Black Conservatives and Bro. Joseph C. phillips
 

How many of you knew that "Martin" from the Cosby Show is a brother of Alpha Phi Alpha and a black conservative writer
http://www.josephcphillips.com/. Anyway, he was on a panel at The New Black Vanguard Conference II that was basically about black conservatism and it's response to black leadership. The panel came on C-span 2 today and I was amazed at how the moderator (who was black preacher named Rev. Jesse L. Peterson) was able to say some of the most outrageous, self hating garbage about black people (he actually stated that "most black folks are just immoral", and that "You can't be a Christian and vote democrat"). I just can't believe that the Heritage Foundation and the conservative movement in general give this guy credence.

Back to "Martin" er..uh, Bro. Phillips, after listening to him, I don't think that this guy is a political conservative in that he just simply holds traditional values about personal responsibility, faith and family. These are not politically conservative values. He often found himself disagreeing with the other panelists because they were actually political conservatives in that they believed that inequality is justified and is mainly caused by the immoral actions of individuals. I think that his views were along the lines that America has gone away from valuing things like family and faith and the result is we see an overall decline in the quality of life of everyone. The government is charged to "Do its duty" to protect the natural rights of citizens that have to make good (read "moral") choices in order to have better lives. This isn't political conservatism, this is more political libertarianism. Political Conservatism wants to limit government unless it rewards people for having capital, while libertarianism is more about focusing government on protecting the natural rights of people rather than giving people percieved advantages. Neither one sees the realistic possibility of nor necessity to address social inequality in a profound way.

Check out these websites of the people that were on the panel and tell me what you think of conservative thought in light of the struggle for freedom, justice, and equality for all black people.

Heritage Foundation Website: http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev101105a.cfm

The org. founded by that 'ignant' moderator: http://www.bondinfo.org/

A black conservative blogger: http://www.lashawnbarber.com/

The (in)famous Shelby Steele: http://www.hoover.stanford.edu/bios/steele.html

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Phillips' views remind me of John McWhorter's views. Both these men are conservatives only in the fact that they don't usually spout the traditional Democratic Party line about Black people and poverty/personal responsibility, but that they generally break camp in terms of a lot of the core conservative tenets.

Then again, Bush &Co. have broken with a lot of the core conservative tenets as well...

I wouldn't mind seeing this program so I hope C-span will re-air it at some point.

I will say that regardless if you (as an african american) identify yourself as "conservative" or "libertarian", because it is not the label of "democrat" there is a majority of other african americans that have a misconception that you are somehow disconnected or (to put it plainly) don't care about the plight of AfAms. Truth be told I do think more AfAms would identify themselves with the conservative - maybe even libertarian thought, but don't for fear of being ostracized by the black community.

In general, I really do think that most african americans want to see more families staying or getting together, more responsible parenting, better schools, educational opportunities, a return to familial values and respect (How many threads are on GC that we speak of some bad kid that "needs a good whuppin'" to straighten out bad behavior or how we wouldn't dare talk to our parents in a certain manner?). Whether you subscribe to a conservative or democratic thought, those principles are typically shared by all.

Now how we implement these things....that's another story.

Did not know he is an Alpha, but he has a weekly column on www.eurweb.com that I read from time to time.

Re: Black Conservatives and Bro. Joseph C. phillips
 

I did. I met Bro. Phillips two years ago at the fraternity's Western Regional Convention in Denver, Colo. He's good friends with a chapter bruh, so I'm made aware of Bro. Phillips' work from time to time. ....some of it I get with, some of it I have to put aside.

This whole "Black conservative" thing is interesting, and really depends on the label you attach (as your post suggests). Traditionally, "we" are very much in the country's conservative strain. Haven't seen recent quantifiable statistics, but generally, we tend to attend church more regularly than the nat'tl average, we support "fair" policing (because our communities benefit first by its implementation), support school vouchers, etc... Historically, our family have been tighter (we just didn't put our elderly in nursing facilites, and pregnant girls went "away" to live with Big Ma) to have the babies, etc..

Sure, you can spotlight segments of our community and get a different picture, but in the main, I don't think our "conservatism" is at issue...Now if you ask why it doesn't translate into more Black Republicans, that's a different, and worthy, question.

I'm aware of LaShawn Barber and Shelby Steele, and some of the sites you've listed. Others are new for me and I'll have to review them.

Traditional, But not Republican
 

During the panel, Bro. Phillips noted that he suspects that about 90% of Black america is conservative, but only10% will claim republican party affiliation. While I don't think that 90% of our community is conservative politically, I do think that the majority of us (myself included) hold to traditional values of faith, family, and personal responsibility. Now, these things don't translate to republican politics because I, like most black people, realize that the possibility of having a better life isn't solely left up to personal choice. In order to have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", we have to have our "natural right" to choose, pursue and possess these things protected. These are the things that Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Malcolm X, and other revolutionaries were fighting for. This is what just government is all about. Now, A facsist reading of this says that we as individuals have to protect these things (might makes right). But a radical democracy says that governments are instituted by men to protects these rights. That is the idea put forth in the Declaration of Independence. This is also what Bro. Philips calls the traditional values of America.

Now, if we do an honest assessment of the history of America, we will see that the government has done a poor job of protecting the natural rights of minorities. I see this as the main source of inequality in America, therfore there must be a reform of the social order through direct redress by the American government in order for the government to begin to adequately protect the rights of blacks. This is where I disagree with conservatives. They don't think that inequality exists today because of historic and systemic causes. Therefore, inequality is the result of moral inadequacies of disadvantaged people. Government shouldn't do anything but reward people for being good capitalists (tax cuts and market driven policies). Sort of trickle down theory of government and morality.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

There's also Michael Bowen, an Alpha and a conservative, who runs a blog at http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/.

^^
I have been on Cobb and find him interesting.
I'm a centrist who isn't affiliated with either party. This is a good convo, and I'll have more thoughts tomorrow.

Re: Black Conservatives and Bro. Joseph C. phillips
 

Corrected link

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/steele.html

Re: Traditional, But not Republican
 

do you think that the perception of the republican party has prevented some of us from swinging in that direction? or is that we know innately that there is no party that can truly represent us?

Re: Re: Traditional, But not Republican
 

PREACH!! I had this same discussion the other day--Why do so many of us feel like the Democrat Party is FOR US and the Republican Party is AGAINST US? Alot of times, do we even know why we feel aligned with either party?

We rarely look at the other factors of conservatism and liberalism (Republican v Democrat); that is the less federal government -more state governance/less regulation of BIG business/harsher crimes for criminals/etc versus more active governance/more regulation of business/promotion of social welfare/less regulation of social norms ('to each his own' thinking) because it's easier to say "I'm a Democrat and Republicans can kiss my a$$", without ever doing the research to truly proclaim allegiance to either party.

This is sad. In response to darling1's comment, NO, I don't think most of us know that no one party can truly represent our interests. But then, what are OUR interests?

enigma_AKA

I think it was the Republican party's Southern Strategy that turned a lot of African Americans away from the party. I'm not religious, nor am I socially conservative, but I find myself agreeing with a lot of the rhetoric surrounding personal responsibility and the role it plays in our communities. Where I differ from conservatives like Steele is that I also understand and acknowledge that there is a legacy of social and political disenfranchisement that contributes to the state many of our communities are in.

I too am a registered Independent, but I have to say I'm going to find it mighty difficult to vote for any Republican who is the poster boy (or girl) of the Religious Right.

John McWhorter
 

In case you're interested in reading some of McWhorter's essays, you can find them here: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mcwhorter.htm

What if they truly believe in the Republican platform? Why do they have to be a poster boy/girl for the GOP/Religious Right? Why can't they just really like the Republican party: what they stand for and what they are about? And what about the poster children of the Democrat party? Is it easier voting for them because they are percieved to 'stand for' what 'we'/you are about?

I'd hate to think people were active in the political process just to be someone else's so-called poster child and not research their own opinions. This might be the case for some, but really, not for ALL.

enigma_AKA

BTW--Not trying to 'rag' or anything, but I will play Devil's Advocate because most of what I am studying involves Political Parties/Public Opinion and I am interested in how this plays out. Especially considering the rise of the conservative black coalition...

enigma_AKA: I have issues with the way the Religious Right is using fear, misinformation and ignorance to try to change the political discourse in the United States. My particular beef with them at this moment involves how they've tried to demonize gay marriage, but my list is literally longer than my arm. Because of that, a GOP candidate who rides on the Rel. Right's coattails (or espouses their talking points) will never get my vote.

What it really boils down to is that I don't think the Religious Right's agenda is truly a Republican agenda. I think the GOP has been co-opted by some pretty insidious forces, and that this takeover has been in the works for decades now, and started with -- you guessed it -- the Southern Strategy.

I don't think the ideals of personal responsibility and smaller government are solely Republican ideals, just as I don't think the issues of social justice and interest in the general welfare are Democratic ideals. Nothing in life is as black and white as political pundits will have us believe.

As I've said before, I'm not religious -- I firmly believe in a separation of church and state. Show me a moderate Republican who tells the Religious Right to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut, and I'll gladly pay attention to what he/she has to say. Until then, I'll always have a raised eyebrow whenever someone from the GOP speaks.

Sistermadly, I see where you're coming from.

I guess my issue is trying to figure out whether or not the finger is being pointed at more vocal conservatives, labeling them 'poster children' in the sake of just not being in agreeance with their ideas. Right or wrong (who decides?), a conservative is entitled to their fundamental beliefs of government setting of traditional social norms/small governments/self responsiblity/big business (no, these things aren't inherently Democratic OR Republican, but yes, they are the factors that most define the two sides of conservatism/liberalism;) which are most closely aligned with each respective party---it's just easier because most Americans 'consider' themselves polarized on two ends rather than three or four, maybe five) just as a liberal is entitled to their own. I know that's not what you are arguing, but it's been my observation that no one ever points the finger at knee-jerking liberals who rant about the government's responsiblity to the people, the right of every private citizen to his own privacy, etc. Why is that?

NB: When a Black conservative (in particular) voices his own take on how the country should be ran--however extreme that might be--he is then 'paid to say that', 'he is a ploy of the Republican party', etc, etc. In some cases he might be considered a 'sellout' and/or 'out of touch'. Why is this?

I don't believe that there will ever be a separation of church and state---this country, founded on Christian principles (whether or not the founders were actually Christian is up for grabs, but that's neither here nor there), has and will always use the Bible, THE BOOK for Christians, as a moral yardstick--the context of much of our legislation and legal precendency is based on the Bible and Christian teaching. But I digress--the question I should better ask is "Who is the problem? The extremists (Religious Right) or the GOP?" Is it the historical factors you have a problem (re: Southern Strategy) with or the party itself?

enigma_AKA

Re: Re: Re: Traditional, But not Republican
 

that is a very interesting comment. what are our interests? unlike decades ago, we have so much opportunity that to be 'for the people' doesnt seem to be as important. of course i could be wrong.

for me, i find that i have always been traditional (republican) on things like family and perhaps education. i am finding that i walk the line between conservatism and moderate thinking overall.

the fact that 'we' are not mostly of the same mindset anymore might work to our detriment. i cant help but feeling that too many of us are still waiting for the jacksons and the sharptons of the world to 'save' us, whereas those of us in the 'know' will be politicking for personal interests rather than for the people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Traditional, But not Republican
 

I don't think anyone can say what 'our' interests are anymore, either. Many people, including/especially ourselves, think in monolithic terms: what is and what is not BLACK, who is and who is not BLACK and BLACK people do this, think this, act this way, like these things, dislike these things, etc. There is nothing wrong with the moving out of monolithic thinking, but the issue arises when you--maybe outside of the 'we' thinking-- seek to educate those inside of the 'we' thinking. We're afraid to do it, because it's difficult and for so long we've been wrapped up that we never sought to find the real reasons why we felt that way all along. Then comes those looking for a photo-op and great soundbites...who are you out to help? Me ('we') or you?

For historical, sociopolitical and economic reasons, we've been out of 'the know'. It was to their (federal adminstrative's) advantage for the people majorly affected by the decisions made on a federal level to be ignorant--then 'we' would never complain or seek to change. So, when the Jacksons' and the Sharptons' come along and say that they are for 'us', it's much easier for us to go along with it because there hadn't been anyone for us since the late 60's/70's.

And now Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for 'us'. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying they are terrible people, but ummmm, Al Sharpton, please! Don't speak for me. Ever.

It is high time to figure out how to get people involved (I mean really involved--not that 'I'm a Democrat b/c I'm Black and Republicans hate us bulls###")without being disenfranchised by percieved issues with party lines. Be a Democrat because you understand their committment to increased government participation in public welfare and why that's important. Be a Republican because you understand that 'the least government is the best government' and why that's important. Whatever you decide, just know WHY you know it. Education, education, education!!

And yes, I am a FULL supporter of 'No Child Left Behind'!!!

enigma_AKA

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traditional, But not Republican
 

Excellent point!

Hallelujah! Someone understands me! :D

When I use the term "poster children", I mean the person who can only tow the party line without conveying any understanding of political or personal nuances. I suppose I could also say that this applies to anyone who slavishly tows the party line -- any party line -- and who never diverts from the party's approved talking points.

People do - just listen to Ann Coulter, or heck, listen to mainstream talk radio. In the past, most black pundits and political figures were careful not to criticize the left because the left was responsible for many of the social/civil rights advances that occurred during the last 50 years or so. I also think that Blacks have been silent on this issue because it's only now that people are waking up to the fact that a lot of these well-intentioned liberal policies are actually responsible for the state many of our communities are in. We've had a couple of generations of hindsight now, and it's only now that Black critics are starting to point fingers and investigate alternatives.

For the same reason people say being educated is "being white". Fear of losing black credibility, fear of stepping outside of cultural/community expectations, fear of being a trailblazer who has to do all of the work to bring people over to that way of thinking. I don't think that Black conservatives are paid to say what they've said -- okay, Armstrong Williams maybe, but not anyone else. ;)

(I've got lots to say on the whole Christian country thing, but I don't want to hijack the thread.) ;)

Both. The historical factors inform the current party platform and policies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traditional, But not Republican
 

i hear ya!!!

Sistermadly,

I see, I see. Great Discussion!!

:D

enigma_AKA

And darling1 and HoneyKiss1974------> on the same page! ;) <-------

yup
 

i have realized that with having children, i have either strengthen my views or a few issues but i am still on the fence about so many others.

i do know this, sharpton and jackson never really spoke for me..lol

Well, almost on the same page, lol. I'm still pretty much overall conservative, though I don't have any children. Once, I tried to say I was a moderate, but for the most part, I'm about 90%/10% cons/lib.

My parents told me they become more conservative once they became, well, parents. Looking out for the best interest of your children and their futures is most important in deciding what's what in politics and policy. I've only become more conservative through political discourse (i.e. participating in urban politics courses (next semester I am taking Race and Public Housing, Black Civil Rights and Race and Politics :D), going abroad, interning with CDBG programs, working in grant writing)----I plan on entering into a career of urban empowerment/public adminstration.

This discussion is one I have alot because of my conservative values and plans to work primarily in the Black Community. My thoughts are: I know it's not our fault (totally, that is) that we don't'/didn't know, but in 2005, it's no longer okay. Things need to change; we need to stop whinin' and complainin' and MOVE. We know what we need to do; it's time to do it. NO MORE EXCUSES!

And to think I started off college (which 96% of its' campus identifies with liberalism/Democrat) as a liberal...that was then; this is now.

enigma_AKA

...
 

dont let my posts fool you..lol. i dont believe its okay to sit around and let our whining be all that we do. i wish i can travel abroad to get a better view. in time and with ava and baby x in tow. parenthood has definitely got me thinking more.

for a number of years i have felt that people, regardless of culture cant sit back and let those with money and power 'dictate' how we should think. the bush administration has given this country a hard lesson in what happens when you listen to lies spun to be the truth.

its not like there is a fight to hide information anymore. we have the internet, the library, national archives and we have ourselves. more people are becoming more aware of what is going on. no longer can conspiracy theorists be labeled 'crazy' or ignored..well, not all. even our media has gotten less covert in their politics.

although i am a believer in sharing my knowledge and helping my fellow man, i refuse to be an enabler. i think it is counterproductive and perhaps speaks more to what black conservatism is. no one wants to forget the struggles our ancestors endured, but times are different. there is more access and greater ability to succeed now than 30 years ago.

what i think our peers are slowly realizing is that now WE are it. we are the ones who are in the positions to set policy, to change it and to make others accountable. we have to decide like you said, what party affiliation to support with full knowledge of what that entails. gone should be the days that people are democrat because that is what my parents were. you set yourself up to not be part of the solution.

darling1,

Point taken and understood. ;)

Best of luck, new Mommy!!

enigma_AKA

Great Discussion
 

I just wanted to comment...

I feel for a lot of african americans they feel like it's all in presentation and when they see the democratic party they feel like they can relate to the party as a whole. Most of the faces of the Democratic Party (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards) are people that in some way connect with the majority of african americans. But when you look at the Republican Party and their representation (George Bush, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney) they just don't come across to african americans as people who care about african americans. They are continuely saying and doing things that we don't agree with. I feel that most african americans understand that their needs to be a separation of church and state. That's one of the main things that frustrates me about the Republican Party or should I say Religious right that feel that everyone should be a christian. I am a christian and I understand they believe that the christian views are right (no pun intended) but I understand that there are other religions and who am I to say that my religion is superior to yours. I could go on and on about this subject. My friends and I always have these discussions about how we feel about the Democratic and Republican Party. One thing that we have all agreed on is that we don't really like to be identified as a Republican or Democratic cause we agree with each on some issues.


Maybe they should create new political parties. I don't know just my thoughts

So for the republican party, a small outspoken minority is the turn-off or is it their position on certain issues (ie abortion, the economy, educational rights, immigration policies, etc.) that do align with the ideas of those americans that are conservative? :confused:? I think its safe to say that each party has their vocal minority that we wish those on the outside wouldn't use as their rule of measurement (ie Cindy Sheehan and moveon.org come to mind for the more liberal/Dem parties) instead of really researching issues. Not saying that it applies to those that have posted here, but I have heard some of these same points posted before from other people. :)

But in all seriousness though, we've got to keep in mind that each of us (Af Am) has a varied priority list (if we can call it that) of things that are important to us personally, as well as what we believe to be the best solutions as to what ails most of our communities. That "list" will influence you. For some such as my self, its my faith - for others, it could be their wallet. It just variess, and that's ok. :)

We can talk about party steretypes and sock puppets until the cows come home and fry chicken. Ailments that disproportionately affect our communities such as broken families, sub-par public educational facilities, poverty, and just a general hopelessness - the thought that your current situation is as good as it will get - have got to be addressed in non-partisan ways.

Where is the love?
 

Great discussion !!!!

The thing that frustrates me about black conservatives is that there seems to be a lack of love for black people in there critique of the black condition. To hear people like Alan Keyes and that 'ignant' preacha' Rev. Peterson say things like "black people just are immoral" and " we will stop being profiled by police when we stop committing most of the crimes" to me just seems shrouded in self -hatred. Min. Farakhan was on C-Span this morning and he fielded calls about the march on Saturday. One of the things that I noticed was that he has the same beliefs that many conservatives want to call 'conservative' (i.e. strong family, faith, and personal responsibility). This is why I state emphatically that these values don't have to translate into conservative politics, and that you can hold these values as sacred and not have to fall into the self-hatred that I see in many black conservatives. Min. Farakhan will be quick to point out that there is a lack of discipline in our community that translates into a lot of bad choices that can in turn characterize our social, economic, and spiritual condition. But, his love of black people informs his perspective, and as a result, he asks the question of why so many of our people are finding themselves in these adverse social circumstances? The conservative just responds with the whole immoral schtick that really irks me, because to repond that way just insults all of the good black people who happen to be poor and disenfranchised in our society. Min. Farakhan's perspective turns to the posibilty of institutional racism that has more credance with me because there is sufficient evidence of this, and the logic is more responsible.

As far as whether black conservatives are sellouts, I think if they do what Rev. Peterson did on C-span yesterday, saying things like "cities were doing fine until black folks started running them" and "the people in the superdome after Katrina were dirty, immoral people" then that makes you a sellout. Those types of comments are what endear black conservatives to many white people, because it justifies the subhuman consideration of black people by the mainstream (white) national conscience. You can have "traditional" values without the rampant self-hatred I see in many black conservatives. Black conservatives get no respect in the black community not because black people don't like traditional family values, but because black people many times actually love being black and don't see "blackness" as a moral disadvantage that has to be unlearned or cleansed in order to be fully American. Our enemy is not our blackness, but the systemic racism that eats away at the very fabric of this nation.

Do we need our own political party? I think so, because neither Democrats nor Republicans speak to our unique position as people who do have traditional values yet see the need for radical change in the social order. This doesn't mean that we have to be a monolithic people, be we do need to value our own humanity. We should do what these political parties do, have a core platform of "essentials" (i.e. elimination of systemic evils, control of our own economic, cultural, and educational institutions, etc.) while being able to disagree on "non-essentials" (methods or priorities). This doesn't require a charasmatic leader, just organization.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

?
 

What, pray tell, would a Black political party base it's platform on?

~~~Black conservatives may be extremely critical of the Black situation, because, well, they are Black and they know from a first hand point of view, what society expects, what we expect of ourselves and how this whole thing actually plays out. I don't think it has anything to do with self hatred--dissapointment, yes, hatred, no. In one of my classes, taught by a White professor, he asked me why I felt so strongly about my conservative (politically speaking, not just socially speaking) values, especially in regards to the Black situation and I told him 'I expect better. I know we can do better. We haven't been handed the opportunities as other races (i.e. White people), but things have changed (resources available to us) and we need to get on the ball." To the other Blacks in the class who identified as liberals (again, politically speaking, not just socially speaking), I was 'insensitive' and yes, you guessed it, a 'sellout'--which I thought was funny---I was the only person who graduated from a historically Black Boarding school and whose parents stressed Black history/self identification since birth (we all were reading 'Miseducation of the Negro' and more in elementary school). I probably knew more about so-called 'being Black' than they did...but I digress...

So, not being with the majority of Blacks in my classes dealing with race and politics as far as political affiliation, I am, of course, more often than not beside the Whites in the class arguments/discussion. So, then, I guess, I'm trying to be 'like them' or I 'don't get it'.

~~~~The immorality schtick is important because its effects are ruining our people. Plain and simple. No, everyone didn't get the opportunity to know having many children with many men outside of wedlock is not normal or cohesive to the family structure or sometimes detrimental to the child's development is not good, but it doesn't make it okay. No, everyone didn't get the opportunity to learn that spending your money on childrens' educational vidoes versus those $200 gym shoes/insert brand name item here is not okay, but it doesn't make it okay. No, everyone didn't get the opportunity to learn that not only is going to school beneficial to your longterm success in life, it's beneficial to the community and your descendants, but that doesn't make it okay. I could go on and on, but my point is this: there needs to be less finger pointing, name calling and blame placing and more teaching. And that's beyond the classroom. It starts at home, with the village and people who will finally stop saying 'Well, such and such is doing/not doing this and look what happened' and start saying 'This is what we need to do to fix it. Let's get on a roll.'

Or at least, that's why I say. As a conservative Black, I feel obliged to educated my little cousins, my 'littles' (I'm a Big Sister), the foster children my parents raise and those who are a part of my brother's ministry (he has a ministry called 'Break the Cycle: I Dare You!'--go figure), that what they might be going through is not their fault, and that they can do more than what they ever thought they could acheive if they focus on the things that are important. They might go home to situations that might totally refute what I am showing them as an example and telling them in my interactions with them, but that's part of the learning process. And that doesn't even have anything to do with my being conservative.

What do we need to do?

Educate the parents. Educate the spirit. Educate a people. Stop making things okay when they aren't. Don't reward for things that are detrimental to your well being (i.e. giving welfare to 'repeat' offenders' or women, already on welfare with children, continue to have more children--they need to prove they will/already work and/or go to school before their aid is increased OR support videos/entire stations that hype up a lot of this nonsense/mentality). White people saying this same stuff doesn't make it wrong; a lot of times they are right, but we don't want to hear it. Call them racist. Say they don't understand. When Bill Cosby says it, he's 'getting old and out line' and is 'saying what White people have been telling him'. We can say it's not a bad thing and/or ignore it, but the numbers don't lie (number/percentage of single mothers vs. married couples in the Black community, those graduating from high school and those going to prison, etc.) and neither does the situation. So something has to give.

In the meanwhile, we don't have a party. And as most of you know, especially if you've ever taken a politics course, this country is based on a two party system. It's much easier to align yourself with either one than to try to rally up people, many of whom may not be neccessarily apathetic, but not interested in/not able to vote/participate in the political process, and create a party. With what's already here, we need to make a change.

enigma_AKA

I think its fair to say that we already have a "black platform". Regardless of personall affiliation, everyone seems to agree on those areas that we need to tackle, such as the lack of familial units, education, etc.

Again its the "how" we choose to tackle these problems that lies at the heart of the issue. Its the "how" that makes a "Black party" difficult to formulate and really get organized into a force of radical social change.

enigma_AKA, I just wanted to say you should run for office. :)

Bro. Cushite, excellent analysis on the traditional values point. After all, black folk have fought, bled and died in every war this nation has ever fought, and despite the institutional hurdles of history and the present, many adhere to the capitalistic/democratic system. I douby you'll find a more loyal group of people in the nation. Besides, "traditional" values are neither "black" nor "white." They just are.

I have to get off the train, however, on the 3rd party tip. The two party system is too well entrenched in this country, IMO. The system (legis/exec/judicial branches of gov't) is designed to retard radical change in the social order. Politically, we'd do better building primary and generational wealth (which is ultimately what both the Republican and Democratic parties respect) and building grassroots political/economic coalitions around regional issues of commonality and making both parties take notice, and fight for our votes.

...by the way how many credit hours are we earning for this thread? :cool:

Better yet, why isn't C-Span covering this discussion? :confused:

:cool: :D

Credit Hours---I heard THAT!!
 

...especially since a girl is trying to graduate next semester...double major WITH a minor IN four years, okay!!??!!! :D

Honeykiss1974, you are right, there IS a Black platform. However, the political alignment of parties won't allow for a non-extremist conservative/liberal to hold the torch for Blacks and/or to support THAT platform (a senstivity to historical issues while addressing the 'now' matters). Extremists (tools like Alan Keyes--what a tactless so-and-so :rolleyes: !) sell. Middle men/women like myself and others on this board don't. We don't sell because the parties themselves have become represented by the extremists and Americans (at least the voting ones) have taken their cues and gone with it. The rest of those who aren't straight ticket Democrat or Republican either don't vote or just go with the one that is most influential at the time/at that place.

Also, the 'how' is THE key factor in this debate. When working on a political campaign a few years ago in Detroit/Highland Park (anyone from there can understand it), I was thinking, as many people do, 'Why won't these/we (constituents of the respective areas) people vote? How hard can it be?', until I realized every other woman/man I asked to register/attend the education classes offered at the community college/high school told me:

A) I have to work. I already don't get paid enough so I have to take on more hours, etc
B) I have to find someone to watch my kid(s). My mom/grandmother/sister/aunt/whatever cannot because they have to work/already watching someone else's.
C) Don't care.
D) All of the above

So then, I realized there needs to be an option or a voice that speaks to all of the above responses. Because you have to--this affects you the most! And once I got over my fear, my hurt and dissapointment, I told them that. A lot weren't receptive, but after a while, I was talking who those who were willing to listen, who heard what I had to say and were wiling to make a change. Not just in the immediate now, but in the future.

Simply put: there needs to be more of ME'S ;) and less of Keyes!! Lol--but seriously, though. Let's motivate! Let's teach instead of preach! We already know how people (i.e. the more vocal and influential ones) are 'fottin' up handling things so we don't need to beat that dead horse. We need to figure out how many ways to motivate...it won't take ONE thing; it might take many. But however long it needs to take, it needs to be done..

But we all need to be on the same page...I might write a manifesto--I tend to be good at long rambling posts; surely I could come up with SOMETHIN' or at least nothing short of a dissertation!!

---Man, midterms are kickin' my BUTT!!:( At least there is somewhere for me to vent to people who *hopefull* read and maybe understand where I'm coming from...

enigma_AKA

PS--Sistermadly, I might run for office if they actually did something in Detroit. I am pursuing Public Adminstration---I wanna control the funds!! Put them somewhere useful, instead of in Kwame Kilpatrick's (oops, did i type that aloud!) wallet!

Disproportionate poverty= Disproportionate Morality?
 

Enigma-AKA,

I don't think that Min. Farakahn, myself, or "Black Liberals" who see through the smokescreen of the conservative "Immorality schtick" are excusing the detrimental moral choices of anybody. Having babies too soon and out of wedlock would be detrimental to any population of people , but moreso to that population that doesn't have the social capital, fiscal resources, and institutional supports that comes with being middle class and white in America. The immorality=poverty arguement falls short on a variety of levels:


1. It assumes that the only source of poverty is personal choice. It tends to ignore or discount things like generational poverty and systemic barriers such as disproportionate incarceration of black men, inadequate access to healthcare and education, etc., which are more highly correlated with poverty than premarital sex and spending habits.

2. It also assumes that people who are not poor are more morally sound. All we have to do is look at the private lives of many of the "rich and famous" and we can see that the only thing that separates the social circumstance of many of the rich and many of the poor are resources, not character. You have good rich people and good poor people, if you equate good with making empowering (rather than destructive) moral choices. You also have bad rich people and bad poor people. The question that we as black people have to ask is do we truly have justice in our country if everybody's moral choices don't have the same moral consequences due to unequal resource distribution? Money seems to cover up many character flaws.

3. The most eggregious assertment that comes from the "Immorality Schtick" is that it seems to explain the disproportionate numbers of black people who find ourselves at the bottom of every single social and economic indicator by assuming that Black folk are just disproportionately immoral. I find it intrigung that , considering the history of this nation's treatment of black folks, and the moral resolve that black folks have demonstrated in the face of that treatment, that many want to lecture black people on morality. It's as if the social circumstance of black people is due to some kind of innate moral defect (like the curse of Ham myth). The only thing that has cursed black people has been the systemic destruction of our cultural, historical, psychic and moral selves due to hundreds of years of systemic oppression.

As black people, of course we hold ourselves to a high moral standards, because immorality under any circumstance is not only destructive, but just simply not right. But high morality without just relationships and a just society creates a pacified people rather than empowered one. You end up with a morally upright people who still find themselves at the bottom of every social indicator. Changing the morality of the oppressed without addressing the morality of the larger society doesn't change the larger society. In fact, it further entrenches the notion of inherent, justifiable inequality because the oppressed become satisfied with their own morality, rather than seeking a moral and just society. As we hold ourselves to high moral standards, we need to hold the government, the nation, and everybody to the highest of all moral standards, JUSTICE!!!!!!

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Not to muddy the waters here...
 

But could we talk about class issues in this discussion? Specifically, using class as a way to bridge the racial gap in politics? I'm interested in hearing (reading) people's thoughts on this.

It's interesting to me that right before Dr. King died that he started addressing poverty (and class) issues, but it seems that most of the thinkers/social activists/politicians in the United States were quick to let this issue fall by the wayside. I'm of the mind that if we could get a cross-racial/cross-cultural coaltion together to address the ways in which class affects people's personal choices, morality, and yes, their access to resources, we might actually begin to make some headway.

Thoughts?

Related News Story
 

From the Washington Post:

A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 13, 2005; 3:09 PM

In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

Story is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nation/special

Interesting
 

That article is very interesting. I doubt that his approval rating is actually that low with african americans. I would say that he probably is at a 10 percent but i guess anything is possible. I never really like those polls cause I don't know anyone that is ever contacted by these people. I wonder how they find them?

Anyways, I am personnally tired of hearing about Bush's poll numbers being so low. The majority of Americans voted for the man and now you all have to deal with him. I knew he would be bad that's why i didn't vote for him.

Re: Disproportionate poverty= Disproportionate Morality?
 

The Cushite,

Are we holding ourselves to that so-called moral standard now, though?

For one thing, to quote a friend of mine, "WE can't do what THEY do" or basically, when we don't go to school, when we don't settle down and have lot of babies, when we glorify lifestyles not becoming of men and women of character, WE aren't able to rely on family for financial and monetary support; WE cannot claim legacy to get into schools; WE are not close enough to resources that would enable us to have a better quality of life (i.e. Whites who are poor, with the exception of a few, live relatively close to middle/upper class areas, allowing them better schooling, better access to healthcare, more examples of success versus Blacks, who oftentimes concentrated in the urban areas, do not have access to these things) so we, systematically haven't been able to take use of advantages unavailable to us.

With 'White Flight', Industrial Movement (Frostbelt to the Sunbelt, in particular), and 'Public Welfare Programs' (this includes what we know as welfare, public housing, etc), Blacks haven't had the opportunity like some to even be motivated to do better. And then the cycle of destruction perpetuates itself. What to do about it? We aren't morally unsound; we are confused, misguided and misprioritized (is that a word--if not, I made it up!)

Why aren't there more eligible, accountable men available? They are any or a few of the following:
a) Doing whatever they can to get by
b) Incarcerated
c) Uneducated--disallowing them the advantages to seek better job opportunities (I don't knock a McJob, but many of our men are still there at 35, 45, 50 and so on? How CAN they be expected to do anymore than just get by?)
d) Unwilling to want more. I don't mean that they are like "Fot it; I like being disenfranchised/in poverty/etc,", it's that they are not MOTIVATED by people, serving as good role models and examples, of ways to do right (go to school, make a career, earn a REAL, legitimate living).

Women with many children/out of wedlock probably (any one or more of the following):

a) Came from a family (matriarchal) where it was expected/not looked down upon to have a child at 15/no male present (I mean husband, NOT a 'baby daddy')
b) Not educated on the reasons why developmentally, economically and socially, having a male/female counterpart is condusive to child development
c) Don't think it's a bad thing to have sex without adequate protection
d) Unwilling to expect more than what they see perpetuated in their daily lives.

And THIS is the base of that: why don't we say "No, you don't have to have sex! You are not a dog in heat---and if you feel so compelled to behave as such, USE a CONDOM!" Free clinics are begging people to use them but, 'It doesn't feel right with a condom' or 'He says if I use one then I don't love him/trust him'. Where are the men (getting back to traditional values) who are upholding that 'No, as a Black man, this is what I expect and this is what I do' --Laurence Fishburn in 'Boyz in the Hood' (was that it?)-esque man? He's in the suburbs, married with 2.5 children, and more often than not, trying to escape the reality he USED to know and not EDUCATE those left behind.

Morality IS at the base of this argument--the moral decay is prevelant in all of American society. You can argue that we might believe in a certain moral standard, but you cannot prove that we are all are actually living it/believing in it. All these things I've mentioned before aren't factors specific to the Black community; but the fact is that something is wrong and it doesn't affect other people like it affects us. Plain and simple.

It is not our job to look down upon anyone who is living these situations; it is not our job to spout conspiracy theories and exact to-the-t the historical reasons behind the current situations of many Blacks; it helps to know all the reasons why, but it is, more importantly, our job to help promote change.

Additionally, you are absolutely correct: we do need to hold ourselves and the government accountable. But they aren't going to babysit us and we can't rely on them to do EVERYTHING. There are advantages to having the federal government as impassioned as we are about effecting change, but if they aren't going to be about it, then we HAVE to be. Even if they are willing to commit to helping US out, we STILL need to be the ones to uphold the standards and expectations. there are resources and people made for this type of stuff; tap into what is here.

enigma_AKA

~~~Sidenote: ^^^That's what being a Black Greek is supposed to be about. Aside from strolling, calling and sponsoring step shows, we need to be about promoting change. And that's what most of us are about---so keep up the good work, us!! ;)