Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 29 Sep 2009 22:27 Post subject:
Okay I understand. THen let me ask this.
Quote:
despite their adherence to their community's religion, language, dress, food, music, dance, song, and folklore.
This originated from the Whitney Houston thread, so I will use this as an example. What is the proof she was not ostracized by (some) African Americans for the above reasons?
Why are some AAs ostracized because they are popular among whites, but others are not? What is (are) the variable(s)?
To put it simply...using the example of Whitney Houston, what makes her different from Eddy Murphy or Rihanna?
Based on your restating your argument and going back to the original focus, as stated above I do not believe that Whitney Houston was ostracized simply because she sold a lot of records to white people. Many African Americans sell a lot of records to white people and become famous. So what was different about her that put her in group number 2 , but did not place her in group number 1 (being ostracized for traditional things)?
Can you give an example?
I have heard many African Americans call Whitney Houston a sellout because of the way she acted in the past (as in her speech) and her songs were "white", speaking of the style and content. I have always took it that was the reason, because many people have said this. If you google "Whitney Houston sellout" you will see message boards saying this.
I have never heard black folks say something like "oh she is for the white folks...sellout"...have you?
First let me clarify is this what you believe about Whitney Houston? I think this is what you said. If not please let me know.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 29 Sep 2009 22:41 Post subject:
Also in this thread I put up an article about how Jennifer Lopez was called a sellout by Hispanics for not promoting her album to Hispanic and instead using white music chains because of her mainstream popularity, although the album was in Spanish. How does that fit into #1, but not #2 (hating people because they are popular among whites)?
Also going back to McWhorter for a second.
I have heard criticism of him based on 3 points:
1) He speaks effeminate.
2) He airs black folks dirty laundry to make money and gain some clout with white conservatives for a guaranteed meal ticket for life putting down black folks when whites can't do it without looking racist. While I do think some black conservatives are these type of folks. Personally, I don't believe McWhorter is and I have defended him on black sites, he is also a moderate democrat (his own words, not a Republican).
3) His book losing the race... (not "Winning the Race") was blaming black folks, who many believe is "blaming the victim".
The argument against him were never just because he exists and sold some books and is on a "predominately white TV network or works at a predominately white newspaper" the criticism was pointed.
I know Kennedy uses McWhorter as an example in his book, but...
I have to disagree. I don't agree with any of these criticism of McWhorter but they are criticisms founded in his actors or political/social beliefs.
Here is an example of criticism I've heard of McWhorter, and this is the predominate criticism I have heard and I can produce other sources that say the same thing from message boards and other articles by black liberals (as I said, McWhorter is a Democrat, but he appears more moderate).
Quote:
With McWhorter's school of conservatives we hear strains of Booker T. not so much in his views on thrift and hard work – because those are articles of faith across and political lines in the black community – but in his tradition of accomodationism and comically "putting on" for his (predominantly white) audience. Think about this in the context of McWhorter's obsessive concern – "proving" that there really isn't much racism left in the country and you suspect that his books serve – intentionally or not – as balm for the white guilty conscience. The message to black folk: what you think is racism is actually just coincidental occurrence. Change to song: We have overcome.
We just didn't notice.
Central to his indictment of black America on charges of self-sabotage is the idea that liberal soft-heartedness has made black mediocrity pay off. (He asserts that black students don't work hard, knowing that paternalistic white liberals will let them into the best universities anyway.) A mentor of mine once pointed out that there would be "equality" in America when a black person could be completely mediocre and still achieve astounding success. The point is that among the many pernicious side effects of segregation was its ability to hide white underachievement from black people.
McWhorter indicts universities that consider race as a factor in admissions, but paradoxically has no problem with police using race as a factor in profiling random citizens. After being stopped and questioned by police for walking while black, McWhorter reports in "Losing the Race," "I cannot say that I walked away from that episode furious that I had just been swiped by the long arm of white racism ... I felt that what had happened was a sign that the black underclass is America's greatest injustice, and that I ought to take it as a call to action to do as much as I can to help rescue the underclass so that such encounters with the police won't be necessary – because under the current conditions, whether we like it or not, they are."
The irony here is obvious: he actually endorses race-conscious admissions – if one is being admitted to the back of a squad car. And his steely, self-interested resolve to "uplift" the underclass echoes the same kind of paternalistic social daddying that was once common among white liberals – though it's hard to tell if this constitutes progress or not.
Amadou Diallo? In McWhorter-world, his overdeath is a sad byproduct of the fact that black people need to be policed more aggressively. These things happen. (Among his favorite acts of self-justifying logic is his point that crime in Diallo's neighborhood increased after his murder because the protests prevented police from patrolling as aggressively as they otherwise would have.) And this kind of absence-of-outrage when confronted by the outrageous is precisely why conservatives like McWhorter are so widely viewed with suspicion.
McWhorter is smart enough to know that racial profiling is based upon a logical fallacy. Saying that 99 percent of carjackings in Newark, N.J. are committed by black men is not the same as saying that 99 percent of black men in Newark are carjackers. If those criminals represent only 2 percent of the total population of black men in the city, but using race as the decisive factor in profiling, the police would create a pool of suspects 49 times larger the number of criminals. It doesn't take a quantum physicist to figure out that this is not the most effective way to end carjackings.
At points, McWhorter takes his white absolution agenda to laughable – not comic – extremes. Speaking of hip hop's role in the demise of black America, McWhorter presents this gem:
"Almost all hip hop, gangsta or not, is delivered with a cocky, confrontational cadence that is fast becoming a common speech style among young black males. Similarly, the arm-slinging, hand-hurling gestures of rap performers have made their way into many young blacks' casual gesticulations, becoming integral to their self-expression. The problem with such speech and mannerisms is that they make potential employers wary of young black men and can impede a young black's ability to interact comfortably with co-workers and customers."
Nah, dawg, you wasn't denied that job 'cause of racism, the manager just wasn't diggin' your gully steez, feel me? And given the fact that over 70 percent of hip hop is purchased not by arm-slinging black boys, but suburban white teens, it seems inevitable that 50 Cent will eventually be responsible for Great Depression-like levels of unemployment among white people too.
The tragedy is that John McWhorter could advocate persistence in achieving goals, hard work and self-respect without presenting a premature epitaph for American Racism. For all his gratuitously tom-istic humor and accommodation of white folk, Washington was aware of his own irony (he verbally disdained the importance of civil rights while secretly funneling the money of white philanthropists into legal suits that he hoped would overturn the most repressive elements of Southern racism.) Given the direction that this country has headed in for the past four years, we should've expected McWhorter's brand of neo-accomodationism to show up.
But at least Booker T. had good punchlines.
In any case, if one does not know how to define success or more importantly the dividing line between reasons #1 and #2 (the groups you gave above that cause a group to ostracize people) one can not invalidate your thesis, because I do not believe it is fully defined.
I'm sure I can find someone somewhere who hates some Hispanic or Asian solely because they are "successful" among whites.
So the issue for me is, once again - so there is no confusion:
1) What percentage of people have to ostracize someone in a community because they are successful in the American Mainstream (white America) for it becomes significant? Do you believe no one who defines themselves as Hispanic or Asian, etc deride people purely out of success among whites? No one?
2) If we suppose some are being ostracized for their success in the mainstream and others are not, why? What is the rational reason for this? What independent variables lead to this reaction?
Even in the black community, as you hold McWhorter and Houston as examples, there are many blacks who dislike them who have specific reasons for not liking them, even calling them a "sellout" but it clearly goes in category #1. I have not seen any express purely #2. Does Randall give an example of this? Of people who express sentiment purely based on category #2 I have skimmed his book online (with the google link above, you can read it there, I don't see any firm examples of purely #2.
I honestly think he is crying victim of success, when in reality, it is his political beliefs that cause people to dislike him in his own community and those people do not just disagree with him on principle but attack him personally, which I find unfortunate, but this happens all the time in every community. McWhorter's situation is similar.
If I know the independent variables and the amount of people who have to feel this way to make it significant then I can disprove the thesis, because I can apply them to other groups, find test cases, etc.
What is the proof [Whitney Houston] was not ostracized by (some) African Americans for [rejecting her ethnopolitical community's religion, language, dress, food, music, dance, song, and folklore]?
I have no evidence of this one way or the other. This thread was merely responding to what was posted about the reasons for Houston's ostracism, and relating it to Randall Kennedy, Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal (New York: Pantheon, 2008)
Dragon Horse wrote:
Why are some AAs ostracized because they are popular among whites, but others are not? What is (are) the variable(s)? To put it simply...using the example of Whitney Houston, what makes her different from Eddy Murphy or Rihanna?
I do not know. I cannot answer "why" questions. That is like asking why there is a U.S. B/W test-score gap, or why there is disproportionate U.S. violent crime by A-As. For that matter, why does the U.S. have two endogamous groups whose mutual hostility cycles from smoldering to genocidal and back again, every century or so? Beats me. Kennedy may possibly hypothesize "why" in his book, but I cannot find my copy right now. Give me a few hours to dig it up and I shall report what he thinks.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Jennifer Lopez was called a sellout by Hispanics for not promoting her album to Hispanic and instead using white music chains because of her mainstream popularity, although the album was in Spanish. How does that fit into #1, but not #2 (hating people because they are popular among whites)?
I see no connection. As I wrote in my most recent message, "You seemed to be arguing that other ethnicities also ostracize people. If so, it is a straw man because I say exactly the same thing in (1) above."
Dragon Horse wrote:
I'm sure I can find someone somewhere who hates some Hispanic or Asian solely because they are "successful" among whites.
Then please do so. Otherwise, your continuing to repeat this promise without ever fulfilling it sounds remarkably like a faith-based argument. (See The Rules 3.8.)
Dragon Horse wrote:
What percentage of people have to ostracize someone in a community because they are successful in the American Mainstream (white America) for it becomes significant?
If you mean "in order to falsify my thesis," the answer is "one case".
Dragon Horse wrote:
Do you believe no one who defines themselves as Hispanic or Asian, etc deride people purely out of success among whites? No one?
Yes, that is my thesis: "Ostracism for mere popularity with the mainstream is unique to the A-A community. I would be willing to retract my thesis in the face of a counterexample. Until then, your repeated expressions of disbelief are unpersuasive.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If I know the independent variables and the amount of people who have to feel this way to make it significant then I can disprove the thesis, because I can apply them to other groups, find test cases, etc.
Kennedy provides dozens of examples within the A-A community. My thesis is falsifiable if you can produce one single example outside of the A-A community.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 30 Sep 2009 17:43 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
What is the proof [Whitney Houston] was not ostracized by (some) African Americans for [rejecting her ethnopolitical community's religion, language, dress, food, music, dance, song, and folklore]?
I have no evidence of this one way or the other. This thread was merely responding to what was posted about the reasons for Houston's ostracism, and relating it to Randall Kennedy, Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal (New York: Pantheon, 2008)
Dragon Horse wrote:
Why are some AAs ostracized because they are popular among whites, but others are not? What is (are) the variable(s)? To put it simply...using the example of Whitney Houston, what makes her different from Eddy Murphy or Rihanna?
I do not know. I cannot answer "why" questions. That is like asking why there is a U.S. B/W test-score gap, or why there is disproportionate U.S. violent crime by A-As. For that matter, why does the U.S. have two endogamous groups whose mutual hostility cycles from smoldering to genocidal and back again, every century or so? Beats me. Kennedy may possibly hypothesize "why" in his book, but I cannot find my copy right now. Give me a few hours to dig it up and I shall report what he thinks.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Jennifer Lopez was called a sellout by Hispanics for not promoting her album to Hispanic and instead using white music chains because of her mainstream popularity, although the album was in Spanish. How does that fit into #1, but not #2 (hating people because they are popular among whites)?
I see no connection. As I wrote in my most recent message, "You seemed to be arguing that other ethnicities also ostracize people. If so, it is a straw man because I say exactly the same thing in (1) above."
Dragon Horse wrote:
I'm sure I can find someone somewhere who hates some Hispanic or Asian solely because they are "successful" among whites.
Then please do so. Otherwise, your continuing to repeat this promise without ever fulfilling it sounds remarkably like a faith-based argument. (See The Rules 3.8.)
Dragon Horse wrote:
What percentage of people have to ostracize someone in a community because they are successful in the American Mainstream (white America) for it becomes significant?
If you mean "in order to falsify my thesis," the answer is "one case".
Dragon Horse wrote:
Do you believe no one who defines themselves as Hispanic or Asian, etc deride people purely out of success among whites? No one?
Yes, that is my thesis: "Ostracism for mere popularity with the mainstream is unique to the A-A community. I would be willing to retract my thesis in the face of a counterexample. Until then, your repeated expressions of disbelief are unpersuasive.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If I know the independent variables and the amount of people who have to feel this way to make it significant then I can disprove the thesis, because I can apply them to other groups, find test cases, etc.
Kennedy provides dozens of examples within the A-A community. My thesis is falsifiable if you can produce one single example outside of the A-A community.
Kennedy states that William Jelani Cobb calls McWhorter a epitome of a sellout.
Also Condi Rice is also called a "race traitor".
He also talks about Jesse Lee Paterson.
Now with Paterson he specifically cites that the person who did this said that he was so, because he denigrates blacks mercilessly out of joy...etc.
He then says black on the right have accused blacks on the left of being "sellouts", because they sold out their political independence to the Democratic Party.
He then talks about Clarence Thomas and he says specifically on pg 77 that many favored him because he was "a brotha" but many opposed him because of his politics (conservative).
On page 69, he draws it all together with a quote, saying that many blacks are considered race traitors because of their politics are not liberal and conform to the civil rights establishment. Debate is aborted and people just attack these people.
All of these people he seems to equate with violating political-cultural norms. Basically most blacks are liberal and see that as pro-black a person who is conservative, especially it seems REpublican or puts down blacks in public is seen as anti-black or going against the best interest of blacks, which makes them a traitor.
The example, I see that supports your thesis is Cory Booker.
pg. 72.
It says that his mere popularity with whites and his background (Ivy League) made him suspect to many black voters in Newark, even a "turn coat" (I'm assuming this means race traitor). The assumption is, I assume, Kennedy does not get specific, is that he is too close to whites, so likely suspected of being a race traitor. But this still has to do with politics.
As I have shown, there are many famous blacks who are liked and close to whites who are not considered traitors. My take is that we are specifically talking about political ideology. People thought that due to Bookers background, moderate Democratic politics, and his appeal to whites, he really did not represent the best interest of blacks.
It was not just because he was "famous with whites" it was a belief, almost reactionary sentiment that he is likely a traitor, or why would whites like him so much.
While I admit and agree with Kennedy this is often true in politics, it is not true when dealing with celebrities.
He goes on to describe Colin Power, being criticized in a similar way by Al Sharpton. But once again, this is politics. Powell is a slightly right of center Repbulican, therefore his politics do not align with the majority of African Americans, so people call him a traitor.
On pg. 73, Kennedy calls this "homogenizing of African American ideology"
This is no different then the post I put of the two Puerto Rican rappers, one calling the other a sellout for voting Republican (supporting McCain over Obama).
Going back to Kennedy's book...
On pg. 7, he talks about Rice, Thomas, Vernon Jordan, etc. He says if you are black and achieve success in a multi-racial setting, then there will be whisper campaigns that you are a sellout and that is why you achieved what you did.
Funny thing is, I never heard any blacks say that Denzel Washington and Jamie Foxx are sellouts for winning academy awards and having popular movies that make 10's of millions, largely due to white support.
The only explanation I can draw is what Kennedy said in paragraph one of the preface (pg. 7) that if whites love you, a person has to prove their blackness to maintain love by blacks. Since Obama somehow proved his blackness then he can be loved by blacks, because he nullified most of their suspicion concerning his blackness.
This would imply that Jamie Foxx and Denzel Washington do things to purposely reinforce their blackness.
He also makes it clear on pg. 8 that this is a minority, but as we discussed it can only be "1 person".
But his examples are mostly about political situations or accuasions that a black man/woman is demeaning blacks in the mainstream, or in the case of Christopher Darden (pg 65) accused of racial betrayal for trying to prosecute a black man, O.J. Simpson.
What Kennedy does not do is define a situation where blacks call blacks sellouts, race traitors, solely because they are famous with whites.
He says this happens, but gives no concrete example.
All of his examples, that I have seen, that he explains is blacks accusing famous blacks of "doing something" to hurt other blacks. This to me fits into what you said here:
Quote:
(1) Every ethnopolitical community has a "border patrol" comprising members who ostracize "sell-outs". This ostracism is due to its target's perceived rejection of the mores of the enthopolitical community into which they were born. The mores that are seen as rejected are usually: religion (form of worship), language (dialect or pronunciation), dress (fashion), food (taboos and preferences), music (meter and chord structure), dance, song (lyric themes), and folklore (myths and stories for children). All this is common to every ethnicity.
So I don't see how blacks are different from Hispanics, Asians, etc. If a conservative Hispanic went on TV and condemned illegal immigrants, Mexico and said that they should all be deported immediately and the Mexican border closed.
I'm pretty sure they would get hate mail from various Hispanics calling them sellouts, traitors.
Unless you know of an example in Kennedy's book that I'm missing...all of them that I saw are "rejecting of the mores of the ethnopolitical community into which they were born".
Basically, the mores are liberal civil rights politics. That is the norm in the black community. Those who go against this norm by publicly putting down other blacks (especially poor ones) or becoming conservatives, Republicans, etc are branded as or suspected to be sellouts, race traitors.
Since I have no read the entire book can you give one example of when this is not the case and blacks still label someone as a sellout with no reasoning other than being successful with whites?
Once again:
1) Kennedy gives no real definition of what he claims. He simply states it as a fact and lists people this has happened to. But later in the boom he explains that they are hated because of their political beliefs or social beliefs which are contrary to those shared by most black Americans or at least liberal ones. Or those blacks (as in the case of Mayor Booker in Newark) are assumed to have questionable motives due to politics, their education, and appeal to whites, but this is all in a political context, when speaking about an election.
So this thesis is incomplete. If you can't define it, then you can't test it for replication. I'm not even sure if this phenomenon exist in blacks, other than Kennedy's belief that it does, let alone in another ethnic group.
If I was to use my understanding of Kennedy, then Asian Americans call each other traitors for being liked by whites and attribute their success to them being race traitors
Side Effects: Moves up corporate America through privileged White husband, knows nothing, indecisive, enjoys getting paid for smiling.
He says Asian in Hollywood
Quote:
Side effects: Skips when you say walk, takes any role you give him/her for less than fifty bucks, does backflips when you throw him/her a bone in front of a camera, enjoys being pet by White Hipsters on the street. WARNING: Your own race will not post up pictures with you unless they are blurred.
He labels all these people:
Quote:
No longer will we call you a sellout, race traitor, self-hating Asian, silly ass Asian mother-----r -- No. Since this f--k, Chuck, got his fifteen minutes of chicken stardom by sitting idly by as Miley Cyrus and her other goofball friends mocked his ethnicity, he will bear the name of this new prognosis: The Chuck Willis Syndrome.
It is clear in the case of Chao, the very fact she is hated because she is seen as being liked by whites and gaining privileged due to that. It seems the very fact her husband is white and she seems to be liked by whites automatically makes her a "sellout", "traitor", etc. They do not say anything she did wrong to Asian people, per se.
The Asian actors in Hollywood are hated because they will do anything to be liked by whites to be put in a movie.
Whites do the same thing, look at Stormwatch, it is often claimed that white Hollywood actors are self-hating and curry favor with Jews (who they don't consider to be white) to gain fame in Hollywood. This is not exactly unusual.
Going back to Asians This Asian man calls a Christian Asian person a sellout but giving speechs to predominately white audiences. He gives no reasoning other than it was "too white" so he asks "is she a sellout".
Once again, being suspicious that a person is a sellout because of their popularity or closeness to whites...
Which brings us back to the opening question. Francis Chan has been making rounds on the Christian conference circuit: Student Life, Catalyst, NPC, among others. The underlying reason being he brings a touch of diversity (he even admits this in an interview). The problem is he’s not yellow! When we long for diversity it is to see GOD’s activity in a different context so that it might challenge our faith. I’m not doubting the truth of Chan’s messages or teaching; just reading the synopsis of his new book sounds very convicting. But none of his theology springs from his life as an Asian-American; I haven’t read the book, but I used Amazon’s search function and couldn’t find one occurrence of “Chinese” or “Asian.”
I don’t really think he’s a sell-out; I believe Chan is living faithfully to what GOD has called him to be. But I do think Chan is being used by white evangelicals to alleviate their unwillingness to engage race and faith. Chan is welcome at these conferences only because his message could come just as easily from a white male.
So personally he says he doesn't think he is a sellout, but he asks other "is he a sellout"...
One poster Lon, says "Sellout is Harsh" but he should give back more to his community (prove his Asianess, sound familiar")
Basically it is the fact him being suspicious brings his "Asianess" into question although most people concluded he was not a "sellout" it seems to imply that some Asians who do this might be or are.
I found my copy of Kennedy. He discusses why the A-A ethnopolitical community is the only one whose broder patrol otracizes for mere popularity among Whites in chapters 2 and 3 (pages 32-86).
Chapter 2 traces the phenomenon to the antebellum abolitionist movement in the north. He specifically discusses the book, David Walker, Appeal in Four Articles (Boston, 1829) and similar works, which advocated armed uprising by free A-As in the north in order to kill Whites in the North and thus free Black slaves in the South. (I know, it does not make sense to me either, but apparently it made sense to them.) According to Kennedy, at that time the fundamental paradigm of Black/White interaction became violence and conflict. Not "tolerance," not "integration," not "assimilation," but violence. Apparently, many A-A political leaders of the 1830s were swept up in this enthusiasm and those few A-A leaders who argued for B/W mutual understanding were accused of "racial" treason and ostracized. Even Richard Allen (the founder of the AME Church) vowed that no White person would ever be allowed to set foot in an AME church. This period of overt hostility ended with the influence of Frederick Douglass and then the Civil War. Nevertheless, according to Kennedy, the hostility paradigm never really went away. Even W.E.B. Du Bois was accused of being a traitor by Marcus Garvey solely because Du Bois did not always preach anti-White hatred. The chapter concludes with the FBI-fomented self-destruction of the Black Panthers in the late 1960s, when this "hate-all-Whites" phenomenon reached paranoia--any Panther who was (even falsely) accused of speaking favorably of any White person risked being murdered by his compatriots.
Chapter 3 traces the phenomenon from the civil rights era until the present. According to Kennedy, it is fueled by the ongoing conviction among many A-As that America's two "races" are doomed to perpetual conflict, that whatever hurts Whites helps Blacks and vice-versa. And so, it is the duty of every loyal Black to hurt Whites, and any Black who gets along with Whites, or becomes popular or successful among Whites, is a traitor by definition.
In a sense, Kennedy's explanation is dissatisfying. It traces causality in infinite regress into the mists of history. On the other hand, this makes it all the more persuasive to me. Of all the social phenomena that I have tracked to their origin (hypodescent, B/W endogamy, the notion of biological "races"), not one sprang from a cataclysmic predictable event. Instead, they were all the result of historical contingency--things just turned out that way because they just happened to unfold that way.
In short, according to Kennedy, the answer to "Why is the A-A border patrol unique in punishing popularity among Whites?" is "Because the A-A ethnopolitical community is only one in which eternal hostility and conflict with Whites is an ingrained part of its mythology."
Why are hostility and conflict uniquely ingrained into the B/W "racial" paradigm? Beats me.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1770 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 30 Sep 2009 18:44 Post subject:
I see his point and it may be more ingrained in blacks than other groups, but I reject the idea that blacks are the only ones that do this. Also to say it is "pervasive in mythology" is stretching to me, because he makes it clear in his book, that while most blacks are happy with the accomplishments of other "some" (on pg. 7 second paragraph) act in this fashion. If it were that much apart of the culture, then I think it would be more than a minority of blacks who act this way. He also does not give any pure examples of this behavior that is not linked to a real reason.
By his definition some Asians consider Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu, Michelle Malkin all sellouts. If you don't believe me type their names and "sellout" in google.
You will see pretty quick that many Asians consider them sellouts who have gained status due to whites or they act foolish or stereotypical to be liked by whites to get famous, they hate themselves, they hate Asians, etc. Most of this stuff has no substantiation.
These are young Asian-AMerican male primarily. I have never heard an Asian (from Asia) talk this way. But the children are Americanized so they are co-opting American racialism, a minority of them are becoming anti-white, primarily because they don't like the fact so many Asian women marry out and they have no women (that last part is my opinion of the motivation based on seeing many such posts over the last 10 years). I'm talking about my generation and younger...people whose parents came here in the 60's and 70's, primarily who grew up here. Another example.
Another examples:
Quote:
Jul 19, 2009 5:46pm - An example of a "successful" Asian American
Who "made" it in the American business world.
Go do a Google search of Mia Lee on KCAL 9 News in Los Angeles.
She is a middday news anchor for Channel 9.
She is the epitome of the Asian American sellout who has shed not only her image, but plastic surgerized herself to the point of Michael Jackson, even bleaching her skin, got a boob job,
where she is almost unrecognizable as a Korean American.
Yet she is probably making a very good living as a middday anchor for a major news network, and she is an example of "American business success".
Let me ask all the people who have had a chance to see Mia Lee in action.
Exactly what is the price of success and fame in this country.
Is it required that you shed 100% not only your image, philosophy, attitude, physical make-up, and even voice as an Asian person to become more "American" to become an "American success".
Let me just tell you this. If I needed to completely change the way I look to appear less "Asian", and go suck some Jewish d--k (which I'm sure Mia Lee does 24/7)
I would rather completely fail and become a bum than do that to reach the "success".
All Mia Lee was sell her soul to the Devil.
What is more important I ask the Asian American readership who has by chance come across this article and my comments : is money and success more important than being true to your heart and soul?
Ask yourself this question before you decide if you really want to "succeed" in America.
Basically she ingratiates herself with whites by changing her appearance and that is why she is successful. Notice there is nothing about how she speaks, what she has done other than her appearance and the fact she is successful, the poster even puts success in quotes.
Going back to Kennedy...his remarks about " Marcus Garvey solely because Du Bois he did not preach anti-white"
That's not exactly accurate. Garvey did not trust Du Bois because he was biracial and believe that Du Bois looked down on him for being a dark skin black man, which is not unlikely. Garvey likely wanted Du Bois to prove his "black bonifieds" true, but at the same time Garvey made it clear he did not trust the "mulatto elite", there was more to it than just him preaching anti-black hatred. I believe Kennedy states that.
In a sense, Kennedy's explanation is dissatisfying. It traces causality in infinite regress into the mists of history.
I actually believe Kennedy's explanation is sufficient to an extent in explaining this phenomenon, I have known blacks like this, however they are a minority. As far as "eternal struggle" and zero sum gain, I don't believe most blacks believe that and unless Kennedy has done some serious polling he is just speculating based on historic context of some non-elected self anointed "black leaders". Most blacks never joined the Black Panther Party and at their height, they could not even claim that 20% of blacks were members, they did not even have as much influence with blacks that Hippies had with whites, not to say they had no influence.
Marcus Garvey never gained a real foothold in black America beyond a few, neither did Malcolm X. These folks and their ideology have existed for decades, but they have never been dominant in the community, at least I see no proof of this.
I do think blacks are more paranoid about racism and more sensitive about public criticism that is racially based, especially when coming from other blacks.
That being said, there are other groups starting to show this as well. Ever check out La Raza message boards? You should.
Well, you have persuaded me that Kennedy may overstate the situation. I have two problems with the thesis:
(1) There is no way to tell the "real" reason for ostracism. People may ostracize merely for popularity among Whites but use a rhetoric of claiming treasonous politics (Colin Powell) or art (Whitney Houston) or vice-versa--rhetorically claiming popularity among Whites but actually feeling social abandonment (the original "crabs-in-a-bucket" syndrome).
(2) Social or demographic reality is always a matter of numbers. As you say, only a handful of A-As accuse others of "acting White" due merely to achievement.
Nevertheless, despite those qualms, I still think that his basic observations are valid. Go back over debates in this very website and you will see occasional expressions that portray the color line as a battle line with such expressions as "the enemy" or "the opposition". See, for example, this message, which refers to those, "who consort too closely with the group considered the enemy" [emphasis mine]. I have never seen modern-day Asian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jews, or Hispanics express such a viewpoint, referring to the very society in which they live as "the enemy".
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
