Black and Republican?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

It’s great to be convinced you are correct – I am quite often convinced I am correct. But, at the same time, you also need to allow that the other person is ALSO convinced he is correct, and not just out there lying or trying to screw people over.

ALDurr wrote:

It’s all fine and good for both parties to believe that they are correct. The problem lies when one party has the ability to affect the lives of the other party. When that happens, their version of what is “correct” for them gets forced onto a group that doesn’t agree with that version. The result is that the group being affected feels like they are being screwed over. Unfortunately, this is what happens in this country more often than not.

In addition, when some individuals who are from that affected group begin to take to the version of “correct” of the other group for themselves, they get viewed in a negative light.

That’s called representative government, and it happens to the losing side after every vote.

In addition, your second paragraph illustrates my problem – people are being looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion that is different from the prescribed group opinion.

I hope Prof notes this, given his position on attributing any “group” beliefs to a member of the group (which, it has been stated, should be the same as mine, which is against it).[/quote]

I think what you are missing here BB is that when individuals take on the “correct” viewpoint of the group that is screwing them over, the collective questions come out: “How can you believe in what this group believes is the correct viewpoint when that very viewpoint is screwing you over along with the rest of us?” and “Do you know that they are just using you and when your usefulness is at an end, they are going to abandon you?”

With our history in this country it is more of an astonishment than anything else that there are members of our community that could still be this trusting and naive.

Case in point, Armstrong Williams. He has his head so far up the current administration’s collective assholes for so long it’s not even funny. But when his shady business came to light of being paid by the Department of Education to push No Child Left Behind, what happened? The entire administration started distancing themselves from him. They really didn’t support him at all.

When he was being flat out ignored by conservative whites and attacked by the liberal whites, he did what all black people in this situation do, he tried to appeal to the black community for help. Nevermind the fact that he has gone on record for many policies that adversely affect the black community and against many policies that help the black community.

When he got slapped down by the very people he was trying to please by his distancing himself from the black community, he came running back. Then when he got a collective “I told you so” he had the nerve to get mad about it. He spouted off about “If you let them get away with doing it to me, it opens the door for them to do it to any one of us.”

Nevermind the fact that it has been done to us before on numerous occassions. Occassions that he has either turned a blind eye to again and again or has flat out tried to denounce as fabrications.

Has he learned from his lesson? No, he still has his head planted firmly in their collective asses.

So when this question is asked about why do black republicans and/or outspoken black conservatives that seem to echo all of the talking points of the republican party get so much harrassment, think about this. Given our collective history in this country along with incidences like the one above, black people like this set themselves up for this type of treatment.

They are only interested in helping themselves first, last and always. This is a majority mentality, which only works well when you are the majority. When you are a minority, you can’t afford to be this way because you are at the complete mercy of the majority with no support from the minority group you came from.

It might look like I am rambling, but there is a point in there somewhere that most minorities intuitively understand. I don’t know if I am explaining it well enough for a member of the majority to understand.

202

Case in point for my post.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Republicans don’t always treat Black conservatives so well.

Republicans and blacks

By Thomas Sowell

Jan 31, 2006

A promising new black political figure is emerging in Ohio – Ken Blackwell, a solid, pro-life conservative who has fought for lower taxes. He is seeking the Republican nomination for governor of Ohio and polls indicate that he has substantial support.

Unfortunately, Ohio’s Republicans are a lot like Ohio’s Democrats – both are for higher taxes. On this and other issues, Blackwell is described in the current issue of City Journal as “often at war with his own party as well as the Democrats.”

The Republican Party has not had much success attracting black votes in recent decades and conservative blacks have not had an easy time in the Republican Party.

Blacks have voted so overwhelmingly for Democrats for so long that Republicans have few incentives to try to gain black votes – and little success when they do.

Political inertia can be powerful. The “solid South” voted consistently for Democrats for more than a century. Today, the Jewish vote is just as automatically for Democrats as the black vote is, and with even less reason, since Jews have little to gain from the welfare state and Israel’s strongest supporters are religious conservatives.

When Republicans from time to time try to reach out to blacks, they tend to do so ineptly, if not ridiculously. For reasons unknown, they seem to want to appeal to black voters in the same ways that Democrats appeal to black voters, by adopting a liberal stance.

Why would anyone who wants liberalism go for a Republican imitation when they can get the real thing from Democrats? Republicans do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the votes of liberal blacks.

Nor are they likely to win a majority of the black vote as a whole any time soon. But if Republicans can get just a fourth or a fifth of the black vote nationwide, that can shift the balance of power decisively in their favor.

It is not rocket science to see that whatever chances the Republicans have of making inroads into the black vote are likely to be better among more conservative blacks.

Black religious groups opposed to abortion or homosexual marriage are an obvious group to try to reach. So are black business owners or military veterans.

Does anyone think that President Bush’s awarding a Medal of Freedom to Muhammad Ali was likely to appeal to such groups? Yet this continues a pattern in which Republicans have tried to approach black voters from the left.

Back in 1997, when black Republican Congressman J.C. Watts denounced people like Jesse Jackson and then D.C. mayor Marion Barry as “race-hustling poverty pimps,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich took it upon himself to apologize to Jesse Jackson.

To apologize for what another man said is to treat that man as if he were your child or your servant. Gingrich then added further insult by inviting Jesse Jackson to join him in his box for the Clinton inauguration for his second term as president.

Pulling the rug out from under your friends, in order to appease your enemies, may seem like clever politics to some people. But what could possibly have led Republicans to think that pro-Jesse Jackson blacks were ever going to vote for them?

Did they think that conservative blacks who might have voted for them were more likely to do so when Republicans embraced Jesse Jackson? Did they think that conservative blacks who might have considered becoming Republican candidates were more likely to do so after seeing how J.C. Watts had been treated?

Another conservative black Republican who had the rug pulled out from under him was Michael Williams, when he was in charge of civil rights at the Department of Education. Mr. Williams ruled that setting aside scholarships exclusively for minority students was racial discrimination in violation of civil rights laws.

This courageous ruling was over-ruled in the first Bush administration, leaving Michael Williams with egg on his face.

Ken Blackwell’s candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor in Ohio is a golden opportunity for Republicans, not only in that state but on the national political scene as well. Still, Mr. Blackwell would do well to watch his back. [/quote]

203

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

It’s great to be convinced you are correct – I am quite often convinced I am correct. But, at the same time, you also need to allow that the other person is ALSO convinced he is correct, and not just out there lying or trying to screw people over.

ALDurr wrote:

It’s all fine and good for both parties to believe that they are correct. The problem lies when one party has the ability to affect the lives of the other party. When that happens, their version of what is “correct” for them gets forced onto a group that doesn’t agree with that version. The result is that the group being affected feels like they are being screwed over. Unfortunately, this is what happens in this country more often than not.

In addition, when some individuals who are from that affected group begin to take to the version of “correct” of the other group for themselves, they get viewed in a negative light.

BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s called representative government, and it happens to the losing side after every vote.

In addition, your second paragraph illustrates my problem – people are being looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion that is different from the prescribed group opinion.

I hope Prof notes this, given his position on attributing any “group” beliefs to a member of the group (which, it has been stated, should be the same as mine, which is against it).

Professor X wrote:
Looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion? Who is looked down upon SIMPLY because of an opinion? If a minority chooses an opinion that negatively affects other minorities, you don’t think there should be any negative feelings there? If not, why not? Your assumption is that this “dared opinion” is in everyone’s best interest. How is it you think like this?[/quote]

This is my whole point – it’s only YOUR OPINION that their opinion negatively affects other minorities.

In their opinion, they are advocating ideas to HELP minorities.

Your whole statement assumes your opinion is correct, which is fine, but ignores the fact that, in their own eyes, they are HELPING, not HURTING.

204

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

This is my whole point – it’s only YOUR OPINION that their opinion negatively affects other minorities.

In their opinion, they are advocating ideas to HELP minorities.

Your whole statement assumes your opinion is correct, which is fine, but ignores the fact that, in their own eyes, they are HELPING, not HURTING.
[/quote]

Uh, your statement assumes that YOU are correct. How do you know they think they are helping others including minority groups? Could it possibly be they know full well that they are after their own interests alone? Exactly how much are YOU helping minorities? In what decisions do you agree with that are meant to help minorities but minorities simply oppose it for no reason at all?

We already talked about school vouchers and why that decision is not in everyone’s best interest for reasons that wouldn’t even occur to someone who wasn’t poor and had never even been close to poor in their life time. Could it be that it is you who is unable to see all sides?

205

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
This is my whole point – it’s only YOUR OPINION that their opinion negatively affects other minorities.

In their opinion, they are advocating ideas to HELP minorities.

Your whole statement assumes your opinion is correct, which is fine, but ignores the fact that, in their own eyes, they are HELPING, not HURTING.

Professor X wrote:
Uh, your statement assumes that YOU are correct. How do you know they think they are helping others including minority groups? Could it possibly be they know full well that they are after their own interests alone? Exactly how much are YOU helping minorities? In what decisions do you agree with that are meant to help minorities but minorities simply oppose it for no reason at all? [/quote]

It doesn’t assume I’m correct – it allows for the good-faith assumption that they actually believe what they say.

You’re trying to change the subject with anything in which you are trying to argue the substance of the issues. My entire point is that the position outlined – that a minority holding a position that a lot of other minorities disagree with is set on harming other minorities – does not allow for good faith disagreement.

Further, it is the ultimate in racial stereotyping, in that it allows for the “punishment” (via extra criticism, poor treatment, etc.) from someone who dares veer off from what he is “supposed to” think – it doesn’t even allow for the possibility that a minority might really believe that his opinion would HELP minorities, even if the other minorities think it would HURT minorities.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
We already talked about school vouchers and why that decision is not in everyone’s best interest for reasons that wouldn’t even occur to someone who wasn’t poor and had never even been close to poor in their life time. Could it be that it is you who is unable to see all sides?[/quote]

You’re avoiding the issue. This issue is, in the abstract, why should a minority be punished for holding an opinion different from other minorities? And by “punished” I mean be criticized more harshly than a non-minority holding the same views.

And you’re making a huge assumption about what any other individual can see or understand.

206

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
It’s all fine and good for both parties to believe that they are correct. The problem lies when one party has the ability to affect the lives of the other party. When that happens, their version of what is “correct” for them gets forced onto a group that doesn’t agree with that version. The result is that the group being affected feels like they are being screwed over. Unfortunately, this is what happens in this country more often than not.

In addition, when some individuals who are from that affected group begin to take to the version of “correct” of the other group for themselves, they get viewed in a negative light.

That’s called representative government, and it happens to the losing side after every vote.

In addition, your second paragraph illustrates my problem – people are being looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion that is different from the prescribed group opinion.

I hope Prof notes this, given his position on attributing any “group” beliefs to a member of the group (which, it has been stated, should be the same as mine, which is against it).

I think what you are missing here BB is that when individuals take on the “correct” viewpoint of the group that is screwing them over, the collective questions come out: “How can you believe in what this group believes is the correct viewpoint when that very viewpoint is screwing you over along with the rest of us?” and “Do you know that they are just using you and when your usefulness is at an end, they are going to abandon you?”

With our history in this country it is more of an astonishment than anything else that there are members of our community that could still be this trusting and naive.

Case in point, Armstrong Williams. He has his head so far up the current administration’s collective assholes for so long it’s not even funny. But when his shady business came to light of being paid by the Department of Education to push No Child Left Behind, what happened? The entire administration started distancing themselves from him. They really didn’t support him at all.

When he was being flat out ignored by conservative whites and attacked by the liberal whites, he did what all black people in this situation do, he tried to appeal to the black community for help. Nevermind the fact that he has gone on record for many policies that adversely affect the black community and against many policies that help the black community.

When he got slapped down by the very people he was trying to please by his distancing himself from the black community, he came running back. Then when he got a collective “I told you so” he had the nerve to get mad about it. He spouted off about “If you let them get away with doing it to me, it opens the door for them to do it to any one of us.”

Nevermind the fact that it has been done to us before on numerous occassions. Occassions that he has either turned a blind eye to again and again or has flat out tried to denounce as fabrications.

Has he learned from his lesson? No, he still has his head planted firmly in their collective asses.

So when this question is asked about why do black republicans and/or outspoken black conservatives that seem to echo all of the talking points of the republican party get so much harrassment, think about this. Given our collective history in this country along with incidences like the one above, black people like this set themselves up for this type of treatment.

They are only interested in helping themselves first, last and always. This is a majority mentality, which only works well when you are the majority. When you are a minority, you can’t afford to be this way because you are at the complete mercy of the majority with no support from the minority group you came from.

It might look like I am rambling, but there is a point in there somewhere that most minorities intuitively understand. I don’t know if I am explaining it well enough for a member of the majority to understand.[/quote]

Al,

Did you ever think that Williams and people like him can’t identify with the black community as the community believes he/they should? In other words, more and more blacks and minorities are becoming affluent and living in areas that are devoid of ethnic cultural influences other than the majority white culture. So if they come from this kind of background, why hold them up as being some kind of traitor from the community, when they have really never been part of the black community?

You are expecting Williams to be loyal to a culture that he may not even be familiar with.

It would be odd to hear whites busting the balls of a white guy who grew up in the black community for “selling out” his people when he did not behave like other whites. If someone identifies with a group, regardless of their skin color or country of origin, why hold them to a community affiliation that they may have never had?

That would be like taking a black guy who grew up in England and trying to get him to behave as a black growing up in the black community in the US. He will just not get it.

207

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

I think what you are missing here BB is that when individuals take on the “correct” viewpoint of the group that is screwing them over, the collective questions come out: “How can you believe in what this group believes is the correct viewpoint when that very viewpoint is screwing you over along with the rest of us?” and “Do you know that they are just using you and when your usefulness is at an end, they are going to abandon you?” [/quote]

AL – that’s not what I’m missing – that’s my entire point. The assumption is that the person with the viewpoint with which a majority of his group disagrees is being considered to either be lying or to be too dumb to see the “correct” viewpoint. The assumption isn’t that it’s a good faith disagreement – the assumption is, if he is a member of the group, then he needs to see it the way the majority of the group sees it, or he should be shunned and/or otherwise punished more harshly than someone with the same views who is not a member of the group.

And the only reason is the combination of group membership and views held.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
With our history in this country it is more of an astonishment than anything else that there are members of our community that could still be this trusting and naive.[/quote]

Or hold a completely different opinion, in good faith. That is the possibility that is dismissed out of hand.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Case in point, Armstrong Williams. He has his head so far up the current administration’s collective assholes for so long it’s not even funny. But when his shady business came to light of being paid by the Department of Education to push No Child Left Behind, what happened? The entire administration started distancing themselves from him. They really didn’t support him at all.

When he was being flat out ignored by conservative whites and attacked by the liberal whites, he did what all black people in this situation do, he tried to appeal to the black community for help. Nevermind the fact that he has gone on record for many policies that adversely affect the black community and against many policies that help the black community.

When he got slapped down by the very people he was trying to please by his distancing himself from the black community, he came running back. Then when he got a collective “I told you so” he had the nerve to get mad about it. He spouted off about “If you let them get away with doing it to me, it opens the door for them to do it to any one of us.” [/quote]

I think you’ll find that happens a lot when someone is involved in a scandal, irrespective of his race/group membership. Ken Lay certainly doesn’t have a lot of friends these days, if you know what I mean…

But the key to what you wrote is still the assumption that he didn’t think he was advocating what was best for the black community. Without allowing for the possiblity of good-faith disagreement, disagreements become venomous far too quickly.

And, as I said, when you have a group attempting to force conformity to a certain viewpoint by punishing any members with apostate views, it doesn’t help particularly the cause of making the argument that there isn’t a “group viewpoint.”

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Nevermind the fact that it has been done to us before on numerous occassions. Occassions that he has either turned a blind eye to again and again or has flat out tried to denounce as fabrications.

Has he learned from his lesson? No, he still has his head planted firmly in their collective asses.

So when this question is asked about why do black republicans and/or outspoken black conservatives that seem to echo all of the talking points of the republican party get so much harrassment, think about this. Given our collective history in this country along with incidences like the one above, black people like this set themselves up for this type of treatment.

They are only interested in helping themselves first, last and always. This is a majority mentality, which only works well when you are the majority. When you are a minority, you can’t afford to be this way because you are at the complete mercy of the majority with no support from the minority group you came from.

It might look like I am rambling, but there is a point in there somewhere that most minorities intuitively understand. I don’t know if I am explaining it well enough for a member of the majority to understand.[/quote]

I am pretty sure I understand. It’s group dynamics, and an “us vs. them” outlook. We all do it to an extent – it just depends on the group. I, for instance, do not like it at all when an American is caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, or when Americans were “useful idiots” during the Cold War. That’s taking it way too far in the analogy, for many reasons, but it’s the same basic concept.

I think we need to work on that not being the outlook though. All of us do.

208

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re avoiding the issue. This issue is, in the abstract, why should a minority be punished for holding an opinion different from other minorities? And by “punished” I mean be criticized more harshly than a non-minority holding the same views.

And you’re making a huge assumption about what any other individual can see or understand.
[/quote]

You keep making the same mistake and I will keep pointing it out. This statement…the one you just wrote…assumes yet again that someone is being “punished” simply because they hold a different opinion. What is the effect of that opinion? Why do you think blacks are punished simply for being “Conservative”? Al just wrote that he doesn’t consider himself “liberal” just like I don’t…yet here you are telling me that blacks are punished simply because of differing view points. Why do you assume this? In fact, why do many of YOU label anyone who disagrees with you on an issue as “liberal”?

209

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
AL – that’s not what I’m missing – that’s my entire point. The assumption is that the person with the viewpoint with which a majority of his group disagrees is being considered to either be lying or to be too dumb to see the “correct” viewpoint. The assumption isn’t that it’s a good faith disagreement – the assumption is, if he is a member of the group, then he needs to see it the way the majority of the group sees it, or he should be shunned and/or otherwise punished more harshly than someone with the same views who is not a member of the group.[/quote]

It is amazing to me that you keep using the term “good faith disagreement” when I can’t think of one major issue that Conservatives have a “good faith disagreement” with Liberals on. When it comes to abortions, screams are thrown at those who are Pro Choice as if they are killers and murderers. Gee, where is the “good faith disagreement”? On what issue in all of politics is there a “good faith disagreement” across the board? But blacks are held to some different standard? Would you mind telling the others in your claimed “Conservative Party” to act accordingly? You get to point fingers at an entire race of people…while those in your own party are free to think and speak as they please? What type of hypocritic bullshit is this exactly? Yet, that wouldn’t be YOUR fault…now would it?

210

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re avoiding the issue. This issue is, in the abstract, why should a minority be punished for holding an opinion different from other minorities? And by “punished” I mean be criticized more harshly than a non-minority holding the same views.

And you’re making a huge assumption about what any other individual can see or understand.

Professor X wrote:
You keep making the same mistake and I will keep pointing it out. This statement…the one you just wrote…assumes yet again that someone is being “punished” simply because they hold a different opinion. [/quote]

No, you keep either not grasping, or refusing to grasp, my point.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is the effect of that opinion? [/quote]

It doesn’t matter for the purposes of this point – all that matters is what the person who holds it believes the effect of the opinion is.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do you think blacks are punished simply for being “Conservative”? [/quote]

It’s not simply for being conservative – it’s for being black and conservative on certain issues.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Al just wrote that he doesn’t consider himself “liberal” just like I don’t…yet here you are telling me that blacks are punished simply because of differing view points.[/quote]

Yes, I am. Because it happens all the time – and it really doesn’t matter how you choose to label yourself. What would matter would be if you had a number of conservative positions on issues that the majority of blacks disagreed with you on, like, say, affirmative action.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do you assume this? [/quote]

I don’t – you keep misrepresenting my position, and I keep restating it

[quote]Professor X wrote:
In fact, why do many of YOU label anyone who disagrees with you on an issue as “liberal”? [/quote]

“You” being whom? Are you trying to make me speak for a whole group again?

Anyway, it’s quite easy for a person to hold diverse positions and to not consider himself as liberal, conservative or whatever. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point.

211

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
AL – that’s not what I’m missing – that’s my entire point. The assumption is that the person with the viewpoint with which a majority of his group disagrees is being considered to either be lying or to be too dumb to see the “correct” viewpoint. The assumption isn’t that it’s a good faith disagreement – the assumption is, if he is a member of the group, then he needs to see it the way the majority of the group sees it, or he should be shunned and/or otherwise punished more harshly than someone with the same views who is not a member of the group.

Professor X wrote:
It is amazing to me that you keep using the term “good faith disagreement” when I can’t think of one major issue that Conservatives have a “good faith disagreement” with Liberals on.[/quote]

That’s because you’re trying to impose your own defintion on my terminolgy.

I am using “good-faith disagreement” in the sense I have heard it used most since college – meaning that the person with whom you are disagreeing holds a good-faith belief that his position is the correct, best position, and that he is telling you his true reasoning when he explains it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
When it comes to abortions, screams are thrown at those who are Pro Choice as if they are killers and murderers. Gee, where is the “good faith disagreement”? On what issue in all of politics is there a “good faith disagreement” across the board? But blacks are held to some different standard? Would you mind telling the others in your claimed “Conservative Party” to act accordingly? You get to point fingers at an entire race of people…while those in your own party are free to think and speak as they please? What type of hypocritic bullshit is this exactly? Yet, that wouldn’t be YOUR fault…now would it?[/quote]

Not relevant. The point isn’t about good manners. The point is that someone can disagree with you in principle and still have the same goal. I believe that was the point of many liberals who were upset that they had (or felt they had, depending on the incident) their patriotism questioned if they disagreed about Iraq.

BTW, do you have a persecution complex? I swear I am putting things in a straightforward manner, but you keep wanting to make it out like I am singling out you or blacks generally for a special standard.

212

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
AL – that’s not what I’m missing – that’s my entire point. The assumption is that the person with the viewpoint with which a majority of his group disagrees is being considered to either be lying or to be too dumb to see the “correct” viewpoint. The assumption isn’t that it’s a good faith disagreement – the assumption is, if he is a member of the group, then he needs to see it the way the majority of the group sees it, or he should be shunned and/or otherwise punished more harshly than someone with the same views who is not a member of the group.

Professor X wrote:
It is amazing to me that you keep using the term “good faith disagreement” when I can’t think of one major issue that Conservatives have a “good faith disagreement” with Liberals on.

That’s because you’re trying to impose your own defintion on my terminolgy.

I am using “good-faith disagreement” in the sense I have heard it used most since college – meaning that the person with whom you are disagreeing holds a good-faith belief that his position is the correct, best position, and that he is telling you his true reasoning when he explains it.

Professor X wrote:
When it comes to abortions, screams are thrown at those who are Pro Choice as if they are killers and murderers. Gee, where is the “good faith disagreement”? On what issue in all of politics is there a “good faith disagreement” across the board? But blacks are held to some different standard? Would you mind telling the others in your claimed “Conservative Party” to act accordingly? You get to point fingers at an entire race of people…while those in your own party are free to think and speak as they please? What type of hypocritic bullshit is this exactly? Yet, that wouldn’t be YOUR fault…now would it?

Not relevant. The point isn’t about good manners. The point is that someone can disagree with you in principle and still have the same goal. I believe that was the point of many liberals who were upset that they had (or felt they had, depending on the incident) their patriotism questioned if they disagreed about Iraq.

BTW, do you have a persecution complex? I swear I am putting things in a straightforward manner, but you keep wanting to make it out like I am singling out you or blacks generally for a special standard.[/quote]

But you are. I asked where there has been a “good faith disagreement” in politics and your claim was that it was in Liberals being upset for being called unpatriotic. Gee, they were being called that because there was NO “good faith disagreement” in politics. By your logic…if this really isn’t some “black phenomena”…you should be just as upset that liberals were considered unpatriotic by some Conservatives. You don’t seem to be.

213

A good faith disagreement would be something like vouchers for public education. Those in favor honestly believe they will benefit all students. Those opposed honestly think it will hurt some students. They both are acting in good faith.

214

[quote]doogie wrote:
A good faith disagreement would be something like vouchers for public education. Those in favor honestly believe they will benefit all students. Those opposed honestly think it will hurt some students. They both are acting in good faith.[/quote]

Actually, as we just saw with that discussion, those in favor of vouchers who don’t seem to be able to see the other side view those against vouchers as simply being uneducated on the issue. In all of politics, rocks are thrown on either side of an issue. It has always been that way…yet when it happens in the balck community, this is seen as some “black thing” that apparently needed its own thread. That is called HUMAN NATURE. It is the same way Liberals were labeled as unpatriotic for even saying anything against this current administration in the days shortly following the last election. The question again is, how is it blacks are seen differently? Why are blacks held to some different standard as if there is some pathology present when the entire damn country is doing the same thing?

And then the claim is that the ones to blame are the media and blacks themselves. No, the problem lies in anyone viewing this as a “black problem”.

215

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It has always been that way…yet when it happens in the balck community, this is seen as some “black thing” that apparently needed its own thread. That is called HUMAN NATURE…

The question again is, how is it blacks are seen differently? Why are blacks held to some different standard as if there is some pathology present when the entire damn country is doing the same thing?
[/quote]

I’m sure BB is getting at something different, but I’ll try to answer your question (as best I understand it).

I don’t think Blacks are held to a different standard at all. You are correct that ALL political arguements end up in name calling and such. That isn’t what is being discussed here.

The one thing I see different within the Black community (as compared to within politics as a whole) is that many times race is used as a weapon in the arguements they (liberal vs. conservatives) have with each other.

Generally, white liberals don’t play a race card against white conservatives when they disagree. You never hear Ted Kennedy say that Bush is turning back on “his people” or that he has forgotten “where he comes from”. White people never treat each other like they should all agree on social issues because of the color of their skin. Sure they call each other names and such. No one denies that. Usually they’ll attribute the other sides failure to reach the same conclusions they have to being stupid, evil, small-minded, or unrealistic. Never do they attribute it to “forgetting who you are”.

There is no white equivalent in political discussions(that I can think of) to the terms “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo”. Those terms imply that the Black Conservative is not only wrong in his beliefs, but a traitor to his race.

Wikipedia definition:
Uncle Tom is a pejorative term for a black person who is perceived by other blacks to be obsequiously servile to white authority figures, or who simply are perceived as being unnecessarily accommodating of whites.

Using that term eliminates the possibility that the Black conservative ACTUALLY BELIEVES what he is advocating will help his community. If you called him stupid, you could still believe he THOUGHT he was doing the right thing to help his community. If you call him an Uncle Tom, you are automatically eliminating the possiblity that he does want to help and is doing what he think is best.

216

[quote]doogie wrote:
[/quote]

Have you considered for even one moment that anyone called out for doing something perceived as damaging to the black community is called out because not only is it damaging, but the person called out for their opinion knows this as well?

Your assumption is that a black person who speaks out against another black person for their political views is in the wrong if their focus is a Conservative. What happened to the possibility that they are right? It has been explained several times that people are not hated simply because they claim “Conservative”. Why do you or anyone else believe that actions are not what is being focused upon?

The world of a minority in this country is NOT exactly the same as the world of someone in the majority. There are different obstacles to overcome. Any minority denying this or pretending as if their current status saves them from this is going to be called out for it by other minorities. How could this be difficult to understand? How could it be considered wrong? How is it not the truth in any case that someone HAS forgotten the differences? To not understand this is to pretend that racial divides aren’t still present or aren’t significant at all. Is anyone actually going to claim that race doesn’t matter in this country in terms of jobs, education or social status? If you admit that these hurdles are still present, how could you possibly turn around and accuse the entire black community of wrong doing for holding a negative opinion of a minority who seems to act as if this isn’t the case?

217

First, repeatedly typing “how can this be difficult to understand” just highlights the lack of substance in your position.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Have you considered for even one moment that anyone called out for doing something perceived as damaging to the black community is called out because not only is it damaging, but the person called out for their opinion knows this as well?
[/quote]

Most these things we are talking about (policies and programs) take years and years to assess. It’s dumb to even suggest that anyone KNOWS what the outcome would be for sure. It’s EXTREMELY ignorant to assume someone who is saying “I think this will help” KNOWS that it won’t. Even if it WERE true, though, and the Black conservative in question is actually acting purely in his OWN self-interest, what is wrong with that? It’s not like there are any programs that have the same effect on ALL Blacks. Why shouldn’t he do what is best for Blacks in his situation? Why do Black liberals act as if ALL Blacks are one and should act as one? White people don’t accuse other selfish White people of betraying their race, they just call them selfish. Yet in the Black community these people are “Uncle Toms”.

[quote]
Your assumption is that a black person who speaks out against another black person for their political views is in the wrong if their focus is a Conservative. What happened to the possibility that they are right? It has been explained several times that people are not hated simply because they claim “Conservative”. Why do you or anyone else believe that actions are not what is being focused upon?[/quote]

I’m not making that assumption at all. Clear all your little preconceived notions and read what was written again.

I’m saying it is wrong to make the assumption that the Black conservative KNOWS he is in the wrong. I’m saying it is wrong to bring race into the condemnation, as if the Black conservative owed the Black community anything. When White people disagree about school vouchers, for example, they don’t accuse each other of KNOWING their stance is wrong nor do they pretend that having a difference of opinion is committing treason against all white people.

You can focus on someones actions without claiming he is betraying his race, as if ALL Blacks are exactly the same. Why is he expected to base his decisions first and foremost on his race? Why can’t he base his decisions on his ideology or what is best for a person in his socio-economic status without being accused of betraying Blacks?

[quote]
The world of a minority in this country is NOT exactly the same as the world of someone in the majority. There are different obstacles to overcome. Any minority denying this or pretending as if their current status saves them from this is going to be called out for it by other minorities. How could this be difficult to understand? How could it be considered wrong? How is it not the truth in any case that someone HAS forgotten the differences? To not understand this is to pretend that racial divides aren’t still present or aren’t significant at all. Is anyone actually going to claim that race doesn’t matter in this country in terms of jobs, education or social status? If you admit that these hurdles are still present, how could you possibly turn around and accuse the entire black community of wrong doing for holding a negative opinion of a minority who seems to act as if this isn’t the case?[/quote]

Earlier you said, “No, the problem lies in anyone viewing this as a ‘black problem’.”

Now you are no longer denying that liberal Blacks treat conservative Blacks differently than White liberals treat White conservatives. Instead you are now defending it. Wow.

I think the “entire black community” will be much better off when they stop thinking of themselves as first and foremost being Black. I think the “entire Black community” will be better off when they quit making the incorrect assumption that white people see them first and foremost as Black people. I think the “entire Black community” will be better off when they quit acting like someone like Michael Jordan’s son (born rich with the world at his feet) has more in common with a poor Black child in the inner city than he does with the white children in his own gated neighborhood. I think the “entire black community” will be much better off when they don’t begrudge those who say, “I’m a man in America, and I’m going to do what is best for me and my family.” There is never going to be some government program that can come along and raise up all Blacks. There is never going to be one Black person who can take the entire community on his back and carry them to higher ground. The only way it is going to get better is one person and one family at a time. As long as those people who better themselves keep getting torn down, very little will ever change.

218

[quote]doogie wrote:
First, repeatedly typing “how can this be difficult to understand” just highlights the lack of substance in your position.[/quote]

It should be highlighting how hard it is for me understand the way you think.

Because we are not seen as individuals. Thinking only of yourself is fine as long as you remain by yourself if trouble befalls you. If you then run back to the black community the moment you are discarded by the high society you considered yourself a part of, you should also not expect to be accepted.

[quote]
It’s not like there are any programs that have the same effect on ALL Blacks. Why shouldn’t he do what is best for Blacks in his situation? Why do Black liberals act as if ALL Blacks are one and should act as one? White people don’t accuse other selfish White people of betraying their race, they just call them selfish. Yet in the Black community these people are “Uncle Toms”.[/quote]

White people have the benefit of being in the majority. You have the benefit of being seen as an individual no matter what the situation. No one EVER lumps all white people together when a crime is committed or a white individual does something negative. It does not go the same way for minorities. This has been explained to you. Why pretend it hasn’t?

[quote]

I’m not making that assumption at all. Clear all your little preconceived notions and read what was written again.

I’m saying it is wrong to make the assumption that the Black conservative KNOWS he is in the wrong. I’m saying it is wrong to bring race into the condemnation, as if the Black conservative owed the Black community anything. When White people disagree about school vouchers, for example, they don’t accuse each other of KNOWING their stance is wrong nor do they pretend that having a difference of opinion is committing treason against all white people. [/quote]

Read above. Read what Al durr wrote on the subject in either this thread or the other. Again, not one black man today is simply seen as “a man”. Until that happens, expect for it be questionable whether he recognizes the problems in this society and isn’t trying to hide from them.

[quote]
You can focus on someones actions without claiming he is betraying his race, as if ALL Blacks are exactly the same. Why is he expected to base his decisions first and foremost on his race? Why can’t he base his decisions on his ideology or what is best for a person in his socio-economic status without being accused of betraying Blacks?[/quote]

Until you acknowledge the differences of race in this culture, this debate is pointless. Do you or do you not believe that a minority has different obstacles to face than a non-minority?

[quote]Earlier you said, “No, the problem lies in anyone viewing this as a ‘black problem’.”

Now you are no longer denying that liberal Blacks treat conservative Blacks differently than White liberals treat White conservatives. Instead you are now defending it. Wow.[/quote]

As written earlier, this is a HUMAN NATURE PROBLEM, and to point fingers at blacks means you are so ignorant as to not recognize the same actions in yourself in different contexts.

219

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
First, repeatedly typing “how can this be difficult to understand” just highlights the lack of substance in your position.

Professor X wrote:
It should be highlighting how hard it is for me understand the way you think.
[/quote]

It’s hard for us to understand you, because we don’t share your irrational persecution complex. I’m sure it will show up later in your reply here.

You make it hard to have honest discussions. I have no idea as to what kind of fantasy scenario you’ve concocted about “when trouble befalls you” that would send an upper class Black conservative running “back to the black communtity” or that would have them “discarded by the high society” they considered themselves to be a part of.

No matter what it is you are talking about here, it clearly IS NOT fine with many in the Black community to think of yourself first. Black conservatives like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Armstrong Williams are called “Uncle Tom” or “house Negro” while at the pinnacle of their success, not after some imagined downfall that sends them scurrying back to the Black community.

Why pretend that because you suffer from a persecution complex, it makes the nonsense you spew true? There is not some widespread view of each Black person representing all Black people. It’s a fantasy in your mind, because you want to play victim.

Here’s another Black view on the subject:

“Herein lies the greatest missed opportunity of the civil rights movement. They never prepared for the day when whites would start treating minorities as equals. Their entire public image, their very legitimacy as political and cultural spokespersons–was predicated on the rhetoric of a black versus white war. As Justice Clarence Thomas once observed, the [civil rights] revolution missed a larger point by merely changing the status [of minorities] from invisible to victimized.”

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/Armstrongwilliams/2005/12/19/179577.html

For a minute, I’ll play along with your flawed premise. Tell us, Doctor, how did being lumped together with all people has keep you from success. Tell us how it prevented you from getting a good education and from going to medical school.

Oh, that’s right, Doc. It didn’t.

Tell us,Doc, what percentage of your success is the direct result of the wonderful parents you had as opposed to social programs?

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the worst of these obstacles are self-imposed.

I think the biggest obstacle Blacks face is themselves. Specifically, the old notions that they can’t succeed because Whitey won’t let them. That was absolutely true as recently as the early 60s. Now it’s an excuse to not even try. Look at the number of Black immigrants who come to this country and succeed. Why is it so easy for them when their skin is just as dark? Either because they don’t believe they are being judged only on the basis of the color of their skin, or they just don’t give a damn if they are. They don’t use it as an excuse for failure. They don’t get here and say, “I’m a minority. The government needs to help me succeed.”

"Similarly, it’s OK for a white person to be against affirmative action, but if a black person comes out and says programs like this are encouraging victim status and that this is inherently damaging, he is labeled and dismissed as a “racist.” This is racial groupthink: we all have to think and act the same way, or we’re called traitors. These cultural norms keep us in line. They ensure that the black community is the easiest voting block to control and to take for granted.

This is having a disastrous effect on the black community. Ever wonder why some black people succeed and others don’t? How can you expect to do well, to thrive in society, if you are obsessed with racism? I see it all the time - black business people who refuse to even network with white people because they feel it makes them a sellout. This black groupthink has gotten to the point where we’re willingly cutting off our own business opportunities. Limiting the amount of capital flowing into our community does not help us achieve progress. It just keeps us stuck on a dead-end street of self-righteous indignation.

Sellout is just a term that people use to enslave us and keep us distracted from real problems. Sure, racism exists. Look at the White House - it’s the oldest white boys club in this country. But throwing your arms up and claiming racism does nothing to break down those racial barriers. You must invade these fields traditionally reserved for white men and break down stereotypes from the inside. This doesn’t happen if we spend all of our time standing on the outside shouting racism. "

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/Armstrongwilliams/2004/10/05/13231.html

If it is a human nature problem, give a single example of a white politician being called a traitor to his race because he supports affirmative action. If it is a human nature problem, tell me what term is the white equivalent to “Uncle Tom” or “house Negro”.

To deny that this is a problem that doesn’t exist in the white community is to be ignorant.

220

Another good article on how Blacks (even one’s who are not particularly conservative) are punished for not following the traditional Black groupthink.