« Gingrich Says The Real Cause Of Virginia Tech Massacre Was Liberalism
Virginia Tech Student Government Asks The Media To Please Leave »
“If You Can’t Be Free, Be a Mystery”
The Black Conservatism of Clarence Thomas.
Liberals don’t get him. Conservatives don’t get him either (though they’re more likely to think they do). That’s because most White folks don’t know the history of Black Conservatism (a very distinct tradition from what is today called “conservatism”), and its characteristic pessimism on race relations.
Thomas has unfortunately been typecast–either as an “Uncle Tom” or as the triumphant proof of American meritocracy. This is unfortunate, because neither is true and he thinks neither is true. Taking Thomas seriously requires taking his actual ideology seriously, and that will lead to some uncomfortable moments for his enemies–but more so for his friends.
14 Responses to ““If You Can’t Be Free, Be a Mystery””
3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.
What a surprise. I imagine you don’t get much disenting opinions. Do you insert the words “The Moderate Voice is Great” in every comment you edit? Or maybe “Joe Gandelman for president”? I guess in a way you truly are a professional ventriloquist.
David -
I have to disagree with that statement. While undoubtedly true for some, the majority of people I know that believe “racism is permanent” believe so because history has shown that it is, and while it is noble to wish it was not, and worthwhile to try to help reduce it, to think it can be eliminated is naive.
You can see that in literally every single country and community in the world today. Those that follow ideals such as you describe as the Black Conservative mentality do over time overcome as a whole, if not in the case of all individuals.
In the US, Asians have faced almost as virulent racism in the past, and not only when they first came over, but as recently as WWII. There is still a strong sense of racism that they face to this day. But by rejecting a victim mentality, they have as a group had greater success than Black America has.
Also, many of those, such as myself, who believe that a perpetual attitude of victim-hood and ‘affirmative action’ are the single greatest barriers to Black America improving their overall position in society believe that it is so because those attitudes and programs actually increases the racism experienced by Blacks due to the resentments that they foster.
1) I think there is a qualitative difference between Whites and Blacks talking about the permanence of racism as currently understood. The difference is that if all White people committed to ending racism against Blacks, then anti-Black racism would stop. If every Black person committed to ending racism against Blacks, it wouldn’t. The idea that pernicious, socially influential racism is permanent (we’re not just talking about crazies in hoods here–Black Conservatives believe in ingrained, entrenched, socially powerful racism) should be very scary to us as White people who care about our souls. If White anti-Black racism is a permanent feature of our lives, what does it mean to be White? That would seem to be an irredeemable taint, then. Since I don’t want such a taint, I have a corresponding obligation to do my best to disprove the claim.
2) Some folks adopting the Black Conservative ethos have succeeded. Some have crashed and burned. Usually, Black Conservatism only succeeds when it is seen as being in congruence with White interests (Derrick Bell’s “interest-convergence” theory–he’s a radical left scholar who also, ironically, could be labeled a Black Conservative). So Booker T. Washington, who wanted Blacks to become indispensable servants to Whites (but not challenge the structure of Jim Crow) does well, but Marcus Garvey (a nascent Black separatist who wants Blacks to outperform Whites and show themselves to be superior) gets thrown in prison. It’s no silver bullet, and even Black Conservatives have had trouble liberating themselves outside the very particular manners by which White people will allow it.
3) Not to get into the racism-o-meter, but I don’t think racism against Asians ever approached what was directed against Blacks. Extremely virulent, to be sure, but not at “enslavement” levels.
4) I don’t know what you mean by “rejecting the victim mentality”, because I don’t really know what the “victim mentality” entails aside from pointing out that racism exists, in which case many Asians are quite willing to note the continued existence of anti-Asian prejudice in America. If it means “blaming racism for all my problems,” I don’t really see any individual, Black, Asian, whomever, doing that–the closest is White folk who blame affirmative action for not getting into their top college. In any event, the “victim mentality” strikes me as one of those nebulous concepts like “politically correct” which gets trotted out to do the speakers bidding but isn’t really anchored in any empirically observable phenemona.
5) The claim that affirmative action increases racism towards Blacks is empirically untrue [Richard Delgado, 10 Arguments Against Affirmative Action--How Valid?, 50 Ala. L. Rev. 135, 139 (1998)]. But I’m going to write a post on a related question soon, which I’ll give you a preview now: Why do you think most Black people disagree with you on this issue? Most Blacks support affirmative action, even though you think it’s bad for them. Why? Is it because they’ve been duped by charlatan leaders? Are they political children, who are incapable of knowing what’s best for them? Have years of this notorious “victim mentality” turned them into intellectual sub-humans, inable to conceptualize abstract moral concerns beyond their own short-term desires? Or are they just greedy, desirous of benefits (you think) they haven’t earned?
I’m geniunely curious if there is a valid explanation for this fact that doesn’t entail denying some aspect of their political or intellectual equal standing vis-a-vis White people (who are, of course, selflessly defending a bona fide moral principle here–any correlation to their own interests is just coincidental).
I don’t think Thomas represents a “bonafide conservative strand”, but rather “bonafide mediocrity”. Thomas is underqualified and as has been behind the power arch since arrival.
Actually, I’d rather hear more opinion regarding Scalia’s psychotic episodes. I hear he conceals a handgun under his robe.
I’ll never forget (or forgive) quite possibly the biggest case on this century for the SC….Gore v Bush, and Thomas’s part in it, where he uttered not a single word in both cases. He’s without a doubt unqualified for the job he has been tasked with if he can’t think of anything to say during those cases.
David -
You seem to be starting from a point that all racism against Blacks is solely a White issue. I firmly reject that. Your statement
is simplistic beyond belief.
If there was no White racism against blacks, then all Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Indians, etc., would not display any racism towards Blacks, and each other? There would be no Black against Black racism (which is more prevalent than you might think)?
And I didn’t say White anti-Black racism was permanent, I said racism itself is permanent. Meaning that man is pre-disposed to racism, it is not a White-Black thing as you are trying to frame it.
As for Asian-directed racism, well, perhaps there are some contributers of Asian decent that can comment on that better than I, but my reading of history is that they faced lynching, murder, theft of their property, and indeed even slavery and indentured servitude as well.
As for not seeing the victim mentality that has permeated the Civil Rights movement under such leaders as Jess Jackson and Al Sharpton, then I have to say you are being willfully blind.
Your own condescending prejudice is showing too, BTW. That statement is beyond the pale, and barely worthy of a reply. It is the type of incendiary rhetoric and ad hominem attacks Leftists use to incite riots and hatred, and avoid true discussions, and you really should be ashamed of yourself, and apologize.
I do believe that most polls show a majority of Americans support affirmative action as well. So, my belief is that yes, they are duped by charlatan political leaders. They also see the the hate and character assassinations attempted by Blacks and people like you, as we just saw in your quoted words, who do not ‘tow the line’ on affirmative action, and so many who might oppose it do not for self-preservation.
I also believe that if you offered the equivalent to affirmative action to Whites, most would be for it too.
This opens such a broad topic, with each subtext worthy of a book length examination.
Some thoughts:
-Before racism, there is everywhere a ‘birds of a feather’ mentality, with each homogenious group looking at others with fear and suspicion. It is from this the power games begin. Whites are, I think, afraid of losing their superior status (their turf) and of no longer being the face of Ameica.
-The victim mentality notion is, first of all, a political talking point, expressing a wish to dissociate from identifying with the whole nation’s welfare in favor of an individualistic ‘my liberty’ priority.
I suspect other aspects, as well. Once a victim of a mugging, every shadow looks like a potential mugger. . Likewise, once a victim of racism, one would tend to suspect racism in every situation, making it harder to differentiate between actual and suspected instances. I can see how that would divert the victim’s concentration from just moving forward,
-Affirmative action affects competition. If a black candidate gets the job rather than an equally qualified white one, there is bound to be resentment. It would be a rare loser to accept this gladly in the name of the greater good of the nation.
Human nature being what it is, it’s hard to imagine many of those on top willingly stepping aside or sacrificing anything to give those below a better chance. Unfair as it may be, the blacks will have to scramble up the competitive ladder by their own wits and strengths. The political climate is such, that any helping hand from the governement is increasingly looked on with outright anger by many. Patriotism only seems to matter in the context of war.
I predict excruciatingly slow change for the better.
Austin: The question was serious, and I don’t know what makes it shocking, inflammatory, or otherwise improper. Beyond a string of horrified adjectives, you don’t really point to a reason why, aside from that it clearly makes you uncomfortable.
A 2003 poll had Blacks supporting affirmative action by a 49 point margin. Whites opposed it by a slim 5 point margin (just outside the margin of error). That’s a 55 point gap. You have to have some theoretical premise for what causes that. Mine is that Black people are more likely to know what they need to overcome a racist society. Obviously, that explanation isn’t open to you, because you don’t like affirmative action.
But what’s the alternative? Apparently, it’s that they’re dupes. Don’t blame me for exposing the implications of your positions (I’m amused you want me to apologize for it). You apparently believe that Black people simply are incapable of forming opinions outside those forwarded by their “charlatan” leaders. Or alternatively, that they are so cowed via “hate and character assassinations” that they fear to answer even opinion polls honestly. Given that you considered my post to be an example of this, when the only AA-opposing Black I mention is treated quite respectfully (indeed, my precise words were that we need to “tak[e] Thomas seriously”), this is a desparate reach.
I think Blacks are rational human beings who are capable of ordering and expressing preferences that reflect their actual interests, mediated by personal values. They support AA because they rationally believe it is important to overcoming a racist polity. I don’t see another explanation for their behavior that respects them as dignified political agents. You’re welcome to try and provide one.
And you still haven’t defined what the “Victim Mentality” is. I can’t tell you if I “see” it without knowing what the devil you’re talking about.
David -
I was objecting to you putting the words ‘intellectual sub-humans’ in my mouth. Those are loaded words, and you know it. I never said anything remotely like that, and to imply that I harbor such thoughts and attitudes, with nothing other than the fact I have a different take on Affirmative Action than you, is venal. It is your need to try and cast those that object to your opinions, such as myself, as doing so from such an ignorant and racist position that I find offensive.
It was an ad hominem attack, as I said, and it is THAT that deserves an apology.
I also thought I was clear in saying that racism is a universal problem, although you seem hell-bent on seeing it only through a lens of White Guilt.
Finally, I also thought I was clear that ALL people, not Blacks in particular, rally behind measures that seem to provide a ‘free lunch’. Politicians throughout history have preyed on the power of Populism, not just against Blacks.
In my mind, you are showing what I have heard called Liberal Racism – the belief that Blacks are incapable of success without Whites doing it for them. You flat out said as much earlier. I don’t believe that, period.
As for the ‘victim mentality’, I guess if years of Liberal Arts education have made you constitutionally incapable of understanding what it is, whether you agree with it or not, I will help you out and point you to a number of places you can ‘educate’ yourself (which took me all of 5 minutes to locate on the Web, indicating to me it is a willful ignorance on your part of what the Black ‘victim mentality’ meme is about):
From Victim Mentality, by Barbara Baker
From I’m Not A Victim, I’m A Man
From Jason Whitlock About Imus
And finally, from Eliminating Our Own Victim Mentality
There are plenty more. The point is, it is not through ignorance, racism, a ‘desire to keep the black man down’, etc., that many people, Black and White, myself included, object to Affirmative Action.
It is because we truly believe that despite the noble and obviously good intentions, they in practice and as a whole, over time, actually have the exact opposite effect that they are trying to address.
The reason I’m not focusing on non-White racism is twofold. 1) I’m White, so White racism is under my control in a way other racism isn’t, and 2) White racism is more serious simply because its more influential–there are more White people and we tend to control the reins of power. Other racism is bad, but if we could indeed eliminate socially influential White-over-color racism, that would be a great blow for equality that I’d like to strike. Chop off the head, then deal with the babies.
As for this mythical ad hominem, reread the post. I gave you four hypothetical options to explain the White/Black disparity. You’re crying bloody murder that one of them is that they’re “intellectually subhuman”–great, I’m glad you’re rejecting that–but then you actually chose the “duped by charlatans” option, which isn’t all that far away from the one you’re complaining about, in that again it says that Black people as a class are incapable of rationally forming political opinions that reflect their values and interests without reference to a few flashy leaders. You were perfectly free to break out of the paradigms I offered if you could find an alternative explanation, but you didn’t, because as I suspected there really isn’t a way to hold your position and simultanously respect Blacks as political agents.
You’ve tacked on a “free lunch” argument (essentially, my “greedy for things (you think) they haven’t deserved”), but there’s a problem with that too. Two, actually. First, it’s in tension with your claim that AA doesn’t actually benefit Blacks–either they don’t have the foresight to see beyond short-term gratification, or it actually does benefit Blacks long-term and AA is problematic for a different reason. Second, if you’re going to make the claim that purely short-term interests dictate Black political positioning, then we have to apply the same standards to Whites opposing Affirmative Action, which I should also assume is a result of short-sighted interest mongering and not an actual principle. If it’s merely competing interests, then I default to the Black position on distributional justice grounds, but I don’t have to get that far because I think they’ve got a valid moral claim.
And back to the “victim mentality”, given the definitions you provide, no I don’t see it, and I’ll continue to assert its just a talking point designed to denegrate Black people who have the temerity to point out the continuing effects of racism. Give me some empirical evidence from a credible institution that shows this is responsible for Black ailments.
Reading AR’s comments, some observations about political debate spring to mind.
One way to avoid a serious examination of an issue, like racism et al, is to refer tp a convenient slogan: victim mentality, political correctness, moral relativism.
This is using pregurgitated thought and conveniently removes any personal involvement in a national problem.
It also removes any personal responsibility, because it provides a ready-made target of where to place the blame.
It’s interesting that in these days of calling for personal responsibility, it’s always someone else’s responibility the speaker is addressing.
David -
I think I am going to stop this discussion, as you seem incapable of doing anything other than cherry-picking to distort my words, while ignoring the totality of what I am saying, in an attempt to paint me as a racist. You are showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest, and incapable of arguing positions without malicious attacks against my motives.
No, I most certainly didn’t do what you are trying to claim I did. I did accept the ‘charlatan’ approach as part of the explanation, but I also pointed out that ALL peoples, of ALL races, are subject to the same type of political demagoguery and populism. I DID NOT apply it to Blacks as a unique class.
As you seem to need everything spelled out to the ‘nth’ degree to comprehend, let me try and make it VERY clear. All races, not ‘Blacks as a class’, are subject to being ‘duped by charlatans’, and history provides more than adequate proof of this.
All peoples, races and classes, as a whole, find laws that give them an advantageous position within society attractive, even in the face of evidence that overall they are detrimental to society, or even their own class, if the perception is that as for a significant number of individuals it can be beneficial in the short term.
Finally, I didn’t say that AA didn’t benefit SOME blacks, but rather as a whole and over time, AA-type laws do not benefit the targeted class, whether Blacks, Women, or whatever group you want to designate. And it is a matter of choosing the short-term vs. the long term. However, again, it is NOT a ‘black’ issue; it is a human nature issue.
I am not even going to try to provide more, as I already provided four initial references, and anything that does not support your point of view you will dismiss as a talking point designed to denigrate Black people who have the temerity to point out the continuing effects of racism.
Good thing it is Left-Liberals who are the open-minded ones. Snark.
Oh please spare me the self-righteous indignation.
I pointed out that you’re not truly applying your standards even-handedly, otherwise you’d be as suspicious of White opposition to affirmative action (on charlatan and self-interestedness grounds) as you are of Black support. Had you done that, then I’d give credance to your stated belief (which I think you actually do believe consciously, but have a subconscious bias that prevents it from becoming operative) that these problems are ones that afflict all races. If they afflict all races, why are you so resistent to applying the same standards to White people on the case of affirmative action? Why shouldn’t we put out a prima facia indictment of the White position as being presumptively motivated by race-hyping charlatans and short-sighted self-interest? You’re dodging.
Similarly, I’m going to be generous and assume you don’t know what “empirical evidence” is, because four definitions of what a “victim” mentality is don’t constitute empirical data or claims. So far, the only empirical reference to an academic source was my citation to Professor Delgado’s Alabama Law Review article regarding the empirical question of whether AA –> White Backlash. That’s a case of empirical evidence, as well as a credible source (academic law journals trump “Globalconservative.com”). None of your four quotes give data or an observable warrant as to the presence of the VM, they give a definition. That’s lovely, but it doesn’t answer the core claim about whether this concept of the victim mentality has any real world implications or whether or not it is largely a fantasy. I’m not so openminded that I’m willing to accept unsubstantiated claims on face, and I don’t think I’m being some ridiculous debate partner by demanding that you define your terms and (gasp) warrant them as well.
Oh, I just can’t help myself.
David -
re: ‘victim mentality’
You sound like the old Shelley Berman routine about University of Chicago graduates.
If you give a University of Chicago graduate a glass of water, he will hold it at eye level, and stare deeply into it, pondering.
‘This is appears to be a glass of water’, he will say superciliously.
Gazing intently for period of time, he will then inquire, ‘But is it a glass of water?’
After a sufficiently long period of additional pondering and contemplation has passed, he will then proposition, ‘But if it is a glass of water, WHY is it a glass of water?’
And eventually the stupid bastard dies of thirst.