Francis, I find it difficult to accept that you have been warned because of your race.  The only other time I have heard race discussed here was on a diary about Senator Obama's and HRC's support among black people when several bloggers self-identified their race, both black and white, to clarify their posts.  And it all seemed to be done quite fluently without any particular awkwardness or positioning by anyone along racial lines.

After reading your comment about the warning I took the trouble to go back over your diaries of the last  week or two to try and understand what caused the site hosts to warn you.

It reminded me that I, also, had found some of your diaries a bit polemic and declamatory, which is OK I guess, but almost uniformly negative regarding this or that candidate or position.

Well, we all have our bad days, I am having one today, when we get a bit snarky and critical.  But I can remember having thought to myself at that time, when looking back over your diaries, what is this guy on about?  And it is not as though you just do this in the context of other people's diaries but writ in ten foot high letters with strongly worded titles.  OK, we all need a bit of diversity, but maybe, just maybe, you should consider getting your opinions on the site in a slightly more collegial fashion.

Having said that I haven't noticed you getting troll rated, particularly, but you would no better than I would about that.  And I have been happy to post on your diaries where you raised a topic which I felt strongly about, pro or con.

Why don't you just relax a bit and take it easy.  I don't think anyone is trying to persecute you, honestly.

I create my own "frames", because part of speaking powerfully is creating new metaphors.  If I accede to others' frames, I tacitly accept their opinions, beliefs and goals.

I am a Black person with a Black opinion.  Jesse Jackson created his own frames in 1988 and won 16 primary states even while white frames said, "Jesse can't win".  If he had acceded to white "dark horse" "long-shot" frames, then he could not have won all of the primaries that he won.

I have created the "43-term exclusively white monopoly of the Presidency" frame to defeat the "can she win" , "no she can't" frame and the "Is America ready for a woman" frames.  My frame highlights the fact that the traditional frames "Is America ready" frames are sexist, racist and are part of the reason why America has never elected a President who is not a white male.  My frame puts "white male supremacy" on the defensive.

Wherever ideas compete, frames compete.  If I cannot create and propose my own frames, as others do here, then I have surrendered in the battle of ideas.  I refuse to surrender in the battle of ideas and I refuse to stop proposing new frames just because others don't like them.

One of my priorities in 2008 is to end the "43-term exclusively white male monopoly of the Presidency".  This is a new frame that I created for this purpose.  Others want to perpetuate with their votes and advocacy the 43-term exclusively white male monopoly of the Presidency.  This is a fundamental issue and will be hotly debated over the next months, whether MYDD bans me or not.  However, if MYDD bans me then this debate will be had here in an echo chamber in which only the pro-white male monopoly forces will have their voices heard.

Of course those who want to perpetuate the white male monopoly say that doing so is merely a by-product of their progressive politics.  I say that progressive politics requires the retirement of the white male monopoly.  This is a disagreement.  I should not be banned for disagreeing about this, even if white people really dislike my opinion about this.

Banning Black voices promotes and creates Blog Apartheid and reinforces the overwhelming whiteness of the DailyKos/MyDD "whitosphere", where over 95% of participants are white and most are male.

Banning people for any type of expression is a fundamentally un-American way to behave in the marketplace of political ideas.  The political blogosphere ought not be like a suburban white tea party where we choose to be in the presence only of those with whom we feel most comfortable.  

As soon as you begin reviewing the ideas and expressions presented in my previous posts to determine whether I should be permitted to remain, you have begun to practice censorship.  When it is an almost exclusively white group that does the reviewing, it is inevitable that Black ideas will more often be considered unacceptable, leading to the Blog Apartheid that we currently have.

Meanwhile, the few Blacks who remain will be "Clarence Thomas Blacks" who only express those ideas and speak within those frames that are pre-approved by their white patrons.  I would prefer to be banned then to restrict my speech and expression to only those ideas that are pre-approved by a group that is 98.5% white.  If you accept my participation, and by extension that of Black people generally, you must allow us to express OUR ideas, not merely YOUR ideas.

If you ban me, and those who would express ideas such as mine, and thereby perpetuate a blogosphere apartheid, you will surely continue to meet us Blacks and other minorities - sullen, angry, misunderstood and resentful - on the streets of the United States of America.

Dude, you're free to set up your own blog and express yourself, as you apparently already have. You don't have the right to walk into someone's house and start ranting. When that happens, the owners of the house have a right to ask you to leave whenever they desire.

Did you want a five minute argument or the full half-hour?  

Give it a rest, Francis, and relax.  First Amendment issues are constrained by the terms and conditions of the site.  You agreed to them, what's wrong with abiding by them?  This site is free and nobody is persecuting you because of your race.

If you piss someone off you can't always blame the culture.

Come on man, don't play the racist angle here.  Its Bullshit and you know it.  I don't necessarily agree they should ban you, but to say its because your black is ridiculous.  

You never answered my question... Do you work for HRC's campaign?

You have no idea what views are widely shared in the Black community, because your blog has virtually no Black participants who could help you to understand what Black people are thinking.

When Barack Obama blogged at DailyKos, then too whites demanded to know what (aside from being the only Black US Senator) gave Obama the right to speak for all Black people.  The fact is that if there were more Black people here, none of us could or would need to speak for all Black people.  Meanwhile, in any conversation where only one or two Black people is present, those are the best Black spokespersons available.

I used to organize anti-war rallies and pro-immigrants rallies, so I know something about getting minorities to participate in progressive causes.  A blog that is 98.5% white, and that bans people such as me, need not wonder any more why its anti-war rallies are almost exclusively white, devoid of minority participation.  

Maintaining an exclusively white blogosphere is not going to lead to larger, more inclusive anti-war rallies.  You will have to choose:  Either open the white blogs to a diversity of Democratic Party opinion or fight the anti-war fight all by yourselves.  If we are not here to hear the call, how can you expect us to appear at your anti-war rallies?

I do not agree that we need to reference the ancient Greeks in order to understand that speaking to each other is the alternative to killing each other.  We need only look to Iraq to find out what happens when one group declares that speaking to the others is unacceptable.  The only alternative to negotiation is war.  You cannot negotiate with people with whom you are unwilling to have a dialogue.  And in a dialogue you can only determine what you will say, not what others will say or how they will say it.

Rarely in America do whites hear what Blacks really think.  Where would this occur?  At work?  In our segregated neighborhoods?  

Have you had a frank discussion at MYDD, with Blacks present, about what Blacks' goals are in 2008?  Of course you have not had that discussion! You could not!  There are virtually no Blacks here.

There is nothing about the way that I address you that is disrespectful.  If I expressed ideas with which you agree in the same way, then no one would object at all.  I'm "clean" and "articulate", but I have a Black perspective with which people are unfamiliar and uncomfortable.  It doesn't help that I don't like the Democratic presidential candidates that you like because I prefer the ones that happen to be considerably more popular in the Black community.

Ban me if you will, but that will make it harder to reach people like me with your Get Out The Vote drives in September and November of 2008.

A better strategy to achieve your own goals would be to encourage me to keep writing the things that you hate to read, in the hopes that it will attract more Black people to your "progressive" ideas.  You can't win without more Black people, and I think you know that.  If you ban me, you're just taking one more step in the wrong direction.

Since when does America "ban" people for their modes of expression, short of outright calls to violence?  Is this a suburban tea party you're running here?  

You have created a system of controlled speech even more oppressive than the systems that you criticize when operated by governments.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  History will judge harshly the censors who cared more about politeness than they did that their blogs were all white and getting all-whiter all the time.  Have your apartheid blogs!  You will meet Black people and Latinos and Asians on the streets and in the polling booths even if you ban us from your whitosphere.