In my book, I argue that there are three proper grounds on which to criticize a black person for racial treachery. I refer to these as the three types of constructive racial loyalty norms. The first norm punishes blacks for consciously seeking to advance the enemies’ interests. The second norm penalizes inexcusable meekness in the face of racism. And the third censures blacks for lacking concern for the race.
Each of these norms provides an effective manner of encouraging racial solidarity. If the black community, for example, minimized the amount of blacks who violated these norms in, say, the 1940s, the community would have better positioned itself to directly challenge Jim Crow. That is to say, adherence to these norms enhances blacks’ capacity to direct legal triumphs.
Julius Henson is a Republican consultant. He wanted to implement a strategy (I’m not certain what this strategy is yet) to suppress black turnout in the 2010 Maryland gubernatorial contest. The Ehrlich campaign, however, rejected it. On the day of the election, he administered a different strategy -- robocalls directed at black Democrats aimed at keeping them from the polls. The call said:
"Hello. I'm calling to let everybody know that Governor O'Malley and President Obama have been successful. Our goals have been met. The polls were correct, and we took it back. We're OK. Relax. Everything's fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight. Congratulations, and thank you."
So, in your opinion, did Henson violate any of the three constructive racial loyalty norms?
Some Henson Links: