Monday, August 25, 2008
|
|
A Tough Road for African Americans
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:32 PM
|
The Chicago Tribune is reporting that a Hillary Clinton delegate was called an "Uncle Tom" by Barack's erstwhile mentor, Emil Jones.
In the meantime, the LA Times ran a story about TV One and BET denying they're "Obama cheerleaders."
It strikes me that it's entirely natural that the nomination of Barack Obama would be a matter of great pride among African Americans of all political persuasions and views -- it's a moving testimony to how far an historically oppressed people have been able to rise in an opportunity society like America's. But that doesn't mean that all blacks necessarily will (or even should) vote for Obama based only on his race.
There's an unfortunate tendency in some quarters to try to impose a certain group-think on African Americans (the same phenomenon we've seen with over-the-top attacks on Justice Thomas). Why, exactly, does Emil Jones think it's appropriate to characterize someone as, essentially, a traitor to her race just because she might not initially have supported Barack Obama?
Why does BET and TV One think that they should be taken seriously as other mainstream journalistic sources when they're not even willing to cover the Republican National Convention and give the other side of the story? TV One chairman Johnathan Rodgers said such coverage ""[j]ust by definition" "doesn't fit into our mission" because "[t]here's no need for us to bring a presence to an event if there's no African Americans involved." Tellingly, TV One wouldn't even cover the convention if Condi Rice were named veep -- although, Rodgers conceded, they would probably cover her acceptance speech.
Most Republicans -- and I daresay, most Americans -- believe this election should be color-blind, and that the candidates should be voted up or down based on their policies and their characters, not their skin colors. Given that African Americans are still a minority, it would make sense especially for black liberals to share this view. Why? Because if there is still significant racism in this country (which most liberals must believe; otherwise, what's the justification for affirmative action?), they would have a greater stake than anyone in making sure that the alleged racism doesn't unfairly penalize their candidate.
Covering only the Democrats (or demeaning any African American who didn't originally support Barack) sends the message that there's only one platform, one party and one candidate that blacks have an interest in and can legitimately support. Not only is that limiting and insulting to African Americans, it suggests that color is the only revelant factor in one's political thinking. What a shame.
|
|
Sheesh! You people.....!
I would think if you were going to call something "idiocy," you would at least do so in a coherent post..... |
|
|
The Republicans treat Blacks as if they were adults, whereas the Democrats treat them like children by giving them handouts. Watch which parent gets the attention when one gives them presents, whether deserved or not, and the other expects them to contribute to the family's reputation and well being. That explains why Blacks will vote for a black Democrat, but will not vote for a black Republican even when he or she is the best candidate. Too many blacks do not want equality when it means that they will have to assume equal responsibility for the country's economic health. It's too bad that the Democrat Party has made the government the father for many black families which has stunted the overall growth of Black in America. |
|
that their unqualified support goes to party that has done so much historically to repress African-Americans. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.
One day, I hope, that the Republican Party will again get the credit it is due for advancing equality for black Americans. Not to mention recognition due to Republican African-Americans for their courage.
The Republican Party made a mistake when it stopped reaching out directly to black communities. |
|
|
|
|
|