Someone in the area knows the thugs who did this.
Someone in the area should be telling on those criminals who did this.
But, it appears, people are not telling the police.
There needs to be a round up.
This is to the people who write "anti-Kwanzaa" screeds this time of year.
1. Yes, it's made up. Karenga has said that from day one.
2. Other "made up" celebrations include Mardi Gras, Mother's Day, Valentines Day, and St. Patrick's Day.
Karenga never said it was an African celebration. He said he took parts of different African cultures and created a "harvest festival" like celebration.
OH, do you really want to go here?
1. The birth of Christ, Our Savior, did not likely happen on the 25th of December. It was "created" to overtake the pagen rituals that occured during the time.
2. How many Christians celebrate Christmas singing about Santa Claus and Rudoloph?
1. I've been to one Kwanzaa celebration. I attended in Philly and Karenga was a speaker. At this point, I'll mention that there were a fair number of whites in attendence, and it wasn't just news reporters.
2. Many people come from different parts of the country to celebrate Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Did you know that there are actually 2 separate Mardi Gras parades happening at the same time? One done by whites, the other by Blacks? Did you know that until 2004, I think, they never even "greeted" each other?
1. Most American whites have never been to Ireland but does that stop them from celebrating St. Patrick's Day?
2. Most Americans, period, have never left the country.
No, it doesn't. Some "Black churches" even celebrate both.
Take the Kwanzaa hating and step. Ya'll are just spouting nonsense.
For the record: I don't celebrate it. I'm just sick of the silliness the haters go through on trying to shut it down.
I really don't like what I am about to do, but this is another moment, to me, where something must be said.
Again, off of this post, in the comment section:
But the question I really have for anyone is this:
Muslims in this country are recruiting blacks to come on board their religion of peace train faster than any other ethnic group. We have people like Mumia, Farrahkan, Muhhammed Ali, etc who have all climbed aboard the peace train in what they believe is a retaliation to whitey. Muslims play on black’s notion’s that whitey enslaved me and puts me down. What I find ironic is that Muslims were about 50% responsible for fueuling the TransAltantic Slave trade - Slaves breed in Western Africa were marched to the ports in the Sudan were they were traded for rum, tobacco and cotton. The Muslims were the ones who put Farrahkan’s ancestors on the boats that went to not only the US, but Cuba and South America. On top of that the Muslims were responsible for the death of over 128 African Slaves in their lands during the height of the Africa Slave Trade. The majority of these Africans who died were young girls and women sold as sex slaves throughout the middle east.
So why do blacks so hate America, but join the ranks of a Religion that did more damage (and is still doing damage today) to their ancestors and country than the US ever did.
Cowgirl
I'm sorry, but this is the sort of race baiting, making the Black Boogie Man garbage that I cannot let stand.
My response:
The supposition is wrong.
If Blacks hated America as you so assume, Blacks wouldn’t “disproportionately” join the armed services.
If Blacks hated America, those who did join the service and/or those who have clearances, would have a higer rate of espionage than can account for the general population of those who hold clearances.
The NOI Muslims make up 0.1%, that’s 1/10th of 1% of Black Americans. Black Americans, overwhelmingly, are Christian. The next largest group of Black Muslims are no more than 1% of the Black population.
So, you just created a boogy man of about 1.1% of the Black population.
So tell me why your comments should not be considered race baiting.
OK, now the reply?
Please get my comments straight - It has nothing to do with race baiting - it is factual.
Black Americans are the fast growing segment of the total population jumping on the Muslim bandwagon here in the US. Most of the recruiting is done in US Prison where Blacks make up a disportionately amount of the prison population. ...
Fact 1: After leaving jail, most of the people who joined Islam, don't maintain the adherence to it.
Fact 2: We are STILL talking about a Black Mulsim population of about 1-2% of the Black population.
Again, that's 1-2% of the Black population. Wow.
By the way, please don’t start on the poverty band wagon....
Given, I never mentioned poverty, and I am on record as saying poverty is not an excuse, why would that poster go there?
Farrakan, Ali, Mumia are Black Muslims who make racists statements about America and whitey keeping them down and enslaving them. Yet they belong to a Religion that has done more damage in the past and today to the African nations and Their African ancestors than another other nation, country or group of people that exists today or ever existed. These are all facts and have nothing to do with race baiting.
When a person writes "asks", So why do blacks so hate America, and then goes on to make 1-2% of the population as representative of the entire population, why is that NOT race baiting?
I'm really upset about the use of happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
This time of year is about Christmas which is celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
If you are upset about people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, I trust:
If not...
*S*M*A*C*K*
That cyber pimp smack was for you to knock some damn sense into your head!!!!
Where are your priorities?
So what if store management tells its employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"?
What is Christmas really about anyway?
Merry Christmas.
I don't like doing this, but:
in·fer·ence
1 a the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment
considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from
that of the former
im·ply
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement
When I heard Bill Bennet's comments, I heard them in full context.
My take on the matter was to think that if all Black babies were
aborted, some fraction of those Black babies would turn to crime. I
never assumed the statement meant ALL Black babies would become
criminals. And, statistically speaking, I'm right. In fact, most won't be criminals. But for those that would turn to crime, since they wouldn't be around, the crime rate would have to go down.
The same applies if Bennett used whites instead of Blacks or if he said male babies only or if he said if we somehow removed all males between the age of 15-30.
In looking at the responses to Bennett's remarks, there seems to be a
strong thought that states Bennett meant all Black babies aborted
would have been criminals. No where do I see that in Bennett's remarks.
However, going further, it seems to me that Bennett's comments are not what's making the racists feel comfort, it's the replies that confirm the idea that most Blacks are criminals.
Maybe I've missed it, but the fact that most Blacks are NOT criminals, is being lost, to me, with the knee jerk reactions.
That's what is giving comfort to the racists.
Watch who gets dogged.
Will it be the functionally illiterate single mother, whose family has a high incidence of illiteracy, who was raped when she was 15 and then became wild, she says, because of a loss of self esteem because she was raped?
Or, will it be the drug addict mother, whose family took her child away from her because she was an addict, who, when placed in a dire situation, offered meth to a criminal?
Who? Me a cynic?
You can't make this stuff up. There is no doubt that if July or August had been National Preparedness Month, FEMA would have been just as unprepared. While the Washington Post has framed the practice of positioning incompetence as long-standing, the contradiction is presently unbearable for a "regime" beyond the point of rhetorical collapse. The consequences for stealing the election in 2000 have yet to be visited upon W...maybe the Democrats can conjure up a bit of spine (wishful thinking for them hoes, but hoes gotta eat too).
National Preparedness Month is here and the abject lesson of what not to do has been demonstrated to the tune of thousands of lives lost, $150 billion in damage and the prospects for ongoing ecological disaster.
The story that will emerge from the aftermath of Katrina and the abysmal relief effort of the government includes poor black and white folk. The numbers of poor white folk in and around New Orleans are not known - and the images in New Orleans are mostly of black folk...the images of Mississippi and Alabama are mostly of white folk. These depictions are not accurate and are misleading. Still, the number of poor white Americans unable to rely on their government is significant.
What of the consequences? Will this energize and galvanize white separatist movements who have stridently rejected the increase of government powers through the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Will this energize coalition builders across 'racial' lines to collaborate on innovative strategies to assist our poorest citizens. Will Katrina serve as a referendum on Republican lip service to national interests?
If Slick Willie can be impeached for a 'lil knob-slob, wither Bush of the fabricated war and the unnatural disaster that is Mike Brown and FEMA? Can white America, which has distinguished itself from its government in many significant respects during this crisis, stay in the mix long enough to sustain this moral imperative? Can the fat American middle class, of all races, stay in the mix long enough to lose some WEIGHT and gain some heart? How long will the love abide? How long before we go back to assuming the worst before giving our best? How much could we achieve is we judged after the fact - not before the finale?
The limitations of government accountability must be painfully clear to most Americans now. Certainly, those affiliated with the victims at Ruby Ridge are as aware of this as the progeny of the BLA and AIM. And those in the middle recognize that from health care to rising oil prices to corporate pardons for fleecing retirement funds, the government is little more than a kakistocracy.
Will the American people claim the revolution - through the ballot or otherwise - that is the inherent right of the citizenry? Will they follow their heart or fall into the trap of the paradox of prejudice?
Here's the thing about Kanye West's statements.
THEY ARE EMPIRICALLY FALSIFIABLE.
With all of the blather about this coming from people with traffic high enough you'd think they would know better...I think some enlightenment is in order.
Take Dean's statement about Harold Washington, and how whites in Chicago didn't like him because Washington "hated whites".
All of Washington's actions as mayor are on record. Find me one line item on a budget where black people received more of a resource than whites that was not pegged to their need.
West's statements about Bush, CAN ALL BE EMPIRICALLY FALSIFIED.
You don't think they're true? Don't give me definitions about a concept you can't quite wrap your head around.
Give me some data that shows they are false.
And then while you're at it, put up some loot as collateral.
Low Down and Foul is what I wrote about Michael King's short piece on Corretta Scott King.
Now I read that she had a stroke and heart attack and is paralyzed on one side.
In my opinion, if someone who you don't like has something bad happen to them, the best thing to do is shut your trap and show some class and humanity.
IMO, this is an example of what happens when the partisan crap gets out of control.
What happened to praying for the well-being of the family?
"Just damn".
[Update] An apology.
But first, let me take a moment to apologize to anyone who I offended with my comments regarding Mrs. King the other day. They were harsh, and stepped a bit over the line.
Well done.
Coretta Scott King has been hospitalized.
Michael King, (any relation?), wrote this: "Professional widow Coretta Scott King was admitted to Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta this morning, for an undisclosed ailment."
Foul.
I'm not much on how the family tried to get money from Dr. King's works by attacking the fair use of his speeches.
I'm not much on how the family has controlled the King Center to the point of it being a disgrace because it's falling apart.
But show some class.
That was just foul.
"Just damn".
So, I'm home a little early from work, stretched out on the bed, with my headphones on, listening to sometimes talk radio. (The kid is asleep at the head of the bed, I'm at the foot of the bed).
I wake up from a catnap to hear Black people talking about the Republican vs. Democratic party thing.
One person gets his facts twisted and states "Republicans" when it should be "Democrats". The Republicans in the discussion jump on him.
Should I mention this was an all Black panel?
Anyway...
What got me is one person said that parties don't matter, it's the policies that matter.
That's where I'm at in this stage of my life.
To hell with the party labels, I'm going to support the PERSON who is saying things that most align with my views.
Alan Keyes and Michael Steele and Olympia Snowe are all in the same party. (Shouldn't Keyes be pissed about the GOP pushing Steele as a star?)
Mfume, Ford, Teddy Kennedy and Zell Miller are all in the same party.
Screw the labels, I'm staying independent and will support the person not the party.
Footnote: I find it a damn shame that some people can't handle a person being critical of a party but that not meaning that a person supports the opposition party. How many people realize that the U.S. political system is not a 2 party system, but a multi-party system with the 2 primary parties rigging the game against all other parties?
I told you so! OK, two weeks ago doesn't exactly establish my prophetic credentials, but it does suggest a useful degree vigilence outside the carefully scripted narratives of the dopamine distraction theatre of U.S. politics. Nowhere in the mainstream media do we hear anything about Supreme Court nominee Roberts record on racial justice. Trust me on this one, conservatives will continue to warm to Roberts the more they learn about his Reagan-era writings on civil rights. So-called black conservatives will predictably bite their tongues and fall in with the party line. Perhaps the conservative black afrostocracy will step up to the plate and say a little something about this nominee, but I'm not holding my breath for that deus ex machina moment.
Noam Scheiber at The New Republic has a fair amount to say about it, viewed from the perspective of a Rovian dopamine distraction programmer and gamesman....,
Conservatives had lots of reasons to like John Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court. But the one they cited most eagerly was that the nominee, barring some unforeseen revelation, was neither a woman nor a minority. David Brooks praised President Bush for "mov[ing] beyond the tokenism of identity politics." National Review's Jonah Goldberg was relieved that Bush had "tagged a plain old really smart white guy." "[B]y not worrying about walking out to the podium last night accompanied by a white male," William Kristol concluded, "Bush did something important and courageous."
At the time, the glee with which conservatives greeted Roberts's white male-ness fell into the category of slightly weird but hardly worth a second thought. In retrospect, it was rather telling. To the extent that Roberts's nomination has been defined in the early going, it is civil rights issues that have defined it. That has, in turn, produced two reactions on the right. On the one hand, conservatives have continued to warm to Roberts the more they learn about his Reagan-era writings on civil rights. But these discoveries have also created a gnawing, if not quite urgent, sense of anxiety among Republicans--and rightly so.
Roberts comes across as nothing if not conservative in the thousands of pages of documents he wrote as a Reagan-era legal adviser. Roberts favored a highly restrictive interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. He concluded that Congress had the authority to pass so-called court-stripping legislation in order to prevent courts from imposing busing as a remedy for segregation. He took a dim view of a Justice Department decision granting restitution to people discouraged from applying to jobs for reasons related to race. He argued against an affirmative action program on the grounds that it led to the hiring of unqualified candidates.
In the early '80s, Roberts's positions on these issues were not only popular among conservatives, they were central to what it meant to be a Reaganite, both politically and ideologically. The conservatism of the era was very much a reaction to the perceived liberal excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly on matters of civil rights. Ronald Reagan won states like New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania thanks largely to the resentment that blue-collar, white Democrats harbored toward welfare, busing, and affirmative action. Meanwhile, the '80s saw elite universities churn out hoards of conservative ideologues radicalized by the political correctness they felt pervaded their campuses. Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi has said he founded the Federalist Society, the conservative legal organization, to counter liberals' dominance at Yale Law School, where he was a student in the early '80s.
But, while conservative elites still harbor these resentments, things have changed among voters. Bill Clinton helped defuse race as a political issue across the Northeast and Midwest when he signed welfare reform in 1996. Around the same time, race was creating political problems for the GOP. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 66 percent of Americans thought the GOP was intolerant. Republicans began suffering defections among Sunbelt Latinos and moderates nationally thanks to the punitive cast of their immigration and welfare policies.
The coup de grâce came when then-Governor Bush, partly as a concession to political reality and partly as a result of his own personal decency, self-consciously fashioned himself as a new, tolerant brand of Republican. Bush has largely repudiated appeals to racial resentments. He has proposed instead to liberalize immigration and has scrupulously practiced affirmative action within his own administration. While the Reagan/Bush I/Newt Gingrich coalition largely repelled minorities with its preoccupation with race, the Bush II coalition directly enlists socially conservative blacks, Latinos, and women (albeit in a new crusade against gays).
In this context, it's hard not to see Roberts's memos as a political liability. Conservative bloggers have spent much of the last two weeks defending the nominee's individual positions--often with justification. A careful reading of the memos doesn't evoke the mind of a racist. It evokes a principled, if rock-ribbed, conservatism--someone devoted to the belief that government does more harm than good when it relies on ambitious means to defend civil rights.
But, collectively, the weight of his civil rights positions have the effect of casting Roberts as someone out of step with the current political consensus on race, or at least with the tentative peace Bush's GOP has forged. And the GOP establishment knows it. In the days since Roberts's memos began trickling out, administration surrogates have mostly sought to distance Roberts from his own paper trail. Asked about the memos, administration spokesman Scott McClellan would say only that "the files that you're referring to mostly are from about 20 years ago." South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham argued that Roberts was merely advising a "client": "I've represented rapists, murder[er]s. ... You shouldn't hold it against me the thoughts of my client." The few times the GOP has engaged on substance have been to repudiate a position attributed to Roberts. Last week, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell announced that, contrary to popular opinion, Roberts had actually opposed court-stripping. (Roberts opposed it in practice but believed Congress had the power to do it.)
For Republicans, the risks posed by Roberts are the mirror image of the risks posed by Robert Bork. Bork, with his shaggy hair and condescending manner, was a tough sell in the Senate. But he posed no long-term risk to a party that largely shared his views on civil rights. Roberts isn't likely to encounter problems in the Senate. But, in closing ranks behind him, Republicans risk handing Democrats a political wedge. In 2004, Bush increased his share of the black and Latino vote by roughly 2 and 6 percentage points, respectively. Karl Rove believes this trend is the key to a future GOP majority. Yet these inroads are fragile. As Deval Patrick, a former Clinton civil rights official, said after Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to the naacp for his party's checkered racial past, "The Republicans have a lot to answer for." If Rove's majority fails to materialize, we may one day look back on Roberts as the reason why.
OK, I've been writing that Ward Connerly has taken advantage of affirmative action programs. I have no problem with people taking advantage of such programs.
I've come to understand affirmative action programs, in government contracts, as being pure set asides OR requirements that companies who win government contracts use some percentage of "disadvantaged companies" as subcontractors. Here "disadvantaged companies" tend to mean minority and/or women owned companies.
LaShawn Barber found it "repugnant" that I mention this because in previous "discussions", she has mentioned that she discussed this with him and he denied it.
So, I did some Googling...
The African American website had this:
Though some of his critics believed that Wilson contributed to his success, others disagreed. In addition, a Jet article cited a story in the San Francisco Chronicle which stated that he had accepted $140,000 over the years in affirmative action contracts from the government. Though roughly half of his business did indeed come from the government, Connerly disputed that it was affirmative action money, telling Donna St. George of the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, "I don't think there's a minority around who hasn't benefited from the climate of inclusion that affirmative action has fostered. But I have never gone after the preference." He mentioned that he never listed himself on minority rosters, nor did he apply for minority "set-asides." However, Ayres in the New York Times reported that Connerly had indeed listed his firm as minority-owned in order to "keep all the benefits of a government contract." Pooley in Time, on the other hand, noted that Connerly had only disclosed his race after it was required.
The article mentioned is one that Ms. Barber said that Connerly disputed. The full article can be found here.
A follow up article by the Chronicle stated the following:
Contrary to the report, Connerly did not register as a minority businessman before receiving a 1989 contract for $1.1 million. Kent Smith, executive director of the Energy Commission, said he erred when he told The Chronicle that the contract was awarded under the state affirmative action law.
Although the law had been enacted when the contract was awarded, the law was not implemented at the Energy Commission until 1990.
It then continues:
Connerly did, however, receive two Energy Commission contracts in 1992 and 1994 as a minority businessman and agent for the California Building Officials, a group that, by law, had to be trained in energy conservation. The contracts were legally awarded without competitive bidding.
Furthermore, records made public this week by the Energy Commission show that Connerly again enlisted in the minority program on April 26 and May 4 of this year -- but the two contracts he sought were awarded to other bidders.
...
In an effort to explain his use of the program, Connerly submitted a statement last month to the Energy Commission that read in part: `We are disclosing our group identities solely because the state procurement process requires that minority and women owned businesses be used and it would work an extreme disadvantage to the proposer of this proposal to involve an additional subcontractor merely to comply with the (minority) requirement.'
This comes from the first article:
Connerly, in an interview, acknowledged that his firm participated in the `repugnant' race-based program, but he denied that it was affirmative action. Instead, he characterized the program as a `policy that requires that every contract . . . include participation of at least 15 percent of minority businesses and 5 percent of women.'
OK, that looks like an affirmative action program. In fact, this type of requirement has been called such and fought against by people who disagree with affirmative action. Lastly, Connerly filed a law suit against the law that required contractors to get minority contractor participation, but after the report.
Unless I'm missing something here, it looks like he took advantage of affirmative action programs. It doesn't matter that he didn't go after "disadvantaged" set asides or "disadvantaged" company participation.
It has been over a year since Los Angeles suspect Stanley Miller got clocked in the noggin by the LAPD. Activists have waited patiently for the police to make a big mistake and are now capitalizing on the sensation caused by the Pena Shootout.
In a Vision Circle exclusive, I have obtained photographs of the spontaneous demonstrations.
The London Bombings have yet to be digested and extruded by the narrative manufacturing system. There seems to have been a nasty bit or two that may prove difficult to digest - but leaving aside vast conspiracy theories for the time being - one thing for sure is that no British spin-sphincter should be so audacious as to call this bombing Islamic Terrorism. Given the decades of Catholic Terrorism which Britain experienced at the hands of the IRA without ever once stooping to such base and inaccurate propagandism to describe the same, one can only hope that British propriety will hold sway when the machine begins to extrude in earnest for sheeple consumption.
OK, now THIS has been what I've been trying to get at with the "Black liberal" vs. "Black libera" madness. This is true for especially the last quote.
Joseph C. Phillips nails it!
And it is not just those on the left who are guilty. There is an old saying that when you point one finger at others, you point three fingers at yourself. Those of us on the right have engaged in our share of outrageous rhetoric. I have not cut off my Democratic friends, but I cannot claim innocence. The fact that I am now mourning the loss of a cherished friend has convinced me that we must turn down the fire. Political passions run deep but what do we accomplish by raising the temperature so high that we are unable to speak to one another, no longer able to recognize each other’s humanity?
...
What is clear is that none of us has a monopoly on morality, patriotism or good ideas. It also becomes increasingly clear that our republic and the citizens therein suffer when the exchange of ideas is sacrificed in favor of overblown political rhetoric.
As Father's Day fades away, NYC readers were greeted with news of opulence, greed and envy. It seems that big bucks are the order of the day. I won't rush to judgment with an opinion on this in either direction - but $250k is alot of cheese. It will be interesting to see how this is handled in the judicial system. Mr. Combs may decide that the legal fees are not worth the pursuit of his definition of "justice."
The subject line says it all:
Waldorf Mother Accused of School Bus Brawling
A Charles County woman was one angry mom this week -- enraged enough to try to block her daughter's school bus, spit at the driver, pull an ice pick from her purse, and then hop on the bus's hood, police said.
The apparent reason: A driver attempted to move her daughter to a different bus seat because of the girl's alleged rowdy behavior.
Farrakhan is willing to say publicly what other black leaders only say privately.....,
Here's why Farrakhan is presently being given the anti-semitic bum's rush..., and why Foxman et al.., don't want a million person gathering or live televised C-SPAN coverage..,
~1hr 9minutes into the speech comes the black political bunker buster question for neocon hegemonic ambition - thanks to ConPermiso at P6 for a tizzight definition of hegemony.
~1hour 26minutes into the speech, the Minister's prophetic warning to the 30 recipients of Foxman's letter against the false allure of neocon $TD's.
~1hour 43minutes the Minister distinguishes between righteous defense of the nation and unrighteous defense of interests..,
Crisis of the Negro Intellectual was a great book for a number of reasons - principal among those reasons was that it took the blinders off and named names. It also contextualized the essence of the failure - our collective inability to reconcile Washington to Dubois and Dubois to Garvey. We have failed to do this because of ideology, ego, weak study habits, intellectual laziness, cash payoffs, fear, and any of a host of human failings. To my mind, that is the epicenter of Cruse's book.
Cruse's principal concern was with establishing an authentic cultural framework for American Blacks to build cultural, economic, and political power. To the extent that Caribbean Africans impeded this process due to their unique, geo-political/economic circumstances, Cruse rejected this and explained the genesis, players and solution. He did the same with the Communist Party and Euro-American Jewry.
I am not familiar with the Fordham University professor who made this assessment of Cruse's work, but it carries little weight since I can read for myself - and have read the book at least three times. The term "anti-Semite" is reserved in the mind and suggests a host of unrelated issues - ground which may have covered best by James Baldwin. Harold Cruse was hardly concerned with conspiracy theories. Cruse outlined the SPECIFIC strategies and tactics used by SPECIFIC individuals within SPECIFIC organizations to achieve SPECIFIC aims. He wasn't the type of guy to do guess work.
It seems as though the Fordham cat and Foxman are simply using shared tactics along a singular intellectual spectrum. Dismiss and disassociate - no inquiry, no conversation, no discourse...Sounds like ADL 101 to me.
A new version of The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual comes out in a bit, and the New York Times sought to revisit it. I am glad that Cruse is making the rounds again after his passing.
But while there were errors aplenty, what jumped out at me was the charge of anti-semitism. Which brings up the blacks-jews thing that our new colleague Temple3 brought up.
But Cruse reserved special venom for Jews. In ''The Crisis,'' he asserted that ''the great brainwashing of Negro radical intellectuals was not achieved by capitalism, or the capitalistic bourgeoisie, but by Jewish intellectuals in the American Communist Party.'' He also cited passages from Dostoyevsky, oddly enough, about how Jewish merchants exploited blacks in the South. When the book was published, reviewers tended to ignore its anti-Semitism. In a recent interview, Mark Naison, a professor of African-American studies at Fordham University, said he didn't think people take Cruse's analysis of black-Jewish relations ''very seriously'' today, especially not Cruse's dismissal of the role Jews played in the civil rights movement. ''It's too ahistorical and too conspiratorial to have much weight outside the sort of anti-Semitic fringe of the black intelligentsia, which is now a fringe, not mainstream,'' Naison said.
Now on the one hand Naison is right. There is an anti-Semitic fringe which has an intense love-hate relationship with Jews.
But on the other, I think Naison (and the author) are making a few critical mistakes in focusing on this particular component of Cruse's work, and they are making a critical mistake in choosing what aspects of this issue to focus on. Cruse's entire argument is that American society allocates individual rights through group rights. He focuses on three different cultural/ethnic groups--blacks, wasps, and jews.
Now there are probably less than five places in the country we could even have a serious discussion about this relationship that isn't driven by either jewish nationalists like abe foxman, or black nationalists like louis farrakhan. Detroit isn't one of them. DC isn't one of them.
New York City is.
But even here we have to get really specific--again with the exception of flashpoints like the Bensonhurst disturbance. When do they interact? Where do they interact? Are there zero-sum resources involved? Cruse makes an argument that this interaction occurs in two very specific sites--in theater (and later film), and in leftist politics. The type of loose conspiratorial rantings exemplified by Steve Cokely don't have any place in Cruse's work. If anything a much better argument can be made that Cruse was "racist" towards West Indians.
I wish Cruse were here to defend himself...having been around when he slapped Manning Marable about in Ann Arbor, this would have been an intellectual pimp slapping worth paying for.
Steve I don't know if you read this, but you should check this post out. This is the hidden history of Tulsa that shouldn't be that hidden. In a time where a great number of us are focused on terrorism (rightly so), we should revisit our own terrorist history. Thanks to Barr, whom I met on Flickr. I'm hoping I can shift my research agenda to deal with comparative issues soon enough to travel the world before the oil goes....
Save yourself the long grind and simply cut to the concluding 20 minute video chase.
Elizabeth Spelke clocks Steven Pinker about 2/3rds of the way through their concluding remarks. When she invokes the meritocratic nature of athletics and how black athletes have taken over every field endeavored, because of objective performance standards, imoho it's game over for the boys club of science. Pinker huffs back that women are well represented in the less hard social sciences and veterinary medicine, but still glaringly absent from physics. (word to your mother, physics, like EVERY other branch of hard science, is just as fully circumscribed by social networks as business and commerce. These relational frameworks substantially control access and exposure within the field. Getting ahead depends to a very great extent on who knows you and who likes you)
A lot of other good materials documenting the debate in detail. Ever since Lawrence Summers inserted foot in mouth, this has been gradually brewing. While I find the debate interesting on its own terms, I think you could just as easily say, The Science of Race and Science and much of what Spelke asserts would equally well be true.
I picked up the coinage "vernacular intellectual" reading the work of Mark Anthony Neal. Some of what the brother has written is simultaneously exhilerating and quite challenging. Clicking through his column Critical Noire at Black Voices, however, I'm struck by the preponderant characterizations of black men as misogynistic?
I spend the majority of my non-commercial time in my community working with and among black folks. Nary once in my interpersonal communion with a diverse socioeconomic cross-section of black folk have I encountered the cultural sensibility Dr. Neal derides throughout his columns. Matter of fact, the characterization of misogyny is about as alien to my experience of normative midwestern black male cultural and political life - as it is possible for a point of view to be.
Bearing in mind my own practical, personal experience, and, thinking about the Take Back the Music divide and conquer boondoggle being perpetrated by the Essence magazine arm of Time Warner all the while Warner Music Group partakes of massive profits from promoting the type of misogynistic Rhyming and Posing (RaP) that its magazine publishing and digital media arm(s) pretend to deride...., I'm left wondering whether this whole issue is something real within the broader black political culture, or, is it confined to NYC intellectual redefinitions of black male dysfunction, or, is it something largely made up and peddled in the fevered imaginations of global media publishing depictions and redefinitions of black males?
Does it reflect a particular sensibility which the writer or more specifically his publishers would like to assert within black cultural life and political thought? If so, why?
Evidently Eddie Huff from Project 21 had a run in with Jesse Lee Peterson over what happened at Peterson's forum.
I think it's pretty funny that it happened. I've "crossed keyboards" with Huff before and to hear him say some of the same things I said, Is. Just. Plain. Funny.
Huff wrote something called, "Are We Bcoming What We Hate?"
Does anyone have a link to it?
Some of my urbane, coastal, multi-cultural conservative black bredren and sistren have turned a blind eye to the primary source of domestic terrorism threatening and damaging Americans in general and persons of color in particular. Nah, I'm not going to play the FUD game with you, I leave that hokum to shameless ammoral Neocon and DHS operatives workkking the Luntzian disinformation agenda. That the Rovian GOP lacks the testicular fortitude to explicitly repudiate this knuckledragging element in its midst is a matter of fact and grave political concern to me. That the GOP big tent arcs far further to accomodate these folks than it does to grow its base among black Americans of good faith and shared values is a matter of grave political concern to me.
No, the BC article is linked because it explicitly mentions a particularly dirty little secret in the GOP southern-fried political expedience closet that echoes 1930's German politics in eerie ways.
In addition, the American domestic arms trade is a roadmap to the violent Right, a national grid full of above ground gun markets and fairs. All it takes is some cash to join the circuit and meet the folks.
This was brought home to me VERY forcefully yesterday and it's a cultural reality that I've observed first hand for decades as a lifelong marksman and gun enthusiast and attendee and exhibitor at numerous gun shows all across Kansas.
Yesterday, the Aryan Nations made local headlines here in KC. It seems they were intent on making Kansas City Kansas their new National Headquarters. It's the allure of the Kansas gun shows which along with Mississipi shows account for the majority of guns sold that are used in crimes in the U.S., and, are a major recruitment funnel for white terrorists.
As a methamphetamine, transportation (air/rail/trucking)hub, and, rural poor white disaffected youth hub, the location is perfect. I'll give em credit for logistical smarts too. Coupled with the new NASCAR track and mega-Cabelas in KCK - there's the demographic fluctuation cover of big American tourism that'll screen their comings and goings and provide additional feeder flux like they were never able to obtain in rural Pennsylvania or Idaho.
This is bad on many many levels. The good news is that the backlash from an ad hoc coalition of folks yesterday - amongst whom GOP representation was conspicuously absent - turned this overt attempt at infestation back for the time being. Read the whole sordid pimple popping adventure below, but bear in mind the big picture of the domestic arms trade, its disparate effect on our communties, white terrorism in general, and the GOP's conspicuous lack of testicular fortitude when it comes to keeping its knuckledragging elements in check.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11036787.htm
Neo-Nazis setting up base in KCK
Aryan Nations has a violent, racist history
By JUDY L. THOMAS
The Kansas City Star
The Aryan Nations — one of the most notorious neo-Nazi groups in
the United States — is moving its national headquarters to Kansas
City, Kan., causing alarm among civil rights groups.
The group's members, who believe that Jews are "the children of
Satan" and African-Americans are "beasts of the field," chose Kansas
City, Kan., because of its central location, said "High Counsel"
August B. Kreis III.
Kreis, who lives in Florida, said Wednesday that the Aryan Nations
national director, Charles Juba, recently relocated to the
metropolitan area from Pennsylvania with the aim of enlisting new
members.
It was unclear how significant the move is, because the group has
never revealed how many members it has and it is in the process of
rebuilding after its leader was bankrupted as the result of a
lawsuit in 2000.
A spokesman for the FBI in Kansas City could not be reached for
comment. But those who watch the radical right said area residents
should be concerned about such groups.
"I can say without equivocation that the (Aryan Nations) is the
most violent wing of the white supremacist movement," said Leonard
Zeskind, president of the Kansas City-based Institute for Research
and Education on Human Rights, and a board member of the Jewish
Community Relations Bureau. "He (Juba) has vowed to rebuild the
organization …"
Devin Burghart, of the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based
group that monitors the right-wing movement, said he found the move
to Kansas City unsettling.
"The presence of groups like this is always something to be
concerned about, especially given the Aryan Nations' track record of
violence," Burghart said.
Juba could not be reached for comment. Kreis, however, didn't
dispute that members of his group have been connected to violent
incidents.
"But it's the same thing with any organization," Kreis
said. "There's going to be good and bad people in all
organizations."
White supremacist groups again are in the national spotlight
following the murders this week of the husband and mother of a
federal judge in Chicago.
Authorities were investigating whether Monday's shooting deaths were
carried out by hate groups linked to white supremacist Matt Hale.
Hale, leader of World Church of the Creator, is facing up to 40
years in prison for trying to arrange the murder of the judge, Joan
Humphrey Lefkow, who presided over a case involving the group.
When asked about the murders, Kreis said his group wasn't involved,
but added: "We love it!"
Among the incidents involving people with ties to the Aryan Nations:
• Buford O'Neal Furrow Jr. shot a mail carrier to death in 1999
after wounding five persons at a Jewish community center in Granada
Hills, Calif. He was a former security guard at the Aryan Nations
headquarters in Idaho.
• Aryan Nations chaplain James Wickstrom is a Christian Identity
minister from Michigan and a leader of the anti-government group,
Posse Comitatus. Wickstrom spent time in prison for counterfeiting.
• Robert Mathews, who died in a 1984 shootout with federal agents
in
Washington, recruited Aryan Nations members for his group called The
Order. Order members killed Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver in
1984, and Missouri Highway Patrol trooper Jimmy Linegar in 1985.
• Aryan Nations members were sued in 1999 by a mother and her son
who alleged they were shot at by the group's security guards. As a
result, the group lost a $6.3 million judgment in 2000, forcing the
group to close its Idaho compound.
In a letter to followers dated January 2005 and posted on its Web
site, Juba announced the group's move and directed supporters to
send mail to a Kansas City, Kan., post office box.
"This move is intended to further advance our goals of an Aryan
Homeland in the North American Continent," Juba wrote. "Three years
ago with the assistance of our High Council, we centralized
authority on an organization level, eliminating the need for public
display of officers at a state-by-state, country-by-country level.
With this move, we have completed this format by centralizing the
physical authority, thus making our membership more accessible in
all points of travel."
Juba said the goal was to open up either a storefront or an office
in the Midwest before the end of 2005.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Juba started out in
the white supremacist movement as a teenager, when he joined the
Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. At age 21, the center
said, Juba became grand dragon of the International Keystone Knights
of the Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania.
In early 2002, after the Aryan Nations lost its compound in Idaho as
the result of the lawsuit, Juba joined with Kreis and another man to
replace leader Richard Butler, who was ailing. The group splintered,
and, after Butler's death in 2004, Kreis took over the group he
called the "true Aryan Nations."
Another faction calling itself the real Aryan Nations moved to
Alabama last year.
An Aug. 8, 2002, article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review mentioned
Juba's plans to build a new headquarters on a 10-acre farm in
northern Pennsylvania. The article quoted a man who said he had
infiltrated the group and that members held meetings with members of
the World Church of the Creator.
Kreis acknowledged that the Aryan Nations "will work with any pro-
white group," but wouldn't discuss how many people belong to his
group.
"But I'll tell you what," he said. "We're doing very well. I'm not talking about financially. But if you're talking about bringing the message to the people, we're doing a good job of it."
Predictably, Phil Kline and the other kooky Kansas southern
strategists including local AM talk-radio show hosts Jerry Agar and
Russ Johnson were either totally silent, or sticking up for the free
expression rights of this terrorist filth. Russ Johnson crapped his
lardtail pants when a series of brothers called in and called
the Aryan Nation what they are *TERRORISTS*
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11045696.htm
Neo-Nazis dump plans for KCK headquarters
By JUDY L. THOMAS and DAWN BORMANN The Kansas City Star
The national director of the Aryan Nations, who just relocated the
white supremacist group's headquarters to Kansas City, Kan.,
resigned late Thursday.
The action came after The Kansas City Star reported Thursday morning
that Charles Juba had moved to the metropolitan area from
Pennsylvania with plans to rebuild one of the nation's most
notorious neo-Nazi organizations.
"He stepped down late this afternoon," said August B. Kreis III, who
calls himself the group's high counsel. "It's for family reasons.
Things just got too hot."
Kreis said Juba asked him to remove his name and picture from the
organization's Web site.
"Maybe he thinks if he steps a few steps back, the pressure won't
be so bad," Kreis said late Thursday from his Florida home. "I
don't know of anything like this ever happening."
Kreis said he didn't know yet what would happen to the Kansas City
headquarters, but added he wasn't concerned about Juba stepping down.
"We had a contingency plan in place," he said. "This won't shake
anything up as far as I'm concerned. We're going to move forward. We
have enough good people."
Kreis, who will take over as national director, said Juba would
remain in the organization. Kreis did not know, however, whether
Juba would stay in Kansas City. Juba could not be reached for
comment.
"He's not leaving the movement," Kreis said. "He's just no longer the national director."
Throughout the day Thursday – prior to Juba's stepping down --
reaction to the news that the Aryan Nations was moving its
headquarters to Kansas City, Kan., ranged from community outrage to
promises from law enforcement agencies to monitor the group.
Thursday night, the Unified Board of Commissioners of Wyandotte
County and Kansas City, Kan., unanimously reaffirmed a 1998
resolution condemning racism and hatred. It pledged that any group
furthering those beliefs would not be tolerated.
"This community will continue to use all lawful means at our
disposal in cooperation with the state and the federal governments
to eradicate such behavior in our community," said Mayor Carol
Marinovich.
Dozens of readers called and sent e-mails to The Star in response to
the story, expressing concern because the group's members believe
that Jews are Satanic and the root of all the world's problems, and
that nonwhites are "pre-Adamic," a species inferior to the white
race.
The significance of the move to Kansas City remained unclear,
because the Aryan Nations has never revealed its membership and is
in the process of rebuilding after splintering into factions and
being forced into bankruptcy following a lawsuit in 2000.
Law enforcement agencies said they would monitor the situation but
would not trample the white supremacist group's constitutional
rights.
"We always try to be aware of potential threats to the community,
but of course, we're not going to take any action against any person
or group until we have something specific," said Bob Herndon,
special agent for the FBI.
"Everyone has protected First Amendment constitutional rights, and
even though their political viewpoints, or social viewpoints or
ideological viewpoints or religious viewpoints may differ from other
people's, no one is under investigation for something like that,"
Herndon said.
He also cautioned that the community should be careful not to
overreact. "But certainly if somebody has something specific, call
the police or the FBI," he said.
Don Denney, spokesman for the Unified Government, acknowledged that
authorities could not stop the Aryan Nations from setting up shop in
the area.
"We don't discriminate against anybody," Denney said. "However, we
expect everybody to be model citizens and contributors to our
society and not detractors."
Meanwhile, community leaders from across the metropolitan area met
privately Thursday with law enforcement officials, the Justice
Department and an expert on neo-Nazi groups.
They were briefed on the history of Aryan Nations and agreed the
public should hear the same information. The groups will sponsor a
community forum at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the Jack Reardon Civic Center
in Kansas City, Kan.
Residents will be briefed on the Aryan Nations and have a chance to
ask questions. Local leaders expect hundreds to attend.
"Come to be informed," said the Rev. Ellis Robinson, president of
the NAACP branch in Kansas City, Kan. "So many of us act without
correct information, and our purpose on Tuesday night is to inform
the community."
Robinson and many others are concerned that local residents will
panic. "We don't want people taking up arms and going into the
street," he said.
But Robinson does think that people should be concerned. "We live in
a day and age where anything can happen," he said.
A spokeswoman for the Anti-Defamation League for Missouri and
Southern Illinois said that even if the white supremacist group is
small, there is cause for concern.
"It's a problem," said Karen Aroesty, the league's regional
director. "They're basically looking to do what has been happening
here in St. Louis County with the National Alliance, which is to do
leafleting and use tools like billboards in order to get publicity
and sell the product."
Lawmakers were paying close attention as well.
State Sen. David Haley of Kansas City, Kan., said news of the Aryan
Nations' move prompted him to introduce hate-crimes legislation at
the statehouse on Thursday.
The proposal - which calls for stiffer penalties for crimes
motivated by race, sexual orientation, religion or creed - hasn't
made out of the Legislature since Haley began pushing it about eight
years ago.
"I know they have certain constitutionally protected rights of
speech and assembly," Haley said of the Aryan Nations. "I just hope
they go somewhere else to exercise them."
Ed Chasteen, the president of HateBusters, who has spent years
fighting racism in the region and throughout the country, said he
went ballistic when he heard the news.
"I couldn't believe it. Right here in our town. No way," Chasteen
said. "I don't know what it is about us that made them think they'd
be welcome. ... Whatever it is, we want to correct it."
The Star's Mark Wiebe contributed to this report
First glance
• News that the Aryan Nations is relocating its headquarters to
Kansas City, Kan., evoked a swift response from community leaders.
• A community forum on the issue is set for 7 p.m. Tuesday at the
Jack Reardon Civic Center.
OK, this is something that I don't really understand:
Maya Keyes loves her father and mother. She put off college and moved from the family home in Darnestown to Chicago to be with her dad on a grand adventure. Even though she disagrees with him on "almost everything" political, she worked hard for his quixotic and losing campaign for the U.S. Senate.Now Maya Keyes -- liberal, lesbian and a little lost -- finds herself out on her own. She says her parents -- conservative commentator and perennial candidate Alan Keyes and his wife, Jocelyn -- threw her out of their house, refused to pay her college tuition and stopped speaking to her.
Maya, 19, says her parents cut her off because of who she is -- "a liberal queer." Tomorrow, she will take her private dispute with her dad into the open. She is scheduled to make her debut as a political animal, speaking at a rally in Annapolis sponsored by Equality Maryland, the state's gay rights lobby.
I can't see kicking your kid out of the house because of political differences.
I can't see kicking your kid out of the house because your child has said they are gay.
I can see kicking your kid out of the house if your kid is not living up to your moral standards and is doing so in the home. For example, being caught having sex in your home.
But even then, not speaking to my child would not be an issue. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is something I often heard while I was being raised. Also, it seems that when you close the door of communication, you close the chance of affecting a positive change.
IF this is being reported accurately, it's a sad state of affairs.
A parent isn't obligated to pay for their kid's college tuition nor are they obligated to house their kid past the age of 18. But it's RIGHT to do so if your child is being productive.
Not speaking to your child because he is a sinner in your eyes, is wrong.
If this is being reported accurately, someone of moral authority needs to publically say this to Alan Keyes.
This is foul.
Ok. One of my friends told me that the following happened at his law school:
*A group of white students organized a ghetto party in which they were told to dress like "niggas" and thugs.
*A law school teacher told students that in dealing with her fear of public speaking she just thought about the scenario that scared her the most. She imagined three large black men in front of her. This in a class on public speaking.
What my friend wants me to do is conduct some type of workshop in order to teach blacks and whites how to deal with this issue.
I don't have a problem conducting the workshop from a professional standpoint. I do have some expertise here.
But this doesn't really fit the old school approach.
What I mean here is simple. I've referred to Albert Murray before. When talking to Henry Louis Gates (I think the interview is in Thirteen Ways to View a Black Man) Murray (who is approaching 80 and grew up in the deep south) told him that whenever he was accosted by whites, he wouldn't whine or protest...he'd just plot with his boys to take care of the offenders. That was it.
Of course it wasn't that easy then, and I think he's blowing smoke up Gates' ass.
But there is something to be said for that particular approach.
What would that approach look like here?
I called her the next day and left a message. She called me back two days later, which wasnt a problem when she explained that she was out of town.Our second conversation started off well. She wanted to get to know me and began asking what I like. I asked the same of her and was feeling pretty good until she went there.
She began to express some negative sentiments about Black men.
I didnt see it coming, but sadly, I was prepared. I stay ready because like all too many Black men, I frequently hear negativity about Black men from Black women.
The question is asked: If you hear these things frequently, doesnt that mean they ring of truth? Well, the answer is the same as when white racists speak of Black men and women in the negative: Just because something is popular does not mean that it is either true or good.
McDonalds is popular, but anyone who cares about their health realizes that its popularity doesnt mean that it is good for the body.
Negativity is no different.
OK, it's my turn concerning the basketbrawl.
Artest is a knucklehead. He should have never gone into the stands over a thrown beer. However, I am NOT one of the... what's the phrase? ... class warfare IDJIOTS who say that as a person making that sort of money, Artest should have just taken it.
HELL NO!!!!
I earn a decent living, but let some fool throw a beer in my face and we are battling. And, believe me, I'm going to do my best to bring a beat down as a statement.
Period.
And to hear folks who normally speak out against class warfare actually take part in it,...
The man should be thrown out of the league. The same with Sprewell.
Adios. Bye. Gone.
Here, LKS weighs in on the matter. We are in line with the punishment aspect of it.
So, as I catch up from my Thanksgiving with the sister-in-laws in Florida, I'm scanning blog country and it seems like brother Cobb hits it in a similar fashion.
Of course, race plays a factor.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh and he metioned the "Hip Hop" culture as being to blame.
Yet, he lists similiar out of control actions of fans and sports players in soccer, baseball, and hockey. I seem to remember a tennis player mooning the audience or a line judge.
And then there are rioting fans and "fans" in a Europen country who killed a coach in a pub.
But Limbaugh went so far as to say that the NFL is incorporating GANG COLORS in their uniforms.
What the huh?
Someone explain that one to me.
Still, Artest needs to be gone. If I were the owner of the team, he would have received a season suspension on g.p. of wanting time off to promote a CD. For me, it doesn't matter the genre of the CD. Wanting time off for that?
No.
See you next season.
Oh well.
I'm done.
"Perhaps those who wonder whether the dynamics of European style soccer brawls would ever hit the US have their answer. Either the NBA is going to end up installing draconian mechanisms of fan regulation, or I think something like this is going to happen again."
This was yesterday.
Today, the SC-Clemson game ended in a brawl with less than 5 minutes to go. Benches cleared, and fans moved in from the stands.
I expect more events like this, particularly during rivalry games in whatever sport. Football's come to the US.
(edited to add)
I know I'm tired, but damn if a doh! moment didn't just hit me.
Nationalist sentiment typically increases during times of conflict. This takes two forms usually--strong knee jerk state support, and strong anti-"other" intra state resentment (think Japanese internment camps, and general anti-black racism). In this case where we have at least two conflicts going on--the War on Iraq, and the Culture War within the states--we can expect to see a rise of three forms of nationalism.
One state based. One based on xenophobia. One based on local attachments.
Local like crip-blood. Local like Michigan vs. Ohio State. Like SC vs. Clemson. Like Detroit vs. Indiana.
If this is right, then I expect to see an increase in inter-athlete violence (player on player, team on team), an increase in violence between players and fans.
And while I expect to see security increase as a result, I do NOT expect to see a decrease in beer availability.
Oliphant has done an editorial cartoon of Condi Rice that is out of bounds. Some on "the right" have been asking why groups like that NAACP have not come out against the cartoon.
Why should they? After all, unfortunately, the NAACP has become a partisan organization. Has the "Black right" defended those on the "Black left" when slurs, slanders, and lies have been directed towards the "Black left"?
Of course not.
[Update at the end of the entry]
When Mfume had a chance of having a national talk show, did the "Black right" defend the man's right to have such a show? No. Instead, "the right" got into gear and shut down the floating idea of Mfume having a national talk show. But, "the right" had a cow when local people in Los Angeles attempted to have Larry Elder taken off of the air.
When Mfume had a local show in Baltimore, the show addressed problems in urban areas, and show cased people and groups that attempted to solve the problems. But did the "Black right" say anything about that?
After Ron Brown was killed in an airplane crash, many on "the right" went after integrity of the man. At one point, they were claiming he had a marijuana habit. Ron Brown's family, in mourning, had to deal with that garbage. In fact, Ron Brown's doctor was given permission by the family to discuss Brown's health. Evidently, he had a lung condition that made it hard for him to be in smoke filled areas in general. If he smoked, anything, he would have probably landed in the hospital. So, where was the "Black right" then?
In fact, Armstrong Williams disliked the man so much that he defended the attacks on Ron Brown.
The "Black right" will talk about Blacks building businesses and how Blacks need to do more. They are right about that. Then, why is it that the "Black right" won't mention the long standing effort done by Black Enterprise? Could it be the fact that Earl Graves, Sr. is a Democrat?
The "Black right" has said nothing about how Cathy Hughes brought one AM station in Washington, D.C., slept in it, backed down drug dealers who suspected her intentions at the radio station, and turned it into a decent radio enterprise. Could it be because she got the foundation of radio stations by taking advantage of race based tax incentives that gave big tax breaks to companies that sold radio stations to minority owners? Has the "Black right" said anything about Radio One teaming with COMCAST to make TV One?
The "Black right" says that Blacks need to take more personal responsibilty. But, why do they overlook Judge Mathis who went from doing petty crime as a teenager to going to college and, in time, becoming a real judge? Could this oversight come from Mathis being a Democrat?
I guess I shouldn't even bring up the fact that when he was a teenager, Mfume, then Drizel Gray, was running the streets and creating children. One day, he claims, he recognized that he was living the wrong kind of life and he then decided to turn his life around.
He started taking care of his kids. He got his education. He won a seat on the Baltimore city council. He then won a seat in the House of Representative. He is now the head of the NAACP. I guess it's foolish of me to even point this out. Of course the "Black right" doesn't want to show how Mfume turned his life around.
I've written, and will continue to write, that Blacks can't afford to get involved in the "left vs. right" garbage. The limited examples I gave are why.
Why is it not hypocrisy when those who have a complaint about the "Black left" not giving the full view of the Black community, also does not give a full view because of partisanship?
In fact, I damn them MORE because they note wrong doing, and then do the same type of wrong doing.
[Update]
Well, it looks like the NAACP and Urban League have weighed in and spoken out against the comments of the radio talk host.
Additionally, molotov has corrected me for trackbacking to the Booker Rising blog but not pointing to the stories. I did it in response to the comment section of some blog entries. It was bad form, as I have been told, so I apologize.
So, some links are in order Condi as Aunt Jemimah
But I still think my comments are valid.
People looking into emmigrating to Canada all because of the election?
Somone going to New York and committing suicide?
Some people need to get a grip!
A lot of people are going to be mad that their selection for president did not win.
And the country will be worse off for it.
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.
Collective thought, aka group think.
What a concept.
At a GOP convention, Colin Powell said he supported affirmative action and he was booed. No group think there.
Better yet, let a white person agree with Blacks on issues and sooner or later, someone will accuse that white person of being a "guilty white liberal."
So tell me why those who call people "guilty white liberals" are NOT taking part in group think. Aren't they assuming that all whites should think alike?
And if conservatives believe that Blacks don't need Black leaders, why are conservatives trying to pass off people like Jesse Lee Peterson as a Black leader?
Identifying as a "Black conservative". That's not "group think"?
Isn't it interesting that "Black conservatives" seem to have a scream of "victimology" when stating certain things? What's not "group thinking" on the misuse of such a silly phrase?