Question: When Is It That A "Token Black" Won't Be Called A "Token Black"?

ANSWER:

1. When he is a Black that was chosen per the demands of the Black Progressive Establishment for Racial Diversity
2. When he is a Black whom is ideologically appealing to the Black Progressive Establishment
3. When calling him a "token Black" would undercut the Black Progressive Establishment's future systematic drives for "access"

Ohio Governor Kasich Makes First Minority Appointment To Cabinent


Please understand how it works people.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.   No doubt chosen in response to the linkage between the seat once held by Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall as "the Black seat" on the US Supreme Court.   Unfortunately for the Black Progressive Establishment Marshall decided to retire under the aegis of an (enemy) Republican president - George Herbert Walker Bush.   Thus when President Bush decided to agree to fill the "Black seat" with a Black man - BUT one of his own ideological preferences this threw the "Diversity Consultants" into a conundrum.   We all know that when the drive for "diversity" they are really talking about a nonvariable index on "progressive ideology" with diversity in regards to:

• race
• gender
• religious affiliation
• sexual orientation
• handicapped status

With Clarence Thomas they ran the risk of exposing themselves for whom they are by outright opposing him or bringing forth a "surprise witness" and allowing her to disqualify him.  Their real feelings on "sexual harassment" would be exposed a few years later as they stood with the next President, walking down the street to the US House in unison on the Saturday when the impeachment proceedings were to take place.  The "conscious of America" - indeed they are!!!

Mr Colbert has little to worry about as far as being called a "racial token" though.  He represents a "WIN" to these forces who would normally be doing the name calling.  They starred down the new (racist) Republican governor who did not seem to need "any of your people" in his cabinet - handing back the same thing to those who DID NOT WANT HIM to be in a position of power to SEAT A CABINET in the first place.  Thus their vote was for Kasich's competitor by a monopoly majority. 

I have already enumerated the various run-ins that have been orchestrated between the Black Political operatives and various Republican governors.  Again - some of these dust ups were SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS BY THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS.  Still it remains puzzling how this same Black Progressive Establishment never seems to fight with governors that are their Democratic Party when Black people are assaulted with:

• Gross economic malaise which occurred on their watch (See Michigan)
• Erosion of educational quality on their watch (list is too long to document)
• The impact of the policy where "10 guilty men released so that 1 innocent man not be locked up unjustly" has those 10 assailants attacking the Black community - as seen on the evening news

It seems to me that the prevailing Black Political Consciousness is one of "ACCESS" than of "Effective Governance".   The struggle for representation - and the associated pride of seeing a "Black Face In High Place" trumps any convincing evidence that a "favorable person" in power, after having been elected by the masses - AND retaining his alignment to the masses' IDEOLOGICAL preferences will get tossed out of office for failing to deliver results that withstand TRANSPARENT appraisal. 

Sadly the erosion of jobs as certain economic theories are enacted are not seen as powerful on the negative side as is the struggle for ACCESS to certain jobs after the "struggle" bears fruit.   It seems to me that the adrenaline uplift of "Defeating the ideological enemy" after one mass "Congregational Unification" summit is more potent than is the downing effect of a string of shortfalls that transpire after they "Won but lost in the long run".  (See Cleveland and Youngstown)