There is a saying in the black community that blacks cannot improve as a people because like crabs in a barrel whenever one tries to climb out of the barrel the other ones will pull him back down. The reaction of some of the so-called black leaders to the success of Senator Barack Obama seems to bear out this analogy. It seems like the closer he gets to making history the more the “haters” try to sabotage him. The sad part about this whole episode is that the same leaders who are critical of the Senator today, should he get elected will be at the White House the day after the inauguration looking for handouts.
The latest perpetrator in the series of “crab mentality” is Jesse Jackson’s and his comments being aired on Fox News about Senator Obama.. Now I have written extensively about the exploits of Mr. Jackson. From his reshaping of his relationship to Dr. King, to his corporate boycotts that seem to benefit his family, to his love child exploits; Mr. Jackson has demonstrated a lack of personal integrity in my opinion. His recent comments caught on a hot mic during an interview concerning health care policy where he appeared to be promoting the castration of Senator Obama is just the latest in a long line of comments that Mr. Jackson has been allowing to “slip” since it became clear that Senator Obama was going to make a serious run at the nomination.
Jesse Jackson reportedly ripped presidential candidate Barack Obama for "acting like he's white," according to The State newspaper in South Carolina, but the civil rights leader says he doesn't recall making any such comment...He later told the newspaper that he did not remember making the remark, but State reporter Roddie Burris told FOX News that Jackson's "acting like he's white" comment came during a 45-minute, one-on-one interview Tuesday after an hour-long speech at Benedict College in Columbia, S.C. Burris said he stands by his report.[1]
These comments were made back in September of 2007, when the Senator would not bring attention to a rally Mr. Jackson and Al Sharpton were holding for the Jena Six. While the Senator wanted to draw attention to the larger role of race in America, according to Mr. Jackson because Senator Obama didn’t follow his lead then he was acting white. When did Jesse Jackson become the barometer of blackness in America? The comments made by Jackson then and echoed today are representative of more than their generational differences, but also represent the envy and jealously that is being barely contained on the part of Mr. Jackson.
There are two aspects to the cause of the continued “slips of the tongue” that has plagued Mr. Jackson the first is the generational gap between the two and how it plays out in their views of America. Mr. Jackson wants Senator Obama to be a black man who is running for President, while for Senator Obama he views himself as a man who happens to be black running for office. Those seemingly subtle differences in language bridge decades of black life in America. Senator Obama can not win running as a black candidate, just as Jesse Jackson could not win. Why Mr. Jackson would want to insure the defeat of Senator Obama is beyond me. Mr. Jackson still views the nation in terms of the old struggles with the old answers.
According to the article, Jackson called the incident in Jena "a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment," and said Obama's failure to seize the opportunity to highlight what he describes as a disparate approach to prosecuting whites and blacks demonstrates his weaknesses as a candidate.
“If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,” Jackson said at the historically black college.[2]
Is there still racism in America? Of course there is, but it’s forms have changed over the years and so it’s alleviation will require new tactics. Tactics Mr. Jackson is either unwilling or unable to grasp. By standing by the old methods of delivering money to urban organizations to mete out to the uneducated masses of poor inner-city people, Mr. Jackson stands to fill his coffers at the expense of his less fortunate brothers and sisters. It is no wonder he is opposed to any new concepts for attacking the problems of the inner-city.
Senator Obama will be our next President not because of people like Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, or the many new “black” commentators who have suddenly been discovered by the MSM, but in spite of them. There is a train leaving the station in America and there will be some folks that don’t get aboard for various reasons, but the train will leave with or without them.
Richard Pryor had a joke he told that encapsulates the current state of black support for Senator Obama from the old guard of the civil rights movement. He is not one of them and so he isn’t beholden to any of them. Richard said he use to go home and when his old friends seen him they would say, “Man you ain’t nothing, you wasn’t ever nothing, you was telling them same ole jokes back then, loan me a dollar."
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297332,00.html
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297332,00.html
Monday, July 14, 2008
Crabs In A Barrel
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What The Officials In Jena Should Have Done
In a reenactment of the noose incident that occurred in Jena, La; a black college professor at Columbia’s Teachers College found a noose hanging from her door. The noose appears to be the new calling card of racists in America; it has replaced the burning cross. After all, it is smaller and not as messy. This is important for the cowards who want to hide behind the façade of normalcy while they play out their sickness on society. There are those who say Blacks should ignore the nooses popping up and their vile implications, after all we have free speech and while it is ugly it is still only an expression of free speech. To this I strongly disagree, it is not the presence of the noose that is so contemptible to black Americans; it is the implication of it. To an outsider it is just a rope, harmless in and of itself and I would agree if not for one tiny detail, the presence of black bodies hanging from them. To hang a noose is to imply wanting to harm another human being, black, white or otherwise. This would be akin to my using verbal threats to one’s person to express my displeasure. While it could be argued it was an expression of speech, its connotations would be unmistakable.
A hangman’s noose was found hanging on the door of a black professor’s office at Columbia University Teacher’s College on Tuesday morning, prompting the police to start a hate-crime investigation.
Detectives with the New York Police Department’s hate-crime task force were investigating whether the noose, which was discovered on the fourth floor of the college at about 9:45 a.m., was put there by a rival professor or by a student who was angry over a dispute. Colleagues of the professor identified her as Madonna Constantine, 44, a prominent author, educator and psychologist.[1]
Upon learning of the incident the authorities in New York immediately begin to investigate, the authorities in New York acknowledge it for what it is without hesitation. Why do the people in New York and not in Jena recognize it, because in Jena hanging nooses is considered a harmless prank, distasteful but merely a prank. Just kids having a little fun, no big deal. The authorities at Columbia and in New York understand the volatile nature of the noose and how it could escalate if not checked immediately. In Jena, due to centuries of black subjugation they assumed the Blacks would just accept their benevolent explanation and once again put up with another affront. It is still a shock to them that so much became of a few nooses.
In an e-mail message to students and faculty at the school, the president of Teachers College, Susan Furhman, said the incident was a “hateful act, which violates every Teachers College and societal norm.”
The president of Columbia, Lee C. Bollinger, also released a statement condemning what happened.
“This is an assault on African Americans and therefore it is an assault on every one of us,” he said. “I know I speak on behalf of every member of our communities in condemning this horrible action.”[2]
There can be no vacillating or indecisiveness; a response must be quick and direct. If a similar tack had been taken in Jena, I believe the incident would not have escalated to the level it did. Will the response from the authorities prevent similar occurrences? Probably not, there will always be those who choose to use the language of hate to express their displeasure. I do believe though that it has sent a message and set a tone that this will not be tolerated publically and if caught will be dealt with in an appropriately serious manner. By doing so it also gives the administrators an opportunity to open a dialog on race and diversity, an opportunity the people in Jena chose not to take.
This despicable act could have presented opportunities to educate some young people, but in order to educate you have to have teachers willing to teach. Diversity and race were not lessons that they wanted to teach in Jena. The lessons they wanted to reinforce were fear and segregation, the same ones they had been teaching for centuries. It could have also been an opportunity to show just why this symbol is so virulent to Blacks by relating its historical significance and its malicious past. These are lessons which many Americans could use a refresher course.
The lesson in the response of New York versus the response of Jena is simply this if we continue to minimize the behavior of those who pull at the scars of racism; we only provide them with the cover to continue more brazen acts. If enough people had stood up at the first cross burning and said we won’t stand for this, imagine where we would be today. Instead there was silence and that silence led to more unspeakable horrors. No, there must be a collective repudiation of hate and racism and it must be clear unequivocal.
Free speech is one of the most important freedoms we have and I would never take its fundamental application lightly, but when free speech incites violence and hatred it is no longer free.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/nyregion/10cnd-columbia.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1192036442-ax087f9Yzju/OrNMiliM9g
[2] Ibid.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Black America And The Rise In Violent Crime
During the many online discussions concerning Jena, La., there was a recurring theme among many bloggers concerning the demonstration held there. The theme revolved around two issues; the first being that because Mr. Bell was not pristine as a defendant then the cause of the protests were somehow tainted and didn’t live up to the marches of the 60’s. The second issue was that there were bigger issues that should have also brought out protests in the black community that are happening without a whimper. I think to dismiss these issues out of hand would be a mistake and would damage the credibility of not only the case in Jena, but any future cases as well.
To respond to the first issue, Mr. Bell’s status as a victim with a record and the heinousness of the crime has been held up by many conservatives and some “so-called” progressives as somehow making it hard to rally behind the efforts of Jena 6. It has been sighted that the protests held in Jena on their behalf were somehow tainted by these facts. They say that these facts made it difficult for them to join in the protests held to requests their freedom. That this case somehow reduces the civil rights movements of the 60’s, because those involved innocent women and children. To state this as a reason not to rally behind these youngmen is based on a false premise, many of the black men killed during the civil rights movement were considered criminals by the authorities because they were agitators and trying to upset the status quo of “white privilege”. Dr. King himself had been arrested a number of times.
I have to admit that I am not comfortable with the behavior of the victims in this case or their prior history, but to use that as an excuse not to seek their release is to not understand what the rally was about. The protest was not about these flawed youngmen, it was about a community and a standard of justice that was blatantly bias and unfair. For me to say that I can’t support a rape victim because she was a “loose” woman is for me to give rapists a free pass if they rape the right woman. Rape is rape and injustice and racism is racism regardless of the victim’s history. If they had done what they had done because Mr. Bell was a criminal that is one thing, but what about the others? The protest had to occur because these youngmen symbolized a system that sought to reinforce the unspoken racism of not only Jena, but America.
What most “progressives” have to understand is that there is a large segment of black males who have been arrested and prosecuted in this country, so having a criminal record in our community does not necessarily disqualify you from justice. What we understood and what you could not was that this could have been any of our sons or daughters regardless of their past. There has to be a point of no return, we will not be taken back to the Jim Crow past no matter where it is or who is perpetrating it. Jena represented that line for many. Would it have made a better storyline if these were Valedictorians headed to Ivy League schools or docile young black men who were viciously attacked by a lynching party? But, the problem with circumstance is that you take it as it comes, remember we didn’t pick the victims, they did.
The second issue is one that has been a thorn in my flesh for many years. I have seen cartoons depicting marchers ignoring the issues in the Black community of violent crime, drugs, and fatherless homes. Are these issues just as important and deadly to our communities? Shouldn’t we be holding marches and protests to highlight and bring an end to these issues which to be honest on a day to day basis effects our children more so than Jena. Why are we not having icons and campaigns to stop the violence to the levels that the Jena protests rose to? Why are so many of our leaders so deafly silent against these issues that are crippling and killing our communities. Where is the national outcry against these self-inflicted wounds? Are we only willing to stand against outsiders while our communities are being destroyed from within?
I would love to see a grassroots campaign to end the violence and murder in our communities, to highlight the growing lack of family structure in our communities, and the seeming lack of male responsibility. Where are the two Reverends on these issues? These issues are not media driven and therefore won’t get you in the paper or on Bill O’Reilly, no these issues are difficult and require work. If we do not begin to address the internal issues that we confront daily, how can we expect to build stronger and more cohesive communities to combat the issues that were highlighted in Jena? This is similar to the situation with Don Imus; we want to condemn others from the outside while we continue to sit silently by while our communities are being destroyed from within.
It is time we stand up and say that not only are we against racism and injustice, but we are also against the violence, the fatherless homes, and the drugs that permeate our communities. To decry one without the other is an invitation to disaster. I say this not to impress those who would excuse their behavior based on someone else’s, but because our communities will not survive at the rate we are going. Between the penitentiaries and the murders we won’t have any youngmen left.
Our children are our future; let’s protect them from the racists and the bigots, but also from the thugs and the gangs. Let’s begin a campaign to raise up the many black men who have fallen and bring them back to a position of responsibility in the community. My biggest fear for my son is not the DA; it is the kid down the block from him or the one in his school with a gun. I’m sorry folks but we have some major issues that need to be addressed and they can only be addressed by us.
With that being said I have added a stop the violence ribbon to my website. It reflects the colors of the African American and I ask that all those who want to highlight and begin to address the issues destroying our community to also add it to your website and send it to your family and friends. Let’s once again use the power of the internet to bring attention to some long overdue issues and maybe we can begin to have rallies all over this nation in support of our communities. We have to be more than against something, we have to be for something as well.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Mychal Bell Released
JENA, La. -- A black teenager whose prosecution in the beating of a white classmate prompted a massive civil rights protest here walked out of a courthouse Thursday after a judge ordered him freed.
Mychal Bell's release on $45,000 bail came hours after a prosecutor confirmed he would no longer seek an adult trial for the 17-year-old. Bell, one of the teenagers known as the Jena Six, still faces trial as a juvenile in the December beating in this small central Louisiana town.[1]
Today is a testament to a lot of things about America, some good and some not so good. Because I am a positive person I will start with the good, the first thing is that today in America there are enough voices of reason and right that a young black man who not long ago would have been lynched was able to walk out of a jail cell, a jail cell that if he had been lucky enough to have reached a few years ago would have been his home for the rest of his life. Let’s be honest there are many Mychal Bell’s buried in the history of America, who because they were black were murdered for less serious accusations than these.
It is a testament to those in the Black blogosphere and media who took up the mantle of these young men and kept it held high until others were able to rally. There were many who would have liked for this story to not have risen to the level that it did and that is due in large part to the pressure put on by the black bloggers. Congratulations, you all deserve a shout-out. While, I still believe that the power of organization through the internet is limited; I do think this is one of the circumstances when it can be utilized to its potential.
It is a testament of hope for all Americans who seek equal justice for all and who were willing to leave their homes and jobs and go to Jena, La and show that we will not stand for this treatment in 2007. There are a lot of things that we have to put up with as Black Americans, but this ain’t going to be one of them. This was not about just those boys; this was about justice for all of us. Whether we live in Boston, Dallas, LA, or any other place in America, we know that this is not an isolated incident and it could have been any of us.
Now, for the not so good. First of all, how those young men responded to the situation was wrong. I am not saying that they shouldn’t have stood up for what they believed in, but six against one that wasn’t justice that was just senseless violence and we have to know the difference. We, just as the D.A. have to acknowledge when we are wrong, if not our indictments of other people’s wrongs ring hollow.
The other is the response of the D.A. Reed Walters to the demonstration held in Jena; this guy has got to be the instructor for sensitivity training for the city of Jena. His comments demonstrate why the divide between black and white is so wide in America. He makes these insensitive remarks and then doesn’t understand how they could be taken offensively. Here is what he said.
An estimated 20,000 to 25,000 protesters marched in Jena last week in a scene that evoked the early years of the civil rights movement.
Walters said the demonstration had no influence on his decision not to press the adult charges, and ended his news conference by saying that only God kept the protest peaceful.
"The only way _ let me stress that _ the only way that I believe that me or this community has been able to endure the trauma that has been thrust upon us is through the prayers of the Christian people who have sent them up in this community," Walters said.
"I firmly believe and am confident of the fact that had it not been for the direct intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ last Thursday, a disaster would have happened. You can quote me on that."
The Rev. Donald Sibley, a black Jena pastor, called it a "shame" that Walters credited divine intervention for the protesters acting responsibly.
"What I'm saying is, the Lord Jesus Christ put his influence on those people, and they responded accordingly," Walters responded.[2]
So here we have another white man expecting to see “negroes behaving badly”, in this case the only thing that prevented them from acting like Negroes was the power of God brought down by the prayers of all those good white folks. How can he not see how condescending this is? These good Christian folks are so righteous they live in a town that has black and white trees. Thank you God for the prayers of these good Christian white folks, no telling what those “black savages” might have done to our town and of course our womenfolk.
This is like the survey done during the OJ trial; it appears that being a racist is not considered by the majority of whites to be a hindrance to being a good cop; however blacks on the other hand definitely believed that it would impact someone’s job performance in a negative way to be a racist. Being a racist I guess will not interfere with one’s journey to meet their maker, who just so happens to be the maker of those same people you lynch and segregate from. Their God must be really proud of them. How can you be expected to worship God together in heaven, if you can’t worship him together on earth? Do they think there will be some cosmic transformation that will make everyone white in heaven, that we are made black on earth as some karmic backlash from God? I know the hymns say we will made white as snow, but I don’t think this is what they had in mind.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092700470.html?hpid=moreheadlines
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092700470_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Jena, LA D.A. I Am Bound
I can understand the emotions generated by the juxtaposition of the noose incident with the attack on Mr. Barker and the outcomes for the perpetrators of each. In the final analysis, though, I am bound to enforce the laws of Louisiana as they exist today, not as they might in someone’s vision of a perfect world.
That is what I have done. And that is what I must continue to do.[1]
This is an excerpt from an opinion piece submitted by Mr. Reed Walters, the D.A. prosecuting the Jena 6 to the New York Times. The fact that I find amazing about this piece and all the other ones written in support of the original handling of this case is that nowhere in any of the pieces is the behavior of the whites discussed. It is as if they would have us to believe that this all took place in a vacuum somewhere. According to these folks, some innocent white boy was beaten senseless by these black criminals for no reason. None of these authors apply the context they talk about in their pieces, they acknowledge these things as if they were irrelevant to the case.
Yes there were nooses, and yes there was a shotgun, and yes there was a black kid beaten at a party, but none of this is relevant. What also is obviously not relevant to Mr. Walters is the fact that in each case of white misconduct there were no charges filed. Ok, Mr. Walters there is no crime for the nooses; fair enough, but what about the shotgun incident or the beating of the black kid at the party or your performance at the assembly?
What kills me about this guy and many more like him is that they completely ignore cause and effect. They fell to accept that if you continue to ignore injustice it doesn’t go away it festers and eventually it explodes. Granted, if you take the actions of the black youngmen and separate them from the other incidents it would appear as Mr. Walters has described, but that is not the case. After years of Jim Crow and other subtle forms of racism, you want us to just pretend that stuff never happened and it has no context in today’s reality.
The fact that you still had a “white tree” in 2007 dismisses all of your arguments concerning the relevancy of the nooses and the other actions that followed. Let’s be real Mr. Walters, your town has a racial history as does all of America and to pretend that it doesn’t only goes to show how disingenuous you and your type are. You pretend that you can ignore 300 years of racial strife and expect Blacks to do the same. No, Mr. Walters this is your game, we are confronted daily with the continual perpetration of white preference and so our memory is a little clearer.
Am I calling for a statue or monument to be made for these young men? Absolutely not! They are not angels and used violence in an inappropriate manner. What I am calling for is equal treatment under the law for all citizens. I learned early in life that you can’t legislate other people’s opinions or emotions, but what you can legislate is equal treatment and application of the law. The protest in Jena was not about the criminal activities of those young men it was about the unequal application of the law and the intimidation by you and the school board. The outrage was that we were not going to allow such an uneven prosecution of the law to go unanswered.
Last week, a reporter asked me whether, if I had it to do over, I would do anything differently. I didn’t think of it at the time, but the answer is yes. I would have done a better job of explaining that the offenses of Dec. 4, 2006, did not stem from a “schoolyard fight” as it has been commonly described in the news media and by critics.[2]
So we are to believe that the only error on your part was in communicating why you did not apply the laws equally? No sir, you made many errors in this case and you assumed that because of that racial history that you deny played any role in this, you thought you could get away with them. If you are truly bound by the laws, then why are the only people in jail in these cases black?
You conjure up the images of a lone white student being viscously beaten by these black criminals, but how about you conjuring up the picture of three black men hanging from those innocent nooses hung from that tree.
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
DAVID MARGOLICK
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26walters.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26walters.html
Thursday, September 20, 2007
On “Acting White”
I recently read a report that Jesse Jackson had taken a shot at Senator Barack Obama concerning the current situation in Jena, LA. It appears that Mr. Jackson in an interview said that Senator Obama was “acting white” because he is not outraged enough publically about the situation in Jena for Mr. Jackson’s taste. It is no secret that I am not a fan of Mr. Jackson. I have written on a few occasions about my feelings for him and Mr. Sharpton. However, this to me elucidates why Mr. Jackson was never a serious contender for President, ever.
He later told the newspaper that he did not remember making the remark, but State reporter Roddie Burris told FOX News that Jackson's "acting like he's white" comment came during a 45-minute, one-on-one interview Tuesday after an hour-long speech at Benedict College in Columbia, S.C. Burris said he stands by his report.[1]I have two problems with this report. First, is the fact that Mr. Jackson would make such a statement clearly pandering to a Black audience, as if to gain some credibility for himself and his failed attempts at being a viable candidate for President. Mr. Jackson was always seen as a Black candidate and was never given serious consideration, precisely because of these types of statements. What Mr. Jackson fails to understand is that Senator Obama is a viable candidate because he is not allowing anyone to label him as the “Black” candidate; he is a candidate that happens to be black. This is a very important distinction for anyone trying to become President of all of the United States. While, it makes good copy and may gain him some “street cred” by becoming embroiled in the Jena 6 incident, it would also define him as the “Black” candidate.
This is just another attempt by Mr. Jackson to stroke his enormous ego at the expense of another Blackman; something Mr. Jackson has a history of doing. I don’t think he has gotten over the remark of Senator Biden that Obama is the first mainstream Black contender for President and he continues to take little shots at Senator Obama as being “too white”. Now let’s remember that Mr. Jackson is a supporter of Senator Obama, man with friends like these, huh?
According to the article, Jackson called the incident in Jena "a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment," and said Obama's failure to seize the opportunity to highlight what he describes as a disparate approach to prosecuting whites and blacks demonstrates his weaknesses as a candidate.
“If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,” Jackson said at the historically black college.[2]
This statement typifies why Mr. Jackson was never taken seriously as a candidate for anything, he was never trying to win. All he was trying to do was broker himself into a position to be “the Black spokesman” for financial and personal gain. By allowing himself to be defined by these types of issues, you may bring attention to the situation, but at the same time you allow others to pigeon hole you. Mr. Jackson never understood the subtleties of politics and race in America and it appears he still hasn’t. What this statement demonstrates Mr. Jackson is your weakness as a candidate and as a “so-called” supporter. If you had ever been a truly viable candidate you would not have allowed your campaign to be sidetracked by grandstanding opportunities, but you were never one to pass up a chance to grandstand. To my knowledge Mr. Jackson has never been elected to any office, so what gives him credibility in how to win elections?
While I support speaking out against the racial implications presenting by the situation in Jena, (I am wearing my black today to show solidarity) it would be foolish for Senator Obama to try and turn it into a campaign issue. What Mr. Jackson fails to understand is you have to win in order to govern, there is no moral victory; just ask Al Gore. Fortunately, there is already a groundswell of moral outrage at the situation in Jena. Now, if the situation in Jena had been completely ignored by the MSM that would be one thing and would require all Black leaders to speak out, but this is not the case. I believe that the Senator has made it clear that he decries the situation in Jena has made this public statement. As a national candidate I think the Senator should continue to keep his eye on the larger picture and not be sidetracked, situations like Jena have been happening for many years and will continue to happen. Senator Obama turning it into a campaign issue will not change that fact, but will only go to help limit his appeal during a critical time in the campaign.
The second issue I have with this report is how Mr. Jackson has tried to back away from the statement, further demonstrating that he is not to be trusted by anyone. You see the truth be told, Mr. Jackson was not that close of a confidant to Dr. King as he has for years cultivated in the media. He was an outsider, when the meeting was going on in the Lorraine Motel, Mr. Jackson was outside in the parking lot. Mr. Jackson if you are going to criticize your candidate for President in public, atleast have the balls to admit you did it. Obviously, you felt it was a big enough issue to reprimand him in a public forum why not step up and say this is where I have a problem with the Senator, let your concerns be known.
Of course, if you were truly on the inside you would have been able to register your concerns in person and not have to do it through a third party interview. As usual, Mr. Jackson is trying to portray himself as an insider when it appears he is an outsider.
Read more!Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Jason, Jena, & Justice
I recently read an article by Kansas City Star reporter and rising media star Jason Whitlock concerning the Jena Six. Unless you have been living in a cave in Pakistan, I’m sure you are familiar with the case. For those that aren’t, I have included a couple of links to the story to provide some perspective of both sides Jason Whitlock and Democracy Now.
While I don’t claim to have all the answers to this tragedy and as my website plainly states I believe that there are three sides to every story. I won’t try to resolve the legal aspects of a case that I don’t have all the facts to and I wasn’t a party in. The purpose of this post is to discuss the writer of the article, Jason Whitlock and his seemingly cavalier attitude towards the situation in Jena. Mr. Whitlock has caused quite a bit of controversy in the black community for this and some other articles he has written, critical of Blacks in general and athletes in particular. There are many in the black community who have labeled Mr. Whitlock an Uncle Tom and a house Negro.
I would first like to start with an excerpt from his original article to highlight what I find disturbing about Mr. Whitlock’s attitude toward the six black youngmen from Jena.
On the surface, the story sounds like a horrifying tale of Emmett Till-style justice. At a predominantly white high school in a segregated town (Jena), a black student sat under a shade tree that was traditionally used by white students. The next day three white students hung nooses from the tree, sparking racial tension and a sit-in (under the tree) by black students. The principal attempted to expel the three white students, but the school board overruled the principal and the students were given a suspension, which sparked more racial tension.
Police patrolled the school's hallways. The town's district attorney visited the school for an impromptu assembly, allegedly looked at the black students and said he could end their lives with one stroke of his pen. A little more than three months after the noose incident — and just days after two off-campus fights/heated exchanges involving a black student and white former students — the "Jena Six" punched, beat and stomped a white kid who made fun of a black kid for getting whipped in a Friday-night fight.
The white kid was knocked unconscious. After a three-hour hospital visit, he was released. The town prosecutor initially charged the "Jena Six" with attempted murder. Mychal Bell, the first of the six to stand trial and a Division-I football prospect, was convicted of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy by an all-white, six-person jury, a white judge and a white prosecutor. His public defender did not call a single witness in his defense. Bell could be sentenced to 22 years.
Whew![1]
Mr. Whitlock provides the basic storyline seemingly intact. This is how the MSM has for the most part reported the story, not a lot to be upset about here. It is his next statement that I find so alarming. Mr. Whitlock has essentially stated and acknowledged that there was a racial incident precipitated by the white students with the nooses. He states that the all-white school board reversed the expulsion that the principal had given the three white students. He further states that the six young blackmen were subsequently charged with attempted murder which considering the case was over-charging them. So with all of this being said, here is what Mr. Whitlock had to say about the other culprits in this incident.
Before I go any further, let me state this: The prosecutor should've never charged these boys with attempted murder. The entire school board should be replaced for stopping the noose-hanging kids from being expelled.[2]
That’s it! That is the extent of his outrage. Some people just don’t get it. I am all for personal responsibility and I do not believe that all whites are racist, nor do I believe that the biggest problem facing Black America today is day to day racism. But when you are confronted with such a blatant example of it, it must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. So, Mr. Whitlock is able to muster enough outrage to carve out two sentences towards the whites that began this whole incident.
Here is where I take exception to Mr. Whitlock’s characterization of the case. For the next eight paragraphs he takes the young blackman to task. He proceeds to lay out the case for Mr. Bell, the defendant who could receive 22 years, getting all 22 of those years. Never once does he lay out the past of any of the whites, not the three original clowns that put out the nooses, not the all-white schoolboard, not the white DA, not even the all-white jury. Obviously their histories were not relevant to this case, according to Mr. Whitlock.
Using Mr. Whitlock’s rationale if any rape victim can be proven to have had sex in the past, then she is deserving of the rape she in fact encouraged today. I believe in fair and accurate reporting, but let’s be sure we include all the information that is relevant to both sides. If the history of one side is relevant then the history of the other side should also be relevant. What are the histories of the others Mr. Whitlock, I bet you haven’t been fed that information from your sources.
It’s easy to kick folks when they're down, it is always a lot harder to bend down and give them a hand. Mr. Whitlock complains that the other MSM reporters are providing a lazy version; I submit that he is as well, by providing research of only the history of the accused. Let’s have justice for all, I believe there is enough to go around.
Read more!
Stumble It!
