The election victory of Barack Hussein Obama has been lauded by the media ad nauseum as a triumph for African-Americans, and a huge step forward for blacks in America. Possibly they are correct, but there is another school of thought. For those who value free-enterprise and capitalism it can be downright concerning.
Despite winning 92% of the African-American vote on election day, inside the community there has historically been a divide of ideology between two approaches, the civil rights approach and the economic rights approach. The term "noneconomic liberalism" was coined by scholar Harold Cruse in the 1980's to describe the noticeable lack of focus on economic empowerment inside the civil rights movement.
The basic theme of the economic rights approach as articulated by Cruse was an outgrowth of the era of Reagan. An approach focusing on creating economic opportunity for minorities and moving away from the historical civil rights approach was needed by then, Cruse asserted, as by 1985 civil rights had been achieved. He was concerned about the marxism and dependency inherent in the civil rights approach, and the tendency of black communities to be jobless havens of political and government activism with little to no meaningful economic activity.
Cruse wasn't the first. His approach hearkens back as far as Booker T. Washington, the turn-of-the-century educator and activist. He was despised by the elites of his day for his criticism of the black church. Writer Elizabeth Wright writes (wow that was awkward phrasing):
"It was not off limits, however, in the early 1900s, to Booker T. Washington's piercing scrutiny. In fact, one of the reasons why Washington was resented by the elites of his day was the laserlike probe he turned on the various hypocrisies of certain blacks, and his no-nonsense assessment of them. When it came to the disproportionate numbers of black men who became "preachers" or took to politics for a living, he could be merciless in his criticism. He publicly lamented the loss to the race of its most vigorous and ambitious men, who chose these easier paths to esteem and financial comfort."
Clearly Booker T. Washington saw through those who would be Obamas in his day. He was concerned about what they would do to his community. Some people see this danger better than others.
In the early 1990's you may recall that gang violence was in the media in a big way. The movie Colors was out. Rap music was getting big. Elizabeth Wright was reporting from Chicago on a "treaty" signing between two gangs, and attended by Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton-Obama types. Referring to the roomful she says:
"None of the men cited above are in a position to offer any economic alternatives to these boys, because they have created nothing of economic value. Most who participated in the "treaty" signings were church pastors, others described themselves as "community activists." Not one man in the bunch was in a position to take a boy under his wing and offer him a job."
as she goes on to say:
"Such was not always the case among blacks. The sons of Isaiah Montgomery, for example, knew the power of a father's authority, as they watched him and relatives, in the late 1880s, carve the town of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, out of a wilderness. So did the sons of businessmen Philip Payton, George Whitelaw Lewis, John Merrick, Joseph Lee, William Pettiford, John Mitchell, S.B. Fuller, and countless others whose names are lost to history. So did the sons of farmers and craftsmen and cooks and butlers. These men were not confused about the roles they were obligated to play in the protection and sustenance of their families.
Those businessmen among them took risks, using their money and expertise to develop the communities in which they lived, even during the worst days of hostility toward our race. They did so not because it was considered the "courageous" thing to do, but because this is what was expected of them, this is what men did. And the boys watched and learned from what they saw, and knew what would be expected of them one day. They saw black men as creators, producers, and initiators of opportunities, instead of as passive agents awaiting some inevitable fate."
It seems that some people already know very well that the "success" of the civil rights movement, coming as it did at the expense of economic rights, has cost the black community dearly. Based upon the history of the ideology and it's devastating effects upon communities, it is a fair question to ask, what will the next four years of non-economic liberalism cost us?
*** JOIN THE POLICY PROJECT BY CLICKING ON THE SUBSCRIPTION BUTTON ABOVE THIS ARTICLE. COPY ONE OF THE LINKS ON THE RIGHT AND ADD IT TO YOUR BLOG. ***
*** GET YOUR BLOG ON THE RADIO AND JOIN OUR CONTEST ***
*** WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS ARTICLE? LEAVE A MESSAGE ON OUR NEW BOARD ABOVE ***
No comments:
Post a Comment