Let me say from the start, I don't agree with saying someone who is Black, isn't "really Black" for some silly reason or another. That really makes no sense to me. But it also is asinine to say Blacks are prone to "group think." The fact is, if you take any amount of time to provide some thought to the idea, you realize "group think" is the standard of every society that is not in anarchy.
Think about the phrase "community standards". The people within the community, in some way, work to maintain the standard. When people step outside of those standards, the community works in some way to bring them back in, denounce them, or shun them. That's what the "not Black" charge is about.
When people use "group think" and apply it towards the Black community ( is it ever not applied to the Black community? ), it is always given a negative context. Then any "debate" from that point on is defending against "the negative" which is always harder.
Let's flip things just a little bit.
When J.C. Watts refused to back the anti-affirmative action package being developed in The House of Representatives, Wes Pruden, an editor at The Washington Times, wrote a column which stated, literally, that J.C. Watts knows why the Republicans need him to head the effort. Thus, he should get in line. When Watts refused to "get in line," Ken Hamblin used a segment of his radio talk show to denounce J.C. Watts.
As a side note: Did anyone else notice that for a short time, there were references to J.C. Watts being a pastor?
Then there is the saga concerning friends Shelby Steele and Glenn Loury. Those two, along with others, formed the now defunct Center for New Black Leadership. But guess what happened when there was a disagreement over Prop. 209:
http://phuakl.tripod.com/eTHOUGHT/Loury.html
A few days later, Steele phoned him. ''Where do you stand on race?'' Loury says Steele asked him. ''It's as if you're a racial loyalist here. I thought we all agreed.''''No, Shelby and I didn't agree,'' Loury says now. ''I was always aware that, whatever I thought about race, I'm still black. Shelby's position. . . . '' Loury starts to laugh. ''I was about to say, Shelby's position was that we had to completely transcend race, though I can imagine saying those words, too. But my heart wasn't in them, whereas he really meant it. How could it have been otherwise? His mother was a white woman. His wife is a white woman. When he looked at his own children's racial identity and wondered about an oppressive world that would say to those children, 'Choose sides' -- a dilemma I'd never faced -- Shelby's angle of vision was really quite different from my own. So in all honesty, it was I who betrayed him, not he who betrayed me.'' The two men have not spoken since that conversation.
What about the recent events of the current political season? Alan Keyes has mentioned his support for reparations for Blacks. After that, there was a mini-firestorm of opposition to Keyes for supporting such an idea.
"How dare he support reparations! He's gone off of the deep end!"
And then there is Clarence Thomas, who is known to surround himself with people who are similar in views to his.
Does it matter that the examples I used all involved Black people? Does it matter that the examples I used all involved "conservative Black" people?
I say it doesn't.
Let's be real!
The whining about "group think" isn't that people are thinking similarly, it's really about people thinking AGAINST what you are thinking and you don't like it.
The "group think" charge nothing more than a means of harassing people into thinking along your line of thinking, or at least not vocalizing opposition to your line of thinking.
And isn't that the complaint about "group think"?
I'll post more about this in a broader context. For now, I have real life concerns to take care of.
EB,
Posted by: GDAWG at October 7, 2004 12:54 PMYour ruminations on "group think" and the examples you apply are on the money. nuff said!!!!
GDAWG