What affects the African American community (Part 1)

Split from Bush’s response to Katrina/New Orleans (Part 4).

This is Alan Keys-a republican, but a class a Jerk in my book, not because he’s a republican, but because he’s too busy being the GOP’s house boy…

:fume:

Why do you feel this way? How is he a house boy? I’ve never heard of this guy.

Keys ran in the Illinois senate (last one) election. Not because he is an Illinoisian(?) or interested in how he would honestly represent us, but because the Republicans '‘encouraged’ him to do it so that he would run against Barak. I wasn’t there, but from what little I read, it seems that the Republicans figured that they would be able to split the black vote ala the 2000 election with Nadar running against Gore. I remember listening to Keys when he was a rep out in Oka. He’s not well-versed, or suave enough. IMO he’s a confused about his idenity and needs to reassses his positions on certain issues.

Yeah, he seems to be from the loony fringe of the party. Hardly the best example of a black Republican, Republican, or politician, period. He was only drafted because the candidate of choice suddenly became eminently unelectable. I’d like to see Barak Obama score as great a margin of victory against a serious opponent… that would be far more impressive.

Yeah, just like every other black who dares to subvert the One True Black Democratic Party. How dare they think for themselves? Don’t they realize they are OWNED by the Democrats?

Condoleeza Rice? Oreo!

Colin Powell? Oreo!

Clarence Thomas? Uncle Tom Oreo!

Ward Connerly? Race traitor oreo!

Not true about every other black who dares to subvert the One true Black Dem Party. There are many fine examples of black democrats. I can’t recall the history verbatim, but many blacks were Republicans after the Emanacpation Pro. But there was some crap that went down because of it, and for the life of me, I can’t recall it exactly, but I know what it is. Rice isn’t an Oreo, not is Powell. Thomas’s picture is in the dictionary right next to Uncle Tom. Connerly, never heard of him. Truth be told, I don’t care if a black candidate is Republican or Democrat, but given old habits are hard to die, when they speak, I better hear something in their speech that resonates with them being able to understand/relate to the Black exprience. I need to know that they are gonna look out for “us”. Yep it’s biased but no different from any other race.

Colin Powell doesn’t even have the same political leaning as Bush. The man was literary fired by Bush.

anon38216271,

The Southern Democrat supported slavery, thus the Blacks were mostly leaning towards Republicans prior to the Emacipation.

The Republican party was founded in 1854 and had a major platform to end slavery.

So after the civil war many Blacks joined the Republican party who was responsible for the rebuilding efforts in the South.

It was the migration of Blacks into the North cities, WWI and industrialization of USA, that the Democrat political machinery used to intergrate immigrants votes also began soliticing for Black support. So by 1932, FDR presidency, the Democratic Party could deliver a Black voting block.

By the Civil Rights era, the Southern Democrats that were against racial liberalism were defeated, which began the great conservative migration to the Republican party.

Well, Jaboney asked me to edit that post, but since it’s already been quoted into at least one reply, it’s pretty much too late.

Actually, it is different from any other race. The day a white politician – or even a white citizen – makes a statement like that is the day the media, or society, brands that person a racist.

That doesn’t matter. According to Harry Belafonte, Colin Powell is still a “house slave”. Oh, and so is Condoleeza Rice.

archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/15/belafonte.powell/

So apparently it’s just fine to be a slave on the Democratic plantation, but dare to think for yourself, to disagree, and you become a traitorous “house slave”.

Even Bill Cosby went balistic over the condition of the Black community.

I felt is was unfortunate as well that Powell had to go to the UN on behalf of the administration with his “crack vile” demonstration of biological weapons.

But Belfonte made it clear it was the Bush “oppressive” foriegn policy that Rice and Powell supported at the time that got them labelled as “house slaves.”

Fast forward almost 3 years later, we see Powell was sent home packing because of disagreements with the core administration policies, and Rice who has never voiced any disagreement with the President, got his job.

I’m sure if there was an “oppressive” policy being forwarded by the Democratic party that Black party members felt compelled to support even against their wishes, Belfonte would have labelled them as “house slaves” as well.

Craps you might as well dig around for people who complain about Powell “high yellow” skin tone, thus not fitting the “house slave” image, which lost him his job to Rice.

Hey MaPoSquid, why not quote passages that best reflects what were, apparently, the man’s views. Which, given the source you provide-- archives.CNN.com/2002/US/10/15/belafonte.powell/ – is not only, I think,

But also,

That said, I think that Harry’s comments were actually remarkably stupid and deliberately provocative. Colin Powell got it right:

Moving on, I’m curious about this:

That’s pretty insightful and when it comes to close, textual reading, you’ve got me beat. Where in the text did you find the information suggestive of such a conclusion? I really don’t know. Because, you see, the last two paragraphs:

These suggest, to me, that while someone in the Democratic Party would have liked to have him onboard as a candidate, Harry doesn’t want to serve any political party. He would rather serve “the things that I believe in,” and “this nation that I deeply believe in” using his platform at the UN and as an artist. So, please, because your reading ability either far-surpasses mine, or you’re working with information that I don’t have access to (or both), tell me, how do you come to the conclusion that

I think that statement pretty fairly sums up his views on that single aspect. So, he says he likes and admires Powell. Big deal. The fact is, he used a tired old reference that is trotted out repeatedly by many Democrats, and especially black Democrats when speaking of black Republicans.

The same thing is said about Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice and many, many other black conservatives or Republicans.

That suggests to me that he doesn’t want to face the music that political candidates encounter from their political opponents. Who cares what lofty principles he states, when in fact, his advocacy substantially mirrors that of a single party. His statements mean nothing, when compared to reality. I would be willing to bet that HB falls squarely in the democratic camp on nearly all issues of import. If he didn’t, it is difficult to understand how on the one hand he can praise Powell’s “intellect” and on the other hand refer to him as an “Uncle Tom”.

Let’s try to keep this civil, please.

You must not be very familiar with race politics in the US. It is common knowledge (and fact) that a vast majority of black voters vote Democrat, and those who do not, or who run as candidates for the Republican party are commonly referred to as “Uncle Toms” or some other similar reference. Hell, many liberal black Democrats are even similarly accusatory toward black centrist Democrats:

But also,

[quote=“CNN quoting Harry Belafonte”]“I like Colin Powell, I like his West Indian background, I like his intellect, I like a lot of things that he does and his style. What is at fault here is a policy that’s taking this country to hell,” Belafonte said on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” referencing the Bush administration’s push to go to war with Iraq.
[…and…]
“This was never meant to be a personal attack on Colin Powell’s character,” he said. “What it was meant to be was an attack on policy, and the reference, the metaphor used about slavery is part of my personal feeling that plantations exist all over America.”[/quote][/quote]
So, in other words, “I love the guy, I really do, but he’s a house slave” somehow “best reflects” his views? Sounds awfully damn condescending to me.

How is this any less demeaning than telling someone “Benson, you are so remarkably free of the ravages of intelligence!” or “I love Bob, he’s such a village idiot”?

That’s pretty insightful and when it comes to close, textual reading, you’ve got me beat. Where in the text did you find the information suggestive of such a conclusion? I really don’t know.[/quote]
That’s called interpretation. I realize not everyone is capable of it, which is one reason the book Cannibals All! was written some 150 years ago.

However, let’s draw the dots. Colin Powell isn’t toeing the party line that Harry Belafonte wants. Therefore Colin is, according to Harry, a “house slave”. If Colin were instead raving about Halliburton and keeping everything in the U.N. for all eternity, though, Harry would be lauding Colin for “independent thinking”, eh?

Sounds awfully like what my comments said – that if one dares to think in some pattern other than the Ideologically Approved Democratic Black Plantation Line, one is branded by the left as a “house slave” and a traitor.

Is that clear enough? Can you connect the dots now?

[quote=“Tigerman”]

You must not be very familiar with race politics in the US. It is common knowledge (and fact) that a vast majority of black voters vote Democrat, and those who do not, or who run as candidates for the Republican party are commonly referred to as “Uncle Toms” or some other similar reference. Hell, many liberal black Democrats are even similarly accusatory toward black centrist Democrats:

[quote=“PBS show POV”][url=http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/streetfight/special_analysis.html]As [black centrist-Democratic candidate] Booker’s popularity began to nip at James’ heels, Booker’s new-found friends on the right presented a ripe target for some of the ugliest race cards any modern big city politician ever played. "
You have to learn to be an African American," James said in one of his milder rhetorical shots at Booker. “And we don’t have time to train you.”

[/quote][/quote]

OUCH!!! That was an ugly thing to say. But that’s the mudslinging side of Black politics.

I don’t believe that many blacks feel that a black running as Republican would necessaryly be an "uncle tom’. Yet, perhaps is their presentation of themselves and their views on issues that create a sense distrust among black voters. I am certain that more affluent and educated African Americans are leaning toward the GOP party. But when you have the likes of Thomas and Keys, who come across as puppets as oppose to being men with ideals that happen to apart of the GOP agenda, then you get the “Uncle Tom/House Slave?etc” conversation.

[quote=“MaPoSquid”]Well, Jaboney asked me to edit that post, but since it’s already been quoted into at least one reply, it’s pretty much too late.

Actually, it is different from any other race. The day a white politician – or even a white citizen – makes a statement like that is the day the media, or society, brands that person a racist.[/quote]

Have to disagree with you on that MSP. Latinos and Jews are rather vocal about candidates they vote for and prefer, and this would not make them racists. Affluent whites are the same and I don’t believe this would make them racists either. I believe in America, race and politics affect each other strongly, but people want to make sure that the candidate that is asking for their vote can identify with them and voters want to see that in some form and fashion.

ac:

[quote]The Southern Democrat supported slavery, thus the Blacks were mostly leaning towards Republicans prior to the Emacipation.

The Republican party was founded in 1854 and had a major platform to end slavery.

So after the civil war many Blacks joined the Republican party who was responsible for the rebuilding efforts in the South.

It was the migration of Blacks into the North cities, WWI and industrialization of USA, that the Democrat political machinery used to intergrate immigrants votes also began soliticing for Black support. So by 1932, FDR presidency, the Democratic Party could deliver a Black voting block.

By the Civil Rights era, the Southern Democrats that were against racial liberalism were defeated, which began the great conservative migration to the Republican party.[/quote]

Ac that is part of the information I was recalling. But there was a specific incident that occured that I still can’t remember that cause blacks to move away from the Republican party. As it wasn’t the migration of blacks but as you point out the Civil Rights era when blacks started voting Democrat.

Damm I need my Black History encyclopedia!!! :fume:

Well, blacks aren’t the only ones who know how to sling mud.

That is what the GOP hopes. However, we also hope that less affluent blacks take a closer look at the GOP platform, because we believe that we can do better by them than the Democratic party has done. We look to those blacks who are in favor of school vouchers as one place to begin a real dialogue with black voters.

Ever wonder why so many wealthy white Democratic pols send their kids to private schools but don’t want black kids to be able to take advantage of vouchers to take advantage of similar opportunities?

And I’m saying that those conversations are unfair. Why is it that black politicians who toe the Democratic party line (which party is run primarily by white men) are not accused of being white Democrat party puppets? In fact, those blacks who support GOP policies or who run as GOP candidates are arguably more free thinkers than the majority of blacks who support the Democratic party.

Calling conservative blacks “Uncle Toms” is simply unreasonable and ironic, if you think about it.

[quote=“Tigerman”]
And I’m saying that those conversations are unfair. Why is it that black politicians who toe the Democratic party line (which party is run primarily by white men) are not accused of being white Democrat party puppets? In fact, those blacks who support GOP policies or who run as GOP candidates are arguably more free thinkers than the majority of blacks who support the Democratic party.

Calling conservative blacks “Uncle Toms” is simply unreasonable and ironic, if you think about it.[/quote]

You get no arguement there. I think that any black that comes across as puppet is going to be considered by some as Uncle Toms, etc. It’s all in the presentation. Plus old habits die hard. If Barak, had run as a Republican, I believe he could have changed how blacks view the GOP. Conservative doesn’t = Republican. And of course the conversations are unfair, but not just confined to blacks only. I’m sure that latinos, jews,WASPs and other circles have certain nasty names for people who aren’t 'fitting the bill.

As for the vouchers, oh man, fred is going to have a field day with that one. Please I beg of you and anyone else, don’t bring it up. LOLOLOL :smiley:

Let’s try this again:

Does it matter that he likes the guy, his intellect and style? Maybe, maybe not. Taken together, it speaks of respect for the man. That matters. Does it matter that he likes a lot of things that he does (note present tense)? Yes, particularly as his central concern is policy.

Was it, nonetheless, still a stupid way of making his point? Yes. Again, Powell got it right [quote=“CNN quoting Colin Powell”]“I think it’s unfortunate that Harry used that characterization,” Powell told “Larry King Live” last Tuesday. “If Harry had wanted to attack my politics, that was fine. If he wanted to attack a particular position I hold, that was fine. But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throwback to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using.”[/quote]

[quote=“CNN quoting Harry Belafonte”]“This was never meant to be a personal attack on Colin Powell’s character,” he said. “What it was meant to be was an attack on policy, and the reference, the metaphor used about slavery is part of my personal feeling that plantations exist all over America.”[/quote] Again, policy. And an explanation that he is concerned with the power dynamics in America. Being that his metaphors are the plantation system and slavery, his concerns are obviously economic and racial. This reading is confirmed by the following comments:[quote=“CNN quoting Harry Belafonte”]He called upon Powell and Rice and other black people in positions of power to use their platforms “to speak out about the ill-advised policies” of the Bush administration.

“The idea that you work in the house of the master is almost in itself its own opportunity to do some mischief and make a difference, but when you are in that place and you help perpetuate the master’s policy that perpetuates oppression and pain for many others, then something has to be said about it,” Belafonte said. “And the master in this instance, of course, was the president of the United States.”[/quote]
It’s also note worthy that his reference to the president applies only, “in this instance”.

Continuing

[quote=“CNN quoting Harry Belafonte”]The singer said he opposes a war against Iraq unless such action were deemed necessary by the United Nations.

“Go through the United Nations and follow the counsels and principles of the international community,” he said. “Stop bullying the world.”[/quote]
While some Democratic leaders supported going to the UN, I don’t recall any making the point that strongly. I do, however, recall a number saying that while going to the UN was advisable, they would not allow the UN undue influence over US actions. Harry certainly seems to be going beyond the party line. This reading seems to be supported by the following

[quote=“CNN quoting Harry Belafonte”]When asked whether he had ever considered getting into politics to effect some changes, Belafonte said he was once asked to run for a Senate seat against Alfonse D’Amato, but he declined.

“I stepped away because I genuinely believed that the platform that I have as an artist, the work that I do at the United Nations, sits above suspicion because I have no agenda, so to speak, I don’t serve a political party. And I thought that my service to the things that I believe in, and to this nation that I deeply believe in, was best served by staying where I was,” he said. [/quote]
His “I have no agenda, so to speak”, I think, needs qualification. He’s made it clear that he’s concerned with economic and racial equality and the power dynamics at play regarding these issues. So he has an agenda. My guess is that he’s claiming not to receive the agenda from the party hierarchy. He’s certainly more concerned with the issues than he is with being a banner-bearer for the party. Together with his respect for the things Colin Powell does, his qualification that “the man” ain’t always the Republican president, and his willingness to go beyond the Democratic Party line, I’d say that he’s thinking for himself about issues he cares about. I’d also say he doesn’t much care who “the man” is, or what party he belongs to, he’s opposed to “plantation-style” power dynamics.

Now then, your reading of this begins [quote=“MaPoSquid”]So apparently it’s just fine to be a slave on the Democratic plantation, but dare to think for yourself, to disagree, and you become a traitorous “house slave”.
[…and then continues…]
So, in other words, “I love the guy, I really do, but he’s a house slave” somehow “best reflects” his views? Sounds awfully damn condescending to me.
How is this any less demeaning than telling someone “Benson, you are so remarkably free of the ravages of intelligence!” or “I love Bob, he’s such a village idiot”?[/quote]
While finding his metaphor distasteful, I think there’s more to what he’s saying than you give him credit for. And given what he states concerning Powell-- “I like his intellect, I like a lot of things that he does and his style,” – “free of the ravages of intelligence” and “village idiot” might not be the best examples. Nonetheless, condescending and demeaning? I think that’s fair so far as the metaphor goes.

You explain further, [quote=“MaPoSquid”]However, let’s draw the dots. Colin Powell isn’t toeing the party line that Harry Belafonte wants. Therefore Colin is, according to Harry, a “house slave”. If Colin were instead raving about Halliburton and keeping everything in the U.N. for all eternity, though, Harry would be lauding Colin for “independent thinking”, eh?

Sounds awfully like what my comments said – that if one dares to think in some pattern other than the Ideologically Approved Democratic Black Plantation Line, one is branded by the left as a “house slave” and a traitor.

Is that clear enough? Can you connect the dots now?[/quote]
I wonder if those things that Powell does, which Harry admires, toe the Democratic Party line? If Colin were going after Halliburton, I expect that Harry would praise that as the act of a man undermining one of the so-called “plantations” in America, which is a separate issue from the DP’s dislike of Halliburton. But if it sounds like your earlier comments, there’s a good reason for that: this too is one of your comments. Looking back at Harry’s concern with “plantation” conditions, and apparent willingness to think beyond the bounds of DP talking points, I think that your final comment is pure spin.

[quote]As it wasn’t the migration of blacks but as you point out the Civil Rights era when blacks started voting Democrat.

Damm I need my Black History encyclopedia!!![/quote]

Are you thinking of 1934, when Arthur W. Mitchell became the first black Democrat in the history of Congress?

FDR and his wife were very vocal about their anti-segregation position. Which would have been popular with Blacks of the time.

Yeah, last time I went to this house party thrown by a bunch of black guys. All of a sudden, a bunch of hispanics came, overran the place, and co-opted the party.