Joanna found this article at the Black Electorate, and everyone should read it. Some near random snippets:
Among American Conservatives, of any race, it has become a common practice to make derisive reference to so-called “race hustlers”, “racial arsonists”, “shakedown artists”, and “professional victicrats.” The usual targets include Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan. I find their fixation on African-American leaders, and the aforementioned three in particular, to be unhealthy, but I guess it is a pillar of their school of thought. Someone has to fight against the bad Black Men who oppress cuddly innocent White folk and exploit “White guilt.”
…
When White Conservatives spend an excessive amount of time whining about “racial arsonists” I feel like I am witnessing an old predator who is trying to avenge a grudge from the Civil Rights movement or a sad frustrated Massa Jefferson who has been scorned by Sally Hemmings (“They’re supposed to love me; why won’t they do as I say?”). Those mental images make the positions and apparent thoughts of certain Non-White Conservatives particularly unpalatable. Though it might come as a surprise to some people who know me, sometimes I think that a few of these individuals raise valid points and might mean well (I won’t name names). But still, I often have to ask, what is going on with these people?
I wonder if they know how difficult it is not to demonize them and dismiss their work when we read pieces like Dinesh D’Souza’s “Two Cheers for Colonialism.” We almost have to pity them when we hear statements like “There was no need for a Civil Rights Movement; things were getting better on their own” or “I am glad slavery happened; without it we wouldn’t have the benefits of (Western) Civilization.”
…
It is acceptable for someone to criticize politics, policies, ideas and individuals within our movements and our organizations. But no one has any business telling us that a given assault was “good for us” while also complaining about the “Balkanization of America” and “racial arsonists.” It seems that these people will use any means to do public relations for anything done by the West and the White Right in particular. They feed and entertain their fan base, but no matter their true intentions, they paint themselves as open enemies to the rest of us. Anyone who is so misguided in a public persona is more than worthy of the “race hustler” and “arsonist” slurs.
–Andy J. Solages
I, of course, have recently been referred to as a “race hustler.” What I have to say about that is: if you are banned from someone’s site, consider that it may not be because they fear your opinion. It may be that you actually are silly and rude.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Does anyone really feel sorry for Imus? I don’t think so. He wasn’t hustled.
It was the image-conscious corporate media who were hustled. But, you know, I like to watch them squirm.
Hi, Dave – On Imus, I’ll bet there are people who do feel sorry for him. I am one of those who wrote MSNBC on him.
On ‘race hustling’ – you know, I just learned the term, and I am actually talking about it because it has been said that I am a ‘race hustler’ myself! 😉
That’s as may be. Frankly, I hustle people with regard to language all the time. Other people play a shell game where they are not subtle at all.
The fact is, it is almost impossible to con someone who isn’t asking for it. If Al and Jesse are race hustlers, it’s only because some people are soft marks.
Farrakhan is different. I’ve probably only heard one of his speeches and I’ve only read his paper once, but I never thought of him as a shakedown artist.
Complaints about being hustled by those guys sound more legitimate when I’ve heard them from blacks. I don’t know why white people are complaining.
“Someone has to fight against the bad Black Men who oppress cuddly innocent White folk and exploit ‘White guilt…'”
And also against the bad folk that look and write like me, apparently, since I seem to have attracted an infestation of something only slightly less irritating than crabs. :^)
I’m reminded of the old line, “The proof is in the pudding.” Is it applicable here?
I appreciated reading this post this morning, PZ, since the comment fare over at my place has gotten considerably less erudite of late. It’s funny. When you’re gone a while, the regular commentators become otherwise engaged, but the trolls are the first ones back. Why am I not surprised? ;^)
CS – The proof of the pudding is in the eating … applied exactly how?
CS & Dave, yeah. Bad Black Men making white people feel guilty – I must be weird, if that is what they are up to, it doesn’t work on me. My reaction tends to be, oh, good! Someone is talking about these problems! And then listen to the analysis. Apparently this reaction is too adult: I need to see them more as bogeymen, and I need to feel less agency/choice about how I react and think. (And that, of course, reminds me of my infamous Reeducation, which was not even about race, but was about how I should relate to the world.)
Why white people are complaining: I guess it’s the ones who are racist and want to remain that way. Rachel at Rachel’s Tavern is having serious-serious troll trouble. My theory is that they are upset with her because she is being anti-racist while white. She is also married to a Black man, which is still scandalous to many.
What I, personally, today do not like about white people on these topics is:
1. They think that I am motivated to speak and act by GUILT. Actually, I do not feel guilty around these issues at all, although I do feel some responsibility and I think that is appropriate. But these whites insist, oh, you’re just feeling guilty.
2. When they figure out I do not feel guilty, they go on about how I need to beat my breast more about having WHITE PRIVILEGE. I know I do, and I did not discover that yesterday. It is one of the reasons I feel I have some sort of RESPONSIBILITY in all of this. However,
2a. I am not interested in prefacing everything I say with, “I know I have white privilege and therefore cannot know anything and do not have the right to speak.” I do not agree with that.
2b. I am interested in affirmative action, but I am not interested in giving extra points to non-white students for being non- white, and I do not think that would be the same as affirmative action.
2c. I realize that the non-whites in the Bush Administration may be the first to fall, may have more blame assigned to them, and so on, and that this is an effect of racism. However, I do not feel at all sorry for the likes of Alberto Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice, et al., and I do not think they are victims. By the time they were in a position to be in this Administration, they already had very good jobs and plenty of choices. I think the whole Administration to fall. If only the Bushies Of Color fall, it will not be a reason to let them out of jail, it will be a reason to sue for discrimination and lock the rest of them up, too.
So, in sum, what I do not like is that at the same time as they dismiss any sense of ethics or reponsibility as “guilt,” they also claim one is not feeling guilty *enough.” Does this make any sense … or am I missing something?