obviously i'll have something to say about this...

Wow. Etan would fit right in here. Many of his arguments are the same made on Whitlock threads during the past few months.*

*That was not an attempt to accuse him of coming here and stealing those opinions.

 

OK, Pimp Hand, ball's in your court.

 

Are we so sure Etan Thomas isn't Spnited? Or Knowledge 54? Because they've both made most of those points and arguments against Whitlock countless times.

There isn't much new or original in that whole discertation.

And I can't take anyone serioulsy who calls Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts "Uncle Toms" and "sell outs"

That is such intellectually lazy and flawed thinking I wouldn't even know where to begin with it.

 

i'm going to continue to blaze new trails and let you all (along with etan thomas, a young man with a bright future) continue to react to whatever original thought i offer next.

 

did anybody notice this graf in whitlock's retort column:

"I talked about how America’s “war on drugs” and sentencing guidelines were creating a hopelessness among poor people, especially black men, and that that hopelessness was fueling this lethal youth culture that is producing Pacman Jones and others. Again, silence."


clarence thomas and JC Watts never said anything like that.
that's classic liberal ideology.
it's whitlock's inconsistency that trips me up.

 

oooo, wow, Pepper needs new shorts!

 

I agree about sentencing guidelines and the war on drugs being bad ideas.

Does that make me a liberal too?

What, you mean you can have ideas on different subjects to call your own that aren't necesarily in line with the classic democrat/republican "our side is always right" bullshit?

 

I'm sure this thread is well past this issue now, but I'm not going back to read everything I missed.

Look I'm not talking about (and I don't think Whitlock is either) Imus' influence throughout society or in the political world. I'm talking about his influence on a group of young, black women (remember they were at the center of this thing before it snowballed to whatever the hell it is now). One of Stringer's main reasons for and points during the initial press conference was that her players had been deeply hurt by Imus' words and were "scarred for life" by them. I agree with Whitlock that the words of Imus probably didn't have that much of an impact of these young women if for no other reason is that he wasn't relevant in their worlds. I'm not calling D.L. Hughley some great ambassador of the black community or hugely influential voice in America, but the fact that he made the comments he did and did so on the Tonight Show are much more likely to have a direct affect on these women.

Look, I'm young and white and I had never once listened to Don Imus, yet have watched/listened to Hughley numerous times. I'd be willing to bet that the Rutgers players were probably similar.

 

That was a pretty eloquent letter and I'd be interested to see some of the responses from Whitlock. But here's my problem, is this "Uncle Tom" idea just because Whitlock has been critical of some aspects of the black culture. He doesn't have any responsibility to blacks (or whites), but only a responsiblity to speak his mind. He's not speaking for blacks. In fact when you try to do that you come off like someone like Scoop -- not willing to analyze anything further than aligning with your race. If Whitlock really believes the things he writes what is wrong with him writing them? Maybe I can't completely relate because I'm not black, but I don't believe that black columnists should be the voice of blacks anymore than whites should be the voice of whites.

 

I've often found the Uncle Tom thing to be pathetic really. At one point - a time long ago -- it was probably applicable but the whole concept has held the black community back as much as anything from the outside.

Why is it that blacks are the only group who are so lopsidedly positioned with one side of the aisle? Why is it blacks must all think alike -- solidarity?

That's nonsense. White folks, homosexuals, women, hispanics -- they all can be on both sides of the aisle -- and all are on both sides of the aisle for any reasons -- but any black who moves from left to right is an uncle tom and is committing race treason?

That's the kind of asinine, stuck in the past thinking that keeps the good reverand keep hope alive relevant.....

 

whitlock preaches "self-responsibility" over and over and over.
when he says "the war on drugs" and "sentencing guidelines" are the cause of hopelessness among poor black men, he is saying they are not responsible for their plight. he is saying they are victims of an oppressive system.

that's what i mean by inconsistency.

they're either responsible for their poverty, or they're not.
he can't have it both ways.

 

Yes, I see what you are saying. I think it is an oversimplification on anyone's part to generalize on such issues as crime and poverty, but you are right, in general Whitlock is always about personal resbonsibility and blaming the plight of black men on the system -- run of course by "the man" -- smells a lot like the "victim mentality" he spends so much time decrying.