DISQUS

Generally speaking I’ve always found Dr. Dyson to be lacking the Afrikan Deep Thought required of critical thinkers, but I disagree that his “focus is off…way off” in this interview. Dyson is on target regarding Obama’s handling of GM vs AIG. He’s on target regarding Obama’s willingness to sacrifice the interest of Afrikan Americans in deference to a concept of universalism. He’s on target when he says that he expects all presidents to deal with the issue of race. He’s on target when he says that we cannot be so grateful to have Obama in office that we make no demands on him. He’s on target when he says that we cannot put all of our political eggs in one basket. Finally, Dyson is most definitely correct when he says that Obama generalized his way around a specific and extremely relevant question posed by Andre Showell of BET: "The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent. My question to you tonight is: given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what's the timetable for us to see tangible results?"

The only thing that I would say is that I don’t know why Dyson or anyone else would be surprised by Obama’s performance in the “race arena.” Candidate Obama did everything possible to present himself to white America as race neutral. Did anyone really expect President Obama to be any different, regardless of the obvious responsibility to tackle the specifics of that difficult issue?

I did not see the Smiley documentary, so I’m in no position to critique Dr. Harris-Lacewell’s analysis of the program. I will however challenge this statement by the Princeton professor:

“African-Americans are now citizens capable of running for office, holding officials accountable through democratic elections, publicly expressing divergent political preferences and, most importantly, engaging the full spectrum of American political issues, not only narrowly racial ones. The era of racial brokerage politics, when the voices of a few men stood in for the entire race, is now over. And thank goodness it is over. Black politics is growing up.”

What measurable outcomes can Harris-Lacewell identify to validate that statement? Growth is not equal to positive development. Simply holding office does not necessarily equate to holding power—the capacity to positively impact the material conditions of those you represent.

Black politicians were asleep at the switch while sub-prime lenders wrecked thousands of Afrikan American families as Pam Martens noted:

[According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion, for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in mod¬ern history:

"According to federal data, people of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites".

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."

Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.]

Based on the real unemployment statistics Afrikan America is in an economic depression. What strategies have Black politicians developed to remediate this crisis?

The reality is that Black politics in America, with all but a few exceptions is just another form of neo-colonialism.

Yo Doc, I listened to the program and took notes like any good student would. Big time props to Dr. Wilson for bringing some balance to this issue. I look forward to reading his book. I am familiar with the HCZ, but I had not heard about the president’s plans for 20 “Promise Communities.” I’m looking forward to seeing these plans.

I wonder why the president did not mention this when he was asked this question:
As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse," said Andre Showell of BET. "The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent. My question to you tonight is: given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what's the timetable for us to see tangible results?"

In a very carefully worded answer the president explained that his administration's plans for Americans who are down on their luck -- such as extending unemployment insurance and health care coverage for those who have lost their jobs -- will help all such people. He added that blacks and Latinos tend to be "overrepresented" among the unemployed, and so these measures benefit us.
He also said:
When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the Children's Health Insurance Program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families simply because they're the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.

So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.

And I'm confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it's helping communities all across the country." (Black Voices)
The 50 percent mentioned by Showell was from a 2003 New York City study: “Examining trends in joblessness in the city since 2000 (which) suggests that by 2003, nearly one of every two black men between 16 and 64 was not working.
Mark Levitan, the report's author, found that just 51.8 percent of black men ages 16 to 64 held jobs in New York City in 2003. The rate for white men was 75.7 percent; for Hispanic men, 65.7; and for black women, 57.1. The employment-population ratio for black men was the lowest for the period Mr. Levitan has studied, which goes back to 1979.”

If that was the case between 2000-2003, what is the situation today?

If he can spend $1 trillion on the finance industry and they don’t make a single product that you and I can touch with our hands, surely he can spend more than $50 billion on poor and working class Americans.—Dr. Spence

I totally agree with you on this point. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society never reached its potential in part because he made winning the Vietnam War a priority. President Obama is spending trillions of dollars to save failed financial institutions and other failed corporations. He will eventually spend trillions fighting two wars and on corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex.

Hyperinflation will probably hit before his social programs have any positive impact.

Well Doc, this is just something that we’ll have to agree to disagree on. I once heard Dr. John H. Clarke say something about BTW that was interesting. As I remember it, I was in Selma for the 30th Anniversary of the Bridge Crossing when I heard that Dr. Clarke was speaking in ATL. Things were winding down in Selma, so I hauled azz across the plains into the metropolis and arrived at the place before Dr. Clarke started speaking. JHC said that while BTW was publicly criticizing WEB et al; he was secretly funding efforts to end Jim Crow. JHC was basically saying that BTW was running a game on his white philanthropist supporters.

I never bothered to research this, but since I heard it straight from the mouth of a historian I have the deepest respect for, I believe that it’s more than likely true.

It just goes to show that BTW, like all historical figures was a very complex person.

Hotep!

I thought that was you Dr. Spence, but I was not positive. The previous comment was in response to this statement: “Booker T. Washington's ideas were bankrupt.” I read that as a blanket condemnation of the man’s total ideas. Certainly the idea to found and develop a great institution was not bankrupt. That’s just one of the pitfalls of blanket condemnations.

“Are you suggesting that we give the ideas of Booker T. Washington as HE, not his successors, put into practice a pass because he created a school that still exists today? Is that what you're suggesting?”

Not at all, I advocate and practice critical thinking, constructive criticism, self-criticism, creative contention, and making judicious selection of the best historical models to emulate.

Given the massive Black youth unemployment rate, I think the idea of pursuing skilled trades for those who don’t have an “academic” orientation is just as valuable today as when BTW suggested it.

I couldn’t understand why TU was being singled out when every HBCU prepares grist for the capitalist mill.

I think that every institution has to be judged based on the total scope of its positives and negatives, and generating income is only one factor. The Frank Lucas organization generated a lot of income for his family and his employees. When we compare the income generated to the damage done to our community, clearly the negative impact outweighs the positive. Some pundits would hold that the same is true for BET.

The comments on BTW notwithstanding, my main point was:

The real irony to me is that we have depression-like unemployment and a shrinking percentage of wealth amongst Afrikan Americans at a time when we have an Afrikan American president of the United States.

It’s granted that President Obama inherited these conditions. The real question is will his policies remediate the problems or will they facilitate the deterioration of the conditions outlined by the NUL?

Facebook User, if you want to totally disregard the ideas of BTW that is your prerogative. I would say that conceiving of an idea, developing it, and sustaining an institution which has educated thousands of Afrikan Americans secures Washington’s place in history. After all how many Afrikan Americans have done that?

I don’t have a problem with Dr. Jelani Cobb’s approach of applying the thoughts of historical figures to current conditions. Indeed Dr. Martin L. King’s speech “Why I Am Opposed To The War In Vietnam” is very much relevant to the Iraq War and to the coming escalation of war in Af-Pak.

As a synthesizer of ideas I’ve always attempted to avoid the “either or” argument similar to the way Taylor Branch described Dr. Vernon Johns: “Like Booker T. Washington, he espoused hard, humbling work in basic trades, as opposed to W.E.B. Bu Bois’s ‘talented tent’ strategy… Like Du Bois and Frederick Douglass, Johns advocated a simultaneous campaign for full political rights. He rejected as demeaning and foolhardy Washington’s accommodationist strategy of offering to trade political rights for economic ones. Like Dubois, he believed fiercely in the highest standards of scholarship… But like Washington, he believed that the dignity and security of a people derived from it masses, and that without stability and character in the masses an elite could live above them only in fantasy.”

“Quite simply black America has waged a more effective civil rights movement than economic rights movement.” – Jelani Cobb

I totally agree with that assessment. There are four major elements of power: economics, education, culture and politics. Over the past 40 years Afrikan Americans have taken an unbalanced approach to power—overwhelmingly focusing on electoral politics at the expense of the other three areas. The problems highlighted in the 2009 NUL report are primarily the result of this unbalanced approach to power.

The real irony to me is that we have depression-like unemployment and a shrinking percentage of wealth amongst Afrikan Americans at a time when we have an Afrikan American president of the United States.

For example:

[According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion, for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in mod¬ern history:

"According to federal data, people of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites".

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."

Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.]—Pam Martens

It’s granted that President Obama inherited these conditions. The real question is will his policies remediate the problems or will they facilitate the deterioration of the conditions outlined by the NUL?

There are some disturbing trends. The Washington Post noted that:

“The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

This strategy has so far attracted little scrutiny on Capitol Hill, and even some senior congressional aides dealing with the financial crisis said they were unaware of the administration's efforts. Just two weeks ago, Congress erupted in outrage over bonuses being paid at American International Group, with some lawmakers faulting the administration for failing to do more to safeguard taxpayers' interests.

In another program, which seeks to restart consumer lending, a special entity was created largely for the separate purpose of getting around legal limits on the Federal Reserve, which is helping fund this initiative. The Fed does not ordinarily provide support for the markets that finance credit cards, auto loans and student loans but could channel the funds through a middleman.

At first, when the initiative was being developed last year, the Bush administration decided to apply executive-pay limits to firms participating in this program. But Obama officials reversed that decision days before it was unveiled on March 3 and lifted the curbs, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Add to this the comments of William Black to Bill Moyers:

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Geithner is charging, is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.

These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed, not because...

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation's top regulators, during the entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave no warning. He did nothing in response to the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud. All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his phrase about legacy assets. Well he's a failed legacy regulator.

BILL MOYERS: To hear you say this is unusual because you supported Barack Obama, during the campaign. But you're seeming disillusioned now.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they're refusing to obey the law.

I hear Dr. Ron Daniels when he says, “That's why Marc Morial's action in demanding that President Obama do something about the gross disparities between Blacks and Whites in education, health, income and wealth was courageous and exemplary.”

Surely Daniels and everyone else concerned know that it’s going to require massive social action to move the President in that direction.

“…in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,… we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." – Eric Holder

Well, the pot can’t call the kettle black.

“The United States has decided to boycott an upcoming UN conference on racism unless its final document is changed to drop all references to Israel.”

This decision is a cowardly act by the Obama Administration.

……”If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.”-- Eric Holder

Obviously, President Obama has no tolerance for certain "frank conversations" on the subject of race. The refusal to engage in dialogue with people who disagree with you on this most difficult subject sends the wrong message to both America and the world. This is an indication that Obama lacks the courage and conviction to morally defend his position on the subject.

Apparently the real issue is that the President disagrees with Attorney General’s language.

“I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language. I think the point that he was making is that we’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict, and that we could probably be more constructive in facing up to the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination." -- President Obama

“The US also did not want the document to take up the issue of reparations for slavery, which was another hot topic in the Durban 2001 conference.”


Well practice what you preach brother regarding facing up to painful legacies, because your refusal to sit at the table of UN Conference on Racism is a recapitulation of what the white supremacy dynamic has done for the past 144 years.

Barack Obama is not the first Black president. He's the first race-neutral president, who happens to be an Afrikan American.

Charlie, you can take that 48-hour Cialis now, I’ll be waiting round the corner. Just don’t run a stop sign like the other Charles did.

Mel Watt and Bobby Scott: Dang I wish I was on the front row.

Bobby Rush: Hurry up hussy; I need the CBC to vote on supporting Burris. I beat Barack once and I’ll beat him again.

Corrine Brown: You dropped da bomb on me Nancy; you dropped da bomb on me.

Lady in Blue (?): So I gotta get up early in the morning; Gotta find me another lover.

Dr. Spence, I’m referring to a very specific energy which was organized for a specific purpose around a charismatic personality. Now I see that his supporters are attempting to sustain their momentum by directing that energy to support Obama’s agenda:

Change Is Coming - House Meetings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ym1o0bwThA

http://www.examiner.com/x-1892-Phoenix-Progress...

I agree with Elder Sister Boggs that “energy is a substance that can be invoked by one group or another but depending on how it is invoked can generate its own momentum, its own energy.” For example one could argue that the energy invoked by the Montgomery Improvement Association, despite the lapse of time, eventually evolved into the sit-in movement which led to the formation of SNCC.

However, I would argue that these young people generated their own energy which was the critical element in the success of the Civil Rights Movement. The young people who formed SNCC rejected the appeal by Martin King to become a component of his organization. Under the influence of Ella Baker they decided to become a self-determining entity.

Could elements of Obama’s energy free themselves and organize into a dynamic which addresses the evil triplets. I agree that it could happen, but I don’t just don’t see it. I see that energy as totally captivated and revolving around Obama’s magnetic appeal. For most Afrikan Americans the man is above criticism. “In Barack we trust” is the order of the day.

See: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/29...

The energy to address the evil triplets will come from other sources.

Dr. Spence, I can't take it the wrong way because I'm not sure that I understand your perspective. Who or what is "this network?" Perhaps we need to level set.

I thought that the focus of Elder Sister Boggs' comments was the mass of energy Barack Obama set in motion.

Certainly I've seen energy organized by one group co-opted and re-directed by others. I'm not sure that is what you are proposing, but if it is I don't see it happening. The mass of energy I'm referring to belongs exclusively to Obama. Everyone else will have to organzie their own.

Shouldn't our first step be assessing what we can do with this energy to create the new type of spaces we want to come into existence? And aren't these steps more possible now than they were two years ago?--Dr. Spence.

The point that I was trying to make in my first post was that this “energy” revolves around the Obama mystique, and even he couldn’t marshal his forces to support Jim Martin in Georgia without “personal” involvement.

Given that fact, what chance does anyone else have of moving this energy into positive action?

Perhaps we are saying the same thing. I wonder if this brilliant elder envisions those inspired by Obama eventually challenging his militarism, e.g.?

Our Elder Sister Grace Lee Boggs is hopeful that the mass of energy Barack Obama set in motion can be sustained and directed into positive action now that the raison d’etre of the mass has been achieved.

The potential is there, but I don’t see it happening. Obama is a master of political expediency, not a leader of moral conscience. While conscience asks the question is it right, Obama wants to know what are the political risks and rewards of taking any action.

A case in point is Obama refusal to personally campaign for Jim Martin in Georgia during his run-off with Saxby Chambliss for the US Senate. Obama obviously decided Martin’s potential (and eventual) loss wasn’t worth investing his political capital. Campaigning for Martin may have been the right thing to do, but it wasn’t expedient.

If the millions who were inspired by Obama are to move against the evil triplets—racism, militarism, and materialism, they are going to have to do it on their own.

We'll see on Monday when Palin makes three appearances with Chambliss. ATL Creative Loafing is calling the run-off, "a referendum on how comfortable Georgia voters are with their new president-elect." Conservatives are calling Chambliss the last man standing between Obama domination and their values. I would expect Palin to hit on that theme.

I also see this run-off as a test of the sustainability of the grassroots activism Obama ignited during his campaign. Tim Wise considers these people to be “mobilized and active, and that energy is looking for an outlet.”

According to CL, “Obama's Georgia campaign infrastructure – 25 field offices and a grassroots army that mobilized many people who'd never even voted – has remained in place for Martin.”

However, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel reports that “voter turnout among African-Americans comprised 22 percent of early voters as of Nov. 21, compared to 34 percent in early voting for the general election.”

This is think, is the real challenge for the Wise thesis, and for others who think like him. How can a “movement” that was primarily organized around a charismatic personality, which as already achieved its overarching goal sustain its momentum and be effective in other arena’s without the direct involvement of the charismatic leader.

"Sarah Palin will make campaign appearances next week in Georgia on behalf of Senator Saxby Chambliss for his runoff election."

Dr. Spence, I believe that the Senate run-off in Georgia is a good test of your "Southern Strategy is dead theory."

Asante Dr. Spence for your reply. While I understand the Harold Ford and Harvey Gantt analogies, I think that it is extremely difficult to compare the Republican margins of victory in those races to the thrashing that Dukakis took in 1988.

Secondly, McCain never employed the Southern Strategy. Conservatives were asking throughout the fall where is Jeremiah Wright? McCain consistently tried to temper the hatred of Obama which was expressed at many of his rallies. So we really don’t know if the Southern Strategy (as presently defined) is dying or diminished, but if Sarah Palin runs in 2012 we’ll find out.

I’ve argued that economics trumped race in the 2008 presidential election. We’ll never know whether or not the outcome would have been different if Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson had decided to bail out Lehman Brothers on September 15, when McCain was running even with Obama, in what turned out to be, the remarkably accurate polls.

It was this “economically shocked” element of the white electorate which pushed Obama ahead in the polls and onto victory. This element obviously had not been sold on Obama’s message prior to the Lehman ignited economic cataclysm.

Therefore, I think it’s a tremendous leap to say that Obama’s election signals a white attitudinal paradigmatic shift. Tim Wise says Racism 2.0 allows European Americans to still view the larger Afrikan American community negatively, while making exceptions for non-threatening, race transcending individuals who pose no threat to their hegemony. Wise calls this enlightened exceptionalism, while I would call it refined white supremacy.

But please note that I’m not making a blanket indictment of all white people.

I do however believe that Obama’s election will result in a more racially polarized society, simply because latent European American xenophobia has been awakened. I would also be extremely surprised if there is not some type of overtly racist white backlash directed towards Afrikan Americans, simply because of race.

Our good brother Dr. Spence seems to be drawing a ton of conclusions based on preliminary data.

Spence’s premise as I understand it is that the race-based Southern Strategy of the GOP is dead.

The facts are that McCain received more white votes in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi that G.W. Bush did in 2004. And McCain won the white vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana.

Ohio is particularly interesting since Obama carried the state with 40,000 fewer votes than John Kerry received in 2004. The reason for Obama’s victory in Ohio appears to be that fewer white Republicans turned out to vote in 2008.

Overall Barack Obama received about 43% of the white vote, compared to 41% for John Kerry. Obama won a majority of the white vote in 16 states. That is a remarkable achievement, but that also says that the majority of whites in 34 states voted for McCain. I would like for Dr. Spence to provide his detailed analysis of why Obama received this small but significant increased percentage of white votes.

Of course, I have my own theory. Of the 43% of white voters who supported Barack Obama surely there are millions who were attracted to the magnetic appeal and soaring oratory of this race-neutral politician. Others simply voted for the person they considered to be the best candidate to serve their interest.

The critical element of these white’s who moved Obama from even with McCain in mid-September to his margin of victory were shocked by the economic meltdown, and McCain’s subsequent economic incompetence into voting for an Afrikan American. It was classic Friedmanist shock treatment which ultimately propelled Obama to 1600, which is obviously what a critical faction of oligarchs and plutocrats wanted.

These white voters who were economically shocked into voting for Obama have absolutely no interest in social justice for Afrikan Americans, and I’m quite frankly surprised by Dr. Spence’s extrapolations which suggest otherwise. They were purely motivated by their own self-preservation.

Is it possible that the GOP has won by losing and that the Southern Strategy at the local/regional level is already being refined? Consider this:

[But look more closely, and you see a heavy influx of moderate to conservative members in the incoming freshman Democratic class, particularly in the House. Of the 24 Republican-held districts that Democrats won in 2008, Kerry carried just three in 2004. Democratic victories on Nov. 4 included Alabama's 2nd district (where Kerry took 33 percent of the vote) and Idaho's at-large seat (where Kerry won just 30 percent). In fact, according to tabulations by National Journal's Richard E. Cohen, 81 House Democrats in the 111th Congress will represent districts that Bush carried in 2004.]— Chris Cillizza

How much ideological difference was there between the Democratic winner—Bobby Bright, and the Republican loser—Jay Love in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District?

[Bright is the first Democrat to capture this seat in half a century, but he promises not to stray too far from the policies of his fiscally conservative Republican predecessors. He is anti-abortion and opposes gun control. He believes the role of the government should primarily consist of national defense. "I'll put party politics in the back seat," he says.]—NYT

For all of this talk about the use of community organizing and the internet, the 2008 turnout was about the same as 2004 based on the preliminary data:

Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004,” reports Curtis Gans, the director of American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

[Exit polling suggests that there was no statistically significant increase in voting among either group. Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later. The surge in young and African American voters is not entirely the stuff of myth, however. Although their percentages as a portion of the electorate didn't increase measurably, Obama did seven points better among black voters than Sen. John F. Kerry did in 2004 and scored a 13-point improvement over Kerry's total among young voters.]- Chris Cillizza

Dr. Spence really needs to explain this white attitudinal paradigm shift he’s suggesting. Quite frankly I believe that Tim Wise’s “Racism 2.0″ analysis is more on target. The history of the White Supremacy Dynamic proves its capacity for sustainability through refinement. Hopefully Dr. Spence and many other Afrikan Americans have not been shammed by this latest version.