Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Dr King & AA  (Read 9856 times)

VinnyMyCousin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2005, 08:01:58 PM »
I'm very surprised that you guys are so anti-Clarence Thomas.  Is it solely his stance on AA that you are so strongly in disagreement with, or with his appointment as a whole (barring his AA ideologies)?

Zooker, I recently read an article about this very subject, written by John A. Foster-Bey, a senior associate and director of the Program on Regional Economic Opportunity at the Urban Institute in D.C. He basically argues that it's symptomatic of a larger problem among black liberals: the vilification of blacks whose sentiment and actions in the public sphere do not conform to their socio-political ideologies that they believe would otherwise advance the causes of the black community.
The article even mentions the propensity of black liberals' anger that Thomas doesn't fit the Thurgood Marshall paradigm, (refer to blk-reign's comments above as an example). Here's an excerpt:


A recent case in point is "Supreme Discomfort" an article in the August 4, 2002 Washington Post Magazine by Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher. While the authors attempted to provide a balanced presentation of supporters and opponents of Justice Thomas, the most striking aspect of the article was its focus on the remarkable level of animosity expressed by many of the traditional liberal black-activist and civil-rights leaders. The key question is why this black Supreme Court justice should raise such hostility from some blacks. Why is Justice Thomas seemingly so threatening to members of the traditional black-leadership class? The answer may be that he opposes their view that government must be the prime engine in solving the problems of the black poor and oppressed, and, in so doing, he threatens their legitimacy as leaders as well as the rewards and benefits that come with that leadership.

Donna Brazile, a political liberal, who expresses a good deal of respect and even admiration for Justice Thomas captures the controversy surrounding him. She told the Post reporters, " He will never fit in Thurgood Marshall's shoes. Those are shoes he doesn't want to wear." Brazile's statement really is about the expectations of the liberal white and black establishment. Thurgood Marshall is seen as the prototype for a "black" Supreme Court justice: intellectually and legally strong, but reliably, almost reflexively liberal. For the black and for that matter the white liberal community, ascent to the Supreme Court means being like Thurgood Marshall."


http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-foster-bey101802.asp

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
    • Black Law Students Association
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2005, 08:09:37 PM »
Zooker et al.

In re Clarence Thomas, there are so many ways to go about how dissapointing it is to have him on the bench.  I don't believe in quotas, and I think it all boils down to Bush Sr. making a mistake in the name of AA at the resignation of one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices to ever sit on the bench, Thurgood Marshall.  One black leaves so we "must" have another black to take his place?  Bullsh*t.  Thats filling a quota for the sake fo filling a quota, and does not guarantee that we will get the best justice for the job.

Personally, I've had to breif many supreme court cases, and I've seen Marshall's work as well as Thomas' work.  Thomas doesn't begin to measure up to Marshall.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

VinnyMyCousin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2005, 08:11:02 PM »
It's just that White people love to tote him out and use him as evidence that AA really is screwed up - as if because some token Black person says something, it must be true for everyone else.

This sort of statement expresses the same sentiment that the article I just posted describes. It's a dangerous sort of groupthink, by which black leaders are not individuals--they are seen as either conforming to the accepted, mainstream, NAACP, Jesse Jackson political framework or they are "token blacks" like Thomas, Alan Keyes, or Ward Connerly. I think this "token blacks" comment is racist in itself, b/c it assumes that "real" blacks (whatever that means) must conform to some assumed ideological model--the very essence of stereotyping.

mivida2k

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1748
  • Do I Really Need to Answer This Question
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2005, 08:15:39 PM »
PSR is back.  Poor thing.
The president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

Omegaman

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Say it Loud! We're Black & Republican & Proud!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2005, 08:23:54 PM »
It's just that White people love to tote him out and use him as evidence that AA really is screwed up - as if because some token Black person says something, it must be true for everyone else.

This sort of statement expresses the same sentiment that the article I just posted describes. It's a dangerous sort of groupthink, by which black leaders are not individuals--they are seen as either conforming to the accepted, mainstream, NAACP, Jesse Jackson political framework that I think the majority of blacks adhere to, or they are "token blacks" like Thomas, Alan Keyes, or Ward Connerly. I think this "token blacks" comment is racist in itself, b/c it assumes that "real" blacks (whatever that means) must conform to some assumed ideological model--the very essence of stereotyping.

No, this shows your utter lack of knowledge about the Black community.  I'll just speak for myself here - but my family cannot stand ANY of those people you listed.  It's bot about someone being a "real" black or a "fake" black - it's about any Black person anointing themselves the spokesperson for all Black people (usually for personal gain) and letting themselves be co-opted in the process.  That is the problem - not this "real black"/"fake black" dichotomy you've put forth.


Sis on point again. Actually that is my favorite topic;
The myth of the Black monolith
Especially now with the influx of Black immigrants from latin,and african countries its silly to pick 50 people let alone 5 and say the represent or speak for blacks, because first how do you define what the black community is?
  I learned this the first time i went to paris france. If I ever become wealthy I want to start a program that send Young blacks to some of these countries to see the variety after coming from America with an us versus them mentality and then your in a country where you cant communicate with blacks because of language.

VinnyMyCousin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2005, 08:24:17 PM »
It's just that White people love to tote him out and use him as evidence that AA really is screwed up - as if because some token Black person says something, it must be true for everyone else.

This sort of statement expresses the same sentiment that the article I just posted describes. It's a dangerous sort of groupthink, by which black leaders are not individuals--they are seen as either conforming to the accepted, mainstream, NAACP, Jesse Jackson political framework that I think the majority of blacks adhere to, or they are "token blacks" like Thomas, Alan Keyes, or Ward Connerly. I think this "token blacks" comment is racist in itself, b/c it assumes that "real" blacks (whatever that means) must conform to some assumed ideological model--the very essence of stereotyping.

No, this shows your utter lack of knowledge about the Black community.  I'll just speak for myself here - but my family cannot stand ANY of those people you listed.  It's bot about someone being a "real" black or a "fake" black - it's about any Black person anointing themselves the spokesperson for all Black people (usually for personal gain) and letting themselves be co-opted in the process.  That is the problem - not this "real black"/"fake black" dichotomy you've put forth.

1) Then what is a "token black"?

2) What makes Thomas a "token black"?

3) How has he annointed himself the spokesperson for all Black people?

4) What makes you say he has been "co-opted"?
 

VinnyMyCousin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2005, 08:30:31 PM »
Sis on point again. Actually that is my favorite topic;
The myth of the Black monolith
Especially now with the influx of Black immigrants from latin,and african countries its silly to pick 50 people let alone 5 and say the represent or speak for blacks, because first how do you define what the black community is?
  I learned this the first time i went to paris france. If I ever become wealthy I want to start a program that send Young blacks to some of these countries to see the variety after coming from America with an us versus them mentality and then your in a country where you cant communicate with blacks because of language.

I agree. I think AA only solidifies the racial categories necessary for the perpetuation of these programs--racial categories that don't always fit. An African-American from Southern Georgia isn't the same as a recent immigrant from Ghana. Neither of these is the same as a white South African. Yet all could be "African-American".  The first two might be considered "black" at the exclusion of the third. But "black" might also include someone from South Indian descent as they tend to have very dark pigmentation.

VinnyMyCousin

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2005, 08:33:05 PM »
See, this kind of *&^% pisses me off in a big way.  A Black liberal couldn't just disagree with Justice Thomas' judicial philosophy as a truly incorrect way of looking at the role of the courts - it is because they are too self-interested to see him outside of a Thurgood Marshall framework.  Just trade one Black man for another, I guess  ::)

What, exactly, are you taking aim at--the article or the comparison in general?

Trevor

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • T Sinister
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2005, 08:34:31 PM »
"We should eliminate them"
"Elimate them?"
"Eliminate them"
"Rich people?"
"White people."
<gasps>
"What we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep f-in' everybody 'til they're all the same color."

Everyman

  • Guest
Re: Dr King & AA
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2005, 08:52:32 PM »
I think there's a distinction to be made between VA/Vet's programs and AA programs.

Outside of being incapacitated, one can choose to join the military and benefit from the program(s).  One doesn't choose their race/ethnicity, so they haven't taken positive action to "join" the group that benefits.

That reminds me of the post (mobell's??) on another thread where it was asked "if you were gonna get a URM bonus, would you "be" a URM and take the *&^% that's associated with it? (and vice versa)".  I wish that were an option, so people on both sides could put their money where their mouths are.

In any case, like someone said before, I think AA programs are necessary evils.  I also think most people accept this view.  The bigger problem, IMO, is if/when at some future time we have to take these programs away (if they've made things more or less equal).  I could see a lot more anger then.  It's sort of like when you let the cat out of the bag, ya know?