Guest Contributor
+ FollowBlack Politics and Black “Underprivilegedness”
by Damion White
The criticisms of Herman Cain, and Herman Cain subsequently ending his campaign for the Republican nomination to be the GOP candidate for president, have provoked considerable backlash especially amongst those who contend that the African American community does not accept Black conservatives. Furthermore, those who make up this constituency often ascribe to the belief that government policies – and in particular those policies that have come to be most closely associated with liberals and progressives – are root causes perpetuating the marginalization (or “underprivilegedness”) of African Americans, as is defined by the belief that African Americans share a disposition in favor of accepting government assistance. As President Obama so eloquently and adamantly outlined in his “New, New Nationalist” speech this week, I am here to tell you: this is wrong.
Leasing the Property of Intellects
First and foremost, it is critical to understand that the attitudes of African Americans do not occur in a vacuum, although our society often seems to think or – what seems like – to hope that they do. In my opinion, an ideology more marginalizing than any welfare policy is the expectation that there is some sort of national black consciousness – some inherent commonality that comes as part of being born an African American and that somehow transcends any and all by-products of individual experience.
Dissimilarly – beyond that of White attitudes towards African Americans or White attitudes having to do with matters of race – how frequently do we hear any discussions pertaining to White attitudes framed in terms of those attitudes as property belonging to “Caucasian Americans?” More succinctly, when was the last time you heard the news media or a cable network pundit characterize the decision making of White Americans as a function of being White? Other than questions involving racially motivated attitudes (i.e. attitudes towards interracial marriage) I have never observed any studies, surveys or polls where Whites were grouped in the sense that they are inherently connected via a decision making apparatus unique to White people.
It is this way of thinking about African Americans that perpetuates their underprivilegedness – not unemployment insurance, welfare or Medicaid. The dynamic created by this subjugation is in my opinion the only concretely identifiable and unique commonality inherent to African Americans’ existence – the expectation that all Black people – regardless of individual experience – will formulate their view of the world as a result of their Blackness. Equally as important is the fact that many African Americans are able to perceive that this burdensome expectation is all but non-existent in the lives of their White counterparts or in the lives of any other racial group in this country. This is devilishly, the most racist, yet simultaneously, the least conspicuous ideal that is levied against the African American population.
This concept also invokes Ralph Ellison’s ideas from Invisible Man, where life as an African American has no other choice than to mitigate a societally inflicted dual consciousness, in the sense that the African American’s world views are as beholden to the views (or expectations of African American views) projected onto the African American by non-African Americans, as they are to the African American’s life experiences, talents, and directly affective environmental conditions. This is reiterated in the anthropological-sociological viewpoint that discrimination – not prejudice – is reserved for the power brokers in any given society.
This means that it is plausible to believe that African Americans are disproportionately unemployed – as we have observed that they indeed are – because disproportionately represented White employers believe that African Americans generally have poor work ethic, or negative attitudes towards authority (or more specifically towards whites); whereas, any similar attitudes held by African Americans towards Whites (or others) cannot similarly affect such systemic outcomes for those non-African Americans. The hijacking of the right to individual consciousness and the ability to credibly prescribe meaning to the worldview of another that is not necessarily aligned with that individual’s characterization of their own worldview is what lies at the root of African American’s underprivilegedness.
In The Context of Today’s Political Landscape
As it relates to the here-and-now these themes are some that one might attribute to the comfort and the confidence with which many suggest that African Americans voted for Barack Obama in record fashion simply because he is almost an African American or more precisely perhaps, because he cannot pass for a Caucasian American. However, I will take this opportunity, as they are few and far between, to remind us that Barack Obama is more Caucasian American than he is African American.
The distinctive qualifier among African Americans is being a part of the slave-narrative in this country; having no known heritage in immigration or any discernible ties to a trans-Atlantic sovereignty. Barack Obama was raised by his White American mother and her parents, his White American grandparents, and he had a father from Kenya who came with a definitive sense of self and a definitive sense of his own history – that of which is not typically afforded most African Americans six and seven generations removed from slavery. Barack Obama, by this frame of reference can stake more claim in his being American – as his White counterparts can and do – than he can in his being African American.
Similarly aligned to the position suggesting that African Americans voted for Barack Obama because he qualifies as being a Black man – and not because African Americans could have possibly, come to find Obama to be thoughtful, intelligent, well spoken, hardworking, or most importantly, aligned with their political ideologies – is the position that Herman Cain was derailed by a Left-Wing conspiracy in conjunction with what amounted to the inevitable derision of his campaign and candidacy by his own people (the same people that Cain himself chided as being brainwashed by Democrats). Essentially this belief suggests that it was written that Cain would be deemed unacceptable by African Americans, simply because he was Black and conservative.
In other words, Herman Cain could have been the second coming of Jesus Christ Himself, and his Blackness as a GOP candidate would have gotten him no further than an above-all-else effort to destroy him as a candidate; whereas if he were White, he would be adequately insulated against even his most boneheaded blunders (ahem… Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc.).
This suggests that when it comes to participating in the democratic process, African Americans are expressly unable to formulate an intelligent opinion based on a candidate’s policies or the content of a candidate’s character, especially in the case that the candidate can be defined as both conservative and Black. In other (other) words African Americans are individually incapable of enacting a political ideology in a real-time context beyond that of autocratically selecting candidates that are Democrats – except when it applies to diminishing the candidacy of representatives of the Republican Party who also happen to be African American.
More on Politic365
61 Responses to Black Politics and Black “Underprivilegedness”
-
-
Very well put; I certainly agree. This piece – and a subsequent piece to follow – are aimed at attributing cause to, and exploring the ramifications of an indictment like that suggesting African Americans are irrationally opposed to conservatism. Furthermore this series is an indictment of the intellectually bankrupt and racist institution of questioning African American politics as a function of race. There is no such thing as this, and it is the power to wield such ridiculousness – and have it be credible – that perpetuates the marginalization of Black people (in my opinion).
-
Wm_Tucker says:
The "cause" (or motivation) behind race politics is simple: self-interest. FWIW, race is a political construct whereby people can be manipulated as controllable groups.
But just because something is political doesn't mean it is devoid of real meaning. In the case of 'race', the various class distinctions have been carried forth for centuries to a point where racial identity itself is seen as central to individual development. Let's consider the belief in racial designations as normative and static to denote 'racism' for the sake of discussion (racial discrimination being a separate matter).
The individual who then asks, 'Why do African-Americans en masse vote for Democrats' (or, 'Why don't African-Americans en masse vote for Republicans'), is likely asking a loaded question. It may be unintentional, it may be a legitimate search for knowledge. But it also an assumption based on the idea of race as something other than an arbitrary paradigm.
-
Couple things, I think even more than being a 'political' construct race is a social one. The deep seeded and IMO mostly baseless symbolism that came to be attached to race – as I believe you are also alluding to in your last comment, though you may not agree that the prevalence thereof is unfounded, as I do – was forming and manifesting even ahead of the thirteen colonies establishing national politics in this country.
Again, I agree w/ you, being a social construct does not render race meaningless. However, my point was to highlight who, what, when, why and how the meanings, symbols, etc. formed our conception of race today. Also I point out why this is problematic, namely the hypocrisy that would permit that question you posed to be asked credibly; whereas, no similar mode of reasoning is applied to whites, That IMO is what is loaded; the fact that what I do potentially being subject to an analysis seen through a lens based on the color of my skin, but my white friends having enjoyed a life with no such plight. In this paradigm racial designations are normative, but only insofar as they apply to minorities.
Furthermore you seem to intertwine the idea of class and race. I have stated that socio-economic status is a far more powerful measure than race with regards to understanding societal segmentation. African Americans who can claim a particular economic standing gain access to groups and gain the ability to choose to immerse themselves and be indoctrinated in ideologies – can we say Herman Cain – that non-whites of lesser economic standing would never be afforded. The crux here is – though the likelihood or probability of it may be slightly diminished the lower on the socio-economic totem pole that you travel – whites can gain access to the groups and segments of society without achieving the same heights in social standing as their minority counterparts.
-
In this paradigm racial designations are normative, but only insofar as they apply to minorities…. AND serve the purposes of further normalizing majority group status while (subversively) and characterizing minority status as abnormal.
-
BooBoo says:
what a load of shit… like most liberal tripe!
-
Articulate. Thank you for so thoughtfully adding to this dialog. Your extreme self-discipline inspires me.
-
Alex says:
How can one not ask why, over the past eight presidential elections, self-identified black voters aligned with the Democratic party an average of 88% of the time? You can ask this because it is a statistical abnormality not seen in any other racial voting block, with the exception of Jews to a much lesser extent. There's no reason why you couldn't ask why whites vote for a Republican president 54% of the time, but the reason people don't is because that is simply not as glaring as 88% adherence and certainly not as interesting. Why is my search to understand such a statistic considered a hateful thing?
-
This is a statistical abnormality only insofar as there are power brokers outside of the group being observed that can predetermine and pre-define normalcy in the context of the group's actions. It is the imposition of this predetermined normalcy that subjugates any potentially objective, contextually rooted finding. Is it not plausible to believe that the distribution of self-identified black voters couldn't be more succinctly linked to the proportion at which AA's are impoverished, underemployed, or prone to disproportionately harsh treatment by the American justice system? Race should not matter at all, but at present it only matters to discredit the group itself, or to reaffirm an idea that supports the preservation of the majority group's status.
-
Your question is based upon two faulty presumptions: there are no 'conservative' Democrats, and Republicans present plausible candidates before African-American voters.
-
'Politics' is the intersection of law and culture. I believe the history of 'race' shows its origins were political; that its various definitions were created to achieve a social hierarchy favorable to a particular culture. The paradigms were invented, codified into law, then the laws enforced. And… racial concepts existed prior to the formation of the United States.
In writing earlier that race questions are mostly loaded, my point was the speaker is motivated by various presumptions whereby possible answers are limited to the speaker's cognitive abilities, biases, etc. This means it's less likely for reliable or more accurate explanations to receive consideration.
I define 'race' as a class in its own respect. I agree financial standing has a larger influence on social attitudes and economic outcomes than race, and that the influence of race upon American society is diminishing. It's therefore important that we view the political parties as representing rival economic sensibilities first ahead of other considerations, e.g.; race, gender, when studying voter behaviors.
-
-
-
-
-
Pingback: Black Politics and Black…
-
Reda says:
No African Americans do not except or aspire to Government hand outs We need an want jobs an security to live a good life, like everyone else
That sound bite seems to be the only spin used on the national airwaves an it's not a mistake either Many folks believe it
Those who love to use our system of Government, to service their own interest, use it to distract from the very folks who are making huge gains
Trust me No one capitalizes off our Govt system as Corporate, Rich an those on the followers on the Right
I worked at USPS 36yrs an I can tell you who has been an continues to get all the Welfare checks an it is not Black folks
We cannot allow these people to use an play the word games to try an shame Black folks from fights for truth , justice an fairness No one has ever made it on their own an that includes those who continue to take all an deny everyone else of services we are entitled to demand Why? Because we pay into the system, same as they do an we deserve to have our needs met in trying times, like they do
We need to ignore the made for RW Network sound bites Get back in the face of those who like to spin the Fox News sound bites for their own self worth Not ours!-
I agree. I point to the abuses that government officials are often cited for to demonstrate that the welfare state does not only have to do with the poor. We have a funny way of condemning those who don't obtain a great deal of wealth and putting those who obtain a great deal of wealth – no matter how they might obtain it – on a pedestal above reproach. Donald Trump inherited some $6B dollars and went bankrupt, twice! Filing for bankruptcy was his welfare – it allowed him to wipe away debts and recreate wealth. And it also proves your point on no one doing it alone – I support this 110%! There is no difference between twice filing bankruptcy after inherited $6B and unemployment insurance. I am talking about this kind hypocrisy in my piece – some of what I said was meant to be sarcastic – I want it to be clear that our society is rampantly guilty of unjustly and hypocritically applying different rules for different folks.
-
Buzz says:
Not a big fan of Trump – but what is your "source" for the claim that he inherited 6 billion? His father was wealthy but according to Wikipedia left a forturne of $400 million, which Trump split with his siblings. Your point is still valid if Trump "only" inherited $100 million, so I don't see the purpose for you exagerating by a factor of 60.
-
Touche. Should have done my due diligence there if you are indeed correct. I had at some point heard that the inheritance was $6B – perhaps that was the actual inheritance's equivalent in today's money that I was recalling. Perhaps it also had to do with his being "given" control of the company his father started in 1971, which would not be included in the cash inheritance figure. Either way, if the point is valid, and the exaggeration was unintentional, does it really make a big difference? To answer your question, the exaggeration served no purpose, as I did not intentionally exaggerate. The Donald is still an excellent poster child for those who believe that inheritance entitles one to claim the merit of being industrious and having high business acumen. Wharton and all, he still has had to overcome some massive self-inflicted wounds that one might perceive as indication he would be unsuccessful without the great fortune amassed by his father.
-
-
-
-
Gary Allan says:
Obama, the great unifier, strikes again.
-
Patriot says:
You are not African, you are American. My experience is that the only ones who use "race" when things do not go their way are not white.
-
Define "things do not go their way." By many measures I am very successful, and I have nothing to complain about. So if I have no reason to complain, can my opinion not be just that: an opinion. This is not a rant.
In my experience people shy away from dialog about race when they harbor feelings of guilt – when there is an internal struggle at any point they are challenged to admit that they benefit from majority status and the institutional marginalization of minorities. Louis CK, put it in a way that might be palatable for you. Google him.
-
-
Joe says:
That has to be the worst written, least understandable opinion. Way too many run on sentences, parenthesis and hard to read text! Using big words doesn't make you important.
-
Bilko_83 says:
Since you approach this topic in terms of politics, “I have never observed any studies, surveys or polls where Whites were grouped in the sense that they are inherently connected via a decision making apparatus unique to White people.”
One possibility might be that “Whites” as a polled demographic tend not to vote for one party over the other in the presidential race at a consistent ratio of 8 to 1 or 9 to 1. Theoretically you make many valid points, but consistent results do make for significant statistics.
-
Interesting point of contention. However, does statistical significance outweigh qualitative context in all (or even most) cases?
-
-
Jon says:
The reason you haven't heard any "discussions pertaining to White attitudes framed in terms of those attitudes as property belonging to 'Caucasian Americans'" is because white Americans have not intentionally marginalized themselves in the way African Americans have in regard to the American experience since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Nowhere is "whiteness" recognized or celebrated. There is no "White History Month" or Congressional White Caucus or Ms. White America. Nor are there are any mainstream white musical artists making millions glorifying the murder of black men.
Rather than attempt to acclimate themselves into the fabric of American society, black Americans have singled themselves out as a group which is different, special, or deserving of a unique type of attention that White Americans would rightfully be declared racist if they were to attempt the same. After so many years of being an oppressed minority in this country, black Americans seem to have come full circle and now celebrate this minority status while railing against others who rightfully call these distinctions what they are: unnecessary and exclusive, and yes racist.
How fortunate it must be to grow up in a world where you can celebrate your race and exploit your racial differences and yet still be allowed to rail against anyone outside your cultural circle as racist when they attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy of your thinking.
-
Hear hear! If as much activity went to "Doing" as it did to whining and demanding special privileges, there would be no glaring issues like "income disparity" and "education gap".
-
-
June says:
This piece is very difficult to read. I think your argument is that it's unfair to lump all African-Americans into one pile of thinking? Is that what you are saying?
Damion, I'm sorry….but you're absolutely wrong. It is completely fair from a political standpoint. There is no other race, religion, creed, gender, etc. that votes in lock-step – for whatever reasons – as African-Americans. I have argued this point with friends till I'm blue in the face. Republicans could have nominated Herman Cain & Allen West for president and vice president -in any order- and Obama or ANY democrat would still garner 93% + of the black vote.
-
Yehudah says:
If ascribing a relatively unified set of attitudes to African Americans is what marginalizes them, then the Left is the great marginalizer. Suggesting that a Black man with conservative views isn't really 'Black' or is an 'Uncle Tom' is the epitomy of norming African American attitutes. Because Clarence Thomas fallas outside the norm, he's wrong. Give me a break. Sounds like you need to take your argument to the DNC, Damion.
-
Suggesting that African Americans generally a Black conservative only as an "Uncle Tom" or not being 'black' enough is exactly what this piece is against. I am not conservative, and I am Black. I in no way think that Herman Cain is an "Uncle Tom" – I think he is a horrible politician and that he folded under the pressure of the national spotlight. I thought his rhetoric came off a lot like a minstrel show at times, but its not like I would have been shocked if I heard he was at a fish fry in north Georgia somewhere. I think more AA's, than are given credit for it, are thoughtful enough to judge any candidate on their merits, policies, and how their needs will be met. Statistics cannot undo that, especially when no statistic have changed the approach of the party that AA's by and large don't support. I'll take my argument to the DNC as soon as you take yours to Fox News.
-
Thanks, Damion. Do you not see the irony is suggesting it' would be wrong to call Cain an Uncle Tom, and then saying his campaign was like a minstrel show? You've just substituted one marginalizing stereotype for another. You argue against marginalizing Blacks based on political views, and then do exactly the same thing. Thanks for proving my point.
-
-
-
Mike O says:
You make some excellent points here. The problem is the cultural expectation- both in Black and Caucasian cultures- that black have a certain political belief structure. Actually, the same goes for Hispanics. Are Caucasian males the ONLY ones PERMITTED to have a variety of opinions???
Your points have a LOT of commonality with the ladies to be found at http://www.thelastcivilright.org Many people would be shocked by some of the opinions expressed there; but SHOULDN"T be. The Last Civil Right; to have whatever political opinion you choose to have. -
What a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees. All your obfuscation does not hide the truth that this "element" is predisposed to criminal behavior. Here, try this, stop dropping children everywhere, stop robbing the 7-11, stop robbing people, stop doing drugs, stop dealing drugs. There you go, easy! I hold myself responsible, I do not blame the whites. I choose to not break the law, they choose to break it. Forget your "minority status", forget the whites, they don't make you steal or do drugs. No, I am not white. I'm one of you.
When you moan and whine about someone/something(whites) keeping you from the middle class, how weak is your argument? Some unseen thing is keeping you down? get real! The only thing keeping them down is themselves. Everyone that spit in my face(yes, it did happen. I was a child) or told me what I could not do only strengthened my resolve.
That is how Black conservatives feel. To those that feel "oppressed": Get off your ass! get to work! Your ancestors who actually were oppressed are ashamed of you.
-
But how do Black conservatives feel about successful, hardworking African Americans, and White Americans that are unafraid to acknowledge that their success isn't entirely based on their merits? How do Black conservatives feel about those same diligent African Americans and White Americans who are successful, yet unafraid to admit to having benefited from fortuitous circumstances on occasion that have observed legacy counterparts with no merits enjoy the same level of success with a fraction of the work? How do Black conservatives feel about the fact that nothing but hardship ever trickling down from trickle-down economics, which is no more than the name suggests, a trick?
-
There is your problem:" African Americans, and White Americans that are unafraid to acknowledge that their success isn't entirely based on their merits?"
You choose to disassociate yourself from the opportunity of America. This is where you succeed by your MERITS. By your hard work, by your education. Talk to your Grandmother, your elders. We don't use "AA". I wasn't born in Africa. I doubt you were either. I was born American. I worked HARD. I made sure my children went to school. I did not allow thug behavior. I suffered to make sure YOU had the opportunity to succeed. Notice, I said opportunity, not guarantee. Now you sit there and whine. Stop whining to the whites. Want reparations? Succeed. Want to get back at racists? Succeed. My Lord, I want to smack people in the head when I hear this!
-
-
-
jummy says:
it seems to me that the equation of blackness with "underpriveledgedness", or "struggle" and specifically "class struggle" is a thing which is manufactured by the likes of noel ignatiev rather than a thing which can be observed and interpreted as if it were a naturally arising paradigm.
-
it may be that there is a natural commonality of individual social interests which cause black americans to cast their votes so uniformly; all the more probable given the ratio of black americans to other demographic types. qualitatively, one can't ignore the gop/conservative movement's ambivalence toward black americans in considering the way all that tends to turn out.
there is however a chicken and egg question which needs to be pursued with regard to why black americans began trending toward democrats even way back when the party was violently hostile to black people.
-
-
mrjstar says:
Have to agree with June here. The logic is tortured, and you start out arguing one thing, and finish up arguing another.
It is indeed liberal Democrats that need to hear this message. They play racial identity politics time and time again, and African American liberals tend to play along. I've seen white liberal commentators look to AA pundits for back-up and reassurance on some blanket, generalized racial point, and usually they get it.
It is not white conservatives that view AA's as a monolith, but white liberals. Do we really need to watch Larry O'Donnell castigate Herman Cain for not being black enough? I mean, really? Or Bill Mahr skewer Amy Holmes for insufficient black pride? Come on, folks. Wake up.
There is a prevailing culture out there trying to authoritatively keep AA opinion in line, no question about it. Every national poll, including liberal ones, breaks out African American political opinion and percentages. But many AA commentators, as their awareness of this grows into discomfort, recoil from targeting the true source of this discrimination (too hard a truth?), and instead use tortured logic to "rationally" pivot to a white or conservative target.
-
Guest says:
According to Ronald Kessler's book, "Inside The White House", Lyndon B. Johnson revealed his motivation for pushing the civil rights bill to two state governors travelling with him on Air Force One, "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
Page 33 at this Google Books link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lJz-yIZNE2sC&… -
The vehemence and vitriol in the most recent string of comments only serve to bolster my positions (*snide GOP snicker).
1) To those thinking the logic is circular, please provide examples.
2) To those interpreting this piece to be a whining diatribe, please further ignore the social-historical context of this nation to prevent the swell of guilt within yourself.
3) To those touting that AA's have disassociated themselves from American society – please write an op-ed showcasing how that is possible in the wake of slavery, Jim Crow, No Child Left Behind, etc…
4) To those who cannot follow my argument, but cannot formulate a grammatically correct comment, please try again.-
Jon says:
Here's a better idea, why don't you address the criticism of your article point by point rather than insisting your naysayers go above and beyond even what you have done. Why don't you show how you are "correct" and your critics are "wrong". The wonderful thing about an open forum is the exchange of ideas. If you cannot deal with criticism without resorting to condescension then anything anyone does to refute your ridiculously self-absorbed and sophomorishly conceived thesis.
-
…will fall on deaf ears.
-
My point was that the criticisms had no point, other than to further the very ideas that birthed this piece in the first place. Suggesting that African Americans have marginalized themselves, or that they are generally more prone to criminal behavior, or that the statistical significance of voting patterns roots out any social-historical or qualitative context is exactly that which I was speaking out against. Furthermore, I have asked of my critics simply that which you have asked of me. I cannot address the criticisms if they are no more than a bunch of "I don't agree" comments cloaked in weak, half-cocked, surface level critiques of my opinions. Which brings me to another important point; we have to remember that this is my opinion based on observations and qualitative sociological study. I am not presenting scientific finding here. And in this mode, I'd ask you to elaborate about what contained in my thesis is sophomoric (<- the correct word).
-
I have a couple of suggestions for you, Damion:
1) Before you write you next piece, please spend some time contemplating the following phrase: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
2) I don't know what kind of "qualitative sociological study" helped you form your "opinions"…but why not try a little experiment with your friends. Take the time to commit a conservative argument on a specific issue to memory. Be prepared to present this argument convincingly in front of your peers. Practice the following sentence, and be prepared to deliver it sincerely: "I do believe that the conservative argument on this issue is absolutely correct." See what kind of "feedback" you get. See how many friends you have left at the end of the night. I dare you.
You wrote the following above, "I think more AA's, than are given credit for it, are thoughtful enough to judge any candidate on their merits, policies, and how their needs will be met." You have got to be joking, right? You are delusional.
-
1) Why? The quote your allude to began as another's opinion. Typical. An American seeking to be profound via the dogma of another. Perhaps the phrase being widely repeated makes it profundity, but you doing so does not make you profound. What was superfluous in the piece? Offering that would demonstrate the "soul of your wit."
2) I'll enlighten you: studying the subject matter for 3 and a half years as a sociology major for starters. Secondly spending 4 semesters learning how to, and ultimately working on an undergraduate thesis that explored educating black students on predominantly white campuses, and (most importantly) immersing myself in literature reporting the scientific findings of sociologists who studied the subject matter that supported my thesis. And finally living a life with wide ranging experiences that has gained me access to circles that 95%, or more, of the people I grew up with would have never had access to. I've seen that which I opine about from the inside. Yet again I ask you: Why? However, being that I value having an informed opinion I have committed quite a few conservative arguments to memory. I don't see the point of your challenged.
3) And finally, no I'm not joking or delusional. Are you suggesting that I am incapable of judging political candidates on the basis of their merit and the content of their character? If so, I dare you to get back to me about what your therapist thinks are the antecedents to your being obnoxiously racist.
-
I repeat:
If you cannot deal with criticism without resorting to condescension then anything anyone does to refute you will fall on deaf ears.
I even removed the bit that offended you Damion… still, with every reply you post, you do nothing but show yourself to be a self-absorbed gasbag. Good day my deluded friend. Thank you for the unintentional comedy you have provided.
-
I missed where I was any more condescending than my attackers. Mind you there were attacks against me personally, extending beyond that of my positions in the piece. Calling me delude because we differ seems far more condescending that anything I said. Perhaps those ears are just looking for any reason to remain deaf to that which they don't want to hear. If that is condescension then I will remain guilty.
-
That's the extent of your experience and expertise? I think you need to learn to know your opponents a little better. You would be surprised at the level of education and bredth of experience of the people you are arguing with. You're young, so I realize you don't have years to draw on, but you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.
-
In the context of my comment to June I offered enough to answer the question she asked of me. I don't underestimate anyone. Again I find such an attack to be small minded and motivated only by the fact that I don't agree to your opinion that you treat as "fact." I was actually going so far as to indicate that I'm not presenting this as fact, but I have seen themes in the literature on such subject matter that give me confidence in my positions' validity. Don't underestimate me – generally don't be guilty of that which you accuse someone else of (that'd fix America if we could stop doing that) – perhaps my youth is an asset in thought processes such as this.
-
I don't think I'm very likely to underestimate you, Damion. Quite the opposite.
-
So…you called me a racist. Oh my, my….how pathetically appropriate. It is THE go-to argument for the intellectually-lazy, weak-minded when discussing racial issues in this country. I would expect nothing less from you. Good boy. Tell you what: when you speak to your therapist about your obnoxiously racist attitude…I’ll speak to mine. Sound like a plan?
And yes…you are delusional, son. Here’s the deal: when 93% of a race votes in lock-step….there is something more going on than just mutual agreement with one side’s policies. If that is the case…then you need to figure out why there is such a disgraceful lack of free-thinkers in your race. However, one need look no further than the abhorrent treatment of black conservatives by other AA’s to get a clue as to why this might be – which was the point of my suggestion number two – a point that you completely missed; again – this is not at all surprising.
You need to toughen up. The goal of every opinion writer out there is to have your opinion read – to be heard – by as many people as possible. Even liberal writers covet a Drudge link. Why? Because they know that day their piece may be read by over 20 million people. However, the more people who read your work, the more people there will be to both agree and disagree with you. So either get a thicker skin…or get out of the game.
-
There is nothing intellectually lazy about identifying racist attitudes. That is an overused ploy of the moderately intelligent who think they can validate racist attitudes. You attacked me personally for my views – I still don't think you are delusional as a result of your views – you didn't stick to the discussion of the issues. I am trying to help you.
You completely ignore that there are such things as policies, attitudes, rhetoric, propaganda, literature, legislation, and a whole host of other things have come from the GOP and conservatives. There is nothing disgraceful in what percentage of a group disagrees with you. I simply argue that finding that statistical evidence doesn't support the idea that there is something wrong with the group being analyzed. Perhaps there is something wrong with the approach of the analysis or the dependent variable (in this case votes). Who cares how AA's treat AA conservatives? Do they get a pass for stupid policies that don't serve the majority of AA's because they are black? You're asking that AA's do the very thing that you and I actually agree they should not do – be racially motivated in their political affiliations. I simply won't give credence to the statistics because of the context of that which precipitated the statistics.
I don't need to toughen up. I don't mind this – I welcome it. Lady, I was Division I college quarterback. There is nothing you can say that can get under my skin. You just seem upset that I have pushed you to expose your true colors.
-
I don’t even know what to say. Do you want to hear a real personal attack, Damion? Your writing needs work – the original piece and every single post response. Get a proofreader, I beg you. I can barely understand the middle paragraph. I know at this point that you will console yourself with the knowledge that I am a moron….oh excuse me….a racist moron – but I read dozens of political articles everyday and I simply can’t remember the last time I had this much trouble slogging through someone’s writing to find the meaning.
Damion, the only thing I can grasp from that middle paragraph is that you understand the facts, you understand the statistics….but that there’s just nothing wrong or abnormal with 93% of a particular race or group voting the same way. That’s just totally fine. Nothing unusual there…why do people even talk about it…right? I do know good and darned well that the tendency for AA’s to vote Democrat is not racially-motivated – but it’s not ALL policy-motivated either. If you cannot acknowledge that a large percentage of voting AA’s vote democrat – not because of their agreement with democrat policies, or their disagreement with conservative ones – but simply because they just believe that’s the way they are supposed to vote – then you have your head up your ass. (See – doesn’t delusional sound so much nicer?) The only other thing I get from that middle paragraph is that you have no problem with the way conservative blacks are treated by other AA’s. In no way, shape, or form could it be possible that the lack of black conservatives in this country has anything at all to do with the fact that they are treated as pariahs by their own race – right? Knowing that you won’t have any friends and that everyone will treat you like shit…couldn’t possibly influence someone’s viewpoints, right? My guess is that you’ve taken part in the abuse of a fellow AA for having some conservative views. You want to talk about exposing one’s true character….HELLO???? If you have no problem with the abuse of fellow AA’s for having conservative views…then you are a disgraceful young man, and a despicable human being.
Listen, I’ll let you get the last word. I have to stop the madness now. I’m ashamed of myself for wasting this much time on you. Damion, my prayer for you is that you will open YOUR mind to alternative viewpoints. You continue to berate anyone who disagrees with you by calling us racist, or blaming our viewpoints on guilt. It’s pathetic. I also hope that you will grow in your writing….and that one day you will look back on this piece and all your post-responses…and cringe
-
I do not call you racist because we don't agree. I call you racist because – with the arguments you employ to support your viewpoint, you blatantly deny that I, or any AA's that are not conservatives – lack the ability to cast votes based on a critical thought regarding candidates' policies. There may be something loaded in the statistic, but my point is that the statistic is not the end-all-be-all, especially not taken in the context of your point of view, which obviously cannot help but to assume that there is an inherent "something wrong" with being black in and of itself. That is racist.
Furthermore, I have supported Colin Powell in the past. Did your head just explode?
-
-
-
-
-
It is moronic to believe that Herman Cain and Allen West cannot get the black vote for any reason other than their policies, and the ability they possess to articulate their policies. End of story. So I guess Colin Powell – having supported President Obama – fell victim of his blackness, rather than making an educated decision based on what he had evolved to be convicted about? Talk about being deluded.
-
I'll make it easy for you……
You talk too much
-
If you loved this piece, please read the follow up. #Discuss
http://politic365.com/2011/12/12/do-handouts-keep… -
I had an epiphany yesterday…and couldn’t resist writing again. I have said in my posts that you see nothing wrong with the fact that – for all practical purposes – all AA’s perpetually vote democrat. The 93% statistic I keep throwing out there is no big deal to you – you simply don’t see a problem with it at all. I figured out yesterday that I’m absolutely wrong about that. That statistic does bother you – it bugs the hell out of you. Why? It’s not high enough. You wrote the following in one of you post-responses to me:
“Who cares how AA's treat AA conservatives? Do they get a pass for stupid policies that don't serve the majority of AA's because they are black?”
So, that measly little minority of AA’s that vote anyway other than democrat is stupid? (Here’s where I’d like to try to AGAIN draw a correlation between the lack of black conservatives and the nasty treatment they suffer at the hands of AA’s such as yourself; however, you are too obtuse to ever see or acknowledge that blatantly-obvious relationship.) In your perfect world, we should be arguing over a statistic hovering around 100%, right? You want me to acknowledge that 93% of all voting AA’s are thoughtful, well-studied citizens that have reviewed the policy positions of each side and have come to the conclusion that democrat is the only way to vote – election, after election, after election, after election. However, you cannot for the life of you understand how that measly little 7% can do the same pre-election study…and come to any other conclusion than yours, right? Something about that just doesn’t pass the smell test.
You said above that I blatantly deny that you, ”or any AA's that are not conservatives – lack the ability to cast votes based on a critical thought regarding candidates' policies.” I never said any such of a thing. I know that there are plenty of AA’s that are politically knowledgeable and vote democrat because, given their concerns or their pet issues, democrats win the argument. I also know that there are scads of voters who go to the polls with a list…but with no knowledge whatsoever of each sides policy positions. These voters can be found across every spectrum, and vote for both sides…it’s not just limited to the AA voting population. However, as a percentage of the total voting population, more of these voters can be found in the AA community than any other…hence the 93%. THIS is what you blatantly deny.
You know, Damion, in the real world, there is little difference between 93% and 100% anyway…especially when that 93% is so absolutely rigid and consistent. And the results are the same…and aren’t good for AA’s: no one…I repeat…NO ONE gives a crap about the black vote anymore. It’s a waste of time and money. Democrats don’t have to care, and Republicans know it’s pointless. Congratulations. Hope you’re happy with the results of all the thoughtful, knowledgeable, voting habits of your race.
-
Pingback: Today Hot News – Lastest Politic News
-
Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I in finding It really useful & it helped me out a lot. I’m hoping to give one thing again and help others such as you aided me.
Leave a Reply
Featured
Connect
Washington Informer
Advertisement
SMH.
First things first… let us allow Herman Cain to recede quietly into anonymity. The implosion of his campaign was self-inflicted; a campaign so horribly run that the candidate didn't even make it to the first primary. Quite simply, Cain's an awful politician, regardless of his racial identity.
I agree there's no such thing as a singular African-American (or, 'Black') body politic. Af-Am voters are found at places throughout the ideological spectrum. There's even a great deal of diversity among self-identified Af-Am Democrats as represented by the political divergence between, say, Chaka Fattah and Bobby Rush. I believe the number of Af-Ams who are political independents stands as evidence how many consider views from multiple parties.
It's much more probable that the primary explanation for why Af-Am voters don't support Republicans is because so few contemporary Republicans bother engaging the demographic on the retail level. Propping up tokens like J.C. Watts failed to attract Af-Am voters to the GOP; posing Cain as a sincere candidate underscores the GOP's marketing ineptitude with Af-Am voters. Their political incompetence appears systemic. And as there are conservative Democrats — including Af-Ams like Artur Davis — it's also evident that for Af-Ams, 'Republican' does not equal 'conservative'.
The indictment of Af-Am voters as reflexively or irrationally opposed to conservatism and/or Republicanism (however defined) is therefore an intellectually bankrupt racist fallacy, as is its corollary suggesting Af-Ams are politically monolithic.