[1]

Cross-posted at www.francislholland.blogspot.com [2]

Recently, Matt Stoller of MyDD opened a compelling dialogue by asking whether it was necessary for Blacks and whites (and I would add women and other sociological minorities) to frequent the same websites in order for the Democratic Party to maximize Party chances for electoral success.  The short answer is:  "Yes, blog apartheid within the Democratic Party does reduce Democrats' chances for electoral success."

Matt said,

Now first I'm going to address this community about our culture.  Most MyDD readers are comfortable within what I call 'Jewish political culture', which is a very individualistic, progressive style of argumentative discourse . . .  There are lots of other cultures out there, and lots of other ways of thinking about the world.  These represent themselves online, but they don't necessarily represent themselves here.  Does it matter that they don't?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/12/1237

12/293#commenttop [3]

Reading this, I began to wonder how whites would respond if Blacks began a "Blacks Only" blog movement. If I decided to start a “No Whites Allowed” blog within the Democratic Party, I know precisely how I would enforce the “no-whites” restriction without acknowledging this intention explicitly. I would state clearly in my Reparations Blog FAQ that, although the blog was a Democratic blog, it was devoted to promoting reparations for slavery. Although whites, of course, would be permitted to visit and participate freely in this blog, any comments that were not supportive of reparations would have to be “troll rated”, leading to expulsion for repeat offenders.

This need not be perceived as an “anti-white” restriction per se; rather, the utter lack of whites would follow naturally from the official purpose of the group, a purpose that would be arguably “color-blind”. Anyone who had suffered financial harm because of the enslavement of their forbears could join this group, regardless of their skin-color.

From the stated purpose of the blog, it would follow logically and inexorably that anyone not sufficiently supportive of reparations slavery is a “slavery troll” – “an argumentative person whose every protestation against reparations would inevitably cause a “flame war” that would disrupt the flow of pro-reparations advocacy efforts.” It is for that reason alone, (and not because of a desire to exclude all whites), that all those who persistently expressed opposition to reparations would have to be permanently excluded from the blog.

With all policy enforcers acting anonymously against other anonymous group members, it would be impossible to effectively argue that this rule disproportionately affected whites. After all, there would be no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion, beyond the “merely coincidental” fact of the near total absence of white participation at my Reparations Blog..

Some few whites might support reparations, and so it would be necessary to have an additional exclusive blog premise, an even more stringent restriction that most whites certainly would not support:

A private right of action, enforceable in federal court, state court, and small claims court, against any property owner whose property (of any kind) could be proven to have been built, bought or otherwise derived from the proceeds of forced unpaid labor, regardless of when in America the unpaid labor might have occurred. This, too, is arguably “color-blind” since all those whose forbears had been slaves could benefit, regardless of their skin color.

In effect, there is no white person in America who will accept the premise that I can come and retrieve from a white person’s house the bricks that my grandfather made and laid while he was a slave. And so this “color-blind” blog premise would effectively exclude virtually all whites from participation.

Meanwhile, most Blacks would happily accept a check for the work their grandfathers were forced to do for free. It follows from the premise of the group that those (whites) who do not support this new legal regime are “slavery trolls” and they have no business participating at my Reparations Blog.

“Plausible deniability is the most important consideration when starting a blog that will exclude all people of a particular color. At some point, people who are excluded will point to the utter homogeneity of the blog and insist that such homogeneity can only be the result of intentional or tacit “racism”. A wise apartheid blogger will prepare excuses in advance for this eventuality. So, the Reparations Blog has two answers to that:

(1) “Racism” does not exist, since the concept of “race” has no basis in science. Therefore, it is not for anyone to act out of “racism”.

(2) Everyone should support Reparations and those who don’t must be excluded regardless of their color.

(3) It’s my blog, my ball and bat, and I decide who plays and who doesn’t. No court of law, no Constitution, no Civil Rights Act and no anti-discrimination commission can force me to change the essential nature of my blog, which is its zealous and scrupulous advocacy and defense of the concept of reparations.

(4) Reparations are for everyone who can prove he was a slave, not just Black people.

Once it was concluded that a poster was a “slavery troll”, it would be appropriate and indeed laudable to remove any comments that person might post, now and in the future. People who persisted in posting comments opposing or not sufficiently supporting reparations would obviously have to be banned from all participation, in order to preserve the purity of the political ideas which the blog for which the blog was founded.

The invidious beauty of such a policy is that I could achieve a virtually all-Black blog AND torment whatever whites might visit the site, all the while disclaiming any conscious color-aroused animus against whites. “If whites are banned from the site more often then Blacks, it is “not a race thing”, but results from a color-blind policy applied without regard to the color of its victims.

Of course, it would be difficult for one person alone to read all comments. So, I would have to delegate culling responsibilities to a zealous group of reparations supporters, who would indefatigably read all comments, twenty four hour per day, and demand to know whether each poster was a supporter of reparations or not. With the diligence of those who sought out and persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany, my “slavery troll” police would cull all those who did not support reparations, “even if” all whites were culled from the participants list.

This is not unlike a blog formed by partisans of the Democratic Party for the purpose of electing John Edwards or Al Gore for President, in a race against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Such a group cannot be proven to be an intentionally “Whites Only” blog , even the effect of ejecting all supporters of Clinton and Obama is to eject all of the Black Democrats who arrive their to express their pro-Clinton or pro-Obama positions. The all-whiteness of the group follows from (1) its purpose of electing a Democratic ticket that, coincidentally, does not include any of the candidates whom Black people prefer, (2) the blog’s policy of expelling all those who openly disagree with the groups stated purpose.

If I decided to start a monochromatic “ONLY” blog, but did not want to be called a “Black Separatist”, then I know exactly how I would achieve the “plausible deniability” that DailyKos achieves when it excludes all Blacks by ejecting all supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton and all those who do not worship at the feet of John Edwards and Al Gore, membership requirements that, “coincidentally” exclude all Black people.

Authors Note: This concept is only being actively considered to the same degree that Matt Stoller is actively http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/12/1237">considering whether "separate but equal" blogs are appropriate [4] in the context of Democratic Party advocacy.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

[5] | [6] | [7] | [8] | [9] | [10]