Prometheus 6

You know what? Personally, I'm tired of white people's argument about being afraid of being accused of being racist. Especially when the entire point is white people's bias against people of color. If the shoe fits, wear it!

I don't have a problem with the word "coward." Have you seen the history that's taught in schools? The literature? As a country, we are afraid to tell the truth about our racial history. And we're afraid to acknowledge the truth about present racism. I mean seriously. What does the election of the first black president really mean except that it's about time? Like white America has done people of color some favor, when the majority of white Americans voted for McCain. It's the same thing as wanting a cookie for having crack down on lynching FINALLY by the 70s. Please!

Oh! But he did start some mess! It's actually kinda funny to watch some people berate him, turning red in the face, and proving his point all the while.

...In reading the entire speech, I think that the masterstroke was actually in using the word ‘coward’ because, without it, the speech would probably have been largely overlooked.

(...Especially given that it seems to be the only thing most people have tended to focus on from it!)

But I believe it does help open the door to have the phrasing as such reviewed in the much broader context in which it was meant to be received.

(...I also like that he advocates ‘flipping the script’ and using the month to advance the dialogue on race in a radically interactive fashion!)

And it may be just me, but in reading the speech, it really reminded me of a lot of some of the same territory covered over the summer:

http://www.prometheus6.org/node/21401

Black history is a subject worthy of study by all our nation's people. Blacks have played a unique, productive role in the development of America. Perhaps the greatest strength of the United States is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have knowledge of its constituent parts. But an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force. An appreciation of the unique black past, acquired through the study of black history, will help lead to understanding and true compassion in the present, where it is still so sorely needed, and to a future where all of our people are truly valued.

Thank you.

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program
Wednesday, February 18, 2009

it really reminded me of a lot of some of the same territory covered over the summer

That's why I had no beef with what he said.

I'm tired of white people's argument about being afraid of being accused of being racist.

EYE am telling you this too, not as argument but as explanation, and for a reason.

Maybe five years I was having an intense conversation about racial issues on BlogCritics. I found out that if you get off to the right start, white folk will seriously attend to race discussions. A guy actually said it's good to talk about race without getting blamed for everything. And for the most part th only extra effort I took was to say "they" instead of "you".

Another example: I was talking to this Italian guy back in Wall Street days, when that absurdity about Colin Powell running for President was current. On the topic, the discussion was like

Me: He won't run. He said his wife was afraid he'd be assasinated.

Him: That's not realistic.

Me: Sure it is.

Him: Are you saying this country isn't ready for a Black President?

And that last was a challenge...I could tell he heard "You're too racist to have a Black President." I told him most of America may be, but all it takes is one nut and there's a hell of a lot more nuts than one that hate Black folks enough to assassinate a Black President. He yielded the point.

Got more than a couple of those stories. But not one of them involves anyone who wasn't looking for the discussion.

line came in the first MINUTE. did they read the entire speech?

I don't think so.

@P6

I definitely hear you. It's just that I've also come across some Pat Buchanan types who feel like in discussion of race, whites are being unfairly blamed for everything that's wrong with the black community. Thus, even using "they" doesn't do the trick. Plus, I tired of having to watch my tongue all the time. That's why I started my own blog - so I could call things the way I see it and if someone had a problem with it, tough! It's my blog!

And the truth is, white people are being blamed for a lot. They're guilty of a lot. But they're not being blamed for everything. And well, that's another trick of the extreme right at least. You accuse them of stealing an apple, which they did, and they claim you're accusing them of cutting down an entire tree, which they didn't, and then they get all righteously indignant about your now false accusation. Sorry Charlie, I t'ain't playing that game with you. -When you think it about it, this propensity to overblow a situation is what's happening over the word "coward." They overblow the accusation of cowardness in order to back you down and get out of a real conversation about race.

I think people are focusing too much on the "coward" statement and ignoring the broader context of the speech which isn't surprising since it provides the media with a controversy they can exploit.  I don't think Holder was specifically implying that white people are exclusive cowards about race but it is being interpreted that way.  Some have actually criticized Holder for not committing himself to using his position as the nation's highest ranking law enforcement official to reinvogorate the capacity of the justice department to effectively prosecute cases of discrimination.  According to these voices, his message was that we can work out the problem of race out through conversations with co-workers but provided little indication that legal remedies should play a role in resolving issues of race.  From this point of view, the statement could have been delivered by a moderate Republican.                          

"Some have actually criticized Holder for not committing himself to using his position as the nation's highest ranking law enforcement official to reinvogorate the capacity of the justice department to effectively prosecute cases of discrimination."

Seriously? He's only been in office a hot minute. What do these people expect?

Meet the Press had a decent discussion of Holder's comments today.

I think I need to get a new power supply for my old retired machine so I can use it for video recording...Vista sucks for that sort of thing because Windows Media Center usurps all that functionality.

This is why race is never seriously discussed openly. People tend find single words to latch themselves to. This is common; people (mostly whites) do this so they wont have to deal with the substance of whats being said. no1kstate, the shoe has always fit whites, thats why they are the most uncomfortable with discussing race. They know it is a shoe that they will never out-grow it. The consequences of slavery, Jim Crow, decades of discrimination, intentional miseducation, et al, are still very much present and haunts them daily. Anything that distracts honest dialogue is welcoming to them.

Here's a question or two, though...how do you think white folks perceive the situation? And...I'm assuming you know the points you want to make...how do you make yourself understood to people with those perceptions?

Understood...not believed or accepted, just really clear.

I don't want to contradict or rain on anyone's parade and I damn sure don't want to let folks off the hook but I have never been surprised or upset about the lack of discussion about race in this country. Hell, black folks themselves either can't or are afraid to even talk honestly about race to each other. There are many, many circles within the black community where talking honestly about race, if you are black, will result in you being ostracized or reported.  

I’m amused by some of the hostile response. “Why is he calling out white people as cowards when black people never do...“. He said "nation"…blacks are also citizens of that nation.

Hell, black folks themselves either can't or are afraid to even talk honestly about race to each other.

That's kind of complicated by Black folks that get paid to lie about Black folks.

@TKG - Part of the of what makes the US a racist nation is the fact that when people think of "Americans," they think of whites. So when someone says "nation," "America," etc and so on, white people hear white.

P6 - What I do to be "understood," is stick to the facts. I stick to the issue and don't let anyone sidetrack the conversation like it's been sidetracked with "coward." Also, one of the things I try to do is let people work out the implications of their own assertions. Like, if someone wants to argue that reparations aren't deserved, that black people just want the money. I'll point out the wealth disparity. Common sense - wealth accumulation is inherited. So, where's black people "inheritance?" Even if you discount slavery, which some try since presumably the Great Depression would've wiped that wealth out, where's the inheritance from all those years as sharecroppers? And shouldn't some payment be made to people who lived through Jim Crow and the terror and the KKK? Slaves aren't still alive, but people who lived through neoslavery are.

That's kind of complicated by Black folks that get paid to lie about Black folks.

True, but the emergence of these influence peddlers, mountebanks and shape-shifters is of a relatively recent occurrence. The problem precedes their emergence from the ooze. 

I think the major obstacle to Black folk talking honestly among themselves is fear of being overheard...and that's not a "dirty laundry" thing, it's a "showing the world exactly where you're vulnerable" thing.

I mean seriously...when I said I was looking for a job, who didn't expect my blog writing to be a major obstacle? On the other hand, no successful, and honest, Black executive can deny he's missed at least one position he wanted due to pre-rational considerations. Seriously, how freeing is the semi-anonymity of the net, of blogs in particular? At least with mailing lists there was some sort of active tether to your real life. Blog comments get contact info like Richard Cranium at nunna@yourbusiness.com...

Common sense - wealth accumulation is inherited.

True. But the same go for the effects of slavery and its aftermath, Jim Crow and its aftermath, and poverty. Like wealth, these, too, are inherited, which strengthens the argument for reparations.

In terms of being understood by whites I think is not really achievable, not that I haven't tried. I just haven't been very successful at it. And apparently neither has Black America, despite decades of effort. Not to be defeatist but I just don't know how you get around their perceptions. Thats like an ant trying to walk around Lake Michigan before he dies.

I truely believe that white America would need us to fully embrace thier perceptions before we are understood. They would have to be sure that we won't blame them for anything, that the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and generations of discrimination - among other things - are simply in the past, that we have finally "gotten over it". That is, I believe, our mandatory starting point for being understood by whites. Failing this any "discussion" about race will ultimately get sidetracked by buzzwords like "coward".

You're absolutely right about white America wanting us to be "over" the past.

If we weren't still feeling the effects of the past, and if discrimination was present now, we'd be over it. But so long as they're being racist, we're going to call them out.

To some extent, I think the thing to do when they're intent on being dumb, is to go straight to this issue and bypass their "woe is me" feelings.

White people trip up in frank interracial conversations about race because they feel uncomfortable viewing themselves from the point of view of someone who is not white.  Once they pass through the looking glass those casual conversations they have with other white people that are only meant to be given in the company of other white people become profoundly disturbing and disorienting.  They either react negatively or they engage in a lot of needless hand wringing in the hope of retaining their moral credibility.  Neither approach succeeds in furthering a discussion or heightening an understanding of the matter at hand.  While one insults the intelligence and integrity of non-white people, the other leads to emotional burnout.  As a white person, I have experienced feelings of guilt in seeking to understand what it means to be a person of color in this country.  I think this is only natural and reflects an attempt to be honest about the situation.  Guilt, however, is not an effective means of instigating a conducive conversation.  I agree with P6--there are certain people who will never be forced into having a conversation about race but will take refuge in their ignorance and their platitudes.  There are others who will engage in psuedo-conversations with their black friends at work who will tell them what they want to hear.  There are some who think that the insights gleaned in their conversations with their Asian friends apply to relations between white and black and vice versa.  There are others who will resort to paternalism to expunge their feelings of guilt.  All are looking for a quick robotic fix.  The truth is that it takes years to make personal progress first in recognizing one's own prejudice and proceeding to stamp it out in one's own behavior and calling it out in those of others.  I feel I have been on this journey for about ten years and have a long way to go.  It is a process that requires ingenuity and creativity.  I certainly can't speak for all white people--I can only speak for myself as someone who grew up in a predominately white environment and who abhorred racism on an abstract level but internalized racist beliefs on a practical level.                                    

Well written, Ubstu.

"...I have experienced feelings of guilt in seeking to understand what it means to be a person of color in this country.  I think this is only natural and reflects an attempt to be honest about the situation.  Guilt, however, is not an effective means of instigating a conducive conversation."

Do you - and these are truley honest questions - feel guilt only in the seeking to understand what it means to be a person of color? If so, why? Do you truely think that guilt is the means by which Blacks use to start a meaningful conversation on race? And what is the source of your guilt? 

they feel uncomfortable viewing themselves from the point of view of someone who is not white.

I understand totally. Black folks have been required to view ourselves from white folks' viewpoint, by law, almost since the founding of the colonies.

White folks are now, by law, required to do so as well.

Osiris_

From my perspective, guilt is occasionally an emotion that comes to the fore when attempting to broach a meaningful conversation on race.  It is not a consistent emotion.  I think white people are brought up to feel that they were conceived in innocence and the attitudes and motivations they inherit from their parents are as pure as the fallen snow.  Growing up, my parents would often discuss the racial attitudes of their parents and admit the sense of embarrassment they felt towards their attitudes.  As I got older, I learned that they weren't entirely liberated from the prejudices of my grandparents.  Having to confront they myths that you were brought up with, especially when they bring the people you love and admire off of a pedestal and poison your own mode of thinking, periodically leads to feelings of guilt.  When someone you consider your friend expresses a racist belief, you start to question if you should be friends with this person.  When coworkers laugh at a bigoted joke and you find it hard and difficult to express your objection while maintaining your composure, you begin to feel that you are an enabler if you don't make an effort to speak up.  From a historical perspective, I am mindful that, while my ancestors didn't own any slaves, many of them arrived in this country long after a majority of black people were brought here and embraced a form of American identity which excluded and dehumanized people who by every streach of the imagination had eanred the right to be considered full-blooded Americans.  This doesn't quite instill feelings of guilt, but it does inspire feelings of humility.                          

I don't think black people automatically invoke guilt when honestly discussing race with white people.  I certainly don't think it is wrong to induce a sense of shame among people who, for instance, approve of the New York Post cartoon, find it funny, pretend that it is not in any way remotely racist, and yearn for something like that to happen.  People of this sort don't want to have a conversation anyway.        

ubstu34 -

Well said. And I really think what frustrates the relations between the races is the enabling and the failure to "speak up" among whites in whites own circles, e.g. the New York Post. I agree with you on your assessment of white guilt. But would you agree that what contributes to that guilt is that many whites (I'd say most) do not want their "preiminance" or dominance questioned? Put differently, is it possible that much of that guilt comes from whites internally - and rightfully - attributing their societal dominance directly to the obscene headstart that, by law, the entirety of white America recieved and inherited from slavery, Jim Crow, and continued discrimination?

Osiris_E

Yes...  I would agree that white culpability rests not with what was done in the past but with what is not done in the present, namely a refusal or inability to ascertain why things are the way they are.  When one's position in life is thought to be a product of moral superiority when in fact it is heavily determined by inherited privilege, it is difficult to objectively deal with the shortcomings of a persecuted group of people.  I think certain white people are at some level troubled by their ingrained propensity to attribute the social dysfunctions of black people to moral failure.  For many, however, (I would so a majority of white people I come into contact with on a daily basis--and these are mostly lower-middle class people without college educations), issues of past and present discrimination constitute an affront to their sensibilities.  I am not sure these issues are broached in their quite moments of solitude--of course, I can't judge what people think in private; but I would be surprised if they ever agonize over the accumulative effects of racial oppression. 

What is interesting is that quite a few black people I socialize with seem to abide by theories of black pathology.  The individuals I speak of are mostly in their late teens and early twenties.  I don't know if they vocalize these beliefs in my presence to put me at ease or what.  They also prefer to socialize with upper-class white people who enjoy their token presence at their parties.  They find black parties boring because all people do is dance and then go stand off in a corner.  At white parties they have drinking games, everybody socializes with one another, and people often wind up going to adjacent functions where their is live music in posh settings.  An invitation to a white party is greatly coveted and a source of pride.  A typical white friend of theirs might tell a joke like, "What is the most confusing holiday in the black community?  Father's Day."  They also feel they have to apologize or qualify themselves when they vent against white people when I am in their presence.                                   

"What is interesting is that quite a few black people I socialize with seem to abide by theories of black pathology."

I've come across folks like the ones you describe. From what I can tell, they mostly come from economically privileged backgrounds. And also, you have to keep in mind, that if all you ever hear from educational authorities is that black pathology is the cause of problems in our community, it's hard to find an argument against that. Everything in pop culture/mainstream media only validates this notion. And even though common sense would negate some of the arguments of black pathologies, they just don't occur to you as a student.

For example, my high school US history teacher told us if slavery was all that bad, there would've been more rebellions. Of course, I knew that couldn't have been right. But at the time, all I had was my instinct as a black person. Now, I know that demographics and geograpy weren't in the favor of US Southern slaves. I didn't know that then.

And sometimes, it is embarrasing to, say, be in a class about European colonialism and learn that young women couldn't tell they were pregnant until they actually started showing. And, it could be something they do just for a white audience.

Moyers had McWhorter on the other night to discuss Holder's "nation of cowards" comment. That's the "hook" of the piece but it does branch off. Transcript & video here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02272009/watch2.html

I stumbled across that when he was saying how thrilled he was to have a Black President because that ends any cause for complaints about racism. I walked away when he said he was on a mission to represent the many Black people who are just like him.

McWhorter is an assimilated elitist idiot.

P6: I stumbled across that when he was saying how thrilled he was to have a Black President because that ends any cause for complaints about racism. I walked away when he said he was on a mission to represent the many Black people who are just like him.

I agree with your interpretation of the latter concept-- maybe his "mission" as stated makes the interview segment worth walking away from. That kind of mission is a long way from early McWhorter, a linguist who found a niche in the cottage industry of conservative books on race written by black folk. It's not that people across the spectrum shouldn't have representation-- they should. It's that his linguistics background makes it possible to be disingenuous with a bit more deftness than, say, Shelby Steele, who writes well but is easier to catch as he makes his supposedly reasonable arguments. For example, McWhorter didn't answer at least one of Moyer's questions, and didn't get called on it. It's easy to spot in retrospect but not in a congenial conversation.

I'm not concurring with-- or I'm not understanding-- your take on why McWhorter's thrilled to have a black president. As I read it in context (and yeah, I went back and listened for inflection too) he's not talking about the end of racism at all. He seems to be talking about re-centering the national conversation-- a settling of position in his favor, not a settling of the issue itself. He does want to minimize the importance of certain racist incidents, words, images (there's that disingenuous part from the linguist) and would be pleased if we had the national conversation from a "centrist" perspective.

"Basically, I can't imagine the playing field ever being completely level. I don't know how you can create that. And this is the crucial thing. I think that descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group in human history who have insisted that we can only achieve under perfect or near-perfect conditions."

McWhorter now plays historian to a hilarious degree.  I wonder what it is that Jews insist on...

This is the first thing I heard when I happened onto the thing.

JOHN MCWHORTER: And the election of a black president, a black president, I still get a thrill writing President Obama. He's black. He's not some other color. He's not white. It's not temporary. It's not because somebody got assassinated and he got in by accident. The black president was elected. That settles it. Many people don't like that.

BILL MOYERS: With a lot of white votes, by the way.

JOHN MCWHORTER: With a lot of white votes. And so many people don't like that that really settles the position in the middle. But that's where the conversation is always going to be.

McWhorter has moderated his positions since Obama became front runner last election, but since I've caught him spreading stories that do not accord with reality, I'm going to assume the worst when he speaks.

JOHN MCWHORTER: Some people don't understand. Some people are just waving away the whole thing. I don't like that part of the conversation. Some people are taking the line of Professor Goff. That's kind of another extreme. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. And something is going to happen in a few days and on some other front that's going to push that out of the headlines. And it's going to float along. And the country is going to be exactly where it was during Don Imus and Michael Richards and Macaca and Jena, Louisiana, and the noose hung on the door at Columbia University. Each one of these things that comes up results in the same centrist position. And the election of a black president, a black president, I still get a thrill writing President Obama. He's black. He's not some other color. He's not white. It's not temporary. It's not because somebody got assassinated and he got in by accident. The black president was elected. That settles it. Many people don't like that.

ProfGeo, when McWhorter says "that settles it", there is nothing "centrist" about that claim.  P6's take was right on the money. Notice the clear difference in P6 saying he walked away after McWhorter equated the election of a black president was the cause "that ends any cause for complaints about racism" from your comment that "he's not talking about the end of racism at all" though McWhorter's airplane crash analogy (it rarely happens and doesn't cause wholesale air travel boycotts) is approximately just that -- saying, explicitly, that racism so insignificant as to be negligible in how we can live our lives -- as he talks out of both sides of each side of his mouth.

And, really, the disingenous part of a lot of stuff McWhorter says when he's trying to "represent" is all these straw-man arguments he concocts:

Were we ever thinking that there was going to be an America where there was nothing that we could call racism?

His repetition of this idea presupposes is an extension of this bs notion he ascribes to African Americans as a group -- that we think we can "only achieve under perfect or near-perfect conditions."  Which is double-talk when he erects another false argument over school funding like a person who says Imus was racist has expended all his breath and thinking and has nothing to say about public schools, etc.

There is a chance, I suppose, that a cartoon of a chimpanzee being shot might strike a critical mass of white people to go burn down an all-black town. There's a chance of that. I think it's so small that really we need to be thinking about things like how much money and being poured into our public schools and how that might help more black children learn how to read. I'm more interested in that.

The weird mutual exclusivity notion is sloppy and a clear indication of his intent to be deceiptful and lazy.  Instead of actually showing his "deftness" and attacking actual flaws in the position of people who would identify poor/ineffect school funding, etc. as an issue institutional racism he wants to claim that people who happen to take offense in those Imus situations not only don't have anything to say about public schools and helping more Black children in schools but don't care or do anything in those areas.... and his resume (and the resume of those he "represents") in those areas??

Please...

Nquest2xl: ProfGeo, when McWhorter says "that settles it", there is nothing "centrist" about that claim.

Just so you know, my use of quotes in my original post was deliberate. (What is centrist to McWhorter may not be centrist to another. I suspect he's leaving himself wiggle room so he can claim to be "centrist" most if not all the time.) Also, I'm in overall agreement with your points and with P6's current & previous writings on McWhorter. To the larger point that McWhorter comes off as an unreasonably smug ass who minimizes the effects of racism, fine. We do seem to differ on the one specific item, "that settles it." I think it has to be taken in context with what was said before and after.

JOHN MCWHORTER: ...That settles it. Many people don't like that.

BILL MOYERS: With a lot of white votes, by the way.

JOHN MCWHORTER: With a lot of white votes. And so many people don't like that that really settles the position in the middle. But that's where the conversation is always going to be.

Noting that Holder is being boxed in by the lone phrase "nation of cowards," and mainstream media can only seem to recollect MLK's "content of their character," I'd like not to do that here, even if we're talking about McWhorter.

Duly noted that P6 said "that ends any cause for complaints about racism." I read that wrong, but even with the correction I'm not seeing that McWhorter said or implied in the Moyers interview that having a black president ends any cause for complaints. I suggest that in this interview he's about something else. He wants the complaints to end not because Obama's been elected, but rather because (in his opinion) taking offense is not doing any good. That's how I read his closing message to Holder.

I find it interesting that Bill Moyers -- a journalist that's often viewed having impeccable liberal credentials -- continues to invite black conservatives on his program without challenging their arguments in the slightest. The same thing happened when he invited Shelby Steele. Moyers allowed Steele to get away scot-free defaming black people collectively as culturally dysfunctional group of people who view white folks differently than that pure, exceptional, intelligent, articulate Obama. According to Steele, because of Obama's biracial heritage, he knows that white people aren't inherently evil, but the same can't be said for the rest of Black America, thus, Obama has to "bargain" with both communities. Throughout all of this I kept waiting, WAITING, for Moyers, Mr. Hero-to-American-Liberals-Everywhere, to use some of his journalistic skills and challenge Steele. Sadly, it didn't happen.

I believe one of the reasons Moyers continues to invite black conservative "scholars" on his program, allowing them to spread their propaganda -- particularly about "cultural pathologies" -- without challenging them is because he agrees with a lot of their theories. Moyers was one of the key journalists in the 80s who legitimatized the whole cultural pathology arguments regarding black families with his PBS documentary on the subject in the 80s. (He was also one of the key figures in the Johnson Administration who sympathized with Daniel Patrick Moynihan's study on the black family, which prompted Moyers to convince Johnson to add something about "good parenting" in the speech Johnson delivered at Howard.)

So what's next? Moyers inviting Thomas Sowell weeks from now to discuss the stimulus, pondering if green jobs and other infrastructure spending in urban communities will help black folks' terrible high unemployment rate? Or better yet, Moyers can invite hack John Ridley (someone who often prances around in liberal garb) to dissect black culture as the root cause for him and his audience. Ridley's shameful article at Esquire magazine years ago was nothing more than a rough draft of the crap that Moyers believe in anyway.

Preston, damn near every old white dude has Black folk issues.

Well, I don't know if it's just old dudes. More than a few white liberals want blacks to support the causes they care about, and they certainly want us to vote for liberals. But on the other hand, on some level, they don't think we can handle liberalism, if that makes any sense. Not only do they want us to be personally puritanical, they want us to enforce that puratanism on other blacks. I noticed two small but telling manifestations of this attitude the other day. One of the books on the schedule of TPM's "Progressive Book Club" is a recently-published biography of Booker T. Washington. I looked at the archive of previously discussed books, and there is not one "black book" there. Secondly, I noticed that Digby has two black blogs on her roll- Oliver Willis and Cobb. However, there was no blog listed which I could identify as white conservative.

The old dude comment was for Bill Moyers, who is so on point with most other stuff...I really tend to skip his show when he has Black folk on there.

I can't tell you about TPM's Booker thing; Because it's Booker, I wouldn't have been surprised to see them link Shelby's NY Times review of the book. As for Digby, I am on her blogroll...the number of A-Listers with that courage is...small. I would class Oliver as right-most centrist (and I've come to recognize the current polity would see me as left-most centrist). Other than certain particular issues, I really have no beef with him.

Digby's Cobb situation is interesting...Digby apparently reviews her blogroll about as frequently as I do. That link is to the url http://www.mdcbowen.org/blog/, which he hasn't used since we used to participate at each other's sites regularly. He was a different blogger back then; he actually was the one that gave me some small hope for Black Conservatives before he changed and snatched it away. If she actually followed Cobb, he'd have been out of there quite a while ago...as you note, no other Conservative blogs on her blogroll.

That doesn't take away from your major point, though.

I feel you on that one, P6. I think the last memorable show where Moyers discussed race with a black scholar was when he invited James Cone. Interestingly enough, with many of the solid points Cone made throughout the interview, Moyers attempted to challenge him. Of course Cone is old school and extremely sharp, so with each rebuttal by Moyers, Cone effortlessly swatted in down like an annoying gnat. However, I find it revealing that Moyers didn't sit back too much and allowed Cone to steer the topic to where he wanted it to go like the black conservative guests on his program. Moyers gives more carte blanche to black conservatives on his program than the black liberal scholars.

My problem with the statement, "descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group in human history who have insisted that we can only achieve under perfect or near-perfect conditions," is that it's just not true. No one's saying we can't achieve under these conditions. In fact, to look at where we are compared to where we were and where the country is in terms of anti-black bias - we've overachieved! All we're asking for is better conditions. Fairness. Justice. So what if it's "impossible." We fight to do the impossible, I thought.

When he starts talking, McWhorter is going to insult the majority of Black Americans before he's done.

no1kstate:  No one's saying we can't achieve under these conditions.

And that's where McWhorter house of cards come down right on his own face.  He wants to have it both ways.  He wants to be the exceptional Negro while at the same time presenting himself as a (more) engaged/concerned part of the Black community.

Directly to the falling cards, McWhorter sets up a strawman knowing full well that no reputable Black leader/thinker or any significant amount of the Black public has said "we can't achieve" because racism still exists.  But he uses some long kinky straw and tangles himself in it in the process.  McWhorter argued (completely out of his narrow azz, mind you) that Black people who talk about racism aren't directing their energies to (more) important issues like school funding.  The problem with that is that school funding, by his own admission, requires petitioning the government (read: White folk... or something beyond Black self-help).  Of course, the purpose of resolving the school funding issue is to improve school conditions.

Simply put, McWhorter himself identified an issue (school funding/school conditions) where the "we can't achieve" argument can be made.  Clearly, one could argue that McWhorter not only identifies poor/inequitable school funding as a serious and significant issue impacting the Black community/students but also locates the lack of proper school funding as a source for academic achievement problems.  So, it follows that "we can't achieve" without the "perfect or near perfect" school funding situation.

That's what insults me.  A sucker to stupid/lazy to police the glaring holes in his logic.

"descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group in human history who have insisted that we can only achieve under perfect or near-perfect conditions," 

John McWhorter, Ph.D.

"For twenty-five years after slave time, there ain't no race of people ever traveled as fast as the Negro did."

Minnie Hollomon of Arkansas, former slave

Ahhh...  Here it is.  The Aug 19th BloggingheadsTV diavlog where McWhorter admits "pessism" because the presidential campaign at the time started looking like Obama would lose and the biggest thing McWhorter feared:

Black (and, perhaps, liberal White) people feeling "validated" by an Obama loss and attributing it to racism.

This, of course, is the contextual-conceptual backdrop for McWhorter's weird, off-the-wall, out-of-nowhere "black president.black.not white.black president" orgasm in the Moyer interview which McWhorter brought up as some kind of counterpoint to the reactions of people in the Black community to those [insignificant] instances where racism is alleged (e.g. Jena, LA and racial slur situations like Imus) and, to him, used as a gauge for the (high) level of racism present in the country which serves McWhorter's neurotic fantasy of the ever debilitated, excuse-making Black community that he imagines floats the notion that "we can't achieve" with any amount of racism around, let alone palpable amounts which, again, is ridiculous.

Jesse Jackson, for one, serves as a ready example of why McWhorter is a pathetic excuse for a race pimp.  For all "poverty pimp" labels and all the times he's been presented as the poster-boy for the "we can't achieve" crowd... and to crush McWhorter on his chosen topic for the thing we should be focusing on instead of talking about this is racism and that is racism... Jackson has PUSH/Excel among other things he's done, perfectly or not so perfectly, to emphasize the importance of academic achievement or, if nothing else, raise scholarship money for students.

Who decided McWhorter was a credible voice on issues of race? He's a linguist! Not a historian. Not a philosopher. Not someone who studied culture or anything like that. He's a linguist!

The most relevant thing he's ever said in regards to race is that black English is a version of English just as "proper" as standard English. And the fact that he has to remind people that black English is just as acceptable as standard English and doesn't denote some sort of intellectual inferiority should alert him to the function of racism in our society. He's an idiot.

Who decided McWhorter was a credible voice on issues of race?

The White people who promote him or otherwise offer him space/time to voice his opinions on race.  Oh, those White and those imaginary Black people he insists he "represents."

He's an idiot.

For sure. Addressing the nonsense he spouts, however, and showing the ready contradictions in what he spouts makes him a demonstrable idiot. That and its light-duty exercise... Did I mention another fine example of McWhorter's self-contradicting idiocy caught on tape?

*** His presentation during conference on Hurricane Katrina and the Roots of Poverty ***

At the end of the video, McWhore-ter asserts that the tantalizing allure of welfare was something them urban poor Black folks just couldn't resist, "very few innocent people could" he said even after citing Chinatowns as counterexamples for all the standard (liberal) things cited as the cause of urban poverty (what? they didn't have welfare in Chinatown or any other poverty-laden areas but the Black ones?) .  And, of course, racism isn't  in the equation even as he considers the controversial changes in welfare policies that occurred once available to Black folk.  Welfare policies promoted and authored by those do-good (aka paternalistic) White leftist who McWhorter deems blameworthy.

At the end of the video, McWhore-ter asserts that the tantalizing allure of welfare was something them urban poor Black folks just couldn't resist

Say what?

White people need to stay out of our intraracial politics. You don't see us going to Limbaugh as a spokesperson for them - just Republicans.

Loathe as I am to do so, I am compelled to remind you McWhorter is Black.

At the end of the video, McWhore-ter asserts that the tantalizing allure of welfare was something them urban poor Black folks just couldn't resist, "very few innocent people could"

Well, well. I wonder what he means by "innocent" people. Childlike?

"descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group in human history who have insisted that we can only achieve under perfect or near-perfect conditions," 

John McWhorter, Ph.D.

No, brother man, folks only needed sufficient conditions, not perfect or near perfect conditions.

"For twenty-five years after slave time, there ain't no race of people ever traveled as fast as the Negro did."

Minnie Hollomon of Arkansas, former slave

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.

George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

Many people know what Bush did.

And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

Bush was absolute evil.

Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

Bush is a psychological prisoner.

Bush has a lot to worry about.

Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG

_____________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.