New Rule: White People Are Not Allowed To Have Opinions About Black Voters
Well, it's possible they are able to have them but must keep them tucked away inside, perhaps next to their guilt at breaking Auntie Martha's candy dish but never admitting to it.
At Gawker, a person who is entitled to write about black people -- a black person named Jeff Ihaza -- writes about the error white man Jonathan Chait made in thinking he, a man with yards of white skin, could do the same:
Jonathan Chait is a columnist for New York Magazine, a respectable publication with many great writers. Chait, a white man, is also one of our nation's foremost experts on what black people are thinking.In his latest column titled, "The Pragmatic Tradition of African American Voters," Chait argues that Hillary Clinton's "firm command of the Democratic primary" is a result of her popularity amongst black voters. The black voter, according to Chait, is a pragmatic one.
...In some ways, Chait's column makes sense. Black voters (as well as women voters) have plenty more to lose with a republican in office and that has been true for some time. Still, Chait seems to fall into a line of thinking that has become quite common amongst well-meaning white people--that all black people are the same.
...Mr. Chait quotes Brett Gadsden, a historian and professor of African-American studies at Emory who told him, in an email "a few months ago," that "Black voters have always [been] faced with the difficult choice between candidates who have only offered incremental support for their concerns and have been perfectly willing to turn their backs, albeit to slightly different degrees, on black communities when it was politically expedient."
Again, this is true. To be a black voter, or a female voter, or basically any voter who is not white and a man, means taking the easier pill to swallow. Chait's column, and the line of thinking it pushes, seems to think there is only one such option in this election, which is fine. People disagree on things all of the time. What makes Chait's column a flaming pile of shit is that it uses black people as a tool for political gain. It says "see, black people know struggle and they support Hillary." It is a refrain that has gone uncomfortably unchecked from Clinton supporters.
Over and over, Gawkerblackdude says, "Well, I kind of agree..."
...leading to a Jonathan Chait tweetslap:
@jonathanchait
Gawker writer admits he agrees with all my points, argues I had no right to make them because I'm white
Why?
Jeff Guinn at April 7, 2016 2:38 AM
"Why?"
Because shut up, you bigot.
dee nile at April 7, 2016 3:59 AM
One black dude is empowered to speak authoritatively for all black people and all women. The Arrogance of Dope.
Wfjag at April 7, 2016 5:32 AM
I lack the racial credentials to note that allowing anyone to reliably take one's vote for granted marginalizes their position. Duly ignored.
MarkD at April 7, 2016 5:57 AM
Calm down, already! What Chait did is something he (and probably any writer covering the election) would do with any demographic, note the prevailing trend among that demographic and speak of it as being representative.
Yes, I'm sure he's aware that he's not speaking for every single black person that ever existed, otherwise the very existence of people like Michael Steele and Ben Carson would reduce him a gibbering, drooling mess modelling the latest in straitjackets in his local asylum.
Patrick at April 7, 2016 6:01 AM
"...basically any voter who is not white and a man, means taking the easier pill to swallow."
Open your eyes sunshine. Even white men have to chose the lesser of two evils. Which is why Cthulhu's presidential bid was so enticing. 'Why settle for the lesser evil?'
Ben at April 7, 2016 6:09 AM
otherwise the very existence of people like Michael Steele and Ben Carson
Well, if you ask Gawkerblackdude about those two, I have 100 quatloos that he replies with "they're not authentically black".
Or worse, something about "house n*****s".
I R A Darth Aggie at April 7, 2016 7:03 AM
I should run for president.
"Vote for me! I'll make America the Sith Empire of America! once that happens, Mexico will build a wall. To keep us out. Won't work."
*cackles manically*
Too much?
I R A Darth Aggie at April 7, 2016 7:05 AM
First observation: Behold the world under "social justice": a state of constant, intellectually primitive tribal war. Having said that...
"Still, Chait seems to fall into a line of thinking that has become quite common amongst well-meaning white people--that all black people are the same."
Well, the thing is, that is the way Washington regards black people: the urban black single mother is, to their minds, the archetype of all black people everywhere. It's not hard to understand where they get that from, though: blacks have, since the 1990s, voted as a bloc unprecedented in American history. I recall looking over precinct voting numbers from Birmingham after the 2012 election. In one particular almost-entirely-black urban district, over 2200 votes were cast. There were a handful of votes for third-party candidates, and all the others were for Obama. Out of 2200 voters in that precinct, not one single person voted for Romney.
If you willingly, voluntarily make yourself somebody's bitch, you can expect to be treated accordingly. Democrat candidates have learned that they don't have to put in any effort to get black votes; just make some pandering statements, mention the KKK a few times, and it's gravy. Similar, GOP candidates have learned not to waste campaign resources going after black votes, because they aren't getting those votes no matter what. The results are predictable: black concerns get used as totems for the Left, but the only thing that actually happens is more measures to encourage dependency behavior.
(Interestingly, Trump seems to be the one white guy who is attracting some black voters. How is that? Illegal immigration is becoming a big concern among black voters, and Trump is the only candidate addressing it.)
Cousin Dave at April 7, 2016 7:37 AM
"Out of 2200 voters in that precinct, not one single person voted for Romney."
You mean: not one single GOP vote got past the fraud machine.
Expect the same this November.
dee nile at April 7, 2016 8:47 AM
"Too much?"
Hey, you got my vote.
"not one single GOP vote got past the fraud machine."
In solid black districts you don't need them. They really do vote that monolithically.
Ben at April 7, 2016 9:53 AM
Well if the black guy criticizing the white guy is supposed to himself be representative of blacks, then I suppose they just aren't very bright -- or are too blinded by their own prejudices about "whites" to engage in rational thinking.
Jay R at April 7, 2016 12:31 PM
"Black voters (as well as women voters) have plenty more to lose with a republican in office and that has been true for some time."
Herp derp
Because Republicans pursue policies that are bad for these groups.
Srsly? at April 7, 2016 3:00 PM
Yes, because if you define independence and self-sufficiency as "bad", which I'm sure our Google Alerts poster above does, then yes, those policies are bad for them. And very, very good for ruling-class politicians and their cronies.
Cousin Dave at April 8, 2016 6:25 AM
" . . . Black voters (as well as women voters) have plenty more to lose with a republican in office . . ."
By that logic, we white men will have plenty more to lose with a Democrat in office.
That's just plain stupid.
Oh heck, in my opinion, we all have something to lose whenever the protected class - Democrat or Republic, are in office. They, the protected class, really do not care about your race, gender, ethnicity, etc.; what they care about is your money and how they can get their hands on it.
charles at April 9, 2016 3:00 AM
Leave a comment