The Hill: Race to fill Jackson’s seat highlights new challenges for the Black Caucus
Read the story at the attached link in total.
In fact read it twice.
ONCE at face value.
The second time - replacing the construct of "Black Representation" in the US Congress - with the Tea Party seeking to hold on to the "WHITE Right-wing" vantage-point in this nation.
I make the case that "Progressive-Fundamentalism" is based on "Assumed Black Inferiority".
The entire article makes the assumption that: A BLACK FACE IN AN ELECTIVE SEAT, who has the backing of the Black populace EQUALS - "The Best Interests Of The Black Community".
Republican US Senator designee Tim Scott fails (in the mind of some) because he doesn't have the popular backing.
In truth - Barack Obama - in the early phases of his career did not have the blessing of this same "Black Racial Services Machine".
The Cowardice In The Press Will Not Allow Anyone To Examine If "The PREVAILING BLACK PROGRESSIVE VIEWPOINT" Can Move Beyond POPULARITY Among The Masses And Deliver The Promised Results WITHIN The Black Community
Did you see - a single time in The Hill article - where they went INTO the 2nd District and reported from the vantage point OF THE PEOPLE - as a separate and distinct construct of THEIR "LEADERSHIP" and their assumptions of the policies that will provide the desired uplift?
There is a long line of journalists employed by the NY Times or Washington Post who are chomping at the bit to define the GAP between what the RIGHT-WING TEA PARTY sees as its vision for American political policy and the FACTS ON THE STREET. When it comes to taking this same framework and then laying it upon Chicago, Detroit, Newark or Cleveland - there is massive reluctance to do the same.
What makes the "Tea Party" a worthy group for inspection but the "Black Racial Services Machine" OFF LIMITS?
CLEARLY the press' agenda IS NOT for the protection of "The Least Of These".
Chicago Is A "Racist City" When It Comes To The Appropriation Of Political Spoils And "The Blacks" And "The Hispanics" Are Full Participants As Are "The Whites"
Back a few years ago during the hot debate over Chicago political districts I noted the blatant use of the term "Hispanic Districts", "Black Districts" and "White Districts" to define how the political lines would be drawn to ensure an elected representative of a particular RACE. With "The White" districts pretty settled - "The Blacks" were forced to debate with "The Hispanics" on a map that had substantially different number of "Black districts" than what "The Hispanics" had in mind - per their growing population numbers.
The key point to remember is - this is not an inter-party debate that matches the "inter-racial" squabbles. They were ALL DEMOCRATS. Just like the political battle in Newark among the "Crips and the Bloods" - all of the combatants in Chicago ultimately come together and vote for "The Democrat" in state and national elections.
AGAIN - WHAT ABOUT THE CONDITION OF "THE NEGRO"?