Bingo!

There are two competing wills in race relations in this country.

The clarion call for justice vs. the drumbeat for silence.


It's not nearly that simple.

Racial bias is alive and well in this country as link like those provided by CR indicated and studies by sociologists like the "Implicit Association Test"
substantiate over and over again.

Race matters in our country so complaining that advocates bring attention to this basic truth is pointless.

Putting out heads in the sand won't fix race relations.

..and comparing Sharpton to David Duke?

Let's get real here.

To simply stay on topic and not get into the whole Jesse Jackson thing I'm going to deal with Al Sharpton facing death regularly. Regularly?

Get ready, this doesn't happen often:

Al Sharpton almost acted fairly honorably considering he got stabbed in the chest. It was NOT life threatening, but hey, it's a knife in the chest. He asked the judge for leniency for the stabber. That was pretty stand up and very much in line with his Christian life.

But then... he sued the Police and settled before it could go to trial... So in the end he shook down the police for 200K. Why? They didn't offer him adequate protection. Why should they have been offering him adequate protection? Oh because he was having a march (illegally (or at least uninvited) I think, but anyone can check). So 10K hospital bill == 200K. Good job.

On January 12, 1991 Sharpton was stabbed while organizing a demonstration in Bensonhurst. At the hospital when Sharpton learned the doctors intended to cut off his leather jacket Sharpton, "made them stop and hauled myself off the gurney and took my coat off". The event was turning point for Sharpton who saw first hand the violence that "loose language" could incite. Years later Sharpton met with his attacker and reflected "what poison am I putting in my environment ... where a kid feels he'll be a hero if he kills somebody"

Agreed.

What constructive part of the "clarion call" does Al Sharpton play? If "justice" is what we all are striving for, would it be safe to assume that "justice" should fit more than one color? If so, I would like you to list for me 5 people who are not black that Al Sharpton has stood up for. If you are having trouble doing so then putting that "goal" in a thread about Al Sharpton seems to make as much sense as selling ice water to eskimos.

Oh and yes, I freely admit to wanting the whole thing to go away. Anyone who doesn't is admitting that they want the problem to continue endlessly. Hmmmm..sounds like Al Sharpton is JUST the man for that!

Of course, there won't be 5 such people. Why? Surely there would have been 5 non-black people on the planet over the last 20 years or so who had tremendous injustice done to them, and deserved to have an advocate for their cause. Why would Al not have stood up for them? I believe Nighttimer hit the nail on the head here.



Mr. Sharpton's status in the black community would diminish were he to take up other's causes. Would this matter to someone seeking true justice? Not so much--after all, an injustice righted is good for all. To someone seeking to maintain his position of power within a special interest group? Most certainly. Which is why you don't see such people sticking up for injustices outside of their sphere.

Now, as I said in my initial post, I am not so much against Al Sharpton, but allow me to use this as an example of what so many white people get tired of from racial activists. We see such people pushing specific incidents (some quite justified, some not so much) for their own personal gain, beating 'us (us being all white people)' up in the process. For many of these causes, most of 'us' would freely admit that someone was wronged, and that something should be done about it. We're just as appalled at such acts as any minority would be. All of a sudden, though, we're being indicted right along with whoever actually committed the injustice, and often more for someone's own personal political gain than for actually righting some wrong. This naturally turns us off on the issue. Further, doing so only incites additional racial unrest, making the real issue worse, not better--again primarily, it seems, for some individual's personal political gain. If we really want to improve racial issues in this country, we need less rhetoric, and more objective dialogue. MLK achieved this. He phrased the racial debate in a manner that all people could get behind, not just blacks. It's not that most white people don't get that racial prejudice still exists in this country. It's that we think that we all need to work together to fix it. Being shouted at by those seeking to use incidents of injustice for their own personal political gain isn't what we think is needed, and we therefore tend to tune such people out. How is that helping?

...as has already been discussed here Sharpton is an outspoken advocate for gay rights, hence I could easily outdo that 5... by a margin of a few million or so.

It hasn't so far....


When did Sharpton do that?


That's a false choice and I think you know it.


It helps because the thing most responsible for continued racial injustice in this country is denial that a problem exists.

No one is going to read all the thoughtful studies if they don't think there's a reason to do so.

...and sure enough studies like those CR and I have referenced aren't exactly common talking points.

Ringwraith


I'll take up the challenge. Forget five... what about an whole island of people....Vieques, Puerto Rico. Now either you accept or you back track. Your CHOICE. And I just have to hear it.

He fought, was jailed and went on a hunger strike for 9,400 Puerto Ricans. Still selling ice water??


That's cool but what kind of problem do you think racism is?

You see, my son sometimes comes into my room, he wants to sleep in my bed. He's scared of the monster. He just wants the monster to go away.. and so do I. I explain to him the monster is not real.

My house (it doesn't that I know of)may have termite. I don't want that problem. But to eliminate it I have to isolate the problem area, I'm going to have to systematically eliminate the problem, which will take time and resources. Then I will have to safeguardmy home to prevent further incursions.

Which way do you think we should approach racism as a problem to make it go away??

BA


He did good... no he did bad because he shook down the police. NO you have it backwards, the NYPD shakedowns Blacks not vice versa. If the NYPD thought the case frivolous... why settle??

Turnea



But is always the way.Black panther are just as bad as the KKK. Nation of Islam is as bad as skinheads...

Let me throw an analogy out. You have a man getting beat by another man. The man getting beat finally starts swinging back.

Now if you just come into veiwing the fight at that moment and didn't see it from the beginning it looks like two men just beating the crap out of each other. Equal fault. However,if you were there from the beginning you know though both people are swinging the one person is only swinging because he was catching a beatdown.

To me that's how it feels to hear many people speak of race. They speak of it in the now, with no historical context. Like someone pointed out... "Sharpton called the white man a devil" Now I don't agree with the statement. But I understand the fundamental difference between someone making a racially charged statement out of anger of mistreatment, both real and perceived, and the counterpart on the White side make a racially charged statementjust because they feel themselves superior.

Your Al sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, MLK, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, all existed and came into prominence among Black people BECAUSE of White people's abuse and mistreatment of minorities. With out that mistreatment there is NO Al Sharpton.

You can't hate an Al Sharpton and be disgusted with Al Sharpton when you offer not alternative and genuine hand up from the sinking hole of poverty, drug wars, disproportionate economic growth , wealth, jail terms, failing schools, and overall quality life PLACED upon us by Whites.

No not the whites of today, the one of yesterday, whose racism still affects us today. Too few white are willing to see the whole fight, the whole struggle and see how the past does affect today.

Ringwraith had it right.

The negative is always emphasized in the media. It's not because the media is racist, it's because controversy sells.

Regardless of your color.

I see Sharpton adherents are choosing to look past some sins.
I see Sharpton critics are choosing not to look past those sins.

You are absolutely correct, Droop. You choose sides.

Somebody said it was the life of an activist to cause controversy to get something done.

So meh... okay.

That's why Greenpeace does crap like "Holocaust on a Plate" And then offers an insulting apology. But I'll bet all of you read the article.

And ditto for Andres Serrano and his painting of P*** Christ. It made him world famous.

And then you have that dingleberry Fred Phelps and his church family of lawyers.

Activists are definitely a weird bunch, socio (agreed with who posted that), and a little bizarre. And when the public doesn't react quickly to their life mission, I suppose it's easy to claim that "nobody cares about _____". Sometimes they're right. I like meat, I prefer art with a little less controversy, and Phelps is truly a nutcase. So by the time you get to someone who actually has something happening, you're so apathetic with chest-thumping "listen to my cause" clowns, you end up resenting whatever they do just because you're tired of being preached to, and accused of something that you're either not guilty of, or altogether apathetic because you have your own set of problems.

Hey, I have the AZWW fund to help finish paying off my car. It's not fair I have to work so hard and still have 4 years of payments left. Who wants to donate?

Woah. This doesn't help you. My struggle doesn't mean anything to you. Yet I'll bet if asked directly, you'd all have an answer to why you shouldn't pay, including shots at my character, lifestyle, attitude, skin color, urine color or political affiliation. You'll scan for something I said that MIGHT offend the ever invisible "someone", and cite that as "something you can't support".

We all do it.

The problem is that racism is a charged account, and provides shock headlines. If it's legitimate, then let's hear it. But if you're wrong, you can't expect white people to be like, "Oh yeah, that's cool" after you're proven wrong in court and gone on the media claiming "white" racism when you didn't have the facts.

Unless someone here thinks Larry Craig should get a second chance.

You know who I think disabled the progress of black equality for Sharpton? Tawana Brawley. Boy, she screwed him over good - ALMOST to the point where you feel sorry for him, if it wasn't for his pontifications. But you'll never hear that. You'll never hear an apology, because that's not what controversial leaders do. They go away for a while, and re-emerge on a new quest - hopefully valiant.

Jackson disappeared for 6 months after his mistress story broke. Now he's back and doesn't say a word about it.

But you never know. And that's what I dislike about Sharpton. There is only one consistent thing, someone "not black" is to blame. Is it that easy?

Justice built on that logic is racist too. I was hoping my points would hit home to some of you, but I can see they can't.

And then you get this response.


....Which is total distortion of the entire paragraphs that preceded it, AND the message I've been talking about bringing people together, and you damn well know it.

Continue on. Blame New York, blame who you will.

My points were simple and to the point.

1. You can't bring people together to fight racism, and then blame demographics individually.
The response is, "Well, Sharpton's job isn't to bring people together".
Yet those target "at fault" demographics are supposed to embrace Sharpton's ideology after being the public brunt of his frustration.

2. There will never be an equal standard applied to all people. Ever.
We should definitely work towards living in peace with our neighbors, and giving everyone a fair shot.
Understanding that while some people never will be 100% tolerant of YOU, or your status, or your color, or your education.... or... or.... or... , I stand by my opinion that most people are tolerant and becoming more tolerant as time goes on, not becoming "more racist", which is what I'm gathering from some of these exchanges.

3. People can always call "racism", and if it doesn't pan out, "it was all a big misunderstanding".
Yet people's lives are ruined in the process, and no apology is ever offered, so good luck getting your life back. Sharpton the Bully will name you by name on the news.
In Sharpton's case, the lawyers paid out for Sharpton's guilty libel charge. I'm sorry, but when lawyers treat you better than your aggressor, you've got a problem.

4. Sharpton has some good points.
Sure. Let him negotiate terrorist demands. He's great there.
Since I hadn't said that yet, I was labeled as one who "chose to see the negative and not the positive". Apparently some people are under the impression that for every bad thing I say about someone, I need to say something good also.
And apparently, one big huge overlooked mistake and assumption should NEVER cripple you if you're passionate enough. You should ignore all that, and follow like sheep. That goes for Sharpton's libel, Bush starting a war, Larry Craig and his "wide stance"..... (that was sarcasm, if you didn't catch that)

5. People either want drumbeats of change or silence.
Maybe some of us don't believe everything the right/left/whatever media tells us, or the enflaming soundbyte they chose to highlight and report on, and yet somehow still gets along with his neighbors, most of different ethnic descent.
Maybe some of us don't see Sharpton as the answer because you're either "a black victim" or "the aggressor, enslaver, oppressor.... " and truly believe that society sees more gray than just "black and white", pardon the pun.
If it's not that way in New York, I'm sorry. I've never lived there, and I don't see it. But don't suggest that I'm not empathetic when I don't see the same victim you see.


Thanks to everyone willing to debate a normally fiery topic with respect and the ability to bounce ideas back and forth. I learned a few things, especially those who passionately disagreed with me. Good stuff.

On August 19, Gavin Cato was struck by a car and killed. We've argued (over and over again) about the specifics in this thread, but one thing that is for certain is it was not a clear-cut case of paramedics ignoring a dying child while tending to the Jew, as was asserted by some. The truth is probably somewhere between Droop's and mine. It is a fact that the Hatzolah ambulance corps did not only selectively care of a Jew at the scene of the accident that day, nor did they take the driver away until both the police and the attending medics at the scene told him to. The incident was followed by three days of riots in which one Jewish man was stabbed in the back and killed, and 38 innocent people were injured. Five days after the riots, five days after 38 people were injured and one killed by violence, Sharpton delivered the eulogy at the funeral of that little boy. He said this:

"The world will tell us he was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident. ... It's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights. ... Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid. ..."

I just can't agree that the above is a "clarion call for justice". Sharpton didn't even accept the verdict of "justice" when it was given by a multi-racial jury...after the driver waved his own immunity to testify in this case and try to explain. There is plenty of room for "justice" that doesn't require silence OR frothing at the mouth bigotry.

The justice vs silence was a broad stroke view of race relations in this country a characterization of the "I wish it would all go away" sentiment that is so common. In individual circumstances there is the requisite nuance.

Fair enough, though I think what Sharpton said was (by careful intent) not bigoted.

Inflammatory and thoroughly unwise? Yes.
It make Judaism an issue where it probably wasn't one, but it wasn't an indictment of Jews, it was Sharpton's nonsense theory that this particular neighborhood and its ambulance service was run by people who's dealings with South Africa proved that they didn't really care about blacks.


I thoroughly disagree with Sharpton there, but does this make him a bigot?


Oh, we've always been able to say that, it's been a common claims since emancipation, but the facts prove otherwise.

Anecdotes can never tell the whole story the studies show continuing discrmination and bias in our society despite what we may think about our neighbors.

Of course they are. Societal forces would be at work in any situation, but I would have to say that in the case of an outspoken black person they would be far greater. One couldn't believe any of the links shown here indicating the prominence of racial prejucide in our society and conclude anything else. If such weren't the case, then there wouldn't be any black activists, would there? Now, what happens when one has a societal force working to create a preconception--any incident then will just reinforce such beliefs, outshadowing any of the other things that person does. The question then, which I believe is exactly what you are indeed asking, is whether Sharpton's actual acts justify the perception of him.

Exactly.

Sharpton has engaged in a number of questionable actions but both the qualities and quantity of criticism against him does not reflect his actions at all.

Sharpton (and Jackson too) are walking effigies for the burning frustration many Americans have with blacks in particular and race relations in general.

I mean never has Sharpton indicted "all white people" or done anything to be compared with the likes of David "KKK" Duke.

The idea that he advocates only for blacks has been demonstrated false repeatedly in this thread.

Where do ideas like these come from?

Mrs. P


What's your beef???


Turnea

I agree and disagree...

It's always unwise to speak out... though I am missing the inflammatory part of the statement. Kind of like the Final warning we were issued "Stop calling each other racist or we close this." I couldn't find where anyone called someone an out right racist, but it is the very nature of the debate that people assume inflammatory remarks but in the case above... which remark was out of place... even slightly bigoted??

QUOTE

Many civil rights activist consider Israel an State that practices Apartheid. Let's not debate the merits of that, else we go clearly off track. We know South Africa was a practicing Apartheid State, correct.

The way i read what Al is saying, is we have a Ambulance company Hatzolah based from a country that is practicing aparheid that placed more concern on the Jewish man well being. Which it did, IMO.

Next we have Oppenheimer... well who or what the heck is that??



He's sayin this guy is dealing with Jewish merchants right in Crown Heights. He may be wrong, I don't know where he got the sales record... but his statements are not even close to bigoted

Special Thanks to Mrs P. Someone had posted earlier that Sharpton called the Jews Diamond Merchants... I was wondering why someone would slander someone by calling them OMG, diamond merchants... but now it makes sense.... he was actually talking about... OMG... diamond merchants

I mean come on you guys say you don't have to work hard, but it seems like a lot of things have to be blown WAAAAYYYY out of proportion to make Al or Jesse the Boogie man you all make him out to be.

How would you characterize Al Sharpton's overall place in the national dialog? no person is perfect is certainly the right phase. I consider Rev King is probably my greatest hero I can think of and I am sure he was not perfect, but for which he stands still is the ultimate goal in a society. this relates to Rev Sharpton, again though he is not perfect I have the utmost regard for which he stands.

He may ratchet the talk a bit but I believe the minority have a right to do so until they are equal in every way from money distribution to jobs levels, economic and social standing. Until that point we do not have equality. and people on the blow horns of the national broadcast that imply in any way that somehow that non minority people have it rough because gee supreme court justice Thomas got special treatment as a minority are the biggest cry babies ever. Look at Bush he could not get into anything via his grades but his family used the unequal opportunity of the majority for special privileges. Someone needs to be out calling this hypocrisy on a daily basis.

I do not respect trash talkers in the majority, it is very easy to talk trash when one is of the majority and rarely are they held accountable for it. Like Rush, he spews thrash on a daily basis across the airwaves as a member of the majority, he was brought up as a son of a family of lawyers. He had the best opportunities one could find in a free country with his upbringing. He did not ever have to fight any injustice of being a minority or poor. I say give equal time to Al on the airwaves to counter Rush.

I like the analogy of Droop and the seeing a fight late perspective, that is to me like Einsteins theory of relativity to a human degree. It is all relative to where on the light beam one would sit. and I think that putting Al on the megaphone though late in the fight would be a reasonable way to level the playing field. I would like to hear him in the national dialog without having reporters/media putting out their framed agenda questions of lets get Al. Let Al have a show and we can hear some real important human issues from a non majority perspective.

You da man, droop224

/yes...
//that is all...