Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2007, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Coming soon to a town near YOU!
989 posts, read 2,757,822 times
Reputation: 1526

Advertisements

***NOTE: If you feel like neg-rep'ing me for this as 'inciteful' or something, please read through the whole thing before doing so... I am trying to qualify all of my statements***

I have been watching the recent news about the Jena 6 and the political rallies, and I came up with a question that I would be interested in hearing Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or another "black community leader" answer...

Why are the events that bring out the biggest rallies along the lines of "Well, black person(s) 'so-and-so' may be a guilty, but they are not as guilty as the white people say they are".

As examples I give you both the incident and the rally argument (as I interpreted it)...

*The Jena 6 - (regardless of provocation) 6 guys assault someone and send him to the hospital. The argument is "they are guilty of assault, not attempted murder".

*The 17 y/o black HS student who had sex with a younger white girl and got 10 years in prison (there have been more than one that fit this description in the news) - The argument is "He is guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony".

*The black students expelled for fighting at a football game. This was 6-7 years ago and I remember that Jesse Jackson organized a march there (the fight was on video, so it was played quite a bit in the news at the time). The arguement "they should have just been suspended".

*Any of the black teens/men shot by police (some with criminal records) in NYC/Detroit, etc who, in the course of police trying to investigate/arrest them regarding a crime end up shooting and/or killing them. I remember a few of these in the news in the past few years, one was shot by an officer who said he was attempting to hit the officer with his car, and several were along the lines of "I thought the toy gun was real". or "he ran away when I identified myself as a cop", etc -- The argument is "they were guilty of resisting arrest/probation violations, etc, but the officer over-reacted."

OK, here are the biggies....

*Rodney King (do I need to go over the facts of the matter?) - The argument was "Yes, he was committing felonies (resisting arrest, "felony-flee" in his car), but the white officers were worse.

*OJ Simpson (again, no need to review the facts) - The argument "Sure he ran from police and had a lot of incriminating evidence against him, but that white cop was a racist"

* Michael Jackson - The argument "yes, it sure does look questionable, but the public's desire to hold a '21st century lynching' of a black man is more credible"

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there where not miscarriages of justice in all those cases (except for OJ and Michael Jackson... because, well F@#%K them) or that the outrage was not justified... and I think that there are certain issues that resonate with people (and thus the media). I am just asking why these are the top attention/rally issues? Are there not more positive subjects to have marches or protests about? Or at least ones where the 'victim' is A LOT more innocent (like the old days... Rosa Parks, Emmet Till, the children trying to attend school in Little Rock, etc). To me that means that things have been getting better and more just, and the only things left are the "guilty but not AS guilty" things. Maybe there just are not any more events worthy of a march?

And if I am mistaken and there are a lot of events that disprove my theory, please post them and enlighten me, because I would love to be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2007, 04:25 PM
 
8,425 posts, read 12,141,237 times
Reputation: 4882
I think you are painting with a broad brush. First of all, many of the protests you cite (such as Jena) are really directed to equality of treatment under law -- not acceptance of a criminal act. Secondly, criminal prosecution in this country, undortunately, has been used in many cases to unfairly subjugate black people.

Thirdly, maybe you are unaware of the many black people who do not support OJ (and believe him guilty of murder) and who were very critical of a politician named Mel Reynolds who was convicted of crimes while in office. Mr. Reynolds had been elected after black people turned out the previous incumbent for misconduct in office.

I refer you to:

*The recent case in Texas where a 16 year old black girl was sentenced to six years in jail for pushing a guidance counselor by the same judge who sentenced a white girl to probation for felony arson.

*The Chicago police officer known to have tortured confessions out of black and Hispanic defendants.

*The many jailed individuals released recently through use of DNA evuidence.

Since criminal offenses are much more likely to be committed against a person of the same race, it is black people who are most often the victim of crimes by black defendants.

Please do not let the sensational incidents fool you. No black person wants to get hit in the head by a mugger. But no black person wants a black person to be imprisoned unfairly. Equality of treatment under the law (which, after all, is in the constitution) is still a reason for marching. And I, for one, do not believe this society has reached equality of treatment yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 04:26 PM
 
12,669 posts, read 20,403,046 times
Reputation: 3050
I too will be interested in the responses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 05:37 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 16,523,313 times
Reputation: 3020
Interesting topic- It's one that's virtually impossible to discuss without causing discord and hurt feelings, and I'd be surprised if there aren't a LOT of negative reps on this thread.

Firstly, of course, black leaders DO NOT always rally around criminals---however, they DO often find themselves in the awkward position of defending black criminals in the face of real or perceived racism or unfairness on the part of the "system". Sometimes this is well-founded; sometimes it's silly.

To even entertain the concept of "black leaders", one has to presuppose that black people can, or need to be, "led". Black leaders, in point of fact, represent some black people, but of course, not all. Black leaders' normal constituents are poor, underrepresented blacks, not affluent or highly-educated ones, and certainly not non-blacks. Black leaders, when speaking "on the record', by definition represent "us" (their followers) against "them" (society at large). This very relationship requires a certain built-in conflict and a sense of victimization, whether or not it is warranted in each particular case.

Black leaders, when they do choose to 'speak' on an issue, must take the side of the black party involved. If he's an innocent victim of racism, there's much to discuss, and the leaders' work is 'cut out for them' in aiding the person and securing equitable treatment. In the case of a black criminal, however, innocence and victimhood is not always so plain to see, and sometimes the defenses get a little less convincing. Sometimes a black criminal is so throroughly reprehensible that he CAN'T be defended; in these cases, black leaders usually refrain from any comment.

Black leaders, just like any other 'champion', of any cause, tend to hold positions that favor their clients. Good clients are easy to 'speak up' for, and to sympathize with; bad clients need a much more convoluted defense, and sometimes it may not sound very convincing. In the business of "black leadership", there is an understood rule that racism is present in every dealing between a black person and a white. It is the leader's task to point this out, bring it into the public arena, and take steps to eradicate it. That's a black leader's job--somewhat one-sided, a little like the job of a defense attorney.

It was easy to see that Emmett Till was a victim of racism, to put it mildly. Rodney King, though, took a little more "defending" to make the case that he was discriminated against because of race. And, though we did hear it, calling OJ Simpson a black "victim of racism" sounds almost laughable. Different cases have different degrees of credibility.

If prejudice, or the perception of it, is ever eliminated, at some future date, black leaders will then be able to broaden their approach to society at large, and simply become "leaders".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 05:44 PM
 
2,434 posts, read 6,665,041 times
Reputation: 1065
Evlevo, I think black civil rights leaders are just behind the times a bit. Years ago, especially in the 60s and 70s in the deep south, many black men and women were accused of crimes they didn't commit. At that time in our history the marching for civil rights and justice was necessary and justified.

However in this day and age I think the likes of Jackson and Sharpton would do much more for the black people of this country if they changed tactics a bit. For example by pushing education and rallying around successful minorities who have overcome adversity and succeeded in life, instead of rallying around people who have committed crimes.

But of course, we also have to keep in mind who's exactly leading the fight to save these criminals. Jackson has been documented using racial slurs, especially Jewish ones, and he's publicly admitted spitting in white people's food. That sounds racist to me. Sharpton as well has issues in his past that are considered racist, homophobic, and has made comments that indicate religious bigotry toward Mormons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 06:03 PM
 
692 posts, read 1,728,578 times
Reputation: 306
"The 17 y/o black HS student who had sex with a younger white girl and got 10 years in prison (there have been more than one that fit this description in the news) - The argument is "He is guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony"."

Are you aware of the age of the of the white female the 17 year old black male had sex with? She was 15years old. They were both minors. A 27 year old high school teacher received probation for having sex with a 16 year old male student. Both cases were prosecuted in Georgia. Which one do you believe deserves jail time?
Your bias is showing. "Black leaders" are not the only people who believe this young man has ben treated unfairly.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=53181 (broken link)
Lawyers, Guns and Money: The Problem with Prosecutorial Discretion (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-with-prosecutorial-discretion.html - broken link)

Injustice In Georgia: The Case of Genarlow Wilson
Why is Genarlow Wilson in Prison?
ESPN.com - E-Ticket: Outrageous Injustice
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/op...=1&oref=slogin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,144 posts, read 42,036,722 times
Reputation: 3861
Quote:
Originally Posted by liliblu View Post
"The 17 y/o black HS student who had sex with a younger white girl and got 10 years in prison (there have been more than one that fit this description in the news) - The argument is "He is guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony"."

Are you aware of the age of the of the white female the 17 year old black male had sex with? She was 15years old. They were both minors. A 27 year old high school teacher received probation for having sex with a 16 year old male student. Both cases were prosecuted in Georgia. Which one do you believe deserves jail time?
Your bias is showing. "Black leaders" are not the only people who believe this young man has ben treated unfairly.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=53181 (broken link)
Lawyers, Guns and Money: The Problem with Prosecutorial Discretion (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-with-prosecutorial-discretion.html - broken link)

Injustice In Georgia: The Case of Genarlow Wilson
Why is Genarlow Wilson in Prison?
ESPN.com - E-Ticket: Outrageous Injustice
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/op...=1&oref=slogin
No joke: both kids were minors---------so, statutory rape charges should apply to both kids or neither. Not one or the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 06:12 PM
 
Location: California
11,466 posts, read 19,310,287 times
Reputation: 12712
A simple answer to the original question is that they love the publicity, thats how they make their living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,525,659 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evlevo View Post
***NOTE: If you feel like neg-rep'ing me for this as 'inciteful' or something, please read through the whole thing before doing so... I am trying to qualify all of my statements***

I have been watching the recent news about the Jena 6 and the political rallies, and I came up with a question that I would be interested in hearing Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or another "black community leader" answer...

Why are the events that bring out the biggest rallies along the lines of "Well, black person(s) 'so-and-so' may be a guilty, but they are not as guilty as the white people say they are".

As examples I give you both the incident and the rally argument (as I interpreted it)...

*The Jena 6 - (regardless of provocation) 6 guys assault someone and send him to the hospital. The argument is "they are guilty of assault, not attempted murder".

*The 17 y/o black HS student who had sex with a younger white girl and got 10 years in prison (there have been more than one that fit this description in the news) - The argument is "He is guilty of a misdemeanor, not a felony".

*The black students expelled for fighting at a football game. This was 6-7 years ago and I remember that Jesse Jackson organized a march there (the fight was on video, so it was played quite a bit in the news at the time). The arguement "they should have just been suspended".

*Any of the black teens/men shot by police (some with criminal records) in NYC/Detroit, etc who, in the course of police trying to investigate/arrest them regarding a crime end up shooting and/or killing them. I remember a few of these in the news in the past few years, one was shot by an officer who said he was attempting to hit the officer with his car, and several were along the lines of "I thought the toy gun was real". or "he ran away when I identified myself as a cop", etc -- The argument is "they were guilty of resisting arrest/probation violations, etc, but the officer over-reacted."

OK, here are the biggies....

*Rodney King (do I need to go over the facts of the matter?) - The argument was "Yes, he was committing felonies (resisting arrest, "felony-flee" in his car), but the white officers were worse.

*OJ Simpson (again, no need to review the facts) - The argument "Sure he ran from police and had a lot of incriminating evidence against him, but that white cop was a racist"

* Michael Jackson - The argument "yes, it sure does look questionable, but the public's desire to hold a '21st century lynching' of a black man is more credible"

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there where not miscarriages of justice in all those cases (except for OJ and Michael Jackson... because, well F@#%K them) or that the outrage was not justified... and I think that there are certain issues that resonate with people (and thus the media). I am just asking why these are the top attention/rally issues? Are there not more positive subjects to have marches or protests about? Or at least ones where the 'victim' is A LOT more innocent (like the old days... Rosa Parks, Emmet Till, the children trying to attend school in Little Rock, etc). To me that means that things have been getting better and more just, and the only things left are the "guilty but not AS guilty" things. Maybe there just are not any more events worthy of a march?

And if I am mistaken and there are a lot of events that disprove my theory, please post them and enlighten me, because I would love to be wrong.
Why don't you call Al Sharpton's radio show, write a letter on his web-site or any other form of direct contact- if you really want an answer from him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2007, 07:17 PM
 
Location: NC
1,251 posts, read 2,571,893 times
Reputation: 588
I will probably get zapped for this but here goes; I dont think either of the Rev's are very good leaders of anything. They do better exploiting than leading. I do think they are right on this matter though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top