Lester did a nice job with this entry on Clarence Thomas.
It reminded me of the mini-riot I started when I mentioned the public relations campaign happening on behalf of Clarence Thomas. One of the things I stated is if you are against Clarence Thomas, it's not enough to blast Thomas personally, you have to address the legal issues involved with his rulings and the logical arguments against his rulings. This also includes going against his non-legal political beliefs.
I did a Google on the Usenet archives and found some things.
Wanna see it?
Well here it is...
From: DarkStar
Subject: Clarence Thomas, Again
Date: 1999/03/15
So, last time I stated there was a P.R. campaign that is ongoing to
change Thomas' image. I even said I thought that he was winning this
P.R. campaign. I still believe it. If you saw Sunday's "Lead Story" on B.E.T., maybe you caught a glimpse of what I was saying when I said there is a P.R. campaign in progress.
If you remember, I said that Armstrong Williams was a part of this
campaign. He is an occasional panelist on "Lead Story" and he was there on this weekend's show. The topic of minority representation in the Supreme Court's clerks position came up and Williams was ready.
Williams stated that Thomas as agreed with the position of the NAACP
that "non-traditional sources" for finding clerks has to be looked at
and developed. Williams also stated that Thomas has been doing just
that, and in the next session, Thomas will have a minority clerk from a "non-traditional source."
Some months ago, I had stated that part of the flare-up involving Thomas being allowed to speak at certain places was having the effect of making the press sympathetic to the belief that Thomas is not being allowed to speak because he is not thinking "as Blacks should think" and that the only reason their is Black opposition to Thomas is his stance on affirmative action. I stated that if the demonstrations against Thomas continues, there is a chance that Black organizations who are opposed to Thomas will start to loose credibility and be further marginalized in the minds of "majority America" and some Blacks.
The last time this issue was raised, one of the comments I made was that if Thomas is giving speeches, and one of the things he mentions in his speeches are his memories of growing up in segregated America, the opposition saying that Thomas has "forgotten where he came from" starts to loose some credibility. I said this because, logically, if he remembers segregated America, and he can relate to how it has formed the opinions that he holds today, saying that Thomas has "forgotten where he came from," seems not to make any sense. Again, it seems to actually marginalize the opposition of Thomas and, maybe, lend credibility to the argument that opposition to Thomas is based on affirmative action.
So now let me bring it home.
If Thomas is shown as recruting Blacks at "non-traditional sources" for clerk positions, it gives him credibility on the position of "outreach, not quotas." It also gives him credibility in that he "agrees" with the NAACP position of there not being enough minority representation in the clerk positions, and that he is actually "doing something about it."
Again, to me, this helps to marginalize his opposition.
Now, if anyone else remembers, I mentioned that there is a effort
underway to recast the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. I had stated that
people are already misrepresenting the comments of Marshall during the Brown v Board of Education trial. Well, guess what? Here is what is coming from the Thomas P.R. camp:
"Marshall had only one Black law clerk during his tenure. Thomas has had one Black law clerk. And, he is about to get another. Thomas is already doing more than Marshall did."
You may not like my assessment. You may disagree with what I wrote, but that won't change what is happening.
I notice in the Google Usenet archives that Lester and I have an exchange on the matter.
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=jssjmtoahf6tbn8puf1n1sr05i7gkbppks%404ax.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dclarence%2Bthomas%2Bimage%2Bgroup:soc.culture.african.american.moderated%2Bauthor:darkstar%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Djssjmtoahf6tbn8puf1n1sr05i7gkbppks%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D3
Finally, here's more of something I wrote in another Usenet thread:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl282665161d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=pnbujtcqg917kb8er84i64fg92pe5ccaag%404ax.com&rnum=1
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 15:43:31 CST
From: DarkStar
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american.moderated
Subject: I Told You So! Clarence Thomas
Organization: Internet Junkies Anonymous
...
Well, that's enough. But I need to say this:
I said Thomas was winning, and I still believe he is.
Look at the provided quotes.
When he talks to kids who tour the Supreme Court, those kids are going to tell their parents what happened. Even if you are against his idealogy, how can you tell your kid he's totally wrong when he's
encouraging kids to do well and school because that is the key to the
future? For white kids, when they tell their parents, it will be
another nail to say, "Those bad Blacks don't like success..." blah
blah blah, yada yada yada.
When he takes time to talk to Black kids/teens who have drug problems, those who make it through will *ALWAYS* remember his encouraging words.
He talks to Black *COLLEGE STUDENTS* and encourages them to succeed.
Does anyone honestly believe that these efforts, which are heartfelt,
won't start to bear fruit in about 5-10 years?
If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the media. So, when I first mentioned the public relations campaign, think about this: Do you believe a THREE part series, with quotes taken from friends and family, could happen without him giving the "OK"?