I'll probably regret posting this one

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 14, 2005 - 4:23pm.
on Race and Identity

I haven't looked in on my conservative brethren and sistren in a while. so I looked about a bit. Got a pointer to an editorial in Newsday...and to this line in particular:

Black America has no future-oriented vision of itself within the context of American reality.

And this is true.

But what is that context?

Within the context of American reality it seems one has power to the degree that one has a constituency. That's the nature of a confederacy

Confederacy  
A governmental system in which sovereignty is vested entirely in subnational (state) governments.

and that's what America was intended to be at its origin. The way the Constitution was written makes it a Federation:

fed·er·al·ism n 1. political system: a political system in which several states or regions defer certain powers, for example, in foreign affairs, to a central government while retaining a limited measure of self-government

2. political principle: the principle of a federal system of government, or support for such a system
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

...which was acceptable to those who really wanted a Confederacy only because the set up the government to run by the rules they would have implemented locally. The thirteen colonies...fourteen if you count the internally dispersed African colony...set about its business. Which was business. Property. Wealth.

All was fine

Then it wasn't. Things changed to the point where the ground no longer supported the ground rules. And the Civil War announced the end of the initial federation.

Eventually a new federation was born, built on the reversal of the promises of citizenship made to the children of Africa. And so it stood until the middle of the 20th century.

As the editorial says

Except for Brown v. the Board of Education and the two landmark pieces of civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965, almost every policy - affirmative action, welfare, minority set-asides, etc. - that has come into existence via the federal government to assist blacks has been attacked, chipped away and de-legitimized by the conservative movement.

Every program was resisted. I have my own understanding of why they were implemented so clumsily, and all are being ended. The views of those who opposed change hold sway.

Remember, though, that's not the vision of ourselves. Individually or collectively. That's the context. in which we must develop an enabling understanding.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dwshelf on January 14, 2005 - 9:43pm.

Why would we observe this guy as a conservative?

He seems disappointed that all those federal programs have been in decline of late.

Republicans have no problem with Al Sharpton being among the most powerful of Democrats. It just doesn't get any better than that.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 15, 2005 - 7:12am.

Why would we observe this guy as a conservative?

I don't know that we are.

Submitted by Cobb on January 17, 2005 - 1:46pm.

This Republican has a problem with Al Sharpton being among the most powerful of Democrats. It's a shame.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 17, 2005 - 2:29pm.

Al is "among" the most powerful Democrats as in "hanging around with," not "counted as one of." Pat Robertson is a bigger problem.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah on January 17, 2005 - 4:20pm.

Al Sharpton is among the most powerful of Democrats? Only in the sense that P6 mentions. Where do people get these ideas?

Submitted by dwshelf on January 18, 2005 - 12:10pm.

Al Sharpton is among the most powerful of Democrats? Only in the sense that P6 mentions. Where do people get these ideas?

Ok ok ok.

I think we'll all agree that Sharpton's high water mark seems highly likely to be in the past. That most Democrats recognize the anti-productive nature of promoting Sharpton.

The point is, it says something when one is invited to address the Democratic convention. It grants him a position of great respect in American politics, a position certified by the Democratic party. The Democratic party credentialed Sharpton as being among their powerful elite, whether he was or is or not.

Consider Colin Powell's address to the Republican convention in 2000. Abstractly, the same. Same forum. Same certification. Would anyone suggest that Powell is not among the most powerful of Republicans? The real difference is that Powell is an attractive facet of the Republican party, while Sharpton is a concise exmaple of why the Democrats have lost the middle of late.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 18, 2005 - 12:14pm.

Consider Colin Powell's address to the Republican convention in 2000. Abstractly, the same. Same forum. Same certification.

Wrong comparison. Rudy Giuliani would be it.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah on January 18, 2005 - 2:28pm.

Those who wish to continue believing in this can do so, but don't be surprised if you discover your views don't match with any reality about the Democratic party.

Submitted by dwshelf on January 18, 2005 - 4:43pm.

Those who wish to continue believing in this can do so, but don't be surprised if you discover your views don't match with any reality about the Democratic party.

That the Democratic party certified Sharpton as their public representative is not simpy a "view". It was an observed event.

Submitted by dwshelf on January 18, 2005 - 4:47pm.

Wrong comparison. Rudy Giuliani would be it.

We're discussing now three people with the same credential: invited to address a party's national convention.

Sharpton had a sharply negative effect.
Guilliani, I'd say, had a neutral effect. I don't know of anyone who would argue he had much of an effect at all, either negative or positive.
Powell had a sharply positive effect.

So it depends on how we're bundling as to whether we put them in the same bundle or different bundles.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 18, 2005 - 5:58pm.

We're discussing now three people with the same credential: invited to address a party's national convention.

I'm comparing Giuliani and Sarpton because they had the same job...rhetoric delivery.

Both were as important as their job.

Submitted by dwshelf on January 18, 2005 - 6:10pm.

During the 2000 Republican convention, did Powell have a different job than that?

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 18, 2005 - 6:27pm.

And he was as important as his job.