What Political Wisdom Can Black Americans Learn From HBO’s House of the Dragon?
House of the Dragon is back for another season after a three-year hiatus. Amidst the warring factions of the Greens and the Blacks, fiery dragons, and betrayal at every turn, there are some great pieces of political wisdom when you know where to look. The scene that stood out the most during the premiere episode features a Blacksmith pledging allegiance to the crown while also voicing concerns about the rising cost of iron.
This resonates not just for its narrative value, but for the broader implications it carries regarding loyalty, resources, and negotiation. The Blacksmith’s assertion highlights a crucial dynamic: unwavering support must be matched by adequate provision of resources, especially in times of looming conflict. In terms of engagement and the establishment of a political culture, this scene encapsulated the ADOS political project perfectly. This scenario draws a parallel to contemporary political engagement, particularly within the context of the Democratic Party and its relationship with the Black community.
The Blacksmith’s stance in “House of the Dragon” suggests a model where support is contingent upon tangible benefits, a concept that can be applied to political engagement.
The data clearly shows that the Black community predominantly aligns with the Democratic Party, a relationship further underscored by the visible efforts of political figures to court this demographic. However, the question arises: why does this substantial and crucial support not translate into concrete demands and reciprocal benefits? The Blacksmith’s stance in “House of the Dragon” suggests a model where support is contingent upon tangible benefits, a concept that can be applied to political engagement. In other words, political loyalty should not be given unconditionally; it should be leveraged to secure necessary resources and address community needs.
This brings us to Steve Harvey, the host of Family Feud who, in a highly publicized interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, dismissed the notion of making demands (17:28–18:50). His appearance in a flashy pea soup green suit, seeking applause and acceptance, stands in stark contrast to the Blacksmith’s practical and assertive approach. Harvey’s stance symbolizes a troubling trend: the reduction of serious political engagement to performative acts devoid of substantial advocacy for community needs.
Harvey’s stance symbolizes a troubling trend: the reduction of serious political engagement to performative acts devoid of substantial advocacy for community needs.
The imagery of a “King” of “Comedy” representing the interests of a community facing unemployment, mass incarceration, poverty, housing shortages, underfunded institutions, and overall resource shortages, encapsulates a profound disconnect. It raises the question: are the political representatives and cultural figures genuinely advocating for the community, or are they merely participating in a superficial spectacle?
The analogy underscores a critical need for a shift in strategy.
Just as the Blacksmith demanded resources in exchange for his loyalty,
the community must assert its political power to secure necessary
support and advancements.
It raises the question: are the political representatives and cultural figures genuinely advocating for the community, or are they merely participating in a superficial spectacle?
In conclusion, the scene from the season 2 premiere episode serves as a powerful metaphor for the relationship between the Black community and the Democratic Party. It highlights the importance of transforming passive support into active negotiation for resources and rights. The contrast between the Blacksmith’s pragmatic approach and Steve Harvey’s performative one underscores the necessity for a more strategic and demand-driven engagement in the political arena.
