No, what separates us from this agenda, at least according to Br. Peterson, is that we don't fervently believe that the agenda that he has articulated is, in fact, the agenda that will give us salvation. If we only believed, that is, had sufficient faith, then we would not allow the power of reason, which we all know is Satan's way of leading us astray from the one and true path of rightousness, to convince us that our suffering has anything to do with the color of our skin. We suffer because we have little faith that our suffering can be relieved through greater expressions of our love of God, country, family etc.

Where do they get these morons!?

They are born everyday in hospitals and homes all across America. Only in America, however, do they ever have a chance of becoming identified as a black or African American leader. Whites, Jews, Hispanics or Asians who talked like this would never be identified as white, Jewish, Hispanic or Asian leaders. Only in America would the utterances of this brain donor be elevated to public attention.

What is the additional burden of being known as a 'black leader' if you're actually not? In other words, if we at P6 call, Ward Churchill a 'white leader' and he's actually not, so what?

The only thing that goes wrong is you get a parade of idiots called 'black leaders' but no real criticism of black leadership, just of the idiots.

I haven't paid much attention to Petersen becauase I've always, from day one, considered him a clone of Jesse Jackson - his evil twin as it were. And voila, he's considered a legitimate a black leader as Jesse Jackson. Which is to say that it's all about accepting the person.

I'd imagine a decent quote from the man's website would be useful every once in a while.

To the substance of Petersen's point. Do blacks trust that which is not specifically addressed to them, or do they need branded information?

Do you mean, for example, do we think that Wittgenstein had something important to say even if he did not specifically direct his observations to or about black people?

What is the additional burden of being known as a 'black leader' if you're actually not?

None.

But there's a burden on Black folks other than the so-called leader. Because white people's leaders simply pretend what they want to believe is true and act on it, justified by the Connerlys and Petersons of the world...and their preference is for things to run just as they always have.

I'd imagine a decent quote from the man's website would be useful every once in a while.

You may ornament your site as you wish.

To the substance of Petersen's point. Do blacks trust that which is not specifically addressed to them, or do they need branded information?

That's not his point.

Is it a topic you'd like to discuss? Because we can...I don't see you as evil, just overly practical. Paterson is a fucking Pharisee.

What I don't think I've written is that I met a BOND kid at the Black Family Reunion about 18 years ago and much of what I think about Peterson is shaped by that encounter. Basically I thought it was a hustle. I thought it was an interesting hustle and something likely to succeed because Peterson's boys were of the inner city high school dropout and grad variety. He cleaned them up very well. But talking to this kid rather convinced me that they were the type didn't know about or really believe in college. I guess I had the kind of shocked expression people have when they hear that there are still people who believe that nobody actually went to the moon. Peterson was after the numbers, he wanted his own gang, and he wanted to run them like Farrakhan runs the NOI.

I've never really given Peterson a fair hearing. I'm still getting used to the fact that there are multiple strands of blacks moving towards the Republican party.

I think what annoys me about criticisms of Peterson is that they have everything to do with the man. Just like that BOND kid, folks simply disbelieve that there's a straight way to success. It unfortunately sounds the same to me and hits my screens when people characterize black Republicans in exclusive terms of the likes of Connerly, Peterson and Keyes.

Peterson was after the numbers, he wanted his own gang, and he wanted to run them like Farrakhan runs the NOI.

Totally agreed.

I think what annoys me about criticisms of Peterson is that they have everything to do with the man. Just like that BOND kid, folks simply disbelieve that there's a straight way to success.

NOT true. We just don't think the road runs through the domain of an obvious hustler.

It unfortunately sounds the same to me and hits my screens when people characterize black Republicans in exclusive terms of the likes of Connerly, Peterson and Keyes.

That's not our fault, Michael. Blame the Republican Party...they are the ones that set those clowns (and Peterson and the Innises now) as Black Republican exemplars. They only pull out guys like you as an emergency measure. Once the emergency passes the need for your face passes as well.

And they may well take care of you a little, sort of like keeping you on retainer. But it's their party...not yours. They decide it's direction and focus. They decide who speaks for them, and frankly they have every right to do so. So if you got beef with The Three Muskrateers being your image you have to take it up with those who put them there.

Come on. I don't have the chance that McWhorter has and you can't get a critical mass of blackfolks to support McWhorter as much as they beat up on Sowell. Look at what happened to Glenn Loury. Why do you think he wasn't invited, or Sowell wasn't invited to Tavis Smiley's function? I'm a wonk, not a populist. Black conservative wonks have it worse than black conservative populists. Hell, look at all the flack Cosby gets, and he's not even declared Republican. That's just going to be that way, ignorant hateration.

The Michael Steeles of the world are going to do just fine in the Republican Party. We are at the inflection point at which the talent of the growing African American pool of contenders is almost on par. Everyone has to admit that Powell and Rice are an order of magnitude greater than peons like Clarence Pendleton and his ilk just a short 20 years ago. But that alone is not making enough of a dent. There literally has to be a leap of faith, because so many blackfolks believe that the Republican party has an extraordinary burden of proof.

I think that burden is unfair and unevenly applied. This is why the first thing many Republicans say is compare us to the Democrats who get the unearned benefit of the doubt. Then we go back through the history thing.. In truth, I think the more you actually examine history, the better the Republicans look in principle. But this is where theory clashes with theory. That's where our discussion ought to be, I think. Then you realize that the popularization of the Republican party is just a matter of selling an image that people will listen to long enough to think seriously about...This is what every Republican knows, that's why they're doing the shotgun method.

"Look at what happened to Glenn Loury. Why do you think he wasn't invited..."

I happen to be a great admirer of Prof. Loury both during his flirtation with the neo-conservative movement and, later, when he publicly distanced himself from certain tenets of this movement that he had once appeared to hold dear. I always felt that there was a strong and, at least to me, palpable undercurrent of black pride and nationalism in his writings or at least the unpublished papers that were shared with me during the mid-1980s.

I also think that he, unfortunately, went out of his way during his earlier incarnation to, let's be blunt about it, royally piss a lot of people off. So when he fell from grace and, all of things, landed in the tabloid pages of Jet Magazine while a tenured professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government many of those who felt they had suffered from his unkind cuts and errant arrows took their share of pleasure. I think their animosity toward him continues to this day and it is unfortunate but that's the way the prune wrinkles. I can also state that Loury will never be invited to participate in any forum where Julianne Malveaux has played a role in organizing the agenda.

I suspect that many of his critics did not fully comprehend the points he was trying to make during that period. (I'm not too sure that he always understood where he was coming from either.) I do think, however, that his critique of the black political elite which was best summed up, in my opinion, by his observation that the political capital of a lot of black folks was being spent by other blacks who had not earned the right to do so was right on target.

I also suspect that many of the things that folks like Loury have to say goes right over the heads of guys like Tavis Smiley et al. and the audiences that generally see their performances. Let's not forget that Loury was a working class guy with a mind for higher mathematics who later switched over to the "dismal science" because of his interest in public policy issues. He can be dry and eurdite at times and preaching is just not his style. Show business leadership requires the active involvement of people with show business talent or pretensions. Loury probably doesn't fit that groove.

I don't have the chance that McWhorter has

And who gave him that chance?

Look at what happened to Glenn Loury

Yes, look at what happened to him. As soon as it became clear he didn't intend to abandon Black folks, Republicans abandoned him.

Why do you think he wasn't invited, or Sowell wasn't invited to Tavis Smiley's function?

Where was Loury's last public appearance anywhere? When was Sowell's last expression of concern over any issue specific to Black folks?

There literally has to be a leap of faith, because so many blackfolks believe that the Republican party has an extraordinary burden of proof.

The burden of proof is simple.

Pork.

Then we go back through the history thing.. In truth, I think the more you actually examine history, the better the Republicans look in principle.

Seriously dissapointing.

Stop pretending Lincoln has anything to do with the current bunch of people that bears the name "Republican." Sen. Lindsey Graham just said they don't do Lincoln dinners in S.C. because they haven't gotten over the Civil War.

Start with 1964, the legal end of Jim Crow. What has the Republican Party done for Black people since then?

I can give you a LONG list of what they've done TO us.

Historically, the people we're talking about...fuck party names...the PEOPLE we're talking about have expressed nothing but hostility or disdain or a fervent desire to not have to deal with Black folks at all. You think we should support those bastards because some dead guys who used to call themselves Republican ended slavery without giving us a damn bit of support through the transition? For bilking the Freedmen's Bank?

You want to talk history YOU ARE SCREWED.

And if you wantto talk the future, you have to show evidence...not promises...of change.

Unless you're a "Republican." Which I ain't.

"There literally has to be a leap of faith..."

Cobb, I always suspected that you folks were really Platonic existentialists at heart. When doubts persist urge the doubters to abandon their rationality and leap across the void. There, there, on the other side of the chasm you will find what is eternal and true.

It would require more than a leap of faith for me to believe that this current crop of Republicans have anything good in store for black people. I have zero interest in defending Democrats so tell me something I don't already know and haven't already figured out.

PTCruiser, why must someone have a plan specifically directed at helping black people. If a Republican, or someday maybe even a Democrat, has a plan that helps everyone, would you still be opposed simply because the words "black" or "African-American" are not included in their proposals? Why must the black community band together and segregate themselves from all other races, refusing to believe that they are no longer slaves of the white race? I don't mean to say that banding together is a bad thing, but the result of how the black community comes together is destructive - they feel others only hate them and want to keep them down, and must take the "righteous path". Be serious - just do what's reasonable. If you're all about faith and spirit, keep in mind the Biblical passage about not letting one hand know what the other does. And your leaps of faith are simply that - no more, and not practical. Faith is based upon faith, meaning that in order for people to believe, they must agree to believe in certain unsubstantiated claims. This is absurd. So have all your arguments been.

If I may:

PTCruiser, why must someone have a plan specifically directed at helping black people.

Because Black people were suppressed and affected in specific ways. The effect of that suppression continues to this day...it's like if you wash a sweater in hot water and it shrinks, it's still shrunk even after you take it our of the water. Even after it's dried.

Don't think I'm saying nothing can change.

If a Republican, or someday maybe even a Democrat, has a plan that helps everyone, would you still be opposed simply because the words "black" or "African-American" are not included in their proposals?

If we are not included, you're damned right I'll object. Why shouldn't I object to being discriminated against?

Now, if we are included like everyone else...actually, not just rhetorically...I won't oppose it.

Why must the black community band together and segregate themselves from all other races, refusing to believe that they are no longer slaves of the white race?

That's a stupid statement.

Black people were segregated by law and custom. And when it became illegal, well, you can't legislate against White Flight.

How can you think Black people are responsible for segregation when we've spent the whole of our history on this damned continent trying to be accepted?

"PTCruiser, why must someone have a plan specifically directed at helping black people. If a Republican, or someday maybe even a Democrat, has a plan that helps everyone, would you still be opposed simply because the words "black" or "African-American" are not included in their proposals?"

I am at a loss to understand why you believe that I have ever rejected any program that was designed to assist people in need simply because the program was not specifically targeted to assist black Americans. I don't recall ever posting any messages on this site or any other site advocating this position. If you believe that I have done so or that my memory is failing me or, worse, that I am simply lying then please cite the source of your discontent.

"Why must the black community band together and segregate themselves from all other races, refusing to believe that they are no longer slaves of the white race? I don't mean to say that banding together is a bad thing, but the result of how the black community comes together is destructive - they feel others only hate them and want to keep them down, and must take the "righteous path".

I don't know any group of black people save for black conservative Republicans who feel that "others only hate them and only want to keep them down". There are, however, legitimate and principled reasons for black people, i.e., black people who elect to do so, to act in concert together. Cobb, for example, despite his calls for breaking up the black ghettoes, actively calls for the black middle and upper class to join together to effect economic, social and political change.

"Be serious - just do what's reasonable. If you're all about faith and spirit, keep in mind the Biblical passage about not letting one hand know what the other does. And your leaps of faith are simply that - no more, and not practical. Faith is based upon faith, meaning that in order for people to believe, they must agree to believe in certain unsubstantiated claims."

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to here. I have never been able to discern exactly what is meant when people like yourself quote this phrase from the Bible. I always think you are speaking in some sort of code whose meaning is sufficiently ambiguous to mean anything at all or anything that you want it to mean.

"This is absurd. So have all your arguments been."

Well, you may just be correct but I intend to keep making them anyway. By the way, you may have missed my point given the literal quality of your mind but I think Cobb knew that I was joshing him a little bit.

Frankly, I think someone missed the import of the title.

Cobb wrote here: "There literally has to be a leap of faith, because so many blackfolks believe that the Republican party has an extraordinary burden of proof."

The late political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, once observed that "promises create isles of security amidst a sea of uncertainty." What Dr. Arendt was getting at is that in politics, given the unpredictability of action and the influence of passion, what secures the future are promises, i.e., the ability of parties or factions or leaders to make commitments and to keep those commitments. Leaps of faith have no real place in politics because the stakes are too high.

It is absurd in the extreme for anyone to suggest that African Americans should cast their lot with the current Republican Party when that party has done little, if anything, to keep the promises it made to black people even during Reconstruction, let alone since the passage of the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills. It is a undeniable fact that the Republican Party consciously and intentionally began making overtures to and recruiting disaffected white southern Democrats who, for the most part, had been activley opposed to granting black Americans their civil rights, which had been allegedly guaranteed nearly a century before by the Republican Party.

As I have written and said countless times, black Republicans need to get their asses up off of the pity pot and start doing some real work among the masses of black people instead of whining and wailing and questioning the intelligence of black voters. Black people are not voting for Republicans because there is no damn reason to do so at this point. And all of this Republican generated spin about incremental increases in the black vote for George Bush doesn't mean jack. Getting 15 percent of the black vote is like batting .150 in the major leagues. I'll give you some if you can get 30 percent but until that time comes go do some work and stop pissing and moaning.

And, by the way, as long as black people have been praying and reading the Bible for deliverance that hasn't come then I can only conclude that either God is not listening to us or we ain't worthy. And if there is a plan then we are not part of it so far. We need to do for ourselves and seek out allies when a coalition effort is required. The Republican Party at this point is a less trustworthy ally than the Democrats. And so it goes.

It is a undeniable fact that the Republican Party consciously and intentionally began making overtures to and recruiting disaffected white southern Democrats who, for the most part, had been activley opposed to granting black Americans their civil rights, which had been allegedly guaranteed nearly a century before by the Republican Party.

If we're to analyze history a bit...we come to the year 1915. The Birth of a Nation . What was behind this successful effort to turn the national psyche? An effort to gain membership in the Democratic party. The Republicans were portrayed as the party which had started and continued to inflict Negro rights upon a well functioning society. The Democrats (many wearing pointed white hats) were there to save they day. The rights of black people were knocked down by Democrat politicians for decades.

Is this a reason to avoid voting for current Democratic candidates? Of course not.

DW -

It is a reason to see that the Republicans and the Democrats alike will sacrifice or undermine the rights and gains of black people when it suits either party's purpose. The reality, as I see it, is that since respectable, although not entirely reliable, elements of national black leadership seem unwilling to lead black people out of the Democratic or Republican Parties then blacks are forced to find reasonably reliable allies and work with them when possible.

In New York City, for example, the former Democratic Congressman, Rev. Floyd Flake, has endorsed and supported Mayor Michael Bloomberg for reelection. Rev. Flake and his people obviously feel that Mayor Bloomberg is someone they can work with despite his being a registered Republican and a supporter of George Bush.

In the main - though not across the entire board - blacks at this time can find more Democrats than Republicans who are willing to support their issues and concerns. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric of blacks like Niger Innis and Armstrong Williams. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that there is a broad consensus of opinion on public policy issues among blacks regardless of age, income or education. In other words, there is an historical black agenda that most black people agree upon regardless of whether they all agree on the processes or steps that ought to be taken to achieve these ends. And black voters tend to believe that the Democrats are more likely to assist them in this effort than the Republicans.

Black voters and black people are not stupid (I'm not suggesting that you think they are). They are well aware of the role that southern Democrats played in oppressing black Americans. They are also aware that when a coalition of northern Democrats and Republican liberals and moderates led by Lyndon Johnson finally began to win legislative battles against these reactionary elements that conservative Republicans, seeing an opportunity to win over disaffected white southerners, rejected their party's positon on civil rights and began actively courting these former segregationists.

This is recent history and took place while you were growing up and coming to maturity. It seems foolish in the extreme to ask black people to either ignore or gloss over this bit of contemporary history and bet on the come with Republicans. Hispanics, Jews and Asians may wish to take a "leap of faith" but African Americans have different histories and experiences in this country. The Republicans have to bring more to the table than their appetite for black votes.

Everybody has a different history and parties are not respecting of those histories. What assaults my senses is the notion that 15% of the black vote is dismissible.

Aside from all that, part of my intent when getting into the public matter of black Republicanism was to get enough people to take that leap of faith so that the reality of black Republicans would be more than a simple principled minority. I assumed that whatever blacks did so, would find a difficult time, but that they would be too large a group to be ignored, no matter what they stand for. This is my reason for tolerance of the black Christian Conservatives. However, it had also been my belief that black Republicans would largely be like me in the Old School with someone like Wynton Marsalis as poster child, or even a modern day Booker T Washington, and that these would be the more influential group within the black Republican fold. I could also accept the very reality I deal with, which is a split household; Republican dad, Democrat mom (or vice versa), as demonstrable proof that working a primarily black agenda creates the most influence across parties.

However it is clear that there is no emerging black agenda and the default of the same issues of the black nationalist movement's origins continue to dominate the discussion. If anyone is a Platonic existentialist, it is the black politico who embraces blackness and rejects both parties, laments the faux leadership and remains unelected and unelectable. They're like Sunnis rejecting their share in the new Iraqi parliament still wishing for the old days of their black shining princes and sowing seeds of distrust for their children -resisting the only democracy that exists for the sake of their ethnic pride. I fart in your general direction.

So while I'd rather not have the black vote balkanized along predictable American class lines and have some real threads of the legacy of black nationalist energy and ambition fueling black politics going forward, I cannot abide the abstentionism which is its current face.

You're either a Republican, a Democrat or a defacto anarchist. So what's it gonna be?

Cobb,

Let us, for a moment, get on the real side here. Almost or close only counts in horseshoes, darts and grenades. Getting 15 percent of the black vote is not even almost or close. It is exactly like batting .150 in the major leagues. If you're a pitcher in the National League it doesn't matter, but no player will stay on a major league roster for long, no matter how good he may be with a glove, if he bats .150. In an election getting 15 percent of the vote -even if the polls showed that you were only going to get 10 or 11 percent - is not a cause for rejoicing and it damn sure ain't a reason to brag.

I have no problems with 15 percent of black voters casting their ballots for George Bush. Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand voices contend. I am not seeking to dimiss these voters. I simply object to you and other hustlers like you trying to inflate their significance. I realize that you would like to show the owners of the Republican Party greater results given the investment you may be seeking from them but right now that's all you have to show. And it's not getting better anytime soon.

I don't know any black politicos seeking public office who reject both parties. If someone is a politico then by definition he or she is either in elective office or seeking elective office.

"If anyone is a Platonic existentialist, it is the black politico who embraces blackness and rejects both parties, laments the faux leadership and remains unelected and unelectable.They're like Sunnis rejecting their share in the new Iraqi parliament still wishing for the old days of their black shining princes and sowing seeds of distrust for their children -resisting the only democracy that exists for the sake of their ethnic pride. I fart in your general direction."

Asking people to become cannon fodder so that you and folks like you can receive bits of patronage from the Republican Party is itself worthy of a few methane loaded cow farts too. Why don't all you would-be entreprenuers try making or trading other folks political capital rather than act as if you have some presumptive right to spend what others have earned and have long indicated that they will not spend on behalf of you and other Enron-like political traders.

By the way, I still need to navigate to your site and respond to that glib nonsense you wrote about Jelly Roll Morton.

If anyone is a Platonic existentialist, it is the black politico who embraces blackness and rejects both parties, laments the faux leadership and remains unelected and unelectable. They're like Sunnis rejecting their share in the new Iraqi parliament still wishing for the old days of their black shining princes and sowing seeds of distrust for their children -resisting the only democracy that exists for the sake of their ethnic pride. I fart in your general direction.

Politicos should take that personally.

No separate AOL for you segregationist kneegrows either, dammit!!!!!!

It's being circulated on conservative newslists. I came across it on [email protected].

One day I logged on to my AOL Account and noticed in BIG BOLD letters on my start-up menu page the category Black Voices.
I was curious to see what it was all about so I clicked on the link. I was brought to what looked like to me a whole other AOL but meant for Black People only. All subcategories had to do with African Americans so I looked around. I personally was shocked to see what I was viewing. I clicked on to the message boards out of curiousity wondering how the whole AOL Community was reacting to the new BlackVoices section. I lost count how many times I read the word "racist" on the chatboards and "Get out Whitey". I decided to post my opinion on the New site and I got slammed all over the place and called a Racist. I never once posted what race I was. My profile Picture on AOL gave me away that I am a White Female. I never posted anything racist, because I am not a racist. I was deeply saddened for this new community to have to log on to these message boards and view such hateful and racist comments. What did AOL think was going to happen when they decided to add Blackvoices? Did they think it was going to go un noticed by all? Not once have I ever been called a Racist in my life until I posted on the BV message boards and it really hurt even though I never met these people in person. I am going to be adding proof that AOL is starting a race war on the internet. I have seen News Stories on the BV site that is NOT posted on the (what I will refer to is Regular AOL). News stories that indeed would infuriate the uninformed. It's sad that AOL has decided to do this and I hope by making this Website We can make a difference.

How is it that the republican party - which is really the fin d'siecle party to preserve anglo-saxon male governance paradigms - even have the audacity to *court* black constituents when it is constitutionally incapable of repudiating its domestic terrorist fringe supporters? You simply CANNOT have any informed, sane, and credible black constituents under the same tent as the historical oppressor/contemporary hater element. It really does boil down to an either/or situation. By the GOP's continuing loyalty to the domestic terrorist element within its base, it has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it does not genuinely have the best interests of blacks as americans at heart.

The real kicker is that anglo-saxon male governance paradigms are being sorely tested, and in a great many regards being found to be wanting, and in need of the type of systemic renovation that can only take place when you recognize you have some serious deficiencies. As Clint Eastwood so sagely pronounced in a Dirty Harry episode, "a man's gotta know his limitations." These dumb phukkers not only don't know their limitations, they're entirely too arrogant and backwards to nicely and politely ask for the help they so desperately need.

Ask us for help? Don't you remember that wonderful scene in Ellison's "Invisible Man" where the now transplated protagonist has an encounter in the subway with his former "benefactor" who is lost and doesn't know which train he should take?

If they ask us for help won't that mean that they have lost their way? They won't ask us for help because they have too long believed that our experiences and the experiences of our ancestors add up to zilch.

By the way, why is that poor woman so upset about some black people who don't want to have a dialogue with her. I can her understand her not liking being called a racist but I've been called worse and I was only seven years old the first time it happened.

By the way, why is that poor woman so upset about some black people who don't want to have a dialogue with her.

Rejected people are always upset.

Rejected people are always upset.

Funny, rejected people ARE prone to a visceral pain reflex in response to social ostracism or rejection. Most organize their own autonomous cultural constructs - which includes avoidance of the pain source - and go on about their business. Exemplars of the anglosphere paradigm, OTOH, have an historically unique penchant for externalizing their *pain* by taking aggressive action against those who reject them.

This woman, for example, has set herself not against AOL Time Warner so much as she's set herself against virtual *blackness* in the transpace of a public Internet *community*. The evidentiary particulars suggest that she's a lone gunwoman glenn close intent on boiling a bunny over her hurty feelings at being unwanted by some BV denizens (in the process, she's also disclosing a fair number of quite good reasons why she may have been unwanted);

Domain Name.......... boycottaolblackvoices.com
Creation Date........ 2005-03-22
Registration Date.... 2005-03-22
Expiry Date.......... 2006-03-22
Organisation Name.... Julia Everett
Organisation Address. 10 KING ROAD
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. saratoga springs
Organisation Address. 12866
Organisation Address. NY
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Anything coming from the anglosphere in opposition to psychological and social construct of *blackness* must inherently be understood to be a form of pernicious cultural or psychological aggression. As *we* all know, the oppositional culture and interpersonal communion resulting from slavery/jim crow/self-segregation is a barrier against further anglospheric intrusion and subjugation.

Interestingly, in the case of Julie Everett v. AOLBV we find a microcosmic expression of the macrocosmic fin d'siecle Murkan crusade to spread and propagate the anglosphere across the final frontier of unbowed material, economic, and cultural resistance to the same.

Having read your views DW, for example, on why black candidates are not acceptable to the white electorate, on why domination is the correct approach for effecting change in public schools, etc - the detailed blueprint of contemporary aggressive anglospheric automatism is all the better resolved. I see no signs of psychological or cultural evolution in this construct.

It seems strange to me, but many white folk seem to expect a level of unconditional love and acceptance from black strangers that I wouldn't expect from my own family. Yea, she can post her opinion, but that doesn't mean that others can't call her names. Maybe she should look in the mirror, and see just why she isn't wanted? This sort of behavior on her part may cause people to be more confirmed in anti white opinions.(and in my opinion, with cause)

I just looked at that boycottaolblackvoices.com.

What an asshole. SHe's complaining about free screen names for AOL BV users...it's the damn IM client that everyone can have, it just gathers chat rooms oriented toward "Black issues" in a channel.

Yes, please. She and all her ilk should boycott AOL BV...I'm sure she'll be missed...

Understand cnulan, I wasn't expressing sympathy or support in my response. I don't know the case at all beyond what I read here, which isn't rich in detail.

Rather than discuss her in particular, she may well turn out to be some nutcase (she sure seems to have overreacted), one can discuss the issue in general. The barrier between whites & blacks which this woman encountered, whether insensitively or deliberately or simply be walking into a psychological world she didn't believe existed.

I'm going to offer some extrapoltion from experience here, rather than a claim of fact.

Profoundly at the core of the barrier is a game of gotcha. The black side we hear a lot about. "gotcha expressing racism", but there's a white half too, "gotcha expressing inferiority".

Now the first thing to observe is that this game of gotcha is twisted inward, like a pistol with a u-turn barrel. Do blacks really, in a social context, parse the words of whites looking for signs of racism? Some do, most don't. Do whites really parse the words of blacks looking to have their repressed racism confirmed? Again, some do, most don't. But the important thing in analyzing the barrier is that most whites expect that blacks are doing that, and blacks similarly suspect what might be in the minds of their white companions. And now we have a very real, universally effective barrier built on minority behavior by both races.

Again, that's not a claim of fact. It's an exploration. I believe such exporations are valuable becaue I believe we need to strip the mystery out of this issue. The power of the barrier is negative, if not evil, and to the extent that power is derived from mystery, then let's shine a bit of light.

DW, that is a very good start.

But the important thing in analyzing the barrier is that most whites expect that blacks are doing that, and blacks similarly suspect what might be in the minds of their white companions. And now we have a very real, universally effective barrier built on minority behavior by both races.

This is not minority behavior because the block is the expectation that, as you note, most people have.

Now, where does that expectation come from?

Now, where does that expectation come from?

Overgeneralization from negative experiences, both personal and reported by others?