Shelby's turn.

I was waiting to hear from Shelby Steele on the George Zimmerman verdict. (Shout out to my twitter fam James for sending me the link to the article.) Shelby is a right wing thinker and House Negro who does not believe that racism exists in America. To Shelby, Negroes have arrived and we should stop fighting for social justice and true equality here in the land of the [only some are] free.

"The verdict that declared George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin was a traumatic event for America's civil-rights establishment, and for many black elites across the media, government and academia. When you have grown used to American institutions being so intimidated by the prospect of black wrath that they invent mushy ideas like "diversity" and "inclusiveness" simply to escape that wrath, then the crisp reading of the law that the Zimmerman jury displayed comes as a shock.

On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren't so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, "You won't call the tune here. We will work within the law."

Today's black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and '60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager." 

Shelby Steele thinks that diversity and inclusion is a "mushy" idea.--- How quaint and ironic, since his own immediate family is a model of diversity.--- As usual he misses the point entirely. Had one of those black teenagers murdered another one and was on the scene when police arrived with literally a smoking gun in his hand, he would have been cuffed and arrested on the spot. He then would have been charged with the death of Trayvon Martin, and rightfully so.

George Zimmerman was not even charged, and it took outrage and pressure from the civil rights leadership Shelby pontificates about to even get an arrest in the case.  

Sadly, Shelby Steele is celebrating Zimmerman's acquittal as if he somehow benefits from a killer who profiled and took the life of a young man walking free. (Maybe he does. The House Negro business is good.) Steele is just as guilty of doing what he accuses those on the "civil rights establishment" of doing. The difference is, of course, that Shelby Steele advocates for the status quo and a return to a time in this country (what he calls the "glory days") when questioning the actions of a sheriff's department in a small Southern town was unheard of. For him to write that the "civil-rights establishment" could "intimidate" what he calls "American institutions" just goes to show you how delusional he is.

I suppose that it has never occurred to Mr. Steele that one of the reasons there are so many killings in places like Chicago in the first place is because black life has been so devalued. The scary thing about Steele is that unlike Thomas Sowell and other conservative black thinkers, he has actually made some interesting and provocative points about race relations in the past. "The Content of Our Character" is still one of the best books ever written on race relations in America. But sadly, as he continues to live in his ivory tower and conservative cocoon in Northern California, Shelby Steele has become increasingly detached and isolated from what is going on in the rest of America. Like other right wing republicans, he continues to hold up a few civil rights leaders like Rev Al. Sharpton and Jessie Jackson as being the driving force behind any social movement for justice in this country. This, of course, is no longer the case. The thousands of people who marched this weekend did not do it because they wanted to get a better look at Rev. Al's suit. They did it because they felt moved to get up and march because they know that "American institutions" cannot be easily intimidated.

"Why did the civil-rights leadership use its greatly depleted moral authority to support Trayvon Martin? This young man was, after all, no Rosa Parks—a figure of indisputable human dignity set upon by the rank evil of white supremacy. Trayvon threw the first punch and then continued pummeling the much smaller Zimmerman. Yes, Trayvon was a kid, but he was also something of a menace. The larger tragedy is that his death will come to very little. There was no important principle or coherent protest implied in that first nose-breaking punch. It was just dumb bravado, a tough-guy punch.

The civil-rights leadership rallied to Trayvon's cause (and not to the cause of those hundreds of black kids slain in America's inner cities this very year) to keep alive a certain cultural "truth" that is the sole source of the leadership's dwindling power. Put bluntly, this leadership rather easily tolerates black kids killing other black kids. But it cannot abide a white person (and Mr. Zimmerman, with his Hispanic background, was pushed into a white identity by the media over his objections) getting away with killing a black person without undermining the leadership's very reason for being.

"The purpose of today's civil-rights establishment is not to seek justice, but to seek power for blacks in American life based on the presumption that they are still, in a thousand subtle ways, victimized by white racism. This idea of victimization is an example of what I call a "poetic truth." Like poetic license, it bends the actual truth in order to put forward a larger and more essential truth—one that, of course, serves one's cause.

In the Zimmerman/Martin case the civil-rights establishment is fighting for the poetic truth that white animus toward blacks is still such that a black teenager—Skittles and ice tea in hand—can be shot dead simply for walking home. But actually this establishment is fighting to maintain its authority to wield poetic truth—the authority to tell the larger society how it must think about blacks, how it must respond to them, what it owes them and, then, to brook no argument."

"Poetic truths succeed by casting themselves as perfectly obvious: "America is a racist nation"; "the immigration debate is driven by racism"; "Zimmerman racially stereotyped Trayvon." And we say, "Yes, of course," lest we seem to be racist. Poetic truths work by moral intimidation, not reason." [Source]

Mr. Steele, with all due respect, without "moral intimidation" you would be driving Stanford University students to school and not lecturing them.

Checking Shelby.

Every now and then I have to call out one of my favorite conservative writers. Shelby Steele is a pretty smart guy, and he usually does a good job of observing some of the racial dynamics here in America. The problem with Shelby, however, is his ideology, and where he chooses to align himself in our political debate.

Shelby is a classic black conservative. He likes to call out black folks and liberals for being too lazy and disingenuous, and he praises the conservative ethos and their (so called) honesty.

Anyway, Mr. Steele has struck again. [h/t to David for e-mailing this article to me) This time he has penned an article for the Wall Street Journal about Obama. (Shelby is fascinated with Obama. He is still pissed that the first black president came from the left and not the right.) In it, he lets America have it for not calling out Obama for his incompetence and giving him a pass because of his exotic skin and charisma.

"The president's success in having Osama bin Laden killed is an exception to a pattern of excruciatingly humble and hesitant leadership abroad. Mr. Obama has been deeply ambivalent about the application of American power, as if a shameful "neocolonialism" attends every U.S. action in the world. In Libya he seems actually to want American power to diminish altogether.

This formula of shrinking American power abroad while expanding government power at home confuses and disappoints many Americans. Before bin Laden, 69% of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track, according to an Ipsos survey. A recent Zogby poll found that only 38% of respondents believed Mr. Obama deserved a second term, while 55% said they wanted someone new.

And yet Republicans everywhere ask, "Who do we have to beat him?" In head-to-head matchups, Mr. Obama beats all of the Republican hopefuls in most polls.

The problem Mr. Obama poses for Republicans is that there has always been a disconnect between his actual performance and his appeal. If Hurricane Katrina irretrievably stained George W. Bush, the BP oil spill left no lasting mark on this president. Mr. Obama's utter confusion in the face of the "Arab spring" has nudged his job-approval numbers down, but not his likability numbers, which Gallup has at a respectable 47.6%. In the mainstream media there has been a willingness to forgive this president his mistakes, to see him as an innocent in an impossible world. Why?

There have really always been two Barack Obamas: the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling.

What gives Mr. Obama a cultural charisma that most Republicans cannot have? First, he represents a truly inspiring American exceptionalism: He is the first black in the entire history of Western civilization to lead a Western nation—and the most powerful nation in the world at that. And so not only is he the most powerful black man in recorded history, but he reached this apex only through the good offices of the great American democracy.

Thus his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it. "

Let me jump in here: Barack Obama is no worse than any of the previous presidents before him. So Shelby, you lost me at hello. Your article, from its outset, is poisoned by ideological prejudice. And you give Americans credit for enlightenment where they deserve none. I would argue that electing Barack Obama only highlighted the fact that America is still stained by its sad racial legacy. And it has created more bigotry, ignorance, and uncontrolled hostility by not only the usual suspects, but by those who we never expected to become so afraid and fearful of losing their country to those other people.

"..Conversely, the media hold the president's exceptionalism against Republicans. Here is Barack Obama, evidence of a new and progressive America. Here are the Republicans, a cast of largely white males, looking peculiarly unevolved. Add to this the Republicans' quite laudable focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts, and they can be made to look like a gaggle of scolding accountants.

How can the GOP combat the president's cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action.

A president who is both Democratic and black effectively gives the infamous race card to the entire left: Attack our president and you are a racist. To thwart this, Republicans will have to break through the barrier of political correctness.

Mr. McCain let himself be intimidated by Obama's cultural charisma, threatening to fire any staff member who even used the candidate's middle name. Donald Trump shot to the head of the Republican line by focusing on Mr. Obama as a president, calling him our "worst" president. I carry no brief for Mr. Trump, but his sudden success makes a point: Another kind of charisma redounds to those willing to challenge political correctness—those unwilling to be in thrall to the president's cultural charisma.

Lastly, there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn't there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest—in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren't Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy?

In other words, isn't there a fresh new social idealism implicit in conservative principles? Why not articulate it and fight with it in the political arena? Such a message would show our president as unevolved in his social thinking—oh so 1965. The theme: Barack Obama believes in government; we believe in you." [Article]

Let me jump in here: Republicans don't applaud social exceptionalism,they view it with scepticism. Your claim that Obama is an affirmative action president is proof of it. Telling the truth isn't political correctness, and honestly and openly questioning something isn't necessarily racism. But claiming that only republicans can move minorities out of their "long era of protest" because only republicans can show us how to work hard and achieve in America, is an insult to every hard working person of color who helped to make this country what it is. "Militancy" isn't always such a bad thing. Just ask the founding fathers to whom you and those of your ilk pray to every day. Without that "militancy" you wouldn't be able to speak of this great country that you seem to love so much. You wouldn't be able to collect a nice check from Stanford University. And you certainly wouldn't be able to collect what your publishers give you in advances for those wonderful books you like to churn out like pablum for the wingnut soul.

Shelby, I credit my success in life to my parents and the work ethic that they gave me, not the benevolence of white America. I have succeeded in America in spite of American -so called- exceptionalism, not because of it.

I wonder if you can say the same thing?

A few words for the other Mr. Steele.

*

I am going to make a statement that might surprise some of you: I actually like Shelby Steele.

Unlike other black conservatives I find him to be genuine in his conservative beliefs, and I think he writes in an intellectually lucid way which I find refreshing. (His book, "The Content Of Our Character" is a must read for all A-merry-cans, regardless of ideological preference) Unlike Sowell, he doesn't seem to be writing to impress his intellectual colleagues on the right. What he does seem to try to do, is inject an honest thought out point of view in the ideological debate for our souls. And who knows, maybe it's because we share a certain embarrassment in our predictions about the chosen one this past election. ( I bet he won't have to run anywhere naked)

Now having said that, I must take issue with some of the things that Shelby said in his Wall Street Journal oped today.

Shelby Steele's issue with liberalism is a classic one. It is typical of what you hear from conservatives: Liberals give blacks handouts, they promote big government, and liberalism creates dependency. Conservatism, on the other hand, offers nothing but a chance to make it in our great country. But it takes hard work and discipline, and with conservatism, there is no handouts. He argues that Lyndon Johnson, with his Great Society programs, took the moral high ground at a time when A-merry-ca's morality was being questioned for her shameful racial legacy. Republicans never recovered from that, and they are still playing catch up today.

Of course, he argues,that as black people, we are misguided in our loyalties. Liberalism actually takes away our humanity, while with conservatism, on the other hand, we can maintain our dignity as humans, and not get caught up in victim hood and racial identity politics.

"The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society. And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism: human rather than racial dignity.... What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom. Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other -- two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior."

Right there, Shelby, is the problem with your well written essay. You only saw yourself as a person of color in two ways: "A racial determination of segregation" and the subject of "white" liberal paternalism. You should have said no to both of those choices. It wasn't one or the other. Both were destined to make you the man you became: Someone who chooses a selfish ideology which is predicated on chasing a carrot that you will never be able to grab. By embracing that ideology you have bought into the false premise that your people seek the liberal handout and are not willing to work as hard as the conservative to grab the carrot. It is not true. I submit to you that your people (and poor people of all colors) are willing to work harder. The problem is that their government has never been willing to work as hard for them. Instead, their government has worked only for a special few, and contrary to what you might believe, it didn't neglect you, it used you to achieve its own goals. At least with liberalism, with all its faults, there was a realization that it should make you a promise, and that promise was that never again will you be subjected to second class status, and our government will always work to make it so. Our government will finally give you an even playing field to compete on, after tipping the field against you for so long.

"So here stands contemporary American conservatism amidst its cultural liabilities and, now, its electoral failures -- with no mechanism to redeem America of its shames, atavistically resisted by minorities, and vulnerable to stigmatization as a bigoted and imperialistic political orientation. Today's liberalism may stand on decades of failed ideas, but it is failure in the name of American redemption. It remains competitive with -- even ascendant over -- conservatism because it addresses America's moral accountability to its past with moral activism. This is the left's great power, and a good part of the reason Barack Obama is now the president of the United States. No matter his failures -- or the fruitlessness of his extravagant and scatter-gun governmental activism -- he redeems America of an ugly past. How does conservatism compete with this?"

Sorry Shelby, it can't. And I, for one, am glad for that.

Article here.

*Pic stolen from my girl Danielle over at the Black Snob blog.

The conservative shuffle.

A local politician who happens to be a friend of mine asked me a few weeks back why I talk so much shit on my blog. "Field, I hope you know that if you ever decide to run for Judge or elected office some of that shit will come back to haunt you". He is right of course, but you know what, if keeping my mouth shut and suppressing my thoughts is what it takes to get elected, they can have that shit. I have heard the same thing about my politics. "Field, you know if you were a right wing conservative you would be blowing up by now." Yeah that might be true too, but I am not. And since my politics just might be left of Hugo fucking Chavez that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. It's just not what I believe, so I can't pimp the man like some of my "slave catching" brothers and sisters to make a few dollars.

Which leads me to the following article by my man Tim Wise. (Yeah I have been all over his jock lately). It's a shame that it takes someone of the melanin challenged persuasion to call out some of these so called black conservatives for the frauds that they really are. Just some of them of course...well, most of them-- Because I am quite sure that there might be one or two in the bunch who might really believe what they are saying and think that their point of view is relevant.

So anyway, here is Tim:

"Black conservatives, with their politics of self-abuse, have managed to obtain access to the halls of power – at the expense of respect from within the black community.

A few weeks ago, a young man approached me after a speech I had given at his college and handed me a small piece of paper with the name of a book he thought I should read. Given that the student and I had previously gotten into a bit of a row over the issue of racial profiling of Arabs, I didn't have high expectations about his recommendation.

I suppose it's a good thing I was prepared for what I got: the name of a book by black conservative Larry Elder, whose only real claim to fame is that he does a bad imitation of Judge Wapner on a pedantic little courtroom reality show called Moral Court.
Oh, and that white folks like the student in question really like him. Which, as it turns out, is all it takes to become a bestselling author in this country.

Elder – like Shelby Steele before him, and Walter Williams before that, and Ken Hamblin before that, and Thomas Sowell before him, and Clarence Thomas always – says the kinds of things that most white folks love to hear: essentially, that blacks are the source of their own problems in life. Black cultural pathology and bad behavior, according to these types, explain everything from black poverty rates to black incarceration rates.


What about racism?, you may ask. What racism? To the Larry Elders of the world – and to the whites who have made them media stars entirely out of proportion to their scholarly credentials (or decided lack thereof) – racism is just an excuse black people use to explain away their own internal shortcomings.

Lately, two of the more popular arguments made by black conservatives and the white people who love them are, first, that blacks spend too much money on luxury items they can't afford, refusing to save money the way responsible white folks do; and second, that blacks place too little value on education, preferring to critique learning as selling out or "acting white," and thereby sabotaging their own achievement..." more here

He could have thrown a few more of those clowns in the mix of course. Like my friend Angela, LaShawn Barber, and the idiot who Obama should be sending thank you cards every day for the rest of his life, Alan Keyes. ("Christ wouldn't vote for Obama"? Are you fucking insane?) And speaking of the "O" man, he doesn't go into that mix, because there is no hustle there. He is trying to appeal to all A-merry-cans. Not just the loons on the right like my race pimp friends. And not just to the folks on the left either. Which has cost him capital among certain black folks who think he is more of the same with just a little more color.

But hey, I am going to leave my black conservative friends alone. This is A-merry-ca, and everyone has a right to make a living. Even if they have to hustle to do it.

Wishing on a star.

A commenter from my previous post inspired me to do this one. The commenter (not sure whether I should say he or she, because they posted as anonymous) quoted a substantial portion of Shelby Steele's new book about the "O" man, and made it a point to agree with most of what Steele said.

I am going to surprise some people with this statement; but I actually like Shelby Steele's writings, and I think he is one of the better thinkers on the right. His book, "The Content of Our Character" is one of my all time favorites, and should be required reading for all black folks. Unfortunately for Mr. Steele he is wrong on this issue, and here is why:

Steele uses the term "bargainer" to make his point about Obama. "The answer is that one “bargains.” Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America’s history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer’s race against him. And whites love this bargain" But there is no bargain. A bargain requires to some extent---to use an old contracts 101 reference--a meeting of the minds. A bargain is an "agreement between two parties fixing an obligation that each promises to carry out." That's how the dictionary describes a bargain. Obama and white A-merry-ca are clearly not in sync on this issue. If there was a bargain, white folks wouldn't be ditching the "O" man faster than O.J. memorabilia after he killed his ex wife. There has been no meeting of the minds or agreement to do anything. This is not a bargain, it is a wish. White folks wish that Obama would be all of these things, but he is not. They wish the "O" man could relieve them of their guilt, and make them feel better about the history of the country that they have embraced. So Steele got that right. He is right about how some white A-merry-cans view Obama, but I think he is wrong about how Obama views himself. And there in lies the problem.

"Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance..."

Steele's rants about Obama is full of quotes like the one above. But is he really trying to manipulate white folks or does he really believe in what he is trying to sell? It's a tough question, and one that I have been asking myself since the start of the "O" man's campaign.

Steele has lots of reasons not to like the "O" man. He is a poverty pimp of sorts from the right. So if the "O" man's message of change and reconciliation really takes place, Steele, like his opposite numbers on the left, might become irrelevant. Then there is also the matter of ideology. Steele considers himself a right winger, and the "O" man's politics is clearly to the left of his. So Steele is not going to give the "O" man the benefit of the doubt. I will, because his political ideology is closer to mine. Steele argues that Obama can't win because he is "bound" between blacks and whites and can't please both. Steele is wrong, he can please blacks, but not whites, and that is why he won't win the Presidency. The white folks just won't love him now.

But Shelby, there is no bargain, If there was, white A-merry-ca would have understood that the "O" man can't totally embrace them and turn his back on us. Sure he won't let them feel guilt about their racism, but don't expect him not to understand when we feel anger about it. What white A-merry-ca wanted was a total sellout (Oh if Tiger could only run for President), they want the symbols without the substance. You look the part "O" man, and with your mixed heritage, the symbolism is all there. But in the end, you couldn't totally sell out. It just wasn't in you.

I am sure white A-merry-ca is wondering if there is such a Negro. (Oh well, back to the drawing board) I doubt it. Hell, even Colin Powell had a soul. He understood the black condition and this countries' history, and he couldn't totally distance himself from it. The Negroes who are willing to take on the roll such as Ken Blackwell, and Alan Keyes, are buffoons who have become pretty much irrelevant. Besides, a Trojan horse has to at least look like a horse. We (Black A-merry-cans) know a fraud when we see one.

This is why A-merry-ca is so mad at the "O" man, and ultimately, this is why he will lose the presidency. They are disappointed and angry, because he fooled them. And they will take it out on him either in June or November. Black folks don't feel that way. He will get 90% of our vote, because white grandma or not, he is still fam.

Unfortunately for the "O" man though, ninety percent of our vote just ain't enough.

A Saturday Sweep.

Mrs. Field is downright giddy tonight. The "O" man just pulled a clean sweep over the Ice Queen in today's primaries (including her home state of Louisiana). Talk about reach. Her boy won in the deep South and far Northwest. And to top it off, come April 22nd her vote here in the Pennsylvania Primary might actually have some significance this election year.

I'll be damned if the "O" man isn't acting like he wants to pull this thing off. Forget the cynical bloggers like the field Negro. Forget the old school traditional black politicians like Shiela Jackson Lee and the folks at the CBC who owe so much to the Clintons. Forget the folks like Tavis Smiley and Shelby Steele, who for whatever reason seem to be consumed with jealousy and hateration. He is impervious to us all.

You Obamaholics will have a serious hangover tomorrow morning because of this high that you are on right now. But be careful, don't go overdosing on the Obama Aid just yet. There are still things like super delegates (which, by the way, is bullshit)and Clintonian political trickery down the road to consider. For now though, I won't deny you your right to party and soak up these latest wins. You deserve it. You have been sticking with your boy when cynics like yours truly have been saying the Emperor might not have any underwear on under all those fine clothes.

Now I am off to bed. Let's just hope Mrs. Field is still in that mood.

Thank you "O" man ;)

A conservative jumps on Barack.

Shelby Steele happens to be one of the few black conservatives that I admire or even take the time to listen to. I think his book, "The Content Of Our Character" , is an American classic. And when some of my people slammed him in the past, I defended him. Having said that, I can't help but be amused at his latest musings about Barack Obama.

Steele, who is anti affirmative action, actually argues that Obama will never win the democratic nomination for president; because, as he puts it, Obama is caught between pleasing black folks and whitey. Steele argues that "Obama has adopted a mask to appease white A-merry-ca's fear of being thought of as racist by offering them the opportunity to embrace a non threatening black". OK no news there. The field and like minded people have been saying this all along. It's just that it seems kind of strange coming from a black conservative. A man who argues that everything in A-merry-ca should be based on a color blind construct. Whatever happened to being judged by the content of ones character and not the color of ones skin? Isn't Mr. Steele now arguing that Obama's race is in fact an issue with most A-merry-cans? And shouldn't Steele take Obama for who he says he is, and not try to create some type of racial ulterior motive to Obama's persona?

“He needs a self. There’s no self there. I think it comes from a lifetime of being bound up and playing one side, and another side, and never feeling that he had the right to be his own man,” ... “This is the tragedy, certainly, of the black intellectual class in America. They don’t think they have the right to be individuals, so they’re all just predictable, victim-focused, old line. It’s a generation that’s failed to really take us further. Obama is a part of that. There’s nobody there.”

Shelby, I hate to break it to you, but you could be easily talking about yourself. The only difference is, instead of being "victim focused", you and others of your ilk seem to focus on blaming the victim and finding ways to make yourselves palpable to those in the majority. Which, ironically, is the exact same thing you are accusing Obama of doing.

Steele also argues that blacks in America typically wear one of two “masks”: He goes on to say that they are either challengers or bargainers. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are challengers: Such blacks assume whites are racist until they prove otherwise. Bargainers, on the other hand, make a deal with whites by not rubbing their faces in a history of racism — think of Louis Armstrong or Oprah" he says. What is this Shelby, a new twist on the old house Negro field Negro dichotomy among us black folks? If this is the case, you might want to add Shelby Steele and all your conservative brothers and sisters to the list of "Bargainers", or should I say house Negroes? I mean honestly, what's the difference? You call Obama a bargainer? Pot, meet kettle.

I heard George Will on one of these Sunday talk shows declare; if Obama wins the presidency it will put Sharpton and Jessie out of business. In your dreams Mr. Will. Electing a black man to be president won't change the heart of the millions of bigots in this country. In fact, it will only serve to harden it. And Reverend Inc. will probably be busier than ever. Civil rights is not a business Mr. Will, and Barak isn't some CEO you can put in charge to do away with the problems that make our civil rights hard to come by.

But on one point I will agree with Steele. Obama will never win by trying to appeal to the conscience of the well meaning white folks among us, or to the white A-merry-cans fear of being thought of as racist. Besides, if he does win, and white A-merry-cans can use his victory to excuse racism, what would be the point? We would still be the same fucked up country we were before he got elected. The only difference is that our country would be led by one of us. Or, well, a half one of us.

*****Hat tip to my man over at African American Political Pundit for turning me on to this story.