Posted on 08/08/2002 10:55:20 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Have you ever considered what it would be like to be a black political conservative in modern America? How many people are brave enough to endure the kind of vilification and scorn they routinely encounter?
Just consider the mistreatment Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly and many others have received for years. And it is not just from other blacks. White people (liberals) are even permitted to call these blacks names with impunity.
Why? Because they don't buy into the liberal template: the welfare state, affirmative action, multiculturalism, judicial activism, the public education monopoly and the rest. Unless you side with liberals on these issues, you are against blacks.
Why aren't conservative blacks allowed to have a difference of opinion? Why are they automatically branded as the enemy if they reject the liberal dogma that blacks and other minorities must be dependent on a paternalistic government? Why aren't they praised instead for their refusal to be told by the white cultural elite how to think?
The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, is one of the latest to come under fire for daring to "stray from the plantation." One of Peterson's most recent infractions has been his outspoken opposition to proposals that blacks receive reparations for the slavery of their ancestors.
Peterson had the audacity to accept an invitation to debate professor Michael Eric Dyson on reparations at last week's annual convention of the National Association of Black Journalists. He was probably the only conservative in the room of nearly 300 blacks and other media figures. He was not graciously received. Peterson told the Washington Times that "during the question-and-answer period, Dyson and others in the audience called me ignorant and accused me of being 'the white man's boy.'"
Dyson's invective did not stop at the debate. He followed up with some zingers in his weekly column for the Chicago Sun-Times. He opened up his column, entitled "Self-hate Beyond Debate," with "If you've ever wondered what a self-hating black man who despises black culture and worships at the altar of whiteness looks like, take a gander at the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson."
After arguing that Peterson had nothing much to contribute to the debate, Dyson offered his opinion as to why this "ignorant" black conservative is given so much airtime "on countless radio and television programs. The answer," wrote Dyson, "should be obvious: His brand of painful self-hatred, and hence, his hatred of other blacks, plays well in certain white conservative audiences."
Wrong. Peterson's advocacy of self-reliance for all people, blacks included, is what strikes a cord among Americans. Yet Dyson would have us believe Peterson hates himself and other blacks because he wants what is best for them: that they escape the bonds of government dependency. But I will give Dyson credit for expressing directly that outrageous charge that many liberals only imply through code language: that some (read: many) white conservatives hate blacks.
Now, contrast Peterson's treatment with that of Jesse Jackson, a tireless peddler of liberal ideas and exploiter of race for personal gain. Dyson criticized Peterson for his "ill-formulated assaults on such leaders as Minister Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson.
So, Professor Dyson, Farrakhan and Jackson are positive forces, and Peterson is destructive? Putting aside Farrakhan, have you heard the latest on your main man Jesse Jackson? Do you think, Professor Dyson, that Jackson should be praised for trying to meet last week with Sheik Ahmed Yassin, founder of the terrorist organization Hamas, before conveniently canceling after Hamas took credit for the bombing murder of seven -- including five Americans – in the cafeteria at Hebrew University?
Should Jackson's motives in ceaselessly conducting such glory-grabbing escapades around the world be immune from public inquiry? How about looking into his alleged financial dealings?
I won't hold my breath. Liberals, black and white alike, are unlikely to criticize or scrutinize – much less psychoanalyze – Jesse Jackson (or other liberal blacks) because he says the right (I mean "the left") things. The end justifies the means. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with politics.
Ironically, liberals purport to champion the dignity and independence of minorities, but when any of them tries to escape the tyrannical bonds of their credo, he is branded as ignorant, an Uncle Tom, self-hating or worse.
It takes no small amount of courage for blacks in this culture to challenge establishment doctrine, and the price they pay is often heavy. But by doing so, they perform a great service to their race and humanity as a whole – and they should be heartily applauded for it.
Also, my good friend Re-Joyce (speaker at MFJ in '98) was relating to me that she has several black conservative friends here in Houston. They don't speak out because they're AFRAID of making waves in the hood. Sad!
What, after all, has Reverend Peterson been saying? That racial reparations are unjust to whites and would be destructive toward blacks. This is a point that Dyson could have taken issue with, had he any concrete arguments to make. That he chose instead to attack Reverend Peterson's motives and self-concept indicates that he has nothing substantive to say. He wants what he wants, and he wants it now.
This isn't just hatred; it's the sign of an infantile personality, a baby who never learned any technique for getting what he wants but the tantrum. It might well suggest that the proper way to deal with leftist racialists is to shame them in public for their "gimme" mentality. Ask them in front of audiences: Don't you think you and yours could make it on your own? Is the only cure for your self-revilement to have whitey pay your bills and perform therapy on you?
One final thought: Ultimately, venom geysers like Dyson's are a positive sign. Americans aren't stupid, and their patience isn't inexhaustible. with a few more incidents like these, they'll shrug off the shroud of unearned guilt and insist that the time of expiation is over. No more free rides! If you want us to think of you as equals, you'll just have to "root, hog, or die" like us melanin-deficient types.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Yeah, Robert E. Lee, an abolitionist, said that if they just release slaves into the general population it would be a disaster. They should first be broken free of the slave mindset, then released, or they would continue mentally as slaves.
He was right.
What we have today is the slave industry of welfare. The guvmint has effectively annexed the slave trade in America, not for commerce, but for votes of the pro-statist Democrat party.
Book Description
"This book discusses the "plantation mentality" that is causing Americans to become co-dependent. It is historical however does look at the authors personal journey from a Berekely militant to a conservative businessman."
--from Amazon.com's description.
Dyson not only infers that white conservatives are racist, he says it in multiple forums. If you go back and review old columns by him, if you see any other interviews he's done, if you see him on C-Span, you hear the venom dripping from him and his words.
Dyson is in the same vein as Julianne Malveaux - he hates and despises anyone, black or white, who is of a conservative bent.
I'm just disappointed that the Sun-Times continues to give him a venue to spit his venom. If there were a white columnist with the kind of hatred for blacks that Dyson espouses for whites, America would have his head. But because he's going against conservative blacks and whites, he's given a pass.
More business as usual.
o'reilly is too pedantic by (at least) half, and only peripherally conservative ...
His work is characterized by a clear spoken common sense that not only describes a social or economic condition, but provides clearly documented examples and analysis that bears any scrutiny. Those that disagree with him do so risk of their perceived authority, because they will have no tools to use but rhetorical assertion, and denial of evidence (which he will usually have as footnoted references).
You can't attack a man like that without damaging your own credibility.
Ann Coulter, (whose work I also enjoy) uses the same kind of easy hand with facts that liberals use, only she does so from another perspective. Thomas Sowell doesn't use a liberals tools with language. Instead he explains that what a liberal calls a fact is usually just rhetoric backed by circular logic, and can only be preserved by denial of ample evidence. Ann fights fire with fire, while Dr. Sowell fights fire by proving that it isn't a fire at all. It may be a picture of a fire, or someone may have said fire once, but that doesn't mean the house is burning.
I highly recommend reading his work.
He mentioned http://www.freestateproject.org
The list of true contemporary heroes is much longer than this. Shelby Steele, Star Parker, JC Watts, Ken Hamblin, Armstrong Williams and of course FR’s own Michael King are all equally important in amplifying the message that conservatism works regardless of the color of your skin.
tomkat said: o'reilly is too pedantic by (at least) half, and only peripherally conservative ...
I doubt that if Bill had read this article he would have skipped that question. Bill is one of the few journalists who have the guts to ask those kinds of questions.... but only when he has the facts or quotes to back him up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.