In response to "When Black Republicans Go Bad" by Trey Ellis

I think the posting of Trey Ellis's view "When Black Republicans Go Bad" contains some disturbing elements that appear to escape most responders. Now, Mr. Ellis makes it obvious that he is dark-skinned by posting his picture along. I guess that makes him somewhat of an authority on matters of race, although last time I checked I was still labeled "Caucasian" so by the same token that should make me an authority of whatever sums up us "white" folks.

Now then, I hereby willfully distance myself from that notion and rather go by the merits as Mr. Ellis presents them. If I get this right, Mr. Ellis's major gripe is with "blacks" that don't act "black" politically and his references focus on Claude Allen and Justice Clarence Thomas, who, as I perceive it act according to him— perhaps along with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell—as "blacks" suffering from an Uncle Tom syndrome.

The gist of Mr. Ellis's rant is the question of "why are we so surprised that Claude Allen, until recently the President's chief domestic policy advisor, is being accused of scamming Target out of over $5000?"
Well, he may be surprised, but mainly it seems because Mr. Allen is " a black man who got his start working for Jesse Helms, the former Senator who had the delightful habit of calling all black people, "Fred."

In my personal opinion, anyone, from any background has the right to associate themselves with whomever they choose, even if that may lead to their downfall. So, as a "liberal" I simply accept that Mr. Allen apparently feels some kind of ideological kinship with Jesse Helms. Perhaps Mr. Ellis will next ponder the insanity of many "blacks" that associate themselves with Jesus—who is not being portrayed as "black" by church or media, while he most certainly was not as "white" as he's commonly depicted...

Then, Mr. Ellis introduces the nigger/Fred parable as further evidence that Mr. Allen is not only "black" but also crazy (a crazy nigger). Yet, Mr. Allen has no accusations as such levied against him. Rather, he's being charged with defrauding Target of $5,000. What's unfortunate is that he's "black" and now Mr. Ellis not only holds it against him that here is a "black" man who plays Uncle Tom to his "white superiors," but also conforms to the biased view that "blacks" would more than anyone engage in crime and violence. More than Republicans, or almost as much as Republicans? I'm missing the point.

Yes, Mr. Allen must be crazy and criminal because he also associates with other crazy Republican "blacks," one of whom "sees pubic hairs in a can of Coke."
Hell, and that happens to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Mind you, still an Uncle Tom anyway according to Mr. Ellis. (By the way, the Coke phrase originated from Senator Orin Hatch's questioning during Thomas's confirmation hearings and is not on record as confirmed by Thomas)

Poor "black" people! They just can't shake the stigma of being stereotypically "black," no matter how hard good-willing nigger-anecdoting "blacks" like Mr. Ellis try to explain their duty to other "blacks" to not think for themselves but align without restraint with the spineless Democrats that have failed to grasp power in the previous two and possibly next elections. How about "blacks" that think for themselves and want to associate with winners? Are they like Jews for Christ? How screwed up is that?

Mr. Ellis goes on to expose "black" Republicans like Mr. Allen and Justice Thomas that subscribe to a "hyper-whiteness," by "staking out positions that even whites in the South grew out of in the Fifties." Excuse me? Justice of the Supreme Court? Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to The President? Here Mr. Ellis's reasoning begins to fall apart, but he blindly continues by asserting the stereotypes "blacks" and "whites" (and Asians, and Arabs, and Eskimos?) apparently have when he states that it's "no wonder" that [black Republicans] "every now and again snap" by associating "petty criminality with 'blackness' and [romance] with "the size of [their] schlong[s]."

And there we have it. Mr. Ellis's own views don't seem to reach beyond these stereotypes and he certainly doesn't offer any other views here.
Therefore, his final wag of the finger whereby he lectures Mr. Allen and Justice Thomas not to associate " blackness" with crime, violence and sexuality is as lame as an, uh, lame dick.
Mr. Ellis seems quite content with the example he chooses of a Willie Horton whom he calls not "the sum of us [blacks]." His article does nothing for the "black" psyche of a free people, free to choose, and free of being a slave to their own history. In a way, Mr. Ellis has described himself, or rather summed himself up as someone who is confused about his own blackness. That's fine. The finger points back.

If I may then sum it up myself: there are plenty assholes, and they exist on either side of the very narrowly defined American political aisle, no matter what the color of their skin is. So, where's the hype? A greedy bigot Republican ought not to be defined otherwise than for what he or she stands for. Mr. Allen has merely operated in agreement with the current neo-con culture of deception, corruption, misinformation, murder, and torture. One day, he and his ilk may face greater consequences than being accused of stealing $5,000. Mr. Ellis, in my opinion, has written a racist piece and that's what I accuse him of.