I have done a lot of thinking since the disgraceful cartoon in the New Yorker. Since its release, there has been a comparative link between Angela Davis and Michelle Obama. It is inferred by so-called left leaning liberals that such an association would be a negative thing for Michelle. Ms. Davis theorizes that "radical simply means grasping things at the root", and it has become apparent over the years that even the most liberal of whites like "their" blacks to relieve them of their collective guilt, from the ways in which they continue to benefit from racism.
Why is Angela Davis a problematic body? She is a feminist, LGBT activist, and had association with SNCC, and the Black Panther Party. She is the author of several books, and today is a university professor. Most importantly Angela dares to speak truth to power. It is her continual confrontation with those that seek to reduce others that makes an alignment with her politics problematic. If you do not unequivocally support the system then you are considered radical and therefore a dangerous liability. In her thesis, Michelle unlike her husband dared to echo the theory of elitist pandering in the name of equality.
"I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which [sic] I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second."
Her thesis can be read in 4 different sections Part1, Part2, Part3, Part4. Now Michelle is being carefully handled in the hopes of constructing an image of the first lady that is more palatable to white voters, even as her husband lectures the population about black responsibility. Baracks message is not new. It has been echoed over generations by black appeasement specialists who seek not to uplift, but to gain entry into whiteness.
To seek whiteness is only a rejection of the blackness that is understood as uncivilized and barbaric. It is the association rather than the colour that is viewed as a stain upon the body. Were blackness the ideal or the normalized good, whites would seek it in a desire to affirm their worth. When men like Bill Cosby give their speeches, it is based in a desire to separate themselves from what they view as social elements within the community that are intent upon rejecting the idea that white as a normalization standard is good and fitting for everyone.
What is interesting to note is that this desire to separate, also perpetuates perceived differences as it reinforces that there is a way of acting black, and a way of acting white. Difference in behaviour has more to do with geography and class, than it does with race. Whites and blacks of similar poor economic standing who reside in similar geographic locations articulate in the same manner and possess many of the same patterns of behaviour; one group we call niggers and the other we call white trash.
The black Afrostocracy seeks similarly to the white bourgeoisie to be able to enjoy the privileges of its elite status without the pangs of guilt, thus we find them singularly engaged upon a message that is equally intolerant as white liberals. I refer to it as interracial partnership politicking for the advancement, and maintenance of the bourgeoisie. White liberals have a particular love of the Afrostocracy because it allows them to perpetuate the myth that they have transcended racism. They can point to these few rare elites as friends, and often use them as defence tools when attacked, or called out for their racism. It is convenient to have at least one good black friend in your back pocket. They collect them like pets, regularly rewarding those that perform appropriately with a bone. Lets look at some of the Afrostocracy engaged in the love affair.
Condoleeza, Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson (pre-child molestation charges) Ayan Ali, Pearl Bailey, Tiger Woods, Oprah (pre-endorsing Barack) Whitney Houston(pre-Bobby Brown), Will Smith, Walter Patton, O.J (pre-Trial), Mandela, Martin Luther King, Samuel Jackson, Denzel Washington etc. and etc....What these celebrities have in common is that they either don't engage in conversations about race, or they when they do it, it is done in an apologetic turn the other cheek fashion. White liberals love them because when these people talk about colour, it allows them to continue on in their fallacy that they are free of ideas that marginalize people of colour.
Now you know there cannot be a love list without a hate list: Malcolm X, Danny Glover, Louis Farakhan, Oma Rosa, Spike Lee, Terrence Howard, P. Diddy, Grace Jones, Cynthia McKinney, Jocelyn Elders, Jesse Jackson, Alice Walker, Toni Morrisson, William Sisters, etc and etc...These POC engage in racial conversations wherein they dare to speak truth to power. If they feel anger they express it, and furthermore they make certain that leading white liberal elites are aware of their duplicity when it comes to race relations.
These are the "angry" black people that white liberals run from as though they possess the bubonic plague. We cannot continue on in this one sided conversation wherein the lie is perpetuated that we live in a post racial world. It is harmful, and prevents us from making strides to effect change. It is time to force the conversation that white liberals and the black Afrostocracy have been reluctant to participate in. You are either a committed anti-racist, or you are not..