It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HUD Secretary Speaks Against Black Victimhood

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
HUD Secretary Speaks

Alphonso Jackson, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is speaking out against black victimhood. He says that black leaders are doing a disservice to blacks by perpetuating an ideology of victimhood. Among those he calls out by name are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Julian Bond. Secretary Jackson says that these men have created an industry and that if black people don’t act like victims, then those black leaders have no income. Essentially, he’s saying to black America – quit blaming folks with lighter colored skin for all your problems.

Comments??




posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I had read this article earlier today, and I agree with the Secretary. The proof is the increasing number of hard-working blacks that resent the implication that they need special treatment to get ahead in the US.

Jesse had offered a scholarship to the "victim" in the so-called Duke rape case. Now that she has turned out to be another Tawana Bradley, will he change his tune and maybe offer to pay for some of the boy's legal expenses?

Don't hold your breath.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Jesse Lee Peterson has been preaching this message for years and, of course, he is consistently vilified by the left.

In my judgement, Peterson deserves far more notoriety than the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior.

He's not quite the orator that King was, but his message is cogent and direct.

[edit on 2007/1/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Jesse Lee Peterson has been preaching this message for years and, of course, he is consistently vilified by the left
[edit on 2007/1/4 by GradyPhilpott]


Of course, it never ceases to amaze me that some minorities seem to favor the left, yet they were the ones who supported slavery. The democrats were the ones who implemented jim crow laws, etc. This is just another attempt by the left to continue the annihiliation of the middle class and the suppresion of the "have-nots". Not that the republican side is much better.

:shk:



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Comments??

I've heard this theory before. To me, it's the modern version of "blacks are lazy...", you know, what they used to say about us while we were working for free. So, because blacks weren't especially enthusiastic about the situation, they called us lazy. (Wouldn't you be lazy under those conditions?)

In much the same way, this so-called ideology of vicitimhood serves a contemporary need to make us (blacks) responsible for a situation (the continuing inequities of racism) that has been out of our control from the very beginning.

Of course, today, you need a black mouthpiece to espouse this sort of idea. That's where Alphonso Jackson comes in. I checked him out a bit. This would be the same Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of HUD, who illegally steers HUD contracts toward friends of Bush, right?

IMO, it's pretty clear what's going on here. Bush/Republican leadership want this message disseminated, but wouldn't want to actually say it themselves, so they get this guy to do it, a guy who obviously does what they want him to do, who happens to also be black.

Why do we care what he thinks? Who made him an expert on black people? He's the head of HUD which, in the Bush year's, doesn't even say much about the quality of his work, much less make him an authority on the various issues that affect black people. Everybody has an opinion. So what?



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Glad to see you here, HH.



Originally posted by HarlemHottie
to make us (blacks) responsible for a situation (the continuing inequities of racism) that has been out of our control from the very beginning.


He was saying that there are many areas that are the fault of black people themselves - such as unwed mothers having multiple babies, etc Some times people have to take responsibility for their own actions.


Why do we care what he thinks?

He's the HUD Secretary. Everyone should care where he's coming from on issues. He influences what happens in America - for better or for worse.


Who made him an expert on black people?

Who said he was? He has has 30 years of experience ‘in the field’ and has worked to bring affordable housing to those in need. At one time he was in charge of public safety for St. Louis (late 70’s). He has life experience. BTW .. did you notice he’s black?


in the Bush year's, doesn't even say much about the quality of his work,


Because Bush is president that makes this guy a meatball? Here’s his resume –

www.hud.gov... He has received Presidential and other Appointments during the CLINTON years - The National Commission on America's Urban Families (92-93); Member of the Regional Selection Panel for the White House Fellowship Programs (90-92) and a Member of The National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (90-92). In addition, Jackson was a member of the National Welfare Simplification and Coordination Advisory Committee (92-93) and served as Chairman of the General Services Commission of the State of Texas (95-98).


much less make him an authority on the various issues that affect black people.


He didn’t’ claim to be an authority on black issues. His doctorate isn’t in the area of ‘black issues’. BUT - It doesn’t take a rocket science degree to be able to do high school math and it doesn’t take a doctorates in ‘black studies’ to be able to see when people aren’t taking self responsibility for their own decisions.


Everybody has an opinion. So what?


Yes. But not everyone is in a position to effect changes in America.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I've heard this theory before. To me, it's the modern version of "blacks are lazy...", you know, what they used to say about us while we were working for free. So, because blacks weren't especially enthusiastic about the situation, they called us lazy. (Wouldn't you be lazy under those conditions?)


This is a tired excuse. I am sorry, black people are no lazier thain anyone else in this country. I have met a lot of hard working people from every single race on the planet. This is nothing more thain propetuating a steriotype.

So are you saying you were a slave? Have you ever met anyone that was a slave in this country? Were your parents slaves in this country? Were your grandparents slaves in this country? Depending on how old you are the answer is more thain likely no. I am so sick of people taking on the "victim" role for things that have never happened to them.

I am not saying that all is hunky dory in this country either. And the problem lies squarely in the term African-American. The only time that you would be an African-American is if you actualy came from africa durring your lifetime and became an American. Otherwise guess what? Thats right, your just a plain old fassioned American.

Race relations in this country would drasticly improve if people would just remember they are people not black white grey blue silver orange whatever.

I don't condone white supremicy either. I think they are the most backward dumb #&%s that exist today. But on the same shoe I don't like anyone self vicitmising for things that have never personaly happened to them.

If somehow you actualy are old enough to have been a slave before the abolition of slavery then you have every right to be upset about it. Otherwise. You are propetuating a steriotype as bad as the statement "all blacks are lazy"

MY opinion.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Glad to see you here, HH.


Thanks for the invite.



He was saying that there are many areas that are the fault of black people themselves - such as unwed mothers having multiple babies, etc

There hasn't been anything intrinsically wrong with having children out of wedlock since, like, 1970. However, being an unwed mother is statistically linked, as we all know, with low education, so a lot of unwed moms earn minimum wage.

Who's fault is it that the minimum wage is so low that America's working poor can barely afford to raise families?



He influences what happens in America - for better or for worse.

He certainly does. Just look at all the poor people displaced by a nationwide gentrification trend since he was appointed.



He has life experience. BTW .. did you notice he’s black?



So am I. Again, so what?

Something interesting I noticed: when I post the findings of people who, like, actually study race and its effects, they're dismissed, but this guy, this guy's opinion matters. I just don't get ATS sometimes.


Here’s his resume –

Why no mention of my Washington Post link? Doesn't that make all his subsequent actions kinda suspect?


His doctorate isn’t in the area of ‘black issues’.

Exactly my point.

Whatukno, I've been in a lot of race discussions on this board and the one thing I've learned is, a personal attack will turn a civil conversation very ugly, very quickly. That being said, you make a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic in your post and that essentially render it "unanswerable." You seem to have a preconceived set of beliefs that you think I adhere to, but I don't. Of course, you wouldn't know that, unless you asked. I try to be approachable, so feel free to ask... in another thread.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
There hasn't been anything intrinsically wrong with having children out of wedlock since, like, 1970.

It is wrong if you can't afford it. If you can't afford kids .. don't have 'em. If you don't have help raising them .. don't have them. (at least that's what I think)


but this guy, this guy's opinion matters.

He's in a position that it matters what he says. I have no idea what his views have been/are and I can't say if he's right or wrong with everything he speaks about. I have just heard of him when I posted this thread.

He's in a position that is important and well known. We should ALL know what he thinks and why. We should all know what he's doing .. or not doing.


Why no mention of my Washington Post link? Doesn't that make all his subsequent actions kinda suspect?


I didn't think to 'mention' it. But okay .. here's mentioning it. As far as his actions being suspect .. as far as I'm concerned ALL politicians are suspect until proven trustworthy. I don't know enough about him to trust him.


you make a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic in your post and that essentially render it "unanswerable."


Really? Like what?


You seem to have a preconceived set of beliefs that you think I adhere to,


Really? Like what? What did I direct at you? I think you are being over sensitive. Sorry .. but I have no idea what you are talking about. I U2Ud you to come on over and give your opinon on this guy .... but *sigh* nevermind.


Edited to fix quote (tricky little things!!)


[edit on 1/4/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I U2Ud you to come on over and give your opinon on this guy .... but *sigh* nevermind.

No, no, no. That wasn't directed at you. It was in response to the member 'whatukno.'

You know I'm not that touchy.


ps, I'll respond to the rest of what you said in a minute. I just wanted to post this while you were on.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If you can't afford kids .. don't have 'em.

That sounds like a pro-eugenics argument... a little scary, if you ask me. Plus, we all know it doesn't really work that way. Considering how many people are uninsured in this country, it should come as no surprise that a lot of women don't have access to birth control. That has never stopped a sex drive at any other point in history, why should it start now?


He's in a position that it matters what he says.

I disagree. The only thing he could say, that would actually matter, would be related to housing. Otherwise, he can shut his pie-hole. This is not his expertise. Would you let a real estate agent tell you how to raise your kids? I thought not.



I have no idea what his views have been/are and I can't say if he's right or wrong with everything he speaks about. I have just heard of him when I posted this thread.

He's in a position that is important and well known. We should ALL know what he thinks and why. We should all know what he's doing .. or not doing.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Why no mention of my Washington Post link? Doesn't that make all his subsequent actions kinda suspect?


I didn't think to 'mention' it. But okay .. here's mentioning it.

The parts in bold confuse me. I don't understand why his message matters enough for you to start a thread about it (not to imply that you neccessarily agree with him), but his past, and potential motivations, aren't.

Is this evidence of a double standard? Whenever Sharpton takes a breath, people dredge up Tawana Brawley, like, out of a time capsule. Now this guy appears, and his past, last year, is suddenly unimportant to the conversation.

What happened to objectivity?



As far as his actions being suspect .. as far as I'm concerned ALL politicians are suspect until proven trustworthy.

Exactly, especially appointed ones. So, why should we trust his opinion on raising black children? Personally, I'm going to consider his statement as just another high-placed black person trying to curry favor. I already knew how he felt about poor people of all colors when his HUD went full-steam ahead with gentrification.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Alphonso Jackson was spot on until he started the tired old BS about kids being born out of wed lock and welfare bashing. If you cater to minority s via opportunity's that the government only makes available to them you end up with reverse discrimination and racism.

A recent example in NZ is the Maori only University.
Can you imagine the up roar if the NZ government funded a white only University ?

[edit on 5-1-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
That sounds like a pro-eugenics argument... a little scary, if you ask me.


*shudder* oh no. I'm definately NOT a fan of Margaret Sanger and the rest. It's just common sense - If you can't afford them, and you aren't married and don't have any help, don't have them. I'm not sitting here with 10 kids just because I want them. I couldn't afford that. So common sense - we didn't have (adopt) that many.


a lot of women don't have access to birth control. That has never stopped a sex drive


We aren't mindless animals. If we have 'the itch' and no means to take care of the product .. then we shouldn't do it. Common sense. Don't make kids if you can't take care of them.


I don't understand why his message matters enough for you to start a thread about it


He's in an important position that I felt people should know about him and what he stands for. It's good for Americans to know who people are in their government and what they say. Not necessarily that we agree with what is said ...but that we know what is going on around us.


his past, and potential motivations, aren't.


Absolutely they are. Bring 'em in. We need to get to know this guy. If he has done good, or bad, we should know. If he has said things suspect ... or right on the mark ... we should know.

Don't forget though .. sometimes a blind pig is still able to find an acorn.


gentrification.


Absolutely ... bring it in . Educate us on this. We should know about it.



[edit on 1/5/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm definately NOT a fan of Margaret Sanger and the rest.

Okay, good.
I was worried for a second there.



It's just common sense... I'm not sitting here with 10 kids just because I want them. I couldn't afford that. So common sense - we didn't have (adopt) that many.

Since you used yourself as an example, let me ask you some questions. Do you have health insurance? If not, do you have a year-round, somewhat steady job that would allow you to purchase contraception of your own? Did you go to college?

I don't have any kids either, but that's because I went to good schools and they gave that stuff out like candy. When I got out of school, I just kept doing what I had been. However, other girls aren't so lucky. I had a vague plan of my future, but the one thing I knew for sure was that children would impede me. However, for the girls who never leave 'the neighborhood,' black, white, and hispanic, they don't have a lot of plans. All the women in their worlds works at jobs where, yeah, they may have been promoted through the years, but didn't require big investments in education. With that life ahead of them, young girls do what they've always done: reproduce.


We aren't mindless animals. If we have 'the itch' and no means to take care of the product .. then we shouldn't do it. Common sense. Don't make kids if you can't take care of them.

Where have you been? Don't you know that, for poor people, sex is the most available source of entertainment? That's human nature: we have an urge toward procreation. Women get pregnant during wars and famine, against all common sense. What can you do?

Besides, with this whole 'abstinence-only' version of sex ed being taught in the schools now, kids aren't taught the first thing about responsibility. It's the 'Just Say No' approach to teen pregnancy. That can't turn out good.



He's in an important position that I felt people should know about him and what he stands for. It's good for Americans to know who people are in their government and what they say. Not necessarily that we agree with what is said ...but that we know what is going on around us.

Okay, now I get what you're saying, and I do actually agree. See? It's good when we can come together on something.


I'm still kinda like, who cares?, but I can see why you posted it.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie gentrification.

Originally posted by FlyersFan Absolutely ... bring it in . Educate us on this. We should know about it.

Good, I like your enthusiasm. All I know is the situation with my own apartment building, but that's just one example. I would like to present a pattern of victim creation by one Mr. Alphonso Jackson. This guy stinks. I'll have a pow-wow with the expert and report back to you this evening.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Most major political leaders in America today, whether they are Black or White, are self serving dirtbags. In the case of the self serving White dirtbag politician, the politician and his cronies get a nice boondogle, but in return, society might get something back in the form of jobs, goods and services. For example, the politician(s) that authorized the bridge and their cronies lined their pockets, but at least society at large has a bridge to show for it.

In the case of many Black civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, there is little upside for society as a whole when they start raising trouble. The Jesse Jackson's of the world make their living shaking down corporations. The hem and haw, threatening the corporation with lawsuits, bad publicity, and boycotts, the corporation caves in, giving Jessea and his cronies a few token jobs and other gifts like the distribution rights to Budweiser in Illinois, and at the end of the day, society as a whole has no gain to show for it. No lousy bridge to nowhere and no cheaper widgets. All we have is increased racial agitation on both sides of the color line. Perhaps if the Jesse Jackson's of the world changed their business model, or the world forced them to change their business model, so they could at least do some good at the end of the day, everyone, both Black and White, will be better off.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Been a while since I been here.

I like all this talk of "victimization." Those of you agreeing with this clown seem to ignore how real black victimization is. Hell, I've talked to old school cats who were "victims." I'm talking about having some "good ol' boys" chase you out of town with guns because you were caught dealing with white women.

Or how about if you go back farther, when you couldn't walk around at night without worrying about drunk white barbarians jerking your soul to heaven? Hell, you could be snatched out of your HOUSE and killed, and no one would investigate your murder.

Fast forward to now, where the effects of housing discrimination, job discrimination, hell, discrimination all across the entire system, and tell me you don't see victims. Though the playing field is better for blacks, it is still far from equal.

The criminal justice system is a prime example of victimization. I don't have time to elaborate now, but needless to say, the US prison system is just another way to take black men down in American society.

You expect us to blame our less fortunate brothers and sisters for their plight, all while you ignore how some of your brothers and sisters keep this plight going. You expect us to be at a better position when, just a mere 40 years ago, your system overtly held us down. Pffft.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I thank you, truthseeka, for saying what needs to be said and keeping it real. And for that, I give you a WATS.



You have voted truthseeka for the Way Above Top Secret award.


Welcome back. Thank goodness you are here to tip the scales of justice!


I also am glad that HH is here to debate this issue. Again, her words clearly display what are the stakes in this issue.

In all, both HH and truthseeka give great reasons why the HUD secretary ought not to be believed. He is just a patsy in an already corrupt-laden adminstration which openly displays a lack of empathy for different cultures of people. Most namely, people who need support from their fellow Americans instead of cold, unfeeling stigmaticization and accusation. What they do not need is another token figurehead stabbing them in the back in the same manner as Dr. Rice.


[edit on 25-1-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Thanks for the WATS and the support, Ceci.
Glad you agree that this is real talk.

This isn't the first time that whites have used blacks to do some of their dirty work against other blacks. Jackson is no more than a shill, much like Rice and that pudding head Cosby.

The trick is to get some well-to-do blacks to portray the less fortunate as victims looking for handouts. The trick is to say these blacks aren't trying hard enough in America, while ignoring the fact that America has held down the average black for CENTURIES. All the while, these blacks are selling out their people more than Jesse, Al, and the others this clown "mentioned by name."

(Not to say these guys are doing everything right. I still haven't seen Jesse Jackson complain about Albert Pike's statue at the National Mall
. But, this idiot here is clearly calling the kettle black-no pun intended).

It's like, "OK, you people haven't made something for yourselves yet? It's been 40 years since the CRM, what's taking so long?"



I guess 40 years is more than enough time to erode 400 years of obstacles...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Alphonso Jackson ...says that black leaders are doing a disservice to blacks by perpetuating an ideology of victimhood.
...
Comments??


I have to agree with this general statement. I do think there are those such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Julian Bond who do stand on a position of black victimization and I don't think it's fair to black people or anyone.

On the other hand, there are Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman and others who encourage black people to get off the position of victimization and claim total responsibility for their lives and their success.

Now, having said that, I think it's important to realize that ALL of these statements are generalizations and that can be dangerous. I'm certain that there are many black people who do not fit into the category of victim. They take responsibility for themselves, their family and their success, and don't blame white people for the difficulties in their lives.

I'm also absolutely sure that there are black people who fit into the role of self-imposed victim. Those who really just want to blame someone else for their lot in life. And the white man is right handy and he has plenty of support for his position.

But there are people like that of all races. Basically, some people would rather be victims and some would rather take control and responsibility for their lives.

The impression I get is that Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman and Alphonso Jackson are speaking, not to ALL black people, but to the ones who hold the position that they are a victim of the white man and hold a mentality that they'll never get anywhere because the white man is keeping them down. In this case, I think they're absolutely right to reach out to these people and offer them the possibility of a different way of thinking.

Many black people in the US (not all) have been condiitoned to think that the white man is standing out there just waiting to get in his way -- eager to take him down. It's no fault of their own that their parents have taught them that. But it's really time they start exploring a different perspective about it.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
This would be the same Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of HUD, who illegally steers HUD contracts toward friends of Bush, right?




The investigation found "no evidence that a contract was canceled, rescinded, terminated or not issued as a result of the encounter between Secretary Jackson and the contractor," the report says.

Jackson said the report cleared him of wrongdoing. "As I stated previously, during my tenure, no contract has been cancelled, rescinded, terminated, awarded or not awarded due to the personal or political benefits of the recipient," he said in a statement released yesterday.


Besides, partisan politics in Washington, DC??? He doesn't exactly stand out.

But, really, what does this have to do with the subject? It seems like an attempt to discredit everything he says because he has been accused of partisan politics. Who hasn't?


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Bush/Republican leadership want this message disseminated, but wouldn't want to actually say it themselves, so they get this guy to do it, a guy who obviously does what they want him to do, who happens to also be black.


This is a huge assumption... :shk: It may seem like an obvious ploy to you, but there's not a thing to back it up.

Attempting to discredit Mr. Jackson's political integrity (there's an oxymoron for you!) has nothing to do with his opinion on the race issue. He doesn't need to be an authority on black people (whatever that is) for his opinion to have merit.

And, in my opinion, his opinion does have merit.


Not for ALL black people, certainly. HH you are a perfect example of that. But it's only logical for you to acknowledge that there are black people in this country who hold this dangerous and self-defeating victimization position. And IT, not the white man, is holding them back from being successful in this country.

Do you disagree with that?

Don't you think it's important for the entire race and the health of the nation in general, that people who blame other people for their lot in life (regardless of their race) to be shown and taught that there's a different way of thinking about this and that they have the opportunity to break out of this victim role and be successful?

Attitude and outlook are everything! What we tell ourselves every moment of the day has a great effect on what we can bring about in our lives. Someone who is told (in so many words) since childhood, "Watch out for the white man because he wants to keep you down" is not going to grow up with a healthy attitude and feeling of control over his own destiny. And FAR too many black people are being raised with this attitude, if not exact words.

Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman, Alphonso Jackson and the like are just trying to recondition those affected to think differently and take control of their lives and their futures.

I don't see anything wrong with that.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I don't understand the attitude that vilifies the Secretary.

If a white man had said those words, he would be accused of racism.

When a black man says it, he is accused of being an Uncle Tom.

I think the basic message that he, Cosby, and other blacks is spreading is sound. Get rid of the attitude; it does not serve your purpose or goal. Of course, that assumes that your goal is to create a better life for yourself and your loved ones, and not to accept the role of victim.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join