HUD Secretary Speaks Against Black Victimhood

I don't understand all this support for a Black leader who doesn't have the interest, nor the inclination to help Black people.

After all, it must mean something when there are three people of color discussing this issue who state that this man is a Bush Patsy appealing to those of the dominant culture who feel they can speak for African Americans. This is all the while those who are susceptable to the tripe of this man to ignore what is being said.

*Sigh.* What will it take for those who presume to speak for us to listen? A PA system? A megaphone? A march on Washington?
---------------

And truthseeka, you're very welcome. You deserve it.




[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by whatukno

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I've heard this theory before. To me, it's the modern version of "blacks are lazy...", you know, what they used to say about us while we were working for free. So, because blacks weren't especially enthusiastic about the situation, they called us lazy. (Wouldn't you be lazy under those conditions?)

This is a tired excuse. I am sorry, black people are no lazier thain anyone else in this country. I have met a lot of hard working people from every single race on the planet. This is nothing more thain propetuating a steriotype.
:
Race relations in this country would drasticly improve if people would just remember they are people not black white grey blue silver orange whatever.

Very well put. Instead of emphasizing our differences, relations would be much more improved if we accentuated our commonalities.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

He influences what happens in America - for better or for worse.

He certainly does. Just look at all the poor people displaced by a nationwide gentrification trend since he was appointed.

Can you elaborate on this? What policies has he made that affect gentrification?

Gentrification has been on the rise in this nation at least since the 1980's. And all races have been displaced, not only blacks. It has much more to do with economics than anything else. And it will continue to increase as long as there are willing sellers and buyers.

Of course, it never ceases to amaze me that some minorities seem to favor the left, yet they were the ones who supported slavery. The democrats were the ones who implemented jim crow laws, etc. This is just another attempt by the left to continue the annihiliation of the middle class and the suppresion of the "have-nots". Not that the republican side is much better.

XphilesPhan- It shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Political parties evolve just like anything else. Jim crow laws were horrific and it's true that conservative southern democrats were top supporters of them. This changed however in the mid 1900s and by 1964 Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil RIghts Act into law. 1964 Republican candidate Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act and conservative whites in the deep south jumped on the republican bandwagon.

This isn't about labels, it's about people. The democratic white conservatives of the south had horrible ideas at that point in history, and many blacks paid with their lives fighting (against discrimination like Jim Crow laws). Today the majority of democrats have a good message for blacks and so it makes sense for them to support the party. The "left" isn't about destroying the middle class I'm not sure where you got that from? In fact every democrat I've spoken to feels the shrinking middle class is what's hurting this country.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Who's fault is it that the minimum wage is so low that America's working poor can barely afford to raise families?

Whose fault do you think it is? I'd really like to know.

I just don't get ATS sometimes.

What does ATS have to do with it? The members of ATS are of many different opinions on many different subjects. To imply that ATS has one mind about this subject is just another generalization. And not a particularly accurate one at that.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Though the playing field is better for blacks, it is still far from equal.

I, for one, am not making a claim that it's equal. I'm saying that as long as people draw on the anger and mistreatment of the past as a justification for their position in the present and an excuse for their possibilities for the future, they're going to keep riding the same merry-go-round and never break out and move forward.

You expect us to blame our less fortunate brothers and sisters for their plight

This isn't about blame. I expect you to hold them as able and responsible for GETTING OUT of their plight. Regardless how they got there and who put them there. I expect your brothers and sisters to stand up and take responsibility for getting themselves out of the current situation.

You expect us to be at a better position when, just a mere 40 years ago, your system overtly held us down. Pffft.

That's the very attitude that will keep you and your brothers and sisters right where they are. You, they, whomever, are letting something that happened 40 years ago, likely before you were born, dictate your future.

This is what these men are speaking about, I believe.

Is Juan Williams a patsy, too? Is he also not interested or inclined to help black people? Will every black person that calls for blacks to take responsibility for their lives and stop placing blame be called a patsy or a token figurehead, a mouthpiece? When are black people going to start listening to the very people who have become successful by taking responsibility for their position in life?

"Fifty percent of African-American children are dropping out of high schools," he said. "How a child can survive this economy without a high school education is beyond me."

Seventy percent of black children are born to single mothers today, he said. The number of blacks in poverty is more than double the national average.

Williams said many of his words are inspired by Bill Cosby, who received much criticism in 2004 when he asked blacks to stop blaming whites for their problems.

Are you telling me that black kids are dropping out of high school because of white people? Can someone explain that? Can you explain how it's the white people's fault that 70% of black kids are born to unwed mothers? There's nothing morally wrong with being an unwed mother, but I fail to understand how that can be charged to white people.

And exactly what good does it do to blame white people for the plight of the black man, anyway? How's that working to better the success rate of black people?

Are Shelby Steele, John McWhorter and Joseph C. Phillips also patsies, token figureheads and mouthpieces?

High ideals are sometimes lost in another of our problems, race relations. Despite decades of progress, much contemporary thought about race continues to rest on old ideas of white guilt and black victimization. Countering these views is a prominent black scholar, Shelby Steele, formerly a literature professor at San Jose State and now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
...
replacing historical white supremacy and black subjugation with contemporary white guilt and black victimization will not assure equal opportunity to all Americans.

Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (2001), where he rejected white racism as the cause of all black problems.
...
Winning, says McWhorter, requires blacks to reject anti-white attitudes, insistence on “authentic black” culture, and dependency on government. Instead, more blacks must join in pluralistic American culture, pursue individual achievement, and accept individual responsibility.

And before someone jumps on the idea of rejecting “authentic black” culture, I highly recommend reading a page or two from Joseph C. Phillips' book: "He Talk Like a White Boy". Of course, if you label him as a patsy or mouthpiece, his opinion isn't going to mean much to you anyway.

Just realize that there are black people out there who are taking responsibility for their own station in life (not blame, responsibility -- the ability to respond) and moving forward as strong, empowered, powerful, intelligent, entitled, beautiful black people.

Scramjet 76,

Thank you for your input. Very well said for a complex issue.

Unfortunately, this issue has to deal with more than "differences" and "commonalities". Instead, it has to deal with the aspects of privilege and the type of treatment that is doled out because of it.

The sad thing is that the HUD Secretary can pontificate all he likes. But he should never presume (like so many others who feel that they must tell the "Black Community" what to do) to finger-wag to simply appease the dominant culture and the politicians who installed him in his office.

The HUD Secretary is not running a petty fiefdom in which his puppet masters tell him what to say to Black people.

It is very healthy to be skeptical of a man who is propped up there only to do his boss' bidding in order to push the neo-con agenda along. The neo-con agenda clearly does not have the best interests of not only people of color, but people in general.

Leaders are very important. They should be chosen wisely. But they are not perfect. And unfortunately, some are truly are patsies because of their message and politics. Just because their message is acceptable to some does not mean that the rest of us are forced to take it.

After all, are white people "told" by the Bush handlers to blindly accept everything that Mr. Bush, our POTUS says? Pat Buchanan? George Will? Peggy Noonan? Tony Snow?

If they turned around and told "white people what they should do with their communites", there wouldn't simply be a riot. It'd be a "tea party" all over again.



[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]

In fact, something very interesting has come to my attention. It seems that Alphonso Jackson is not the "choir boy" that some take him to be.

This is from a wikipedia article about Frank Lautenberg:

HUD Secretary On May 9, 2006, Lautenberg called on President George W. Bush to demand the resignation of Alphonso Jackson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, because a speech Jackson made in which he implied that he cancelled a contract because the recipient expressed a negative opinion about Bush.

And, this is from the site, Source Watch:

Contracting Scandal
On April 28, 2006, Jackson gave a speech in Dallas in which he told a story about a contractor who made "a heck of a proposal and was on the [General Services Administration] list, so we selected him." However, after Jackson said the man told him, "I have a problem with your president... I don’t like President Bush," HUD changed its mind and "he didn't get the contract." Jackson said he told the man, "Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary." Jackson asked the crowd, "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Denying a contract based on political affiliation of opinions is a possible violation of the Competition in Contracting Act.

On May 3, a Jackson spokesperson, Dustee Tucker, told reporters that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was "an advertising contract with a minority publication."

On May 5, the Dallas Business Journal printed their story on the speech.

When first asked about the speech on May 9, spokesperson Tucker referred to the contractor as approaching Jackson in a "trashing, in a very aggressive way."

Also on May 9, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that bringing such political considerations into federal contracting was possibly illegal and requested all documents related to the contract mentioned in the speech or any other contract Jackson was involved in. [9] The same day, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) called on President George W. Bush to ask for Jackson's immediate resignation.

After making the initial comment about the contractor approaching Jackson "in a very aggressive way," Jackson spokesperson Tucker later on May 9 claimed that the story was purely "anecdotal" and that "he was merely trying to explain to the audience how people in D.C., will say critical things about the secretary, will unfairly characterize the president and then turn around and ask you for money... He did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract. He's not part of the contracting process."

On May 10, ThinkProgress bloggers tried to reach Tucker for further comment they were told that she was on "scheduled leave" and was not available for comment.

Wayne Madsen even reports this in his GOP scorecard:

GOP Scorecard
:
HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson:Under HUD Inspector General investigation for tying HUD contracts to political support for Bush administration.

Now really, is this a man that ought to be believed--especially when the person who was denied a contract was an African-American?



[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]

I don't want to be a fencesitter on this issue but I'm really feeling both sides of the argument.

This isn't about blame. I expect you to hold them as able and responsible for GETTING OUT of their plight. Regardless how they got there and who put them there. I expect your brothers and sisters to stand up and take responsibility for getting themselves out of the current situation.

Hello Benevolent Heretic- That's easier said than done. Did you grow up as a poor black person in a minority neighborhood, surrounded by gangs, violence, single moms, etc? The only way to really know something is to live it.

I don't believe that telling these people to "suck it up" and "dig your own way out of the hole" is really the answer. I mean we just gave these people equal rights 40 years ago.

Heretic & Ceci2006- What we need is a 2-way street. I'm fine with the secretary of HUB telling blacks to stop finger pointing and work hard, so long as the white people recognize that and continue to help sponser social programs to help the less fortunate.

The saying goes "tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are." Just another way of saying how profoundly an environment affects a living organism. It's time we acknowledge that there's a problem, yet forget about where the problem ultimately stems from (yes whites are somewhat to blame).

By the time human beings reach the age of 18 most of your prejudices have already been formed. The only way to change things is from the bottom up. You have to change the attitude of the people AT AN EARLY AGE. Which could lead into anther topic.... how to completely revamp the educational system in this country?

Bill Cosby regularly reads the riot act to blacks. Yet I don't think anyone here has called him a Bush Patsy. Is it because he is not a Bush appointee?

The message they are delivering is sound. People need to separate the man from the message, much like we need to do with MLK Jr., JFK, and others.

Originally posted by jsobecky
People need to separate the man from the message...

Exactly, I could not agree with you more. As you well know I don't agree with you on many things, but I have managed to separate you from this message.

Perhaps we can chant a couple kumbayas together?
.

Sounds good. We should get together in chat sometime and bury the hatchet, k?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
I don't want to be a fencesitter on this issue but I'm really feeling both sides of the argument.

I totally understand this because I do too.

Hello Benevolent Heretic-

Hey.

The only way to really know something is to live it.

I agree. I'm not claiming to know what it's like to grow up in a minority neighborhood, surrounded by gangs, violence and single moms.

I don't believe that telling these people to "suck it up" and "dig your own way out of the hole" is really the answer.

I'm not saying "suck it up". I'm saying take control. Claim your power. Realize that a high-school education is VITAL and don't drop out. I'm saying, "Black parents, stop giving your children a reason to fail. Keep them in school. Teach them about birth control. Get involved in their lives and let them know that they can do or be anything they want. Stop giving them the old, outdated message that white people are keeping them down."

That's just not true anymore.

so long as the white people recognize that and continue to help sponser social programs to help the less fortunate.

I'm all for programs that help the less fortunate, regardless of race. I want to see people take proper advantage of these programs, though. I'm not sure that's happening.

It's time we acknowledge that there's a problem, yet forget about where the problem ultimately stems from (yes whites are somewhat to blame).

I acknowledge there's a problem. I'm all for rectifying that problem. I support government and other programs to help people, as long as they're properly used.

When you say that whites are somewhat to blame, though... I'm a white person. How am I to blame? I don't set policy. I vote for those who do, though, just like black people do. I write letters to my congressmen. I strongly support equality of all people regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. How am I to blame?

To me, saying "whites are somewhat to blame" is the same as saying "blacks are somewhat criminal minded". It's an insult to me, because I'm not to blame. The color of my skin doesn't make me responsible for oppressing anyone. I've never oppressed a black person in my life. That's why I get a little defensive when people say "white people do this or that." It's the same as saying "black people do this or that."

By the time human beings reach the age of 18 most of your prejudices have already been formed. The only way to change things is from the bottom up. You have to change the attitude of the people AT AN EARLY AGE.

I was raised to think that black people were "less than" me. My parents were racist. Not violently, they were just ignorant. But I came out of it. I grew up and saw the world and met black people and even though racist attitudes had been instilled in me, I saw the truth. I changed my mind.

People can change. There are white people who are racist and jerks. But the majority of just regular white people aren't. It's the people who set policy that we need to work on. Yeah, most of them are white, but their whiteness isn't what makes them who they are. They're politicians. Most are corrupt. But if you (generic you) "hate" white people and hold white people responsible for the plight of the black man, your blame is misdirected, I believe.

See what I mean? I share a race with these aholes, but just because my skin is the same color doesn't mean I think like they do. And most white people don't. But when you say "white people" that means me. It's separatist. It's divisive. It gets us nowhere.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by jsobecky
People need to separate the man from the message...

Exactly, I could not agree with you more.
.

Aw, shucks. That warms my heart. Can I join in the chant? I disagree with jsobecky all the time, but burying the hatchet with him is one of the very best decisions I've made.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

ScramJet76,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am a little busy now, but I would like to answer it a little later.

But I would like to put a few things on the table right now.

It amazes me how people try to skirt over the issue when the man is found to be corrupt and investigated by the government.

It sort of really puts a dent in his message.

Now, the issue is whether Mr. Jackson should be trusted with telling Black people anything--especially when he turned down a brother's request for a contract based on political differences.

Now that, should be discussed--especially when it flat out demonstrates his contempt for other Blacks right in the open.

Bill Cosby, at least, has not ever demonstrated that same contempt for other brothers and sisters.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]

ScramJet76, let me at first thank you for treating me with dignity in your manner and speech. I appreciate it.

Originally quoted by ScramJet76
I don't believe that telling these people to "suck it up" and "dig your own way out of the hole" is really the answer. I mean we just gave these people equal rights 40 years ago.

That is something I will have to disagree on. I'll tell you why. You have to take into account the history of Slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era into your answer of telling a group of people to "suck it up".

It is fine and well to "pull yourself by your own bootstraps". Booker T. Washington had endorsed that very same thing. However, you have to realize that Black people have been working very hard over a long period time especially under very violent and restrictive circumstances that are still being played out today.

Unfortunately, with a glass ceiling still in place and a country that refuses to deal with its past in race relations, "sucking it up" and "digging one's self out of the hole" is not as easy as it seems.

What we need is a 2-way street. I'm fine with the secretary of HUB[sic] telling blacks to stop finger pointing and work hard, so long as the white people recognize that and continue to help sponser social programs to help the less fortunate.

Until real change and justice is employed by the system designed by the dominant culture, people of color will have to call out those who benefit from a system of privilege and bring it up to the plate.

It's not so much about the work. It is getting society to recognize and feel empathy for the injustices that have happened in the past presently.

To me, calling the dominant culture out on their wrongdoing is not fingerpointing. It is a sense of empowerment to get the ball rolling to make some definite changes. Hopefully someone will try to recognize this and work to make things better.

As long as people in general do not aid the least of their brethren in society, the same conditions will always take place. It is obvious that the old saying of "it takes a Village" need not apply in such acts of penalizing the poor and the working class for trying to make it each and every day.

The saying goes "tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are." Just another way of saying how profoundly an environment affects a living organism. It's time we acknowledge that there's a problem, yet forget about where the problem ultimately stems from (yes whites are somewhat to blame).

Unfortunately, the dominant culture uses "blaming" as a ideology. Blame catapulted some politicians who don't have our best interests at heart into the White House and Congress. And it also produced a society which hinges on lack of respect for another's culture since Sept. 11, 2001. Until people get a bearing on their own attitudes and treat American society as a "living organism", the finger waving and the presumption of telling other groups of people what to do will continue to remain.

However, it is duly noted and ironic that people who have benefitted from the system unwittingly by birth can still put down others without ever recognizing how detrimental and derogatory their behavior is.

Unfortunately, those who benefit from the system have never had a lesson in empathy and humanity. They rather build walls to keep the invaders out.

By the time human beings reach the age of 18 most of your prejudices have already been formed. The only way to change things is from the bottom up. You have to change the attitude of the people AT AN EARLY AGE. Which could lead into anther topic.... how to completely revamp the educational system in this country?

Education is partly the reason. History and the ability to recognize past wrongs is yet another. Until the people who have benefitted and assimilated into dominant culture come to grips with the past and work for a system of justice helping all, the same prejudices will be bred into their children and further generations. In order for a "village" to start along with the feelings of humanity, justice must be discussed and implemented.

However, those who have had privilege and have benefitted by it will fight tooth and nail with action, ideology and blame so that the system of injustice will continue.

That is why the support of Alphonso Jackson is so important to some because he is a figurehead that is sent by the dominant culture to fingerwag for them.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Here is more on the corruption scandal involving Alphonso Jackson as well as criticisms of his conduct.

Think Progress has a very concise article on this matter. Furthermore, they have on their site the Executive Summary and report which outlines Mr. Jackson's behavior:

HUD Secretary Admitted Professional ‘Bias’ Against Bush Critics, Ignored Warnings From Lawyers


Alphonso Jackson An investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Inspector General reportedly revealed that HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson instructed staff to award HUD contracts to President Bush’s political allies and withhold them from his political opponents. The HUD IG, however, has refused to make the full 340-page report public.

ThinkProgress — which has previously published the executive summary — has obtained access to the entire report. Testimony from Jackson, his top deputies, and HUD legal counsel, none of which has previously been reported, show that the agency set aside the rules, assisted its political allies, and made life difficult for its political opponents.

Afro-Netizen also has an article which outlines further actions that Mr. Jackson has participated in--past and presently:

Rewarding Bush's Faithful, Punishing His Critics

Jackson's office is already taking heat for awarding a recent HUD contract to Shirlington Limousine, the shady company that defense contractor Brent Wilkes --embroiled in the Duke Cunningham case -- used to "transport congressmen, CIA officials, and perhaps prostitutes to his Washington parties," according to Harpers. ThinkProgress reports that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has requested copies of all records pertaining to the contract and may push for an investigation.

Jackson, a former president of the Austin-based American Electric Power Company, is another in a long line of Bush cronies. Then-Governor Bush first appointed Jackson to the Texas Southern University Board of Regents. He joined HUD in 2001 as Deputy Secretary and got the top job months after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Jackson had fired a HUD whistleblower, Richard Mallory, who had gone public with his accusations of "a 'coverup' of fiscal improprieties that was allegedly engineered by a powerful Republican official in Washington, D.C."

There's a pattern here; Mallory replaced another senior HUD official, John Phillips, who was himself demoted "after he complained that his agency was being lax on corruption and mismanagement in the San Francisco Housing Authority," according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Phillips had criticized the agency in a letter to then-Deputy Secretary Alphonso Jackson.

Jackson is also a Bush "pioneer," who raised over $100,000 for President Bush's election in 2000. That year, according to Public Citizen, "The Republican Party named Jackson as assistant secretary of the 2000 Republican National Convention so this African-American could help it project an image of diversity."

On the Daily Kos, even more dirt on Alphonso Jackson continues to be kicked up:

Covering For A Cabinet Secretary?

Jackson wants us to believe his confession was concocted, but denying federal contracts based on support of the President doesn't seem that out of character for him. After all, Jackson is a Bush Pioneer. He is a man who had no problem aggressively campaigning for the President while on the taxpayer dime.

And maybe I would be able to accept HUD's illogical denial of the story if the agency had not lied to protect Jackson in the past. In 2002, HUD employee Richard W. Mallory was fired by Jackson for trying to expose the misuse of $1.8 million of federal funds by the San Fransico Housing Authority. Mallory, by the way, replaced another fired whistleblower.

When Mallory was fired for exposing the corruption, he wrote a series of letters to Alberto Gonzales and the secretary of HUD. He detailed how Jackson had orchestrated the cover-up and told him to not to makes waves, since the then-mayor of San Francisco (Willie Brown) was Jackson's friend.

When the press filed FOIA requests to obtain those letters, HUD denied they existed. That is, until they were leaked to the press. HUD, by the way, never launched an investigation into the corruption Mallory had detailed.

Well. I guess that also provides yet another reason why this man ought not to be believed.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]

BH, I know you read the entire article. Don't leave out the important parts.

The investigation "did not disclose any pattern or practice of issuing contracts based on political affiliation . . . however, there were some limited instances where political affiliation may have been a factor in contract issues involving Jackson," the report says.

Awarding contracts on the basis of party affiliation violates federal law.
...
According to two senior HUD officials, at a staff meeting this year "Jackson had advised . . . that when considering discretionary contracts, they should be considering supporters of the president," the report says.
...
The report says the HUD Office of Inspector General plans to evaluate whether "a more comprehensive audit of HUD contracting activities is feasible and warranted."

So, what they're saying is, yes, he's guilty, but, since we're choosing not to find him guilty at this time, we may investigate this again later. Wonder why... could this investigation have been politically-motivated as well?

Originally posted by BenevolentHeretic
But, really, what does this have to do with the subject? It seems like an attempt to discredit everything he says because he has been accused of partisan politics.

This has everything to do with the subject, BH. The Bush administration has a history of side-lining or just ignoring black issues and black people, that is, until it's time to accuse us of something. So, now, this guy, a Bush-attache from waaay back, jumps on the band-wagon, and I'm not supposed to be suspicious? Please.

Considering how many people on this site distrust the Bush administration, you would think that there would be more negative responses to what Mr. Jackson has said, aside from the black posters. I guess, it just goes to show: when it comes to blacks, white Americans stick with Bush. Interesting.

He doesn't need to be an authority on black people (whatever that is) for his opinion to have merit.

And, in my opinion, his opinion does have merit.

But that's the point I made earlier: your opinions don't have merit. Honestly, my own opinion doesn't. Why?

Because there are people whose specific purpose in life is to study this race thing and figure it out. Just like there are people who devote their lives to science, or the economy, or politics. Those are the people we should be listening to. Race is the only topic on ATS where people post their personal beliefs as facts and aren't called out on it. Until that changes, these threads will never get anywhere.

It's like, if Byrd wasn't here, and the Zacharia Sitchin-believers took over the Ancient Civ's forum. All these opinions are pseudoscience, including that of Mr. Jackson.

it's only logical for you to acknowledge that there are black people in this country who hold this dangerous and self-defeating victimization position. And IT, not the white man, is holding them back from being successful in this country.

The same thing could be said of whites who blame affirmative action and people of color for holding them back. Can we devote a thread to what's wrong with 'white people'? When did a white politician speak publically about their psychoses? Can 'the white community' please step up and tell them to stop blaming the black man for their position in life?

(If that sounded ridiculous to you, try to figure out why.)

That's why I get a little defensive when people say "white people do this or that." It's the same as saying "black people do this or that."

So, that being the case, can you see why black people wouldn't exactly welcome the words of Alphonso Jackson, Bill Cosby, or any of them?

Originally posted by ceci2006
Now, the issue is whether Mr. Jackson should be trusted with telling Black people anything--especially when he turned down a brother's request for a contract based on political differences.

Now that, should be discussed--especially when it flat out demonstrates his contempt for other Blacks right in the open.

This is what I'm saying! Especially when he turned the brother down, not because he was black, but because he was anti-Bush. Hence, my point about this statement being politically-motivated.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Whose fault do you think it is? I'd really like to know.

A Congress that hasn't raised the minimum wage since, I believe, 1997.

What did you think I was going to say?

What does ATS have to do with it? The members of ATS are of many different opinions on many different subjects. To imply that ATS has one mind about this subject is just another generalization. And not a particularly accurate one at that.

BH, hon, chill out.

This is what I said:

Something interesting I noticed: when I post the findings of people who, like, actually study race and its effects, they're dismissed, but this guy, this guy's opinion matters. I just don't get ATS sometimes.

I never said we all agreed. I was saying that I thought there were standards of evidence here, at ATS. This thread has shown that, obviously, those rules cease to apply when discussing race.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Mr. Jackson is merely a shill for the Bush administration and is politically motivated. That is enough for some to discount his words as shallow and unbelievable.

Bill Cosby says the same things. But once again, his words are rejected, but since he is of higher moral character and he is not a shill, there needs to be another reason to discount them. So in Cosby's case, the reason is that "blacks wouldn't welcome them" (?) apparently because they resent someone implying that it is their fault.

So who are we to believe? Those who study race relations as a profession, we are told.

The problem is, those "scholars" are not out there spreading their message. Most people wouldn't know them from Adam, so why would they believe them to begin with?

Unless....they agree with their preconceived conclusions.

One point regarding the minimum wage. Do not confuse it with a "living wage". The minimum wage is not and never was intended to support an individual, much less a family.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
BH, I know you read the entire article. Don't leave out the important parts.

Yes, that's why I mentioned political corruption. I do see and acknowledge that this guy makes decisions based on politics. And it's hard to know whether he actually believes himself when he talks about the black community or not. And it's just his opinion, just as mine is mine. It's one person. But I don't think the fact that he's politically corrupt means that everything he says is BS.

It's clear that some throw out the baby with the bath water. Sacrificing what might be an important message because of Jackson's personal corruption (which I don't need to be convinced of, thank you) could be a mistake. After all, there are plently of prominent black people who think along the same lines. (Did you happen to notice that they're fairly successful and wealthy? Could this be an important connection?) I see they were ignored as well. Are they all Bush supporters, too?

I happen to think that Jackson (and the other prominent, successful black people I mentioned who hold the same opinion) has a really good point. But that's just me.

The Bush administration has a history of side-lining or just ignoring black issues and black people,

And as I heard recently, "George Bush doesn't care about white people either."

The fact is he cares about rich people.

That's the point I always try to make in these threads and it gets ignored. Or else 'rich, corrupt people' gets equated with 'white people'. You want to see it that way, fine. Let the 'white people' take the blame for all the poor in this country. I'm tired of defending us.

I have discovered recently that I probably need an operation and I have no insurance. It got too expensive when Bush sent my husband's job overseas. And I can't get insurance again because I have had cancer. But don't worry, I'm white. I'll be taken care of because of that.

That's melodramatic , I know, but it's seriously how I feel sometimes defending white people in these conversations. There is no way that you will 'get' that it's not about being white, it's about being rich and corrupt. My opposition in this debate just insists on putting the blame on white people instead of the wealthy corrupt in this nation. Is it easier to say "white" than it is to say "corrupt" or "criminals" or "rich elite"?

Because I can understand that. It's easier to say "black people" than it is to say "criminals" or "hip-hop crack heads", but I resist the temptation. I know better.

And if you're not blaming white people and I'm totally off base, what exactly is it that you're trying to convince me of?

when it comes to blacks, white Americans stick with Bush. Interesting.

Oh, for Christ's sake. You think I agree with this man because he's a Bush person? Even though I've been advocating his message before I even heard of him?

Race is the only topic on ATS where people post their personal beliefs as facts and aren't called out on it.

What??? I honestly don't know where you get this. I am constantly called out on it. I don't know what you're talking about here. There would be no discussion if we weren't being called out. There would be no 75-page threads about it.

So, that being the case, can you see why black people wouldn't exactly welcome the words of Alphonso Jackson, Bill Cosby, or any of them?

I do. That's why I said I believe they're not talking to ALL black people, just those who are honestly using 'whitey' as an excuse. And I know they exist, whether you know it or not or are willing to admit it or not.

This is what I'm saying! Especially when he turned the brother down, not because he was black, but because he was anti-Bush.

Then why does it matter that he was black? This is a double standard. If Jackson's decision was politically motivated, it wouldn't matter what race the man was, but highlighting 'Especially when he turned the brother down' indicates that you think he should have accepted this brother because he was black, regardless of the politics involved. :shk:

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
What did you think I was going to say?

I honestly didn't know. That's why I asked. So Congress is at fault. But since most of them are white, we can just say "white people" and those white people who don't belong to or agree with Congress will just have to understand that we don't mean them.

And yes, there's that melodrama again. But think about it. Whenever someone says that our jails are full of black people so they're criminals or mentions that black people have kids right and left so they're overly promiscuous, or equates blacks with crackheads, think about how that feels to you, a non-criminal, non-promiscuous (I'm guessing), non-crackhead (again, assuming) black person. If you think that's racist when a white person says it, why is it ok for you (generic) to use the grouping of "white people", when what you really mean is "wealthy, corrupt, elite"?

BH, hon, chill out.

I'm chill. You know these discussions can get emotional. They wouldn't be so attractive and compelling (and fun) if they didn't.

But honestly, I'm getting quite weary of making my point. You know I get you. You know I agree with your points about institutionalized racism and affirmative action (used properly). I'm just so tired of trying to get people to stop blaming "white people" and using that phraseology. There are people out there who don't want black people to succeed. I totally agree with you on that. But to call them "white people" out of convenience is as incorrect and racist as it is to equate crack-heads with black people.

I know, you're weary, too. I know you're tired of dealing with the racism that exists in this country. But I have taken the step of realizing and putting into practice that criminals, drug dealers and welfare recipients don't mean the same thing as "black people". All I'm asking is for you (generic you) to have a change of mindset and realize and put into practice that "racist, wealthy, corrupt politicians" doesn't equate to "white people".

Stop thinking "white people" when what you mean is "racist, wealthy, corrupt politicians".

Originally posted by Scramjet76
It's time we acknowledge that there's a problem, yet forget about where the problem ultimately stems from (yes whites are somewhat to blame).

Did the HUD secretary deny a racial problem in this country? If so, I missed that part. His view on 'where the problem ultimately stems from' is that much of it stems from black people themselves holding themselves down. At least, that's what I get out of reading his stand.

How are white people to blame when a black person chooses to have unprotected sex and create a baby when they are a teenager? The new mother made the choice to have unprotected sex. I didn't make it for her.

How are white poeple to blame when a black man decides not to help raise his out-of-wedlock children? That was his choice to bring children into the world and not to take responsibility for them.

'Where the problem ultimately stems from' ... many poor choices that individuals make along the way perpetuate, or even exasperate, a difficult situation.

Originally posted by ceci2006
To me, calling the dominant culture out on their wrongdoing is not fingerpointing. .....
Unfortunately, the dominant culture uses "blaming" as a ideology.

Unfortunately, the minority culture uses 'blaming' as an ideology.

Or .. I should say ... SOME in the minority culture use blaming.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
can you see why black people wouldn't exactly welcome the words of Alphonso Jackson, Bill Cosby, or any of them?

... because it's easier to blame others (white people) and not take a long hard look at your* own bad decisions that have made your* own life worse. These people shine a light on an ugly truthful area that many black people don't want to look at.

(* 'your' is people in general .. not you HH)



[edit on 1/26/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Are they all Bush supporters, too?

I don't know about all of them, however, I do know that Bill Cosby received a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2002, from Bush. Not sure what that 'means', but yeah...

The fact is he cares about rich people.

That's the point I always try to make in these threads and it gets ignored. Or else 'rich, corrupt people' gets equated with 'white people'. You want to see it that way, fine. Let the 'white people' take the blame for all the poor in this country. I'm tired of defending us.

BH, the only reason you're tired of defending 'y'all' is because you're doing it all the time.

This thread was not about 'white people.' It was about a Bush-administration shill. In fact, that's basically what I said, and what you were replying to. It was you who asked me, why would his partisan past matter in this discussion? I responded, in short, because Bush doesn't care about black people. I didn't feel the need to add qualifiers, because we're talking about- what?- black people!

You read into what I said. The message you took away was: HH thinks that Bush cares about white people. No! I said he doesn't care about blacks. That doesn't take into any consideration how he feels about any group of white people, because they weren't the topic of conversation. See?

I placed the blame squarely where it belonged: on Bush's doorstep. You're the one who extrapolated that to mean 'white people.'

I, too, am tired... of being mischaracterized.

And if you're not blaming white people and I'm totally off base, what exactly is it that you're trying to convince me of?

I'm neither blaming white people, nor am I trying to convince you of anything.

I originally posted in this thread January 4th and 5th. For me, the conversation was basically over, that is, unless I could get my 'expert' to write an anonymous post enlightening us on Mr. Jackson's gentrification plan for the entire country. Barring that, I wasn't planning to post here again, until you posted several weeks later, on January 25th. In that post, you attempted to shred my argument. Since then I've been defending it, but as for me "trying to convince" you of something? Nope.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Race is the only topic on ATS where people post their personal beliefs as facts and aren't called out on it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What??? I honestly don't know where you get this. I am constantly called out on it. I don't know what you're talking about here. There would be no discussion if we weren't being called out. There would be no 75-page threads about it.

Another instance where you completely mischaracterize what I'm saying.

I didn't say, "People aren't called out for their personal beliefs."

I did say, "People aren't called out for stating their personal beliefs as fact.

Please, I would like to know your thoughts on what I actually did say...

That's why I said I believe they're not talking to ALL black people, just those who are honestly using 'whitey' as an excuse. And I know they exist, whether you know it or not or are willing to admit it or not.

And how exactly do you "know", BH? Please share that with us, how you could "know" the minds of millions of black people.

Then why does it matter that he was black? This is a double standard. If Jackson's decision was politically motivated, it wouldn't matter what race the man was, but highlighting 'Especially when he turned the brother down' indicates that you think he should have accepted this brother because he was black, regardless of the politics involved. :shk:

I love how you reply to stuff not even directed at you, but when I actually do write, directly to you, you ignore half the post. Why didn't you respond to the part about 'white people' who blame affirmative action for their poverty?

So Congress is at fault. But since most of them are white, we can just say "white people" and those white people who don't belong to or agree with Congress will just have to understand that we don't mean them.

Um...you could say that, if you wanted to.

Nobody else is saying it, but you could...

You know I get you. You know I agree with your points about institutionalized racism and affirmative action (used properly). I'm just so tired of trying to get people to stop blaming "white people" and using that phraseology. There are people out there who don't want black people to succeed. I totally agree with you on that. But to call them "white people" out of convenience is as incorrect and racist as it is to equate crack-heads with black people.

Actually, no, BH, I'm not entirely sure you get me sometimes. Because, if you did, you would have seen that not once in this thread did I make any generalizations about 'white people' being to blame. You introduced that element of the conversation to me. I was talking about the Bush administration.

The very fact that you can juxtapose a thought about "trying to get people to stop blaming 'white people'" and a thought about "people out there who don't want black people to succeed" should show you how petty the former appears in comparison to the latter. The former is a semantic thing, but the latter actually stops people from eating. Think about that. Hurt feelings vs no food.

That's not to say that I don't agree with you, we do need to use better terminology to identify who exactly is at fault here, but that's not what we were talking about, is it?

Stop thinking "white people" when what you mean is "racist, wealthy, corrupt politicians".

But, see, BH, I actually did identify the "racist, wealthy, corrupt politicians". I called their leader by name.

Maybe you should take your own advice.