Debate Now White Privilege and an Institution of Racism

[Asclepias]

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point to something that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

Here is Sowell in action...


"This “cracker” ethos of the past has been baptized into the hip-hop world with reckless abandon. When black kids call studious blacks “white,” or when black kids scold other black kids for sounding “white,” they have adopted a ghetto cracker mentality. "

Try as I might I couldnt see this any other way. Only someone completely ignorant of Hip Hop would make such a foolish statement and condemn an entire genre of music...or as I said before he was trying to curry favor with whites.

 

[Foxfyre]

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point tosomething that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

I'll have to do it later. Gotta cook.

Off topic: Hope you cook as well as you debate.

But later.

 

[Foxfyre]

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point to something that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

Here is Sowell in action...


"This “cracker” ethos of the past has been baptized into the hip-hop world with reckless abandon. When black kids call studious blacks “white,” or when black kids scold other black kids for sounding “white,” they have adopted a ghetto cracker mentality. "

Try as I might I couldnt see this any other way. Only someone completely ignorant of Hip Hop would make such a foolish statement and condemn an entire genre of music...or as I said before he was trying to curry favor with whites.

I think Anthony Bradley wrote that, not Sowell. Try again.

 

[Asclepias]

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point to something that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

Here is Sowell in action...


"This “cracker” ethos of the past has been baptized into the hip-hop world with reckless abandon. When black kids call studious blacks “white,” or when black kids scold other black kids for sounding “white,” they have adopted a ghetto cracker mentality. "

Try as I might I couldnt see this any other way. Only someone completely ignorant of Hip Hop would make such a foolish statement and condemn an entire genre of music...or as I said before he was trying to curry favor with whites.

I think Anthony Bradley wrote that, not Sowell. Try again.

Its not really clear if he is citing his opinion or summarizing Sowells book. However here is one I made sure was his words.

Here he is saying reparations is mute argument because its not going to be paid and Blacks basically are just being petulant. This is classic uncle tom behavior where all historical precedent is thrown out the window in favor of how whites feel about the issue. From time immortal if you injured someone you were required to pay for that injury in civilization. If that person was not alive the proceeds go to the descendants. Why is a Black man making up the excuse that since it hasnt been paid that it wont be paid and we should cease and desist?

Thomas Sowell - The reparations fraud




Here also is an excellent rebuttal to his uncle tomming ways.

:: BlackElectorate.com ::

 

[Foxfyre]

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point to something that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

Here is Sowell in action...


"This “cracker” ethos of the past has been baptized into the hip-hop world with reckless abandon. When black kids call studious blacks “white,” or when black kids scold other black kids for sounding “white,” they have adopted a ghetto cracker mentality. "

Try as I might I couldnt see this any other way. Only someone completely ignorant of Hip Hop would make such a foolish statement and condemn an entire genre of music...or as I said before he was trying to curry favor with whites.

I think Anthony Bradley wrote that, not Sowell. Try again.

Its not really clear if he is citing his opinion or summarizing Sowells book. However here is one I made sure was his words.

Here he is saying reparations is mute argument because its not going to be paid and Blacks basically are just being petulant. This is classic uncle tom behavior where all historical precedent is thrown out the window in favor of how whites feel about the issue. From time immortal if you injured someone you were required to pay for that injury in civilization. If that person was not alive the proceeds go to the descendants. Why is a Black man making up the excuse that since it hasnt been paid that it wont be paid and we should cease and desist?

Thomas Sowell - The reparations fraud




Here also is an excellent rebuttal to his uncle tomming ways.

:: BlackElectorate.com ::

i cannot agree at all that this opinion is Uncle Tom behavior or words. Reparations have always been a silly argument when one group expects others, none of which had in part in doing anybody any injury, to pay for wrongdoings more than a hundred years ago. That would be as absurd as me demanding that you pay for damages black rioters did in Watts or any other place.

But if you consider Thomas Sowell to be an Uncle Tom for taking that point of view, you are really REALLY going to hate Walter Williams. Now mind you both of these guys grew up in poor surroundings and had to make it under segregation. It isn't if they are speaking from any kind of special privilege. But Williams says:

. . .Therefore, if anybody cares, a moral question arises. What moral principle justifies punishing a white of today to compensate a black of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday?

There's another moral or fairness issue. A large percentage, if not most, of today's Americans — be they of European, Asian, African or Latin ancestry — don't even go back three or four generations as American citizens. Their ancestors arrived on our shores long after slavery. What standard of justice justifies their being taxed to compensate blacks for slavery? For example, in 1956, thousands of Hungarians fled the brutality of the USSR to settle in the U.S. What do Hungarians owe blacks for slavery?

There's another thorny issue. During slavery, some free blacks purchased other blacks as a means to free family members. But other blacks owned slaves for the same reason whites owned slaves — to work farms or plantations. Are descendants of these slaveholding blacks eligible for and deserving of reparations?

When African slavery began, there was no way Europeans could have enslaved millions of Africans. They had no immunity from diseases that flourished in tropical Africa. Capturing Africans to sell into slavery was done by Arabs and black Africans. Would reparations advocates demand that citizens of Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Kenya and several Muslim states tax themselves to make reparation payments to progeny of people whom their ancestors helped to enslave?

Reparations advocates make the foolish unchallenged argument that the United States became rich on the backs of free black labor. That's nonsense that cannot be supported by fact. Slavery doesn't have a very good record of producing wealth. Slavery was all over the South, and it was outlawed in most of the North.

Buying into the reparations argument about the riches of slavery, one would conclude that the antebellum South was rich and the slave-starved North was poor. The truth of the matter is just the opposite. In fact, the poorest states and regions of our nation were places where slavery flourished — Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia — while the richest states and regions were those where slavery was absent: Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

One of the most ignored facts about slavery's tragic history — and it's virtually a secret today — is that slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years. It did not become a moral issue until the 18th century. Plus, the moral crusade against slavery started in the West, most notably England.

I think the call for slavery reparations is simply another hustle. Advocates are not demanding that government send checks to individual black people. They want taxpayer money to be put into some kind of reparations fund from which black leaders decide who receives how much and for what purpose.​

Slavery Reparations

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt expect you to agree being a white person. I was just telling you why I and many other Blacks see Sowell and others like him as shameless, spineless uncle toms out for white acceptance and money. I dont want to make this an argument about slavery or reparations because thats off topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didnt expect you to agree being a white person. I was just telling you why I and many other Blacks see Sowell and others like him as shameless, spineless uncle toms out for white acceptance and money. I dont want to make this an argument about slavery or reparations because thats off topic.

It really isn't off topic though because it all ties into the whole concept of 'white privilege' and the accusations, by some, of black people 'acting white' to get ahead. Sowell and Williams make very excellent arguments for why that is a destructive way to look at it. I really wish you would read and think about Williams' essay--even the excerpt that I quoted--and see if there is anything in it you can agree with. I fear that if a large segment of black people will not even look at a reasoned argument that doesn't fit the script of 'black victimhood', nothing will ever change for the better any time soon.

Thanks for a good discussion though Asclepias. Perhaps we can continue it. But this old lady is headed for bed. Good night and sweet dreams.

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt expect you to agree being a white person. I was just telling you why I and many other Blacks see Sowell and others like him as shameless, spineless uncle toms out for white acceptance and money. I dont want to make this an argument about slavery or reparations because thats off topic.

It really isn't off topic though because it all ties into the whole concept of 'white privilege' and the accusations, by some, of black people 'acting white' to get ahead. Sowell and Williams make very excellent arguments for why that is a destructive way to look at it. I really wish you would read and think about Williams' essay--even the excerpt that I quoted--and see if there is anything in it you can agree with. I fear that if a large segment of black people will not even look at a reasoned argument that doesn't fit the script of 'black victimhood', nothing will ever change for the better any time soon.

Thanks for a good discussion though Asclepias. Perhaps we can continue it. But this old lady is headed for bed. Good night and sweet dreams.

I have always been taught that there is a grain of truth in every argument, however i was also taught that its time consuming and often not worth it picking through the trash to find it.

Yes lets continue. good night.

 

[sparky]

I keep thinking all this angst and anger is contrived and fueled by sorts at the top of the food chain as a diversion

~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

I keep thinking all this angst and anger is contrived and fueled by sorts at the top of the food chain as a diversion

~S~

Interesting. Explain please.

 

[OldLady]

What a skewed set of questions...

Nobody really focuses on "white privilege" it's just something that is taken for granted.

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

. . . .Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

Is he wrong?

No. It's true. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. But we are far from there, and Affirmative Action and all the other help we are extending to the black community is reparations of sorts. Apparently, it is still needed. Although maybe it is not as effective as we'd like--if anyone has a better idea, great, but just ignoring race issues at this point is taking a giant step backwards, imo.

 

[danielpalos]

i think blue chics would be fun, for awhile.

 

[Foxfyre]

What a skewed set of questions...

Nobody really focuses on "white privilege" it's just something that is taken for granted.

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

. . . .Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

Is he wrong?

No. It's true. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. But we are far from there, and Affirmative Action and all the other help we are extending to the black community is reparations of sorts. Apparently, it is still needed. Although maybe it is not as effective as we'd like--if anyone has a better idea, great, but just ignoring race issues at this point is taking a giant step backwards, imo.

Is it taking a giant step backwards though? As long as black people are treated as a separate class of people that need special consideration, assistance, attention and protection, black people will never be allowed to FEEL equal to anybody. They will never be seen or treated as anything other than victims by each other or anybody else.

And as long as that victimization motif is big business to the racists among us, we will continue to have college professors instilling in their students how unfair the world, the police, the business environment is to them, teaching them to be resentful and retaliatory. And race baiters will continue to stir up anger and mob violence. And that in turn creates resentment and counter anger among people of other races who are thus also taught and conditioned to be suspicious and wary of black people.

And because the black institutions have largely been destroyed, the black family decimated, and black children too often are born into poverty, ignorance, and gang cultures, they quickly become part of the hard core unemployed.

Not only are people not allowed to be color blind and treat each other as true equals, but racism is perpetuated for profit and political advantage.

The vast majority of black people who just want to live their lives in peace and want no part of all that crap are nevertheless too often painted with the brush that tars the others.

In my point of view, that is so very wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

What a skewed set of questions...

Nobody really focuses on "white privilege" it's just something that is taken for granted.

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

. . . .Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

Is he wrong?

No. It's true. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. But we are far from there, and Affirmative Action and all the other help we are extending to the black community is reparations of sorts. Apparently, it is still needed. Although maybe it is not as effective as we'd like--if anyone has a better idea, great, but just ignoring race issues at this point is taking a giant step backwards, imo.

But it's not reparations. It's castration, and emasculation. What you are doing is making it so every black man that ever attempts to achieve anything, everything they do is discredited. Because everyone says they didn't get there with hard work, effort, or any inherent ability or ethic... is instead simply "well he had affirmative action".

Go read Thomas Sowell's bookA personal odyssey. In that he describes an account of riding the bus, when some students got on the bus, and started talking about black teachers that were only there before of affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is massive burden that holds people down. No one gives credit to any that succeed, because.... they didn't work their way up... they had affirmative action.

I can say this from personal experience. I worked at several companies that had the 'token black guy'. Everyone said, he's the token black guy. An employee with sub-par skills, that will never get fired, because he's the affirmative action guy. The guy they keep on, to avoid a law suit.

And he knows it. He'll never be promoted to anything. That would defeat his purpose. He's got to remain where he is... the token black guy.

I've seen that a dozen times. It destroys these people. They ruins their spirit. Affirmative Action doesn't give hope. It gives hopelessness.

And additionally to that....

Do you support racism or not? I don't care how bad the public school was, that you failed to be educated at.... A law that gives preferred treatment to a person based on nothing but race.... is a racist law.

And moreover, Affirmative action creates racism. You want to turn a white guy into a racist? When times get slow, lay off the white guy, and keep the token black guy, even though the white guy worked more, was more skilled and capable. You'll turn half a room of white people into racists.

The irony by the way, was that the guy who got laid off, was a flaming liberal before he was laid off. When he realized the token man was keeping his job, while he was losing his.... suddenly that left-wing loud mouth... wasn't so pro-democrat anymore. Just telling you what happened.

Affirmative Action doesn't help race issues... it directly creates race issues.

The left-wingers are so stupid on this issue, because they above all others ought to know better.

A left-winger joins a company, and will have an absolute melt-down over the boss hiring his son, or daughter, or relative.

You guys get it, when it's you being passed over for a promotion, because the guy who got the job is family of the owner.

You guys get it, that this creates jealousy and hatred.

Yet you turn right around and promote government enforcing a law nation wide that does exactly the same thing, based on race.

The difference is, the owner owns the company. He has the right to promote or fire anyone he wants. The government doesn't own the company, and shouldn't be allowed (according to the constitution) to make laws dictating who is hired and promoted or not.

Affirmative Action is horrible, it harms everyone, white or black, and damages society as a whole.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. .

If you actually believed that, you would have a track record of expressing opinions far different from the ones you have been expressing.

Your dozens of postings playing the identity politics game to the nth degree express your true feelings on the subject. Honestly, how can you not see the gulf between the statement I quoted and your belief that certain people should be punished for their race or ethnicity by giving others an unfair advantage over them?

In earlier conversations, you indicated that Asians and Jews should be handicapped so you could attend a University and not them. Do you REALLY think this jives with a claim that you would love to live in a world where it DID'T matter?

 

[Foxfyre]

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point to something that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

Here is Sowell in action...


"This “cracker” ethos of the past has been baptized into the hip-hop world with reckless abandon. When black kids call studious blacks “white,” or when black kids scold other black kids for sounding “white,” they have adopted a ghetto cracker mentality. "

Try as I might I couldnt see this any other way. Only someone completely ignorant of Hip Hop would make such a foolish statement and condemn an entire genre of music...or as I said before he was trying to curry favor with whites.

He wasn't criticizing Hip Hop at all. He was describing those of the Hip Hop generation. I think you completely missed the point.

Is it okay for black kids to call studious black kids "white" or when black kids scold other black kids for "sounding white?"

 

[Foxfyre]

. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. .

If you actually believed that, you would have a track record of expressing opinions far different from the ones you have been expressing.

Your dozens of postings playing the identity politics game to the nth degree express your true feelings on the subject. Honestly, how can you not see the gulf between the statement I quoted and your belief that certain people should be punished for their race or ethnicity by giving others an unfair advantage over them?

In earlier conversations, you indicated that Asians and Jews should be handicapped so you could attend a University and not them. Do you REALLY think this jives with a claim that you would love to live in a world where it DID'T matter?

Careful here Dogmaphobe. This thread is not about OldLady who has been making serious arguments and I, for one, have appreciated her participation as I have Asclepius. If only one point of view is expressed, we won't have much of a discussion. So please, if you disagree with her, rebut OldLady's argument if you can, but whatever she has posted anywhere else is not pertinent for discussion here.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. .

If you actually believed that, you would have a track record of expressing opinions far different from the ones you have been expressing.

Your dozens of postings playing the identity politics game to the nth degree express your true feelings on the subject. Honestly, how can you not see the gulf between the statement I quoted and your belief that certain people should be punished for their race or ethnicity by giving others an unfair advantage over them?

In earlier conversations, you indicated that Asians and Jews should be handicapped so you could attend a University and not them. Do you REALLY think this jives with a claim that you would love to live in a world where it DID'T matter?

Careful here Dogmaphobe. This thread is not about OldLady who has been making serious arguments and I, for one, have appreciated her participation as I have Asclepius. If only one point of view is expressed, we won't have much of a discussion. So please, if you disagree with her, rebut OldLady's argument if you can, but whatever she has posted anywhere else is not pertinent for discussion here.

My displaying the enormous gulf between the insincere claim and the actual attitudes expressed previously IS a rebuttal.

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.

 

[Foxfyre]

. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. .

If you actually believed that, you would have a track record of expressing opinions far different from the ones you have been expressing.

Your dozens of postings playing the identity politics game to the nth degree express your true feelings on the subject. Honestly, how can you not see the gulf between the statement I quoted and your belief that certain people should be punished for their race or ethnicity by giving others an unfair advantage over them?

In earlier conversations, you indicated that Asians and Jews should be handicapped so you could attend a University and not them. Do you REALLY think this jives with a claim that you would love to live in a world where it DID'T matter?

Careful here Dogmaphobe. This thread is not about OldLady who has been making serious arguments and I, for one, have appreciated her participation as I have Asclepius. If only one point of view is expressed, we won't have much of a discussion. So please, if you disagree with her, rebut OldLady's argument if you can, but whatever she has posted anywhere else is not pertinent for discussion here.

My displaying the enormous gulf between the insincere claim and the actual attitudes expressed previously IS a rebuttal.

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.

A member's sincerity or insincerity is actually not a rebuttal to the argument, however, and is not allowed for discussion in this thread: Rule #2 for this thread (from the OP):

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.​

The purpose of the rule was of course to encourage focus on the topic itself and not on what we might think of other members. It would be valid to point out inconsistencies in arguments made within this thread but even there the focus should be on the inconsistency of the arguments and not on the character or motive of the person making them.

Your second paragraph, however, is a legitimate argument, quote:

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.​

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dogmaphobe I should confess at this point that I was remiss when I gently chided you for a mild rules violation and I just realized I had violated it myself by allowing and participating in a discussion of whether a source was or was not an 'Uncle Tom" instead of insisting on the source's argument rather than the source's motive.