Submitted by Rich Rostrom, Jan 9, 2008 02:43

The informer against a slave conspiracy is not a good exception. To begin with, he is complicit in real oppression of his fellows. Second, it is very likely that he has a privileged position among slaves. There were slave overseers at some plantations. They too could make a case that by humanely enforcing work discipline they ensured the prosperity of the plantation community, and avoided slaves being "sold down the river". But they nonetheless collaborated in a system of exploitation.

Opposition to racial quotas is different: a moral case can be made that such quotas are inherently wrong, whether blacks are favored or disfavored. One can further argue that the racial identification required by quotas is wrong - and a direct copy of the identification used against blacks.

However, the real reason for the "sellout" label is more subtle. Much of present-day black "leadership" has become rich through racial set-asides in contracting, race-quota partnerships in business deals, and sweetheart deals extorted from corporations. For instance, Jesse Jackson campaigned against the racism of Anheuser-Busch, which awarded his sons the lucrative Budweiser distribution rights for most of Chicago.

This racket would collapse if black Americans stopped thinking in terms of race identity or believing that race-demands are how success and wealth should be allocated. When blacks attack race-identity thinking, condemn racial quotas, question the racial alarmism peddled by the race hustlers, or even reject "yellow-dog" loyalty to the Democratic party, they threaten the racket. They are "sellouts", not of blacks, but of the "black leadership" class.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

The New York Sun reply: