Is the term "Whitosphere" a Fair Descriptor for the White Blogosphere?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

"Whitosphere" describes that part of the blogosphere that is almost exclusively populated by whites.

Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/

The term "white neighborhood" is very commonly used in America to describe a neighborhood that is predominantly or overhwhelmingly white.  The prevalence of this term in our language is a reflection of the degree to which Blacks and whites have historically lived, and continue to live, in segregated neighborhoods in America, due historically to legal, structural, customary and financial restrictions placed by whites on where Blacks and other minorities could go and where we could live.    http://academic.udayton.edu/RACE/04NEEDS /housing01.htmhttp://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/arcj ust.htm 

If the term "white neighborhood" describes where whites live, and the "blogosphere" is the part of the Web characterized by is resident population of blogs, then it seems natural that the term "whitosphere" will be used to describe that part of the blogosphere characterized by the fact that it is predominantly or almost exclusively populated by whites.

But, the term "whitosphere" is all the more appropriate because the absence of Blacks in the whitosphere is so striking relative to the prominence of Blacks in appropriate reference populations, e.g. Democratic Party primaries and Democratic Party general election voters.  MyDD has 1.5% - 1.7% Black participants while DailyKos has only 2.5%.  http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/5/18758 /69039http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1 2/5/7114/08229 

It is particularly striking that there are so few Blacks participating at white blogs considering the importance of the Black vote for white and Black Democratic Party candidates:

The significance of the black vote for the Democratic Party cannot be overestimated.  In 2000, according to the exit polls, black voters contributed 18.9 percent of Gore's total, up from 17.1 percent of Clinton's total in 1996.  This means one in 5.5 Gore voters in 2000 was an African American.  Black voters represented a key bloc in many of the states Gore either won or came close to winning in 2000 (Table 2).   The states include most of the key battleground states for 2004:  Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

More than half (59 percent) of Gore's voters in Louisiana in 2000 were black, as were 28 percent of his voters in Florida, 21 percent in Missouri, and 20 percent in Michigan. In Ohio, a key battleground state this year, 17 percent of Gore's voters were black, as were 40 percent of Gore's voters in North Carolina, a potential battleground state given that native son John Edwards is on the Democratic ticket.

The importance of the black vote for the Democrats in 2004 is quite clear from these numbers. The likelihood that Ralph Nader will be on the presidential ballot in several states will make black voters even more important to the Democrats, since these voters have been less likely than any other voting bloc to support third-party candidates. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZSg S4Tcx2gwJ:www.jointcenter.org/election20 04/democratic-analysis.pdf+Joint+Center+ for+Political+and+Economic+Studies+roste r+of+delegates+and+alternates&hl=pt- BR&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=br 

Blacks made up 20% of the delegates to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and yet only 1.5% of the participants at MyDD.  http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZSg S4Tcx2gwJ:www.jointcenter.org/election20 04/democratic-analysis.pdf+Joint+Center+ for+Political+and+Economic+Studies+roste r+of+delegates+and+alternates&hl=pt- BR&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=br " [S]tate delegations with the largest percentage of African Americans in their make-up are Alabama, with 62.9 percent, followed by Mississippi (61.0 percent) and South Carolina (45.5 percent)." If you are not trying to influence Black voters and Party activists, you cannot be seriously or intelligently trying to influence the Democratic Party.   http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZSg S4Tcx2gwJ:www.jointcenter.org/election20 04/democratic-analysis.pdf+Joint+Center+ for+Political+and+Economic+Studies+roste r+of+delegates+and+alternates&hl=pt- BR&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=br It will be very difficult and unwise for a Democratic nominee to be selected who does not have the overwhelming support of Blacks.  

Only a skin-color based bias against the involvement of Black people could explain the lack of attention of the whitosphere to Black participation there, considering the centrality of Blacks to the goals of whitosphere participants.

According to David Botsitis,

No group has more consistently disapproved of Bush and opposed the Iraq war than African Americans; Bush's response to Katrina has only exaggerated those feelings. In a survey released late last fall, just two percent of African Americans approved of Bush's job performance. The Pew-AP survey also reported that 70 percent of voters say they are talking about politics with family and friends, and 43 percent say that they are doing so at work.

Also on the plus side, the large number of prominent black candidates and their campaigns
should serve to mobilize black voters. While not a candidate, rising Democratic star Senator Barack Obama (IL) has been featured in important campaigns and rallies at a level comparable to former President Bill Clinton.  http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:G6r jeV3HdMsJ:graphics8.nytimes.com/packages /pdf/politics/2006_Turnout_Bositis.pdf+B lacks+turnout+%22general+election%22+200 6+poll&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=br

 

Blacks are very interested in the issues being discussed at white blogs, perhaps moreso than whites in general, but we are being largely ignored as a potential audience for the news, commentary and calls to action that blogs provide.  This inevitably has negative implications for the influence of whites' progressive political ideas.  White progressives are limited in their influence by their online segregation from other groups who share their concerns.

A Pew-AP survey from 2006 indicated that only 30% of African-Americans were confident that their vote would count, "a significant disincentive to vote".  http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:G6r jeV3HdMsJ:graphics8.nytimes.com/packages /pdf/politics/2006_Turnout_Bositis.pdf+B lacks+turnout+%22general+election%22+200 6+poll&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=br

If the term "whitosphere" is "inflammatory", as one commenter at MyDD recently opined, it is only because segregration of peoply by color is itself inflammatory.  Yet, refraining from speaking about the de facto segregation of the blogosphere would be a dubious way of alleviating it.

If the whitosphere is the part of the blogosphere that is overwhelmingly populated by whites, then where is the Blackosphere?  Frankly, I don't know the answer to this question.  Do MyDD and DailyKos, for example, provide any links to the Blackosphere or sollicit any such links?  I would very much appreciate it if those reading this diary would post links to any Black blogs and websites that they regularly read.

At one time, and even today, the words "segregation" and "integration" were inflammatory in America, because the capture aspects of an historical social phenomena - apartheid - that is still hotly debated and constantly in flux.  Yet the words segregation and integration often lead to intense arguments because even as we practice the acts that have the effect of perpetuating segregation, we deny having any such intent.  And we also continue to debate whether segregation is good, bad or irrelevant.  And that is the reason that the term "whitosphere" might be inflammatory, if it is at all.  It points to a series of facts that many of us would prefer not to acknowledge and confront at all.  

Nor can the "digital divide" be an explanation or excuse for the segregation of the blogosphere.  58% of Blacks and 69% of English-speaking Hispanics use the Internet, with 49% of those with incomes less than $30,000 per year also using the Internet.  http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_D emo_1.11.07.htm In 2006, 31% of Blacks and 42% of Hispanics (compared to 42% of whites) had a broadband connection at home.  http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broa dband_trends2006.pdf So, lack of access to the Internet cannot explain the absence of Blacks in the whitosphere. "36% of all African-American adults, about 7.5 Million people, now have internet access," compared to 23% in 1998.  http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Afri can_Americans_Report.pdf

So, what are the solution?  The most obvious way to increase Black activists' participation in the whitosphere would be by exchanging links with the blogs that already have the attention of politically active Black people.  Recently, Kos of DailyKos expressed an intention to decrease the number of links offered on his site, with the links offered being to those sites that he frequents for political news.  "I'm going to link to sites I'm spending time at", he said.  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /3/192341/1181 Unless Kos frequents Black sites, this policy combined with his own reading habits will exacerbate the problem of blog segregation.  

There are many creative approaches that might increase the whitosphere's access to and influence with Black voters.  Blacks online are 65% more likely than Whites online to have sought religious information on the Web. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Afri can_Americans_Report.pdf Blacks receive much political information through involvement in the Black church.  If the whitosphere sollicited and published exclusive articles about politics written by Black religious leaders and directed to Black audiences, then Blacks would access the whitosphere to read those articles, particularly if Black religious leaders agreed to place online links to the whitosphere in church websites,online publications and traditional newspapers that are frequented by Blacks.

Blacks are 39% more likely than online whites to have sought information about jobs on the Web.  http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Afri can_Americans_Report.pdf If the highly connected and responsible whites at blogs regularly posted jobs opportunities here, that are available to Blacks and whites alike, and whitosphere blogs requested links to these opportunities at Black church-based websites, then credibility of white blogs, as well as the traffic of Black people on white blogs would increase, consequently increasing the whitosphere's political reach and even ad revenue.   The figures on Black participation in Democratic politics demonstrate that this effort is not a favor to done for Blacks but rather a necessity for "progessive" whites seeking to influence the Democratic Party.  

Of course, Black religious leaders would not place such links expecting nothing in return.  Black religious leaders would insist on a mutual placement of links to Black organizations, so that whites could access information about blacks as well as Blacks accessing the facts and opinions offerred by whites.  

And therein lies the rub.  The whitosphere, I hypothesize, for reasons based on historic skin-color animus, may be determined to ignore and isolate Black online publications, even though doing so necessarily means that the whitosphere is less able to influence the direction of Blacks and, therefor, the direction of Democratic Party.  This hypothesis is based only on reports that the whitosphere does not include links to the Blackosphere and does not sollicit links from the blackosphere, which may or not be true to one extent or another.

In any case, the term "whitosphere" brings attention to a fundamental fact of "progressive" efforts to influence Democratic Party politics:  Particularly in terms of selecting a Democratic presidential nominee, the candidate who attracts the most Black votes will have a distinct advantage over her competitors.  The whitosphere lacks the participation of Blacks and it will not be possible for the whitosphere to achieve its political goals without Black involvement.

*The graphic above and this discussion are limited to the striking lack of Black participation in the whitosphere, but should well include the lack of more proportionate participation by Latinos and women.  

Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/

francislholland@yahoo.com

Tags: 2008, Apartheid, blacks, Democrats, Discrimination, segregation, Whites (all tags)

Comments

51 Comments

Re: Here we go again.

"Only a skin-color based bias against the involvement of Black people could explain the lack of attention of the whitosphere to Black participation there, considering the centrality of Blacks to the goals of whitosphere participants."

What is the "bias against" the involvement of Black people?  How is this bias "based" on "skin-color"?

In previous diaries, you have made the charge, without any evidence at all, that black people are being banned, or under threat of being banned, from blogs soley because they are black.  Are you making that same charge here, or are you now attributing the lower number of blacks on the blog to a difference in culture practice?

by justinh 2007-02-09 08:13AM | 0 recs
Yes, here we go again!

The last time you asked me this, I posted the actual threat I received as well as a link.  This link is to the threat to ban my participation at MyDD:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/4/20395 8/7683#readmore

I asserted that I have been banned from DailyKos, which I think you will find to be true, if your search at DailyKos for the term "francislholland" within comments, here:  http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0& amp;old_count=30&string=francislholl and&type=comment&sortby=relevanc e&search=Search&count=30&way back=40320&wayfront=0

You have commented in the past here that my posts are "irrelevant" unless I can offer proof that the documented lack of Black participation results from intentional discrimination by whites present.  This is analogous to saying that global warming is "irrelevant" unless I can offer proof that it results from intentional acts by humans aimed at increasing the temperature of the atmostphere.  

The fact is that global warming must concern us even before we establish all of the causal relationships.  If we ignore it until the causal relationships are established then the lack of inquiry that will assure that the relationships are never established at all, but global warming will continue unabated.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, here we go again!

And each time, the links fail to prove your point that the reason you've been banned is because of race.

Your analogy is obviously erroneous.  You've claimed over and over that you've been banned BECAUSE you are black, but have never given any evidence to support this.

by justinh 2007-02-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, here we go again!

The actual threat specifically mentions "DLC rhetoric".  Hillary Clinton, the only liberal Democratic woman in the race, is a member of the DLC.  If you ban "DLC rhetoric", you effectively ban pro-Hillary speech and condemn those who cite Hillary's talking points.

Polls are showing that Blacks support Hillary more than any of the other candidates, so if you ban pro-Hillary "DLC rhetoric", you effectively ban a great number of Back people from commenting here about the Presidential race.  If you also ban "centrist rhetoric", then you ban all pro-Obama speech and thereby ban Black participation altogether.

It's fine to say that you are a progressive blog.  But if you ban the political thought that characterizes Black's choices, that is just as good as banning Black people.  It's a backdoor implementation of Blog Apartheid.  It's like saying, we accept Black people but we don't accept afros, braids, or chemically straightened hair.  Same thing, really!

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, here we go again!

This is an illogical chain of reasoning:

"If you ban "DLC rhetoric", you effectively ban pro-Hillary speech."

People can, and do, disagree with (or don't even know about) the DLC, and still voice support for Hillary.  You yourself have done this by expressing your support for a woman in order to increase diversity--clearly not "DLC rhetoric."  

Therefore, the rest of your argument makes no sense.  (Besides, if your argument were valid, everyone on Kos or MyDD who were expressing support for Hillary would be banned, which obviously has not been the case.)

by justinh 2007-02-09 12:27PM | 0 recs
I don't think you and I are going to agree

Why don't we just agree to disagree?  Meanwhile, I won't try to gag you (like US troops did at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) for what you've said, and you'll agree, I'm sure, not to try to give me the Abu Ghraib treatment for what I've said either.

If we can't agree that the protections of the US Constitution are valuable and ought not be scrapped, then I think we really are back at the drawing board and I'm not sure where we go from here.

Bush says that he needs to eliminate certain rights because "this is a war like we've never fought before".  Meanwhile, some in the whitosphere argue that they need to eliminate certain free speech protections and other civil rights like Due Process because . . . why?  

Doesn't ending free speech and Due Process at the blogs undercut our "progressive" arguments for not binding and GAGGING people in Iraq? If we are so sure that we know who should not speak here, maybe Bush is just as sure that he knows who should and should not have the right to free speech in Iraq.  What's the difference, really?

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think you and I are going to agree

Listen, of course noone wants to limit free speech, and certainly not because of race.  And I think you'll find that's the case here as well.

Your most constructive comments are those that have to do with an exclusive discourse that's inadvertantly produced when most of its participants are the same.  And I'm willing to acknowledge, even advocate, your point that that can happen, and maybe is happening, in the blogosphere.  But that's a far cry from a deliberately imposed "on-line apatheid," (which anyway couldn't be remedied by your very good proposal of integrating divers blogs).    

by justinh 2007-02-09 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Here we go again.

Justin, one of the difficulties in presenting the sort of proof that you request is is that whitosphere blogs do not publish the usernames and skinc-colors of people who are banned.  If they did, we would be able to determine whether women or minorities were banned a greater rate than others.  

Many have argued that it is impossible to know at blogs the skin color of participants.  However, because whites and blacks have different political concerns and viewpoints on many issues, banning people who support certain candidates or hold certain VIEWS would predictably achieve the same effect as banning people based directly on their skin-color.

For example, if you ban everyone who writes every day about race relations, that will have a disparately greater effect on minorities.  If you ban everyone who discusses lesbianism, that will likely have a disparate effect on women.  If you ban everyone who writes over-the top diaries in favor of Hillary Clinton while not banning those who write such diaries in favor of John Edwards, then you will ban more Blacks than whites simply because more Blacks support Hillary Clinton than support John Edwards.

If whites vote to ban everyone whom they most dislike, that too will have a disproportionately large effect on Blacks, since studies show that whites often dislike and distrust Blacks more than they dislike and distrust other whites.  And often it's the Black-favorable ideas that are disliked.  For example, a white man arguing in favor of reparations for slavery may get almost as chilly a reception as a black man making the same argument, however the common thread is the pro-Black IDEA, which can be discriminated against even without knowing the skin color of the proponent of the idea.

So, it is far too simple and incorrect to assume that unless people specifically state their skin color they cannot fall victim to discrimination that disproportionately affects Blacks.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Here we go again.

But your past diaries, and even this one, are not making an argument about competing discourses.  You've been arguing that whites are deliberately discriminating against black people, including yourself, and their views.  For example,

"The whitosphere, I hypothesize, for reasons BASED ON HISTORIC SKIN-COLOR ANIMUS, may be DETERMINED to ignore and isolate Black online publications."

by justinh 2007-02-09 10:16AM | 0 recs
See answers above. N/T

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: See answers above. N/T

What about the quote directly above?

by justinh 2007-02-09 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: See answers above. N/T

I said,

I hypothesize

What's your alternative hypothesis, Justin, or don't you care about the issue enough to even wonder about why there is only 1.5% Black participation here. Please answer this question.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: See answers above. N/T

Why would you construct your hypothesis on the bais of "historic skin color animus" in the first place?  What "animus" is implicitly structuring the discourse?  And if were implicitly structuring the discourse, why would whites explicitly--be "determined"--ignore and isolate black publications?

(In fact, your claim that you were banned because you were black would be an ideal way to test this hypothesis, but you haven't done this.)

by justinh 2007-02-09 01:06PM | 0 recs
Isn't it the "Whitemanosphere"?

Wouldn't it be "Whitemanosphere"?

Curious, what are some of the black political blogs that you would want the white political blogs to link to?

Do those black political blogs link to the white ones?

I think the lack of color on the political blogs is more a case of blacks choosing not to participate.

Online world is truly colorblind so there are no barriers other than folks choices to participate or not.  So while it is correct to say the political blogopshere is overwhelming white, I'm not sure you can blame the whitemanosphere for the demographic facts.

Any more than women could blame if for being predominantly white male.

For example, Facebook appears to be overwhelmingly white also even though 14% of college students are black.  No barriers there other than a .edu address (even that's gone I think).

Who participates is who chooses to participate. Other than fund raising, I don't know that the whitemanopshere has had a huge political impact and activist blacks may choose to put their time elsewhere vs ranting and raving with a bunch of old white men.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-09 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it the "Whitemanosphere"?

Frankly, I heard about the blogosphere because of Markos' criticisms of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations.  I have spent most of my time in the Blogospere at DailyKos and am not really aware of the Black blogs that address the same issues.  I would like to be aware of those blogs, but after a year of following the links provided in the whitosphere, I cannot remember many (or any) instances in which I was led to the Blackosphere.

I would be just as interested as you in determining what the best blogs would be for the whitosphere to link to.  We might have to talk with Black activists who are already participating at those blogs, but it might be harder for us to make that connection due precisely to the limited number of Black people here available to help us.

I've read that there are 30% women participants at DailyKos, so I wouldn't want to discount the actual and current participation of women by labeling this the "whitemanosphere".

If the "bunch of old white men" present in the blogosphere is really as eager to influence the political process and stop the war in Iraq as is often claimed, then participants might be just as interested in contacting their fellow Black Democrats as they are in reaching their elected representatives.  After all, many of those elected representatives are Black and Hispanic (and women) these days.

How does a Black representative respond when he is lobbied by a blog that he knows is 97% white?  I would think this question would be relevant to whitosphere efforts to lobby and influence Black politicians such as Senator Barack Obama.  

Who chooses to participate also will include who the whitosphere chooses to invite, welcome, and retain.  For example, if members of extant cliques   reject, taunt and excoriate new members, and express the fear that new members might be "trolls", then this will have an even more pronounced effect on the blogs' ability to attract and retain women and Blacks than it will have on white men.

I find the issues that this "bunch of white men" discuss to be very interesting.  I read the New York Times and Washington Post Daily and I find that the same issues are discussed here, except with more information and background and movement-oriented perspective.  I only wish there were more diversity of opinion and acceptance for diverse voices.    

by francislholland 2007-02-09 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it the "Whitemanosphere"?

"I cannot remember many (or any) instances in which I was led to the Blackosphere."

But that's not the fault of the Whitemanosphere.

The question I was asking is...where is the Blackmanosphere?

Does it exist or is it just not something blacks do for whatever reason?

"I only wish there were more diversity of opinion and acceptance for diverse voices."

But it's up to those diverse voices to show up and speak. There are no impediments.

Though there is a difference between diverse opinion and diverse demographics. The blogs do have an inherent problem due to their use of the software that allows cliques of older members to bounce newer members off. I got bounced off of DailyKos for criticizing John Dingell (go figure that one out) and for supporting Obama.

There is definitely an anti-Obama bia on the main netroots sites but this is more personal than racial, they liked Edwards and Clark from 2004, and Obama campaigned for Lieberman in the primary while the netroots wanted Lamont.

So the blogs do reduce diversity of opinion.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Here's a Blackosphere Link!

Since Mydd links to Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, MyDD could also to David Bositis' Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which is a great source of information about how Black people vote and why, and what is going on with Black in Politics.  

 

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a national, nonprofit research and public policy institution. Founded in 1970 by black intellectuals and professionals to provide training and technical assistance to newly elected black officials, the Joint Center is recognized today as one of the nation's premier think tanks on a broad range of public policy issues of concern to African Americans and other communities of color.

The history of the Joint Center has not only mirrored the progress African Americans have made since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but has also mirrored the nation's political and socio-economic progress over the last three decades. When the Joint Center first opened its doors, there were 1,469 black elected officials (BEOs). There are now over 9,000 BEOs in the United States.

Increasing black political participation formed the foundation of much of the Joint Center's work during the 70's and the 80's. However, as the civil rights era gave way to the era of "economic rights," the Joint Center signaled its expanding focus on job creation and workforce development and changed its name to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The principle areas of work now include political participation, economic advancement, and health policy. The Joint Center stands primed to continue to drive the nation's public policy discussions with independent and reliable research, analysis, and assessment.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Joint Center is governed by a board of governors. To learn more about the nation's only black think tank and its influence in shaping public policy debates, please spend time visiting our website or call 202-789-3500 for more information.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies: Empowering People Through Information and Technology.  http://www.jointcenter.org/

http://www.jointcenter.org/aboutus/index .php

David A. Bositis
Senior Research Associate

Since 1992, David Bositis (pronounced BO-SY-TIS) has conducted the Joint Center's National Opinion Poll, the only national survey that routinely polls equal numbers of African Americans and the general population on a wide variety of issues. He has also conducted specialized national surveys of black elected officials, young adults, black churches, minority-owned businesses, and black professionals. A voting rights and redistricting expert, Bositis worked with the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. in defending majority-minority congressional districts in federal court, and in 1996 his research was cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in Bush v. Vera. In addition, he authored the Joint Center's election analyses each year since 1992. Dr. Bositis is the author or co-author of five books, nine monographs, and numerous scholarly articles, analyses, and reports.

Dr. Bositis previously served in faculty positions at the State University College of New York at Potsdam and at George Washington University. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in political science from Southern Illinois University and a B.A. from Northwestern University.

Media Contact: 202-789-6366
Email: media@jointcenter.org

Speaking Topics
Black Elected Officials
Elections and Politics
Public Opinion Polling
Redistricting and Voting Rights

Selected Published Works
2002 National Opinion Poll: Education (Joint Center, 2003)
2002 National Opinion Poll: Politics (Joint Center, 2002)
Black Elected Officials: A Statistical Summary, 2000 (Joint Center, 2002)
Changing of the Guard: Generational Differences Among Black Elected Officials (Joint Center, 2001)
Diverging Generations: The Transformation of African American Policy Views (Joint Center, 2001)
Blacks and the 2000 Democratic National Convention (Joint Center, 2000)
Blacks and the 2000 Republican National Convention (Joint Center, 2000)
The Black Vote in 2000 (Joint Center, 2000)
Redistricting and Minority Representation: Learning from the Past, Preparing for the Future (Joint Center, 1998)
African Americans and the Republican Party, 1996 (Joint Center, 1996)
The Congressional Black Caucus in the 103rd Congress (Joint Center, 1994)http://www.jointcenter.org/pressroom1/Jo intcenter-experts/bositis.php


by francislholland 2007-02-09 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's a Blackosphere Link!

No...that's not blog, it's a think tank. There's not even a discussion group on the website.

Got me thinking about what would the difference be between a Whitemanosphere and a Blackmanosphere blog.

In fairness, the Whitemanosphere is pretty eclectic, talking about every issue under the sun.

An African American blog focused on issues from a black perspective would be just a one issue blog.

The only impediment I see to demographic diversity on the blogs is the Lord of Flies aspect in which subgroups of users can ban new users for voicing opinions they do not like. Other than that, it's up to the people interested in talking politics to show up.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-09 10:34AM | 0 recs
Larry Sabato's site isn't a blog either . . .

But there is a link to Sabato's site on the MyDD homepage.  

An African American blog focused on issues from a black perspective would be just a one issue blog.

Let me take out the term "African-American" from your sentence and replace it with the term White Male American, to see if you still believe your sentence is true:

An White American Male blog focused on issues from a White American Male perspective would be just a one issue blog.

Like I said above, I'm not an expert on the Blackosphere, since I first came to political blogs after I read that they were opposing my candidate, Hillary Clinton.  And the ones cited as opposing my candidate were the whitosphere blogs, particularly DailyKos.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/26 /11115/805

Most Blacks support Hillary Clinton, according to recent polls.  Ban the Clinton supporters and you ban half the Blacks without even mentioning the word "Black".

I've just had a look at some of the Blackosphere blogs suggested by others in the comments here.  These blogs address many of the same issues that are addressed here, except in a way that is by Black people, which often means that the opinions expressed and emphasis are very different.

Your assertion that a Black-oriented blog is necessarily a "one issue" blog doesn't comport with what's actually published at such blogs and is, if you think about it, a very biased, prejudiced proposition.  If you look at my blog, you'll see that many issues and candidates are discussed there, even though it is just one person writing the commentary.  The other Blackosphere blogs mentioned in the commentary here address a number of issues.  Often we comment on the news reported in the New York Times and other MSM, for example.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Larry Sabato's site isn't a blog either . . .

"But there is a link to Sabato's site on the MyDD homepage."

But the discussion is about blogoshpheres...your headline is Whitosphere, Blackosphere.  Links to other web sites are extraneous to the point of your original message.

Where are the black political blogs discussing Iraq, Iran, politics, etc.?

"Your assertion that a Black-oriented blog is necessarily a "one issue" blog doesn't comport with what's actually published at such blogs."

Since I haven't seen any black blogs (links?), that's hard to say. My point was that an "AfricanAmericaBlog" is, by it's own title, black oriented.

"An White American Male blog focused on issues from a White American Male perspective would be just a one issue blog."

You are confusing the demographic with the title. This blog is about "Direct Democracy"...the people who participate are majority older, richer, single white male atheists...but the over all theme is using the web to build direct democracy.

Are there any political discussion websites that have a different demographic?

by BrionLutz 2007-02-09 12:46PM | 0 recs
"What to do to end blog segregation"?

No, an African-American blog is a blog where Black people congregate just like a whitosphere blog is a blog where white people congregate.  The white neighborhood is not "a neighborhood that focuses only on white people", although that is likely to be so as well.  A white neighborhood is a neighborhood whose population is white.  

However, I do not believe it is possible to have an all-white blog whose editorial policies (troll-rating, banning) are not affected by the fact that the blog is virtually all-white.  

It saddens me that,effectively, we're having the same conversation that was had in Brown v. Board of Education, as to whether schools could be separate and equal and meet the needs of students who would participate in a pluralistic and diverse society.  The Supreme Court decided then that neither white children nor Black people were prepared for this society in segregated schools.  Now, some people seem to be arguing that our news can be prepared in segregated blogs and be none the worse for it.

I've added several Blackosphere blog links to my own blog and you can see the list here: http://francislholland.blogspot.com/

I've just received these links today in the comments to this diary, and I have included most of them provisionally in my own blog, in the links section.  http://francislholland.blogspot.com/

I'll be reviewing them over the coming days to see which of them I like the best.

No single strategy is going to change the segregation.  Adding David Bositis link would make this site more relevant to me, and probably to a lot of other Black people.  It would also encourage participants here to remember how essential Black voters are to progressive's political aspirations.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 03:02PM | 0 recs
There's no blog segregation...

There are not enough blacks online to segregate.

It's not like whites are in this corner and blacks in that corner as far as online political discussion groups.

It's more like whites are all over and there are no black online political discussion groups nor many black participants in the online political discussion groups.

The real question is why don't blacks participate in online political discussion groups?  And it's not just political discussion groups.  College is 14% black but Facebook is predominantly white, so some other dynamic is at work and it's a black dynamic not a white one.

by BrionLutz 2007-02-09 03:25PM | 0 recs
Bravo.

Much of what you said in this diary was thought provoking and I agree that much more could be done amongst the high traffic blogs to give a greater voice to women, latino, and africian american bloggers by extending invitations to guest front-page blog, exchange links between communities, and provide placement on the blogroll.

Some of these things do already happen, but not as much as they could. I've seen several guest blogged FP posts from africian american bloggers and some links to progressive african american blogs FP'd also. There's been some good efforts to reach out to the labor community too.

I think it would be benefical for more co-operation between the large blogs and the african american, hispanic, women, labor, and gay and lesbian communities (amongst others). It would add enrich each of the communities involved in my opinion.

francislholland if you had of particpated in the community as reasonably as you did in this diary I think you would have gotten a much better response from everyone. I considered many of the things you said previously to be completely unwarranted, unfair and inflamatory just for the sake of it. I had even thought you were just a troll and then you post this diary, which, again, I think was, on balance, quite thought provoking.

by Quinton 2007-02-09 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Bravo.

Thanks, Quinton!  I'd be very interested to link my own blog to some of the African-American ones that have been linked to here, but I need to know what they are.

Some of these things do already happen, but not as much as they could. I've seen several guest blogged FP posts from africian american bloggers and some links to progressive african american blogs FP'd also.

I want to link to these blogs from my own blog, and start learning more about what's going on in the Blackosphere, if I can.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 09:25AM | 0 recs
by Zimbel 2007-02-09 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Bravo.

I can see from above that I spoke too soon. As you are again trying to say that you were threatened with being banned because of your race. That's not why. You haven't provided any sort of proof that it was why, because it wasn't and therefore you cannot do so.

sigh

by Quinton 2007-02-09 10:07AM | 0 recs
Look at the issues I addressed!

People got furious at me for saying that we should not elect a white male president in 2008 but should instead end the 43-term white male monopoly of the US presidency.

They also became furious when I asserted that Al Gore was a beneficiary of affirmative action, since he won his seat in the US Congress and Senate in spite of failing law school and never passing the bar, while a woman or Black person who had that on his resume would have had a much more difficult time.  Meanwhile, as we consider whom is most "qualified" to hold the presidency, we ought to consider that Gore flunked law school while Clinton and Obama passed with honors.  Inflammatory stuff, perhaps, but also quite true.

I pointed out that Gore had flunked law school while smoking pot regularly.  People said that was too negative.  Now we are delving at MyDD into the drug use of Obama, even though Obama passed law school while Gore, who smoked a lot of marijuana, did not.

Is pointing out actual flaws in white male Democratic candidates is more "negative" than asking whether gender or skin-color alone is enough to sink a woman or Black candidate?  The answer depends on whom you ask.  These questions, that are direct appeals to envidious bias, occur here and everywhere in America every day.  Excluding all women and Blacks from a constitutionaly office is more offensive historically to women and Blacks than it is to white men.  So, if people exclude me for saying that their white male candidates ought to stand down this time, they are excluding me for the purpose of suppressing a diverse opinion.

The real question is not why I was banned at DailyKos and threatened here.  The real issue is the documented lack of diversity here which is  exacerbated any time a woman or minority group member is banned.  Therefore, there ought to be an extremely high evidentiary threshold and burden of proof required to ban people who are already nearly extinct.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at the issues I addressed!

"The real question is not why I was banned at DailyKos and threatened here.  The real issue is the documented lack of diversity here which is  exacerbated any time a woman or minority group member is banned.  Therefore, there ought to be an extremely high evidentiary threshold and burden of proof required to ban people who are already nearly extinct."

Even if you want to disavow the reason you personally were banned, you're still making the same argument.  Of course no one should be banned because of race or racial perspective, but until you can prove that this is actually happening, this isn't a relevant argument--it addresses a problem that doesn't exist.

by justinh 2007-02-09 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at the issues I addressed!

There is little of the Due Process in the whitosphere that would allow us to know exactly why people are being banned.  The data hasn't been gathered, to my knowledge, to see, for example, whether Black people are more likely to be troll-rated or banned than are white people.  Without this data, it is hard or impossible to make a generalized case.  I can only speak from my own anecdotal experience, AND FROM THE INTERNAL POLLING DATA that shows a very serious lack of diversity here.  If you say that I need MORE data before I can bring up the fact that there are only 1.5% Black people here, then I simply disagree with your approach to the problem.

You would require more information before the problem can be discussed further.  I would discuss the problem so that we can look at ways to gather more information.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at the issues I addressed!

"There is little of the Due Process in the whitosphere that would allow us to know exactly why people are being banned.  The data hasn't been gathered, to my knowledge, to see, for example, whether Black people are more likely to be troll-rated or banned than are white people.  Without this data, it is hard or impossible to make a generalized case."

First, I agree, but you've been arguing on MyDD that peope ARE being banned in general because of race.

Second, in your particular case, you've never presented "anecdotal experience" that would prove your claim that you were banned because of race.

Third, the lack of diversity on the blog bears no logical relationship to people being banned because of race.

by justinh 2007-02-09 11:35AM | 0 recs
Now, you've gone off the deep end, Justin

You're not making any sense and your not sounding "progressive" to me.  In fact, I usually hear the same opinion you're expressing from the right-wingers on the talk shows.  With these arguments, I think you would have made a good Reagan or Bush appointee to the US Commission on Civil Rights.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, you've gone off the deep end, Justin

How am I not making sense?  What right-wing opinion am I expressing?

by justinh 2007-02-09 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Bravo.

Here are links to the diversity-related articles I submitted before I was banned.

http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0& amp;old_count=30&string=francislholl and&type=diary_by&sortby=relevan ce&search=Search&count=30&wa yback=262080&wayfront=0&search_a rchive=yes

Had I published the same sort of advocacy in FAVOR of one of the candidates favored in the whitosphere and against Hillary Clinton, I don't think I would have been banned.  When you ban those who advocate for the only woman in the race and permit the same behavior by people advocating for the men, that is discrimination.  

Meanwhile, I stated clearly there and here that my motive for supporting Hillary Clinton is to open up the Presidency for diversity, which will make the presidency more available to women and people from all minority groups in the future.  Many people disagree with this motive, but I think it is certainly as legitimate as many reasons offered for supporting a candidate.  Yet, I have found a surprising amount of hostility to the idea of electing Hillary Clinton to diversify the presidency and the country, as well as to put a liberal woman Democrat in the White House.  This is my goal, and I'm sticking to it.

Does this make people furious and make them want to ban me?  I think it does.  Just asserting that Hillary Clinton is "liberal" makes some people want to scream "troll" and "Hillary shill"!  If you ban all advocates for Hillary Clinton, you'll be banning a disproportionate number of women and Blacks while also announcing to others that they are not wanted here.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Bravo.

I highly doubt you were banned because of your support for Hillary or because that support is based on diversity.  This would run counter to the entire ethos of Kos and MyDD.

People may have argued with you over your reasons for supporting Hillary, but check out any thread and you'll see the same contention between Obama and Edwards supporters.

by justinh 2007-02-09 11:02AM | 0 recs
Ban Threat for pro-DLC (pro-Hillary) speech?

Justin, the quote above from my official MyDD ban threat warning says the warning was based in part on my "DLC rhetoric".  The only Democrat to win and hold the US presidency since 1976 was DLC member Bill Clinton.  If you cannot say things that are part of "DLC rhetoric", then how can you support Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is herself a member of the DLC.  Am I allowed to support the woman candidate, but yet I will be banned if I repeat her DLC talking points?  That is effectively a ban on pro-Hillary speech that is likely to be applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Like it or not, the DLC is still a legitimate part of the Democratic Party, and Clinton, Bayh, and Biden are members while Gore and Edwards are ex-members.

Now, I have referred you to specific language in the official warning that I received, and I have provided you with a link to that warning.  Is there some additional proof that you require?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution was written specifically to eliminate any need for you to have to decide whether my speech is acceptable or not.  If the First Amendment is good enough for the US Constitution, we ought not abandon its free speech protections here.  Because when you put a gag on free political speech, you engage in tyranny and incite and invite revolt.  We have more important things to revolt against than the editorial board of our political blogs, but "banning" people for "DLC rhetoric" invites meta discussions that take away from progressive causes.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ban Threat for pro-DLC (pro-Hillary) speech?

Okay.  So you now admit that you weren't banned for being black?

by justinh 2007-02-09 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Ban Threat for pro-DLC (pro-Hillary) speech?

I was banned for expressing opinions that the majority of Black people would express if they were here.  I was banned for advocating the end of the 43-term white male monopoly of the US Presidency.  I was banned for saying that a white man who smokes pot and DOESN'T graduate from law school is not as qualified as a Black man who does drugs and nonetheless graduates magna cum laude as Editor of the Harvard Law Review.  

I was banned for forcefully and repeatedly expressing the opinions of a Black man.  If I had not expressed the opinions of a Black man, I probably would not have been banned.  

Is this Apartheid South Africa, where we have to argue over whether "banning" Black people is right or wrong?  Doesn't it make you uncomfortable to advocate for a procedure who's greatest recent historical practitioner was the Apartheid Government of South Africa?

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Ban Threat for pro-DLC (pro-Hillary) speech?

Prove this is why you were banned.  You have been unable to so far.

As for this:

"Is this Apartheid South Africa, where we have to argue over whether "banning" Black people is right or wrong?  Doesn't it make you uncomfortable to advocate for a procedure who's greatest recent historical practitioner was the Apartheid Government of South Africa?"

Where have I suggested banning black people is right?  Where have I ever "advocated for apartheid?"  Calling me a racist, when I have engaged your argument solely on its merits and logic, is despicable.  Maybe this is why you have been banned?

by justinh 2007-02-09 12:47PM | 0 recs
Maybe stalker/harrassers like yourself

are why there are only 1.5% Black people here.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe stalker/harrassers like yourself

Hey Francis,

This wasn't about stalking or harassing you.  Don't suggest Markos or the guys at MyDD are racist.  These guys are devoting their lives to the very issues you (and I) are so deeply concerned about.  You're clearly a brilliant man tackling historic issues, and much of your commentary is very constructive.  Keep going with this.  These guys are allies, not the enemy.

by justinh 2007-02-09 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Ban Threat for pro-DLC (pro-Hillary) speech?

The MyDD and dailykos communities are primarily made up out of progressives.

Most progressives (and for that matter many moderates and conservatives) don't actually consider the DLC to be a "legtimate part of the Democratic party" but rather a pro-corporatist, half measure loving, weak willed sell outs of everything that we as progressives want the Democratic party to stand for.

That tactics and strategy is the polar opposite of what we believe. They follow polls and don't stand on principle. They cave in on the things we hold most dear. They and those that expose their viewpoints are not terribly welcome in our community.

Bill Clinton getting elected wasn't because the DLC is right on any issue. It was an abboration from the norm; the exception, not the rule. Bill was, and perhaps still is, one of the very best politicians alive today. Fantasticly charasmatic speaker, great one-on-one, very disarming. Southern Governor that ran against an out of touch old president and threw the democratic party under the bus to advance his own career while running for president and while in office. He also benefited from Perot spending oodles of money during in both '92 and '96, which split the republican and then the anti-clinton vote.

A lot of factors lined up just perfectly for Bill and though he was much better than who is in office now, many a study has laid out how Bill's policies (specifically welfare reform) actually hurt the african american community.

You want to give more DLC'ers a chance to sell us even further down the river, just so you can back a woman for president? It's not worth it. I wish there was a woman in the race that I could support. There's some women Governors who I hope will run for president in future and who would make great VP choices this time around.

Obama breaks my heart. His 2004 DNC speech gave me such hope for him, but he's not excited me since then. He's had a massive media megaphone and he's not used his stardom to take a stand on any of numerous huge issues since then. He entered the senate and choose Lieberman as his mentor, backed Lieberman during the CT primary, refused to come and stump for Lamont in the general. He also tut-tuts democrats regarding their lack of ability to talk about faith rather than serve as a good example and not say "I'm a democrat with a profound faith and I'm hardly a scarcity." His constant calling for bipartisanship and language of can't-we-all-just-get-along doesn't address the impossibility of being bipartisan and working together if the other side does't act in food faith and are not honest brokers. I've seen no substance to him, just fluff and puff.

If only he'd give me something, give me anything. If only he'd give us something, give us anything. I won't support a blank slate, empty shirt and hope for the best. I want someone who is going to take a stand on the big issues and fight for us. Someone who is a proud member of the democratic party.

If a progressive woman was in the race you'd see a lot different things in the blogosphere. If Obama would give us some substance I think you'd see us go wild in support.

by Quinton 2007-02-09 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Ban Threat for pro-DLC (pro-Hillary) speech?

Please be patient with Obama, I am hoping the best is yet to come.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-09 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re:

No idea how this might relate to the topic, but Oliver Willis has one of the most popular (if not the THE most popular) political blogs in Maryland.  He certainly has the most active comments section for a liberal blog in the state.

My point is, it would be more productive for you to search out some great blogs from the "blackosphere" and post them so those of us in the "whiteosphere" can read and link to them.

There is still a lot of work to be done in my state, and particularly in Baltimore. Bmorenews is a local site that seems to focus on black content and if Maryland ever gets its own scoop blog, involving their writers and editors will be imperative to making the blog worthwhile for our state and our party.

by andy k 2007-02-09 10:11AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the links! Got more?

Please keep posting links to the Blackosphere sites that you like.

I particularly think that MyDD and DK might consider linking to David Bositis' Joint Center for Political Studies.  

http://www.jointcenter.org/pressroom1/Jo intcenter-experts/bositis.php

When I'm searching for data about Black people, that's where I usually find the hard data. Moreover, like Larry Sabato on Democrats, David Bositis is a Black academic to whom the mainstream media (NYT, WaPost) go to when they expert information about Blacks voting habits and attitudes.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 11:01AM | 0 recs
Interesting Diary

Francis -- I don't think there is active banning and purposeful isolation so much as there is perhaps some subconscious assumption among many bloggers that their sympathy and solidarity with minorities provides ample insight into our priorities and viewpoints. Sadly, I think this is an incorrect assumption that weakens the progressive movement -- online and off. It's painful and hard to talk about.

I think the progressive netroots led by MyDD and FDl in particular are doing a great job of consciously adding diversity to the arena. It's true that the digital divide has shifted and now breaks along educational and income levels rather than ethnicity.

So why aren't there more black political blogs? The fact is that the blogosphere (according to Pew is more diverse than the internet itself. Blacks aren't talking politics though in the same way. They are focused on other topics and talking about politics indirectly. Why is that?

There are actually a growing number of black blogs:

Along with the others mentioned, check out:
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com
http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/
http://www.prometheus6.org/
http://www.blackprof.com

I could go on and on...

by Jill Tubman 2007-02-09 11:05AM | 0 recs
Thanks! Please post more links!

Does MyDD link to any Black sites?  Are there any (more) Black sites to which you think MyDD and other whitosphere sites SHOULD link, to better connect with the Blackosphere?

I've been struggling with this for months, so I know that it IS painful and hard to talk about. Someone said the masses of men lead lives of quiet desperation.  I've always said, "I might be desperate, but I don't have to be quiet about it!"

I really appreciate what you've said and the links you've suggested, and I'd be very interested in hearing more of your experiences and insights, here or directly at francislholland@yahoo.com, or at my blog, francislholland.blogspot.com.

This is a great list of blogs for me to look at!  Please keep posting blog suggestions!

by francislholland 2007-02-09 11:22AM | 0 recs
Thanks again, Jill!

by francislholland 2007-02-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
I've added those links to my own blog!

And I'm going to have a chance to really get a good look at them over the next few days!  

What links would best connect the whitosphere to the Blackosphere, do you think?  How many links would be best and what links should they be, assuming that anyone sees the need?

(I ask this because I read an angry comment from a Black blogger a few days ago, asserting that the whitosphere had no links to Black blogs.  I don't know to what degree that may be true or not.  Do you know about this here at MyDD and DailyKos, for example?  Is there any truth to the guy's assertion?)

by francislholland 2007-02-09 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Is the term "Whitosphere

Is your argument that the scope of this blog and others like it are so narrow that only a White male would be interested in the contents.  Is your premise really that unless a story deals specifically with Black people or is presented from a "Black" perspective, then Blacks won't tune in or relate.  Yes I would agree the stories aren't presented from Black or female perspective, but this is a political blog, not a race and gender relations blog. The main reason I come to My DD is to find out the national or Federal trends on certain issues.  What is going on in the Congress and who is leading the fight.  This is information that affects everyone, regarless of race.

Let's take healthcare for example.  The focus here is primarily in terms of the lack of coverage many Americans have and which candidate has the best proposal.  Obviously a large number of African Americans suffer from high blood pressure, stroke and obesity, and lack of healthcare is literally a killer for them; but not including this angle in the story does not negate the general discussion and render it irrelevant to Black people.  

Similarly, topics such as Iraq, the minimum wage, New Orleans, the Employee Free Choice Act, are not discussed from a racial or gender perpective, but a progressive perpective.  Do most Black people support ending the war?  Do most Black people agree with the raise in the minimum wage?  Would most Black people think the Employee Free Choice Act is a good idea?  Would most Black people agree that there should be more done in New Orleans?  If the answer is yes, then most Black people can read this blog and identify with the contents.  In fact, I would say that this is one of the few places where Black people can go to see issues that are relevant to their lives being discussed on a national level.  If more Blacks read my DD it would serve to erase a lot of the cynicism we have about the Democratic party and its taking us for granted over the years.  So let's talk about improving minority participation in a positive way, and lose the "Whitospere" language.

Finally, Let's talk about Hillary.  I like Hillary.  I admire your willingness support in the face of such adversity.  However, I don't think the blogosphere hates Hillary because she is female and Black people like her.  I keep reading  something about her being a triangulating corporate stooge who won't renounce her vote for the war.  This is why they hate her.  I do have your back on this one though.  Stay strong and keep up the good fight for Hillary.

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-09 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Is the term "Whitosphere

Thanks, Kingston Girl.  I think there is a Black and women's perspective about the presidential race that  is directly related to the 43-term exclusively white male monopoly of the US Presidency.  As much as white men might want to take the progressive stand on this, I really haven't seen that very many people in the whitosphere identify ending the monopoly as a goal.  To me, it is a very important goal and aspiration.

Is it alright to have an all-white fire department in a majority-minority city?  If not, is it enough to passively wait until a minority or woman is "the best man for the job", viewed subjectively by the white superiors, or is such a lack of diversity a signficant enough problem that something affirmative would have to be done to resolve it?  I think that the progressive stand is that diversity is a goal of progressives, including diversity of the Presidency and Vice Presidency.

In any case, this is the stand that progressives can take that is most likely to be embraced by Black people.  There is nothing "progessive" about electing another in a string of all-white male tickets. And yet I often hear it suggested in the whitosphere that we do so, although I never hear any black people suggest it.

It is often said that personal stories are very effective in bringing progressive policies to fruition.  Can blogs really do justice to stories about New Orleans if they have no personal contact with people who have personal experience?  Can we really do justice to stories about Black voting patterns and instances of voter supression if nobody at a blog lives in the neighborhoods or belongs to the groups where the voting suppression occurs?

If Black people said that we could effectively cover ALL white people with no need for white writers, then white people would think we had gone insane.  Yet, some people argue that the reverse is possible and it makes total sense to them.

Try this argument:  If your blog is all white then when you call ALL of your readers to action, you are not calling any Black people.  So, the limits of your readership are directly reflected in the limits of your progessive advocacy.

When a whitosphere blog urges an e-mail writing campaign, it is only urging white people and the result is likely to be an all-white campaign.  A call to a demonstration that goes out through whitosphere blogs is likely to result in an all-white demonstration, which actually offends and alienates Blacks when we see these demonstrations on television, convincing us that while we share goals, we do are not really allies.  We are but alienated potential allies.

Thank you for your encouragement to keep speaking out on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  I've been doing so for over a decade, convinced by our shared commitment to national health care, and I'm not going to stop now.

by francislholland 2007-02-09 02:25PM | 0 recs
I like this article.

The idea about posting things from Black religious leaders is very interesting, but probably won't work, because of the inherent anti-religious bias of the progressive left. I've read enough of progressive blogs to believe this opinion to be true.

The progressive left is NOT comfortable with religion, IMO, which is the FOUNDATION for an overwhelming majority of the Black community. And I do mean overwhelming majority. This is a problem for progressives.

I'm Black and come here and other progressive blogs. It's not that I'm made to feel unwelcome, but I do know that I'm a speck of pepper in a sea of salt.

Some more Black Blogs:
http://bookerrising.blogspot.com/

http://africanamericanpoliticalpundit.co m/

http://africanamericanopinion.com/

by rikyrah 2007-02-10 10:08AM | 0 recs

Login

 

Sign-in-with-twitter-lighter

Advertise Blogads