In this "bull in a china shop" metaphor, if I am the "bull", then who is the fragile "china"?  Are the political ideas of the whitosphere so fragile that the slightest bit of irreverent examination will shatter them like glass?  Are the egos of the white male paradigm proponents so fragile that they cannot bear to have a Black man hold their ideas up for public inspection, to demonstrate their flaws for all of the world to see?

My ideas and my challenges are only powerful to the extent that others might agree with them.  If my ideas are silly, then eventually everyone will conclude that I am a clown and nothing I say will be taken seriously no matter where I publish it.  But, if my ideas are compelling and challenging, then there is, indeed, the risk that by charging around speaking my mind I might modify the minds of others.  

THERE is the china to which Jill was referring - the fragile concepts of white male supremacy, founded in a slew of lies and perpetuated by a common agreement that anyone who breaks this china is an aggressive bull.  Call me a bull, then!  I'm going to break the white-male supremacy china!

It will not surprise me if my posting privileges are eventually removed at many if not all "progressive" blogs.  At one time, it was illegal in many American states even to teach Black people to write.  Frederick Douglass  Princeton.Edu  Why, during slavery, did whites make it illegal to teach Blacks to read and write, if not to perpetuate our servitude?  Whites must have been terribly concerned what the slaves might write about were they to put pen to paper.

During slavery, it was illegal to teach blacks to read and write. Can anyone doubt that this created fundamental inequalities that gave whites an advantage that was sponsored and institutionalized by the government?

After slavery, we find the separate-but-equal doctrine that, at first glance, appears to correct discrimination.

But this policy instead perpetuated the defects, deficits and disadvantages created by the prior discrimination based on race.

The 1954 Supreme Court decree also perpetuated the DDDs - defects, deficits and disadvantages - by treating equal access as if it were equal opportunity. Think of the earlier separate-but-equal doctrine as a circle with a line down the middle.

Blacks are on one side, whites on the other. In 1954, the Supreme Court erased the line. In short, everyone has equal access to all parts of the circle, without regard to race.

But the Supreme Court did not mandate equal opportunity. That would have dealt a death blow to white supremacy.

To understand how equal opportunity differs from equal access, reflect on the picture of an Olympic track and runners. One track goes uphill, another downhill; one is strewn with rocks, another with glass; and the fifth is both level and free of debris.

No runner is excluded, and each can start at the same time and run the same distance.

But equal opportunity presupposes a level playing field.  http://www.fsu.edu/~fstime/FS-Times/Volu me3/nov97web/9nov97.html

Bill Jones, Director of Black Studies at Florida State University has said,

To set up a policy which puts the blame on black people is a false causality. Look at education. Go back to slavery. It was illegal to teach blacks to read and write. The U.S. government had a policy of total exclusion. That was legal segregation, which was what you had under apartheid.  FSU  Black Issues Book Review

Then, with the laws of slavery guaranteeing that Blacks could not learn to read and write,

U.S. Sen. John C. Calhoun, the famous fire-eating defender of slavery, once said that if he "could find a Negro who knew the Greek syntax, he would then believe the Negro was a human being."  Toledo Blade

Whites historically have not wanted Blacks to learn to read and write simply because they knew intuitively that they absolutely would not like what slaves would write, if we were permitted to write anything at all.

Meanwhile, am I really an "uninvited guest" at the whitosphere blogs?  Is a "progressive" Democratic blog not an open invitation to the public to share diverse Democratic ideas?  I only become an "uninvited" when those who have extended an open invitation to the public nonetheless suddenly decide to withdraw and rescind their ouverture with respect to me.  

The "progressive" blogosphere is like a theatrical playhouse where the owners and even the audience may disconnect the lights at any moment if they dislike the content of the play.  Far be it from "progressives" to simply walk out on a play themselves, leaving those who do NOT walk out to continue enjoying the festivities.  Once progressives decide that a play has no value, they act on a strong need to assure that no one sees the play.  "Banning" which is the digital equivalent of burning a book while forbidding the author to write another one for this audience.

In the competitive marketplace of "progressive" ideas, the best ideas should win the competition - not merely the ideas favored by those who own the means of production.   Just as white men for so long needed to ban Blacks from universities, sports and employment to prevent us from competing and winning, the whitosphere progressive blogs are another "playing field" in which white men can win by banning Blacks' participation.

If I write hysterically, certainly others will ignore me.  But, if I publicly and convincingly identify a crime and its culprits, then the risk to my posting privileges increases proportionately.  It is really the response of others to my writings that most shows which of these is taking place.