Dangerous Dan Thoughts and musings on the world

One of the problems with the oppression industry is that minority groups tend to impose an ideological hegemony on its group’s members. Being “black” is no longer just a matter of being of African descent or having certain physical characteristics. It means that one must adopt a particular ideology; for blacks, this means endorsing affirmative action, believing in systemic racism, being a liberal Democrat, etc. If you don’t ascribe to this ideology, then you simply aren’t “black” and are fair game for insults.

Such is the case with Maryland’s Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. He’s a conservative Republican, and since he doesn’t toe the ideological line that all real blacks must toe, other black politicians have openly labeled him an “Uncle Tom” and have gone so far as to throw oreos at him (black on the outside, but white on the inside). Recently on one website, this photoshopped image was made of him, along with the caption “I’s Simple Sambo and I’s running for the Big House”:

Clearly, some of the worst use of hateful racist imagery possible. If a white person had produced such filth, they would be duly pilloried. Because a fellow African-American made it, though, and because it’s about a black conservative, it’s supposed to be ok. This isn’t at all a new phenomenon; it’s been going on for years.

Not long ago, I took a grad level course on feminism and general oppression theory. I found much of it wanting. Below is a reprinting of a section of the final paper I wrote for that class (the entire thing was 16 pages, so just an excerpt will do even though you don’t see the whole argument). It’s formal writing, not blog writing and should be a nice change of pace for ya. I point out several other instances of discrimination of minorities against their own for not being ideologically pure and include several illustrations of it. Here it is:

The second instantiation of the improper exit strategy is that a minority group will cast off the ideology of the dominant group and in so doing will create an ideological hegemony within and on the group itself. The result is that belonging to the group is not due to conventional markers, e.g. race, sexuality, gender, etc. Rather, the identity of the group is to be found in a particular ideology. Those who adopt the ideology are identified as being a part of the group, those who do not adopt the ideology or whose ideas are counter to it are identified as not belonging to the group.

One of the aspects of oppression is that it uses ideology as a controlling factor of other groups. That is, the dominant group will impart a certain ideology and way of being onto other groups that identifies them as being inferior in some way. Hill Collins discusses it thus,

“Ideology refers to the body of ideas reflecting the interests of a group of people. Within U.S. culture, racist and sexist ideologies permeate the social structure to such a degree that they become hegemonic, namely, seen as natural, normal, and inevitable.”
(Hill Collins, Patricia. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge, 2000. p.5)

Thus, the dominant white culture will compose an ideology that sees blacks as being inferior to whites, such as perceiving black women as “mammies, jezebels, and breeder women of slavery to the smiling Aunt Jemimas on pancake mix boxes, ubiquitous Black prostitutes, and ever-present welfare mothers…” (Ibid.)

One of the primary goals of liberation is to cast off these oppressive hegemonic ideologies and replace them with positive ideologies based in how the group perceives itself (Ibid. p.72,99). Indeed, in discussing the ideologies of black women, Hill Collins claims that the hegemony of the dominant ideology is never so great as to firmly take root and become the ideology of how black women perceive themselves. The goal is to combat this ideology openly and in the greater culture (Ibid. pp.100-102, 112-121).

In so doing, however, the ideological hegemony of the dominant group is thrown off and a new one is put in its place. This new ideology helps to define what it means to be a person of that particular identity. As a result, the ideology becomes the defining characteristic of the group instead of the what we normally consider to be the pertinent maker. For example, to be “black” does not mean to have high melanin content in one’s skin, but to abide by certain orthodoxies, e.g. affirmative action or race preferences. Those who do not agree with this are often given labels such as “uncle tom,” “race-traitor,” or “sell-out.” And we have the opportunity to see this dynamic at work in actual politics. Below is a list of quotes and even a few images demonstrating the effect of marginalizing those who should ostensibly belong to a particular identity, but are denied it. The pictures are especially interesting in that they use very racist imagery to make their point. Some are from academic theorists, some are from activists, and some are from political operatives.

The first Bush administration’s most prominent “race traitor” a decade ago was unquestionably
Clarence Thomas. Since his 1991 appointment as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, Thomas has consistently voted against affirmative action, civil rights, and social policies designed to advance the interests of the truly disadvantaged. Some of Thomas’s closest personal friends are Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Bush administration—in fact, Thomas even officiated at Olson’s wedding….
One might condemn Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom,” but that would be an insult to “Uncle Toms.” Thomas, the “race traitor,” unfortunately represents a growing list of conservative blacks who actively oppose the black community’s interests.
-Manning Marble, African-American Studies professor at Columbia University
(Marble, Manning. “Bush’s Blacks: Race Traitors.” Manning Marble. September 2002.)

In the field of foreign affairs, the leading race traitor, hands down, is Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Adviser…
At the end of the day, the conservative race traitors have nothing to offer the African-American community are symbols of personal upward mobility without the substance of collective empowerment and group development.
–Manning Marble

“He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”
-California state senator Diane Watson on black anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly
(Wallace, Amy. “Connerly, Sen. Watson Engage in Shouting Match.” Los Angeles Times. February 21, 1996. p.A3.)

–11/17/04 comic by Pat Oliphant, Pulitzer Prize winner and “widely syndicated”

-10/4/04 comic by Jeff Danziger

-cover of November 1996 issue of Emerge magazine

In each of these cases, the offending party, Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice, etc., are characterized as either not being black or as being some horrible servile black caricature. Either way, they are being represented as not being a part of the black identity. Because they do not abide by the proper ideology of what it means to be black, they are unfairly treated, grossly personified, and their positions are largely ignored because of it. They are not “black.”

End excerpt.

(submitted to Wizbang’s carnival of trackbacks)

Want more?
Visit Michelle Malkin here and here, Pete the Elder, Deroy Murdock’s excellent piece on NRO, Ninth State, Captain’s Quarters, and Conservatives Anonymous