Los Angeles homeless activist Ted Hayes, in Monday’s WSJ,
American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo–the list of slurs is long.
But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique, progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who call the Dome Village home are being “evicted” from privately owned property after 12 1/2 years—apparently on account of my political beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of President Bush.
Here’s how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address a local Republican Women’s Club; my landlord read an article in the local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330. Shocked, I inquired as to the seriousness of the change, and the property owner blurted out that the cause of our “eviction” was “because you are Republican.” He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.
And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and tolerance.
Private property should be protected, of course, and I have no intention of causing any trouble for this property owner as we part ways. Whatever he does with his valuable land—t is only a few blocks from the Staples Center—is no concern of mine, and I will not go to court.
Still, I cannot help but be saddened by the whole business. When I founded the Dome Village 12 years ago, we had an understanding that he could ask for his property back at any time for any reason, and I would say “absolutely” without hesitation. Still, his reason was prejudice against Republicans.
We see this across the country. Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland and a Republican candidate for the Senate, has been crudely disparaged on racial grounds. A prominent leftist Web site, for instance, depicted him as “Sambo,” among other aspersions. When Condoleezza Rice was nominated as secretary of state, she faced similar treatment: editorial cartoons depicting her as a racial caricature, personalities calling her “Aunt Jemima” on liberal talk radio, and so forth. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell and other black conservatives regularly face similar smears.
These conservatives are attacked not because of the validity or judicious consideration of their views but because those views are supposedly heterodox for American blacks. Yet it is my opinion that many black people in the U.S. are politically and philosophically conservative—and many are in fact actually closeted Republicans, fearful of persecution by friends, business associates, society clubs, schoolmates and even churches.
It is time for American blacks to have a conversation about the phenomenon of Democrats persecuting black Republicans. Why is this happening? What is it that the Democrats don’t want black folks to understand about Republicans? What is it that the Democrats don’t want black folks to know about Democrats? And how is it that we have come to this point—after having endured so much—where we have ourselves curtailed the freedom of political expression through the threat of retaliatory consequences?
As I’ve pointed out now on several occasions, “tolerance” from the progressive left extends only so far as representatives from a particular coalition-protected “identity group” stick to the group’s official narrative, which has been polished and vetted and focus-tested by the leadership to ensure that its content carries optimal political power in the current climate of competing grievance politics.
Consequently, people like Condi Rice or Ted Hayes or Michael Steele or Ward Connerly or Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell, or Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell—to name but a few recent examples of those who have refused to blindly follow the Democratic party, which owns the black vote and the “black message” just as sure as its pet race hustlers police the plantation—are dismissed, with rancor and opprobrium, as race traitors or inauthentic blacks by those who have presumed to take ownership of the “black identity”.
The superficial “blackness” of the modern black identity—pigmentation alone (which, ironically, is what propels the equally odious an anti-individualistic “diversity” movement)—has been replaced by a “blackness” that is entirely politically contingent on the individual black’s willingness to follow the group narrative.
Individualism has been throw over in favor of political collectivism, and blackness—like so many other politically viable categories (see our recent struggles to define “feminism”)—can ill afford to brook strong internal dissent over the kernel message, which (ironically) foregrounds shared victimhood in order to assert power.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
****
More, including updates, denials, and rebuttals to denials here; and Baldilocks has more. See also, Evan Coyne Maloney, from Dec 23.
On the first day of Kwanzaa Jeff Goldstein gave to me,
An ed-u-cation in di-ver-si-ty.
Firstly, the landlord is an idiot. Even if s/he could make a ton of cash renting the property at $18K, s/he should know that the community benefits as well as the tax benefits of owning low-income housing like a homeless shelter are nearly boundless. To edge the current tenants out of the property simply based on the discovery of the leasee’s political orientation is wingnutry of a severe degree. I’m sure the neighborhood will appreciate that this person has kicked homeless folks out onto their streets.
But—as I’m sure a liberal is rushing here to point out—the most important thing to remember is that no one actually threw any Oreos.
Apparantly Mr. Hayes suffers from the same malady as Mr. Steele – articulatewhile being black.
as been replaced by a “blackness†that is entirely politically contingent on the individual black’s willingness to follow the group narrative.
It’s a black thing Jeff. You wouldn’t get it.
I can’t wait for someone like Howard Dean to slip and use the word “uppity.”
One of my good friends is a politically conservative black man.
He’s in the music business, and when I suggested that he might tell people about his views, he stared at me and said, “Are you nuts? Most of my fans wouldn’t listen to me any more…”
So (according to gilliard) if you’re white and you vote for Michael Steele are you a n_gg_r lover?
Confusing times.
The left’s view of diversity is that it’s just wonderful—as long as everybody thinks alike.
TW: “Good diversity is only skin-deep.”
So (according to gilliard) if you’re white and you vote for Michael Steele are you a n_gg_r lover?
Confusing times.
Nope. Not confused at all. Steele is far and away the best candidate here in MD. It’s a shame that more people can’t see that. He appears regularly on WBAL in Baltimore, and is a great guy. Fabulous personality, without being an overbearing politico; straight-talker; honest about his and Bob Erlich’s mistakes, but diligent about pressing forward with the business of the state. I think he and Erlich are a complete breath of fresh air. I hope they both go far. Come November, I’m voting for them both.
Oops. Mispelled ‘Ehrlich.’ Comes from my wife’s cousins having almost the same last name.
Nuke,
Do you get the sense that Steele can win?
Don’t know about the legalities, funding, etc., but does anyone think making some donations to get Ted Hayes and his shelter up and running elsewhere would be a good idea? Unless it would jeapordize any other funding he gets, I would.
Geez, if the compassionate ones will do this to a Republican shelter director what would they do if one of the homeless went Republica.
Ahhhhh, so that is what Mr. Hayes is up to.
Could Rove be behi…… Nah.
Republica? A latin term for a conservative Roman.
[peeve]
Jesus, Jeff.
Don’t use “foreground” as a verb. Just don’t.
Eschew the random enverbment of nouns. It’s not worth saving a few words to say “foregrounds” rather than “moves … to the foreground”.
[/peeve]
Sigivald:
I disagree. Such usage embiggens us all.
I am not just “stating a peeve,” I am “peeving!”
I saw Ted Hayes at the Liberty Film Festival. Also saw a documentary on the Republican Party and AFrican American history. I think a movement is starting, away from the Democratic plantation and into full citizenhood…
Jeff,
I couldn’t agree more with your views on identity politics and the left’s hypocracy. Especially on issues pertaining to race.
However, before I blindly take this guy’s side, I’d like to know more. So far, his word and his word only. There may be more, much more that we don’t know and aren’t being told.
A good example occurred here in Anchorage shortly after 9/11. An arab family owned print shop was broken into and severely vandalized. Scrawled on the wall were racist slurs about arabs, “get out of the US”, etc.
This recieved wide publicity locally. a fund was organized to help out the owner. A group called ‘Not in My Town’ was formed to fight this type of racism.
Turns out though that the owner had financial problems and LOTS of debt and it was discovered that he did the vandalism himself. It was a an attempt to collect insurance and scam some free cash by playing on the sympathy of the unsuspecting.
I feel for this guy, but I’ll keep my poweder dry until I hear the whole story.
As I said above though, your take on the left, identity/grievance politics and hypocracy are right on point. IMHO.
On a tangent, part of the video for Sure Shot by The Beastie Boys was shot at Dome Village. Working in DVDs from the other thread, my copy of that video comes from the The Work of Director Spike Jonze. Recommended, if you like the videos it contains. If not, then skip it.
Sigivald —
That’s the proper use in the crit / theory / academic camp. And it’s far less offensive than other neologisms.
alppuccino. Frankly, no. I think he’s gonna get nailed by whoever wins the Democratic nomination. The reality is that Maryland is hugely Democratic. The only reason that Ehrlich/Steele won (unfortunately) was that Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend was such a bimbo that even left-leaning moderates (like I was once) couldn’t stand the thought of her running the show. Frankly, I think we made a brilliant choice, accidently. Just about any other state in the nation, and it wouldn’t even have been a contest. Ehrlich and Steele are really something.
As it is, the House of Delegates and State Senate are strongly Democratic, and have done everything possible to torpedo Ehrlich’s agenda. I’m not completely unhappy that we continue to not have slots, but it’s certainly not out of any general principal on the Dems’ part. If Baltimore’s Mayor O’Malley beats Ehrlich this year, you can bet your hat, ass, and overcoat that we’ll see slots within a year. The partisanship in this state pisses me off.
So, to answer your question: It is highly unlikely, unless the Democratic primary so damages the Dem nominee, that Steele will win. I don’t know when the last time was that we had a Republican Senator. He’d be great. Simple as that. What a fucking role-model, too. I can’t even imagine the heads that would turn because of him being on a national stage. Jesse Jackson would crap his pants!
It’s hard not to be cynical when confronted with such as this. The potential is amazing. The reality will suck. And O’Malley as Governor is terrifying. I ran into him at a Chanukah celebration a few nights ago. He oozes schmooze. It’s disgusting. I’d tell him to kiss my Jewish ass, but he’s already tried….
The Wall Street Journal, fan of the progressive homeless shelter.
Brilliant fucking incite, actus.
I mean, insight.
It’s not a “shelter” in the usual sense of the word, actus. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that.
Ted Hayes has a decades-long and unimpeachable reputation for effective homeless activism here in LA.
What have you done for the homeless lately?
“Effective”, Juliette? That’s probably why actus is sneering.
::shrug::
Black people aren’t slaves any more.
They’re a crop, and the cultivators are naturally indignant when “sports” pop up—they’re hard to harvest and spoil the symmetry of the field. Best to keep plenty of fertilizer spread, and clip the tops occasionally to keep it all uniform. Reaping goes much more smoothly that way. (Or do I have a surplus vowel there?)
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along…
Regards,
Ric
It’s also interesting that as long as you have the right politics, your membership in the group is off-limits. Viz., Ward Fucking Churchill.
(Okay, he does piss me off a little. Dammit, I’m on the grad faculty at CU and I’m a *real* Indian.)
Keep you eye on this.
Who will be the first to trot out the “Uncle Tom” moniker for Swannie?
Dunno, but they best not be close to Pittsburgh when they do.
The NAACP absolutely HATES Ted, for calling them on perpetuating the African-American cycle of self-victimization. You should have seen them go at it on “Black Forum.”
re-upped my subscription to the WSJ. I mean, I get it for lines like this: “In other words, let the homeless be damned.”
Much better than the tired ‘lucky ducky’ stuff.
Who else gets all warm and fuzzy thinking about actus being a lawyer for the other side?
Foreground is the past tense of foregrind.
By the way, it this landlord turns around and rents the property to some white folks for less than 18K, can he be sued for discrimination?
Is actus latin for rectum? Either way, that boy smells baaaad!
Can a republican sue for discrimination even if they believe the civil rights act infringes on contract rights and is too expansive of a reading of the commerce clause? Sure!
Actus, you need to get to a doctor. You’re spewing bile all over the place.
Actus (and others),
Be so kind as to click on the lone trackback to this post.
tw: french. Heh.
I thought foregrind was a rougher version of foreplay.
He was allegedly evicted for being a Republican. No mention whatsoever of race in his account of his conversations with the property owner. No indication whatsoever that the property owner called him a race traitor or a sellout or an Uncle Tom. Don’t conservatives pretend to be against ascribing race-based motives to actions when there is no evidence?
Actus, I find it interesting that you have yet to make one single coherent comment in this thread. Are you that angry?
Josh—huh? We understand that. As per Mr. Hayes, this is about Democrats attacking black people who become Republicans (http://thirdplanet.tv/TedHayes/Ted_Hayes_Fox.mov). Maybe you should ask your question over at the Democratic Underground.
That’s my point, and why this whole thing is transparently stupid and cynical. You and Hayes and Goldstein want it to be about “attacking black people who become Republicans,” even though there’s no evidence whatsoever that Hayes’ blackness had anything to do with the eviction. See, if you want this to be about “attacking black people who become Republican,” you need some basis to conclude that Hayes’ status as a black Republican, rather than just a Republican, prompted the property owner’s actions. Such evidence is lacking, but race is nonetheless injected where it doesn’t belong so as to fit the “plantation” Republican talking-point. Hope that cleared things up for you.
You don’t know me well enough to call me “Goldstein,
Josh.
And you’re wrong—I don’t want this to be about anything. I simply take Ted Hayes at his word, and note that his situation, as he frames it, is part of a larger and quite obvious trend. You don’t see it that—which is hardly surprising. But then, you are a liberal, so you get to tell the black man that he’s wrong about assessing the prejudice against him. After all, you know better.
Now fuck yourself.
So it doesn’t matter if the action was based on race or not, as long as “the black man” thinks he was discriminated against because of his race, he was. Next up, niggardly. Who cares about evidence of intent? We’ve got a talking point to push! LIBERALS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!!11!!
Pretty weak, even by your standards.
I didn’t say that it “doesn’t matter” if it was in fact based on race. I said that Hayes said it was based on race, and that I trust him—who experienced it—over you, who keep trying to suggest he’s disingenuously turning it into an issue of race. Why don’t you believe him? Is it because he’s black or is it because he’s conservative?
And don’t talk to me about my standards when you can’t even misrepresent my position with any degree of cogency.
Careful, or you’ll get cut from the lefty debate squad.
As for this being part of a “larger and quite obvious trend”, I doubt it. Many of the examples that are held up as part of this trend are bogus. For instance, there is the Washington Times story about Michael Steele, approvingly linked by Protein Wisdom, that was clearly a hack piece. The story about Oreos being ”thick in the air like locusts” has no eyewitness accounts from the time of the event supporting that story. (And yes, I know that this isn’t linked to in this specific post, but it’s part of the general category of stories that supposedly demonstrate a “trend” of racial attacks against black Republicans that are either exaggerations or fabrications.) In the Daily Kos article you link to criticizing Colin Powell, the majority of Kos commentors jump down the diarist’s throat for his comparison Powell to Uncle Tom. Gilliard’s comments were denounced by the Maryland Democratic Party. And on and on. If you take all of these “examples” at face value, then it might seem like a trend. But a little examination shows these stories either to be fabrications or exaggerations. And when these things actually did happen, they are denounced by the majority of the Democratic party.
It’s politically advantageous to take the distasteful comments of a minority (a minority, by the way, that is clearly denounced by the majority of other Democrats) and try and depict those actions as indicative of an entire group. But it’s simple stereotyping for political gain, not some reflection of a real obvious trend.
So let me get this straight: a discrepency in the number of Oreos thrown (rather than the admission by the Dem staffers, only later denounced, that such was a fine and fair tactic)—along with the fact that some on the left disapprove with the rhetorical tactics I’ve evinced (though not with the underlying ideology that leads to such outbursts)—this is your argument?
Fine. My argument is that this minority of the minority that you invoke is simply notable for showing most baldly and inartfully what is the natural outcome of its own ideologies. Your “little examination” is nothing more than a series of weak justifications and excuses—the foremost being that most who follow identity politics are not so inelegant as those I’ve pointed out.
Can’t say that changes my mind—though congrats on the polish, I guess.
Hayes’ WSJ account of the conversation made no mention of race. Nonetheless you believe him, sans evidence, because it fits your narrative (or “larger and obvious trend”). As the person making accusations of racism, Hayes is obligated to back them up. But you shift the burden of proof – “Why don’t you believe him?” – without apparent justification. Why is special pleading (covered in lefty debate class) permitted here? Do you similarly take at face value the claims of black New Orleansians that the 9th ward was intentionally flooded to ethnically cleanse the city? Or that FEMA help was slow because George Bush is a racist? Are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton similarly excused of the chore of actually supporting their claims of racism? Why do only black Republicans get to shift the burden?
We’ve got a talking point to push! LIBERALS ARE THE REAL RACISTS!!11!!
Well Joshy,
Maybe it’s not so much of a talking point as it is a cold hard fact supported by decades of historical evidence.
After reading your comments a better talking point comes to mind:
HEY EVERYBODY! I’M A LIBERAL AND I JUST FUCKED SOME CHILDREN RIGHT OUT INTO THE STREET BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING HELPED BY A REPUBLICAN. BUT DON’T YOU DARE PLAY THE RACE CARD JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. TRUST ME, THOSE CHILDREN ARE SLEEPING IN THE STREET BECAUSE OF PURE POLITICS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE YOU BUNCH OF RACE-BAITERS. MAYBE NEXT TIME THOSE CHILDREN WILL THINK TWICE ABOUT SEEKING HELP FROM A CONSERVATIVE. BOO YAH!!!!
Better?
Josh writes:
That mentions race.
My post uses that as a jumping off point to discuss the trend—which I do by linking to a number of examples—and by discussing the political philosophy of identity politics that I think leads inevitably to this kind of reaction. I took Hayes at his word because I have no reason not to—particularly in light of other instances of such demonization of black conservatives. Unlike Jackson or Sharpton, he doesn’t, that I know of, have a history of using race-baiting for profit or celebrity.
Similarly, I’m unaware of a trend of ethnic cleansing by way of intentional flooding using 100 mile per hour winds and a hurricane as clever cover.
Your argument is simply a sad and ineffectual attempt to get me off the topic. But it’s a silly argument (“how can you make the larger case until you’ve first proven this smaller case?”), and I’m not interested in having it.
I called it, 26 hours ahead. I’m shocked it took this long for it to come up.
And, Josh, is it really less offensive if his rent was raised because of his party affiliation instead of race?
I said Hayes’ account of the conversation, not Hayes’ whole piece. Don’t talk to me about my standards when you can’t even misrepresent my position with any degree of cogency.
From the WSJ piece:
Please note that Republican and black are not synonyms.
Then, with you clinging gleefully to his ankles, Hayes makes the unjustified leap to assert that this has something to do with his being a black Republican, as opposed to just a Republican. The facts he recites don’t support his conclusion that the eviction had anything to do with his race, and in fact they undermine it. But you believe his conclusion because you want to. And special pleading is how you justify it. This last comment is essentially an admission that the Hayes story was simply a timely way to push a point that you want to push, regardless of whether it supported that point. Generally facts lead to conclusions, not the other way around. But forget the nuances. Just follow alpuccino’s lead – LIBERALS ARE HURTING THE CHILLUNS BECAUSE THEY ARE TEH RACIST!!1!
No. Let me restate the argument.
1) Many of the recent stories on blacks and the Republican party are factually inaccurate (see the Oreo story and the Washington Times story).
Tapes of the debate show no Oreo throwing, and there were no eyewitness reports of Oreo throwing until weeks after the debate (even though there were definitely reports of the the crowd generally being wild and rancorous at the debate). So as for a discrepancy in the number of Oreos thrown, yes there is. Zero (or maybe a few reported well after the fact with no hard evidence) versus “like locusts”.
And the Washington Times story is filled with misquotes and outright fabrications of what Maryland Democratic leaders said (see here for a summary).
2) Some on the left (examples being Steve Gilliard, that Kos diarist, and a Maryland state rep) make Uncle Tom comments and are denounced by most when it happens.
3) Some conservatives (including yourself) then publicize the trumped-up stories (see point 1) without publicizing the bogus nature of these claims, and publicize the actions of a few that use racially-tinged commentary (see point 2) without also noting how these actions are widely denounced. They then take this as being part of a “larger and quite obvious trend”. And if you consider the trumped-up claims at face value and minimize the denunciations, then it would seem like a trend. But a careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that there isn’t a whole lot of evidence that this truly is a trend.
Is that a bit clearer?
Yes, Josh. I admit that the Hayes story was the reason for the post. That’s what writers and bloggers do—otherwise, what would people like you have to live for? But the “unjustified leap” bit I don’t accept. As I say, I have no reason not to believe Hayes.
And Llama School —
You don’t know shit all about me. I publicize these stories because they lift the veil on the problems with identity politics as a whole—and they are part of a long series of posts on the subject, which includes lengthy forays into hermeneutics. If all you are getting from my posts on the subject are that I’m out to get liberals, you’re missing quite a bit.
These aren’t trumped up charges—they are egregious examples of what I believe to be the inevitable end result of a particular social and political philosophy. They are what happens when the mask slips. You want me to point out how many times the mask stays puts, smiling benignly while behind it lurks the twisted face of a collectivist totalitarian streak? What for? I’ve already congratulated you on your polish.
Now, if you have a point to make about identity politics and its failings—or how it leads to the kind of behavior exhibited by Gilliard, or the diarest at Kos, or Ted Rall, or the Milwaukee paper, or Benjamin Hooks, et al., make it. Otherwise, I can safely say you continue to try to deflect the message here.
Is that clearer to you?
That the underlying facts in Hayes’ account fail to support, and indeed undermine, his claim of racist intent is reason enough to disbelieve him. Presumably if there was anything more damning, he would have mentioned it. That’s why the leap from “evicted for Republicanism” to “evicted for black Republicanism” is unjustified.
Jeff,
First off, I think that identity politics are absolutely moronic. People that use racial slurs to attack their opponents, or people that believe that black Republicans should be villified because of their race are stupid. I have no problem with people pointing this out and criticizing it when it does happen.
But I do have a problem with people pushing stuff like the misquote-filled Washington Times story (which you’ve done in the past) or the Oreo story (which others have done) without pointing out the falsehoods in those stories. Falsehoods which are promulgated by many because there’s some partisan points to be scored (i.e. Democrats/liberals/progressive = those that hide behind race to keep blacks as Democrats). When people have to resort to using weak evidence to make their point (for example, the Washington Times story was pushed all over the blogosphere and Fox News), then one needs to step back and see if the point has any merit.
And I also have a problem with taking the few that do this and saying this reflects the entire progressive left. In your words:
Is this indicative of a few? Maybe. But when people do these kinds of things and get denounced once it becomes public (see Steve Gilliard and the Maryland Democrats, for example), I can’t see how this is at all representative of liberals, the progressive left, etc. It’s all good to call out idiots when they’re being idiots. But it’s also idiotic to then try and peg this on progressives when the evidence doesn’t support this.
Do you? Or can you link me to a few left-wing sites where you attempt to take these assertions to task for being baseless as you are doing here?
No. Claims of racist intent should be supported by something more than conclusory assertions by the aggrieved. For some reason, here the burden is shifted to doubters, who are now required to proffer some reason not to believe Hayes’ claims.
Llama school —
It’s simply inane to expect me to qualify every remark I make. Even in your example, I’ve qualified left by noting “progressive left.” Does this mean you can find progressive leftists who don’t go in for identity politics, PC speech codes, and the like? Probably, though they’d be rare—and bordering on falling outside of my definition of the progressive left.
I’ve cited enough examples—and there are plenty more I didn’t cite, as you are well aware—to make my thesis plausible and worth discussing. I’m simply not going to get hung up on ridiculous and reductive attempts to dilute the point. If you don’t believe the Oreo story (Steele still does, and didn’t accept the Dem party’s statement on the matter, as I recall) or Hayes, that’s fine. Then attribute my point to the instances you can’t excuse away and go from there.
Because as I say, I find these egregious examples simply ostensible instances of what the underlying philosophy ultimately demands.
So, when people called Bush a racist after the Katrina response, you were all over them as well?
You are not a “doubter”. You are a “dismisser”. Hayes made a statement about black republicans in general, and you deem it untrue…..with a conclusory assertion of your own.
My irony meter just broke.
I never thought the Katrina response was racially motivated. I don’t know if I was “all over” those who claimed it was. But whether I was or not is, of course, entirely irrelevant to whether Hayes was discriminated against because he was both black and Republican.
I doubt Hayes’ claims that the reason his rent was raised was because he was a black Republican. As I’ve pointed out several times, his account of the conversation with the property owner does not support that claim, as the property owner said nothing about Hayes’ race. Just a tip: when you provide a reason for your conclusion, it’s not a conclusory assertion. Further, Hayes made a claim about how liberals treat of black Republicans, not, as you claim, about black Republicans per se. Finally, I’ve never said anything about the merits of the plantation theory, much less dismissed it, as you claim. I merely point out that Hayes’ experience, as reported, doesn’t support the theory.
I don’t think it’s your irony meter that’s broken.
And I didn’t ask if you thought about Katrina. I asked if you responded about the “claims of racist intent”, to see just how serious you were about this particular topic. Not very, it seems.
As for it not being relevant….that’s not completely true. The topic of this thread (in part) is that of Black Americans who don’t toe the leftie party line of their being victims. That was exactly the card played by the left in Katrina. Hayes is a Republican, and offers relevant points about blacks who aren’t Democrats (did you watch that FOX news clip?).
I included it as a contrast of behavior. When the mask is on, so speak.
Hayes says that his rent was raised because he is a republican—period. Not a “black republican”. Nice of you to agree on that, at least.
As for your stated reason and “tip”: Hayes also provides a reason for his statement: That liberals don’t treat black republicans the same way as they treat black democrats. This you dismiss because you reject his evidence (which goes beyond his personal experiences, BTW—he mentions Condi Rice in that news clip, as an example).
If Hayes’ reasons are not good enough for you to accept, such that you can state that he made a conclusory assertion, you are pretty much in the same ball park.
I’ll grant you this much—from Hayes remarks in the WSJ alone, you are correct. But add in his remarks on Fox News, and the comments above about other black republicans, and you are dismissing evidence you don’t like.
And it’s my irony meter that is broken—I double checked.
But you’re not attributing “identity politics” to only the “progressive left”. (Though I’m not even sure what the “progressive left” is…are you talking about Kambon and those of that ilk? Or the Democratic party? Something in between?) For example:
That doesn’t sound like it’s just the “progressive left”.
And others are taking these stories as reflecting liberals. For example, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (which you linked to in this post) noted that the Sidley/Hayes story is “reason #1,446,233 why liberals would look ever so fetching dangling from utility poles while laughing children use their rotten, hypocritical cadavers as target practice for their BB guns.”
Also, after the bogus Washington Times story, you said that the people quoted in the article (prominent Maryland Democrats) were “progressives sanctioning the kind of racial attacks they would normally decry on the grounds that those who choose the wrong party affiliation have surrendered the protection of their race.” Other prominent bloggers have also tagged this bogus story on liberals and Democrats.
Again, it’s completely fine to nail people that use race to obscure actual debate. But this isn’t something that’s just being tagged on a few progressives…it’s being tagged on liberals and Democrats.
But looking at the evidence, most liberals and Democrats denounce these kinds of actions when they happen. (And other times, the accused events haven’t even occurred.) Now if your thesis is that the Democratic party supports these kinds of dishonest identity politics, then your thesis has little evidence to back it up. If your thesis is that there are a few in a group that you’ve defined as the “progressive left” that hold these views, then you might be right. But if these groups have little/no pull on actual policy and the actual actions of Democratic politicians (e.g. Ward Churchill, Kamau Kambon, etc.) then so what?
Eh? Going on national TV to complaint about having your rent raised because your landlord doesn’t like your politics isn’t playing the victim?
No dice. Hayes’ account of the conversation supports the proposition that his rent was raised because he is a Republican. It does not support the proposition that his blackness had anything to do with it. The latter is his unsupported conclusion, not a reason supporting a conclusion.
I haven’t seen the Fox clip yet but I will look at it this evening. At any rate comments about Thomas, Rice, etc. have nothing to do with Hayes’ treatment. That’s the entire point: this is a circular argument because Hayes starts from the premise that black Republicans are treated differently both because they are Republican and because they are black. Thus, to him, even when there’s no direct evidence that race was involved in this situation, it simply must have, because just look how nasty those liberals are to Thomas and Rice! Without assuming the plantation theory, Hayes’ claims of racial discrimination don’t stand up, and then his experience is cited as evidence of the plantation theory.
Agreed. From Jeff G’s original post:
That’s where my “toe the line” comment came from. I’m looking at Hayes being an example of a long existing problem with the progressive left, not a new problem.
TW: I think I covered this enough.
Does “covered” mean “flailed about searching for any half-baked justification for shoehorning this incident into my pre-rendered worldview?” If so, I agree.
Saw the clip. It adds nothing to indicate his treatment was based on his race. Just the same circular argument.
Talk about circular arguments……with yourself.
I still don’t see how it’s less offensive if the rent increase came because of party alone instead of party and race.
Because if the left makes it acceptable to discriminate based on political affiliation, then political affiliation will become a proxy for attributes the left wish to protect.
What’s incoherent about being a fan of the wall street journal’s editorial page’s view of progressive homeless shelters?