This "Black left" vs "Black right" thing has me burning.
So, "Blacks on the right" say to Blacks that the Democrats preach "victimology" and that Blacks have fallen under the spell of "victimology."
That's a bunch of bunk.
Let's start here where I engage in class politics.
90% of Blacks vote Democrat. About 63% of Blacks are middle class. About another 17% are not poor but not middle class. That's 80% of Blacks.
So, if 80% of Blacks aren't poor, how can most of them self-identify as victims?
What it comes down to is do Blacks still see racism. Not, whether they see racism as a problem, but do they still see racism.
If you say you still see it, the "Black right" seems to say you are practicing victimology.
After BET went public, Bob Johnson felt that the BET stock was under valued. At the time, I owned some stock in BET and I also believed it was under valued, given the backing of the company by cable powerhouse John Malone.
Johnson took BET private and paid out an amount what some people thought was unfair. When he sold BET to VIACOM, the world was shown that Johnson was right about BET being undervalued while it was a public stock.
So by saying that his stock was under valued at the time, and saying it was under valued because of racial reasons, the "Black right" would say that he was practicing victimology.
Wait! Some of the "Black right" would say that victimology only occurs when you let it stop you.
OK.
But given the percentages I used before, then how can it be said, with intellectual honesty, that Blacks are letting racism stop them?
You can't have the "Black right" crowing about the growth of the Black middle class and how the Black middle class is at an all time high, and maintain that the majority of Blacks are letting racism get in their way.
Alphonso Jackson was booed when addressing the National Baptist Convention. In writing about it in the USA Today., Jackson states:
Bush received only 9% of the black vote in 2000, but his policies have done more for the black community than those of any other modern-era president.
His plan for an “ownership society,” for example, has translated into record home ownership in America — and the highest level in history for blacks, too. For the first time, more than 50% of black Americans own a home.
To me, that's just pablum.
Before Bush, it was said that Clinton did more than any other modern-era president. The unemployment rate for Blacks fell. The median income for Blacks rose. The home ownership rate of Blacks rose. So, will Jackson give Clinton any credit?
My income doubled during Clinton's terms? Should I give him the credit?
I purchased as new home. Who gets the credit? Clinton? During his term my income doubled, remember? Or me, for saving money and keeping my credit rating decent?
Let's do another quote from Alphonso Jackson.
America's “black political leaders” have built their careers on an ideology of black victimization. They tout the belief that if blacks want to succeed in this country, there is only one path: reliance on the government.
OK.
I didn't get this book, but I heard it being discussed:
Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Jr. wrote a book about building wealth. Is that about government dependence?
Periodically, Ellijah Cummings has an employment fair in P. G. County where he is able to get businesses in the area, with job openings, to come in and interview people on the spot.
Is promoting something that may help people get a job fostering government dependence?
Well, since I mentioned Jesse Jackson, let me state this: It's damned insulting to have politicians come into Black churches during the election season. Especially when you can't get in contact with them during the time when they aren't campaigning for another term. Just because you are in the church, it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for you.
But it's also damned insulting for the "Black right" to act as if politicians showing up in selected churches equates to politicans showing up in Black churches all over the country.
Come on! People should know that the politicians go to one church in the area, get the camaras to show up, and then move on.
Booker Rising get's 2 hat tips.
EB,
you said...
"About 63% of Blacks are middle class. About another 17% are not poor but not middle class. That's 80% of Blacks."
You do realize that according to the 2000 Census figures that the median income for whites is approximate $44K and for black $31K. That's a $13k disparity one which has been closing, but to ardently state that 80% of blacks are 'middle-class' seems to ignore a very real problem-that of income inequality along racial lines. Why is it that a black man working in Detroit at McDonald's makes minimum wage whereas a white counterpart in the suburbs will make more. These are real problems and to state, uncited as well, that 80% of blacks are middle class is like saying most people in prison are white.
Posted by: Donny D at September 24, 2004 07:12 AMHowever Clinton did not pass policy to double your wallet. The economy was on a nice rise, heck he got to raise taxes.
Bush however did pass policy to get more minorities into homes, and that is the passage of the american dream downpayment act, basically you could get up to 10k for a downpayment of a home if you fall into a certain income bracket. Look it up!
So what Alphonso Jackson said has a lot of merit.
Thanks for a fairly thorough deconstruction, E. I only have one thing to add.
BET was vastly underdeveloped as a business, yet it shares were overvalued. Johnson took the company back private again to avoid investigation.
I've made the case repeatedly that the terms 'Left' and 'Right' are often gross characterizations, especially when applied to Black people. Similarly, the recent mock criticisms aimed at Blacks for voting predominantly Democratic is a cop out by partisan Republicans and/or paleo-conservatives. I suppose they find it easy to scapegoat entire groups of people rather than put in the work to develop policies a wide cross-section of Blacks would find attractive.
Posted by: MIB at September 13, 2004 01:37 PM