Successful Black Prejudice

phoenixhasrisin, I didn't know it was supposed to be a requirement to acknowledge the behavior in the OP. Can you point out the phrase or the sentence which says that we have to confirm anything of the like in order to post in the thread?

Otherwise again, I repeat, this thread isn't a confessional.

I'm sorry that you don't like my contributions to this thread. That's perfectly within your rights as it is mine to answer in any way I choose.

However, I thank you for being concerned about my remarks and posting habits. But, I don't need you or anyone else to strong-arm me into giving in to the doublespeak that you and the others are so happily obliged to do.

I also don't need you to second-guess how I should feel, think or act about this topic.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by semperfortis
No answers to this post?
No questions in regards to this post?
Is this too "Real"?

Not really. As an American man of mixed heritage I think it would have been easy for me to come upon the same conclusion, had I not made the decision to live the sort of life that I did.

Originally posted by ceci2006

I'm sorry that you don't like my contributions to this thread. That's perfectly within your rights as it is mine to answer in any way I choose.

But that's just it-- you have'nt answered anything.

However, I thank you for being concerned about my remarks and posting habits. But, I don't need you or anyone else to strong-arm me into giving into the doublespeak that you and the others are so happily obliged to do.
I also don't need you to second-guess how I should feel, think or act.

No one has strong armed you, so please, come off it. As for second guessing your feelings-- How can I second guess feelings that you have not stated? As for second guessing your thoughts-- How can I second guess thoughts that have not been conveyed?

You do have me on second guessing your actions, my bad. I was just always raised with the notion that you can't answer a question with a question, again, my bad.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

That's your opinion. I just tend to believe in challenging questions that are problematic. I'm sorry that you don't like that. But, frankly, I don't care really how you perceive what I'm doing.

My perception is that there are problems with the execution and treatment of this subject matter. Therefore, the apparent biases that are in the question not only skews the answers being given, but reinforces stereotypes about Black people. That is my answer.

I'm sorry that you can't handle anything else but the party line, but that's your perrogative.

So, go right ahead and march in line. No one's stopping you.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
My perception is that there are problems with the execution and treatment of this subject matter. Therefore, the apparent biases that are in the question not only skews the answers being given, but reinforces stereotypes about Black people. That is my answer.

OMFG, you actually gave an answer, unfotunately it wasn't to any question posed. Seriously, I thank you for trying.

Moving on...

How can you even begin to deal with the perceived "problems" associated with the "execution and treatment" of the subject matter, as well as the "apparent biases" that are in the question, when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the subject matter to begin with?

You can't ! It's like trying to decide if leprechauns are really money grubbing bastards when we can't agree whether or not leprechauns even exist, let alone whether or not they actually are holding onto all that sweet, sweet leprechaun gold...but I digest.

I'm sorry that you can handle anything else but the party line, but that's your perrogative.
So, go right ahead and march in line. No one's stopping you.

Party line? Are you kidding me? Unless I am mistaken I think I tried to address the common mis-conceptions of the "party line", and give an explanation why this phenomenon does actually occur. So please, tell me how I have been marching right in line.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Topic: Successful Black Prejudice

Let's please try to avoid steering discussion away from the topic and focus on the important questions raised in the original post:

Originally posted by semperfortis
Why is it that Successful Black's that support a Conservative or Republican agenda, routinely beleaguered by members of their own race as "sell outs", "Uncle Tom's" and even "Oreo's"?

Are Conservative Blacks subject to prejudice because of their race and political views?

I think most members would prefer to see more discussion about that than what a few of us think about each other.

One problem I keep having while reading this thread is that all or most of the successful Conservative black people discussed here are members of or tightly allied with the Bush Administration.

As I've stated before, I consider the entire Bush Administration to be the lowest of the low. While I see tons of reasons to criticize all members of this administration, I am opposed to involving race in those criticisms. Also as mentioned earlier, that is the least important factor.

So keeping close to the original post, are there any successful black Conservatives, who are not affiliated with the Bush administration? And what is the general opinion of the black community towards these people?

OMS,

Their are several examples...

Colin Powell cut ties with Bush almost immediately after the fiasco at the United Nations...
He has been referred to as an Uncle Tom

Opera is no Fan of Bush and she has been called a "Middle Aged White Woman."

Bill Cosby was subject to ridicule when he spoke out about his beliefs and relevant issues. Suffering being called "Incognegro" and an "Appeaser" as well as a "Sell Out."

There are the three I can name this minute...

Semper

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
One problem I keep having while reading this thread is that all or most of the successful Conservative black people discussed here are members of or tightly allied with the Bush Administration.

To be honest, after reading many of the posts in this thread these "successful Conservative black people" would still be bashed if they were linked to ANY presidential administration, period. This has way more to do with being a "successful black conservative" than it does with being linked to any corrupt party.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
As I've stated before, I consider the entire Bush Administration to be the lowest of the low.

So do I, agreed. But, despite the fact our President is a dick, he still holds a rather respectable/admirable position and title, that many dream of attaining one day.
Cool job to have, but unfortunately Bush is in the seat.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
And what is the general opinion of the black community towards these people?

What appears to be going on here is if you're a "successful black conservative" and you don't back the black race, and take the victimhood stance (blaming racism & everything is somebody else's fault), you're pretty much an insult to your race....at least that's the way I'm understanding it here.

What I do find interesting is there are many "successful Conservative white" people and the white race as a whole just sees them as "successful conservative white" people....at least I do, I don't know about everyone else. We don't bash Bush because he's a "successful Conservative white", we just bash him cause he's a corrupt ass in the Oval Office.

I don't know, maybe Ceci views some of these successful blacks the same way. So, Ceci if you just view them as corrupt individuals then just let it be that and leave the race issue out of it. Right?

[edit on 2-2-2007 by rocknroll]

[edit on 2-2-2007 by rocknroll]

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

OMFG, you actually gave an answer, unfotunately it wasn't to any question posed. Seriously, I thank you for trying.

I've been giving my answer all along. You had claimed that you couldn't comprehend what I was saying. Perhaps the problem lies not with my answers, but how you understand material in general. I don't why that is so. Others have fully understood what I've been saying.

How can you even begin to deal with the perceived "problems" associated with the "execution and treatment" of the subject matter, as well as the "apparent biases" that are in the question, when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the subject matter to begin with?

Again, that is your perception of my answer. I never said that I didn't acknowledge the existence of the "party line". However, there seems to be a lot of people in this thread trying to put words in my mouth....

But if you can find where I had said that I denied the phenomena verbatim, prove it.

You can't ! It's like trying to decide if leprechauns are really money grubbing bastards when we can't agree whether or not leprechauns even exist, let alone whether or not they actually are holding onto all that sweet, sweet leprechaun gold...but I digest.

Yes, you "digressed" with your vitriol for a couple of pages now. I am growing very tired of it.

Party line? Are you kidding me? Unless I am mistaken I think I tried to address the common mis-conceptions of the "party line", and give an explanation why this phenomenon does actually occur. So please, tell me how I have been marching right in line.

Okay, I was mistaken. You surely did. But, my answer to the tripe in the OP was to start breaking down the negativities associated with the question and challenge it, so that there is something that people can take away and think about instead of just saying that "Blacks call conservative Blacks 'Uncle Tom' and 'Oreo'." I'm sorry that you have issues with how I approach the subject matter.

What gives you the right to tell me how I'm supposed to approach the question? Have you not heard of intellectual freedom? Or are you used to just simply doing what you're told to do?

But the last time I looked, you were not the clearing house about how ATS members were supposed to approach the question. Thanks, but no thanks.

Now, I am going to stay on topic with little ceremony. I would appreciate doing this without your commentary about how "I should act" or what "I should answer".

Thank you, Majic for trying to keep things on an even keel around here.

And thank you, jsobecky, for your lovely comments on the last page.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
So keeping close to the original post, are there any successful black Conservatives, who are not affiliated with the Bush administration? And what is the general opinion of the black community towards these people?

Apparently, there are many. I ran across this website while doing research.
A Black Conservative.com

And here's the website of the National Black Republican Association.

In this post, a few pages ago, I hypothesized whether this truely was a race issue or perhaps maybe more of a political issue.

I am curious as to the general opinion of the black contributers on this thread about the individuals on these sites. Are some of these people seen as sell outs and others not?

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

OMS, that was an excellent point! You're partially right.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Colin Powell cut ties with Bush almost immediately after the fiasco at the United Nations...

The 'Uncle Tom' impression had already been made by then.

The opinion of a single black person: I found him guilty of 'Uncle Tom'- like behavior because of his association with Bush. Before his appointment, I just thought he was a really important guy in the military, who was also black. I found that cool.

Opera is no Fan of Bush and she has been called a "Middle Aged White Woman."

I agree with your assessment. I don't think the accusations about her are based on any perceived link to Bush.

Bill Cosby was subject to ridicule when he spoke out about his beliefs and relevant issues.

He also received a Presidential Medal of Honor from Bush.

I don't know if he got it before or after he made his controversial remarks, but, by the time I heard the story, the two incidents had conflated. I would have to say that his association with Bush factored into my disgust.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by HarlemHottie]

Here are some excerpts from this article...

Rosa Parks Laments

Rosa Parks Laments

I was pleased this week to see Rosa Parks come out and express sentiments that are sympatico with something I've been saying for some time.
~~~~~~~~
Condoleeza Rice, one of President Bush's closest friends and advisors, likes to tell how, when she was growing up in the segregated South, her father became a Republican because the Democrats refused to register him to vote. She's been a proud Republican for most of her life.
~~~~~~~
Only four blacks have ever been members of the U.S. Senate, and three of them were Republicans. Yet, over the last generation or so, most of black America has come to despise Republicans, and many seem to feel Republicans are the source of almost all racism in politics. Try as they might, Republicans can't seem to convince black Americans that they are welcome within the party. In fact, most Republican efforts in this regard are met with a sneer, and the insinuation that they "don't really mean it." Black Republicans are often called Uncle Toms and Oreo Cookies.
~~~~~~~
But we know that more blacks moved from poverty to the middle class during the Reagan years than at any prior time in American history.
~~~~~~~
George H.W. Bush was an NAACP supporter and fundraiser for years, both before he got into politics and after. Bush 43 has surrounded himself with black advisors, has more black cabinet members than any President in history, has campaigned harder for black votes than any Republican in generations--yet mostly draws sneers from that community.
~~~~~~~
Foer also implies that blacks don't like Republicans because of conservative policies on welfare. But, does he really think that 90% of blacks are opposed to get-tough policies on welfare? If so, then why did so many of them vote for Clinton, who cut welfare spending more than any Republican in history?
~~~~~~~
To say that it's "natural" that blacks should only support Democrats means you're saying that the black man's opinions are predetermined. It says the black woman's vote is to be taken for granted. It says that the color of your skin pre-determines your position on all the big issues of the day. You can be pigeonholed because of your skin color.
~~~~~~~~
I just ask my question again: should skin color determine party preference? When I see more than 90% of blacks voting a certain way, and ridiculing and dismissing the other party, it's hard not to conclude that, right now, it does.
~~~~~~~

Interesting that Rosa Parks spoke out as so many on this thread are trying to do..

Semper

I think it is also of interest the comments that Clarence Thomas had in response to the opposition to his confirmation...

Thomas’ angry reaction to the Democrats’ witch hunt was understandable. He accurately described the effort against him to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:


. . . as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree . . .

Despite their best efforts to stop him, Thomas narrowly escaped defeat and was seated on the Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas

Semper

[i[Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

You truly remind me of Damon Wayans Oswald Bates character from the old T.V. show "In Living Color". You think you actually sound intelligent, unfortunately, you just end up looking absurd...but I digest!

I'm sure you meant "but I digress". But it was very funny any way you look at it.

Although BH has candidly spoken how much she doesn't take any confirmation from me, I just have to say, I agree with HH on the assessment of the list of conservative Blacks. Bill Cosby, however, is more swarmy because of his questionable behavior with women. I believe that when the stories concerning his treatment of ladies came out, I began to lose a great deal of respect for him.

And OMS, what you said was rather brilliant. Thank you for your words in this thread.


[edit on 3-2-2007 by ceci2006]

I would like to post several sources that add to the portrait of Mrs. Parks and the record of the Bush Family when it comes to Civil Rights.

This is a general biography about Mrs. Parks.

Rosa Parks

Btw, Ms. Parks did not endorse J.C. Watts as a candidate. However, when Mr. Watts was considering retirement, Ms. Parks wrote him a letter asking him to stay in his position. She worked in Rep. John Conyers' office until 1988 after her career as a seamstress. She also sat on the board of Planned Parenthood.

These articles can shed some light on the Bush Family record on Civil Rights:

On TomPaine.com, there is a highly detailed article about Mr. Bush's speech (after five years of ignoring the organization) at the NAACP:

Bush Bombs At NAACP

People For the America Way also publishes a detailed report on Mr. Bush's civil rights record while in office:

The Bush Administration’s Abysmal Civil Rights Record

This is an interesting article that discusses the impact Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice has had on Mr. Bush's Civil Right's Record:

Powell, Rice Cannot Enhance Bush's Civil Rights Record

The Village Voice has an interesting article detailing the dealings of the Bush Family in terms of Civil Rights:

The Bush Family Coup

Other things about the Bush Family's Ties to Civil Rights:

George Bush
In 1964, Bush campaigned against the Civil Rights Act.

Lest we forget some things that might help some of us to question why conservatives (especially when endorsing issues might sound like "good advice" to the Black Community or candidates to solicit Black votes), ought not to be believed, especially in the wake of Hurricane Katrina:

Cronyisms

1) "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

— Rep. Richard H. Baker, 10-term Republican from Baton Rouge, LA (Washington Post, "Some GOP Legislators Hit Jarring Notes in Addressing Katrina," Charles Babington, Sept. 10, 2005.)


2) "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

— House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) speaking to three perplexed looking children at a make-shift refugee camp in Houston. (Houston Chronicle, "FEMA Says Debit Card Distribution at Reliant Park Complete," Salatheia Bryant and Mónica Guzmán, Sept. 9, 2005.)


3) "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them."

— George W.'s mom Barbara Bush, on evacuees staying at the Houston Astrodome. (NPR's Marketplace , Sept. 5, 2005.)

Just to give folks the other side of this complex issue.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I found him guilty of 'Uncle Tom'- like behavior because of his association with Bush.

That kinda just sounds like old fashioned political partisanship to me. There isn't anything wrong with partisanship ... I'm just saying that's what it sounds like - dislike a person and use derogatory names because of the political party or political leanings that they have.

If that is true for you of Colin Powell, that he's an 'Uncle Tom' because of his association with Bush 43, then considering the information posted by Semper on Rosa Parks do you consider her to be an 'Oreo' (or whatever)?

You'll never get an answer to your questions, FF.

Thanks for all the sources, folks... Good stuff.

Here is kind of how it appears to my peasant mind:

I don't think we can truthfully say that only Conservative black people are painted with the Oreo/Uncle Tom/Aunt Jemima crap... Oprah being the obvious example to illustrate this.

I personally opposed Thomas for SCUS not because he is black but because based on what I know of him, he is what I call 'anti-freedom'. I am a big fan of individual liberty, and Thomas does not appear to support that to the degree I would like (his position on Gonzales V State of Oregon is an example).

And the Civil Rights record of the Bush Administration is a disgrace, and not only in the area of black civil rights. Indefinite detention without charge ring a bell?

It seems to me that a lot of vitriol is thrown (that acutally used to be a crime, btw... "Vitriol throwing" ) at black conservatives, and much of it may be quite justified, based on politics. Or, at least as justified as is any politically based venom.

I remain opposed to the use of racial slurs in this regard, though. I am well convinced that racial terms (specifically the implication of whiteness) is used by some black people against other black people as an insult. I don't hold with that. I guess I assume that if that is the best someone can do, then I don't take them too seriously. Just as I don't take seriously white people who can't come up with anything better... It's about on the same level as "Your mother wears army boots". (Back when that phrase was common, women in the army were not.)

The political scene in the US has devolved so far that it is very difficult if not impossible to separate, for example, black conservatives from the Bush Administration. The propaganda machine is too effective; BushCo has corrupted the meaning of the term Conservative, etc.

Guess I'm not going to solve the argument here, though...

I'm gonna go shovel gravel...

edit for typo

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Open_Minded Skeptic]