I hope that this is true- the evolution of racial politics
 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628263723412543.html

Good question

when people get off of the idea that Al Jesse and Rev Wright (WTF?) are the only outlets for Black Thought when it comes to American politics...then we can progress...when those self same people realize that there are vast majority of other voices within the Black community (such as M.E. Dyson, Lewis Gordon, Dr. West and many others) that have the our concerns at heart then we can begin a dialogue but when all you can focus on is those 2 names (sorry but Wright doesn't count...) then there is nothing to talk about.

There's no doubt that these individuals (Wright/Sharpton/Jackson to a much lesser extent) make it easy for the uninformed to assume that they are, in fact, powerful voices for black Americans. Whether this is due to media overexposure, self-aggrandizing politicking or something somewhat more sinister, I'd guess it's something like 30000 times easier to find Al Sharpton on TV than Michael Eric Dyson, and this is a problem.

Now, sure, there's some onus on the uninformed to seek out the 'truth' - but when it comes to availability, work needs to be done in getting the proper voices to the forefront of the discussion.

Amen.

I would agree with you but in this day and age...TV is not your only outlet and some people are just not willing to let old habits and figures die...

Oh I agree that there will always be a segment of the population that will always only hear what they want to hear. But I think if we've learned anything in the last 7 days, it's likely that that portion is simply not that big anymore - since we can only expect people to put in so much effort, it seems pretty important to get the best voices to the forefront.

close to 60% of a certain population ;)

you are sooo correct. black or not, i dont relate to people like Jackson/Sharpton...they come out the woodwork and stoke fires as far as im concerned. anytime something negative happens to a black person, they pop up and irritate the situation...some black people take what they say as the 1000% truth and i hate that. they could show up at my house right now and i wouldnt care...they are NOT my spokespeople!

i absolutely love Michael Eric Dyson. he is positive, educational, and non-confrontational. more people need to be introduced to him and his body of work.

The larger point is that black people are not monolithic and don't need "spokespersons" for the sake of the white dominated media. The black activists, intellectuals, leaders, and other key figures in our communities have never needed to be categorized as such until whites were searching for a black leader. "Who will lead black people and speak for them?" Annoying sentiment.

The blacks who want Jackson and Sharpton to be their spokespersons have a right to want that, although I am not one of them and question how many blacks actually feel this way. The blacks who don't, have plenty of more viable alternatives. Blacks are a large enough community that we can multitask--don't let whites tell us that we have to choose.

As a lighthearted aside about how people tend to choose "their leaders/key figures":
There is also a distinction between how researchers and intellectuals like West and Dyson, and others who are huge in academia but don't want to achieve mainstream notoriety, speak to fellow academicians versus how they approach nonacademicians and "laypersons." They have been pretty good at reaching outside of academia and speaking to the sensibilities of people who won't read journal articles or certain books. This requires a level of watering down, positivity, and nonconfrontation because it is appealing to educated persons outside the discipline but also to lesser educated and sometimes more sensitive people who can get offended and turn away, whether people want to admit it or not, which loses the larger message. The more cut-throat approaches are often reserved for fellow academicians because of a common understanding of the nature of the beast. :)

Great post. Playing devil's advocate here I will say that I have met a lot of black people who do feel that they are being "held down" by institutional racism- how would you argue that they have a legitimate complaint here now that the most powerful man in the world- elected by a majority white population- is black?

The fact that whites are asking this question highlights the salience of institutional racism. It's like these whites were waiting for something to relieve them of guilt or allow them to dismiss generations of inequality in an instant.

We have a legitimate complaint because there are still huge disparities in this society that aren't just about "lazy minorities who don't have a go get 'em attitude." The existence of blacks who reach a certain level simply means that there are instances where some blacks are seen as exceptions**, where a greater interest is served by allowing color barriers to weaken momentarily, or to create an image of progressiveness. Similar to what happens with gender, social class, and sexual orientation even when sexism and patriarchy, classism, and heterosexism are pervasive.

** White folks were the ones going on and on about Obama being biracial, educated, articulate, and elitist. Many whites needed these things so they could see Obama as "not just any black person/not your typical black man/he doesn't make me nervous/I voted for the white half."

Thank you for posting this. I've been wanting to say it but couldn't figure out how where to put it legitimately without being flamed. As I saw white America embrace Obama and spoke to unlikely Obama supporters, I realized that they were making him white in their own minds. That's how many of them related. I can't imagine the backlash if Obama did something that his supporters perceived as a "black action" (whatever that means to them) or supported what they believed to be a "black cause." And, look how he quickly he distanced himself from Rev. Wright and his black liberation theology (which, for the record, I believe white America needs to hear and understand). He made it easy for people to see him as a friend, but many people don't see him as he is.

To the question,

I have my own question. Now that there is going to be a black man in office, will the decision-makers in the criminal justice/law enforcement system now all of the sudden decide that it is a little odd that black people are disproportionately represented in the system? I have other questions too.

For the Southern states, a waning grip on U.S. politics
 

For the Southern states, a waning grip on U.S. politics
VERNON, Alabama: Fear of the politician with the unusual name and look did not end with last Tuesday's vote in this rural red swatch where mounted buck heads and rifles hang on the wall. This corner of the Deep South still resonates with negative feelings about the race of President-elect Barack Obama.
What may have ended on Election Day, though, is the centrality of the South to national politics. By voting so emphatically for Senator John McCain over Obama — supporting him in some areas in even greater numbers than they did President George W. Bush — voters from Texas to South Carolina and Kentucky may have marginalized their region for some time to come, political experts say.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/...ca/11south.php

Your question is better because it speaks to reality. Most blacks aren't engaged in racial fantasies or concerned with things like reparations for slavery. But white people, in general, keep talking about that as if they have some imaginary inside scoop. It's an attempt to minimize structural and cultural factors, to the point where they become laughable and easily dismissed by those in decision making positions.