HUD Secretary Speaks Against Black Victimhood

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jsobecky
They are being born into a live of poverty and neglect, and all that does is perpetuate the cycle of misery

Indeed, so the question arises, why have them? When the europeans came to america, they first used native indians as slaves. BUt they proved unsuitable, they became depressed, got sickly, and didn't reproduce. All slave populations, in fact, in history, have done that. Thats why slaves are usually war captives, like amoung the greeks and the romans. ANd as a result, the populations that were taken into slavery simply died out because of it. But blacks were stronger than that, they didn't say "I am a slave, life is not worth it" and fade away into non exsistence. They persevered and kept their population alive. IF they hadn't, none of the blacks around today would even exist. Life WAS worth it.
So why should blacks now decide not to exist anymore, merely because they are poor?

Slaveowners had a financial interest in the slaves.They treated them well, and paired off the healthy ones to breed healthy children. This had at least as much to do with black slave survival than any inherent survival instinct.

Discussions such as this, where people who point out the root causes of the problem are castigated.

The root cause goes back to slavery. The US denied them freedom, corralled them into urban centers, and then neglected those centers and allowed them to decay.
Its not the fault of the blacks that they continue to exist. Their non-existence isn't much of a solution to the problem.

I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that blacks shouldn't exist. Nobody ever said that or implied it. The topic that generated this spur was children being born out of wedlock and how that affects blacks. I brought up the fact that nobody seemed to worry about what it does to the children, but that point was ignored.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The message is "Don't blame white people. Take responsibility".

I kinda got the idea it was 'dont' blame white people for those things that you can take responsibility of yourself'. For those things that are in your control to do so; if you have children then take care of them, choose not to do drugs, choose to help yourself when the opportunity is there ...

Folks that are born into difficult situations exasperate them by making bad personal decisions. At least, that's what I was getting out of what he said.

Since some here have gone to such great lengths to discredit him,

The man has flaws. EVERYONE on the planet has flaws. EVERYONE. Even the posters here have flaws. If we are to automatically discredit people based upon the fact that they have flaws then everyone on this thread (this entire site) should just shut up and quit posting right now.

When someone is SERIOUSLY flawed it's a good indicator that what they say is probably nothing worth listening to. Questions -

- Are his flaws so great that they completely discredit him?
- Are his flaws an issue or a non-issue in regards to the message?
- Is what he says correct even though he is flawed (like the rest of us)?

Remember folks .. even a blind pig is able to find an acorn now and again. Sometimes flawed people actually manage to make sense once in a while. Is he making sense when he tells black people to take responsibility for their own every-day modern-day decisions?

Is he making sense when he tells black men not to make babies and abandon them?

Is he making sense when he tells black America to make the decision not to do drugs?

Is he making sense when he tells black America to study in school, even when the school itself is a difficult environment?

Is he making sense when he tells black America to take responsibility for their own personal day-to-day decisions?

Hey .. while we are at it .. can i get away with not taking responsibility for my personal decisions in my life because I'm only 2nd generation off the reservation?

Spelling edit ( Gawd, I cant' spell for anything!)



[edit on 1/27/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by jsobecky
children being born out of wedlock and how that affects blacks.

www.childtrendsdatabank.org...

~ %70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock.
~ %25 percent of white children are born out of wedlock.

Children in single parent families ARE affected negatively in many ways - emotionally and financially to say the least.

This is an example of taking personal responsibility. Except in the case of rape, no one has forced these people to have sex and make babies. It was a bad personal decision - one that has negative effects upon the person making the decision and upon the child as well.

White people are not to blame for black men making children and leaving them behind.

Edited to add - when I was a teen/young adult, our family didn't have health care. (I got health care once I joined the military). I knew enough NOT to have sex without using birth control. There are free clinics that have free birth control in this country. I choose not to have sexual relations, but others can choose to use the free clinics for the free birth control ... or use SELF CONTROL (it is possible, we aren't mindless animals).

'No health care' is not an excuse for making babies and abandoning them.



[edit on 1/27/2007 by FlyersFan]

Nygdan, another great post. Thanks for your in-depth analysis of Jackson's statements. I understand more than I did before. Not sure I get the bird, but that's ok. It's kind of pretty.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I kinda got the idea it was 'dont' blame white people for those things that you can take responsibility of yourself'. For those things that are in your control to do so; if you have children then take care of them, choose not to do drugs, choose to help yourself when the opportunity is there ...

Excellent! I totally agree. Of course as I have said, racism exists. And as Nygdan pointed out, historically, white people have been the ones to set up "the system". But there are many things going on in the poor black community that black people could be taking responsibility for and changing, but aren't. As I see it, there's almost an attitude of giving up on one's self and that's so sad. It's natural to want to blame someone else for everything, but it's harder to sort out what can be done and do it.

(Again, these things happen in poor white communities, too.)

even a blind pig is able to find an acorn now and again. Sometimes flawed people actually manage to make sense once in a while. Is he making sense when he tells black people to take responsibility for their own every-day modern-day decisions?

It makes sense to me. Good point about the pig. Does he have anything to do with the bird on the previous page?

[edit on 27-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Actually, his message was not to blame white people, not the system.

White people = the man
the man = the system

No?

Not exactly, no. I think there's a very important distinction that needs to be made. People are members of "the system" because they're wealthy and powerful in our country. Not because they're white. There are black people who are members of "the system". Take A. Jackson, C. Rice, C. Powell, etc. for example. They are members of the system, but they're black.

So white people = the system is incorrect.

Also, when you make the equasion white people = the system, not only are you leaving out the black people who are part of the system but you're including LOTS of white people who aren't at all part of the system. In fact, there are LOTS of white people who are being kept down by the system, too.

It's simply not a fair or accurate to say white people = the system.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Good point about the pig. Does he have anything to do with the bird on the previous page?

'even a blind pig can sometimes find an acorn' .. it's a VERY old saying. Meaning that sometimes even an idiot can get something right.

I didn't understand the bird picture either. It was a pretty bird though.
Nygdan .. the bird???

First all, I thank you Ngydan for your wonderful comments. They were rather precise and meticulously done. In many places, you hit the nail on the head, especially with your explaination about "the system".

However, I would like to add more interesting articles that might shed light on issues presented in this thread.

A question needs to be asked why these messages continue to be disseminated.

The first comes from nathanielturner.com. A very insightful article by Jonathan Scott asks the question whether white people would take a "white leader" giving them "tough love". In short, his answer is no:

If White America Had a Bill Cosby


In all events, it was just taken for granted that extremely harsh black self-criticism is par for the course. After all, African American intellectuals, from jackleg preachers and political organizers down to eminent scholars and critics like Harold Cruse, John Henrik Clarke, and Amiri Baraka, as well as our Nobel laureate in literature, Toni Morrison, are famous for never holding any punches when analyzing all backwardness among the people, such as misogyny, anti-democracy, provincialism, covetousness, opportunism, fatalism, dependency, and laziness. This hallmark of the African American tradition, evident in Dr. Cosby’s critique, is the surest sign that a democratic culture and a healthy collective are alive and still flourishing. Praise God.

But it got me thinking. When was the last time you heard a big white celebrity with moral authority raining down critical bombs on white people’s heads? For instance, Barbara Streisand taking the bully pulpit to chastise white Jews for members of their tribes’ betrayal of the civil rights agenda, and, no less immoral and directly related to civil rights, for their unconditional support of the Israeli apartheid state?

How about the Reverend Billy Graham? I don’t recall him ever blasting white Christians for making a disgrace of Jesus’ name by continuing to support racist leaders and reactionary social policies such as war, capital punishment, the Crime Bill, de-funding public education and U.S. cities in general, de-unionizing the workforce, repealing welfare, the aggressive assault on Affirmative Action, the upward redistribution of wealth in the form of tax cuts for multi-millionaires – each a different cause of racial segregation, widening socioeconomic inequalities, and the moral debasement of our society.

We know the answer: it’s called “white race” solidarity. For as soon as any prominent white leader starts criticizing white people’s bad behavior, the white identity falls apart and then the doors are pushed wide open for a new multiethnic U.S. populist movement, which remains the ruling class’ absolute worst nightmare.

The second article comes from Counterpunch. It is a fascinating item. It talks about the trend of "Black columnists blaming Blacks" as a way to keep their jobs in the media. It might provide a reason why such messages disparaging Blacks (and poor Blacks) are in the media. Perhaps, Jackson's disparagement of Black poor people and the dominant culture's praise of him come from these very same reasons. This text is by Ishmael Reed, noted poet. Here are a few excerpts:

The Colored Mind Doubles

Clarence Page and others are regularly blaming the victim. Harvard's Orlando Patterson is also brought in by the Neo Con op-ed editors at the Times to characterize the problems of African-Americans as self-inflicted, using the kind of argument that would be ripped to shreds in a freshman class room.
[...]
African-Americans have a number of individuals who are willing to serve as mind doubles. Some are supported by right wing think tanks like the Manhattan Institute's John McWhorter, black front man for the Eugenics movement. The Manhattan Institute boasts that they can provide enormous publicity for their fellows--the kind of clout that enables them to impose their viewpoints upon discussions about black issues--by using proxies who are unknown to black Americans. When McWhorter attacks me in Commentary, a magazine that praised Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve," or in his books, where do I go to get equal time? He once challenged me to a debate, threatening "to wipe up the floor with me," but when I accepted, he backed out.

Another proxy person-of-color intellectual for right wing interests is Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institute. He just got three hours on C-Span to explain his one-note theory that blacks complain too much about their "victimization." He accused blacks of expressing "victimization" when they complained about being robbed of their votes in Florida during the Presidential election of 2000, even though there is abundant evidence that they were victimized.

It makes one wonder whether these messages are perpetrated by individuals who have more of an interest in keeping their jobs, rather than caring about the state of Black America. By mainly writing what a sector of the country wants to hear, their "chastisements" perhaps are negated because it mainly satisfies the interests of a limited audience (i.e., the Neo-con audience and conservatives in general).




[edit on 27-1-2007 by ceci2006]

This is an article from John Ehrenberg. His article presents several interesting reasons why such messages of "tough love" are politically useful for the Right. In this light, Jackson's message might appear to be a dose of "good medicine" for the Black community. However, Jackson's words end up being part of the neo-con campaign to not only stir of the notion of fear; his words end up as propaganda to reinforce racist beliefs in the dominant culture. In fact, these beliefs are disseminated into the mainstream:

(I'm sorry the excerpt is a little long, but it outlines some core beliefs why such messages are making it in the mainstream.)

Black Gold: Mining Racial Fear in the Service of Wealth

But one particular area of public life trumped everything else during this period. Nowhere was social crisis more acute, nowhere were its effects so visible, and nowhere was the Right’s ability to exploit it more effective than when Americans turned their attention to the catastrophe engulfing the nation’s black population.

As black working-class neighborhoods were battered by a series of ruinous plagues, the Right learned how to deploy images of crime, violence and social pathology to assist its larger political project. Skillfully adapting key elements of the nation’s poisoned racial history, it constructed a new attack on equality and the welfare state that suddenly found a mass audience. As deindustrialization destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and disinvestment shattered prospects for recovery from riots and civil disorders, conservative solutions gained traction in conditions of chronic unemployment, a destructive heroin epidemic, a dramatic increase in violent crime, white flight, a cycle of arson and abandonment, the virtual disappearance of the two-parent black family, the collapse of basic institutions like public housing and schools, and – most important – liberal silence.
[...]
As blacks insisted on squandering their hard-won equality, conservatives claimed, they became increasingly parasitical on hardworking and productive taxpayers. It wasn’t long before a picture of an ungrateful, demanding and undeserving people began to serve the Right’s more general project of attacking social welfare. Its core position was easy to make, all the more so because it seemed obviously true that a large stratum of poor people had become dependent on a welfare state that did little but transfer resources from the hardworking, talented and overburdened to the lazy, incompetent and undeserving. A popular narrative suggested that blacks systematically undermined the normal rules of social progress through acts of individual and collective violence, public expressions of contempt for middle class morality, and excessive demands on others. It fed a racial discourse that began to blame an allegedly self-destructive and irresponsible population for its own failure to advance. The “grass roots” sentiment that stood behind this was framed by conservative analysts who claimed that blacks’ disorganized families, lack of respect for civility in public spaces, dependence on the state for direct income and benefits and constant demands for special treatment signaled how different their mores and behaviors were from those of earlier immigrants and hardworking, “normal” citizens.

Right-wing spokesmen claimed that city life was being undermined by the bad habits of black residents who rejected the norms of past generations of the urban poor. It wasn’t long before they were seconded by polemics against the “affirmative” steps that had addressed black poverty, unemployment and social isolation. Although there were significant differences between some of these early commentators, they all agreed on one thing: the most important threats to social peace, political stability and democratic institutions came from below.

The reasons why "the message" needs to be dismantled are tenfold, but there are some conclusions to make from this:

1)If people are so solely focused on Mr. Jackson's words of "black folk stop blaming whites", then they are not really that concerned about making the black community better. They only want Black people to "stop blaming whites".

2)The neo-cons put up a strawman in order to fuel racial fear and to reassure the dominant culture that these messages (used by their "black mind doubles") provide a different explaination than placing culpability on the history of Jim Crow and slavery.

3)Some Black columnists and politicians (especially those sponsored by the neocons) are parrotting the propaganda of the Right in order to keep their jobs and positions.

4)Some audiences appropriate these messages in order to "absolve" themselves of actually learning the societal reasons why such problems might exist in the larger structure of American society.

5)Mr. Jackson's words fall on deaf ears because his actions are motivated ideologically by his support of the Right. Clearly, he does not have any interest in making the Black Community better. He is just echoing what the neocon think tank tells him to in order to wage a disinformation campaign to discredit the efforts of Black people toward their advancement in American society.

6)Blaming white people was never the problem. Instead that phrase was used to further reinforce the "fear campaign" waged by the Right by placing blame on a vunerable population that consistently gets hammered in terms of class and race.

With that being said, it is fair to note that Mr. Jackson's "audience" was not intended for Black people; his words were intended for the neocon audience. He has no interest in changing the Black Community for the better or prescribing a new way of going about justice.



[edit on 27-1-2007 by ceci2006]

White people criticize white people all the time. Just today there was a demonstration in Washington critical of the administration. Others critcize Israel. Still others criticize Christians. The list goes on and on.

Originally posted by ceci2006
This is an article from John Ehrenberg. His article presents several interesting reasons why such messages of "tough love" are politically useful for the Right. In this light, Jackson's message might appear to be a dose of "good medicine" for the Black community. However, Jackson's words end up being part of the neo-con campaign to not only stir of the notion of fear; his words end up as propaganda to reinforce racist beliefs in the dominant culture. In fact, these beliefs are disseminated into the mainstream:

These are figments of your imagination, and an attempt to sell the public on premises that are false. The idea is, if it is said enough times, it will become accepted as truth.

The reasons why "the message" needs to be dismantled are tenfold, but there are some conclusions to make from this:

1)If people are so solely focused on Mr. Jackson's words of "black folk stop blaming whites", then they are not really that concerned about making the black community better. They only want Black people to "stop blaming whites".

That's right. Stop blaming whites. Stop calling it a "right-wing neo-con" conspiracy. If you need to blame whites, blame the white liberals who failed to get reparations for you.

2)The neo-cons put up a strawman in order to fuel racial fear and to reassure the dominant culture that these messages (used by their "black mind doubles") provide a different explaination than placing culpability on the history of Jim Crow and slavery.

That ticket has been punched one too many times, that wad of gum has been chewed so many times that it has no flavor left. No more mileage left on those tires.

3)Some Black columnists and politicians (especially those sponsored by the neocons) are parrotting the propaganda of the Right in order to keep their jobs and positions.

Of course, it can't possibly be that they truly believe what they say, can it? No, it must be that they are "mind doubles".

4)Some audiences appropriate these messages in order to "absolve" themselves of actually learning the societal reasons why such problems might exist in the larger structure of American society.

And there is no obligation for them to submerge themselves in your problems. Not until and unless you take an equal responsibility for solving their problems.

5)Mr. Jackson's words fall on deaf ears because his actions are motivated ideologically by his support of the Right. Clearly, he does not have any interest in making the Black Community better. He is just echoing what the neocon think tank tells him to in order to wage a disinformation campaign to discredit the efforts of Black people toward their advancement in American society.

Mr. Jackson does not exclusively represent the black community. His obligation is to the entire American public.

6)Blaming white people was never the problem. Instead that phrase was used to further reinforce the "fear campaign" waged by the Right by placing blame on a vunerable population that consistently gets hammered in terms of class and race.

There is no "fear campaign" that I am aware of. Nobody I know lives in fear of black people.

There are several questions and observances that need to be written in regards to the latest findings.


1) Why is one segment of American society fighting so hard to perpetuate Mr. Jackson's message in light of his corruption, negliegence of the poor and political leanings?

2) Is it because there are people who are more comfortable with Black people "being led"?

3) Why should the dominant culture feel that they need to tell Black people (not taking into account that Black folk are autonomous, cognitive human beings) how to live their lives?

4) Why can't the dominant culture accept that Black folk can see through the smoke screen that Mr. Jackson presents?


After all, there are the same social problems occurring in other communities in the same pattern as Black folk. And it would be hard pressed to note that there is no white leader telling white people how to live--especially when it comes to crime, amorality, incarceration and drug use.

This is especially the case with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. They are unmarried and had a child out of wedlock. Ms. Jolie unwittingly "stole" another woman's husband in the process. Yet, the media celebrates this. They do not harp on the amorality and the sexual promiscuity that resulted in an illegitimate birth. Robert Downey, Jr. and Charlie Sheen are both examples of drug use and promiscuity along with many other Hollywood stories that portray actors from the dominant culture having affairs, doing drugs, getting arrested, murdering people, alcoholism, abusing women and producing children out of wedlock. Their behavior is mirrored in the dominant culture. What about Hugh Grant and his propositioning of a prostitute?

All of these actors and plenty others from the dominant culture are more prone to be hired by their employers. Thus, they continue to work despite their loose morals and criminality.

5) Or does the dominant culture have problems with acknowledging their own dirty laundry, so much so that they have to project their own failures on another group of people?

6)Why does the dominant culture care? Why aren't they within the poor sectors of society helping out instead of just subscribing to the "blaming culture" argument?


[edit on 28-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Another question that needs to be continually explored is why are these messages disparaging the black poor (along with the Black Community) continue to be disseminated. There is a very interesting article from Salon (while critiquing David Horowitz) that explores this notion. A few excerpts, from Joel Dreyfuss' article are shared below:

"Black people must be stupid"

Why is it that white conservatives use black conservatives to support their arguments? If their ideas can stand on their own merits, why must they drag in blacks making the same arguments? It suggests that for all the posturing about merit, white conservatives feel they need someone with a different skin color to make their positions more credible. Horowitz laments the harsh criticism of black conservatives like Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly and others by mainstream blacks. But isn't the wholesale rejection of their arguments by African-Americans a sign of maturity? Blacks have looked beyond the color of their skin to the content of their character, and rejected their positions.

As one who has closely followed the arguments of conservatives of all colors for years, I think one of the problems with many of these black conservatives is that they simply restate old arguments made by white conservatives. When black conservatives try to make more nuanced arguments -- such as economist Glenn Loury's complaint that white conservatives offer no constructive alternatives to the programs they don't like -- they are expelled from the circles that initially welcomed them.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by ceci2006]

While reading more columns during my late-night forays on-line, I came across a small exchange that might shed some light on the "stop being a victim" aspect of "the message". It comes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It is a small exchange between a columnist (Eugene Kane) and his reader. I will post the exchange below:

Eugene Kane
Q:.... I believe the only way out of the chaos that the black community finds itself in is by giving up the victim mentality forever. Black leaders must step up and quit telling all the young people that they are victims and quit making excuses for bad behavior. Other black leaders must step forward and condemn bad behavior no matter what the persons race is.

[...]

A: Eugene Kane -[...] I hear a lot about victim mentality, but it seems what some people are saying is that black people shouldn't complain about anything until all of the social ills in the community have been solved. That's unrealistic, if you ask me.

Just a little food for thought providing some critical responses about "the victim mentality" portion of Mr. Jackson's comments.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
After all, there are the same social problems occurring in other communities in the same pattern as Black folk.

Yeah, but they don't blame another culture for their own problems.

Originally posted by ceci2006
All of these actors and plenty others from the dominant culture are more prone to be hired by their employers. Thus, they continue to work despite their loose morals and criminality.

Don't forget about Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, Samuel L. Jackson, 50 cent... None of them have any trouble getting work, either. Or do you consider them part of this "dominant culture"? (A question that will be ignored, I'm sure)

6)Why does the dominant culture care?

Not being part of the dominant culture, I can't answer any of the questions about it. I could speculate, but what good would that do?

You don't want the dominant culture to care? You don't want the affirmative action benefits that the dominant culture provides? Then don't take advantage of it. There are plenty of poor people who are using the benefits of the dominant culture to get out of their social problems, but it's not a requirement. You can't control whether or not they care, but you don't have to take advantage of it. Nobody does.

But as long as you equate "dominant culture" with "white people" and blame them for your problems as a community, they're going to care. If you want to separate from the dominant culture, go for it. Have a blast.

It's confusing that you seem to NOT want them to care, but on the other hand you think they owe you something.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Another question that needs to be continually explored is why are these messages disparaging the black poor (along with the Black Community) continue to be disseminated.

"Black people must be stupid"

Why is it that white conservatives use black conservatives to support their arguments? If their ideas can stand on their own merits, why must they drag in blacks making the same arguments? It suggests that for all the posturing about merit, white conservatives feel they need someone with a different skin color to make their positions more credible.

And this suggests that black conservatives are there for the taking. It suggests that they can't think for themselves and are available to be used by white folks. It suggests that these black conservatives aren't strong enough to speak for themselves or say what's really on their mind. Perhaps we should ask why black folks so readily choose to give up their platform to be a mouthpiece for the white man???

Originally posted by jsobecky
Stop calling it a "right-wing neo-con" conspiracy.

Yeah, everyone knows how much of a "right-wing neo-con" I am!

Hey, if you don't like the message, make it political and call it a right (or left) wing conspiracy! :shk:

I tell you... this is just becoming sadly comical. I have fueled this particular fire far too long. :shk:

First, let me say to Ngydan, you have far more patience than I could ever hope for, to actually take the time out of your life to respond to…well, talking points.

Originally posted by ceci2006
However, HH's proposal of a straw man argument is very good. Because Jackson's (as well as Cosby's) premise of his speech is based on one.

To be fair, I didn’t actually say that, so you can take the credit, but you might be right. When I used the term ‘straw-man argument’, I was referring to the ‘question’ BH asked me. I hadn’t thought about how it could apply to the whole conversation, but I can see how Jackson is basically saying, ‘You could either blame white people, or yourselves—stop blaming white people!’ Hmm. I may have more thoughts on this later. I reserve the right to clarify my statements.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Remember folks .. even a blind pig is able to find an acorn now and again.

I’m waiting for you to apply this adage to Sharpton, just once.

White people are not to blame for black men making children and leaving them behind.

It may not be all "white people," but, certainly you would agree, the prosecuting side of our criminal justice system consists predominately of "white people".

If you admit that 'racism still exists,' I don't understand how you could imagine that racism doesn't work itself into our criminal justice system, a criminal justice system that unjustly stops, arrests, charges, and sentences black men. This is in comparison to white men who commit the same crimes, FF.

With a system like that, how can you be surprised that more black men aren't home with their families?

Originally posted by BenevolentHeretic
I know you're busy

Some family popped in to visit, so I had my hands full.

You're going to have to explain to me how my specific question is a straw man argument.

I knew you were going to say that, which is why I posted the quote from wiki.

You said: If you don't agree with Jackson and his message to not blame white people, then are you saying white people are to blame?

Now, you say: I'm not stating that if you don't agree with Jackson then you do blame white people. I'm asking something very specific about his message.

You didn’t ask. You gave me two choices.

I'm asking a very specific question. I see the possible responses as:

I disagree with A Jackson on this specific point. I do think white people are to blame.

OR

I agree with A Jackson on this specific point. I don't think white people are to blame.

I have separated the man from the message.

I, otoh, cannot. I don’t understand how you can separate any man’s (or woman’s) opinion from his/her history. That is truly a foreign concept to me. I take in the full measure of a man, including every single piece of information I can find. How do you think people form opinions? Based on their individual histories.

Since some here have gone to such great lengths to discredit him, I'm asking are you also discrediting his entire message or does part of his message have some merit?

BH, I am not even considering the possibility that his message has any merit. That, imo, would be akin to the black community taking advice from David Duke, ie, someone who, in his everyday life, works diligently to undermine the very community he’s now claiming to help.

Do you get what I’m saying now?

I can think for myself. If, and that’s a huge ‘if’, his conclusion is right, I’m a smart girl, I’ll reach it myself, sans any help from the Bush administration which, frankly, hasn’t exhibited the best decision-making skills thus far.

If you, an apparent proponent of this theory, want to prepare a thread, with generally accepted sources, I'd definitely come. I would like to see the evidence compiled because I've heard this theory many times and, frankly, it's usually just hot air, without any substance.

But there are many things going on in the poor black community that black people could be taking responsibility for and changing, but aren't.

How many of these things correlate to poverty? Have you backed this up with any empirical evidence at all, or are these just idea off the top of your head?

I’m asking because there’s a lot of back-patting going on in this thread and I’d like to know why. From where I’m sitting, it appears that, all that Jackson's words have done is to confirm the long-held suspicions of some posters.

Again, these things happen in poor white communities, too.

So where are the white politicians/civil servants/entertainers speaking out against “poor white communites”? I asked this before, and you answered, loosely, because they aren’t the topic of discussion. I would be to differ. Everytime there’s a school shooting, the opportunity arises to discuss it in these race-based terms, but that doesn’t happen. Any idea as to why?

Edit to add: I know you weren't talking to me, BH, but I had to respond.

Perhaps we should ask why black folks so readily choose to give up their platform to be a mouthpiece for the white man???

Because "the white man" in question (higher-ups) have access to the money. Duh.

If you, like some extremely successful black people I know, are adequately distanced, emotionally, from the poorest of the 'black community', it's not very difficult to sell them out for your own interests.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by HarlemHottie]

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

It's confusing that you seem to NOT want them to care, but on the other hand you think they owe you something

How did you get to that conclusion? Please explain.


[edit on 28-1-2007 by ceci2006]

Everytime there’s a school shooting, the opportunity arises to discuss it in these race-based terms, but that doesn’t happen. Any idea as to why?

Uh, because people realize that they aren't race-based?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Everytime there’s a school shooting, the opportunity arises to discuss it in these race-based terms, but that doesn’t happen. Any idea as to why?

Uh, because people realize that they aren't race-based?

Exactly!

So why are American issues that also manifest in the 'black community' discussed as if they are race-based??

(Thank you for proving my point. )

Uh, because this whole thread has been made to read that AJ said blacks are at fault, when he was actually condemning black leaders that he says do a disservice to blacks? Iow, he was saying the same things that many people who are offended here are saying?

Add to say, AJ didn't say the same about white leaders, bc they aren't spreading the same message.