Race Traitor?

Cornel West's discussion of Clarence Thomas and his Senate confirmation hearing is an interesting discussion which seems to polarize the race debate. In the past I've hear Thomas referred to by African-Americans as a so-called "Race Traitor," and have always been disappointed in that kind of talk. The very concept of "Race Traitor" seems to go directly against what West is trying to get at. To say one is a race traitor is to suppose that a person who so happens to be of a certain race must adhere to the dominant discourse of that race's cause, and if said person does otherwise they are seen as a traitor to their own race. However, I think, and perhaps West would agree, that no one owes anything to their race, and in that sense Thomas is not a race traitor as some would argue. Though it may see questionable whether Thomas' decisions on the court or his political beliefs exist contrary to his Race's causes, in the end West would argue that it is not a valid question. We should then evaluate Thomas not on whether he will be a detriment to the African-American cause, but on the merit of his qualifications, which West obviously wishes to call into question.

West also alludes to Black Nationalism as the archetype of race thinking, as they supported Thomas because of his race, and also brings about the question of what exactly Black Nationalism represents. West seems to believe that Black Nationalism simply upholds the patriarchal system that is present in African-American societies.