Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Wrong Kind of Black

Just a thought tonight on an interesting comment that is rather telling about race. The comment comes from Morehouse College professor Marc Lamont Hill. He was angry that Trump had met with Steve Harvey and other black actors, performers and athletes. Marc described these meetings as:
"a bunch of mediocre negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo op for Donald Trump's exploitative campaign against black people..."
It's fascinating to me that a black "intellectual" would dismiss an entire group of blacks as "mediocre negroes." I can't imagine a white person could get away with saying that without Lamont trying to crucify them. What's more, he made it clear that Trump even listening to their opinions was "condescending" and "demeaning." So apparently, it is now racist for whites to talk to the wrong black people. I wasn't aware blacks had been divided into talkables and untalkables. Who knew? It's funny how Clarence Thomas doesn't have a mention in the National Museum of African American History in DC, isn't it? I guess he didn't make the cut into the talkables.

You know, I can't help but also think of the NFL, where certain quarterbacks are beyond reproach no matter how bad they are, but everyone feels free to unload on those who "act white." Hello, Russel Wilson. Hello, RGIII. "Act white" apparently means don't beat your wife, don't kill your dog, speak proper English and generally avoid the thug life. Though, I suspect it really means "be someone whites like."

I recall seeing this in the DC elections too in the 1990s when the mayor was dismissed for not being "black enough." This actually comes up a lot in politics, but that was the first time I saw it. And what did it mean? It meant that whites respected him. Oh, and Heaven help you though if you work for a white conservative, then you become a House N*gger, which seems a bit like being an "infidel".

It's interesting to me that "black culture" seems to have defined itself through anger and it pours out rage on those who lack the hateful spark. Honestly, this reminds me a bit of militant Islam or Nazism or white southern culture in the 1960's, groups who were so consumed with their anger that they let it consume them. Fortunately, I doubt that most black people fall into this culture, but for those who do, it's a definite dead end.

You know what? Maybe a guy like Harvey isn't mediocre after all? Maybe a guy like Harvey is a man with insight... a man who realizes that hating your neighbor doesn't put food on your table or solve any of your other problems... a man who realizes that maybe there is something to all this talk about us all being brothers after all, and that if we acted that way, the world just might be a better place.



Tennessee Jed said...

Hill makes his living as the "angry lib black man". I doubt there will be any penalty for such a statement. Jimmy the Greek or Limbaugh get fired. Not so for Hill or Jimmy Kimmel's old band leader. Remember "Big booty assed lying bitch" being played when the former confresswoman from Minn. came on his show?

Koshcat said...

Fortunately, the most "mediocre negro" in the country will finish his term this week.

Koshcat said...

I was just reminded of a quote:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Anthony said...


A month and a half ago you told me the appointment of Carson to HUD was a PR move designed to deflect charges of racism.


AndrewPrice said...
Anthony, HUD is a pointless agency. It's basically a slum lord with immunity. I see the appointment of Carson simply as photo-op which undercuts the claim that Trump is an "ist."

tryanmax, The real problem is pointing out what the requirements are to run HUD at all. Ideally, the person who should be running it is some sort of real estate investor, but that's not who gets appointed. And the left doesn't like Wall Street and there really are no other qualifications for the job.

If anything, HUD has become a sort of "values" job, where the secretary is seen as imposing values of one type or another on poor people. So Carson really does fit the pattern.

End Quotes


That is pretty much what hill said without the BS personal insult.


On Monday’s “CNN Tonight,” Morehouse College Professor and CNN Commentator Marc Lamont Hill stated that President-Elect Donald Trump’s diversity coalition was “a bunch of mediocre negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people.”

Hill said, “I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were accurate — or appropriate rather, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump. Again, his intention is just to have a seat at the table. But when you’re at the table, you should have experts at the table. You should have people who can challenge the president at the table. … Because all — because they keep bringing up comedians and actors and athletes to represent black interests is demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending. Bring some people up there with some expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”

He added, “Unless Steve Harvey turns into a policy analyst in the behind the scenes meetings, it doesn’t matter what I was — I’m saying, my concern is who — the people he’s trumpeting up and putting in front of the cameras.”

Anthony said...

As for Clarence Thomas, the museum barely covers Thurgood Marshall's tenure in the Supreme Court.

It covers Marshall quite a bit, but mostly in the context of his work as an attorney for the NAACP. No lawyer before or since has won more victories before the SC though it's also worth noting Marshall frequently risked his life by going deep into Klan territory to fight cases. He didn't expect to win those cases initially (though he sometimes did) he sought to build the foundations to win on appeal.

Clarence Thomas like most SC justices, was not famous before he joined it. Thomas is certainly the most reliably conservative justice now that Scalia is dead but he is one of the quieter justices so most people (even his defenders) would have a hard time naming anything he has done or said.

If Clarence had the politics of a Souter no one (certainly not the conservatives making a racket) would care about his absence from the Museum.

Still, it's ridiculous that Anita Hill gets more mentions than Thomas. Not covering him much is reasonable, covering her more (for the purposes of history, a part of his confirmation) isn't.

Anthony said...

Don't know about that other guy, but RG3's problem wasn't his personal behavior it was his performance on the field.

RG3 was a good QB who had a strong first year, but he was also a good runner, so he kept running and kept getting injured (putting him on the bench more and decreasing his effectiveness when he was on the field).

If he had stayed healthier and the Redskins had won more (two separate but related things) everybody would love him, but he didn't so he got benched and then traded.

*Shrugs* Of course, I am not a real football fan, but I live right outside of DC, so its impossible not to pick up a little something.

Generally speaking, acting like a decent person costs one nothing with the black community. The urbane, faithful to his wife Obama (pretty much a garden variety liberal professor) was white liberals' pick before the black community came around.

Black liberals (the overwhelming majority) and black conservatives tend to be separate by the fire of hatred, a fire both sides love to feed (David Clark called Hill a jigaboo over Twitter).

That benefits Democrats because it tends to not move people, and as I said right now most blacks vote Democratic.

My stance is that one needs to emphasize the principles of conservatism rather than extol the virtues of the Republican party (sadly, they are two increasingly separate things).

When I tell people I am conservative, their first impulse is to assume I am an apologist for whatever high profile Republican has said something silly. I explain that conservatism is more about how one views life and what one expects from politicians than who one votes for.

No matter who is in office, blacks tend to lag behind in school. That is on black parents and its a problem only black parents can solve.

No matter who is in office, for the average person, education (obtaining a marketable degree) and not committing crimes and/or being an idiot are key parts of getting ahead in life.

That is not to say there is stuff within the system that doesn't need sorting out, but one should maintain perspective and not get too invested in crap which means relatively little.

To convince skeptical people of something one shouldn't come to them as a party apparatchik ('Vote for X, he'll save you, I promise!'), one should come to them as a someone who shares their concerns and wants only what is best for them.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, There is an intense double standard on this issue.

I do remember that. And could you imagine the outrage if the races were reversed?

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, LOL! Yep. Now he is the most mediocre of us all. Could you imagine being President for eight years and having only a couple failures on your resume as your only achievements? Pathetic.

Good call on the Animal Farm quote. It's funny how useful that quote is to describe the left.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, You've missed the point on the Carson quote.

BevfromNYC said...

"...It meant that whites respected him. Oh, and Heaven help you though if you work for a white conservative, then you become a House N*gger, which seems a bit like being an "infidel"."

One of my favorite twitter storm last week was directed Sen. Tim Scott (R/SC) for supporting Sessions. It ran the gammit from A to B on calling him that and worse. He kept politely and graciously reminding them that he was in the Senate. Trump could/should learn a lot from this exchange.


AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I don't see how not covering Thomas is reasonable. The black intellectual community, like women's groups, is desperate to come up with "black achievements." It's so bad they dredge up "first black/woman to ___" or people who's only achievement was to push their politics.

In fact, think about the currency debate and how badly the left struggles to find women worthy of being on the currency. There are what? Six to ten names and maybe half of them are just leftist activists and the other half have one minor achievement... wrote a book, advocated for women's rights, Disney character, advocated for women's rights, wrote a book, advocated for women's rights, first women to do what hundreds of men have already done. In those circumstances, you really can't dismiss someone who has genuine achievements without it being an obvious politics sleight.

AndrewPrice said...


"Don't know about that other guy, but RG3's problem wasn't his personal behavior it was his performance on the field."

This misses the point. RGIII does stink, but so did guys like Mike Vick, Akili Smith, JaMarcuss Russell, Vince Young, Jason Campbell, Josh Freemen, Geno Smith, etc. The difference is that while RGIII is a free fire zone, you could not criticize those other guys until they completely flamed out -- and even then sometimes not. Vick, who has an awful passer rating and never had two winning seasons back to back, was routinely described as "elite," and to say otherwise brought charges of racism. He was untouchable until he got caught killing dogs. I'm more accurate than Vince Young, but he was untouchable until he had a mental breakdown. JaMarcus and Smith were two of the worst quarterbacks ever, but they were untouchable until their failures became embarrassing. Geno Smith sucks, but you couldn't criticize him until he started setting records for sucking.

There are scouting reports where these guys were criticized for their attitudes, their accuracy or their intelligence coming out of college, and those reports were condemned as "racist" even though similar assessments are routinely made against white quarterbacks. One made against Geno Smith and one against JaMarcus Russell brought weeks of howls of racism... even though they were right. To compare one of these guys to a failed black quarterback is considered racist. To call them "just a runner" is racist. To suggest they chance their position is "racist" even as several guys have done this and found their niche.

But then you have RGIII. Coming out of college, he was seen as the second coming. I can't think of a single analyst who didn't bend over backwards to say he was better than Andrew Luck. His first few games went really well. Then he got injured. While he was injured, the attacks started: "locker room cancer," "diva," "not talented," "owner's pet," "only a runner!" So what happened during that time? There were articles about him having a white wife, being a religious conservative, and being seen with conservatives. Suddenly, he was fair game and they went after him with a vengeance.

Has he sucked since his injury? Sure, but the attacks started while he was injured, not after. And a lot of people truly HATE him and want him to fail... the same people who hate Tebow.

Then there's Russell Wilson. Wilson is the real deal. He's an amazing quarterback. Last year, however, was a contract year (a typical event which usually draws no criticism). Here, the whispers began: "diva" (untrue), "not black enough... lost the blacks in the locker room", "greedy" (not true), "only a runner" (not true).

What does Wilson have in common with RGIII? Well spoken, espouses conservative religious beliefs, respected by whites.

In the 80's and 90's, Warren Moon was never an icon of the black community because he was considered too white. Then he got arrested for beating his wife and he started screaming racism. Now he's an icon.

Rush was wrong about Donnovan McNabb. McNabb was another guy who could be criticized because he wasn't ghetto. Only after Rush attacked him did he suddenly become untouchable.

Heck, look at OJ. OJ was always dismissed as "wannabe white." Then the killings happened and whether or not you supported him became a racial divide.

At some point, the pattern becomes clear.

And again, let me be clear, I'm not talking about "blacks," I'm talking about the group that speaks for the black community and to which so many pay fealty... black sportswriters, editorialists, reporters, celebrities, politicians, and their white liberal fellow travelers.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, On the rest of your comment, I would say this... and this is my point:

The black community will continue to fail so long as they are not honest about the things that undermine them. Blacks are not held down by racism, they are held down by a culture that generates bad choices in key areas -- a lack of respect for education (particularly useful education), an arrogance/aggressive machismo that creates an attitude that turns off the people they need to please to get ahead, and a vicitmization mentality that shifts blame to others for their own failures.

Let me give you two examples of things I'm talking about. My oldest daughter is mixed race. She's a bright wonderful girl who has decided she's going to MIT to become an engineer. Last summer, she went to visit the black half of her family.

After a few days, they sat her down and told her that she needs to "stop using big words nobody knows" (except a 12 year old) because it's "condescending" to them and it's hurtful to their kids, who are morons. Then they told her that she needs to be "in touch with her blackness," which from the context apparently means to dumb herself down. The next day, her aunt told her to forget MIT because "that's not a place for blacks." I was furious when I heard this. Fortunately, she's too smart to accept that shit, but that whole worthless family believes it and they are all failures because of it.

Second thing, this is more subtle, but equally important. Our daughters have a lot of minority friends. These are people who are upper income; most live in homes with a value between $400k and $700k in Colorado, so this isn't a ghetto issue. Nevertheless, these families show a very different set of values than their white counterparts, values which are negative. So far, none of these parents has shown the slightest interest in meeting us -- didn't even come to the door when we dropped off our daughter. The white parents, by comparison, are obsessive about meeting us before they allow their kids to do a sleepover, to spend time here, or even before they accept our kids at their house. These parents let their kids walk off without knowing where they are head and they will drop them at the mall without supervision... the kids are 11 years old. The white parents never allow this. They require supervision. Their kids show no respect for other people's property. They are more likely to be dating someone -- often someone much older. They are much more likely to talk about how they hate school and the teachers. Their knowledge base is noticeably lower. Again, these are the children of professionals.

These may seem like minor things, but they are the building block to failure. Add in the things they will be exposed to later, such as the victim mentality and the idea of being "black enough", and you have a recipe for creating a class of people who will struggle and will continuously undermine themselves all the while blaming societal forces for their problems.

And if you want a much more shocking example of why the black community has problems, check out documentaries like Hard Times At Douglass High: LINK. It's shocking. This is the sort of thing the black community needs to make unacceptable, not excuse or ignore. If this had been a white school, this would be a national scandal. Or check out Hoop Dreams and pay attention to how every one of the kids' relatives tell them that school is not the way for blacks to succeed. Talk about undermining these kids!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I always find it amazing that these people will claim that certain words and ideas are unacceptable, but then turn around and use them against their minority opponents. So is it all an act?

tryanmax said...

Marc Lamont Hill: [M]y disagreement is the way in which [Steve Harvey] is being used by folk like Donald Trump. Again, his intention is just to have a seat at the table. But when you’re at the table, you should have experts at the table.

I'm going to be momentarily pedantic and point out that if any white person linguistically stripped Harvey of agency as Hill does here, there'd be hell to pay for it. With that out of the way, Trump understands a number of things that Hill does not.

First of all, Hill is absolutely right that this is PR. What he forgets is that with the public, celebrity holds more sway than expertise. Can you name any experts in any cabinet secretary field? Even if you can, are their credentials well-known enough to be unassailable by a hostile press? Look what they did to Betsy DeVos: according to all the available research, Detroit charter schools significantly outperform district schools, yet media opponents called DeVos's reforms a "disaster." Who's gonna defend the record? Certainly not Trump or any of his supporters! Automatic dismissal!

Conversely, Steve Harvey is no expert, but he's well-known and well-liked. The public believes his heart is in the right place. He's trusted. If he can have a sit down with Trump and come out saying he feels encouraged--that he feels heard--how can that be refuted? Hill made his best attempt and didn't come out looking so good. Meanwhile, Trump has gained a mark as being liked by a likable guy. He will continue to collect such marks.

Ultimately, the problem for Hill, and the beauty of political props, is that you can't explain how the sausage gets made without being seen as a sausage maker.

tryanmax said...

"stop using big words nobody knows"

This happens in a lot of communities. I personally encountered it in the working-class community I was born in, the rural community my family moved to, and at every low-wage job I've held. Fortunately for me, it's simply not in my nature to dumb down my speech.

I think people react so much to unfamiliar language because it's a very basic in/out-group identifier. To "speak the same language" is an idiom that indicates deep alignment. Thus, you'll see the same person tease another for using a word they don't know as well as not knowing a word they do use. Both instances are an effort to demonstrate that the person is in the in-group by virtue of language mastery.

BevfromNYC said...

OT: It has just been reported that George H.W.Bush is now in ICU and Barbara Bush has also been admitted to the hospital.

tryanmax said...

Bev, I bet all the moaners who kept calling 2016 "The Worst Year Ever" because celebrities who hadn't been relative in decades started dropping will call this a good start to 2017. Because they're asshats.

Anthony said...


None of that education stuff shocks me. We seem to be on broadly the same page when it comes to the black community and the education and care of its children.

As for the sports stuff, I don't read sports news, so I'll take your word for it.

Regarding Thomas, I just don't see what achievements he has had besides being reliably conservative (an issue with SC nominees) and surviving nasty confirmation hearings. By most accounts he isn't much of a talker.


For most Americans, Thomas slipped into virtual anonymity after he took his judicial oath. He shuns interviews and rarely speaks during arguments. In fact, he spoke up this year in a public case for the first time in years.

End quote

Being the second black Supreme Court justice is great, but so was being the second man to walk the moon (I doubt one person in a hundred could name the second, though most could name the first). That being said, I'd be fine with Thomas getting more mentions in the museum (with Republicans making it a cause celebre it seems inevitable)if it comes at the expense of Anita Hill, who is mentioned too much.


The new Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History and Culture treats conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas like a mere footnote while heralding the woman who accused him of sexual harassment, Anita Hill.
Twenty-five years ago, Thomas became the second black Supreme Court Justice when he succeeded Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice.
Neither man's accomplishments as jurists on the high court get as much attention as Hill, though Marshall's work on a landmark case as a lawyer is recognized.

tryanmax said...

With only two black Supreme Court justices to date, one wouldn't expect space to be so precious as to not give ample attention to both.

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony - I beg to differ about Justice Thomas. He is a prolific writer of judicial opinions and/or writing his own corroborating or dissenting opinions. He rarely "me too"'s opinion from the court. He is criticized because he does not ask questions during oral arguments, but he listens carefully and renders his own opinions whether you like them or not. He is not a backbencher, affirmative action appointed Justice as many like to think.

Anthony said...


With his thin resume, there is no way in heck he would have gotten the job if he weren't a black guy replacing the last black justice.

He was a clever move on Bush's part (a guy with a long record of conservatism wouldn't have gotten through), one which put a true conservative in the court, but he is an affirmative action hire

In the context of the Supreme Court I'm not sure what being a backbencher would entail (all SC justice's votes carry the same weight) so I've never applied that label to him.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think that's right. That's why commercials use celebrities. Being seen as being liked by a celebrity with a particular market will score you a ton more points than being seen with an unknown expert.

AndrewPrice said...

On Thomas, The man is a brilliant jurist and with the dearth of other candidates, he should be in the museum.

As for his resume, he would not have gotten the job if race had not been a consideration, but that's not uncommon for minority appointments. Sotomayer's resume is a joke.

The problem is that the political word is premised on politics, not ability. And the political system sees minorities as selling points, not persons of merit. So that is what you get. You get minorities who are groomed to higher office by the system, often without the skills to back up the position, and they keep being appointed up because of their status not their talent.

Take Obama. Groomed by liberal whites, he was an empty suit who sold himself as "I'm the white person's black man... make an anti-racist statement by voting for me!" And the pubic picked him and the past 8 years have shown what happens when you put a talent-less, experience-less prop into the White House.

If you want genuine ability, elect Oprah... elect Herman Caine... elect Condie Rice... elect guys like Reginald Johnson or John Johnson. Don't bottom feed with the race baiters. In fact, let me suggest conservatives are much more likely to appointed talented blacks to office than liberals.

Anthony said...


I agree a problem with politics is the importance of political abilities/political considerations rather than managerial skill. That being said, I'm not sure 'non-politicians' are the answer because even the candidacies of those people hinge on how well they campaign vs how competently they could govern.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, To clarify, I'm not offering them as the answer to better politics. Politics is a game that draws the worst kind of people and always will.

What I am saying is that the black community would do well to shift its focus away from politics as the center of their universe because if you want to find "quality" black people, then you need to look at people who've actually achieved something other than "spoke up for black people."

As a general rule, the whites/Asian/Hispanics I've known rarely look to politics for their heroes. They look to scientists (Einstein, Hawkins), astronauts (Glenn), writers (Shakespeare, Dickens, King), industrialists (Ford, Buffett), inventors (Edison) and artists (Rembrandt). If they mention a politician, it's usually one who is gone -- Reagan, Churchill, Washington. That's a wide variety of achievement giving kids lots of options and lots of examples.

When you see the black celebrity community mention the people they think blacks should look up to, it tends to be limited to black politicians, basketball players, and musicians. It's the same way feminists limit their answer to feminist politicians even though the world of women achievers is quite vast.

It doesn't really give much perspective to the world.

Post a Comment