December 1, 2004
ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE SELLOUT OR A BLACK BIGOT?
THE DEFINITION OF A SELLOUT: In the grand tradition of Booker T. Washington, author John McWhorter is either a conservative or a sellout, not that there's much of a difference. (William Jelani Cobb, Africana.com)
Conventional wisdom has it that modern black conservatism has its roots in the philosophy of one Booker T. Washington, the Tuskegee Wizard whose advocacy of self-reliance, thrift, morality and hard work helped him build a respected university, a personal fortune and a political machine the likes of which have not been seen in black America since. But truth be told, given the Sunday-schooled, Southern-born outlook of large segments of black America the phrase "black conservative" is damn-near redundant. (And a black "compassionate conservative" would, in most quarters, be simply called a liberal.)The theme of self-reliance, self-respect and hard work run through nearly every major black movement of the 20th century – regardless of political persuasion. But there's a reason why Clarence Thomas is considered conservative in pejorative sense of the term and Louis Farrakhan, who is pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty (believing it should apply not only to homicide, but rape as well) and condemns "government handouts" is not. That difference being that most people believe Farrakhan – no matter his labyrinthine contradictions and metaphysical snake oil – has some clue to the persistence of racism in America.
With a few notable exceptions, the class of black conservatives is not at the forefront of the conservative debates of foreign policy unilateralism, stem cell research or deficit spending. Rather they're given dominion over a fiefdom of unwashed Negroes whose social maladjustment is to be condemned as consistently, stridently and creatively as possible. And this explains why Bill Cosby's case of racial Tourette's syndrome last April was widely viewed as "conservative" as opposed to simply mean-spirited and incoherent. On some level, the terms have become synonymous.
Who doesn't consider Louis Farrakhan to be a conservative, though a racist and anti-Semitic one? And if the only thing that separates him from folks like Clarence Thomas and John McWhorter is that racism/anti-Semitism are those elements truly required for authentic blackness? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2004 9:25 AM
NAACP-style bigotry is based in the 19th Century German racist ideology adopted by W.E.B. DuBois. That gentlemen, a student of sunch luminaries as Treitschke, worshipped Bismarck and Wagner, and had a German, Platz-im-Sonne, pseudo-Darwinist conception of race relations
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 1, 2004 10:50 AMMy impression of DuBois was that he was an American version of the semi-educated Third Worlder who spent a few years at Oxford or the Sorbonne, got an essentially meaningless degree, thought that certified him as a genius, and went out to cause disaster on all who came within shouting distance. He was a figure like Nehru, Nkrumah, Toure',Nyerere, Bandarinaike, Obote, etc.
Bismarck was no racist.
Posted by: Bart at December 1, 2004 11:08 AMForgot the most famous one. Pol Pot.
Posted by: Bart at December 1, 2004 11:09 AMWith a few notable exceptions, the class of black conservatives is not at the forefront of the conservative debates of foreign policy unilateralism, stem cell research or deficit spending. Rather they're given dominion over a fiefdom of unwashed Negroes...
The irony here is that the exact same is true for black liberals--except with far, far fewer "notable exceptions."
Posted by: Timothy at December 1, 2004 12:44 PMMcWhorter's "Losing the Race" is a very interesting read. His breakdown of what is wrong with black America is nothing new but is an insider's look at what is happening and what needs to change. He is a professor of linguistics at Stanford ( I believe he is currently on sabbatical) and first gained notice when he, to the surprise of liberals everywhere, came out against ebonics. He also relates how he has been castigated as a race traitor, not for speaking and writing of such things, but for doing it where non-blacks can read and hear it.
Posted by: Pat H at December 1, 2004 2:19 PMBart: DuBois did not study at either Oxford or the Sorbonne: it was the University of Berlin. Bismarck was not a racist, he was a Volkist, which, despite the confusion sown by the Nazis, is not nearly the same thing.
The pernecious thing about Black volk-ism, as pioneered by duBois and perpetuated by the plantation overseers who now follow in his footsteps, is that it calls Blacks to resist inclusion and assimilation into the American Volk, by means of fantastical alternative histories, pretend languages and devisive politics.
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 1, 2004 4:21 PMDuBois went to Harvard which at the time was a coloring book version of Oxford or the Sorbonne. He got a free pass for whatever lunacy he came up with because of his melanin.
Henry Louis Gates told a very funny story about DuBois' disciples. A group of Black Americans moved in Ghana, when Nkrumah declared independence, following their leader DuBois. They made a big public deal about throwing their American passports into the ocean. The local Africans tell stories to this day about how these Black Americans would go hunting in the ocean for their passports when, after about six months, they found they couldn't make a go of things in Africa.
Posted by: Bart at December 1, 2004 4:51 PMWho doesn't consider Louis Farrakhan to be a conservative, though a racist and anti-Semitic one?
Only if you think "conservative" applies to leaders of wacky 20th century cults like the Black Muslims, who believe that white people were created in a mad scientist's laboratory.
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 1, 2004 5:20 PMNo stranger than sociobiology.
Posted by: oj at December 1, 2004 5:24 PMOr scientology.
Posted by: ratbert at December 1, 2004 9:10 PM