Who Am I?
Kai. A Black man from Harlem.
A Communist.
The illest MC you've never heard.
Contact
Rebelology
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The Mainstream Media and 'Race', not racism.
There are truly not enough ways to chronicle how much I hate the mainstream media. Yes, even the New York Times the so-called paper of record. In many ways the Times mirrors what I abhor about democratic policiticans, they talk a good one, they are somewhat better than their conservative counterparts, but they are still largely full of shit in most of the ways that matter. What I'm saying is, the New York Times is Obama. I'll have to explain why to you wanna-be lefties in another post (and I will), but I'll simply state here in spite of his rhetoric of change, nothing Obama is proposing to do is outside the realm of mainstream politics, and I think mainstream politics are very dangerous to the working class and to the planet.
But anyway, the New York Times ran a series of articles 8 years ago, that I thought were really interesting then, and as I rediscovered them, I think recent events make them relevant all over again. The series was called How Race is Lived in America.
The flaws in the series are the typical mainstream liberal flaws, they tell you the story is about 'race' instead of 'racism' (it just makes you feel better that way doesn't it?). When they do discuss racism, it is never called that by name, and it is only addressed when it appears in the form of personal bigotry (wouldn't wanna be calling American institutions racist now would we?). Fittingly, after all of these ciruitous tactics are employed, and both sides of the story are told, the author does, ever so subtly, lead you to his liberal conclusion; which of course isn't that far off from the conservative conclusion. In fact, I'm beginning to realize that what often seperates liberals from conservatives, aside from liberals having more braincells, is nuance. Here, the Times illustrates this in its description of the series:
I guess when you frame discussions about race (again, not racism), on a 'full employment economy ' and the perception among many whites that society has adequately addressed the problem, I shouldnt set my hopes too high. They might as well say: We (white people) are enjoying the economy and really dont know why minorities keep bringing up all of this this stuff up because like, didn't we already fix this whole race thing in the 60s? Nearly a half century later and liberals insist on remaining utterly clueless about racism. Did it not aoccur to the writer that, unemployment for black people has perennially been at least double that of whites? The only full employment economy we've ever enjoyed came with a whip.
Is it any wonder most Americans (read: white people) tend to be so delusional when it comes to racism? I happen to think that most Americans need to be spoken to about racism in ways that shatter the erroneous beliefs they've grown accustomed to and while I dont think this series does that, I do think it provides more insight and nuance, than is typical for mainstream reporting on a touchy topic.
There is the article about race and running political office:
I recently read about Obama being Mr. Cool? I'd suggest his coolness is largely because he has no alternative.
There is the piece about race in the NYPD which causes one to revisit the Sean Bell case:
the good:
The bad:
Lastly there is the piece Called "Who gets to tell a black story?" For fans of the Wire, this is a must read, as it describes the racial politics behind the production of "The Corner" mini-series which was essentially "The Wire" prequel. Writer David Simon and Director Charles S. Dutton have some interesting experiences.
But anyway, the New York Times ran a series of articles 8 years ago, that I thought were really interesting then, and as I rediscovered them, I think recent events make them relevant all over again. The series was called How Race is Lived in America.
The flaws in the series are the typical mainstream liberal flaws, they tell you the story is about 'race' instead of 'racism' (it just makes you feel better that way doesn't it?). When they do discuss racism, it is never called that by name, and it is only addressed when it appears in the form of personal bigotry (wouldn't wanna be calling American institutions racist now would we?). Fittingly, after all of these ciruitous tactics are employed, and both sides of the story are told, the author does, ever so subtly, lead you to his liberal conclusion; which of course isn't that far off from the conservative conclusion. In fact, I'm beginning to realize that what often seperates liberals from conservatives, aside from liberals having more braincells, is nuance. Here, the Times illustrates this in its description of the series:
Two generations after the end of legal discrimination, race still ignites political debates..but the wider public discussion of race relations seems muted by a full-employment economy and by a sense, particularly among many whites, that the time of large social remedies is past.
I guess when you frame discussions about race (again, not racism), on a 'full employment economy ' and the perception among many whites that society has adequately addressed the problem, I shouldnt set my hopes too high. They might as well say: We (white people) are enjoying the economy and really dont know why minorities keep bringing up all of this this stuff up because like, didn't we already fix this whole race thing in the 60s? Nearly a half century later and liberals insist on remaining utterly clueless about racism. Did it not aoccur to the writer that, unemployment for black people has perennially been at least double that of whites? The only full employment economy we've ever enjoyed came with a whip.
Is it any wonder most Americans (read: white people) tend to be so delusional when it comes to racism? I happen to think that most Americans need to be spoken to about racism in ways that shatter the erroneous beliefs they've grown accustomed to and while I dont think this series does that, I do think it provides more insight and nuance, than is typical for mainstream reporting on a touchy topic.
There is the article about race and running political office:
When a reporter describes Mr. Sims [an African-American] as angry in a public debate, he will challenge the characterization. "That's code," he said. "A black man who is angry is a lethal label in politics."The article is titled: "When to Campaign with Color?" My Answer: When you're not black.
I recently read about Obama being Mr. Cool? I'd suggest his coolness is largely because he has no alternative.
There is the piece about race in the NYPD which causes one to revisit the Sean Bell case:
the good:
Dark-skinned undercovers are touchy about racial profiling because most, including Detective Gonzalez, say that when off duty, in their neighborhoods or out driving, they have been targets of white officers. One undercover, Tyrone, says that while driving home from work to Brooklyn he gets stopped an average of one night a week.How do police apologists reconcile the fact that even black and brown Police Officers claim that the NYPD routinely uses racist tactics?
Derrick and Rob didn't bother explaining to that plainclothes cop that they, too, were cops. They just shook their heads and waited until he left. "You know it's because we're black," Derrick said.
The bad:
The biggest police race case in New York City in years, Diallo -- the 1998 killing of a black man standing in the doorway of his Bronx building by four panicky [emphasis mine] white policemen --Interestingly enough, large black man that I am, in the 90's I had many encounters with the notorious Street Crimes Unit that murdered Amadou Diallo, and those encounters mostly consisted of stop and frisks that violated my rights without even the pretense of civility or legality. So if by panicky, they mean overly aggressive, cowboy cops, then I'd say we are on the same page.
Lastly there is the piece Called "Who gets to tell a black story?" For fans of the Wire, this is a must read, as it describes the racial politics behind the production of "The Corner" mini-series which was essentially "The Wire" prequel. Writer David Simon and Director Charles S. Dutton have some interesting experiences.
"There isn't a single black person in Hollywood with any power," [Dutton] said last fall. "This isn't paranoia. Because if I stood in a room with every major black star, just talking, then I would hear the same things out of their mouths that are coming out of mine. Multimillionaires. The main thing you'll hear is, 'Whenever I take a project, I can't get it done unless I have a white partner.'If anyone has seen American Gangster, they realize that Hollywood's racial politics ruined what should have been a classic ganster flick. They didn't want to spend all of that money making a 'black' movie so they make the movie about the black ganster and the white cop. Thanks for the yarn. Hollywoood has a long history of doing this, Cry Freedom comes to mind, a movie ostensibly about South African freedom fighter, Steven Biko (played exceptionally by Denzel), that was actually more about a white journalist who befriended him. I could go on forever, Hollywood is racist, thats no surprise, but this particular article gave me a new found respect for Charles S. Dutton and his fight for black folks on and off the screen.
Labels: NYTimes, racial profiling, racism
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sean Bell Verdict & The Stupid Arguments used to justify it
People who support the cops in this case, almost universally get key facts wrong, AND they make justifications for the shooting that-well, aren't good reasons someone should be killed.
Why do people get so many facts wrong? The media hasn't done a good job of reporting all of the facts of the case clearly, the case is a bit complicated, and people who think this incident is justified are probably more likely to believe most things police do are justified anyway (particularly when those things are only happening to people of color). Not surprisingly, the things that were omitted or under reported in the case lean towards a cop friendly, if murky, view of events and I don't think that is a coincidence.
In my view, most of these stupid arguments are thinly veiled covers for racist beliefs. The racist beliefs I speak of have a line of logic that connects Blackness (or Browness) to criminality. There is the conservative version of this logic: They're all criminals anyway, if one of 'em gets killed by accident, thats what happens when you send in the good guys to tame the savages. Then there is it's liberal cousin: In high crime areas the police simply have to be more aggressive and these incidents, though unfortunate, are part of the price we (read: People of color) pay for making the city safe for everyone (read: Not People of color).
Just to be clear, I think that for the first time in my life, MOST white people have found a case of police brutality that shocks the senses enough to think excessive force was used in this case. However, because there are black officers in the case, some have expressed the feeling that it simply cannot be about race. This view, a widely held misconception about the nature of racism, has manifested itself often enough that I will have to devote another post (or blog!) to address this properly.
Here are the major stupid arguments.
Stupid argument 1: What were they (Sean Bell & co.) doing at a bad Bar, loaded with criminals, drugs, and prostitutes?
Response: Uh, having fun at a bachelor party, which may have included getting a blowjob or worse *gasp* intercourse? Lets put it like this, if paying for a blowjob were grounds enough to be murdered (by the police no less), Eliot Spitzer would be dead and a sizeable portion of the rethuglican party wouldn't be around either, albeit for blowjobs given to male prostitutes, but who's counting? The people who make SA1, couldnt possibly believe this, I think these arguments are thrown out to cover for their racist belief in dangerous black men, and the need to tame them at all costs. "They shouldn't have been there in the first place" is not a justifiable reason for people to be shot and murdered and anyone with good sense knows it.
Stupid argument 2: Some variation of "the police have a difficult and dangerous job" and that when they kill people we should accept it because their job is so hard.
Response: If they cannot handle the responsibility that comes with walking around with a gun, stepping into conflicts, and risking their lives, DONT FUCKING SIGN UP!!!! Its quite simple, there is no draft, and none of these men or women were forced into this profession. The fact that you have a difficult job with tough life-or-death decisions to make, is something you choose when you join the academy. Growing up in a poor community is very tough too. Its tough not to fall victim to the allure of gangs, drugs, or various other criminal lifestyles, YET, the police don't take that into consideration when policing those neighborhoods, and the courts dont take it into consideration when sentencing those who fell victim to the gravitational pull of the streets. Your job is tough, but you chose it, if you dont like it, choose something else; (if only it were so easy for the ghetto child his/her way out). Don't do your job haphazardly and expect sympathy because its difficult. I acknowledge the job is hard, but I dont accept the difficulty of your job as an excuse to take away my life. And lets be clear, I am Sean Bell in so many ways that this shit enrages me and frightens me at the same time.
Stupid Argument 3: But they thought they saw someone reach for a gun thats why they fired.
Response: Funny how that always happens isn't it? Let me tell you a story about fear. When I was 12, I rode the train scared to death because at the time a youth gang called 'the Decepticons' were running wild in the city, and the horror stories were swirling like vultures over the death of my innocence. In my pre-teen mind they were the equivalent of a South American death squad (funded by the USA of course). Against this backdrop a real tough looking dude walks onto the train, I look at his hand go in his bag and come out with a gun. As it turns out, it was a $5 dollar umbrella, not a gun, but I almost died of a heart attack before I realized it. Fear can make you see things that aren't there. I was 12, and I was shook. If you are a cop whose fear causes you to assume that every black man's gesture is a possible move for a weapon, you pose a threat to public safety and have no business walking around with a gun. It is ok to be afraid of people and situations, but it is not ok to kill people because you are afraid and if you are that afraid then policing was a bad career move for you and is downright hazardous for people who look like me.
Respone 2: Now I'm wondering what exactly does a reach for a gun look like? How is it different from a reach for a cell phone, or a wallet? Do the police undergo special reach training where they can interpret the various objects that a person is reaching for before the object is revealed? Obviously there is no way to tell what someone is reaching for, so when the police say they thought someone was reaching for a gun, they are imagining things, they are adding variables into an equation that are not there. You should not be able to kill someone because you think they are reaching for something that is not there. This reaching for a gun argument needs to be put to rest. Unless you can see a gun, or someone tells you they are reaching for a gun, or you KNOW someone has a gun, you have absolutely no way to tell if someone is reaching for a gun or not. More importantly, in this case, I do not believe anyone was reaching for anything. We know there was no gun, not "no gun was found" as all of the papers say, there was NO FUCKING GUN! I believe it was an excuse made up after the fact, to justify the shooting. This reaching for a gun argument is the police version of the favored excuse among homicide defendants 'the gun just went off'.
Bottom line:
The police are supposed to risk their lives to save ours, not risk our lives to save yours. That means that even if he was reaching for something, you already have a gun drawn and aimed, you have the drop, and that should give you enough time to determine if what said person was reaching for was a gun or not. Dont police train for this type of thing?!?! Yes they do, but as I said, there was no gun and no plausible explanation for why anyone would be reaching for anything .
Stupid Argument 4: All of the victims had prior criminal convictions.
Response: Its difficult for me to address such an asinine argument without getting upset. What exactly does what someone did in the past, have to do with why they were shot? First, the police did not know any of this about the victims unless they were wearing their rap sheets on their heads. Second, the people who make these kinds of arguments seek to blame the victims and lessen the value of their humanity, something that most Americans do automatically when the victims are young black males anyway. This is one of many arguments that stupid people use to blame the victims for being shot. Ironically, these same people are outraged when someone makes the connection between 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy of the last 30 years; and that aint even blaming the victim, thats connecting the dots.
Incorrect Argument 1 (IA1): They were killed for driving the car at a cop using it as a deadly weapon.
Response: This argument isn't stupid it is wrong. The police have explicitly NOT used this defense precisely because they are trained NOT to fire at moving cars. Therefore, IA1 is factually incorrect on 2 levels, shooting at this car in this case would not have been a legal justification and the police never claimed to have fired because the car was moving. Again, they claimed one of the passengers was reaching for a gun that he didn't have.
I'm sure stupid people are thinking of other stupid and factually incorrect arguments to support their indifference to the loss of black life, so I have to stop here; but not before showing the irony of stupid logic:
1. Its OK, for the police to shoot and kill because they think a black guy is reaching for a gun.
2. Its not OK, for some black guys to be afraid and try to drive off when they see another black guy who actually HAS a gun.
Why do people get so many facts wrong? The media hasn't done a good job of reporting all of the facts of the case clearly, the case is a bit complicated, and people who think this incident is justified are probably more likely to believe most things police do are justified anyway (particularly when those things are only happening to people of color). Not surprisingly, the things that were omitted or under reported in the case lean towards a cop friendly, if murky, view of events and I don't think that is a coincidence.
In my view, most of these stupid arguments are thinly veiled covers for racist beliefs. The racist beliefs I speak of have a line of logic that connects Blackness (or Browness) to criminality. There is the conservative version of this logic: They're all criminals anyway, if one of 'em gets killed by accident, thats what happens when you send in the good guys to tame the savages. Then there is it's liberal cousin: In high crime areas the police simply have to be more aggressive and these incidents, though unfortunate, are part of the price we (read: People of color) pay for making the city safe for everyone (read: Not People of color).
Just to be clear, I think that for the first time in my life, MOST white people have found a case of police brutality that shocks the senses enough to think excessive force was used in this case. However, because there are black officers in the case, some have expressed the feeling that it simply cannot be about race. This view, a widely held misconception about the nature of racism, has manifested itself often enough that I will have to devote another post (or blog!) to address this properly.
Here are the major stupid arguments.
Stupid argument 1: What were they (Sean Bell & co.) doing at a bad Bar, loaded with criminals, drugs, and prostitutes?
Response: Uh, having fun at a bachelor party, which may have included getting a blowjob or worse *gasp* intercourse? Lets put it like this, if paying for a blowjob were grounds enough to be murdered (by the police no less), Eliot Spitzer would be dead and a sizeable portion of the rethuglican party wouldn't be around either, albeit for blowjobs given to male prostitutes, but who's counting? The people who make SA1, couldnt possibly believe this, I think these arguments are thrown out to cover for their racist belief in dangerous black men, and the need to tame them at all costs. "They shouldn't have been there in the first place" is not a justifiable reason for people to be shot and murdered and anyone with good sense knows it.
Stupid argument 2: Some variation of "the police have a difficult and dangerous job" and that when they kill people we should accept it because their job is so hard.
Response: If they cannot handle the responsibility that comes with walking around with a gun, stepping into conflicts, and risking their lives, DONT FUCKING SIGN UP!!!! Its quite simple, there is no draft, and none of these men or women were forced into this profession. The fact that you have a difficult job with tough life-or-death decisions to make, is something you choose when you join the academy. Growing up in a poor community is very tough too. Its tough not to fall victim to the allure of gangs, drugs, or various other criminal lifestyles, YET, the police don't take that into consideration when policing those neighborhoods, and the courts dont take it into consideration when sentencing those who fell victim to the gravitational pull of the streets. Your job is tough, but you chose it, if you dont like it, choose something else; (if only it were so easy for the ghetto child his/her way out). Don't do your job haphazardly and expect sympathy because its difficult. I acknowledge the job is hard, but I dont accept the difficulty of your job as an excuse to take away my life. And lets be clear, I am Sean Bell in so many ways that this shit enrages me and frightens me at the same time.
Stupid Argument 3: But they thought they saw someone reach for a gun thats why they fired.
Response: Funny how that always happens isn't it? Let me tell you a story about fear. When I was 12, I rode the train scared to death because at the time a youth gang called 'the Decepticons' were running wild in the city, and the horror stories were swirling like vultures over the death of my innocence. In my pre-teen mind they were the equivalent of a South American death squad (funded by the USA of course). Against this backdrop a real tough looking dude walks onto the train, I look at his hand go in his bag and come out with a gun. As it turns out, it was a $5 dollar umbrella, not a gun, but I almost died of a heart attack before I realized it. Fear can make you see things that aren't there. I was 12, and I was shook. If you are a cop whose fear causes you to assume that every black man's gesture is a possible move for a weapon, you pose a threat to public safety and have no business walking around with a gun. It is ok to be afraid of people and situations, but it is not ok to kill people because you are afraid and if you are that afraid then policing was a bad career move for you and is downright hazardous for people who look like me.
Respone 2: Now I'm wondering what exactly does a reach for a gun look like? How is it different from a reach for a cell phone, or a wallet? Do the police undergo special reach training where they can interpret the various objects that a person is reaching for before the object is revealed? Obviously there is no way to tell what someone is reaching for, so when the police say they thought someone was reaching for a gun, they are imagining things, they are adding variables into an equation that are not there. You should not be able to kill someone because you think they are reaching for something that is not there. This reaching for a gun argument needs to be put to rest. Unless you can see a gun, or someone tells you they are reaching for a gun, or you KNOW someone has a gun, you have absolutely no way to tell if someone is reaching for a gun or not. More importantly, in this case, I do not believe anyone was reaching for anything. We know there was no gun, not "no gun was found" as all of the papers say, there was NO FUCKING GUN! I believe it was an excuse made up after the fact, to justify the shooting. This reaching for a gun argument is the police version of the favored excuse among homicide defendants 'the gun just went off'.
Bottom line:
The police are supposed to risk their lives to save ours, not risk our lives to save yours. That means that even if he was reaching for something, you already have a gun drawn and aimed, you have the drop, and that should give you enough time to determine if what said person was reaching for was a gun or not. Dont police train for this type of thing?!?! Yes they do, but as I said, there was no gun and no plausible explanation for why anyone would be reaching for anything .
Stupid Argument 4: All of the victims had prior criminal convictions.
Response: Its difficult for me to address such an asinine argument without getting upset. What exactly does what someone did in the past, have to do with why they were shot? First, the police did not know any of this about the victims unless they were wearing their rap sheets on their heads. Second, the people who make these kinds of arguments seek to blame the victims and lessen the value of their humanity, something that most Americans do automatically when the victims are young black males anyway. This is one of many arguments that stupid people use to blame the victims for being shot. Ironically, these same people are outraged when someone makes the connection between 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy of the last 30 years; and that aint even blaming the victim, thats connecting the dots.
Incorrect Argument 1 (IA1): They were killed for driving the car at a cop using it as a deadly weapon.
Response: This argument isn't stupid it is wrong. The police have explicitly NOT used this defense precisely because they are trained NOT to fire at moving cars. Therefore, IA1 is factually incorrect on 2 levels, shooting at this car in this case would not have been a legal justification and the police never claimed to have fired because the car was moving. Again, they claimed one of the passengers was reaching for a gun that he didn't have.
I'm sure stupid people are thinking of other stupid and factually incorrect arguments to support their indifference to the loss of black life, so I have to stop here; but not before showing the irony of stupid logic:
1. Its OK, for the police to shoot and kill because they think a black guy is reaching for a gun.
2. Its not OK, for some black guys to be afraid and try to drive off when they see another black guy who actually HAS a gun.
Labels: police brutality, racism, Sean Bell, Stupid People
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Racism & Smoking Guns
Catherine Donnelly, recently recounted how she and her mother were horrified that she was placed in a room with a black woman, in her first day as a freshman in
I think the revelations in this article are important because Michelle Obama has been painted as some kind of anti-American, Black revolutionary because of her thesis and some other remarks that she’s made. The notion that her experiences with racism may have shaped her perception of
Well, here it is folks, Michelle Obama’s first college roommate came from a long line of racists, and Catherine Donnelly admits that her mom and grandmother filled her head with “with racist stereotypes, portraying African-Americans as prone to crime, uneducated and, at times, people to be feared” Here is the smoking gun.
I was excited when I read the article because rare is it that a person comes forward and admits so candidly their family history of racism and bigotry. I really appreciated their honesty and respected their courage.; and wish them well on their desire to evolve into better human beings. But more importantly, I hoped that the media discussion of this would prove that Michelle Obama's views on racism in this country were vindicated, that is, I hoped the confessions of a racist bigot, might serve to put the black perspective on race, into a context that made sense. After all, isn't perfectly reasonable to feel anger, resentment, and frustration when you've been mistreated solely because of the color of your skin? Well that media discussion hasn't happened, and many of my friends think I'm crazy for expecting it to. Maybe I am crazy?
Maybe not. Catherine Donnelly’s mother has already said this with regards to Rev. Wrights remarks:
"If I had been treated the same way blacks have been treated," she says, "I'd be resentful, too."
I’d say that most conscious black folks aren’t the super patriotic, god bless
Labels: media., Michelle Obama, racism, white denial
Friday, April 4, 2008
John McCain, Friend of the Negro since 1990.
On the anniversy of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assasination, John McCain was in Memphis (at the site where MLK was assasinated) to to explain that he voted against a federal holiday for MLK in 1983 because he didn't know what a great man MLK was. [In Lil Jon voice] HuuuuWHAAATTTTT?!?!?!?
As a congressperson, isn't it your obligation to find out exactly what the issue is you are asked to vote on? You like, dont have a real job because people voted you into congress, expecting you to make informed decisions on issues and this is what you do? At age 47 when he voted no in 1983, he was plenty old enough, freshman congressman or not, to either know who Dr. King was or to know that he ought to find out. We're not talking about some obscure historical figure here. If this man wasn't doing his due diligence on congressional matters at 47, should we expect that he will on presidential matters at 71? Ok, I know people who are likely reading this are not even considering voting for him, but I still thougth that was an argument worth putting out into the blogosphere, anyway.
McCain, you need more people.
He claims to have evolved, but not knowing who someone is, and then knowing who they are isn't really evolving. He makes it seem as though, had he known about MLK in '83, he would have voted for the holiday. Thats not evolution. Going from bigot to something less than a bigot is evolving, but thats not what he's claiming, and in my estimation, it should be. And even that assumes that he's something less than a bigot now, which according to his voting record isn't quite accurate. Heres what he could have said to earn my respect:
As a congressperson, isn't it your obligation to find out exactly what the issue is you are asked to vote on? You like, dont have a real job because people voted you into congress, expecting you to make informed decisions on issues and this is what you do? At age 47 when he voted no in 1983, he was plenty old enough, freshman congressman or not, to either know who Dr. King was or to know that he ought to find out. We're not talking about some obscure historical figure here. If this man wasn't doing his due diligence on congressional matters at 47, should we expect that he will on presidential matters at 71? Ok, I know people who are likely reading this are not even considering voting for him, but I still thougth that was an argument worth putting out into the blogosphere, anyway.
McCain, you need more people.
He claims to have evolved, but not knowing who someone is, and then knowing who they are isn't really evolving. He makes it seem as though, had he known about MLK in '83, he would have voted for the holiday. Thats not evolution. Going from bigot to something less than a bigot is evolving, but thats not what he's claiming, and in my estimation, it should be. And even that assumes that he's something less than a bigot now, which according to his voting record isn't quite accurate. Heres what he could have said to earn my respect:
At the time, I was a middle-aged white man, who didn't have much contact with black people and as a result, wasn't really in tune with civil rights issues (read: I was a racist). So when the country was making an attempt to move foward, I was still a step behind and I was wrong for that, but I have changed. Blah, blah, blah.Maybe he would have said something like that if his campaign were based on riding around the country on a bus called the 'straight talk express.' Oops. I have to also consider his 'vigorous fight' for the MLK holiday in 1990 dubious at best, considering the fact the he knew the state would (and did) lose millions in tourism dollars through a subsequent boycott if the holiday did not come into existence. Eventually, in 1991, after 2 years of boycotts and over 500 million dollars in lost tourism dollars, the politicians and citizen's of Arizona 'evolved' in unison to make the holiday a reality. Isn't it amazing how people's consciousness evolves when it costs them half billion dollars?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Jena 6 DA cops a plea
In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, Reed Walters, the Jean 6 DA, writes a justification for all of his actions in a sensitive tone in an attempt to appear reasonable, and I assume, not racist. Let us begin.
Reed Walters' Poison Pen
Before I get into what he wrote in the Times, lets talk about some things he said that aren't disputed. Walter read stood in front of some students in an assembly at school and told them “With one stroke of my pen, I can make your life disappear.” Many black students felt that remark was directed at them and reported that he was looking directly at them when he said it. However, regardless of which group of students his comment was directed at, he was still talking to HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS!!!! Before there was an incident worthy of national attention, he behaved in a way that is equal parts unprofessional and irresponsible. Furthermore, I believe his behavior played a role in escalating tensions surrounding the noose incident. I've heard the pen is mightier than the sword, but I'm saying though-this is incomprehensible.
In his Op Ed piece, Reed Walters wrote:
I do not question the sincerity or motivation of the 10,000 or more protesters who descended on Jena last week, after riding hundreds of miles on buses. But long before reaching our town of 3,000 people, they had decided that a miscarriage of justice was taking place here. Their anger at me was summed up by a woman who said, “If you can figure out how to make a schoolyard fight into an attempted murder charge, I’m sure you can figure out how to make stringing nooses into a hate crime.”
That could be a compelling statement to someone trying to motivate listeners on a radio show, but as I am a lawyer obligated to enforce the laws of my state, it does not work for me.
He chose to argue against what even he admits was talk radio logic. Although I understand that hanging a noose isn’t a crime, I must admit that I dont understand why it isn't, since it's basically a terroristic threat and America's answer to the Swastika. But again, I can't fault a man for not charging students with something that isn't in the book (isn't it funny how instituional racism works?). However, for most of us, the outrage in the Black community is not about equating the hanging of nooses with beating someone unconscious. The outrage is about the inappropriate zeal with which Reed Walters has approached this case and how most of us view this in the context of a criminal justice system, which has consistantly offered harsher penalties whenever possible for African Americans (theres that pesky institutionalised racism again). This view is well documented as fact, but scant attention is paid to acknowledging its existence, much less redressing it. The outrage in this matter is about redressing it, in this particular case, and in the criminal justice system in general.
Dangerous Sneakers
According to Louisiana Penal Code aggravated second degree battery charges specifically includes the use of a dangerous weapon.
I have read that the dangerous weapon he is alleging was used in this case was the student’s sneakers?!?! I guess that’s not a racist application of a law and its perfectly logical for us to assume that sneakers are deadly weapons when they are attached to these students’ black feet. I don’t have the data about how he has treated other cases, but I would be curious to know how many pairs of sneakers have been labeled dangerous weapons on white feet, hell, on any other feet. Sneakers are not deadly weapons no matter how you slice it, to charge the students in this way is immoral and inappropriate. If Reed Walters thinks overcharging to an admittedly lesser offense than Attempted Murder is appropriate, we can all see where his notions about fairness and justice will lead.
Schoolyard Fight?!?!
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.Reed Walters' grand omission here is that he charged some teenagers who jumped another student, with second degree attempted murder. That he shows no contrition for such an excessive charge speaks volumes. Schoolyard fight, or bar room brawl, Second degree attempted murder charges for a fight are excessive.
Still I march on to the notion of whether the term 'school yard fight' is appropriate. It was a fight and it happened in a school yard, so that part is accurate. However, I think the true test in this is to think about how you would feel if your child had been beaten by several students and was unconscious, bloody and taken to a hospital in an ambulance. I would not characterize that as a schoolyard fight, so Reed Walters and I do agree on something.
Freedom or Justice?
As I have said to many a friend in response to the ridiculous hip hop ‘campaigns’ to free x rapper, or x rapper's weed carrier; calls for freedom are reserved for people who are falsely accused/imprisoned. While I think the Jena 6 have been overcharged, I haven't heard anyone claim that they have been falsely accused. What I want for the Jena 6 is justice. Freedom may be justice for all or some of them in this case, or it may not be, depending on the circumstances. The fact that the kids were over charged initially, and are still being overcharged, imo, does not mean they all ought to exonerated unconditionally. I am not certain about everything that happened, but, we do know that Justin Barker was beaten unconscious and lets assume that some or all of the students known as the Jena 6 were responsible. This incident is not something I would characterize as a schoolyard fight. When a kid is beaten unconscious and taken to the hospital in an ambulance, that is a serious matter. Yes, even if he was well enough to go to an event later that night, its still serious. I certainly would be taking it very seriously if a group of kids knocked my child unconscious. So lets establish that.
That the police were involved in a situation like this does not seem unusual or happening solely because the students were black. A kid gets beaten unconscious on school grounds, and has to leave in an ambulance, and several kids allegedly beat him, yes I would think anywhere in America, school administrators would call the police. So I think we have a situation where kids have taken some actions which have lead them into the arms of the criminal justice system and are now facing charges.
What kind of charges ought they face, if any, and what kind of sentence ought to be meted out if they are found guilty? I'd say they ought to get the same kind of justice that upper class white teens get when they do things they aren't supposed to do. I think thats a fair. way to go about evaluating the fairness in any case.I also think that our community needs to be more critical and strategic about when and how we respond to instances of alleged injustice. There are so many more egregious examples of injustice that are deserving of our outrage, that if we were on our jobs as community, I'm not sure we would have had time to focus on Jena so loudly. In fact, if we were really on our jobs, there might not have been a Jena 6 in the first place.
Labels: black community, criminal justice, Jena 6, New York Times, racism