Causes or political parties? In this case it is a political org. While I admit black Republicans are a minority among black people in general, there are many who are not Democrats, and feel that the Democrats basically use them as “useful idiots”, placating them with some programs that don’t actually help them out in the long run and not really caring about their plight even though they campaign like they do.
I still don’t know exactly what is going on with BAFABF, so I can’t really completely approve of or condemn. But I can’t condemn an org solely because their funding comes from white people and they are black org. I bet there are a lot of legit black orgs that have money from white people (as I mentioned, the NAACP certainly does).
ETA @Medievalist 's posts a few posts up echos what I am trying to say. It could be a con game, but just because it is getting funding from white donor doesn’t automatically make it not legit.
Right, but there are a couple important distinctions there:
The overwhelming majority of NAACP leaders and members are people of color. That includes those who make the decisions about what civil rights causes they work toward.
Even if the NAACP was overwhelmingly made up of and funded by white people, it’s name doesn’t claim to be an organization made OF black people. It’s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
So white people can still work to further the cause of black people, but they shouldn’t claim to BE black people.
I get what you are driving at, but identity politics is always a slippery slope. What exactly is the standard of racial purity? One-drop, or three-fifths? Octaroon? High-yaller? Is Tiger Woods a rich white man, or an Asian? Here we have the leader of Black Americans for a Better Future, posing with an unknown woman to provide contrast.
Race is never a black-and-white (har!) distinction, but exactly zero of the rich white guys who formed and funded this organization can make a credible claim to have been subjected to the kinds of institutionalized discrimination which creates so many problems for African Americans as a group. I’d be pretty shocked if even one of the men on that list self-identifies as a “Black American.”
It seems almost as if - if we don’t want to see these same asshats involved in everything important to us - we should maybe use different ways of measuring “wealth”. When the same people control the usual pool of tokens, it might be foolish to rely upon using the same measure of wealth to undermine them.
I am neither interested in luck, nor starting a new society, so I am not sure what you are talking about here.
Does it matter how many people comprise a society?
My point was that if a group of people claim to have everything because they manipulate a fucking symbol, then don’t use their symbols set for measuring and distributing wealth. Or, I suppose you could try to convince those people to use it fairly. Is that more likely to work?
It’s almost as if none of the lefties here have any concept of solidarity.
No, it’s more that like just about everyone else, they realize that trying to increase equity and quality of life for more of us by arguing for some system of exchange other than money would be fucking hopeless and stupid.
Money itself isn’t the problem. It’s a few people having way too much of it and yet thinking they never having enough.
Why do you think they don’t? As you very well know, I don’t give people a pass for their skin color. But I don’t see anyone here criticising Mr. Jackson for identity politics, it seems more like people are saying his organization isn’t black enough for them because his money’s too white.
Yeah, me too! I think they are most likely cynical opportunists. That doesn’t mean Raynard Jackson isn’t sincere, or that Black Americans for a Better Future isn’t a Black organization. Mr. Jackson’s hatemongering towards homosexuals, for example, is pretty typical of what I hear from black Christians in my area.
I said that it’s strange how YOU don’t seem bothered by the identity politics being played by Mr. Jackson and his all white backers. Why did you answer by talking instead about what other people here are doing?
This is an org called Black Americans for a Better Future apparently funded entirely by white people. Those people are clearly doing so not to advance the interests of black people, but instead, to spread Republican ideology among them. Their purpose is to spread ideology in pursuit of votes for Republican politicians, not to help black people.
It’s identity politics, with heavy emphasis on both of those words. You dislike “identity politics.” So I’m asking, again, since you’re disdainful of identity politics, why are you defending this version?
[[quote=“anon15383236, post:74, topic:72927”]
" So I’m asking, again, since you’re disdainful of identity politics, why are you defending this version?
[/quote]
That’s not what I was arguing, so I might wonder why you prefer to put an argument that is “hopeless and stupid” in my mouth. Money is simply a tool, and a tool which needs to be democratized. If your life involves money, either you are using it, or it is using you. And by “it” I mean those who control and hide behind it. There are lots of other tools I don’t personally use, but it’s quite a leap to go from that to suggesting that I am opposed to them.
I see this as a matter of simple security. If my community share a credit card and it gets stolen, we cancel it. If we have a key stolen, we get the lock changed. And similarly, if our currency gets completely hijacked, we replace it with a new one. Of course any of these can be terribly inconvenient, but sometimes that inconvenience is the cost of securing your people. Those who refuse to can make securing your account/building/network/community practically impossible, so it can be vitally important to know who your allies are!
I’m sure that if I misrepresented your written thoughts, then as with those of anyone else that may be misrepresented, their author can jump right in and offer corrections. As you already have.
“I’m still wondering if this gentlemen is an opportunist of low character or simply an honest African American of conservative social views.” Why not both?
Well, I don’t usually think of all those characteristics being mutually compatible, but perhaps that says more about me than about the PAC or its leadership. I dunno. Still wondering, though!
To me, that is the interesting question. I appreciate Cory sharing the information about the donors, but it doesn’t seem like the end of the story.
