Prof. combats ignorance about Islam, women]]]]

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Katha Pollitt <kpollitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 08/20/99 07:52AM >>>
As for following black leadership -- sure, if they've got the right
idea.  but to follow ANYONE because of their skin color is a big
mistake.   Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army? Kathy Boudin? And
talk about "liberalism" -- it's just white liberal guilt in lefty
clothes.

(((((((((((((

Charles: Given that white supremacy is a major factor in all of U.S. history and politics, for a group of White politicos to follow Black leadership as a conscious act specifically against racism  is a very likely politically correct move. It is an outstanding example of affirmative action. Any leadership is likely to have some flaws. The normal process of deciding on leaders has produced some doozies. Random choice of leaders would work as well as the normal system. So affirmative action WITH QUOTAS for Black leaders would do no worse than the normal method based on "merit".

 Anyway, there is no reason to believe that these White radicals did not simultaneously judge that the Black radicals to whom they deferred for leadership had political positions with which they agreed. They didn't just pick out anyone with dark skin and follow them, but rather followed Blacks who had already expressed and demonstrated some political position.

The problem of White guilt in the 60's and 70's is way overstated in current political discourse. White supremacy does not float around on its own without people to have it. We need a lot more sense of White guilt today as it produced a lot better politics when it was more prevalent. One of the main tasks of Reaganism was to wipe out White sense of guilt.


Charles Brown