have not known Latinos in the 20th Century to perpetrate a Red Summer.

No, but in the 21st century, Latino gangs are waging a war of ethnic cleansing in some of our cities. How is that any different from white mob violence against blacks?

Part of the problem is that, this being America, relations between Latinos and African-Americans vary widely depending on where you are. As I understand it, mixed marriages and relationships are very common in New York City, but there's definitely a nasty war going on out here in Los Angeles. So it's pretty hard to make a definitive statement of what the "real" state of affairs is.

All you need to do is google MS-13. Go ahead. Do it.

You'll find that yes, Virginia, Hispanics are being "violently distrustful."

No, but in the 21st century, Latino gangs are waging a war of ethnic cleansing in some of our cities. How is that any different from white mob violence against blacks?

Um...Because it's not implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by the authorities? Because it's a gang war and not something done on behalf of "the race"? And because black gang members are equally complicit in the violence?

Those are thee things.

Rush just doesn't realize he is creating a whole new ideological genre called intellectual vaudeville! -Kevo

I'm not sure what mixed marriages in NYC or gang on gang violence in LA have to do with the fact that there is absolutly no comparison to the white on black experience TNC describes in the pull out quote to what is going on anywhere in America today. That's a definitive statement and one that is very easy to make.

The smug disrespect inherent in Limbaugh's portrayal of the GOP as an oppressed minority, and his comparison of their situation to blacks in the Jim Crow era is breathtaking, but also instructive about the way that people like him view race. See, even Limbaugh has learned that some things are beyond comparison. He would never compare the GOP to European Jewry during the holocaust, nor the Obama Administration to the Nazis, but he has no difficulty denigrating the suffering that was meted out to a whole people -- OUR OWN people -- right here in the USofA.

If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. - Rush Limbaugh

Notice the words "ever...in America"

So apparently the Republican Party is suffering worse injustice right now than any other minority in American history.

Also, notice the word "if", which suggests that perhaps the civil rights movement of the 60s was, in fact, not needed.

Interesting perspective. Someone remind me: why is it that minorities arent flocking to the Republican Party?

If you're black, you don't get to just denounce your race to eliminate prejudice. But to my knowledge Republicanism has not been genetically defined as a birth condition. If Rush doesn't want to sit on the back of the bus, he merely needs to show a bit of tolerance for others, and stop pretending he was born that way.

The closest Limbaugh will ever come to being oppressed is when he has to buy two plane tickets to cover the fuel it takes to haul his fat ass to the Dominican.

Come to think of it, I'd be the disgusting pig wouldn't have minded the Sotomayor pick so much if she were Dominican...and twelve years old...and a boy.

THE BULLY'S BACK

There are gangs of every nationality, color, and religion all over the country. And for every cultural or racial gang (including the Limbaugh Republicans) there are many hundred of thousands of law abiding citizens (including the Powell Republicans).

If the Limbaugh Republicans tell you they feel "oppressed" it's not that they do, they lie to make you pay attention to them. Christians have been saying the same thing for twenty centuries even as they became the worst of the oppressors themselves.

They, like Megan McCain, Huckabee, et al. are bullies and use every strategy and tactic at their disposal to force you to their will.

I'm not sure what mixed marriages in NYC or gang on gang violence in LA have to do with the fact that there is absolutly no comparison to the white on black experience TNC describes in the pull out quote to what is going on anywhere in America today.

Sorry, I was veering off into a more general direction and not really addressing what TNC said. There is racial tension between Latinos and African-Americans in this country that varies by where you are but, as others have said, it's not the same thing as having a "sundown town" or the sheriff patrolling at night to make sure the "wrong" people aren't out after dark.

um, have you never read Time before? there isn't anyone too bright writing for them on a regular basis.

Hyperbole is one thing, but complete distortion of history is another

And both are the Republican talking points.

"If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party.

Rush has said some asinine things but this has to be right at the top. What's his evidence that the Republicans are "discriminated against?" Well, after they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency they have been described as completely incompetent to run government (two wars and the most severe recession since the Great Depression as well as allowing 9/11 to occur) so that they have been reduced to a minority party in Congress and lost the Presidency (that's bed - replaced by an African American! First one ever, at that.)

I'm curious. Has Rush's audience been shrinking? Is he feeling that his multimillion dollar paycheck is in danger?

I love listening to wealthy self-centered ideologues whine. There are some elements of Justice in the world after all. Not enough, and damned slow-acting, but some.

And anyone who thinks the gang problem doesn't have its roots in the way poor Americans are segregated into bad areas in the cities and starved for services and jobs is a fool.

Kids growing up in those conditions see no one around them who is successful, often come from single parent homes with the one parent spending most of their waking hours trying to cover the rent, and when they become teenagers they are genetically programmed to leave the family themselves. No jobs except crime. So what do they do? They do what all kids that age do - they band together in groups. What do the groups do? What a few leaders tell them to, and the only people how live in those areas who are financially successful are criminals. (The successful Blacks and Latinos move to better neighborhoods.) So the kids apprentice into crime. That (rational) behavior makes the police come down on them, so the police become the well-known enemy.

That is very similar to the social mechanism that powers public discontent leading to insurgencies. An insurgency occurs in countries in which the existing political system is too weak to prevent rivals from growing up and arming themselves. That's a major reason why every effective government demands a monopoly on the power to use lethal force.

Those gangs are built on the same basic human reactions as insurgencies. And they are all created by ineffective and repressive governments.

That's why every effective counterinsurgency has been first a political effort, only supported by (very) limited military operations. The ghettos that exist in American cities exist because the powers-that-be want to ignore those who live there. Most failing schools in America are a direct result of that desire to ignore the problem. Too many just want more money for policing but ignore schools, medical care, jobs and job training, and adequate housing.

People compare what they see others getting and demand the same for themselves. Show kids growing up in a ghetto TV with shows like "The Rich and the Famous" or show them the way sports stars and media stars live, then give them no legitimate way to get there and you will get violence and criminal activity, primarily by youths. Policing is not capable of preventing that. It's a political problem, one studiously ignored by the Free Market conservatives because they don't like the financial cost of the solutions.

That's just like the failure to deal with the Iraq insurgency by treating it as a purely military problem. It began to be worked out more successfully (not solved) when it was treated as a political problem that also involved the military.

And somehow that self-centered fool and demagogue, Rush, thinks the Republicans need the protection of a Civil Rights Movement? He is either stupid or evil. Or both. I'll bet on both. They aren't victims in this set of problems. They are a prime cause.

Rush's whine is like a bank robber who feels he is being victimized by the police when they track and arrest him for bank robbery.

The bolts that hold the Conservative Movement together are made of pure unalloyed victimization. This has been the case since the Watts riots and integration. It doesn’t matter how unhistorical or crazy the claims. All that matters is that the followers’ sense of victimization is affirmed and extended- the brown people are responsible for you losing your job- the lazy black people take your tax money and corrupted your school - the liberals destroyed your wholesome and patriotic country. Secular, with a little “s�, forces are never at play, your leaders are never to blame, it is always the machinations of the enemy outside of or inside of your country. This is a common method of rule for a failed political elite, an elite that does not address the material well-being, security and political inclusiveness of the population. It is the principle posture of the power-hungry. Under Nazi rule the German people were victims of the Jews not the other way around. The Republican base does not believe itself to be a part of a large multicultural community of communities. The base believes it is the True America under assault .

This is the sort of thing that bugs me when folks on the left pretend that racism is just as bad as it ever was and isn't going away. Sure, any racism is bad racism; but things are slowly getting better.

Back in the day, they could be openly racist and be rewarded for it. But for several decades now, racism has been relegated to code words and is rarely outright stated. And these days, racists are stuck using code words to describe the code words and generally will insist that only their opponents are racist. Most racists will insist that it's not racism that they're defending, per se, but rather "free speech" and the right to be racist. And so they attack "political correctness" which prohibits them from using the racist code words of just a few years ago. This is progress. Not as much progress as we need, but it's still progress.

And anyone who thinks the gang problem doesn't have its roots in the way poor Americans are segregated into bad areas in the cities and starved for services and jobs is a fool.

I gotta disagree wholeheartedly with that sentence.

Sorry champ, but no one is "segregating" those poor blacks into the cities. Just like no one is "segregating" those poor whites into Appalachia.

No one is keeping any black person from leaving the inner city. And no one is putting them there.

Enough with the victim rhetoric.

Just for the record Rush said "firehoses" not "firehouses". The latter is a transcription error.

No, but in the 21st century, Latino gangs are waging a war of ethnic cleansing in some of our cities.

Umm, you know that "West Side Story" is just a musical set in the 1950s, right? It's not actually a documentary about what's happening right now?

How is that any different from white mob violence against blacks?

Because one's imaginary and the other isn't?

Sorry champ, but no one is "segregating" those poor blacks into the cities.

Not into cities, but neighborhoods, I think that's pretty much irrefutable.

Just like no one is "segregating" those poor whites into Appalachia.

Leaving aside issues of poverty, real estate, mobility, jobs, familial obligations, interdependent networks, parochialism and about a million other things, you're right. They're not being segregated.

No one is keeping any black person from leaving the inner city. And no one is putting them there.

You're right. Circumstances aren't people.

Enough with the victim rhetoric.

But more of the simplistic assertions!

no one is putting them there.

I've consistently argued that I was able to make good choices and ensure that my parents were suburb-living professionals. It's not that hard. I don't see why everyone doesn't take more responsibility for where they are born and whom they are born to.

@3wolfmoon- Poor Americans live where they can afford to, which is an increasingly shrinking area, especially in the inner cities like NY. Movin on up to the East Side isn't an option. Its not victim rhetoric, its urban reality, that's why its called the ghetto. And M-13 is a latino drug gang, hardly an applicable comparison.

@Doc. B- It just takes a minute of listening to Rush or Newt to realize racism is alive and well in America. Sure, there are no fire hoses or dogs attacking people for walking down the street but I would say it is more dangerous today since the racist establishment has learned to play at being politically correct. Progress would be not having the word Latina in Sotomayor's description at all. White wasn't in Roberts.

The article( not to mention term latino) does not take into account the vast differences between the mexican, puerto rican and cuban populations in terms of history, culture and political views. Any reporter or publication doing a piece would be wise to take those differences into account lest they be viewed by the entire latino community( and those with familiarity of)as ignorant of those facts.

Pitiful how the villagers write. There has really been some tension between sectors of the black movement and Jews over the years, is that getting better now? I haven't heard much of an incendiary nature lately from Farrakhan, et al.

@Doc. B- It just takes a minute of listening to Rush or Newt to realize racism is alive and well in America.

Uh, Mike? I repeatedly called these people racists and said that we needed more progress. So what are you talking about?

And you're seriously arguing that it's more dangerous for Limbaugh and Gingrich to call Hispanics racist than for people to sick dogs on them? You clearly have a different definition of the word "dangerous" than I do. Again, while we still have further to go to combat racism, we've clearly made great strides when racists no longer feel comfortable using the racial code words that were used to mask the racism that was once considered acceptable.

And just so you know, a search on "Samuel Alito" and Italian has over 25,000 results on Google, while a similar search on Scalia gives us over 44,000 results. I don't know if that's a sign of discrimination against Italian-Americans, but just wanted to point out that it seems to be a part of their descriptions too. And more importantly, I fail to see how her race wasn't part of the reason she was selected; yet fail to see how this was racism on the part of Obama.

Because it's not implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by the authorities?

Are you sure?

Because it's a gang war and not something done on behalf of "the race"?

Actually, the racial aspect is explicit ...

And because black gang members are equally complicit in the violence?

... on the side of the Mexican gangs, not the AA ones.

I appreciate you engaging me on the subject, but I don't think you've read much on the issue.

Why does Rush feel "oppressed"? Because to ReRushlickins, not being able to oppress (as, when in control, they did Democrats) is to be oppressed.

Just replace the term "Republican Party" with "Bigoted Racists" or "Violent Authoritarian" and it's easy to see why they are in their current situation...REJECTED!...not discriminated against.

Rush "every little boy's big daddy" Limbaugh is so wretched he's become a model of contempt cultivating American depravity and ignorance and being paid millions to do it. Watch his spine dissolved by hate and fear turn cancerous. Many cold lecherous hands await his coming...soon I hope he will not leave them wanting.

*

"...no one is putting them there.

I've consistently argued that I was able to make good choices and ensure that my parents were suburb-living professionals. It's not that hard. I don't see why everyone doesn't take more responsibility for where they are born and whom they are born to.
Posted by: Tyro on May 28, 2009 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

That has to be one of the most shallow comments I've come across in sometime... Not considering immediate family histories, accidents and diseases you are overlooking generational poverty by claiming no one is putting them there... There is not a history of family and generational wealth for Afro-Americans like for American whites as they were kept as slaves without rights or property or education... which has only come about in the last few decades. By the time a few were able to become professionals they came from families dug into poverty and ignorance...whole neighborhoods, communities and cities whose people had no other place to go for multiple reasons... and here you are saying it was all about making the right choices ...,you've got to be kidding right...people don't really think that way do they...devoid of insight that is reality oriented....like believing you are in control of life's conditions. Oh you've got a big lesson coming to you...about how much you do control.

If you think sporadic gang violence, unsanctioned by any authority, is in any way comparable to fifty years of race war, mob violence and assassination, sanctioned by white people from top to bottom and north to south, then you have rocks for brains.

That has to be one of the most shallow comments I've come across in sometime...

LMAO. Click here.

"...n Bel-Air but culturally that's about where most liberals in fact live.
Posted by: mhr on May 28, 2009 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK
Bullshit. In fact most of the liberals I've known have been poor to middle-class working people and all people try to live in neighborhoods they feel are the best they can get into. I've only known conservatives living in the places you described...but I'm probably just as ill informed about that as you are, as you are (damn, keep repeating myself).

If you think sporadic gang violence, unsanctioned by any authority, is in any way comparable to fifty years of race war, mob violence and assassination, sanctioned by white people from top to bottom and north to south, then you have rocks for brains.

While I don't disagree with your gist, you may want to reevaluate the "unsanctioned by any authority" part and whether gang violence is a continuation of the race war by whites by other means.

"The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority." - Rush Limbaugh

Wow. For the first time in my life, I'm totally on board with oppressing a minority.

Me: Because it's not implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by the authorities?

You: Are you sure?

Me: Yes. In fact...

Me: Because it's a gang war and not something done on behalf of "the race"?

You: Actually, the racial aspect is explicit ...

Me: That's part of it, but for your thesis to be right (that this is "ethnic cleansing"), it has to be the only reason. I think this overlooks traditional turf wars, the money from the drug trade and dozens of other reasons in addition to race. It's not like gang violence is some new phenomenon or something. It's there without a racial component too.

Me: And because black gang members are equally complicit in the violence?

You:... on the side of the Mexican gangs, not the AA ones.

Me: I have no idea what you mean. This article has other interesting tidbits -- like the 2006 murder of two Latino gang members by African-American gang members, which the Mayor explicitly said "wasn't racially motivated". It also touches on the drug trade issue. Race is part of the equation (affiliation is part of the allure of gang culture to begin with) of course. But it's not like this violence is only happening one-way, from an authority-backed majority.

You: I appreciate you engaging me on the subject, but I don't think you've read much on the issue.

Yeah. I live in LA. I've read enough to know that it's been both sensationalized at the race level (but it's not fictional, please understand the difference) and underreported on the overall story.

Moreover, since your original point is that Latino gangs are ethnically cleansing blacks in "cities" (meaning more than one, a claim which I'd like some substantiation to review) AND that it's exactly the same as white mob violence -- I'd say that you don't understand a thing about what white mob violence was, how it was administered and how it's totally different than gang-related violence.

Thanks again, Jay B., but I don't see what the arrests are supposed to prove. These gangs operate in an economy created by prohibition policy and they are allowed to operate as gangs across prison walls. Is it too paranoid to suggest that these gangs are getting tacit approval or are part of the way that we are ruled?

I appreciate that you live in LA and I live in Texas and that we probably see different ethnic, legal, and criminal organizations and cultures. But specifically killing blacks is a requirement for membership in several Mexican-American gangs.

And I didn't say it was exactly the same, I asked how it's different. If gangs operate with a nod and a wink from the government that uses them to launder tax dollars into prison profits and to terrorize the citizenry into accepting sub-democratic conditions are clearing turf of one ethnic group, then I don't think it's an unfair question to ask. White violence against blacks (especially against black businesses, to eliminate the black middle class) enjoyed a similar nod and wink status in their day, which is what suggested the connection to me.

But I admit, I've lobbed a huge generalization out there and am too tired to do the research that would be necessary to back it up beyond the things I recall from news and documentaries over the last decade, so I'll stop now.

You're right. Circumstances aren't people.

Is it circumstances, or the lack of family values in the poorer urban black neighborhoods?

Do you think drugs, gangs, the supposed lack of jobs are the problems? Or is there maybe something else allowing all these things to fester?

Maybe a culture that doesn't just condone but glorifies single motherhood and baby daddies?

If the nuclear family were "cool" again, I think many of the problems liberals blame on society (and whites in particular) would go away.

Japanese were sent to camps and Chinese were used as cheap labor. And yet, Asians are some of the most well-off and educated people the U.S. Methinks strong family values has a lot to do with that. They don't play the victim card and don't complain about not enough government programs.

Gotta say I agree with JM's general argument. What is lacking in this analysis of white violence against blacks in the 20th century is that this primarily involved poor whites who were pitted against poor blacks by the machinations of white capitalists. As JM notes, this is pretty much the same underlying reason for hispanic v. black violence. Divide and conquer.

I think it's about time that progressive got back to their progressive roots and stopped buying into the wingnut frame that we live in a classless society. You can't properly analyze race relations in this country if you ignore that.

I agree with Rush, what's the world coming to when poor, old, doughy, white men are not on top?

/snark

If white males having absolute authority were "cool" again, I think many of the problems liberals blame on society (and whites in particular) would go away.

Fixed it for you.

And no; first of all, the idyllic days of the "nuclear family" you imagine are a myth, second, the problems you mention result from poverty, and neither poverty nor the problems magically sprang into existence in the '60s.

"Maybe a culture that doesn't just condone but glorifies single motherhood and baby daddies?"

Who's glorifying it?

Who's glorifying it?

Black culture: music, movies, media and print. Find me one black entertainer, movie star, singer or black-oriented publication that stands up against the whole single mother/baby daddy culture.

The only one I can find is Bill Cosby. And he gets torched for it.

And no; first of all, the idyllic days of the "nuclear family" you imagine are a myth, second, the problems you mention result from poverty, and neither poverty nor the problems magically sprang into existence in the '60s.

They are a myth? Really? Can you explain why children from families with a mother and a father do much better in school than children where there is no father figure present?

Do you think the problems of poverty stem from the fact that single-parent families can't work and raise children at the same time?

The fact is, middle class black families do quite well. Of course, those middle class black families tend to have a nuclear family.

But by all means, denigrate the role of a father as nothing but a myth. Fathers aren't needed - unless it is a gay couple.

That's what you're saying, right?

Like I said before: Asian immigrants have lifted themselves out of poverty and done it quite well. They needed no special laws or billions of dollars of government aid to do so. They did it themselves, backed by a strong sense of family.

Find me one black entertainer, movie star, singer or black-oriented publication that stands up against the whole single mother/baby daddy culture.

"Stands up" exactly how? Will Smith doesn't glorify any of the stuff you're so worked up about in his work, and has been married -- to Jada Pinkett Smith, no less! -- since 1997, with two kids. Oscar-winning actor Denzel Washington is also married with children, and a devout Christian, according to Wikipedia. Chris Rock, and the late Richard Pryor, have both criticized, much less glorified, black male foibles in their acts. I don't know if you'd call him an entertainer exactly, but Michael Jordan hardly glorifies thug life. And Morgan Freeman is one of Hollywood's go-to guys to portray wisdom and moral character.

Plus, Bill Cosby gets torched for it? Prove it.

And you're moving the goalposts -- not "standing up" against "the whole single mother/baby daddy culture" you claim exists is not the same thing as "glorifying it."

You were asked "who's glorifying it," and you respond with a vague, sweeping generality. Name three examples of the "black culture" of which you speak that glorify "the whole single mother/baby daddy culture" you claim exists.

They are a myth? Really?

Yes, really. "Leave it to Beaver" was a TV show.

Can you explain why children from families with a mother and a father do much better in school than children where there is no father figure present?

Easily: economic conditions are a much more reliable predictor of academic performance, and single parent families have half the income potential of a two parent family, as you admit. And that's true regardless of race.

Do you think the problems of poverty stem from the fact that single-parent families can't work and raise children at the same time?

They can't? That'd be news to, oh, say, Sonia Sotomayor, whose widowed mother did work and raise children -- a Princeton cum laude among them -- at the same time.

So no, I don't think the problems of poverty stem from single parenthood; there are many causes. And I certainly don't think the problems of poverty stem from causes that are unique to any racial culture.

The fact is, middle class black families do quite well.

The fact is, middle class families of any race do quite well. Duh. Then again, I don't know if I'd go that far; thanks to Republican policies, the middle class is under a lot of strain, but they're heaps better off than the poor.

Of course, those middle class black families tend to have a nuclear family.

What, there's no divorce among the middle class? I call bullshit. Prove it.

But by all means, denigrate the role of a father as nothing but a myth.

Who's doing that? I'm saying your evocation of '50s-style nuclear family middle class is a myth. Poverty and unconventional family structure are not a recent development.

So a single parent family with a father but no mother is hunky-dory? Pull the other one.

Fathers aren't needed - unless it is a gay couple.

And a two-parent lesbian couple is doomed to poverty?

And there are no poor nuclear families?

Prove it.

That's what you're saying, right?

No, that's your straw man, which you no doubt use because you can't support your assertions.

Like I said before: Asian immigrants have lifted themselves out of poverty and done it quite well.

Good for them, but you're generalizing again.

They needed no special laws or billions of dollars of government aid to do so.

Ahhhhh, now we see your game. One of the strongest cards the GOP plays in its game of victimized white male entitlement -- they're taking your tax dollars and giving them to the lazy n*ggers.

The majority of public assistance recipients are white, jackass. And why not, as they're the majority in this country.

Whether you know it or not, the purpose of the bullshit you're peddling is designed to justify the lousy status quo and deflect attempts to rectify economic inequities by blaming them on some mythical "black culture" that you so far have failed to establish actually exists, let alone has the pervasive and pernicious effects you claim.

The whole "if they're poor it's because they're morally deficient" goes at least back to Calivinist, if not Biblical, times, with a big surge in popularity around the victorian era. It's no less bullshit now than it was then. And it certainly isn't endemic to any particular racial culture -- what, there are no poor single parent white families?

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I'm embarrassed to have failed to cite John Singleton's wonderful Boyz n the hood as "one black entertainer, movie star, singer or black-oriented publication that stands up against the whole single mother/baby daddy culture"

And I hardly think the films of Spike Lee glorify the so-called "single mother/baby daddy culture."

Shame that you failed to mention the massacre of Tulsa, Oklahoma. As Tulsa was a wealthy oil boom town, part of that wealth drifted into the neighborhoods of African-Americans. The poorer whites helped trash, loot and burn them out.

However, as to Asian-Americans pulling themselves up better than African-Americans following the Civil War, I have never heard of Asian males being incarcerated to fill privately run prison systems. Following the Civil War, many former slaves were thrown into those types of prison for, usually, ten years, for the slightest infraction of any perceived "law". Speaking to a white woman; Ten Years. Talking back to a white male; Ten Years. This began the single parent problems throughout the South. The Southern state governments were very happy with this arrangement. Kept costs down as the prisons performed much needed infrastructure work. Therefore, generations of single parentdom became the norm. So, keep the Asian-American vs African-American view in perspective.

Gregory - you can prop up all the strawmans you like, but I'm not biting. I've never said we should have a "Leave it to Beaver" type nuclear family.

What I said was blacks suffer from a disproprotionately high degree of single motherhood and absentee fathers. No amount of government aid will change this and no amount can rectify the problems it causes.

But you knew that.

You also know that most poor blacks don't look up to Denzel Washington and Will Smith. Those guys "sold out." They look up to rappers like 50 cent or athletes like Travis Henry. Henry has what, 11 kids by 10 different mothers and he's married to none of the women?

I'm just tired of wasting tax dollars on programs that don't work and blaming whites, conservatives or anyone else for the problems of poor blacks.

They have no one to blame but themselves. They should start emulating the blacks that have established nuclear families and worked hard to get out of poverty.

And Bill Cosby? Please, the Washington Post's Richard Leiby even criticized him:

Bill Cosby was anything but politically correct in his remarks Monday night at a Constitution Hall bash commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision

You want black criticism of Cosby? Check the internet. It's all there. You can start at blackademic.com and move from there.