From the WP article: "In American politics and letters, the black conservative has long been a controversial figure."

No shit?

All one needs to do is check out the iconographic figures who comprise the conservative pantheon (Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Lester Maddox, Stom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, etc.) to understand the revulsion most black folks have at the sight of a "black" conservative.

"To many at Samford, Motley seemed to transcend race. His cultural tastes, in particular, did not conform to the expectations some had of a black student."

"Whites" generally have low or negative expectations of black males, so it doesn't take much to "transcend" them. Moreover, it was not transcending race but transcending racial stereotypes (stereotypes created by "whites" in the first place) that influenced their acceptance and support of Motley. What does the fact that he "prefers" Bach, Glenn Gould, and Tennyson say about so-called "black" identity anyway? I love so-called classical music (I love music, period), and have been commissioned to write compositions for symphony orchestras and chamber ensembles, yet I don't think anyone in their right mind would mistake me for a "black" conservative. I'm not a big fan of Gould, but I can appreciate his virtuosity. I have no use for Tennyson, but I dig the hell out of Melville. I'm a huge fan of Gore Vidal; does that make me gay?

What does any of this mean? Not a goddamn thing, because "black" men are not cultural clones cookie cut from some kind of buckwheat/rapper/thug template. It is for this reason the profile of Motley reeks of racist assumptions (as does the series' title: "Being a Black Man" and the title of Motley's profile: "A Path of His Own"). A running assumption throughout the piece is that certain cultural "tastes" belong primarily or exclusively to "white" people, and that blacks who share such "preferences" are by inference conservative in their politics and acceptable to the "white" establishment. As someone who has knocked around the classical music world for a while, let me assure you there are many talented "black" musicians who find neither sponsorship nor employment based on their musical tastes and talents. In Motley's case, it really ain't about liking Bach. It ain't about culture, per se. That's a handy subterfuge, a convenient explanation that "shorthands" a complex issue into the typical kind of facile discourse one expects to find in corporate media articles that pretend to investigate and analyze important aspects of our lives and struggles in this fucked up nation. Bottom line, most folks don't care about Motley's accent, his clothes, his musical and literary tastes, because his preferences don't impact their lives. His politics are what matters. It's always about the politics (WEB Du Bois, an exemplary figure in the struggle for black liberation, knew more about Euro-American culture than all the current crop of conservative coons combined, but his politics were the antithesis of their knee-bending, fellatio-administering brand of go-along to get-along). When you become a house nigger for Bush, and are willing to accept and support the agenda of the white nationalist party and their christian terrorist sympathizers, you become an enemy to the interests of poor people, "black" people, and any people who care about freedom, social justice, and economic rights. Bottom line, the "white" power structure operates from a perspective of pragmatism. They will use whomever they can to move their agenda forward (and the nation backward, as is the case). Accordingly, you could play Snoop Dogg jams in the White House basement until your eyeballs popped out, as long as you are willing to go out and suppress the black vote, subvert our civil and human rights, and lead us to the slaughter house or the auction block.

Eric Motley, Lynn Swann, Kenny Blackwell, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, all know this. They don't mind being lonely (a condition the article ascribes to Motley and by inference all black conservatives) as long as they get the credit, attention, and payoffs for the glorious pile of shit they call a career.

Ourstorian,

I have to say, from childhood to adulthood, I have yet to hear a group of conservative whites, in public or in private, open up a political conversation with something on the order of " Damn...how about that Jefferson Davis ! What a guy !".

now there are, I realize, neo-Confederate types out there and some of them lurk in mainstream organizations but they keep that agenda fairly quiet because (at least where I reside) they would quickly be regarded as some kind of reactionary nut, which in fact, they are.

"To many at Samford, Motley seemed to transcend race. His cultural tastes, in particular, did not conform to the expectations some had of a black student."

My late father, a black man, retired as a welder and never graduated from high school. He listened to the music of Franz Lizst and Fredric Chopin and read Spinoza during his lunch breaks. He lived more than 80 years. He never thought for one moment that he had transcended race and he would have resented it if anybody had ever characterized him in such a manner. The response to Motley's aesthetic, cultural and entertainment choices reveals how little humanity is actually granted to black folks by people who feel they themselves have transcended race.

(BTW, a note to that Anonymous poster - I once belonged to an Internet discussion group that was devoted to the music of Miles Davis and his enormous influence on music, art etc. There were at least three members of that list, which was world wide, who were upfront Confederate sympathizers. They saw no contradiction, or at least none they would ever admit to, between their alleged love for jazz and Miles Davis and the desire of their ancestors to hold Miles Davis' ancestors and his ancestors descendants in slavery for perpetuity.)

Anonymous, I just don't make this stuff up as I go along. The following quote comes from an article about Trent Lott published in The Nation in 2002:

"Speaking at a 1984 convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Lott declared that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform." Asked to explain his statement in an interview with the extreme rightwing publication Southern Partisan, Lott said, "I think that a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important to people across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party... and more of The South's sons, Jefferson Davis' descendants, direct or indirect, are becoming involved with the Republican party."

Lott was Senate Majority leader from 1996-2002. As such, he was and is one of the most influential leaders of the GOP. Rumor has it he plans to run for the position again when his fellow neo-Confederate Bill Frist leaves office.

Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, as were most southerners of his day. But those former Dixiecrats now form the core constituency of the White Nationalist Party (Republicans). They were recruited via a "Southern Strategy" concocted in part by Kevin Phillips.

Never underestimate the role and influence of such Southern icons in the culture and philosophy of the current conservative movement, and in galvanizing the support of racists everywhere.

Ourstorian. I could not pass up commending you on the above critique of these fools and the Wash Post BS! Excellent! I could have say any better.

Thanks GDAWG. I don't know what happened to this thread, but the order of the postings has been scrambled. It looks like the time stamps have changed, placing Anonymous' comment ahead of my original post.

Whazzup wit dat, P6?

You edited the comments, and that apparently changed the timestamp.

I need to fix that. Meanwhile things are at least in the correct order now.

Yep. they're back in order.

I try to fix typos, correct grammatical errors, etc., when I catch them. I didn't realize it changed the time stamp. It hasn't always done that, has it? No matter, now I know.

It hasn't always done that, has it?