The Father, the Almighty, destroyer of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. Eternally begotten of the Father, War from War, Bomb from Bomb, begotten, not made, of one being with the War. Through War all things were made for us and for our salvation War came down from heaven: by the power of the Human Spirit it became incarnate. . . and was made man.For War's sake humans are crucified, suffer death and are buried. On the third day no one will rise again and no one will ascend into heaven. War will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and its kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Human Spirit, the taker of life, who proceeds from the Father and the War. With the Father and the War it is worshipped and glorified. It has spoken through its profits. I acknowledge one War for the commission of sins. I look for no resurrection of the dead, and to the Wars of the world to come. Amen.
Praise the Father that Greg Carter transcribed that from get your voltr on; I was worried I've have to type the thing meself. . .
Any road up, in the words of the immoral Doctor Clayton Forrester, today's experiment stems from Yes, Democrats DO take black folks for granted:
Unfortunately, most folks who begin to recognize this fact are reluctant to even take a second (or for most a first) glance at the Republican or Libertarian parties, opting instead not to vote at all.
Left the <sarcasm> tags out again, didn't I?
All right, then. Fine. Today, I shall be taking a first glance at the Republican and Libertarian parties.
Which seems like the political equivalent of SUPER SIZE ME, really.
Our first stop, setting the stage and illustrating your tax dollars at work, US Dept of State - African Americans and the 2004 U.S. Elections:
Question: In 2002, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies asked black respondents in its national survey to identify themselves as either Democrats, Independents or Republicans. Although 63 percent claimed to be Democrats, the number was down from 74 percent in 2000. Is this trend continuing and is the Republican Party making special efforts to bring African Americans back to the party of Abraham Lincoln?Walters: The Republican Party in each election cycle has claimed that they are making such efforts, but it's very difficult to see them. African Americans will say, for example, that they have changed their party identification. Right now, however, the growth in party identification is for neither major party, but with Independents. Yet, when you look at how people actually vote, African Americans voted 90 percent Democrat in the last election in each age group. So, although some of the past Joint Center studies show that younger blacks below the age of 35 were more conservative on some issues, still, when it came to political behavior, they voted pretty much like their elders.
Here's that context thing all the kids are into these days:
In a recent interview, Dr. Ron Walters, director of the African American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, spoke with Washington File staff writer Darlisa Crawford about the role of African Americans in the 2004 election. Dr. Walters is a recognized expert on African American involvement in electoral politics and a frequent political commentator on network television. Also see this issue's Campaign Highlight feature which includes a discussion of outreach to minority voters by the Republican Party.
Links added.
And I could'a sworn I read something recently about how outreach, by and large, never fucking works, and unless you've built your organization from the ground up with participation by whoever you're outreaching to, they're gonna feel like the estranged Other. But I'm pretty sure I read that about women of color in feminist groups, so that rather dismal conclusion couldn't possibly apply here.
So. Let's have a look at those "special efforts to bring African Americans back to the party of Abraham Lincoln."
From the founding of the Republican Party to today, African Americans have been central to the GOP. The leadership of President George W. Bush provides an opportunity for us to work together and better include everyone of all backgrounds in the Republican Party. Bringing African Americans back to the Party of Lincoln has been a central priority of President Bush, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie, and is the mission of the RNC's African American Team Leader Outreach program. President Bush has been a champion of real policies that will make a difference to African Americans - from the No Child Left Behind Act that improves education through choice and accountability, to strengthening faith-based and community organizations, to welfare reform that helps people find work. Working together with African Americans in communities across the country, we can make the Party of Lincoln stronger and more diverse than ever before.
That's from either GOP.com or RNC.org, depending on if you look at the page title or the actual URI. Interestingly, the repeated use of the phrase "Party of Lincoln" ain't outreaching. Reminds me of some other, considerably more dramatic instances of similar rhetoric appearing on official Republican Party pages and on government sites, but that's probably not the desired effect. And do they use that phrase constantly, or just when they're outreaching? To sort of underline the outreachiness? Because I'm very close to deciding that's an immutable word rather than a phrase, and running it together like wimmenandminorities or gassedhisownpeople.
And they probably don't want me asking either the teachers or people with children that I know how that No Child Left Behind deal is working for them.
Faith based?
Two months ago, a black minister in Chicago told the New York Times, "If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them."
Can we run some sort of tests on the faithful? Intelligence, empathy, pain tolerance, I'm quite flexible. . . the black minister (Baptist, of course) was Gregory Daniels, of United Voters for Truth and Change.
Which name, I suppose, is like how the old Soviet republics used to have the word "Democratic" randomly tossed into them.
And welfare reform? Which the Clenis shamelessly stole as an issue, if I remember a'right?
Another little suggestion. Remember just a very few short paragraphs ago when I said the whole PartyofLincoln thing, when only used in outreaching, kind'a turns me off?
If I have to explicitly complete that thought, I will kill you once I'm done.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash their stink off of me before proceeding to the Libertarian portion of our program.
No, Aaron, I knew you were being sarcastic, but I've run into a fair number of people who actually do take that notion and tone seriously.
The fact is, that there are many folks who only focus on the bad on the GOP side of the coin (as if there isn't anything "bad" on the Democratic side), and neglect the "good."
Rangel's point (which I alluded to at the conclusion of my piece) is valid. Until and unless true consideration to a constructive dialog takes place within black politics, we will remain at the back of the bus.
I'm not saying that the conservative message is the savior of black America. On the other hand, true wisdom and advancement comes from an honest consideration of multiple schools of thought. That is something that, on the whole, does not exist in black America today. These days it's "I'm right, you're wrong, that's it."
That is one of the reasons that Hispanics are beginning to advance further than blacks politically in this country. There is a true dicotomy (albeit culturally split between Cubans - who are mostly conservative, and Mexicans - who are mostly liberal) within Hispanic America; as a whole, Spanish-speaking America is taking that ball and running with it.
We're left with infighting that ranges from "You're an Uncle Tom (insert conservative-hating epithet here), and you've forgotten who you are and where you're from;" to "Oh, all they want is to keep us in the past."
And I'll admit to a measure of guilt in that vein as well.
But the question is whether or not we, as a whole, can get beyond that and move on to the next phase of empowerment. And until and unless cogent and rational debate (without stooping to the emotional rhetoric that peppers today's debates) can proceed.
Michael, good point. Trouble is, and I expanded on this in an entry where I couldn't resist the emotional rhetorical cheap shot either, is we're having the debate itself in a (or two) framework(s) that ain't exactly conducive to the cogent or the rational.
Unfortunately, I find the idea of black-only spaces icky.
I also find trying to have the conversation out in the open nigh-impossible.
Any suggestions?
Why are black-only spaces icky?
I don't stay in woman-only spaces, but there are times I enjoy them. Being a woman and occasionally wanting to talk about it *among women* is part of who I am. It's only one part, but it is *a* part.
I don't have a problem with man-only spaces, either, as long as exclusion isn't the default and man-only spaces don't mean "space for everything not specifically denominated female". There's a difference between, say, boys' poker night and something like Augusta National, which is effectively "white boys only".
Ginger, yeah, that's not worded well. How about, "As my previous extended stays in black-only spaces have tended to degenerate into ickiness, I find the idea of placing myself in one again has a high ick factor"?
And can I head off the MWMF discussion before it starts? It really wasn't that much fun the last time.
Even the reworded one up there is too glib. . . I guess I'd have to say it depends on who's in the space. Don't especially care for buppies even in mixed company; lock me in a room with nothing but a bunch of them and it's just a question of which I'd slit, my wrists or their throats.
So between the light-skin vs. dark-skin thing, and the class differences, and the inevitable homophobia, and the sexism. . . yup. Ick.
Except, of course, that I spent a very pleasant evening having dinner with a group of black bloggers from around Chicago a few weeks back, which technically was. . .
My brain hurts. Ginger, you have a talent for making it do that.
You're welcome.
The fact that I enjoy certain woman-only spaces (among others, and not all the time) doesn't mean I enjoy all woman-only spaces. I have friends for whom discussion in womanspace inevitably goes to epidurals and episiotomies, and let me tell you, it's hard to eat brunch while you're hearing that stuff.
Sometimes I want to discuss women's issues, whatever they may be--politics, body issues, the hotness of various movies stars--out of the hearing of men, but I don't necessarily have enough in common with any other woman you might pull out of thin air to want to talk to her at all. There's a line about common interests for people you share your bed with instead of those you share public toilets with, but it's heterosexist ...
The theory isn't bad, but the execution can suuuuck.
This is true. (Unfortunately.)
But one can wistfully wish...[g]