Whenever the press blares a Black Conservative’s views across the nation, the question is raised, “Who are these people, and what is their purpose?” The purpose of the press toward African Americans is clear and consistent, but what would cause a Black American male to publicly excoriate or vilify other Black people for a White audience is not always clear. 

Since this is a question that troubles many Black Americans, Gibbs interviewed a number of intellectuals, educators, average Black Americans, and students for their views and a possible answer to the question. 

It should be said that not all Black Conservatives vilify Black people, but the ones who do not are not heard from through the news media. Second, not all Black Conservatives should be lumped into this category as it is stylized by the media-sought Black Conservatives. Third, the harsh, Black-basher conservatives are a small cabal of media-sought Black Conservatives who  make their living off race commentary. Fourth, Blacks have always been morally and ethically conservative, but that is a different kind of conservatism from our new Black Conservatives. 

Dr. Barbara Cannon, Dean Emeritus at Merritt College and local community activist and TV personality, was asked to define what a Black Conservative is, and she said that the term is almost used in a pejorative way today: 

Blacks have always been conservative, that is, people who were ethical, who had a code of ethics, certain standards, and did things by the book—more by the book than most Americans--but the Black Conservatives seem to be individuals who are positioned to go by the White line of thinking, and they are more White than White; they tend to castigate Blacks and do not seem to understand the history of Black life in America. They are rigid and have adopted White values in terms of speech, philosophy, a certain type of lifestyle, etc. 

We have always had Black Conservatives, as Dr. Cannon said, and we have always had the two types of conservatives she categorized—the conservatives who are the traditional Black moral/ethical conservatives and the Black Conservatives who favor all things White as being correct, right, and chic. 

When asked to explain the seeming contradiction of  a conservative like Ward Connerly, who got his start from affirmative action contract set-asides and now he is against all forms of educational affirmative action, an interesting issue was raised: “Most Black Conservatives are married to White women. It could be that they have been heavily influenced by their interracial marriages and want to move as far away from Black people as possible.” 

But a young Black senior at the University of San Francisco disputed the concept that interracial marriages may have casting on the political bent and attitudes of Black Conservatives toward other Blacks. Instead, she cited such well-publicized conservatives as John Mc Whorter of UC Berkeley, as simply stupid—educated but still stupid: 

He may be married to a White woman, I don’t know, but I do know that he is really stupid. His ideas are not the result of some White woman’s influence—unless she is really stupid too; I mean, have you heard him? His ideas are really dumb. I think that Black Conservatives’ mindsets were already solidified before their marriages. That mindset may have helped determine their marriage choice, but I don’t feel that their wives have influenced them. Think about it: if Ms. White McWhorters influenced him into saying the many pejorative things he says about Black people, wouldn’t she be saying, ‘I don’t like Black people?’ And that would not help their marriage. 

Dr. Cannon said: “He [Clarence Thomas] was married to a Black woman before his second marriage. And in his confirmation hearing, he talked so harshly about his sister on welfare. He seems to have lost the caring feeling.” Dr. Cannon argues that many of the Black Conservatives have been bamboozled and have been paid in money and public recognition. The USF Senior agreed that they have been paid well, and beyond the money and having been bamboozled, she thinks that individuals such as Ward Connerly and Mc Whorters are in a form of denial: 

I think that they are in denial, and they want to be accepted by the larger community. So they create information that gives them attention and acceptance in certain circles of that community. Zora  Neale  Hurston did a lot of the same thing. Much of her writing sounds like an apologist; look at how she talks about Whites. Although she grew up in an all-Black town, she never said anything about Whites, other than how beautiful they were and how they helped her—no lynchings, racism, etc. I think she did that to get support for her research. I think that Mc Whorters, Connerly, and the harsh Black Conservatives are doing some of the same thing. They want White attention and financial support. How could they possibly believe what they are saying, especially Ward Connerly? How could you believe that there is no racism and that affirmative action is not necessary? Racism is not a factor of Black imagination. 

When asked how Blacks should respond to Black Conservatives, most said that Black Conservatives should be heard to see what they are saying, but they should be refuted immediately; much like graffiti. 

Black Conservatives sometimes state that they face the wrath of the Black community. Why shouldn’t they, when they have stylized themselves as castigators of the community? They speak and write no ideas the Black community has not heard. As a rule, Black Conservatives write to and for a White audience, and it is that audience that purchases their books.  

There can be no credible claim by Black Conservatives or those who sponsor them that they write to advance a Black dialogue. Instead, they are the new voices of an old dialogue—Whites writing about Blacks to bolster whatever stereotypes they have about Black people and to support systems of racial discrimination established against Black people. Those who have stylized themselves by their harsh rhetoric against Blacks—Steele, Thomas, Connerly, Mc Whorters, Crouch, etc.—only offer to Whites a black face to vent  ideas and ideals not now fashionably spoken or politically correct. They cannot offer sway in the Black dialogue or influence in the Black community, since they have no credibility there.

There are two sides to the coin of Black Conservatives: their handsome pay and rewards are the upside of their work. The tragedy that these Black rhetoricians of White concepts accrue to themselves and to the Black community is the downside, but they never see it because they live in other communities, among people who laud them for their callous voices.  

Ward Connerly used the flawed rationale that he wanted Blacks to feel good about themselves in getting into schools without affirmative action. And from that rationale, he launched a national campaign against ethnic affirmative action, and did nothing to help Blacks get into college,  but he left intact White affirmative action. On the other hand, Roy Innis contends that he presents the other side of reality, which Black Liberals (Steele calls them the Left, labeling in line with the label he has given himself) do not give to Black people--obviously he has not heard Haki Madhubuti, and other Afrocentric philosophers. But whatever form of reasoning and justification they use to obfuscate the real reason for their behavior, a look at their financial sponsorship and support lines will show who has brung them to this party. And it is sure, they dance with and for the one that brung ‘em.  

But sadly, some of them may not know or care that they undermine an entire community and set in motion the idea that to be the new intellectual and chic Black is to espouse White perceptions of Black people’s reality. And even though that is pathological, but they would never be caught on Dr. Poussaint’s couch.  

Historically, African Americans have always had these types of untreated individuals in the community. They were as present from slavery up through the Civil Rights movement, as they are today. They have had different names, but their function has been the same. They were/are always on the outskirts of the Black community, poking White fun at it and claiming a status they did not possess--intellectuals. While W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington engaged in the Talent Tenth debate worthy of the Black dialogue, the Black Conservatives, in their many disguises, were nearby, presenting White accepted wisdom draped in black faces.  

During slavery, Blacks were not allowed to communicate among themselves. And after slavery, Blacks were restricted by this free American press. But during slavery, Blacks found a method of stealing away to Jesus, and after slavery, we started our own media through which we could steal away to Jesus. And when Whites saw that our dialogue was outside and different from theirs, and that we kept our own counsel on issues, regardless of their broad propaganda, they sought other ways to influence our dialogue and thought. Paying Blacks to advance White ideas as if they were Black originated thought was one way used—a type of minstrel show. The Black community has always, however, been able to filter out those voices, know their sponsorship, and has consistently rejected them, regardless of the level of their elevation--Clarence Thomas is an example. 

The pathology of the harsh Black Conservatives is this: No one hates his own flesh, as St. Paul has rightly said. To hate oneself is against nature and pathological. And though they are hostile to the Black community, they are a part of that community, even though their actions indicate their hatred of it. That hatred is a self-hatred.   

It is a foolish man who destroys his own house, knowing that at some point in his life, he will need to go home for the nurturing that home affords. The party will always end, and the one that brung you will go to his home. But when you have destroyed your own house, there is no home to which you can return. That is a prospect Black Conservatives face.[]

Interviewed in 
Oakland &
Alameda, CA

See Black Bashers