[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It doesn’t. Their actions do, but not their opinions.[/quote]
What does that have to do with me?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Not on behalf of a whole group, and claim to represent their beliefs, unless they’ve been authorized – I don’t think anyone elected Al or Jesse as representatives… (heck, I don’t even think anyone elected them as pastors of any congregations…)
vroom wrote:
Boston,
This is rank bullshit, and it stinks.
Are you not yourself speaking out against the lack of coverage of good stories in Iraq?
Who elected you spokeperson for the views of the American public? What gives you the right to talk about your feelings on the issue?[/quote]
Umm, you’re full of it vroom. I never claimed to be a spokesperson for the view of the American public. Go check the thread. I was stating how I thought the media should work. I can talk about my own views all I want.
[quote]vroom wrote:
These people talk about issues they believe in, because they personally believe in them. It’s the same reason that people of any race speak out. No, they haven’t been elected as representatives… so why have they been granted that status?[/quote]
They can speak out all they want – I said they shouldn’t claim to be spokespersons for the “black community” if they aren’t.
[quote]vroom wrote:
That is a large part of the entire issue in this thread!
People who are interested in speaking in front of the media are always going to play up the size of the population they represent. Why should it be any different for these guys?[/quote]
That’s my point. And that’s why they are partially responsible for people viewing them as representative of the “black community.” And that’s also why the media is partially responsible for that as well.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Do you think white supremists don’t claim to speak for an entire race? Of course they do! However, nobody gives such claims any credit. However, when a minority group has a speaker, suddenly they are “representative” of a race.[/quote]
And there you see the problem of the media giving credence to their (Jackson et al) claims. The media gives no credence to claims that white supremicists speak on behalf of the entire white race - in fact, they actively dispute it. Thus, enter the media’s culpability in this – they don’t challenge, and in fact actively promote, the view that Jackson et al are the spokespersons for the “black community.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
Holy shit, are you guys blind or what?[/quote]
I’m beginning to think you’re being willfully obtuse.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
It doesn’t. Their actions do, but not their opinions.
What does that have to do with me?[/quote]
Nothing. That’s the point, isn’t it?
No, that’s not what you wrote actually.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, I’m not. I am trying to get you to admit that the blame doesn’t just fall on “the media” or Jesse Jackson. Apparently, this is like pulling teeth. You are all too ready to point fingers at blacks, at black leaders, at the “liberal media”, but how is it it took this long to admit that the “buck” doesn’t stop there? [/quote]
“trying to get” means I haven’t done it yet.
Read together with “this long,” that would imply I was doing it for the first time in that post you quoted.
However, that is false. Not only were each of my posts on Jackson et al, and the media, respectively, qualified with “partly to blame”, but I have addressed this issue of the logic of this repeatedly on earlier threads, and far earlier in this discussion.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t believe you clarified this statement:
Because every black man who has lived long enough understands that white america sees us all as ONE, despite not agreeing with Farrakhan on all issues, I can see the greater good that can result if the message and the ideal behind an event meant to bring us together stands true.
But if you did clarify, I apologize for missing it.
That said, I don’t see how that statement is any less, or any more, of an attribution to a whole slew of white individuals of an “average” view you, and apparently every other black man that you speak for, discerned.
Professor X wrote:
Dude, didn’t you just write that blacks don’t like black conservatives? Quit speaking for me if I am so wrong about how “white america” views blacks.[/quote]
No. What I wrote is this:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally? Talk about taking an action that enforces the view that black people can only hold one particular view…
I don’t recall asking why blacks don’t like black conservatives. In fact, that would be a poorly worded question, unless you’re assuming all blacks dislike black conservatives, including the black conservative, who would necessarily not like themselves. It would help if you read what I wrote more closely.
I was asking why black conservatives are treated worse – you implied by blacks, but that wasn’t implicit in the question. I’ve seen them be treated worse by some blacks and some whites – though usually people who are fairly strongly liberal.
That’s what it seems like to me – the differentiating factor I see between them and white conservatives who take the same position as they do is their race. The differentiating factor I see between them and liberal black political commentators and figures is their politics. Maybe you could explain it a little further…?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally? [/quote]
If this is the question you are basing all discussion around, I suggest you ask someone who would actually treat someone bad SIMPLY because they are black and vote “conservative”. To equate such an act to “the black race” is a fault you keep on making. Instead of seeing that as an act of an individual, it gets related to the race as a whole. You keep saying you don’t see the mistake you keep making. I say you must be blind.
Who is treating them worse? If your response is something other than “other people for some unknown reasons”, then the problem, in large part, is you.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally?
Professor X wrote:
If this is the question you are basing all discussion around, I suggest you ask someone who would actually treat someone bad SIMPLY because they are black and vote “conservative”. To equate such an act to “the black race” is a fault you keep on making. Instead of seeing that as an act of an individual, it gets related to the race as a whole. You keep saying you don’t see the mistake you keep making. I say you must be blind.
Who is treating them worse? If your response is something other than “other people for some unknown reasons”, then the problem, in large part, is you.[/quote]
Any assumption you’re making, of your own volition, that I am attributing the differential treatment to “the black race” is just that: your own assumption. I have never, ever said that the black race treats black conservatives worse, nor has that ever been a necessary implication of anything I’ve written. You’re so wound up in finding people attempting to attribute things “to the black race” that you find it even when it’s not present.
My position is fairly clear, but I’ll paste it again:
[quote]
No. What I wrote is this:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally? Talk about taking an action that enforces the view that black people can only hold one particular view…
I don’t recall asking why blacks don’t like black conservatives. In fact, that would be a poorly worded question, unless you’re assuming all blacks dislike black conservatives, including the black conservative, who would necessarily not like themselves. It would help if you read what I wrote more closely.
I was asking why black conservatives are treated worse – you implied by blacks, but that wasn’t implicit in the question. I’ve seen them be treated worse by some blacks and some whites – though usually people who are fairly strongly liberal.[/quote]
So, once more, to be clear: Why is it that black conservatives seem to be singled out for worse treatment due to the fact they exhibit two traits in tandem: being black, and being conservative?
And if you want to qualify your answer by the fact you’re speculating, that’s fine. And if you don’t feel qualified to answer, that’s fine too. But that’s the question on the table.
ADDENDUM: And yes, I know I didn’t specifically answer your “who is doing it” question. I did so purposefully – because it wasn’t part of my question. If you thought it was, you read that in yourself.
However, if you look to the last paragraph of my previously quoted statement from above, which I’ve already pasted several times after its iniital posting, you’ll get an answer.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
White conservatives don’t care about the poor, or the downtrodden, or whatever – couldn’t be that they think other policies are in everyone’s best interests
Professor X wrote:
Let’s discuss some of these policies that are in everyone’s best interest and don’t give the lower class the shaft. Are there any off the top of you head that are in everyone’s best interest but only garner negative attention from blacks as far as black conservatives?
Tax cuts on investment that spur economic growth and create jobs. School vouchers. Welfare reform. Etc.[/quote]
You’ve had your tax cuts, now show us your economic growth and job creation.
Where is it?
Are you claiming the “downtrodden” are better of now then 10 years ago?
Because if you do, I’m claiming victory already.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally?
[/quote]
They’re not. They’re still treated as blacks though. And that’s because they are still black. :-/
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally?
They’re not. They’re still treated as blacks though. And that’s because they are still black. :-/
[/quote]
That’s not what I’ve observed – and, given the original post, not what others have observed either.
And the question goes beyond any “treated as blacks” - while I know you’re insinuating a generic racism, that is not the question at hand. The combination of those two traits, black and conservative, seems to have a synergistic effect on the criticism and its tone, if you will.
This thread is just barely getting back on topic now, so hopefully we can keep it here.
If you want to start another thread to debate the specific policies, that’s fine. My point was that people could have good-faith beliefs that those policies work. That’s the scope necessary for this discussion.
However, as I said, please do start another thread so I can marshall the stuff I’ve posted on other threads on tax cuts and economic growth, how the “poor” today are materially better off than in the past, etc.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Professor dX wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should blacks who are conservatives be treated worse, and subject to greater derision, based on their opinions, than conservatives generally?
They’re not. They’re still treated as blacks though. And that’s because they are still black. :-/
That’s not what I’ve observed – and, given the original post, not what others have observed either.
And the question goes beyond any “treated as blacks” - while I know you’re insinuating a generic racism, that is not the question at hand. The combination of those two traits, black and conservative, seems to have a synergistic effect on the criticism and its tone, if you will.[/quote]
So, who is at fault of this critical tone towards black conservatives?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, who is at fault of this critical tone towards black conservatives?[/quote]
I didn’t ask that, but it’s a fair question.
The answer is: those who use it. Whether it’s deserved or not is another question, which returns us to my question: the “why”?
Boston,
What is the difference between you speaking for a cause you believe in and a Black person speaking for a cause they believe in?
Presumably the answer should be nothing.
So, why again do you have a problem with the (so called) leaders when they have done so?
I don’t recall the media ever stating that anyone has the credentials to speak for an entire race… so why does the audience make that leap?
I’m not the one playing obtuse.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
What is the difference between you speaking for a cause you believe in and a Black person speaking for a cause they believe in?
Presumably the answer should be nothing.[/quote]
That is the answer. You’re apparently not grasping my point.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, why again do you have a problem with the (so called) leaders when they have done so?[/quote]
My problem is with the “so-called leaders” part, not any particular thing they say – it’s the fact they claim to be saying it on behalf of some group – in this case, the “black community” – without any authority or authorization from the members of that group to do so.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t recall the media ever stating that anyone has the credentials to speak for an entire race… so why does the audience make that leap?[/quote]
If the media holds someone up as a spokesperson for a group - either actively by stating it bluntly, or passively by not questioning the self-proclaimed spokesperson’s assertions that he is in fact a spokesperson for the group - then the media is holding up the spokesperson as as speaking for the group in question. In this case, the group is question is the “black community.” Decide for yourself whether that encompasses the entire race, or only some cultural subgroup such as native-born American blacks.
[quote]
I’m not the one playing obtuse.[/quote]
I am tempted to add a very snide retort here, but I’m going to pass on the opportunity. It would be too easy, and not productive to the conversation anyway.
[quote]Boston wrote:
My problem is with the “so-called leaders” part, not any particular thing they say – it’s the fact they claim to be saying it on behalf of some group – in this case, the “black community” – without any authority or authorization from the members of that group to do so.[/quote]
Hmm, don’t these people have any following at all? Are you chastising them because they represent their views as the views of some people?
The problem I have with your statement is that there is an invisible “elevation” taking place. Do you have any evidence that they personally claim to speak on behalf of all black people?
Please present some proof that they claim to do so, as opposed to others claiming that they do so.
Again, you are laying the blame at the media, and I think unfairly. It’s nice that the media can take the fall, but I don’t think it is necessarily at fault here.
It is a scapegoat which is being used to forgive the “promotion” that the audience is giving these speakers, when it shouldn’t be doing so.
As it is your claim that this is taking place, do you have proof?
[quote]
Boston wrote:
My problem is with the “so-called leaders” part, not any particular thing they say – it’s the fact they claim to be saying it on behalf of some group – in this case, the “black community” – without any authority or authorization from the members of that group to do so.
vroom wrote:
Hmm, don’t these people have any following at all? Are you chastising them because they represent their views as the views of some people?
The problem I have with your statement is that there is an invisible “elevation” taking place. Do you have any evidence that they personally claim to speak on behalf of all black people?
Please present some proof that they claim to do so, as opposed to others claiming that they do so.[/quote]
Tell you what. I don’t have access to Nexis, and I’ve already gotten decently behind on what I need to do today – just go find any story with significant quotes from Jackson or Sharpton, and see if they don’t claim to speak on behalf of black people – what’s best for black people, what’s important to black people, etc.
[quote]
Boston wrote:
If the media holds someone up as a spokesperson for a group - either actively by stating it bluntly, or passively by not questioning the self-proclaimed spokesperson’s assertions that he is in fact a spokesperson for the group - then the media is holding up the spokesperson as as speaking for the group in question. In this case, the group is question is the “black community.” Decide for yourself whether that encompasses the entire race, or only some cultural subgroup such as native-born American blacks.
vroom wrote:
Again, you are laying the blame at the media, and I think unfairly. It’s nice that the media can take the fall, but I don’t think it is necessarily at fault here.
It is a scapegoat which is being used to forgive the “promotion” that the audience is giving these speakers, when it shouldn’t be doing so.
As it is your claim that this is taking place, do you have proof?[/quote]
Any story in which the media turns to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and ask what the black community thinks would be the active part – that’s probably pretty rare. But I daresay someone with Nexis and access to some archives wouldn’t have any problem finding stories in which their claims to speak on behalf of black people were accepted unequivocally. For starters, I would go back and look at stuff surrounding their respective candadicies for President…
LOL, no rush man!
I suggest there is a difference between what you describe above and your previous claims though.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell you what. I don’t have access to Nexis, and I’ve already gotten decently behind on what I need to do today – just go find any story with significant quotes from Jackson or Sharpton, and see if they don’t claim to speak on behalf of black people – what’s best for black people, what’s important to black people, etc.
vroom wrote:
LOL, no rush man!
I suggest there is a difference between what you describe above and your previous claims though.
[/quote]
I disagree – especially as to “what’s important to black people.” And I’m sure there are similar stuff – “what black people think regarding proposed policy X” and whatnot.
Boston,
Are you saying that black people have to denounce these folks, because they claim to represent black viewpoints, when in fact they don’t represent all black viewpoints?
We are quickly going to find ourselves back in the Pat Robertson debate. Who claims what and who has to denounce such claims?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
Are you saying that black people have to denounce these folks, because they claim to represent black viewpoints, when in fact they don’t represent all black viewpoints?
We are quickly going to find ourselves back in the Pat Robertson debate. Who claims what and who has to denounce such claims?[/quote]
No, I’m not – at no point did I allocate any fault to anyone who was part of the group on whose behalf the spokesperson claims to be speaking.
My three groups at fault were: 1) The spokesperson claiming to represent a group when he doesn’t; 2) the media, for either actively supporting or passively going along with the claim; and 3) any individual who is attributing a supposed “group” characteristic/belief to a particular member of the group.
Me, I would probably want to object if I disagreed and saw someone claiming to speak on my behalf, provided I cared a lot about the issue – but I don’t think there is any need.