Black commentators examine the roots of slavery, the theory of white guilt and the proposals for reparations. Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Jason Riley, Larry Elder, Carol Swain, Leo Terrell, Coleman Hughes and Glenn Loury
Thomas Sowell, Jason Riley, Bob Woodson, Walter E Williams and Shelby Steele look at the promises and delivery of politicians representing the ethnic grievance industry. BTW, I LOVE Thomas Sowell’s reaction beginning at the 6:48 mark when he is showed a clip.
And a great discussion a couple years back with Shelby Steele:
Shelby Steele, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and author of Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country , joins Peter Robinson to discuss race relations in the United States. Steele tells stories about growing up in segregated Chicago and the fights he and his family went through to end segregation in their neighborhood schools. He draws upon his own experiences facing racism while growing up in order to inform his opinions on current events. Steele and Robinson go on to discuss more recent African-American movements, including Steele’s thoughts on the NFL protests, Black Lives Matter, and recent rumors about Oprah Winfrey running for office.
In this episode of Life, Liberty, & Levin, Mark Levin interviews author Shelby Steele to criticize how white liberals in the democratic party have a history of telling black people they must rely on them.
Best-selling author Shelby Steele, a veteran of the Civil Rights movement, says the current protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death have no clear objective, and an exclusive focus on police brutality, when the Black community could take more personal responsibility to improve their lot in life. His nearly-nine-minute remarks on Mark Levin’s show run counter to the narrative you hear in the mainstream media. Is the author of “The Content of Our Character” no longer down for the struggle, or does he simply walk the “the road not taken”?
What is the White Privilege Conference? It’s just another avenue for Democrats to cash in using black people. Democrats cashed in on blacks as slaves, now they use the black struggle to gain sympathy for other causes … socialist and communistic goals.
The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA — with Shelby Steele, Author of “White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era” — Moderated by David J. Theroux, President and Founder of The Independent Institute
The Daily Caller notes Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas’, observations on racism/bigotry:
- Black Conservatives Met With Hostility, Harassed at Annual NAACP Convention;
- ‘Black Republicans are like Jewish Nazis’ article promoted by Dem. Gov. Quinn’s campaign;
- Oscar Winning John Ridley’s “Manifesto of Ascendancy”;
- Black Democrats in MD make candid admission;
- University of California Regent Ward Connerly shouted down by a near-violent audience;
- Rutgers rage against Rice — why do liberals have so much hate for black conservatives?
The following is from Discover the Networks:
Shelby Steele via The Wall Street Journal
The verdict that declared George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin was a traumatic event for America’s civil-rights establishment, and for many black elites across the media, government and academia. When you have grown used to American institutions being so intimidated by the prospect of black wrath that they invent mushy ideas like “diversity” and “inclusiveness” simply to escape that wrath, then the crisp reading of the law that the Zimmerman jury displayed comes as a shock.
On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren’t so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, “You won’t call the tune here. We will work within the law.”
Today’s black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and ’60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.
This would not be the first time that a movement begun in profound moral clarity, and that achieved greatness, waned away into a parody of itself—not because it was wrong but because it was successful. Today’s civil-rights leaders have missed the obvious: The success of their forbearers in achieving social transformation denied to them the heroism that was inescapable for a Martin Luther King Jr. or a James Farmer or a Nelson Mandela. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot write a timeless letter to us from a Birmingham jail or walk, as John Lewis did in 1965, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., into a maelstrom of police dogs and billy clubs. That America is no longer here (which is not to say that every trace of it is gone).
The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.
In the Zimmerman/Martin case the civil-rights establishment is fighting for the poetic truth that white animus toward blacks is still such that a black teenager—Skittles and ice tea in hand—can be shot dead simply for walking home. But actually this establishment is fighting to maintain its authority to wield poetic truth—the authority to tell the larger society how it must think about blacks, how it must respond to them, what it owes them and, then, to brook no argument.
The Zimmerman/Martin tragedy has been explosive because it triggered a fight over authority. Who gets to say what things mean—the supporters of George Zimmerman, who say he acted in self-defense, or the civil-rights establishment that says he profiled and murdered a black child? Here we are. And where is the authority to resolve this? The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.
One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family? Today’s civil-rights leaders swat at mosquitoes like Zimmerman when they have gorillas on their back. Seventy-three percent of all black children are born without fathers married to their mothers. And you want to bring the nation to a standstill over George Zimmerman?
There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today’s civil-rights leadership.
(Posted on my Facebook)
One of the producers for this movie, Gerald R. Molen, produced: Rain Man, Minority Report, Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, and Days of Thunder to name a few of his bigger movies.
I didn’t realize Shelby Steele was in the documentary, this was a pleasant surprise. Something Steele mentioned about why some people voted for Obama brought to mind a section in David Mamet’s book that I will quote in its full context, but know that the last sentence is the main point (Remember that Mamet either wrote, produced, or directed some of these hits: Glengarry Glen Ross, The Untouchables, Hannibal, House of Games, American Buffalo):
One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.
But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.
When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.
Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.
A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.
What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.
The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.
One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.
Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.
These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status. ~ David Mamet