I lived in Chicago in the early 90's when Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court. I was swept up in the excitement and I assumed that Thomas was guilty of the sexual harassment claims levelled by his former staffer Anita Hill. In Illinois, Carol Mosely Braun won her race for the US Senate in part because many voters, including yours truly, were disgusted by the cross examination of Anita Hill by her haughty all male inquisitors. I can recall Thomas's angry outburst about the confirmation process which he described as a high tech lynching. A part of me wondered if he was telling the truth. I pushed that thought out of my mind.
I just read Thomas's book called My Grandfathers Son. He has lead an interesting life, quite apart from the Anita Hill drama. He was raised by his grandparents who raised he and his brother in a very strict manner. These kids worked all the time and had no time or inclination to get in trouble as they would have to deal with their grandfather if they did. They went to Catholic schools where the nuns neither made or accepted excuses. Clarence Thomas worked very hard and he was very successful academically even as he went on to nearly all white schools.
There are probably some who could never believe that it was the liberal lying and not the conservative. And we can never know for sure, but I am more inclined to believe Thomas after having read his book. His grandparents had instilled some solid values in Thomas. He strayed from those values from time to time, as he has openly admitted, but the Anita Hill smearing now seems like a typical "ends justifies the means" character assassination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
You know I went through quite a different awakening at exactly the same time.
I was enthralled by Clarence Thomas and was exceptionally impressed with his life.
I was stunned to find (pre Anita Hill) that the NAACP did not support him. Here was this great man who put himself through school, worked hard and proved reaching the pinnacle of his career that the American dream was real if you worked hard enough for it.
And the NAACP didn't like his politics? For cryin out loud this was exactly the kind of role model groups like the NAACP should have pointing to as an example of what people really could accomplish.
It was at that point I learned how shallow and dishonest liberalism was.
I to this day do not believe Anita Hill and fully believe she was brought forth solely for political purposes.
If you do not wish to believe that seriously ask yourself where all the liberal special interests who said we had to believe Anita Hill without question were with all the women who had claims out against Bill Clinton.
They were all silent.
It’s just a fact that the modern day liberal has two sets of rules one they apply to themselves and one they apply to their political opponents.
It is interesting how two people can observe the same events and come to the opposite conclusions. I absorbed the mainstream narrative of the day while you rejected it. You were right.
Gee, all you need is Charlie Sykes, Hannity, and O'Riley to add to this blog entry...this is like a meeting of the John Birch Society!
This is a lost cause here, but oh well...
I also lightly read this book, which i found interesting. The Anita Hill topic was an uninteresting sidebar in my viewpoint, but other parts of his story were interesting.
Real Debate, you may find this extremely difficult to believe but just because someone has the same skin color, doesn't always mean they have the same viewpoint.
Do you think NAACP should've supported Thomas simply because he was black? If so, that is an utterly ridiculous assumption and an insult to any intelligent black person. It's actually not that far fetched to realize all black people don't think alike.
Should white America have embraced David Duke simply because he was white? Is it possible that all of white america didn't support his views? So why the double standard?
I think it is a testament to the NAACP to be able to stand on principles, even if it means going against someone who may look like your base constituency (Thomas). They should be commended for thinking for themselves. A feat rarely obtained in today's political landscape.
You also forget that Clarence Thomas was not the first "accomplished" black person in America, nor was he the first black Supreme Court Justice, nor will he be the last "accomplished" black person or Supreme Court Justice. Clarence Thomas was a product of successful black Americans that arose centuries and decades before him and what was disheartening for me about him and the book was the lack of appreciation and acknowledgement of black pioneers, in academia and business, who preceeded him.
He seems to forget that he actually didn't achieve his status simply by his own determination and hard-work as he's convinced himself he's done.
"He seems to forget that he actually didn't achieve his status simply by his own determination and hard-work as he's convinced himself he's done."
Funny, I actually heard something quite similar from the mouth of someone representing the NAACP to a black police officer, regarding how he got his job. Sounds pretty racist to me, but I found it refreshingly amusing when the cop responded, "Uh, yeah, sure, whatever...".
anon, the cop incident sounds like a fabrication, similar to others i've noticed on this blog.
But if it did happen, his response was appropriate because their wasn't much to contest when confronted with the truth.
Yes the NAACP should have supported and held up Clarence Thomas as a black man.
The NAACP is for the advancement of colored people supposedly not just liberal colored people.
This is when I reached the conclusions that liberals were only interested in advancing the cause of liberalism. Clarence Thomas did it wrong according to them so he earned their scorn.
Tell me what exactly was wrong in how Clarence Thomas reached the pinnacle of his career?
He is EXACTLY the kind of individual they should have been elevating to further their agenda.
Councious thought, you may call that opinion an insult to an itelligent black person, it is not.
Neither does it suggest in any way that people of any skin color, race religion or anything else should think of one mind.
It suggests the NAACP is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. And it suggests that organization should stand for what it says it is.
The amazing narrowminded anonymous mentioned Limbaugh. He got this one right. After this stunning example of hypocrisy by the NAACP he labeled them the NAALCP, the Advancement of Liberal Colored People.
In my view a successful black man who was being elevated to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court should have been a cause of celebration by that organization, not scorn. A role model to be lifted up, not someone to be torn down.
That in no way suggests that any idividual person of color should not disagree.
I never suggested Clarence Thomas was the first successful black person in America, that assumption is absurd.
Frankly I find your over-all insinuation insulting.
real debate says "liberals were only interested in advancing the cause of liberalism". Is that illegal?
I wonder if conservatives are only interested in advancing the cause of conservatism?
So based on your view that people should support others solely based on skin color, it's safe to say you supported David Duke as both of you happen to have the same skin color?
conscious thought, your argument is riddled with disgusting assertions. Never did real debate state that the NAACP should have supported Thomas just because he is black. Instead, he thought he should have been supported because he was a great man, hard working who reached the pinnacle of his career. Nor does real debate assert that all black people think alike as you suggest. In fact, I suspect that real debate thinks exactly the opposite, more in line with how Thomas thinks. You should apologize to real debate for the ugly and entirely fabricated assertions that you have made.
"anon, the cop incident sounds like a fabrication, similar to others i've noticed on this blog."
It is not a fabrication. You pompous little ass.
"But if it did happen, his response was appropriate because their wasn't much to contest when confronted with the truth."
The officer rolled his eyes.
I guess you come over here because absolutely nothing is going on over at your barren, poorly written blog. I see you you can't spell very well in your posts, similar to the topics I've noticed on your blog.
Denis, the truth can be disgusting at times, as is the case here as well. I steadfastly disagree with both of you and i still have yet to hear a sensical argument against my case. Can somebody please provide one?...
Why would it make sense for the NAACP to support someone who doesn't support the NAACP's existence and mission?
Real Debate says "In my view a successful black man who was being elevated to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court should have been a cause of celebration by that organization, not scorn. A role model to be lifted up, not someone to be torn down." So even though they have opposing viewpoints, and Thomas had no inclination to support the organization, they should've been supportive of Thomas?
Most people don't support people or entities that oppose their own views. If you disagree with this philosophy, please provide an example of a politician or political group you've whole-heartedly supported that you entirely disagree with.
Anon, your juvenile comments aren't even worthy of any acknowledgment.
Denis and Real Debate, I'll be waiting...
You apply generalities where they do not exist.
I speak in specifics to the NAACP.
What is their mission, the advancement of persons of color.
They are supposedly a non-partisan group. Nowhere that I am aware of did Clarnece Thomas speak out against them in particular before his nomination.
Your David Duke analogy holds no water on multiple levels. If there was a NAAWP it would be decried as being racist and never allowed to exist.
I can tell you personally no one that I am know of personally supported David Duke.
I speak in generality to the NAACP as an organization.
Again that does not suggest that any person of color should not or could not disagree but that organization by its very nature should have supported Thomas.
"Anon, your juvenile comments aren't even worthy of any acknowledgment."
Apparently they are, as you did.
As you say, "the truth can be disgusting at times, as is the case here as well."
A white world made by white people for white people...since Fred and Denis are white, they deny it...
anonymous... I made the world white to spite you.
The truth is that I am fixated on Denis. I have a strong sexual desire for him despite our idealogical differences. I am essentially a cyber-stalker. There, I feel better now that I have said it and got it out into the open. As I stated previously, "the truth can be disgusting at times". Sorry you had to find out this way D.
real debate, basic human rights, the rights the NAACP champions, are normally left leaning ideals. An ideal that most conservatives, such as Thomas do not support.
I'm assuming you meant to say that no one you know of supported David Duke. And i can say with almost 100% accuracy it was because of what he stood for. Your friends exhibited the ability to stand on their principles. An ability exhibited similarly as the NAACP to Thomas. Thanks for reiterating my point.
The NAACP doesn't stand for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People who Oppose Our Views either.
Anon, your attraction to me and fixation on all things Conscious Thought is obvious, you love me don't you? Take a number and get in line, their are others ahead of you.
"Take a number and get in line, their are others ahead of you."
Why should so many wait to use you as a receptical, when I'm sure we could all fit at the same time?
Anon, you don't know a dmaned thing about me, where I come from or where I stand on race. Frankly if you knew my background on the matter I think you might be surprised.
So take your sanctimony somewhere else.
Concious Thought, do try and pull your head out of the sand and get one point please.
When I refer to the NAACP that means the NAACP, not all persons of color.
If a supposedly non partisan group existing solely for the advancement of persons of color can not get behind Clarence Thomas can you not see the hypocrisy?
This is as clear as can be.
Councious thought...
Would you be so kind as to email please?
Fkd1015@yahoo.com
Real Debate, you ask do i see the hypocrisy? Not in the least. The NAACP needs to be selective in their support of individuals just like the vast majority of other groups and organizations do.
that is as clear as can be.
Post a Comment