Monday, July 28: About Essence referring to me as a Republican, although I told the interviewer otherwise, the magazine will publish a correction in the Letters to the Editor section…in the October issue. 
————————————————————-
2:58 a.m. PT: It’s a tragedy of epic proportions.
I’m spending the night in an airport. In Vegas, of all places. First time. Ever. It’s weird. Flight was canceled, stood in line for an hour to be re-routed. No straight flights, and nothing before 6 a.m. Madness. But I didn’t lose my religion! Thanks, God.
There’s free wireless, though, so I’ve been working and surfing and now I’m blogging. Big fun.
An Essence magazine writer or researcher or whoever interviewed me a couple months ago for a story about black Republicans and conservatives. Although it was nice to see my words quoted accurately, the person I spoke to or the person who wrote or edited the article or whoever got some facts wrong. Here’s my quote from “Crossing Over,” which appears in the August 2008 issue and is not online, unfortunately:
“Conversely, La Shawn Barber, a 41-year-old writer from Washington, D.C., says her Christian beliefs triggered her decision to become a Republican several years ago. Continuing to hold the line against gay marriage, for example, is a critical voting concern. ‘You might as well do away with the whole institution if you’re going to say two people of the same sex can have the same union as a man and a woman,’ she says. ‘Regardless of religious issues, it’s also a policy issue. Where are you going to draw the line?’”
Can you spot the error? If you’re a longtime blog reader, or if you’ve ever glanced at the About page, the error is glaring. But if you don’t know, don’t look. Just guess. And I went out of my way to make sure the interviewer had the correct information. Quite irritating. But hey, what can you do?
I spent two days at the Reagan Library discussing the concept of equality for all with folks like Tammy Bruce, Roger Clegg, John Fund and a host of others on the front lines of the battle to get government out of the skin color business. It was a privilege, indeed.
OK, I think I’ll grab a couple hours sleep now. I may blog Friday. Or I may be in a coma. So tired, and I have a looooong day in the sky ahead of me. Goodnight!
Update (7/25 @ 9:35 a.m.): Arrived home last night, out of it this morning. I have lots to write about, but the ideas won’t flow. They tell me I need to decompress first. Lucidity is a good thing.
Thanks for playing the guessing game, by the way. I am not a member of anyone’s party. When I registered to vote years ago, I decided not to join a party. When I switched from voting for Dems to voting for Republicans, I saw no need to become a joiner. I’m not even a registered Independent. In DC, I fall into the “Undeclared” category.
I call myself an independent conservative.
the Error - you are really 39 and they said you are 41 yrs old.
Comment by SharonB — 07.24.08 @ 7:09 am
Change “Republican” for “conservative.”
Comment by Mattt Brown — 07.24.08 @ 7:26 am
I thought it would be an error in your age. Looks instead like they mistakenly called you a Republican. At least they didn’t call you African American, too.
Comment by Mrs. Happy Housewife — 07.24.08 @ 10:45 am
Funny, I always thought you were a Republican myself. I saw you as a far lefty, that got saved, and became a far righty. As a registered independent with conservative leanings, I don’t see the politically “independent” part of you in ANYthing that you write or say.
I still like you and your perspectives though, even if I don’t agree all of the time. : )
Btw, I’m 41 too, it ain’t so bad, and I can’t stand the African-American descriptor either.
David
Comment by David — 07.24.08 @ 10:59 am
You are NOT a Republican, but an Independent Conservative. You are also Black - not African American, and you are actually 29, not 41!
At least that’s the age I tell everyone after I turned 30!
Comment by Carlotta — 07.24.08 @ 11:11 am
Yes, Conservative first, Republican by necessity.
Comment by Tom TB — 07.24.08 @ 11:17 am
Several others have beaten me to the punch - you are a conservative, not a Republican.
Interesting how the interviewer simply forced you into the slot already allotted for you and ignored what you actually said. The MSM is quite good at that.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.24.08 @ 11:53 am
Dave,
Political independence means your principles trump party loyalty, that you hold politicians, regardless of part, to the same ideological standard. For us independent conservatives, though, we end up being Republican by necessity (as another commenter said), because Republicans tend to be closer to our point of view.
For a look at the opposite of political independence, see the black community’s adherence to the Democratic party regardless of majority view points supposedly contrary to major Democratic principles.
Comment by Gabe — 07.24.08 @ 12:12 pm
Gabe,
GABE: “For a look at the opposite of political independence, see the black community’s adherence to the Democratic party regardless of majority view points supposedly contrary to major Democratic principles.”
You mean like Republicans and some “conservative independents” adherence to this current Republican administration who not so conservatively spent our deficit from zero to 400 billion.
I wasn’t knocking Lashawn, or anyone else for that matter. It was just MY opinion, nothing more. I see it as I see it, not as you see it.
David
Comment by David — 07.24.08 @ 12:55 pm
“You mean like Republicans and some “conservative independents” adherence to this current Republican administration who not so conservatively spent our deficit from zero to 400 billion.”
Exactly.
“I wasn’t knocking Lashawn, or anyone else for that matter. It was just MY opinion, nothing more. I see it as I see it, not as you see it.”
That’s nice. But if I self-identify as one thing, and you decide to “not see it,” that tends to become a point of contention. Your opinion isn’t simply a preference with no arguable basis. It’s supposedly based on facts. I was trying to point out where your facts might be in error. Either accept the facts presented or give a counterargument.
If you didn’t expect a response, you shouldn’t have said anything.
Comment by Gabe — 07.24.08 @ 1:10 pm
Gabe,
GABE: “Either accept the facts presented or give a counterargument.”
“If you didn’t expect a response, you shouldn’t have said anything.”
Who said I didn’t expect a response. What are you angry? Don’t be so sensitive.
It was MY opinion that many people who describe themselves as conservative independents are really just Republicans, hence why they are often “mistakenly” labeled as such.
You and I both describe ourselves as CI’s, but we obviously have different views of what that means. Take care, Gabe. THIS time there’s no need to respond.
David
Comment by David — 07.24.08 @ 1:35 pm
No, not angry. I just found the “it’s MY opinion” missive a bit confusing, and still do.
You stated pretty boldly that you “don’t see the politically “independent” part of you in ANYthing that you [LaShawn] write or say.” All I was asking is that you back up your opinion with facts.
If you’d rather not ‘play,’ that’s fine. But having been the one to start the game, it’s a little disingenuous for you to dismiss me with the “no need to respond” comment. If you’d rather not have the conversation, then you shouldn’t be such an intellectual tease.
Comment by Gabe — 07.24.08 @ 1:50 pm
As some others have already said, Lashawn is an Independent Conservative. That is how I see myself, but because Of PA’s closed primaries, I am a registered Republican. Pigs will fly before PA will allows any of its voting citizens to vote outside of their registered political party in a primary; thus, registered Independents only get to vote in the November elections.
Well now I have to get the Essence Magazine.
Comment by Bev — 07.24.08 @ 3:14 pm
>>Dave: “I don’t see the politically “independent” part of you in ANYthing that you write or say.”
It will seem like I’m piling on, but, yeah… examples please?
From what I’ve read over the last 4 years, La Shawn vehemently opposes a lot of what the current administration has endorsed. At the moment, open borders is the one that comes to mind. Sometimes, policy points will converge with La Shawn’s POV, but she sure doesn’t shape her POV according to what the party espouses.
Maybe the terms ‘righty’ and Republican are getting confused with each other. I always took righty to mean conservative. The current batch of no-goodnik Republicans is surely NOT conservative.
Comment by FL Mom — 07.24.08 @ 7:22 pm
Undeclared! That would really restrict your voter privileges in PA.
Comment by Bev — 07.25.08 @ 11:11 am
Conservative Liberal vs A Conservative…
Too many in the blogosphere that call themselves conservatives are conservative liberals. The bloggers that will fight Israel and the United States and decry the Western Civilization hangs in the balance. All true, but it is not the fight y…
Trackback by The Hill Chronicles — 07.26.08 @ 12:55 am
I thought I trackbacked to you, but now I think I made an error somehow. I apologize for leaving this here, but I mentioned you in my most recent article here:
http://thehillchronicles.com/?p=1486
Best wishes to you.
Comment by Layla Elizabeth — 07.26.08 @ 1:34 am
I’m glad that La Shawn has reported back to us that she is home. Now we won’t have to organize searching parties.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.26.08 @ 5:08 pm
Ah yes, I remember. You are not a republican but an independent. And no, I didn’t cheat,
Comment by LorMarie — 07.26.08 @ 7:39 pm
Wee Hours of the Morning Airport Blogging - La Shawn Barber’s Corner
Pingback by An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings — 07.26.08 @ 8:44 pm
LaShawn,
I can’t quite reconcile your position on gay marriage. I’m referring to the quote above:
‘You might as well do away with the whole institution if you’re going to say two people of the same sex can have the same union as a man and a woman,’
Change a few key phrases there, like “same sex” to “different races,” and you’d have the prevailing position on mixed-race marriages through most of this nation’s history. I can’t understand these words coming from an African-American writer.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic — simply trying to understand.
Thanks.
Comment by dan — 07.27.08 @ 10:17 am
First off, Dan, mixed-race marriages would still continue generations whereas homosexual marriages won’t. If everyone alive right now became a homosexual that would kill off the human race. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Why do you think LaShawn being African-American would mean that she was necessarily interested in “mixed-race marriage” anymore so than a white writer?
Comment by Harvey — 07.27.08 @ 7:15 pm
Harvey,
Because non-whites embrace and accepted “mixed” marriages and children with categorically less stipulations or revulsion and more contrition than whites.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 12:33 pm
Because non-whites embrace and accepted “mixed” marriages and children with categorically less stipulations or revulsion and more contrition than whites.
Then why have the only negative comments that my wife and I have heard about our interracial marriage (my wife is a black African woman and I am a white American male) were from American blacks? Some have been quite up front in disparaging marriages between blacks and whites in general.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.28.08 @ 12:58 pm
If everyone alive right now became a homosexual that would kill off the human race. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Is this a serious answer?
Comment by Dan — 07.28.08 @ 1:02 pm
“Then why have the only negative comments that my wife and I have heard about our interracial marriage (my wife is a black African woman and I am a white American male) were from American blacks?”
Probably because most of the whites who feel that way keep their mouths shut. “Certain” blacks are just outspoken about everything, it’s kind of a cultural way of being. What you don’t see “non-whites” doing is disowning family members and the like. Which happens to a lot of whites who date out of their race. I have a buddy who married a white girl and her father hasn’t spoken to her in 13 years, and has never met his two grand kids. Non-whites in America aren’t in the habit of that.
David
Comment by David — 07.28.08 @ 2:36 pm
Mwalimu Daudi says:
“Then why have the only negative comments that my wife and I have heard about our interracial marriage (my wife is a black African woman and I am a white American male) were from American blacks? Some have been quite up front in disparaging marriages between blacks and whites in general.”
I say:
With her being an AFRICAN woman and you being a white male, I could give you a myriad of reasons for people hating on you, but given the type of audience of people who post on this blog I’ll decline getting into it.
Nonetheless I didn’t say ALL non-whites embrace such a thing, but for those biracial children and families who self-identify as “black”, they find universal acceptance almost all of the time from non-whites. (Random haters aside, of course)
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 2:41 pm
David is right again.
When it comes to CERTAIN things (not all things) MOST (not all) non-whites have a depth of soul that eclipses, all other ethnic groups, that ultimately hinders them from oppressing “others”, while simultaneously being on some ole crabs-in-the-barrel mess when it comes to their own persuasion.
It’s the craziest thing; and I believe it is emotionally and spiritually directly linked to slavery.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 2:55 pm
When it comes to CERTAIN things (not all things) MOST (not all) non-whites have a depth of soul that eclipses, all other ethnic groups, that ultimately hinders them from oppressing “others”, while simultaneously being on some ole crabs-in-the-barrel mess when it comes to their own persuasion.
ROFL! Of all the amusing things you’ve ever said on this blog, that’s got to be the funniest.
Comment by Amy K. — 07.28.08 @ 3:36 pm
Dan, in the words of the Jewish ethicist, Dennis Prager, here is your answer:
“Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived.
“But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes.
“To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man’s nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man…
“Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn’t matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.
“Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them.”
Comment by Amy K. — 07.28.08 @ 3:41 pm
Amy K,
1. What’s amusing about what I wrote?
2. What do so-called “Jews” have to do with anything?
3. Do you understand what I wrote?
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 3:50 pm
Also I’ve read Dennis Pragers columns, and it is quite ODD, to me, that he is on Town Hall, of all places, talking about how IMMORAL it is to have laws opposing interracial marriage or that he even considers them immoral, seeing as Jews are vehemently opposed to interracial marriage on most counts. I know, because as a non-white Gentile who has embraced Torah, I have the privilege to engage on a myriad of levels with religious and ethnic Jews, and they want NOTHING to do with it.
Now THAT, Amy, is what’s amusing to me.
I’m not hating on Dennis Prager at all, but I prefer someone like Tim Wise who is truly one of Yahweh’s people and loves ALL of them by demonstration in word and deed.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 4:01 pm
LINK
And the responses (a whopping 554 of them) prove my point.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 4:05 pm
And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn’t matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.
OK… so this guy is making the profoundly absurd assumption that acceptance of something equates to more of it happening. If this man believes that the simple act of tolerating different sexual orientations will result in more homosexual marriages…well, there’s really no sense in arguing with that kind of bizarre logic, is there?
I’m heterosexual. If I learned in school that it was OK to marry anyone I wanted, I still would have married a woman. Because I was born that way. I reckon Mr. Prager would have, too.
None of this really matters. The shift is happening, the wheels are in motion. Folks can fight it all they want. But in 30 years, their arguments will be seen in the same light as those who fought to the end against the progress of the civil rights movement.
Comment by dan — 07.28.08 @ 4:57 pm
DAN: “The shift is happening, the wheels are in motion.”
Well that much of what you said is true. It’s still not a true comparison. Opposition to the homosexual agenda is across all races, religions, countries and cultures worldwide. Some places and peoples may be more tolerant than others, but barely.
DAN:”But in 30 years, their arguments will be seen in the same light as those who fought to the end against the progress of the civil rights movement.”
Nobody can answer what the world will be like in 30 years, but if the most adamant faction of the people who support gay marriage have their way, it’s a scary thought to me.
Being black and heterosexual the comparison irks me. I’m sorry, but nobody sent ships to the “land of homosexuals”, captured them, shackeled them, shipped them to another country, enslaved them, tortured, raped and demeaned them. Then after deciding to free them, oppressed them through a set of laws, unequal segregation.
Just not the same thing, no matter how much you may want it to be.
David
Comment by David — 07.28.08 @ 5:21 pm
David said:
Probably because most of the whites who feel that way [about interracial marriage] keep their mouths shut.
But how do you know this? That is a very sweeping statement with no proof beyond your own experience. Which was the point of my first post - when someone makes a statement to the effect that “non-whites are more accepting of this-and-that” or “whites believe that-or-this” they are blowing smoke. Only blacks – specifically black women – more specifically, a tiny handful of black women – have made disparaging remarks to us about interracial marriage and disapproval of our relationship. Is it reasonable to conclude that all blacks feel that way, or even most of them? It sure does not make sense to reach that conclusion (talk about a small sample space).
DODDY said:
Nonetheless I didn’t say ALL non-whites embrace such a thing, but for those biracial children and families who self-identify as “black”, they find universal acceptance almost all of the time from non-whites.
That sent a chill up my spine. Does it mean that for our biological son to gain acceptance with non-whites he must “choose” to be black (whatever that means)? “We’ll accept you - if you join our side.” Is that what it has come to? What happened to “content of his character”? Just a 60s fad like hula-hoops and Woodstock?
I apologize, La Shawn. I should never have helped to drag this thread off-topic.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.28.08 @ 6:42 pm
MWALIMU:”But how do you know this? That is a very sweeping statement with no proof beyond your own experience
It may be somewhat sweeping, but no more so than assuming a number whites don’t feel that way just because you haven’t heard them. It goes to my point about the cultural aspects of a large percentage of black Americans. Let me be a bit politically incorrect here, a lot of brothers and sisters will just say anything they feel like, whenever they feel like, OUT LOUD, just because, and most whites won’t. Especially black women on the subject of interracial dating. Now admittedly it’s usually when the roles are reversed, black male/white female, but still. Though not acceptable or justified behavior, it is still understandable because more than any other segment of society they end up getting the short end of the stick when it comes to finding a mate.
A lot of this also has to do with the logistics also, meaning what part of the country you’re in and what neighborhood in that part of the country.
Walking down Broadway in NYC at noon, walking through Compton at midnight or walking through the local fair in some small town in Mississippi.
Comment by David — 07.28.08 @ 7:24 pm
1. What’s amusing about what I wrote?
That non-whites are less likely to oppress “others” while at the same time oppressing their own. And that even if it were so, that they would do it at a less/greater rate than whites. That non-white/white is the factor that would make any difference in the actions of the person wearing the skin.
2. What do so-called “Jews” have to do with anything?
Jews don’t have anything to do with anything in what I wrote. That response was to Dan, and I was simply identifying who wrote what I was quoting.
3. Do you understand what I wrote?
I think I do. But it’s always possible I have misunderstood you.
Comment by Amy K. — 07.28.08 @ 8:00 pm
OK… so this guy is making the profoundly absurd assumption that acceptance of something equates to more of it happening.
You find this a profoundly absurd assumption? It seems common sense that if something is more accepted, there will be more of it occurring.
If this man believes that the simple act of tolerating different sexual orientations will result in more homosexual marriages…well, there’s really no sense in arguing with that kind of bizarre logic, is there?
He made absolutely no mention of tolerating different sexual orientations. Mr. Prager is very tolerant of homosexuals and even homosexuality. His argument was very narrowly directed at homosexual marriage.
You have already made up your mind about what others believe without actually taking the time to listen to the arguments presented.
Comment by Amy K. — 07.28.08 @ 8:06 pm
Mwalimu,
I could have told you that it was non-white women talking greasy about your relationship. LOL.
And like I wrote, I can give you all kinds of reasons why THEY do, and non-white men probably wouldn’t even care, but they wouldn’t be very nice at all. I WILL say that the reasons are more than likely very superficial (in any context) as opposed to a pure objection of the interracial aspect, and I say this not knowing what either of you look like. That’s all I’ll say about that.
As far as your childing having to self-identify with non-whites in order to gain acceptance, that’s NOT what I said. They will generally likely get that acceptance regardless of what they SAY but because of the facts of what they are.
The objection might be more about YOU, sir, than your child, as it will come into question whether you have the spiritual and emotional fortitude and strength to properly raise your child and give them the proper tools to live and function in a funky, hateful, and scandalous society such as this one. You have a unique challenge ahead of you, and I for one pray to Father Yahweh that any child of yours grows up to be more than outstanding and unique, in light of the spirit of this world.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.28.08 @ 8:34 pm