored people back for petty cultural reasons. Of course, they will never do this. I've heard people my age say things like: "I'll join the NAACP when they can tell me why so many Black people think talking proper isn't Black or how they plan to stop it." My generation wants the NAACP to do things it was never intended to do; which is why their membership is dwindling. If the NAACP "leads the thoughts of Black people" like some sort of Borg brain-trust then my question is: "to where"?

2. Why don't the Black conservatives publicly point out liberal (or non-conservative) criticisms of the NAACP? A Black liberal or Black leftist criticism of the NAACP would have to seem like a type of oxymoronic exercise in the mind of the Black conservative, because I'd assume that the Black conservative would consider the NAACP to be a den of Black liberals in the first place. Or maybe feel that their criticisms are enough. Besides, the other Black factions can speak for themselves.

3. Between whom? People could care a lot less about gay marriage. I don't think that Black liberals and Black conservatives need any more battles lines drawn than they already have.

4. Not so much inaccurate as highly unbalanced.

5. Why have conservatives tried to give a more complete picture of the Black community? ......They have?! I always thought that liberal academic types were the best at doing this. You know, the whole hair care conspiracies and racist urban architecture stuff.

6&7: Don't understand the questions. Does "black conservative" mean "black Republican?"

BQ1: Jesse, Al, and the NAACP don't claim to speak for white people and are seemingly diametrically opposed to Black Republicans. The poor aren't going to get rich over-night. People think that when a certain party gets into office, everybody is gonna magically get paid somehow. Most people know this to be false. So they turn to the NAACP and say, make it so that we are paid no matter who is in office. But they can't.

BQ2: As I said, the NAACP should focus on improving Black culture. Economic and educational opportunity are already available. These things are there for the taking. No one can stop you from getting paid. Those who can do, will do. Not everyone can go to college or make lots of money. The only thing that Blacks can criticize other Blacks for is making unforced errors. And this is why they criticize each other so much. The Blacks who make the fewest unforced errors don't need to be told what to do. Everyone else gets Cosby's finger wagged in their direction. Why spend your time giving pep talks to people who already know what has to be done? Why bother criticizing other Blacks for what they aren't doing? The only thing that needs to be said is, "Black people have made it to the top: be like them." Like a good tennis player, the NAACP and Blacks in general should focus on not making unforced errors.

The other reason that they criticize each other so much is purely philosophical in nature. We all like to stretch out and have a round of good ol' political nationalism where we sit back and talk about what it means to be "genuinely Black" in the social context. Personally, I could do without this, but this is also a reason for BQ2.

BQ3: People should stop criticizing "Blacks" as if they were a monolith. We'd be far better off if we began to offer targeted constructive criticisms to specific areas of Blacks. Like Black Detroiters for instance. The media should cease using the expression "the Black community" on a national, or even a state level. If the "Black community" in Philly identifies the Rev. as their leader, there is no guarantee that the same will hold true for Blacks elsewhere.

Dell Gines

Cobb, Jesse Jackson doesn't 'Speak for you' Jesse speaks and being that the media chooses to ordain him with a position of credibility, and the liberals use him as a face plate for black issues, it is in their interest to promote him for political base issues. Couple that with the fact the media is conservative (in the business perspective, not the content perspective) meaning that as a profit generating industry, they pursue stories and individuals who are tried and true and you have a recipe for locking out unique or grass roots thought in favor of Al & Jesse, regardless of the charisma and technical ability to understand media and media usage.

The fact of the matter is your brother was 100% correct when he said, and I will qualify my generalization, the black talking head republicans routinely trotted out by the Pub party and given face time offer no constructive solutions.

When the bulk of their comments refer to what blacks are doing wrong and how blacks have failed and how blacks should stop being, "place your negative characteristic here", then you create a paradigm and perception of the black republican as a cocky ass, seperatist elitist who has no relevent offerings to constructive social change.

So the critique of Jesse has its twin in Armstrong Williams et al, same game different face. And grass root brothers perceive they have no voice because in effect the needs of the blacks are unique to the needs of blacks, and the failure of 'national voices' pub and dem, are either reactionary, dumb, or pussified. To be successful in politics (in the media and in the elections) some of the stances you must take to effect change amongst blacks are castigated by whites, in both parties. Which returns me to my initial premise, that economic strength precedes political strength, so anything not dealing or tangental to creating urban economic power is a waste of time.


Good blog BTW.

Cobb

'constructive solutions' are not what political parties are all about, and if you ask me, i don't think that there are a critical mass of people like faye anderson and kim pearson that can get together with money and swagger around in the parties and force them to stand behind constructive solutions. at least not yet on the republican side. that's because a lot of blackfolks are sitting on the sidelines and are pussified. they're scared of republicans. just plain chickenshit.

but also what is undeniable is that there is a lot less talent on the media side on black society than we like to admit. there's a reason that some folks get chewed up and spit out by the media, that's because they don't know how to work it. you cannot deal with that thing called american media simply by being 'articulate', it takes a lot more than that, and that's what people are loathe to admit. you can't blame the media for the fact that your favorite ideologue is not getting airplay. and you can't blame the public because they don't know about your favorite ideology.

if jackson is getting airplay, it's because he knows how. if the black radical congress is not, it's because they don't. people are going to assign credibility or not. that's not in anyone's control.

black republicans are cocky and elitist. so are alphas at morehouse. is this supposed to be a problem? i don't see any alphas at morehouse going to decatur and helping homeless people. i suppose we should just tear down the university until all blacks have a high school education.

DarkStar

#2 The NAACP for better or worse represents the status quo of black politics.

Not if Black conservatives are real when they say divergent thought does exist in the Black community. My impression is, it's easier to be lazy and take the easiest route, so going after the NAACP is the chosen path.

That's chickenshit.

Not say, the Black Radical Congress or the New Black Panthers.

#3 Because I think although we are trying to build infrastructure, we are not yet established enough to rely on many other institutions than conservatives in the emregent media.

Then build the infrastructure and get it done. Armstrong Williams was successful in doing the marketing work required.

#5 Assuming you meant why conservatives *haven't* given a more accurate picture, there's two answers. The first is that in political activism you're always reducing your opponent. Everything is 'red' vs 'blue'. The second is that Republicans are playing a very studied numbers game, and cost/benefit says it's only necessary for them to do *some* reaching out. Plus they acknowledge their incompetence.

Again, it's easier to be lazy is what that means, to me. (Sorry, the minimalist in me is kicking in strong today).

#6 That's my job and the job of The Conservative Brotherhood. When I get money for doing so, everybody will call me a sellout. Mark my word.

No offense intended, but I didn't expect you to play the victim card. You're elitist and expect scorn directed your way because of it. So what if the scorn is the sellout label?

#7 I'm down for Earl's economic program from what I know of it and the magazine - not that I look so often. I know he gets props from the WSJ Editorial Board, a den of heathen right wing propaganda.

I'll have to check that out.


B1. Because they are dying for some new blood, new ideas and new directions.


Then how can conservatives claim the NAACP are leading the Black community when the Black community seems to be dismissing the NAACP?

B2. Because they don't have the context or tools to move past criticism into construction.

I disagree with the idea about not having the context or tools. But if the belief is Blacks are not critical of themselves, then B2 seems to be a direct contradiction.

B3. Because cats who know better are deathly afraid of or grossly incompetent in the media spotlight, and this is a media game.


Nah, I think it is because those who know better, are playing the media game so that they can personally gain from it.

Your last point is the closest to "the answer" to the series of questions. But the questions are another in a list of experiments that is just confirming my cynicism.

I see the game, I think I have a good understanding, and I think I can play even though I'm not the best writer. But it's not worth the personal expense, plus, when you make too much sense, even in soundbites, the media don't want you to show up.

DarkStar

Understand that's why Jesse Jackson speaks for you , because you have yet to do anything that handles American media better.

Actually, it's because Jesse is focused on getting attention, which exists for most politicans on the national level, and because the media is lazy. Once you make the right soundbite that gets chosen to piss people off, you are in the media mix. That's what happened to Spike, and then it turned on him and started to hurt his business. Since he's a business man first and foremost, he tried to back away, but it was too late. Now people see he's a 3rd rate director.

Cobb

'Just build it'?
Amstrong Williams is just Armstrong williams, and he may be a pundit, but he can't strongarm anyone - especially not now. When Armstrong Williams can walk into the RNC and say spend 20 million on campaigns around black issues or I walk and actually negotiate something, then he's built something on the order of what I'm talking about. Short of that, all he has built is a radio audience.

So it's handy to complain about the ineffectiveness of black conservative pundits and media wits vis a vis what Republicans actually do to address black political concerns, but that's a non-trivial exercise in power.

I'm not convinced that Barack Obama can do much better. So what do you expect 30 years after voting rights?

DarkStar

that's because a lot of blackfolks are sitting on the sidelines and are pussified. they're scared of republicans.

Try distrustful.

you can't blame the media for the fact that your favorite ideologue is not getting airplay.

Actually, you can, but that would require a concentrated effort by all Blacks, and that's not in the best interest of the current public Blacks, so it's not going to happen.

Have I made it clear, yet, that I think public Blacks are in it for themselves, no matter which side they are on?

Cobb

A concentrated effort by all blacks to do what.. support Emerge Magazine? It ain't gonna happen. But then again we should already know that.

DarkStar

When Armstrong Williams can walk into the RNC and say spend 20 million on campaigns around black issues or I walk and actually negotiate something, then he's built something on the order of what I'm talking about. Short of that, all he has built is a radio audience.

Yep, he did build a small radio audience. And even though he had the early access, he didn't know how to use it to build an empire. It's probably because he was ahead of the curve.

I'm not convinced that Barack Obama can do much better.

He probably won't be able to do so. Competition is steep in the Democratic party and they are not afraid of being labeled as racists. So they have no problem pimp smacking the beejees out of Black politicians who get out of line.

So what do you expect 30 years after voting rights?

Decent access, but given the support for Dems, I expect the Black Dems to know how to use the power they should have at their finger tips. But they don't. It's because they are stupid or beholden to white interests because they can't generate cash out of the Black community or because they are afriad to try or because they don't know how or any combination of the above.

But the lame antics of Black Dems. vs. black Repubs. and "Black liberals" vs. "Black conservatives" does nothing but continue to allow the power brokers of the different camps to laugh and throw scraps our way.

Michael Steele has a chance to use the power brokers of the national GOP to get the Senate seat in Maryland. If he wins, he has some rank in the senate as "the answer to" Obama. But that will only go so far.

J.C. Watts got smacked around pretty good by Tom Delay, one because Watts was inept (according to some Hill sources), and two because his power was based on the powers that be, and Gingrich was one of those powers, but he left.

My opinion of course.

Just a mind stream...

La_Shawn

Here's my conservative policy: Stay off my back and leave me alone. Get out of my business, don't tell me how to think ("diversity" training) or what I should be doing. Don't redistribute my hard-earned income to the latest pet cause (person, place, or thing) or social ill, and don't pigeon-hole me, treat me with condescension or veneration because of the color of my skin.

Call it policy, philosophy, talking points, whatever you want.

DarkStar

A concentrated effort by all blacks to do what.. support Emerge Magazine?

Or something like that to get out a better version of the complexities of the Black community.

BET blew it.
TV One has to survive.
MBC can't establish itself.
Tony Brown doesn't have a large enough audience.
Tavis Smiley could get there in a few years but he has to open his tent.

Tom Joyner is about partying with a purpose. Only the people buying the ads know of his economic base. Oh, and the few companies that have felt the wrath of Joyner's/Smiley's attack efforts.

Again, more brain spew.

DarkStar

Here's my conservative policy: Stay off my back and leave me alone. Get out of my business, don't tell me how to think ("diversity" training) or what I should be doing. Don't redistribute my hard-earned income to the latest pet cause (person, place, or thing) or social ill, and don't pigeon-hole me, treat me with condescension or veneration because of the color of my skin.

Call it policy, philosophy, talking points, whatever you want.

fine, mine follows:

Government related:

1. Let me keep the money I earn. I see no right to give the government more than 10% of what I earn. That's what I tithe and man deserves no more than God.

2. Government stays out of my way but ensures my right for happiness, lawful living, and pursuit of economic growth. In short, protect my liberties.

3. Ensure equal access to the politicians, meaning the power of PACS is no greater than the power of the individual. (That's a big dream).

Individual related:

None. I can't control individuals. So if someone wants to tell me how to think, let them. That doesn't mean have have to accept the ideas placed before me. But if we have a discussion, being wrong I can accept. Being misinformed I can accept. Being intellectually dishonest, like most of the public pundits are, of both stripes, I can't accept.

I can't accept, and won't accept, misinformation and lies about the "Black community" which I am bound to, even if not by my own thinking, by the majority. If you disagree, fine. I don't care. But if you impact the mental well being of my children, or may impact their mental well being, I will fight. That is why I fight now.

TheConservativeRant

Thoroughly invigorating questions. Here's one white guy's perspective.

#1 MSM portrays NAACP as the unquestioned leadership and people buy it hook, line and sinker.

#2 don't know.

#3 Distrust and conservative's belief that dialogue is not welcome.

#4 No, totally distorted

#5 Individuals like myself try daily, but I can't speak for everyone else. There could be an infinite number of reasons why others don't.

#6 Conservatives do profile (not in a high profile way) and will likely result in a continued incremental rise in Republican voting returns.

#7 I think both. He gets it from all sides.

BQ1 Because people want better leadership than what they are getting.

BQ2 Every group has ideological divisions. For whatever reason, and wrongly so, blacks get more pup about theirs.

BQ3 Until a convincing message tells people otherwise, they are apt to believe what they do now.

Temple3

i don't regularly read LaShawn Barber's column...a few of the pieces i have read were lacking in many respects - so my interest waned. nonetheless, i believe there is considerable value in her line of thinking...check out this link...http://www.southernevents.org/southerners_first.htm

it seems that given some of the unanticipated outcomes of the civil rights movement, the non-black financial leadership of the movement, the limitations of american schools (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm) and the constitutional questions surrounding Brown (let alone the implicit assumption that black folk need white folk to feel worthy), there are some issues worth delving into here...

in the absence of integrating schools - an area untouched by the founders - how could the US have addressed the issues at hand in the jim crow south...it seems to me that one of the most pivotal moments in our history was the compromise of 1877 which removed union troops from the south...it also seems to me that the failure of southern states to provide security/protection (physical-political-economic) to blacks was of greater import than the opportunity to attend integrated schools...that's fairly obvious...

and so, the question for me is what are the implications of states rights in a federalist system when states fail to uphold the principal agreement of citizenship - the exchange of allegiance for protection...is there a federal prerogative to impose the laws of that state...it seems that this approach would have been much more controversial - more difficult to implement - but could likely have resulted in a much better solution that what prevails now...

establishing state-supported protections for blacks, even two generations after the national lynching frenzy, would have gone a long way to obviating the need for Brown legislation...take the case of the Blair Bill - also centered on education...the bill proposed funding based on population - with the proviso that schools with black children in the south would receive equitable allotments - based on population...imagine the implications in 1883 for South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.

it seems that the federal government's agreement of 1877 (Hayes, Ohio Republican - Tilden, NY Democrat) sealed the deal in which southern states were relieved of their obligation to honor its citizens...the removal of union troops ushered in the era of the klan - (nathan b. forrest-gump) - in this light, the education of children in integrated schools seems a farcical approach to such a fundamental security issue.

barber has some ammo here, but i don't see the point in solely attacking the democrats when it was the republican party under hayes which really created the circumstances that required the level of social engineering that is decried on her blog...of course, it can be argued that these parties are like all institutions in that they seek merely to extend their existence through whatever means available...and that makes the democrats and republicans more alike than most care to admit.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad