A new group blog is now up and running. It’s called “The Conservative Brotherhood,” and it’s made up exclusively of conservative black writers.
The countdown for David S. Anderson’s head to explode and Oliver Willis to start screaming about “Uncle Toms,” “race traitors,” “self-haters,” and the like begins in 5… 4… 3… 2…
J.
I’m quite convinced that it’s racist to say that it’s racist to form such groups.
A weak argument if I’ve ever seen one. Please.
Long live the Brotherhood!
Jeremy – you just proferred an illogical fallacy. Even if I were saying you are a racist group, it would NOT be racist to accuse you of being racist. It is NOT necessarily racist for your club to separate yourselves from others based on irrelevant skin characteristics — it is only dangerous. It would be racist for you to assign value to those characteristics.
PDN & Jared – You make good points, but there is something different about clubs based on national origin or hobbies, and clubs based on race. The obvious reason is that the recognition of race in this country has lead to very bad consequences going back to and including slavery. All too often, people have placed value on these irrelevant skin differences. I am saying that the conservative message should not propagate the myth that race matters. This group perpetuates what is a dangerous and medieval notion, that race is somehow important to how a person thinks.
Juliette – YOU ARE the person equating race with thought by the very nature of your club. YOU ARE the person separating yourself from others based on race. You either don’t get it, or you are being deliberately disengenuous. Once again, ideas are what matter, not race.
memer – you embarrass yourself and then want to run away?
And you’re the one who raised the point in the first place that there’s something WRONG about conservatives who happen to be black getting together to form a bloggers’ group, McCain. Can you not see that you’re the one who keeps harping about the fact that the members of this group all happen to be black?
The Conservative Brotherhood share the same history and spiritual connections, and they’ve pointed out repeatedly in this thread that blacks are seen as a Democratic voting bloc and that the face of the conservative movement is usually white. You’re making it seem like changing this is a bad thing.
By all means, start a White Conservative bloggers group if that makes you feel better about yourself. I’ll do the same and start a “Samoans for Bush” club. There will only be two rules: 1)You must be at least a half-blooded Samoan to join, and 2)You must be a conservative. You cannot be associated to a Samoan or have a Samoan friend or wife or lover to join – you must be one.
Obviously the members of the Conservative Brotherhood are very proud of their heritage as blacks and conservatives. I’m so sorry you aren’t, though.
If you can’t tell already, this isn’t about race as you’re claiming it is. It’s about being proud of their ethnic heritage and standing up for their political beliefs instead of taking shit for being an “Uncle Tom” or a traitor to their race for going against the norm.
“And you’re the one who raised the point in the first place that there’s something WRONG about conservatives who happen to be black getting together to form a bloggers’ group, McCain.”
That is a wonderful sounding statement, but the group’s members don’t simply “happen” do be black. It is not a mere coincidence. On the contrary, you have intentionally selected membership based on race, no different than Augusta National selecting members based on race. You created an exclusive club where the color of one’s skin is more important than the content of their thoughts.
And a white conservative group wouldn’t make me feel good. It would make me feel bad because it would be no different than what you are doing, which is equating race with thought.
“The Conservative Brotherhood share the same history and spiritual connections, and they’ve pointed out repeatedly in this thread that blacks are seen as a Democratic voting bloc and that the face of the conservative movement is usually white. You’re making it seem like changing this is a bad thing.”
The face of the conservative movement should be colorblind. Just in case you didn’t realize it, there are ALREADY prominent black conservatives who write A LOT. They don’t find it important to separate themselves.
McCain, what group do you think I am? I’m not a group, so I’m not sure how I could be a racist group.
Your claims are just empirically false. You’ve failed to distinguish between legitimate reasons for forming a group and illegitimate reasons to form the same group. There are both kinds of reasons why people might form a group that focuses on racial issues. The reasons in this case are wholly legitimate.
You’ve also assumed that, because it’s immoral to focus on race in one way, it must be immoral to focus on it in another way. The way that’s clearly immoral is to assign value to people because of race, to consider them morally more important or less important because of race, or to think that their inherent abilities will be better or worse merely because of their racial classificiation. The way that’s clearly not immoral is to acknowledge that someone has been mistreated because of a racial classification. Acknowledging such mistreatments is not just not immoral. It’s a moral obligation that we have. Therefore, the myth of colorblindness is what’s dangerous. People who pretend they can be colorblind when they can’t are the dangerous ones.
Also, there’s no separation that’s gone on here. Most of the readers of most of the blogs in the CB are white. Most of the blogs in their blogrolls are by white people. Most of the blogs each one frequents are probably white. That’s not separatism. Therefore, whatever it is that the CB bloggers are joining together for, it’s obvious that it’s not to be separate from white people.
The gathering here is for moral support in the same way Christians gather in congregations for fellowship and feeding into each other, for accountability and teaching by those who think alike and then going off to live lives of freidnship and service to anyone, especially nonbelievers. Well, here we have much of the same thing, learning through idea exchange and encouragement in an uphill battle. Then there’s a going forth into the world for most of life to be part of America as Americans and not simply as black conservatives. The gathering is not exclusionary. It’s a matter of connecting with those who have similar views from the same background, a group who tends to be ostracized and marginalized merely for being both black and conservative.
When people connect for race and it doesn’t have those purposes but is merely to complain about other people, I worry. That’s not what’s going on here, though. When people gather to feel superior, I worry. That’s not the issue here. When people gather to be separate and isolated, I worry. They’re not doing that. So I can’t think of why there should be anything troubling at all here, unless it’s immoral even to acknowledge race. But that’s a view that just furthers racially harmful structures in society by ignoring the unconscious and unintentional forces that are harmful to black people (and those of other races), so I can’t endorse that principle.
“You’ve failed to distinguish between legitimate reasons for forming a group and illegitimate reasons to form the same group.”
Exactly, because I don’t believe there is ANY legitimate reason for a group to associate thoughts with race. Just because you claim some legitimacy for this group isn’t convincing.
“You’ve also assumed that, because it’s immoral to focus on race in one way, it must be immoral to focus on it in another way.”
I actually agree with most of your sentiment in the paragraph that follow this thought, however I am not assuming that the group is immoral. I am saying it is morally equivalent to a golf club with a race requirement. Acts are not immoral unless there are consequences to others. I am saying only that the group is illegitimate and wrong, and that the classification of people this way is counter to conservative principles.
“People who pretend they can be colorblind when they can’t are the dangerous ones.”
I would say people who are not colorblind are the dangerous ones.
Lastly, I also appreciate the sentiments in your last two paragraphs. I don’t know what sociologists have concluded about it, but empirically it appears to me that people are more comfortable associating with others who are most like themselves. I am simply saying that this behavior should be resisted rather than embraced.
Ok, y’know what, we’ll just take this step by step. Play along at home, kids.
McCain: do you believe it was a good idea for the Negro Leagues to be formed (baseball)?
Yes (boy, gang, I guess I must admit there are some circumstances where it’s “legit” to form a group based on race; that the real consideration whether or not they espouse/support racial superiority)
or
No (I persist in the idea that any race-based grouping is a bad idea in any and all circumstances)
The comparison is moot because there are NO such barriers preventing you from expressing thoughts on paper as a human being. You are CHOOSING to separate yourselves based on your race Black baseball players have no choice.
So the answer to your question is neither. Integration was better. Get it? That is the whole point.
that is, black baseball players had no choice.
Your weak little trap was about as bad as your last post, by the way. You are not someone who appears able to exchange ideas thoughtfully.
Just wanted to take a second, and point out that the majority of liberal bloggers are white males as well. And -by odd coincidence- gay blogs are universally male as well. It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!
Thank goodness they haven’t infiltrated the lesbian blog community yet…
McCain is really amusing in his own churlish way, especially when he insists on calling Juliette “he.” Apparently he didn’t see the photo of that lovely, smiling face in the upper left-hand corner on baldilocks. Or (God forbid) he thought that was a man. I suppose it would have been too much trouble to click on the “about” link…
Mac, here’s a different tack for you: visualize yourself as a conservative with a dark skin. Then, visualize the reaction every time you espoused your values in public. “You’re a conservative? But, but, you’re black!” (or African-American, or a “person of color,” or…)
In my case, should I feel compelled (as a white southwestern Ohio male) to fervidly follow college basketball, or get pumped up about NASCAR? Hell, I was born in Cincinnati and I honestly don’t care how the Bearcats do every year. But then I’d rather talk about music, the theatre, or politics. Should I hand in my redneck(tm) card now? Or should I hold onto it, because I like country music, and think the eleven-bush guys serving in the Army and the Marines are some of the best citizens this country has every produced?
I’ll repeat what several others have said: if you go to the Brotherhood site, and read their mission statement, and you still don’t get it… I doubt all the explanation in the world will help you.
Juliette nailed it on her blog when she asked if other groups are racist when they combine due to a common interest.
I guess that means Blackfive is racist as well, then… Heh.
I’ve already addressed the substantive portion of your post – what is and isn’t racist, the difference between coincidental association and willing association by race, the important difference between hobbies and race, the problem with separating oneself based on skin color, etc. Nothing really new in your post, including attributing beliefs to me that I haven’t asserted.
I still haven’t seen a decent argument that a blog alliance counts as separation in any morally relevant sense, particularly when it’s one blog association among many that have nothing to do with race. It’s just insane to count it as separatism or to use any language of separation. That’s not what it is.
I also haven’t seen anyone address the point that black conservatism is a genuine philosophical tradition that arises of out black experiences and therefore isn’t going to come from white people. I think that claim is demonstrably true. This blog alliance is dedicated to that tradition of conservatism, which tends to have arguments that about racial issues that I think are better than white conservatives’ arguments but are for the same conclusions. Because I’m not black, I’m not part of that tradition. My work in that area has been from knowing black people and listening to them, not from having experienced any of this firsthand.
The result is that white people are epistemically challenged on political issues related to black people. We don’t have the experiences that would allow us to know what it’s like to be black in America today, to know what it’s like to be treated the way black people are treated. The colorblindness ideal pretends there are no such facts, but only an ignorant white person could espouse such an ideal, because only an ignorant white person could fail to see that life really is different if you’re black. That’s why I think the notion of colorblindness is part of parcel of a whole social structure that’s inherently racist, and promoting it is thus giving in to institutional racism. Ideally, over time, this will decrease, as it has decreased already, but pretending it’s not there, I say, is dangerous and basically tolerance of a deep evil within the hearts of every human being, the tendency to make illegitimate distinctions according to race.
The fact is that colorblind white people will have policies that don’t recognize race, but they’ll still lock their car doors when they see some young black man dressed a certain way. They’ll still hesitate at the idea of their daughter marry a black man. They’ll still guard their wallet more carefully when in a corner store with a black youth roaming the aisles. They’ll still call someone who is black who doesn’t speak the standard black American accent “articulate”. They’ll still be taken aback when a black student shows interest in things like Russian history or philosophy for their own sake. This is how race affects everyone, and pretending you’re colorblind won’t change the fact that you’re not. We need to acknowledge race, and colorblindness policies hide the fact that we do. They’re an illusion. The key is to figure out which ways of acknowledging race are harmful, which ones involve a moral evaluation, which ones involve a stereotype, etc. and which ones are purely positive in recognizing the good in those of a racial group. The latter is what’s going on here.
Ah, so there ARE circumstances where it’s ok for Black folk to assemble based on race. But now it’s about “choice,” eh? What’s the next criteria, that they have to have a “famous” writer among them? Pick a leg to stand on McCain.
It’s all nice that you dream of the colorblind society, McCain, but when the rubber meets the road, you also need to address the world as it actually is first, or your ideas risk irrelevance. Too bad you lack the imagination to see how the TCB can be an agent for the change you wish to see come about.
Your no-exceptions Black Group = Negative Force formula is tired and regressive. You assume that by merely identifying an already obvious physical trait, it automatically MEANS that they desire separation from (as in inherently superior to) society as a whole and that others should automatically interpret it that way as well.
I imagine that the utopian colorblind society has the strength to look past skin color and investigate the content of character (and blogs). You see what you want.
Jeremy, In that last response, I think you are saying precisely what I might have.
For some time, I have been a proponent of the concept that colorblindness is the moral equivalent of racism in this society, and I continue to hold that position. It has caused some great consternation in persons of the equivalent philosphy as the guy who runs Discriminations.us. But that gent is narrowly focused on racial preferences in institutions rather than matters of culture, politics. There are certainly broad areas of American life in which color is and should be a marginal matter, but very few where in should not be an issue of any concern whatsoever. I would advise any student of race to be aware of that and avoid broad sweeping generalizations of the type McCain seems to be making.
I would only add to this that there is a deep and long tradition of social commentary on matters of culture & politics and the specifics of race which we in the Brotherhood take up from time to time. It is a matter of intellectual inheritance as a cultural aspect of black consciousness, as well as the more widely discussed aspect of ‘the black experience’. I think the distinction is important. Every black person is not equally qualified to speak out, and the wide variety of black experiences lead people to an equally wide variety of conclusions. I think the Conservative Brotherhood’s existence and persistence is very important in that it demonstrates that there is a diversity and even a diversion of opinion within those black experiential and intellectual traditions. I speak particularly about the ‘Old School’ because within African America it is indeed well-known that an organic development of political and cultural thought is strikingly different from that which white liberals have successfully meliorated in concert with blacks during the Civil Rights era. Or simply stated, Malcolm X didn’t want Affirmative Action and he wasn’t out of line to differ.
Obviously this discussion could go on indefinitely, and it does at our respective blogs, but I definitely want to thank the good folks at Whizbang for the welcome. I feel that more than anything else.
Just one clarification.
Nowhere have I said that we live in a colorblind society. Only a fool would fail to recognize the weaknesses of humans, nurtured for generations to fear & hate, and the consequences of these prejudices on people. What some are doing here is creating a caricature of those who think this group is a bad idea, because it is easier to create a strawman than to converse with real people.
I am saying specifically the following:
1) That a colorblind society is THE moral goal, where the color of one’s skin is as unimportant as the color of one’s hair.
2) That conservative principles need to be, and in fact ARE, colorblind, and therefore, that conservatism furthers the moral goal.
3) That this group is, therefore, an affront to conservative principles by suggesting that race should be a factor in communicating them. Race is not a valid factor in organizing ideas.
4) That being black is not a qualification for speaking well to black people, nor is being brown a disqualification for speaking to black people. Cobb recognizes this fact in his post. And just as he notes that black writers have a variety of opinions, black readers also have a variety of opinion. It is the opinion itself that is important, to both the writer and the reader, not the vessel that communicates it.
“…colorblindness is the moral equivalent of racism in this society”
What a sad statement on the poor state of affairs in our land today.
NOTE: Your level of “colorblindness” can be measured by noting how intrinsically important the concept of “race” is to you. It is NOT failing to recognize and respec the varying cultural differences between the races. It’s a matter of perspective.
It might be helpful for you in resolving your colorblind issues to read these and this.
Kelso, This bud’s for you.
(Excerpt)
So let’s bring it home shall we? Raise your hand if you think Ward Connorly is superior to MLK, and then write your essay explaining why. Furthermore, give your advice on the actions you believe African American voters should take up in furthering their social and political agendas vis a vis the Republican Party with reference to the conflict between Connorly and Wood (see Cobb’s link above)
I’m not sure if Samantha’s comments above were directed to me or not so I won’t comment directly other that to say I agree with much of what her husband says (but not all.)
I guess it’s normal to want to be with the “in crowd,” but I must be honest: I have no colorblindness nor race issues. I’m sorry, but race has never been all that important to me.
Don’t worry, I got a whole bunch of other faults to compensate.
I leave you with something to ponder: Would black people be clamoring to bury the idea of colorblindness if the 1950’s came back? Do black people really want to do all of the stupid things that a whole bunch of white people did in the past? Must we go through all of that crap again?
Thank you, Mr. Cobb for getting to the very morrow of the issue. The constitution recognizes neither race nor group rights. The government MUST treat all people as INDIVIDUALS – statistics can NEVER prove discrimination.
No government on the face of the earth has ever classified its citizens for the good of all. Race has never be used for justice for all.
Ward Connorly is superior to MLK when it comes to colorblindness if I am to believe MLK’s follower’s interpretation of his words. If they are to be believed – MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech is a lie.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
Heh. I didn’t think Cobb could hold back his superior qualifications for long.
McCain, re the clarifications:
#1 — sure
#2 — sure (in an ideal world)
#4 — It is the opinion itself that is important, to both the writer and the reader, not the vessel that communicates it… That’s our point, innit? That you need to look past color before you judge? Get it?
Which leads us to #3
You have failed, imho, to show how TCB’s mere existence, without knowing what it is about, will likely lead to an increase in racism.
What do you suppose will happen?
If a borderline racist White person (if it’s possible to be borderlin), upon hearing the name of this group, will think, “oh, my god — they’ve got a website now!” and go racist hardcore?
Is it not just as likely that person may investigate on their own and discover what it’s really about (presumably quelling rabid Black Nationalist fears)?
Why does it not matter what the group is about? Please explain your fear.
I do suppose the one thing we agree on is that racism is bad. We only disagree on which route to take re this particular fork in the road. Anyway, as long as the end-goal is the same; meetcha back in Utopia, buddee.
Memer, sorry to jump (it’ll be quick.)
The only Utopia is Heaven, but we can surely find a way to a more perfect society. If we want one.
The thing is, that I’ve been around too long. I know that you cannot manage what you cannot measure, and that people respond to incentives and threats. So how does one recognize racism, if one cannot measure it? How does one fight it? By wishing it away?
The RPI (Racial Privacy Initiative) failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that it put Connorly on the spot as poster-boy when he had to go head to head with a real policy wonk like Thomas Wood, who wrote Proposition 209.
The straight out problem with colorblindness is that it is a racial ‘dont ask dont tell’ policy, except that it isn’t even logically consistent enough to be a real policy, which is the nub of Wood’s complaint above.
I would expect that most lay people wouldn’t even be able to tell you who was behind California’s Prop 209 much less the differences between them.
Those suckered by the dual fallacies of colorblindness and diversity are ill-prepared and probably unsuitable for dealing with the rigors of racism, much less anti-discrimination. The law says count noses, and because we do, we understand something about racism. Statistics don’t cause it, statistics confirm it or deny it. And I must confess how astounded I..naw I’m not astounded, nor surprised, just consistently disappointed at how peoples brains turn to illogical and sentimental putty when it comes to applying logic and math to matters of race.
How many times have I heard it said that when a police officer uses force to make an arrest it is not ‘violence’ but when an institution uses discrimination for the purposes of inclusion it’s ‘racism’. You’re giving my inner Tuvok conniptions.
The constitution does not recognize race – the constitution also does not include the phrase ‘sexual assault’. So should we ignore both? The constitution is about the establishment of rights in the ideal, but it is politics and policy that create incentives and punishments. Anyway… Without institutions and money and movement and motivation sufficient to get things done (incentives and punishments) the constitution is no more meaningful than the rantings of street people. The marrow is meaningless without a pumping heart.
The Constitution says the government is not allowed to deny equal protection of the laws or due process based on race. It doesn’t say it can’t recognize race for any purpose whatsoever. It also doesn’t say what private citizens should or shouldn’t do, so it’s consistent with everything the Constitution says that we be morally obligated to recognize race.
I also want to say that everything I’ve said is consistent with opposing affirmative action. It’s just that you can’t use the cheesy justification for doing so, that it’s harmful to whites. You have to base it on the real problems of affirmative action, that it’s harmful to the people it’s supposed to help.
Cobb: Mark Twain – “There are three kind of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.” The RPI failed because of racial demagoguery and falsehoods meant to scare. The idea is just and it will not go away.
Jeremy: The fact that you could consider the equal protection under law of white people as “cheesy” says a lot about the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. It IS important; let’s not create some new “Jim Crow” please.
P.S. AA is more likely to adversly effect Jews and Orientals before it would affect white people.
I never said equal protection of white people is cheesy, and it reflects on your character that you would even go there. What I said is that it’s cheesy to attack affirmative action on those grounds, because it ignores the standard argument for affirmative action. Any argument against a view that ignores the standard argument for that view is cheesy, regardless of how good the principle that argument is based on is.
Since you don’t seem aware of the argument, here it is. The equal protection clause prevents discrimination against a group on the basis of race, provided there’s not legitimate reason for discriminating against that group. It’s pretty obvious that I could reject a white person who tries out for a part for Malcolm X, and I could do it simply because the person doesn’t look the part. This is making a decision on the basis of race, but it doesn’t violate equal protection because in that case race is a qualification. I’m thus not lowering standards to accept a black person because one of my standards, indeed a necessary standard, is that the person playing the part is black. The automatically increases the level of qualification of someone who seeks the part.
People who favor affirmative action argue that race can count as a qualification in other ways. For instance, a job involving counseling kids who are dealing with racial prejudice might well be better served by someone who has experience exactly the same sort of prejudice, and thus being black is a qualification. For similar reasons, teaching in an inner city might be a situation where race will count as a qualification. In none of these cases would it be grounds for caring only about race, but race might count as a qualification that would justifiably increase the interest of an employer in the candidate, especially if it’s harder to get black employees in that area given the desirability of having at least some.
With college professors, endless good can be done if both black and white students see intelligent and caring black professors who are real people. The amount of racial stereotypes this can help overcome is surely worth colleges going a little out of their way to seek black faculty. The same might be true at lower levels of education, and if black students can see that you can be black and a physicist or mathematician, that will do wonders for overcoming the racial narrative assumed by a number of black people (even if many of them wouldn’t say it) that those subjects aren’t for black people.
If one of the goals of an institute of higher learning is to provide an atmosphere where people of different backgrounds can interact and learn from each other, then surely race counts as a qualification there too.
There are other ways that would take a lot longer to explain, but this is some sense of what the argument is. In the end, I don’t think this is much justification for lowering what we standardly think of the standards for college admissions by as much as they do lower them, but I do think it’s not in principle wrong and in fact even a good idea to be willing to relax those standards somewhat because of these other qualifications. That’s why I think the equal protection argument is cheesy. It ignores these considerations. Maybe you can argument against these considerations entirely, as some try to do, but that takes argument and not simple dismissal of them as violating equal protection. Something simply doesn’t violate equal protection if there’s a legitimate level of qualification that race can count as contributing toward so that the other qualifications don’t have to be as high.
My character is just fine, at least in this area. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make black people equal citizens in America and guareentee equal protection.
You can avoid the discrimination based on race all you want, that does not change its validity.
I agree with your view that AA adversely effects those who it is supposed to benefit, but can an average human being reject free goodies? Can the bad feelings created over the discrimination of the past be so easily overcome?
You will have to forgive me if I do not trust those who run modern universities. I don’t. If you can have such a leftist run amok university such as Berkeley be called hopelessly racist by the very people that the university is bending the rules for, I suggest to you that this web of double standards is NOT working.
We want many of the same things, I suspect that we are just are searching down different roads.
I’m not sure you understand what I said. I said I’m against affirmative action.
I know. Like I said, we agree on a lot.