Maybe I missed it but does Mr Stevenson ever argue in defense of the innocence of these officials? I am actually surprised that he didn't make the case that political corruption was no big deal until Black people got into power. I have seen people functionally argue: "if our tax money is going to get stolen as it usually does - I'd rather see a Black person receiving the proceeds"
This is yet another diversionary article. It attempts to get Black people to focus upon "racism chasing" than to note how much those that we sent to represent us may have compromised themselves and thus our interests.
Put me on the list of those who believe that the recent prosecution of former Baltimore Mayor Shelia Dixon was a waste of legal resources. She should have been spanked in some other form. At the same time certain places are known dens of corruption. With an abundant set of "apologists" who remain resolute that "White folks are not going to pick our Black leaders" - and thus they move forward having lost their consciousness about why they placed a "favorable person" in office a long time ago. Absent some state or federal entity to impose a standard of law and order - gross corruption is the typical product.
Mr Stevenson does for the compromised Black politician what is done to the Black common criminal: MAKE THEM A VICTIM OF THE SYSTEM. This allows Stevenson and others to continue their "struggle milieu". If you figured that a new day had dawned when that favorable Black got into power you were sadly mistaken. The common narriative is to key in upon the WHITE person that has not changed his ways with the dawn of the "Elected Black". We need to understand that his Black compliment on the scale that the great Thomas Nast had noted more than a century ago has not changed either.
The Black community loses if we fail to manage the BIGOTS who reside inside and out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment