To continue on Cobb's piece.
Cobb writes:
Black Conservatives don't play the 'Positive Black Images Game'.
I disagree with this one.
I can point to the examples of Black conservatives speaking out against the negative imagery of Black life put forth by rappers. If "Black conservatives" don't play the "positive Black images game," then why worry about the negative images put forth by rappers.
Woodson resigned from AEI over Dinesh D'Souza's, End of Racism. In a response to a press release, the president of AEI responded:
Loury and Woodson not only called the book racist but made the charge the headline of their press release (“Black Conservatives Resign From American Enterprise Institute in Response to ‘Racist’ Book by AEI Resident Scholar Dinesh D’Souza”). Mr. Woodson has several times, and with great relish, called Mr. D’Souza “the Mark Fuhrman of public policy.”
It seems the imagery in the book disturbed Woodson.
But that's on the macro level of Blacks as a whole. After re-reading the piece, and re-reading what I wrote, maybe I addressed what was written at too high of a level.
Maybe I need to go lower.
One day I saw Woodson on Tony Brown's Journal. On the show, along with other things, he addressed the view of many Black conservatives by the Black community. If I remember correctly, he said the negative imagery bothered him some. He then went on to attack "Black leaders". But, if I remember correctly, he did say that some of it is self inflicted. If Woodson is comfortable within himself, as Cobb wrote, then why say he was bothered and then why go on the attack against "Black leaders"?
There are many other "Black conservatives" who attack the negative imagery that they are tarred with. So, I can't agree that "Black conservatives" don't play the "Positive Black Images Game". They are trying to improve their image. They are trying to be seen as positives, not negatives. That's playing the "Positive Black Images Game."
But, then if the comment was intended to say that Black conservatives don't feel the need to point out positive Blacks because of "individualism" issues, then, again, I disagree. For example, Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas are regularly written about as being positive models for Blacks to follow.
The battles are fairly shallow and interminable. They go on and on about the same idiot things. It's a trap that liberals never seem to tire of baiting. Black Republicans take a measure of false pride in their embattled status and do a good deal of sniping back.
I agree that the battles are fairly shallow. I really don't like it, though I engage in it. But many comments being made, initially, from "Black conservatives" are simple minded. That's not to say that many comments initiated from "Black liberals" are not simple minded, because they are simple minded.
At this point, I want to say something about what was quoted. Black Republicans take a measure of false pride in their embattled status.
I'm sorry, I don't see why that is not "victimology" as expoused by "Black conservatives".
And there I go, on a tangent about the shallow "victimology" label thrown around.]
It's late, this is getting long. I've re-written it a number of times and still the thoughts flow. Let me finish this edition. These last paragraphs are intended for "Black conservatives" in general and not Cobb in particular.
If "Black conservatives" are about the business that is claimed, then doing the work that needs to be done will change the image. If there is seriousness in the drive to do it, then why not hook up with people who have the benefit of a doubt? Hence, why I bring up Earl Graves, Sr.
Read the man's bio. Then read about The Black Wealth Initiative. Then read a few issues of Black Enterprise.
There is a real need to get more Black businesses going. Would it be hard for "Black conservatives" to coordinate some activities with Earl Graves, Sr. and/or Black Enterprise to get some real work done?
Or is it really about the "Black conservative" image, just not within the Black community?
Posted by at November 30, 2004 11:24 PM | TrackBackIt seems to me and myself that one of America's unique historical *qualities* is the way it has codified the image-eye-nary construct of *race* into the canon of American consensus image-eye-nation.
"I", on the other hand, and perplexed by the pharmacological challenge confronting physicians, and, concommittant health risks facing a pair of hypothetical *black* men presented with BiDil and Ace Inhibitors for heart congestion. How will a doctor determine whether or not a freckled, "red" black man and an "indigo" black man each fit the profile for the expected race specific nitric oxide deficiency that makes BiDil effective?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=236942
Not to mention of course, the nitric oxide deficient Swede who would certainly benefit from the BiDil, but might not be considered because he doesn't fit the racial profile.
Posted by: cnulan at December 1, 2004 03:44 PM
hey darkstar --
for some time, i have been
reading your commentary on
la shawn barber's blog.
i have created a blog to allow
uncensored comment on her views.
i was banned on hers for suggesting
that my covenants differ from hers
entirely too widely.
feel free to look at my blog -- and
feel free to copy, paste, summarize
any or all of my stuff into her blog.
you seem to have the better half of
almost every disagreement on her site.
and you'll see that, in general, i make
many of the same points you do, so feel
free.
increase the
p e a c e
through knowlege transfer. . .
-- tae, out.
Posted by: tae_diggs at December 1, 2004 08:31 AM