It never ceases to amaze me. When a black person is selected to a position otherwise held for whites or an institution otherwise populated by whites. There’s always that one person who’ll reduce the selections monumental importance by denigrating the black person selected as being a token.

We have to face facts, in order to change something someone has to step forward and challenge it. Someone has to have the commitment and courage to join the problem and change it from the inside out.

People who moan about blacks joining the police force need to recognise that, that one extra black person being there will stop the black kid being arrested from having his head kicked in. The black man or women who joins a company which has no black employees, will help further black people who join by breaking down the stereotypes and challenging racist language.



Wake up people; we haven’t come this far by our own efforts we stand on the shoulders of giants before us!

TimeLine



Excellent dissection of my question. Your words ring true, I’ve never considered the possibility that a person used by white majority institution could simply be looking out for themselves, I always assumed that because the black person had worked hard to be there and had put up with slander and discrimination, there would be no way that the person would be working for their own self interest.

But what of the opinions harboured by some black net viewers, such as Martin Luther King being of no consequence, and being essential a token? Surely no person should believe that a man who died for his cause was operating out of self interest?

Can black people not even recognise then, that his advancements were made for us?

How do you define a token? I don't see how Blacks joining a mostly White police force can be viewed as tokens. They are simply doing a job. I would more consider someone who is being used by Whites to promote a certain point of view as a token. I won't use any examples, but if you look at the current US adminstration, you'll see a few.

AmeriJamCan

Give me some names



Timeline

Why Conde Rice?

Did yo know she was over heard at a dinner party accidentaly refering to Mr Bush as her 'husband'. Mere slip of the tongue or a little more freudian perhaps.....

And what I'm asking is why tarnish Conde? What has she done to imply that she's out for herself?

Sigh….once again I have to explain the grammatical nature of my questions.



Peacemaker

Not once did I say that it would change racist attitudes. My point is this, when someone has the courage to work in an environment less then favourable, it’s good that we stand by them and recognise their efforts, rather then vilify them, for something frankly we didn’t have the balls to do.



Mezmerized

Please read the question properly. I was asking Timeline, why he disliked Conde, not ,how could he not like Conde. However to answer your mis-informed vitriol. I could care less about her stance; she’s still a black woman in a position of power who takes a lot of crap. Do you seriously think that whether or not she’s out for herself, she could ever forget she was black? The whites that spit N#!!!!!!r in her face sure do.

And that's why we are seen as being at the very bottom of the race pile. Virtually no solidarity.

"People who moan about blacks joining the police force need to recognise that, that one extra black person being there will stop the black kid being arrested from having his head kicked in."

That has never happened. In fact more often than not, Black cops are worse. That's the argument 100 BLACKS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT make, that they're there to "make a difference." Well, what difference have they made? Where? In policy, police guidelines and procedure, where have they made a difference?They can't change police procedure in urban areas because that policy is based on themission of the police in those areas-"fighting crime." And crime=Black people, a perceptionshared by Black as well as white cops.

They join for the same reason white cops join-theyget off on pushing people around. Simple.

Excellent point. If the token is Clarence Thomas, we're all in trouble,lol. If the token is say, Maynard Jackson, former mayor of Atlanta, who used his position to make sure that Blacks as a group got a chance to partake of the opportunities previously reserved for whites, it's a beautiful thing. Like u said though, people already in power, are very good at sniffing out WHICH type of Black person they are dealing with, and they often purposely pick the Tom,sellout, indivdualistic, i got mine, type. niceone.gif

[line]

Exactly. And that is why people should not take tokens at face value. We are so concentrated on sight in this society that we are blind to the covert intentions of those "empowering" the tokens. There are criteria in chosing tokens and with the right formula, the ruling class can simply reproduce themselves in a darker skin....meaning they can specifically pick out tokens who will do nothing but reinforce the dominant ideology and power. Clarence and Condoleeza were perfect choices for that agenda. They were not picked in order to diversify the power structure and provide a new voice for the minority group, they were picked to blend in with and reinforce the existing power structure.
niceone.gif