Full Version: Al Sharpton
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 2 2008, 04:06 PM) 
Mrs. P
That doesn't make good sense. How did the ambulance attendents pause the rioters... which I thought started after the death and after the evacuation of Lifsh, but whatever... while Lifsh is getting beat, in order to evacuate him??
QUOTE
The ambulance attendants who first arrived on the scene said that Lifsh was being violently beaten by three or four Black men. All accounts agree with those observations. That's why he was evacuated from the scene first. Kind of hard for medics to try and save a child pinned under a car during a riot. Or should they have just let the population tear Lifsh to shreds? The subsequent jury verdict (10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, and 5 Latinos) found no cause to indict Lifsh.
That doesn't make good sense. How did the ambulance attendents pause the rioters... which I thought started after the death and after the evacuation of Lifsh, but whatever... while Lifsh is getting beat, in order to evacuate him??
There were three or four men beating Lifsh, and others yelling, "Kill the Jew! Kill the Jew!" Make sense now?
And making a racially charged statements like Sharpton made during a time like that was not only inappropriate, but dangerous. People died in those riots. His statements and actions were fuel for that.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 2 2008, 04:00 PM)
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Feb 2 2008, 03:06 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 2 2008, 02:19 PM)
<snip> And to think that I should actually address the topic for this thread. How very very racist of me. <snip>
You didn't address the questions, you addressed me. I went back and double-checked just to make sure.
I addressed the questions to be debated via addressing your response.
QUOTE
This is actually a cute little trick my wife tries on me on all the time. Erroneously argue a point, when I prove it's nonsense she switches it up and says she didn't say that, or she said something else. With my wife, I can't actually prove she said what she said. This interesting dynamic was the impetus for Dave Chappelle's skit about the Home Stenographer, so it must be a woman thing. Luckily, we typed our responses, so I don't have to go through the he said, she said nonsense of proving that you responded to me and not the questions for debate. For future purposes, don't play these stupid games, just be honest about being wrong. It will make you feel better. I know it makes me feel better when you're wrong.
Well... Women's memories are better so it's likely that she is right. If you attach an emotion to a memory, you will be able to recall it later. Women are emotional about a lot of things, and men don't care about most things, so we remember more "stuff". Also scientifically proven, women have larger corpus callosums which aids in that type of memory retention.
I like a woman with large pillowy corpus callosums, that's why I married my wife in the first place.
The Crown Heights Riot is one part of Al's resume, so to speak. You chose to select those incidents out. I'm just wondering why you stepped over the dead black bodies to defend the Jew.
QUOTE
I provided evidence that I believe supports that fact.
Actually, that's an opinion, not fact, but OK...QUOTE
How would you feel if you were a Jew in that neighborhood?
Maybe a better question would be, how would you feel if you were black? The thing you have to understand about Al Sharpton is that he is a voice for black people who feel mistreated by white people in power, the police, the shop owners, the government, what have you. Al Sharpton does not take a diverse and peaceful community and transform it into a hostile divided street war. He speaks for people who feel they aren't being heard. The Jenna 6 is a perfect example of the disparate treatment of blacks when compared to Al Sharpton's career. Six blacks boys beating up on a white kid. They got attempted murder, life in prison.
When white kids beat up on black kids they get reckless endangerment, or rioting charges. The only difference is, that in the case of the black kids, one of them actually died.
NY Times
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 2 2008, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 2 2008, 04:06 PM)
Mrs. P
That doesn't make good sense. How did the ambulance attendents pause the rioters... which I thought started after the death and after the evacuation of Lifsh, but whatever... while Lifsh is getting beat, in order to evacuate him??
QUOTE
The ambulance attendants who first arrived on the scene said that Lifsh was being violently beaten by three or four Black men. All accounts agree with those observations. That's why he was evacuated from the scene first. Kind of hard for medics to try and save a child pinned under a car during a riot. Or should they have just let the population tear Lifsh to shreds? The subsequent jury verdict (10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, and 5 Latinos) found no cause to indict Lifsh.
That doesn't make good sense. How did the ambulance attendents pause the rioters... which I thought started after the death and after the evacuation of Lifsh, but whatever... while Lifsh is getting beat, in order to evacuate him??
There were three or four men beating Lifsh, and others yelling, "Kill the Jew! Kill the Jew!" Make sense now?
And making a racially charged statements like Sharpton made during a time like that was not only inappropriate, but dangerous. People died in those riots. His statements and actions were fuel for that.
No it doesn't make sense, at least not from the link you provided. I think maybe you should reread it, then comment. How do ambulance attendants stop four enraged men from beating a man long enough to evacuate him?? Think about it?? Are they armed?? NO!!! Police were on the scene Mrs P. per your link. That was a private ambulance from from the Hatzolah ambulance corps which decided it was more important to take a Jewish man with welps and bruises away from the scene than to save a dying seven year old boy. That's why there was the drama between Jews and Blacks. Point is, your mixing up stories and you are blowing a comment made by Sharpton as the reason to call him a racist.
A lot of good points being made on both sides, let's not waste all of our collective brilliance by getting personal.
In this ball of confusion lies some of the keys to understanding race relations a a little better that and well...
...another chatroom debate run amok... we must flee the city!
....
ahem... is what led me to start this topic.
First, three cheer for droop because he immediately zeroed in on the core problem in this debate.
Sharpton is no King, and despite constant accusations no one in this thread had said or implied that much. However, much of the vitriol we see about him is.. less than rational... and likely influence by the tendency of our society to recoil from black advocates.
Women catch a lot of this too, cue the "feminazis" cracks.
Black people just get called pimps.. and by the way a great big "I told you so!" on that note...
Anything that threatens the status quo on the behalf of the historically disadvantaged get a extra draught of of Hater-Aid
The psychology of this is something I discussed in my other thread (a link is in the starter post Edited to correct: no it's in my third post on the topic... first page) but let's deal with Sharpton and race specifically.
I know I'm becoming a cheerleader...but dang right!
Let's hold the poverty pimp focus for a sec...
That term came a bit late for MLK, but he caught it's sixties analog, the ever-popular "outside agitator."
I mean honestly this is the man the head of the FBI once publicly proclaimed "the most notorious liar in the country"
The man who caught special ire from Nixon aide Pat Buchanan (who apparently is still clinging to respectability...for some reason)
Pat Buchanan.
The man who, when marching through the Chicago suburbs 1966 was followed by angry crowds and eventually beaned with a brick.
Fred Shuttlesworth wife was stabbed for trying to enroll her daughter in a white school... and the bombing after bombing after bombing...
...but in 1968 MLK was killed and began to become an icon.
Nothing wrong with that, but see it for what it is folks.
A dead gad-fly is far more loved than a live one.
On the specifics we are seeing some actual evidence bubble to the top but a little substantiation would help.
Al Sharpton was responsible for riots and beatings?
Prove it.. please.
Carried racist sign?
ditto
Laundered drug money?
better do better than the FBI because I saw no charges...
In this ball of confusion lies some of the keys to understanding race relations a a little better that and well...
QUOTE(bucket)
Why was this topic brought up? I am just curious.
...another chatroom debate run amok... we must flee the city!
....ahem... is what led me to start this topic.
First, three cheer for droop because he immediately zeroed in on the core problem in this debate.
Sharpton is no King, and despite constant accusations no one in this thread had said or implied that much. However, much of the vitriol we see about him is.. less than rational... and likely influence by the tendency of our society to recoil from black advocates.
Women catch a lot of this too, cue the "feminazis" cracks.
Black people just get called pimps.. and by the way a great big "I told you so!" on that note...
Anything that threatens the status quo on the behalf of the historically disadvantaged get a extra draught of of Hater-Aid
The psychology of this is something I discussed in my other thread (a link is in the starter post Edited to correct: no it's in my third post on the topic... first page) but let's deal with Sharpton and race specifically.
QUOTE(tonyman)
That premise isn't as absurd as you might think. MLK certainly wasn't beloved anywhere close to the level that he is now while he was still living. Why do you think it took nearly 20 years after he died to get a holiday named after him, and even longer for cities to adopt it? Everything you've said about Al Sharpton and worse has been said about MLK. He was a rabble rouser, a rioteer, a race baiter, a liar, an opportunist, and more.
I know I'm becoming a cheerleader...but dang right!
Let's hold the poverty pimp focus for a sec...
That term came a bit late for MLK, but he caught it's sixties analog, the ever-popular "outside agitator."
I mean honestly this is the man the head of the FBI once publicly proclaimed "the most notorious liar in the country"
The man who caught special ire from Nixon aide Pat Buchanan (who apparently is still clinging to respectability...for some reason)
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
He claims the civil rights leader smeared the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign, accusing it of "dangerous signs of Hitlerism".[110] During the 1980s he opposed making King's birthday a national holiday. In 1969, Buchanan urged Nixon not to visit King's widow, Coretta Scott King, because he felt, "It would outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue, and perhaps worse. ... It does not seem to be in the interests of national unity for the president to lend his national prestige to the argument that this divisive figure is a modern saint."
Pat Buchanan.
The man who, when marching through the Chicago suburbs 1966 was followed by angry crowds and eventually beaned with a brick.
Fred Shuttlesworth wife was stabbed for trying to enroll her daughter in a white school... and the bombing after bombing after bombing...
...but in 1968 MLK was killed and began to become an icon.
Nothing wrong with that, but see it for what it is folks.
A dead gad-fly is far more loved than a live one.
On the specifics we are seeing some actual evidence bubble to the top but a little substantiation would help.
Al Sharpton was responsible for riots and beatings?
Prove it.. please.
Carried racist sign?
ditto
Laundered drug money?
better do better than the FBI because I saw no charges...
QUOTE
Maybe a better question would be, how would you feel if you were black?
The thing you have to understand about Al Sharpton is that he is a voice for black people who feel mistreated by white people in power, the police, the shop owners, the government, what have you. Al Sharpton does not take a diverse and peaceful community and transform it into a hostile divided street war. He speaks for people who feel they aren't being heard.
The thing you have to understand about Al Sharpton is that he is a voice for black people who feel mistreated by white people in power, the police, the shop owners, the government, what have you. Al Sharpton does not take a diverse and peaceful community and transform it into a hostile divided street war. He speaks for people who feel they aren't being heard.
Let try something here:
QUOTE
Maybe a better question would be, how would you feel if you were white?
The thing you have to understand about David Duke is that he is a voice for white people who feel mistreated by black people in power, the police, the shop owners, the government, what have you. David Duke does not take a diverse and peaceful community and transform it into a hostile divided street war. He speaks for people who feel they aren't being heard.
The thing you have to understand about David Duke is that he is a voice for white people who feel mistreated by black people in power, the police, the shop owners, the government, what have you. David Duke does not take a diverse and peaceful community and transform it into a hostile divided street war. He speaks for people who feel they aren't being heard.
Hmmm....maybe we should all take a second look at Mr. Duke. Sure, hes got skeletons in his closet, but he does get demonized simply because hes an advocate of white people and has done some good things too. Right?
You see my position on Al and David is that ultimately they and others like them (I like to call them race baiters...but hey, what do I know) are standing in the way of good dialogue and true progress in race relations.
Look whats going on here. Simply talking about Al Sharpton has everyone up in arms, pointing fingers calling people names, etc. But then again, at least it gets us talking. I guess thats something...
I mean come on folks. Al Sharpton? Can't we find someone better?
In the meantime, I guess what I'm hoping for is that someday, we can stop rallying around dividers and start rallying around uniter's. But since we can't even agree on what a uniter might look like much less on if someone meets that definition, I guess thats not gonna happen anytime soon. Its just easier to point fingers and get behind "my guy". Sure does feel good. Meanwhile, progress? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 2 2008, 04:38 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 2 2008, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 2 2008, 04:06 PM)
Mrs. P
That doesn't make good sense. How did the ambulance attendents pause the rioters... which I thought started after the death and after the evacuation of Lifsh, but whatever... while Lifsh is getting beat, in order to evacuate him??
QUOTE
The ambulance attendants who first arrived on the scene said that Lifsh was being violently beaten by three or four Black men. All accounts agree with those observations. That's why he was evacuated from the scene first. Kind of hard for medics to try and save a child pinned under a car during a riot. Or should they have just let the population tear Lifsh to shreds? The subsequent jury verdict (10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, and 5 Latinos) found no cause to indict Lifsh.
That doesn't make good sense. How did the ambulance attendents pause the rioters... which I thought started after the death and after the evacuation of Lifsh, but whatever... while Lifsh is getting beat, in order to evacuate him??
There were three or four men beating Lifsh, and others yelling, "Kill the Jew! Kill the Jew!" Make sense now?
And making a racially charged statements like Sharpton made during a time like that was not only inappropriate, but dangerous. People died in those riots. His statements and actions were fuel for that.
No it doesn't make sense, at least not from the link you provided. I think maybe you should reread it, then comment. How do ambulance attendants stop four enraged men from beating a man long enough to evacuate him?? Think about it?? Are they armed?? NO!!! Police were on the scene Mrs P. per your link. That was a private ambulance from from the Hatzolah ambulance corps which decided it was more important to take a Jewish man with welps and bruises away from the scene than to save a dying seven year old boy. That's why there was the drama between Jews and Blacks. Point is, your mixing up stories and you are blowing a comment made by Sharpton as the reason to call him a racist.
The link I posted had another link to the actual Crown Heights riot, which was where I got the information I posted.
QUOTE
Ambulance attendants who arrived on the scene about three minutes after the accident said that Lifsh was being beaten and pulled out of the station wagon by three or four Black men. All accounts agree that Lifsh was beaten before ambulances and police arrived.
A volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps arrived on the scene at about 8:23 pm followed shortly by police and a City ambulance which took Gavin to Kings County Hospital, arriving at 8:32 p.m. Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.
Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh from the scene for his safety, while Gavin Cato was being removed from beneath the station wagon. According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police.
A volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps arrived on the scene at about 8:23 pm followed shortly by police and a City ambulance which took Gavin to Kings County Hospital, arriving at 8:32 p.m. Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.
Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh from the scene for his safety, while Gavin Cato was being removed from beneath the station wagon. According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police.
So it was "Jews, Jews, Jews!" Not "Kill the Jew" but after the driver was beaten while over 200 people were yelling "Jews" The handwriting was on the wall. Sharpton made other irresponsible comments during that volatile time as well. Link
QUOTE
But the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has led black protest marches through the troubled neighborhood, denounced the finding and Mr. Hynes, calling for renewed protests. The arrest and prosecution of the driver, Yosef Lifsh, has been a central demand in the demonstrations by blacks.
Despite predictions by Mr. Sharpton and other protest leaders that a failure to indict would revive the street clashes that followed the accident, Crown Heights was quiet last night. As residents thronged shopping streets or relaxed on stoops, they seemed to absorb the news of the grand jury's decision with outward calm.
Despite predictions by Mr. Sharpton and other protest leaders that a failure to indict would revive the street clashes that followed the accident, Crown Heights was quiet last night. As residents thronged shopping streets or relaxed on stoops, they seemed to absorb the news of the grand jury's decision with outward calm.
So not only did he make racially charged statements while all of the anti-Jewish violence was going on, he actually called for renewed protests when the jury (which was half black) didn't come to the verdict he wanted them to.
Nice.
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 2 2008, 01:15 PM)
A lot of good points being made on both sides, let's not waste all of our collective brilliance by getting personal.
In this ball of confusion lies some of the keys to understanding race relations a a little better that and well...
...another chatroom debate run amok... we must flee the city! ....
ahem... is what led me to start this topic.
First, three cheer for droop because he immediately zeroed in on the core problem in this debate.
Sharpton is no King, and despite constant accusations no one in this thread had said or implied that much. However, much of the vitriol we see about him is.. less than rational... and likely influence by the tendency of our society to recoil from black advocates.
Women catch a lot of this too, cue the "feminazis" cracks.
Black people just get called pimps.. and by the way a great big "I told you so!" on that note...
Anything that threatens the status quo on the behalf of the historically disadvantaged get a extra draught of of Hater-Aid
The psychology of this is something I discussed in my other thread (a link is in the starter post Edited to correct: no it's in my third post on the topic... first page) but let's deal with Sharpton and race specifically.
I know I'm becoming a cheerleader...but dang right!
Let's hold the poverty pimp focus for a sec...
That term came a bit late for MLK, but he caught it's sixties analog, the ever-popular "outside agitator."
I mean honestly this is the man the head of the FBI once publicly proclaimed "the most notorious liar in the country"
The man who caught special ire from Nixon aide Pat Buchanan (who apparently is still clinging to respectability...for some reason)
Pat Buchanan.
The man who, when marching through the Chicago suburbs 1966 was followed by angry crowds and eventually beaned with a brick.
Fred Shuttlesworth wife was stabbed for trying to enroll her daughter in a white school... and the bombing after bombing after bombing...
...but in 1968 MLK was killed and began to become an icon.
Nothing wrong with that, but see it for what it is folks.
A dead gad-fly is far more loved than a live one.
On the specifics we are seeing some actual evidence bubble to the top but a little substantiation would help.
Al Sharpton was responsible for riots and beatings?
Prove it.. please.
Carried racist sign?
ditto
Laundered drug money?
better do better than the FBI because I saw no charges...
In this ball of confusion lies some of the keys to understanding race relations a a little better that and well...
QUOTE(bucket)
Why was this topic brought up? I am just curious.
...another chatroom debate run amok... we must flee the city!
....ahem... is what led me to start this topic.
First, three cheer for droop because he immediately zeroed in on the core problem in this debate.
Sharpton is no King, and despite constant accusations no one in this thread had said or implied that much. However, much of the vitriol we see about him is.. less than rational... and likely influence by the tendency of our society to recoil from black advocates.
Women catch a lot of this too, cue the "feminazis" cracks.
Black people just get called pimps.. and by the way a great big "I told you so!" on that note...
Anything that threatens the status quo on the behalf of the historically disadvantaged get a extra draught of of Hater-Aid
The psychology of this is something I discussed in my other thread (a link is in the starter post Edited to correct: no it's in my third post on the topic... first page) but let's deal with Sharpton and race specifically.
QUOTE(tonyman)
That premise isn't as absurd as you might think. MLK certainly wasn't beloved anywhere close to the level that he is now while he was still living. Why do you think it took nearly 20 years after he died to get a holiday named after him, and even longer for cities to adopt it? Everything you've said about Al Sharpton and worse has been said about MLK. He was a rabble rouser, a rioteer, a race baiter, a liar, an opportunist, and more.
I know I'm becoming a cheerleader...but dang right!
Let's hold the poverty pimp focus for a sec...
That term came a bit late for MLK, but he caught it's sixties analog, the ever-popular "outside agitator."
I mean honestly this is the man the head of the FBI once publicly proclaimed "the most notorious liar in the country"
The man who caught special ire from Nixon aide Pat Buchanan (who apparently is still clinging to respectability...for some reason)
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
He claims the civil rights leader smeared the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign, accusing it of "dangerous signs of Hitlerism".[110] During the 1980s he opposed making King's birthday a national holiday. In 1969, Buchanan urged Nixon not to visit King's widow, Coretta Scott King, because he felt, "It would outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue, and perhaps worse. ... It does not seem to be in the interests of national unity for the president to lend his national prestige to the argument that this divisive figure is a modern saint."
Pat Buchanan.
The man who, when marching through the Chicago suburbs 1966 was followed by angry crowds and eventually beaned with a brick.
Fred Shuttlesworth wife was stabbed for trying to enroll her daughter in a white school... and the bombing after bombing after bombing...
...but in 1968 MLK was killed and began to become an icon.
Nothing wrong with that, but see it for what it is folks.
A dead gad-fly is far more loved than a live one.
On the specifics we are seeing some actual evidence bubble to the top but a little substantiation would help.
Al Sharpton was responsible for riots and beatings?
Prove it.. please.
Carried racist sign?
ditto
Laundered drug money?
better do better than the FBI because I saw no charges...
I have to agree with you whole heartedly Turnea- the charges leveled at Al Sharpton (except in the Tawana Bradley case I mentioned before, of which I think really casts the biggest stain on his name personally- it was a hoax, he got caught up in it, and should have apologized for it- but he didn't- an that was wrong)
But what really bothers me is the right wingers in this country that are "white washing" (oooh, what a charged term!
) MLKs record and trying to co-opt one of the most liberal leaders in modern US history. I was around for the "MLK day" debate. Communist. Pimp. Racist.Bigot. Liberal. Adulterer.
All of these words were used to describe MLK as to why it was SOOOO wrong to name ANYTHING after MLK- I was around, I remember the debate very clearly, and how long it took to get it to pass in the "red" states.
Arizona was last, IIRC to have a "MLK day". Here, we had to get rid of columbus day to get MLK day.
There are all kinds of people that bubble to the top of certain movements- and they are flawed human beings, that, on occasion, rise above thier baser instincts and do great things. Our own founding fathers are towering examples of this true-ism.
Thomas Jefforson- rapist, and founder of our republic. George Washington- brutal slave owner- defender of our freedom, one of our greatest leaders.
and on and on.
Sharpton has a bad rep now, because someone hasn't managed to kill him in the last 30 years or so- if someone had killed him, I am sure he would have a much better reputation today among white US citizens, just like MLK
I am a white guy from Alaska, that spent my early adult years amongst blacks and other peoples of a race different than my own. Since I had no real exposure to the forms of racism we see in the "lower 48", and the fact that Alaska was a haven for mixed marriages while the rest of the US made it very dangerous to be in a mixed marriage
- I was able to get a unique view in my travells. I understand America as a profoundly racist nation, but learning, slowly. Probably by my daughters generation, when they become leaders, may wonder what all the hub-bub is about. My kids couldn't, for the life of them, understand why me and Mr Bellamy (my black next door neighbor) would have not been able to live next door to each other when I was thier age.
Sharpton and Jackson, bless thier hearts
- are the vanguard of this slow revolution in thinking. Sometimes they stratify the positions even more, sometimes they make others think about the silliness of all of this animosity and energy spent on nonsense. I respect Jesse Jackson, I really do- I don't so much Al Sharpton, but if I were black, and had some serious injustice done to me, I would sure be happy to know that Al was coming to help me out! It pretty much guaruntees, at the very least, that I wouldn't be railroaded through the system, just another black throwaway to the correctional system.
QUOTE
The link I posted had another link to the actual Crown Heights riot, which was where I got the information I posted.
So it was "Jews, Jews, Jews!" Not "Kill the Jew" but after the driver was beaten while over 200 people were yelling "Jews" The handwriting was on the wall. Sharpton made other irresponsible comments during that volatile time as well. Link
QUOTE
QUOTEAmbulance attendants who arrived on the scene about three minutes after the accident said that Lifsh was being beaten and pulled out of the station wagon by three or four Black men. All accounts agree that Lifsh was beaten before ambulances and police arrived.
A volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps arrived on the scene at about 8:23 pm followed shortly by police and a City ambulance which took Gavin to Kings County Hospital, arriving at 8:32 p.m. Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.
Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh from the scene for his safety, while Gavin Cato was being removed from beneath the station wagon. According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police.
A volunteer ambulance from the Hatzolah ambulance corps arrived on the scene at about 8:23 pm followed shortly by police and a City ambulance which took Gavin to Kings County Hospital, arriving at 8:32 p.m. Volunteers from a second Hatzolah ambulance helped Angela, until a second City ambulance arrived and took her to the same hospital.
Two attending police officers, as well as a technician from the City ambulance, directed the Hatzolah driver to remove Lifsh from the scene for his safety, while Gavin Cato was being removed from beneath the station wagon. According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’, jeered the driver of the car ... and then turned their anger on the police.
So it was "Jews, Jews, Jews!" Not "Kill the Jew" but after the driver was beaten while over 200 people were yelling "Jews" The handwriting was on the wall. Sharpton made other irresponsible comments during that volatile time as well. Link
Again, how do ambulance attendants have te capicity to remove a Jewish man from the grasp of mobbing Blacks screaming "Jew, Jews, Jews!!" Doesn't make the least amount of sense. There had to be enough order for them to gain access to him?? Correct??
Ahh because we see there were police on the scene....
It actually makes sense to you that Blacks are so savage when enraged that we wouldn't let medical personel attend to a seven year old boy pinned under a car?? This is before the riot even began. However, the next ambulance to come could get to the boy.
If Yosef Lifsh, the man responsible for the death of Cato was endangered than the POLICE should have removed him. The first medical unit there should have treated the most injured individual... not to mention... the children first. Correct.
Al Sharpton should have marched on that. Blacks should be enraged by that. It is a slap in the face to say a Jewish White man responsible for an accident should be ahead in priority to receive medical treatment than a 7 year old Black kid.... Especially when you consider one had knots on his head while the other had their body crushed under tons of a motor vehicle.
But let me guess... It's always just another overreaction by the Blacks
QUOTE
So not only did he make racially charged statements while all of the anti-Jewish violence was going on, he actually called for renewed protests when the jury (which was half black) didn't come to the verdict he wanted them to.
Nice.
Nice.
And?? What is your beef? The call for protests, but then again that always been the beef hasn't it??
RingWraith
QUOTE
I mean come on folks. Al Sharpton? Can't we find someone better?
Ithink that is part of the issue isn't it?? We can't?? Because whoever we find will be villified by the same type of people that villify Sharpton or Jackson. If you don't speak out loud enough, you won't be heard by mainstream America. You speak out too loud and now you are a nuisance to mainstream America. So hey, better to be a nuisance than completely ignored.
The only way to eliminate Sharptons, and Jacksons is to start listening and creating policies and supporting policies for the disenfranchised of America. Can mainstream America do that??
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 2 2008, 07:16 PM)
<snip> the POLICE should have removed him. The first medical unit there should have treated the most injured individual... not to mention... the children first. Correct.
Al Sharpton should have marched on that. Blacks should be enraged by that. It is a slap in the face to say a Jewish White man responsible for an accident should be ahead in priority to receive medical treatment than a 7 year old Black kid.... Especially when you consider one had knots on his head while the other had their body crushed under tons of a motor vehicle.
But let me guess... It's always just another overreaction by the Blacks
Al Sharpton should have marched on that. Blacks should be enraged by that. It is a slap in the face to say a Jewish White man responsible for an accident should be ahead in priority to receive medical treatment than a 7 year old Black kid.... Especially when you consider one had knots on his head while the other had their body crushed under tons of a motor vehicle.
But let me guess... It's always just another overreaction by the Blacks
What are you doing, droop00? I made this argument already and she cherry-picked right around it. Objectivity is lost on her.
Droop- I think you might also be missing another answer to the "why Sharpton" question- the fact that you have to be a very tough and thick skinned individual to stay in a position like that as well- maybe not the most nice or honest people gravitate to those kinds of positions in life- look at rebellions and leaders in the world in unstable areas today- the toughest are those in charge- because they are the most willing to do what needs to be done and damn the opinions or feelings of others.
So, whether you are talking Al Sharpton, George W Bush, or Bill Clinton- most of the players at this level are some sort of socio-path, and thier circumstances makes them heroes or villians.
Stalin and Churchil and FDR- all machivillian to the core, all socio paths as far as I am concerned- but they are either demonized or lionized depending on who is doing the story telling. (Stalin is still popular in some places in Russia)
Bottom line is- we choose fallible leaders- they all have skelatons in thier closet- but that is no reason to judge them badly or as saints- we see what the sum total of thier actions of thier lives have been- in MLK's case- his sum total overcame any negatives his personal life may have created.
Sharpton, hated by whites, but respected by the majority of blacks- must say something about race relations in the US, and that statement is harsh.
Basically "we need a guy like Al Sharpton so we will have the same rights as white people in America".
So, whether you are talking Al Sharpton, George W Bush, or Bill Clinton- most of the players at this level are some sort of socio-path, and thier circumstances makes them heroes or villians.
Stalin and Churchil and FDR- all machivillian to the core, all socio paths as far as I am concerned- but they are either demonized or lionized depending on who is doing the story telling. (Stalin is still popular in some places in Russia)
Bottom line is- we choose fallible leaders- they all have skelatons in thier closet- but that is no reason to judge them badly or as saints- we see what the sum total of thier actions of thier lives have been- in MLK's case- his sum total overcame any negatives his personal life may have created.
Sharpton, hated by whites, but respected by the majority of blacks- must say something about race relations in the US, and that statement is harsh.
Basically "we need a guy like Al Sharpton so we will have the same rights as white people in America".
QUOTE(droop224)
Again, how do ambulance attendants have te capicity to remove a Jewish man from the grasp of mobbing Blacks screaming "Jew, Jews, Jews!!" Doesn't make the least amount of sense. There had to be enough order for them to gain access to him?? Correct??
Ahh because we see there were police on the scene....
It actually makes sense to you that Blacks are so savage when enraged that we wouldn't let medical personel attend to a seven year old boy pinned under a car?? This is before the riot even began. However, the next ambulance to come could get to the boy.
Ahh because we see there were police on the scene....
It actually makes sense to you that Blacks are so savage when enraged that we wouldn't let medical personel attend to a seven year old boy pinned under a car?? This is before the riot even began. However, the next ambulance to come could get to the boy.
"We"?
Were you there? Are you using the royal "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? The driver was taken away after being beaten, while 200 people chanted "Jew Jew Jew". The ambulance personel stayed and tried to help. The child wasn't abandoned of medical attention while they whisked away the driver. But it was obvious at the time that mass violence was imminent. QUOTE
If Yosef Lifsh, the man responsible for the death of Cato was endangered than the POLICE should have removed him.
Lifsh had been pulled out of the car and beaten, he too needed medical attention not a police escort out. Again, this was not and either/or situation. They whisked Lifsh away as soon as possible because of the crowd, while attending to the children. QUOTE(droop)
QUOTE
So not only did he make racially charged statements while all of the anti-Jewish violence was going on, he actually called for renewed protests when the jury (which was half black) didn't come to the verdict he wanted them to.
Nice.
Nice.
And?? What is your beef? The call for protests, but then again that always been the beef hasn't it??
Yes, calls for more protests after 38 innocent people are injured and one stabbed in the back and murdered is not wise. In fact, it's rather sick. Even Rodney King, a victim of a beating, pleaded for calm after his beating inspired violent riots. But not Sharpton, it's time for more!
QUOTE
"We"? Were you there? Are you using the royal "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
Were you there? Are you using the royal "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket?uh.. yes. I was using present tense in the sentence When I said "Blacks are so savage" and since I was born... I have been Black.
QUOTE
The driver was taken away after being beaten, while 200 people chanted "Jew Jew Jew". The ambulance personel stayed and tried to help. The child wasn't abandoned of medical attention while they whisked away the driver. But it was obvious at the time that mass violence was imminent.
We've been through this... Te problem was the priority of the medical staff who had no life threatening injuries reported. On the other hand we have a child trapped under a car. I didn't say the child didn't get medical attention. I said the child was not prioritized in front of the White Jew. If the first ambulance was looking at Yosef They weren't looking at the Black kid pinned.
QUOTE
Lifsh had been pulled out of the car and beaten, he too needed medical attention not a police escort out. Again, this was not and either/or situation. They whisked Lifsh away as soon as possible because of the crowd, while attending to the children.
He didn't need it more than the boy. The first ambulance treat Yifsh, and your defending it. Which explains why we still have Al Sharptons because we still are dealing with people who justly think that in this situation it was proper for the first ambulance to treat and evacuate the least injured.
QUOTE
Yes, calls for more protests after 38 innocent people are injured and one stabbed in the back and murdered is not wise. In fact, it's rather sick. Even Rodney King, a victim of a beating, pleaded for calm after his beating inspired violent riots. But not Sharpton, it's time for more!
Those people died in riots... Didn't you know Mrs P. Riots arent the same as protests?? Blacks can have non-violent protests we know that.
QUOTE
Droop- I think you might also be missing another answer to the "why Sharpton" question- the fact that you have to be a very tough and thick skinned individual to stay in a position like that as well- maybe not the most nice or honest people gravitate to those kinds of positions in life- look at rebellions and leaders in the world in unstable areas today- the toughest are those in charge- because they are the most willing to do what needs to be done and damn the opinions or feelings of others
Actually I'm not missing it CR. The other side is. Imagine them understanding that all the things they complain about... from crime... to AA... Special treatment they see... To Al Sharpton and Jesse Jacksons.. all exist.... because the mistreatent of minorities both currently and historically. Imagine them see fault in current policies and current beliefs and changing those beliefs to answer the cry for a more equitable America... hahahaha... imagining is likely all well see.
I didn't mean to post and run the other day. My back has been acting up, and I've been somewhat bedridden. So I'll hit a few points that were made:
Droop said:
Droop also said:
Okay, Jackson came in 3rd in the 1984 presidential nominations, behind Gary Hart. He then claimed that when Mondale didn't pick him as a running mate, it was because (essentially) he was black.
Jackson attended college, and was a self proclaimed "star" of the team. He left that college claiming it was racism that he couldn't be the star quarterback because he was black. But a black man was already the star quarterback.
See a pattern developing here?
Now if you want me to say that Jackson was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton (whom he helped get the black vote, which is a whole other can of worms), then it's really YOUR job to point that out. Support your own position. It's my job to make my argument the way I want, not be a middleman between what I really think.
But okay, Droop, look at the accomplishments. One is an incredible negotiator with freeing hostages. The other raises astounding amounts of money. Oh crap. My list isn't exhaustive enough, so you're going to attempt to claim that "this is all I think about black leaders", right? Please don't go that route.
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: Civil Rights. Show me what Jackson or Sharpton have really accomplished for civil rights? "Keeping the issue in the forefront"? "Making sure people are aware that racism exists"? Getting medals and awards?
What are they REALLY doing, Droop? Jackson helped formed a Palestinian state. Gee, you think Jews find that racist when you take Hebrew people and give their holy land away?
Droop then said:
And they couldn't discredit him. That says something very different than a fellow who would have evidence of money laundering, and another who would funnel donated money for the advancement of black people to his mistress to keep a secret. It's not about sanitization, it's about character.
I suppose Rosa Parks' life was "sanitized", but she was more of a hero than Sharpton and Jackson are, IMHO. Too bad she died two years ago. Because if she was alive, I would be allowed to admire her.
Droop said:
See, that's where I'm not agreeing with you. Respect for leadership is earned, not based on skin color. A point I continue to hammer, and you continue to dismiss.
I don't mind loud obnoxious people. They have something to say, and I may not like it, but its always worth a listen. Here's the thing, though. SAY SOMETHING THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER. If you always ramble on how "America treats black people" and "America doesn't care about black people" stereo-typical rhetoric, and then act like a martyr when people tune you out, the problem isn't with the people - the problem is the leader.
It's not the message I reject. It's the two prominent leaders delivering it.
I think when you tell people to donate to help black people and then use those funds to pay a mistress, you're treating the black community worse than people who openly say they don't like black people because they're black.
Personally, I voted for Alan Keyes in the Republican Primary because he is intelligent, articulate and tried to bring people together. And his lesbian daughter was a minimial issue with me. It didn't change his leadership abilities. I know, he's Black Lite to some of you, but don't tell me I don't like black people because they get the limelight.
Droop said:
Bull crap. The fact is that you CAN'T compare MLK to Al or Jesse.
So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Let me know when you're ready for a serious debate. This "messing with your head" pap is really, REALLY juvenile. It sounds like you don't have facts to back up your argument, so you smokescreen the actual issue "to show people what they are". Again, let me know when you're serious about discussing and solving racism issues. I'm not wasting my time with jokes and tricksters.
Droop said:
Oh Really? Not according to THIS famous person. Wait. It gets better. She's black!
I know, letting all these silly facts get in the way of my confusion and ignorance....
Barnaby said:
Right, because after doing all those things, it only makes sense to let an entire segment of the population continue to be represented by these "leaders".
Anyone who says otherwise, using that logic, must hate black people.
Okay Droop, I finally saw your last post.
So you want to say that we'd idolize MLK because he's dead, and not compare him with Jackson and Sharpton, here's the "GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS" you've come up with.
1. An investigation on advertising budgets
2. Signing up black women to vote, even though they've had the right for decades
3. Banning the "N' word, the "B" word and the word "ho".
RAINBOW/PUSH is part of the following:
1. Traditional Democrat Policies
Wow. According to your post, Jackson is responsible for 9 of the 10 things the Democrats are credited for.
And finally, this awesome jem from Droop:
You could have fooled me. Almost every post defends "hatred for these prominent black men", and "gee, look at all their accomplishments". You have done nothing BUT defend them, and claim that "our attacks" are because they're prominent black men. And that prominent black men get singled out and put under the microscope.
Promiment men of ANY color get singled out and put under the microscope. Welcome to the media. It's only been like that since.... forever.
So you're wrong on both points.
But I am thinking about your post. Show me a credible, honest civil rights leader, and I'll happily get right behind him. Regardless of color.
These two yahoos are attention whores who have been beaten by public opinion. That doesn't make them martyrs.
But now I have a question for you. When will we no longer need to make the racial divide?
It's a tough question because this world will unfortunately never be rid of racists, yet, scales of equality will never truly be equal - perhaps as a result of the first point. I think more people have adopted diversity than they'll ever get credit for in America. You'd never know that, however, because fixating on racial differences keeps donations coming into RAINBOW/PUSH and like-minded groups who rely on continued racism.
Edited to add that last afterthought. I'd love to see racism end, and I don't get any money for that.
Droop said:
QUOTE
Go to wikipedia, look at Al Sharpton and his accomplishments, Look at Jesse Jackson and all his accomplishments. Do you care?? No, you don't care, because the "this time" or "that time" he did "this" or did "that".
Droop also said:
QUOTE
AZ are you telling me you couldn't come up with a list of the accomplishments of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Of course you could. But you had a choice didn't you. So finally maybe you and other truly can understand what I am saying.
Okay, Jackson came in 3rd in the 1984 presidential nominations, behind Gary Hart. He then claimed that when Mondale didn't pick him as a running mate, it was because (essentially) he was black.
Jackson attended college, and was a self proclaimed "star" of the team. He left that college claiming it was racism that he couldn't be the star quarterback because he was black. But a black man was already the star quarterback.
See a pattern developing here?
Now if you want me to say that Jackson was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton (whom he helped get the black vote, which is a whole other can of worms), then it's really YOUR job to point that out. Support your own position. It's my job to make my argument the way I want, not be a middleman between what I really think.
But okay, Droop, look at the accomplishments. One is an incredible negotiator with freeing hostages. The other raises astounding amounts of money. Oh crap. My list isn't exhaustive enough, so you're going to attempt to claim that "this is all I think about black leaders", right? Please don't go that route.
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: Civil Rights. Show me what Jackson or Sharpton have really accomplished for civil rights? "Keeping the issue in the forefront"? "Making sure people are aware that racism exists"? Getting medals and awards?
What are they REALLY doing, Droop? Jackson helped formed a Palestinian state. Gee, you think Jews find that racist when you take Hebrew people and give their holy land away?
Droop then said:
QUOTE
What i am telling you is he [MLK] was Human with self interest, just like any Human. What i am saying is he was wiretapped and being investigated by the Government to discredit him.
And they couldn't discredit him. That says something very different than a fellow who would have evidence of money laundering, and another who would funnel donated money for the advancement of black people to his mistress to keep a secret. It's not about sanitization, it's about character.
I suppose Rosa Parks' life was "sanitized", but she was more of a hero than Sharpton and Jackson are, IMHO. Too bad she died two years ago. Because if she was alive, I would be allowed to admire her.
Droop said:
QUOTE
Al Sharpton mistake will continue to be highlighted, because we aren't supposed to look at living civil rights activist in a postitive light.
See, that's where I'm not agreeing with you. Respect for leadership is earned, not based on skin color. A point I continue to hammer, and you continue to dismiss.
I don't mind loud obnoxious people. They have something to say, and I may not like it, but its always worth a listen. Here's the thing, though. SAY SOMETHING THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER. If you always ramble on how "America treats black people" and "America doesn't care about black people" stereo-typical rhetoric, and then act like a martyr when people tune you out, the problem isn't with the people - the problem is the leader.
It's not the message I reject. It's the two prominent leaders delivering it.
I think when you tell people to donate to help black people and then use those funds to pay a mistress, you're treating the black community worse than people who openly say they don't like black people because they're black.
Personally, I voted for Alan Keyes in the Republican Primary because he is intelligent, articulate and tried to bring people together. And his lesbian daughter was a minimial issue with me. It didn't change his leadership abilities. I know, he's Black Lite to some of you, but don't tell me I don't like black people because they get the limelight.
Droop said:
QUOTE
I don't need to compare MLK to AL or Jesse. I am merely messing with your head by showing you that you are the type of person that would vilify MLK...
Bull crap. The fact is that you CAN'T compare MLK to Al or Jesse.
So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Let me know when you're ready for a serious debate. This "messing with your head" pap is really, REALLY juvenile. It sounds like you don't have facts to back up your argument, so you smokescreen the actual issue "to show people what they are". Again, let me know when you're serious about discussing and solving racism issues. I'm not wasting my time with jokes and tricksters.
Droop said:
QUOTE
BTW, Al Sharpton wasn't involved in the Duke Lacrosse case. Just in case anyone was confused, or just plain ignorant.
Oh Really? Not according to THIS famous person. Wait. It gets better. She's black!
I know, letting all these silly facts get in the way of my confusion and ignorance....
Barnaby said:
QUOTE
Al Sharpton could make anit-Semetic statements, sleep with multiple women at a time, wear loud suits, and snort lines of cocaine off of a church pew and all of those things don't change the fact that it is wrong to kill innocent people.
Right, because after doing all those things, it only makes sense to let an entire segment of the population continue to be represented by these "leaders".
Anyone who says otherwise, using that logic, must hate black people.
Okay Droop, I finally saw your last post.
So you want to say that we'd idolize MLK because he's dead, and not compare him with Jackson and Sharpton, here's the "GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS" you've come up with.
1. An investigation on advertising budgets
2. Signing up black women to vote, even though they've had the right for decades
3. Banning the "N' word, the "B" word and the word "ho".
RAINBOW/PUSH is part of the following:
1. Traditional Democrat Policies
Wow. According to your post, Jackson is responsible for 9 of the 10 things the Democrats are credited for.
And finally, this awesome jem from Droop:
QUOTE
But here is the catch 22. I'm asked by a poster to show some good works... whichi now have just done. This doesn't mean I defend the like of Jesse or Al.
You could have fooled me. Almost every post defends "hatred for these prominent black men", and "gee, look at all their accomplishments". You have done nothing BUT defend them, and claim that "our attacks" are because they're prominent black men. And that prominent black men get singled out and put under the microscope.
Promiment men of ANY color get singled out and put under the microscope. Welcome to the media. It's only been like that since.... forever.
So you're wrong on both points.
But I am thinking about your post. Show me a credible, honest civil rights leader, and I'll happily get right behind him. Regardless of color.
These two yahoos are attention whores who have been beaten by public opinion. That doesn't make them martyrs.
But now I have a question for you. When will we no longer need to make the racial divide?
It's a tough question because this world will unfortunately never be rid of racists, yet, scales of equality will never truly be equal - perhaps as a result of the first point. I think more people have adopted diversity than they'll ever get credit for in America. You'd never know that, however, because fixating on racial differences keeps donations coming into RAINBOW/PUSH and like-minded groups who rely on continued racism.
Edited to add that last afterthought. I'd love to see racism end, and I don't get any money for that.
That being said AZ- we are MUCH harder on "black leaders" than you are on, say, white leaders. Our current president is as easily as a bad guy as Al Sharpton- but, what do you know? There are lots of white people that still seem to defend him. I wonder why that is?
Let's look at the history of civil rights leaders- and thier treatment- and understand why folks in that ethnic group may be a bit defensive of "leaders" that take up the standard on racial issues.
Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. He also criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism."[3]
Ronald Reagan was also opposed to the holiday. He relented in his opposition only after Congress passed the King Day bill with an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate). Prior to that date, New Hampshire and Arizona had not observed the day. Throughout the 1990s, this was heavily criticized. After a 1992 proposition to recognize the holiday in Arizona did not pass, the National Football League boycotted hosting Super Bowl XXVII at Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe.[4] The hip-hop group Public Enemy recorded a song titled "By The Time I Get To Arizona", on their 1991 album Apocalypse 91... The Enemy Strikes Black, in which they describe assassinating Arizona Governor Fife Symington III for his opposition to the holiday.
On May 2, 2000, South Carolina governor Jim Hodges signed a bill to make Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday an official state holiday. South Carolina was the last state to recognize the day as a paid holiday for all state employees. Prior to this, employees could choose between celebrating Martin Luther King Day or one of three confederate holidays. [5]
It appears to those that may not have a stake on either side of this issue- that white America tends to try and villify and demonize any black leader that has born this standard in our history.
Seriously- I have my issues with Al Sharpton, sure, but I certainly don't think less of him than 90% if the white politicians in power today- and he is far "cleaner" than GW, so what is the beef here?
If you are going to be all against shady behavior, and YOU AREN'T racist- why give people like GW or Cheney or any of those heroes of white america a "pass" for thier behavior- but not ol' Al?
BTW- I am always intrigued by these guys- and whenever someone of Al or Jesse's stature hits Alaska- I try to make an appearance- haven't had too much luck though- went to the Farakhan speaking event some time back though- and I have to say, I was the only white guy not a reporter in the entire sports arena full of people- there were some white women, but I believe I was the ONLY white guy. Lilly white at that. Sat right up front, just to hear what he had to say. No one bothered me, and, in fact, many people came up to me and said "It was very nice of you to come here, why did you come here"- and my response "curiosity" seemed to really confuse them.
But, Al and Jesse are not elected leaders in this country- they head up organizations that deal with race relations.
That is literally thier job. They live by the kindness of others- basically, donations.
What is so different between them and any other church pastor type? The fact that they call into question our much vaunted but not so often achieved ideals of equality and justice for all?
I hear a much more noble message coming out of thier mouths than I do , oh, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, the Pope etc etc. those being all white dudes and all- that aren't elected, and live off the donations of others.
I do believe that Jesse and Al are poking at an open sore in America- I don't deny that. But they didn't make that wound, they just keep it from healing sometimes. But, if we don't keep wounding ourselves on this issue- or ignore the wound completely- it won't heal either.
As far as Jesse and Al's credentials as civil rights leaders?
Well, they were not only a part of the civil rights movement, they were right hand men of MLK.
In 1965, he participated in the Selma to Montgomery marches organized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders in Alabama. When Jackson returned from Selma, he threw himself into King’s effort to establish a beachhead of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in Chicago. In 1966, King selected Jackson to be head of the SCLC’s Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, and promoted him to be the national director in 1967. Following the example of Reverend Leon Sullivan of Philadelphia, a key goal of the new group was to foster “selective buying” (boycotts) as a means to pressure white businesses to hire blacks and purchase goods and services from black contractors. One of Sullivan's precursors was Dr. T.R.M. Howard, a wealthy South Side doctor and entrepreneur and key financial contributor to Operation Breadbasket. Before he moved to Chicago from Mississippi in 1956, Howard, as the head of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, had successfully organized a boycott against service stations that refused to provide restrooms for blacks.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks on a radio broadcast from the headquarters of Operation PUSH, (People United to Save Humanity) at its annual convention. July, 1973. Photograph by John H. White.Jackson was with King in Memphis, Tennessee when King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, the day after King's famous "I’ve been to the mountaintop" speech at the Mason Temple.
BTW- notice the pic here:
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,mb,mlk,lorrainemotel.jpg
That would be JJ standing next to MLK, minutes before MLK was assasinated. He was inches away from MLK when he was shot. Coulda been him just as well as MLK.
-
Like I said before AZ white wolf- there has been a very concentrated attempt to "white wash" MLK to be more palatable to white republicans in America- by the republican party itself. Ronald Reagan, after all, didn't like MLK too much either.
But now, as opposed to 1980, we are nearly 40 years since his death- MLK is a bit safer.
I don't think MLK would have minded one bit some of the things Jesse and Al have done.
MLK supported AA, and welfare and all those "liberal" causes you love to hate. Why is it so hard for our greatest civilian non-elected leader in our countries history to be so very, very liberal.
Let's look at the history of civil rights leaders- and thier treatment- and understand why folks in that ethnic group may be a bit defensive of "leaders" that take up the standard on racial issues.
Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. He also criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism."[3]
Ronald Reagan was also opposed to the holiday. He relented in his opposition only after Congress passed the King Day bill with an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate). Prior to that date, New Hampshire and Arizona had not observed the day. Throughout the 1990s, this was heavily criticized. After a 1992 proposition to recognize the holiday in Arizona did not pass, the National Football League boycotted hosting Super Bowl XXVII at Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe.[4] The hip-hop group Public Enemy recorded a song titled "By The Time I Get To Arizona", on their 1991 album Apocalypse 91... The Enemy Strikes Black, in which they describe assassinating Arizona Governor Fife Symington III for his opposition to the holiday.
On May 2, 2000, South Carolina governor Jim Hodges signed a bill to make Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday an official state holiday. South Carolina was the last state to recognize the day as a paid holiday for all state employees. Prior to this, employees could choose between celebrating Martin Luther King Day or one of three confederate holidays. [5]
It appears to those that may not have a stake on either side of this issue- that white America tends to try and villify and demonize any black leader that has born this standard in our history.
Seriously- I have my issues with Al Sharpton, sure, but I certainly don't think less of him than 90% if the white politicians in power today- and he is far "cleaner" than GW, so what is the beef here?
If you are going to be all against shady behavior, and YOU AREN'T racist- why give people like GW or Cheney or any of those heroes of white america a "pass" for thier behavior- but not ol' Al?
BTW- I am always intrigued by these guys- and whenever someone of Al or Jesse's stature hits Alaska- I try to make an appearance- haven't had too much luck though- went to the Farakhan speaking event some time back though- and I have to say, I was the only white guy not a reporter in the entire sports arena full of people- there were some white women, but I believe I was the ONLY white guy. Lilly white at that. Sat right up front, just to hear what he had to say. No one bothered me, and, in fact, many people came up to me and said "It was very nice of you to come here, why did you come here"- and my response "curiosity" seemed to really confuse them.
But, Al and Jesse are not elected leaders in this country- they head up organizations that deal with race relations.
That is literally thier job. They live by the kindness of others- basically, donations.
What is so different between them and any other church pastor type? The fact that they call into question our much vaunted but not so often achieved ideals of equality and justice for all?
I hear a much more noble message coming out of thier mouths than I do , oh, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, the Pope etc etc. those being all white dudes and all- that aren't elected, and live off the donations of others.
I do believe that Jesse and Al are poking at an open sore in America- I don't deny that. But they didn't make that wound, they just keep it from healing sometimes. But, if we don't keep wounding ourselves on this issue- or ignore the wound completely- it won't heal either.
As far as Jesse and Al's credentials as civil rights leaders?
Well, they were not only a part of the civil rights movement, they were right hand men of MLK.
In 1965, he participated in the Selma to Montgomery marches organized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders in Alabama. When Jackson returned from Selma, he threw himself into King’s effort to establish a beachhead of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in Chicago. In 1966, King selected Jackson to be head of the SCLC’s Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, and promoted him to be the national director in 1967. Following the example of Reverend Leon Sullivan of Philadelphia, a key goal of the new group was to foster “selective buying” (boycotts) as a means to pressure white businesses to hire blacks and purchase goods and services from black contractors. One of Sullivan's precursors was Dr. T.R.M. Howard, a wealthy South Side doctor and entrepreneur and key financial contributor to Operation Breadbasket. Before he moved to Chicago from Mississippi in 1956, Howard, as the head of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, had successfully organized a boycott against service stations that refused to provide restrooms for blacks.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks on a radio broadcast from the headquarters of Operation PUSH, (People United to Save Humanity) at its annual convention. July, 1973. Photograph by John H. White.Jackson was with King in Memphis, Tennessee when King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, the day after King's famous "I’ve been to the mountaintop" speech at the Mason Temple.
BTW- notice the pic here:
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,mb,mlk,lorrainemotel.jpg
That would be JJ standing next to MLK, minutes before MLK was assasinated. He was inches away from MLK when he was shot. Coulda been him just as well as MLK.
- Like I said before AZ white wolf- there has been a very concentrated attempt to "white wash" MLK to be more palatable to white republicans in America- by the republican party itself. Ronald Reagan, after all, didn't like MLK too much either.
But now, as opposed to 1980, we are nearly 40 years since his death- MLK is a bit safer.
I don't think MLK would have minded one bit some of the things Jesse and Al have done.
MLK supported AA, and welfare and all those "liberal" causes you love to hate. Why is it so hard for our greatest civilian non-elected leader in our countries history to be so very, very liberal.
AzWhitewolf
Other than you posting some wild assertions... no I don't see a pattern. Can you tell me where you are getting these from... especially he thought he was being victimized by racism because he had to start behind another Black quarterback.... wow....
Why is it my job to make you a fair person?? Did I give birth to you? Am I your Daddy?? Daddy Droop?!?! It's got a ring to it!! You choose whether you want to be fair.. I am merely pointing out that ... you aren't.
HUH!?!?!?! The Hebrew people??? Jesse was alive 2000 years ago?? He's been fighting for civil rights a long time then. And Al Sharpton was just out there involved in the Jenna Six movement wasn't he?? Wasn't that some racial injustice exposed... didn't that have to do with civil rights??
OK I'll bite!! If Rosa Parks were alive today with out doing research what would you honor her for??
AS for discrediting King.... An affair in the White House sent Bill Clinton running for cover Communism is synonymous with evil to the average American... If the FBI couln't discredit him it was because he was martyred or because they chose not to.
My point!!! Sharpton and Jackson DO NOT always talk about "America treats black people" and "America doesn't care about black people" but when they speak they have been so vilified... that's all you hear.
So who do you like hearing it from... a voice from the past??
Or hucksters... AS I said it was never my intention to to compare MLK to the other being debated.. it was my intention to show that MLK would be vilified by the same people that ilify the others. Because people like you harp on the negative.
Laughs on you .. i didn't say that... Now apologize!!
It looks as though your goal is to minimize anything Jesse or AL do positvie and maximize anything they do negative. Why??? Do you even realize this is what you are doing. Do you realize you would do the same if King were alive??? That was what I am comparing.
Yet another mischarecterization... wow I must being doing well for you to continue to mischaracterize the sum of my argument.
I am not making a claim that "your attacks" are due to the fact they are "prominent Black men". Barack falls in that category as well. My argument is that they have been villified and demonized and put under the microscope because they have made a life of pointing at racial injustices.
And it may seem I am defending Jesse and Al, but I am really defending a position and they are insignificant to that position. My position is that it all people are fallible. And all the mistakes will be magified and the good deeds minimized by maistream Americans regardless of who is in the position of Jesse and Al.
The closer we come to racial parity, in terms of wealth, political power, and social conditions the less we will see a racial divide.
QUOTE
Okay, Jackson came in 3rd in the 1984 presidential nominations, behind Gary Hart. He then claimed that when Mondale didn't pick him as a running mate, it was because (essentially) he was black.
Jackson attended college, and was a self proclaimed "star" of the team. He left that college claiming it was racism that he couldn't be the star quarterback because he was black. But a black man was already the star quarterback.
See a pattern developing here?
Jackson attended college, and was a self proclaimed "star" of the team. He left that college claiming it was racism that he couldn't be the star quarterback because he was black. But a black man was already the star quarterback.
See a pattern developing here?
Other than you posting some wild assertions... no I don't see a pattern. Can you tell me where you are getting these from... especially he thought he was being victimized by racism because he had to start behind another Black quarterback.... wow....
QUOTE
Now if you want me to say that Jackson was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton (whom he helped get the black vote, which is a whole other can of worms), then it's really YOUR job to point that out. Support your own position. It's my job to make my argument the way I want, not be a middleman between what I really think.
Why is it my job to make you a fair person?? Did I give birth to you? Am I your Daddy?? Daddy Droop?!?! It's got a ring to it!!
You choose whether you want to be fair.. I am merely pointing out that ... you aren't.QUOTE
But okay, Droop, look at the accomplishments. One is an incredible negotiator with freeing hostages. The other raises astounding amounts of money. Oh crap. My list isn't exhaustive enough, so you're going to attempt to claim that "this is all I think about black leaders", right? Please don't go that route.
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: Civil Rights. Show me what Jackson or Sharpton have really accomplished for civil rights? "Keeping the issue in the forefront"? "Making sure people are aware that racism exists"? Getting medals and awards?
What are they REALLY doing, Droop? Jackson helped formed a Palestinian state. Gee, you think Jews find that racist when you take Hebrew people and give their holy land away?
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: Civil Rights. Show me what Jackson or Sharpton have really accomplished for civil rights? "Keeping the issue in the forefront"? "Making sure people are aware that racism exists"? Getting medals and awards?
What are they REALLY doing, Droop? Jackson helped formed a Palestinian state. Gee, you think Jews find that racist when you take Hebrew people and give their holy land away?
HUH!?!?!?! The Hebrew people??? Jesse was alive 2000 years ago?? He's been fighting for civil rights a long time then. And Al Sharpton was just out there involved in the Jenna Six movement wasn't he?? Wasn't that some racial injustice exposed... didn't that have to do with civil rights??
QUOTE
And they couldn't discredit him. That says something very different than a fellow who would have evidence of money laundering, and another who would funnel donated money for the advancement of black people to his mistress to keep a secret. It's not about sanitization, it's about character.
I suppose Rosa Parks' life was "sanitized", but she was more of a hero than Sharpton and Jackson are, IMHO. Too bad she died two years ago. Because if she was alive, I would be allowed to admire her.
I suppose Rosa Parks' life was "sanitized", but she was more of a hero than Sharpton and Jackson are, IMHO. Too bad she died two years ago. Because if she was alive, I would be allowed to admire her.
OK I'll bite!! If Rosa Parks were alive today with out doing research what would you honor her for??
AS for discrediting King.... An affair in the White House sent Bill Clinton running for cover Communism is synonymous with evil to the average American... If the FBI couln't discredit him it was because he was martyred or because they chose not to.
QUOTE
See, that's where I'm not agreeing with you.
I don't mind loud obnoxious people. They have something to say, and I may not like it, but its always worth a listen. Here's the thing, though. SAY SOMETHING THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER. If you always ramble on how "America treats black people" and "America doesn't care about black people" stereo-typical rhetoric, and then act like a martyr when people tune you out, the problem isn't with the people - the problem is the leader.
I don't mind loud obnoxious people. They have something to say, and I may not like it, but its always worth a listen. Here's the thing, though. SAY SOMETHING THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER. If you always ramble on how "America treats black people" and "America doesn't care about black people" stereo-typical rhetoric, and then act like a martyr when people tune you out, the problem isn't with the people - the problem is the leader.
My point!!! Sharpton and Jackson DO NOT always talk about "America treats black people" and "America doesn't care about black people" but when they speak they have been so vilified... that's all you hear.
QUOTE
It's not the message I reject. It's the two prominent leaders delivering it.
So who do you like hearing it from... a voice from the past??
QUOTE
Bull crap. The fact is that you CAN'T compare MLK to Al or Jesse.
So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Let me know when you're ready for a serious debate. This "messing with your head" pap is really, REALLY juvenile. It sounds like you don't have facts to back up your argument, so you smokescreen the actual issue "to show people what they are". Again, let me know when you're serious about discussing and solving racism issues. I'm not wasting my time with jokes and tricksters.
So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Let me know when you're ready for a serious debate. This "messing with your head" pap is really, REALLY juvenile. It sounds like you don't have facts to back up your argument, so you smokescreen the actual issue "to show people what they are". Again, let me know when you're serious about discussing and solving racism issues. I'm not wasting my time with jokes and tricksters.
Or hucksters...
AS I said it was never my intention to to compare MLK to the other being debated.. it was my intention to show that MLK would be vilified by the same people that ilify the others. Because people like you harp on the negative. QUOTE
Droop said:
Oh Really? Not according to THIS famous person. Wait. It gets better. She's black!
I know, letting all these silly facts get in the way of my confusion and ignorance....
QUOTE
QUOTEBTW, Al Sharpton wasn't involved in the Duke Lacrosse case. Just in case anyone was confused, or just plain ignorant.
Oh Really? Not according to THIS famous person. Wait. It gets better. She's black!
I know, letting all these silly facts get in the way of my confusion and ignorance....
Laughs on you .. i didn't say that... Now apologize!!
QUOTE
Right, because after doing all those things, it only makes sense to let an entire segment of the population continue to be represented by these "leaders".
Anyone who says otherwise, using that logic, must hate black people.
Okay Droop, I finally saw your last post.
So you want to say that we'd idolize MLK because he's dead, and not compare him with Jackson and Sharpton, here's the "GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS" you've come up with.
1. An investigation on advertising budgets
2. Signing up black women to vote, even though they've had the right for decades
3. Banning the "N' word, the "B" word and the word "ho".
RAINBOW/PUSH is part of the following:
1. Traditional Democrat Policies
Wow. According to your post, Jackson is responsible for 9 of the 10 things the Democrats are credited for.
Anyone who says otherwise, using that logic, must hate black people.
Okay Droop, I finally saw your last post.
So you want to say that we'd idolize MLK because he's dead, and not compare him with Jackson and Sharpton, here's the "GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS" you've come up with.
1. An investigation on advertising budgets
2. Signing up black women to vote, even though they've had the right for decades
3. Banning the "N' word, the "B" word and the word "ho".
RAINBOW/PUSH is part of the following:
1. Traditional Democrat Policies
Wow. According to your post, Jackson is responsible for 9 of the 10 things the Democrats are credited for.
It looks as though your goal is to minimize anything Jesse or AL do positvie and maximize anything they do negative. Why??? Do you even realize this is what you are doing. Do you realize you would do the same if King were alive??? That was what I am comparing.
QUOTE
You could have fooled me. Almost every post defends "hatred for these prominent black men", and "gee, look at all their accomplishments". You have done nothing BUT defend them, and claim that "our attacks" are because they're prominent black men. And that prominent black men get singled out and put under the microscope.
Yet another mischarecterization... wow I must being doing well for you to continue to mischaracterize the sum of my argument.
I am not making a claim that "your attacks" are due to the fact they are "prominent Black men". Barack falls in that category as well. My argument is that they have been villified and demonized and put under the microscope because they have made a life of pointing at racial injustices.
And it may seem I am defending Jesse and Al, but I am really defending a position and they are insignificant to that position. My position is that it all people are fallible. And all the mistakes will be magified and the good deeds minimized by maistream Americans regardless of who is in the position of Jesse and Al.
QUOTE
But now I have a question for you. When will we no longer need to make the racial divide?
It's a tough question because this world will unfortunately never be rid of racists, yet, scales of equality will never truly be equal - perhaps as a result of the first point.
It's a tough question because this world will unfortunately never be rid of racists, yet, scales of equality will never truly be equal - perhaps as a result of the first point.
The closer we come to racial parity, in terms of wealth, political power, and social conditions the less we will see a racial divide.
Okay- Al Sharpton is NOT my leader- I didn't vote for him, he hasn't done anything for or against me- but I also have to recognize he HAS done things for justice for black people in New York-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton
Howard Beach
On December 20, 1986, three African-American men were assaulted in the Howard Beach neighborhood of Queens by a mob of white men. The three men were chased by their attackers onto the Belt Parkway, where one of them, Michael Griffith, was struck and killed by a passing motorist.[28]
A week later, on December 27, Sharpton led 1,200 demonstrators on a march through the streets of Howard Beach. Residents of the neighborhood, who were overwhelmingly white, screamed racial epithets at the protesters, who were largely Black.[29] Sharpton's role in the case, which led to the appointment of a special prosecutor by New York Governor Mario Cuomo after the two surviving victims refused to co-operate with the Queens district attorney, helped propel him to national prominence.
Okay- the above issue is what propelled Sharpton into the national spotlight. Good enough reason as well- a real injustice done here- and Sharpton led the protests. Very appropriate IMHO. Needed to be done, and he earned the right to be called " a civil rights leader"- because, well, he led people who wanted justice in regards to the civil rights that were denied those 3 black men.
Bensonhurst
On August 23, 1989, four Black teenagers were beaten by a group of 10 to 30 white youths in Bensonhurst, a Brooklyn neighborhood. One Bensonhurst resident, armed with a handgun, shot and killed sixteen-year-old Yusef Hawkins.
In the weeks following the assault and murder, Sharpton led several marches through Bensonhurst. The first protest, just days after the incident, was greeted by neighborhood residents shouting "Niggers go home" and holding watermelons to mock the demonstrators.[31]
In May 1990, when one of the two leaders of the mob was acquitted of the most serious charges brought against him, Sharpton led another protest through Bensonhurst. In January 1991, when other members of the gang were given light sentences, Sharpton planned another march for January 12, 1991. Before that demonstration began, neighborhood resident Michael Riccardi tried to kill Sharpton by stabbing him in the chest.[32] Sharpton recovered from his wounds, and later asked the judge for leniency when Riccardi was sentenced.[33]
Okay here- the dude was stabbed in the chest by a racist. That, IMHO, gives him some credibility in his commitment to the cause of justice and civil rights. 
He also did some things I find very immoral- most of which, was his position on the Tawana Bradley case- that peeves me still.
That being said- he has also apologized and asked for forgiveness when he has screwed up- just look at his statements on the Mormon comments etc- blacks have every right to speak out against the mormon church- thier doctrine kept them from even recieving the priesthood until 1978- only 10 or so years after the civil rights movement was really under way.
But, he asked for forgiveness and met with one of the 12 apostles of the church. A very manly thing to do. He never took a position on the Duke case, BTW- he was pretty solid on that one- I heard the broadcast in it's entirety when it was replayed here- and he simply said something along the lines of "the DA would have to be crazy to go ahead with this without evidence" or something of the like- and it turns out, Nifong WAS crazy.
Asking for forgiveness and saying "sorry, I screwed up and was wrong for doing so" is something our current leaders should could use as an example of good leadership.
So, really, Al Sharpton has earned his place, and as long as black people in America give him thier hard earned money, and turn out when he calls for a rally, he gets to keep that title, whether white folks like it or not. Just as white people continue to give thier hard earned money to GW Bush and his ilk's campaign, whether black people like it or not.
And personally, I would take Al Sharpton over ANYONE in the GW regime as my leader, any day, any time.
But- in the end- it is Al Sharpton's own words that tells the real story:
Sharpton sees much of the criticism as a sign of his effectiveness. "In many ways, what they consider criticism is complimenting my job," said Sharpton. "An activist’s job is to make public civil rights issues until there can be a climate for change. So when people get angry at me for raising these issues and making them public, well, that’s my job! That’s what I’m supposed to do. If I could not get the public’s attention on an issue, then I’m not a good activist."[10]
I would say that there is evidence that Al Sharpton is anti-semitic. But I am not saying that he is or isn't- too hard to tell
Deserves his title as "activist civil rights leader" you bet- he has been very effective in certain areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton
Howard Beach
On December 20, 1986, three African-American men were assaulted in the Howard Beach neighborhood of Queens by a mob of white men. The three men were chased by their attackers onto the Belt Parkway, where one of them, Michael Griffith, was struck and killed by a passing motorist.[28]
A week later, on December 27, Sharpton led 1,200 demonstrators on a march through the streets of Howard Beach. Residents of the neighborhood, who were overwhelmingly white, screamed racial epithets at the protesters, who were largely Black.[29] Sharpton's role in the case, which led to the appointment of a special prosecutor by New York Governor Mario Cuomo after the two surviving victims refused to co-operate with the Queens district attorney, helped propel him to national prominence.
Okay- the above issue is what propelled Sharpton into the national spotlight. Good enough reason as well- a real injustice done here- and Sharpton led the protests. Very appropriate IMHO. Needed to be done, and he earned the right to be called " a civil rights leader"- because, well, he led people who wanted justice in regards to the civil rights that were denied those 3 black men.
Bensonhurst
On August 23, 1989, four Black teenagers were beaten by a group of 10 to 30 white youths in Bensonhurst, a Brooklyn neighborhood. One Bensonhurst resident, armed with a handgun, shot and killed sixteen-year-old Yusef Hawkins.
In the weeks following the assault and murder, Sharpton led several marches through Bensonhurst. The first protest, just days after the incident, was greeted by neighborhood residents shouting "Niggers go home" and holding watermelons to mock the demonstrators.[31]
In May 1990, when one of the two leaders of the mob was acquitted of the most serious charges brought against him, Sharpton led another protest through Bensonhurst. In January 1991, when other members of the gang were given light sentences, Sharpton planned another march for January 12, 1991. Before that demonstration began, neighborhood resident Michael Riccardi tried to kill Sharpton by stabbing him in the chest.[32] Sharpton recovered from his wounds, and later asked the judge for leniency when Riccardi was sentenced.[33]
Okay here- the dude was stabbed in the chest by a racist. That, IMHO, gives him some credibility in his commitment to the cause of justice and civil rights.
He also did some things I find very immoral- most of which, was his position on the Tawana Bradley case- that peeves me still.
That being said- he has also apologized and asked for forgiveness when he has screwed up- just look at his statements on the Mormon comments etc- blacks have every right to speak out against the mormon church- thier doctrine kept them from even recieving the priesthood until 1978- only 10 or so years after the civil rights movement was really under way.
But, he asked for forgiveness and met with one of the 12 apostles of the church. A very manly thing to do. He never took a position on the Duke case, BTW- he was pretty solid on that one- I heard the broadcast in it's entirety when it was replayed here- and he simply said something along the lines of "the DA would have to be crazy to go ahead with this without evidence" or something of the like- and it turns out, Nifong WAS crazy.
Asking for forgiveness and saying "sorry, I screwed up and was wrong for doing so" is something our current leaders should could use as an example of good leadership.
So, really, Al Sharpton has earned his place, and as long as black people in America give him thier hard earned money, and turn out when he calls for a rally, he gets to keep that title, whether white folks like it or not. Just as white people continue to give thier hard earned money to GW Bush and his ilk's campaign, whether black people like it or not.
And personally, I would take Al Sharpton over ANYONE in the GW regime as my leader, any day, any time.
But- in the end- it is Al Sharpton's own words that tells the real story:
Sharpton sees much of the criticism as a sign of his effectiveness. "In many ways, what they consider criticism is complimenting my job," said Sharpton. "An activist’s job is to make public civil rights issues until there can be a climate for change. So when people get angry at me for raising these issues and making them public, well, that’s my job! That’s what I’m supposed to do. If I could not get the public’s attention on an issue, then I’m not a good activist."[10]
I would say that there is evidence that Al Sharpton is anti-semitic. But I am not saying that he is or isn't- too hard to tell
Deserves his title as "activist civil rights leader" you bet- he has been very effective in certain areas.
CruisingRam said:
That's kind of an unrelated comparison. I'm not sure which direction to go with this.
But let's put it this way. I've seen more open criticism, and downright disrespect on our President than any of these black leaders. Wouldn't it be disingenuous of me to suggest that people hate him only because he's a white man in power? (of course not) Try this: Or because he's a white man who had a cocaine problem and was a male cheerleader who "lied to the American People".. - is that better? (That's his character, stay with me now...)
I could say, look, The EPA under his Administration has enacted the toughest legislation on recycling electronics parts in the Consumer Electronics Industry ever. Therefore, since he has done good things for the environment, his HUMAN, "self serving" person can be completely overlooked because he has done a few good things. (That's his actual accomplishments... are you with me?)
So his character, past mistakes, poor decision is all last week's news. Right? What we need to concentrate on what he's done good, right?
That's essentially what I'm seeing in these posts defending Al and JJ. So take that same scenario with Bush, and let me know how you feel about forgiving him.
CrusingRam said:
Heroes of White America? What the hell is THAT?!
This is exactly the crap I'm talking about. Please, explain this.
I read the opinion section in my local paper this week. I don't see anyone getting a pass. Everyone is damning the Bush Administration, and it's not because Bush is white.
Okay, so black rappers talk about killing to make it right. That spits in the face of MLK's message. Yes, that spits in even the most SANITIZED of MLK's message.
Is that what we do when we find something racist? Find the leader (Gov. Symington) and kill him?
Sharpton and Jackson would simply pontificate about how crappy Arizona is, probably file a lawsuit or a boycott.
Anyway, I'm sure Public Enemy made it sound peaceful.
I'll bet they didn't use any "N" words, any "B" words or "ho" on that album, either.
Oops. The "N" word was used.
Oops. So was the "B" word.
Oops. And wouldn't you know. They used the word "ho"
Public Enemy must not like Sharpton's group because they speak out against people using this language. Therefore, opposition to Sharpton = racism, so they hate black people. Wait a minute.... (Sorry, seriously, I couldn't resist the swipe) 
Sharpton gives blacks a pass at words like "ho". But try being Imus.
Maybe MLK was a hypocrite like that. But even if he was, it doesn't make it right to single people out and tell them what they can and can't say.
See, I find that disturbing. A white man at a "black" event, and people are confused that you're curious.
WHY were they confused? Because perhaps they've been taught that you're the reason for their problem, and they're genuinely surprised that you'd take an interest.
Or they were suspicious of your presence.
Either way... How sad.
And so has society's attitude. People have become more tolerant in 40 years. Thus, the black community has made progress.
40 years ago, slave owners were still alive. So logically, it would make sense that the racist mentality would move along with past history, except for some actual racist parent-to-child pass-me-down.
SOME credit can be the black community. But I don't see where Sharpton or Jackson can claim the authority on this. Perhaps the rappers of today understand their message.
But if we can make serious claims that Abe Lincoln was a homosexual, and Thomas Jefferson was an athiest, I think we could dig up dirt on MLK if it was there. He believed in his cause, but here's the difference. THINGS CHANGED with MLK. He didn't biatch about "whitey", he went out and changed attitudes.
Sharpton made a crack on the Jewish community with that yarmakule statement.
Should people be so forgiving if they responded with a fried chicken or watermelon retort?
Yet the Jewish leaders refrained, and Sharpton never issued a public apology. Way to lead by example!
So the argument that Sharpton is fighting racism, or stereotypes is a complete crock. Now we're whining about words that "artists" are allowed to use on their record albums, and holding corporations hostage if they don't follow suit, afraid they'll be blasted in the media as "racist". That's legislating morality.
I suppose you have a point there.
I do have some respect for Graham as an evangelist. The guy is pretty clean, all things considered. Check out some of his accomplishments. He wouldn't even allow pictures of him with other women without his wife or kids in the picture. Lumping Graham with televangelists was an oversight, I'll assume.
But I would argue that those men are making money off of God existing.
So therefore, can I say that Al and Jesse are making money off racism existing?
Even conservative parents teach their kids "brown and yellow, black and white, we are precious in His sight..."
There is this invisible belief that under all of the fighting, name calling, and race-sore-opening, that there will be a point in time where ever person will treated 100% equally as the next guy, and the belief that this can't be achieved without the fighting, name calling and race-sore opening. It's a vicious cycle.
And then we have the belief that people are too stupid to, without some goofy legislation, have the ability to look past color without fear of reprisal. The belief that government, and not people can solve our problems plays here. Legislation like race quotas suggest that America IS racist, and needs to be regulated. So then going along with it suggests "white guilt" and adds credibility to that argument, and standing up against it singles you out for being a racist. Either way, the race-baiters get credit for that supposed "advancement". THAT is my beef. If that's what our greatest civilian non-elected leaders can offer, no thanks.
Do you not see that a ditch digger will never be paid what a doctor is paid?
Do you not see that there will always be rich and poor?
Attempts to even that up by using the government usually end up in taxation and restrictions, which is opposite of everyone's freedom.
People of any color can use any bathroom. (men, still, please use the men's bathroom, but hey, that's up for grabs if you're a cross dresser)
People of any color can register to vote in America.
People of any color can sit anywhere on any bus or train.
Now we argue that not enough blacks get accepted at college, and that we need a quota.
And small businesses are "supposed to" (in theory) have a token black or if some member of the black (or any minority) community is offended enough, they'll bring in the racial henchmen to "even it up".
At what point, at what DETAILED POINT do we say to someone of ANY color... "Hey dude, that's life, and sometimes life is unfair" without someone claiming racism as a trump card? I've run into blacks who are so fed up that the minute they can find it, fully looking for it, they're ready to claim "racism". How is that fair to any other race?
I've also run into whites who still get angry that a more qualified black gets a promotion. How fair is that to any other race?
Answer me this. Paint a scenario between a white man and a black man that UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE could NOT become a racist issue when we're taught to look at color as a racist issue?
I grew up in a neighborhood with blacks, italians and greeks. And I lived in an all white neighborhood for a few years.
It's a funny thing. We didn't see each other as blacks, italians and greeks. And whites didn't look at me as a greek. And we didn't see each other as anything else as just kids. We were friends. Our parents weren't often seen mixing, but we did without knowing that we were really all that different.
Racism is learned.
Who is on the news teaching it?
Whoops.
That was Barnaby.
I apologize. 
I don't want my confusion and ignorance get in the way of properly quoting somebody!
QUOTE
That being said AZ- we are MUCH harder on "black leaders" than you are on, say, white leaders. Our current president is as easily as a bad guy as Al Sharpton- but, what do you know? There are lots of white people that still seem to defend him. I wonder why that is?
That's kind of an unrelated comparison. I'm not sure which direction to go with this.
But let's put it this way. I've seen more open criticism, and downright disrespect on our President than any of these black leaders. Wouldn't it be disingenuous of me to suggest that people hate him only because he's a white man in power? (of course not) Try this: Or because he's a white man who had a cocaine problem and was a male cheerleader who "lied to the American People".. - is that better? (That's his character, stay with me now...)
I could say, look, The EPA under his Administration has enacted the toughest legislation on recycling electronics parts in the Consumer Electronics Industry ever. Therefore, since he has done good things for the environment, his HUMAN, "self serving" person can be completely overlooked because he has done a few good things. (That's his actual accomplishments... are you with me?)
So his character, past mistakes, poor decision is all last week's news. Right? What we need to concentrate on what he's done good, right?
That's essentially what I'm seeing in these posts defending Al and JJ. So take that same scenario with Bush, and let me know how you feel about forgiving him.
CrusingRam said:
QUOTE
If you are going to be all against shady behavior, and YOU AREN'T racist- why give people like GW or Cheney or any of those heroes of white america a "pass" for thier behavior- but not ol' Al?
Heroes of White America? What the hell is THAT?!
This is exactly the crap I'm talking about. Please, explain this.
I read the opinion section in my local paper this week. I don't see anyone getting a pass. Everyone is damning the Bush Administration, and it's not because Bush is white.
QUOTE
The hip-hop group Public Enemy recorded a song titled "By The Time I Get To Arizona", on their 1991 album Apocalypse 91... The Enemy Strikes Black, in which they describe assassinating Arizona Governor Fife Symington III for his opposition to the holiday.
Okay, so black rappers talk about killing to make it right. That spits in the face of MLK's message. Yes, that spits in even the most SANITIZED of MLK's message.
Is that what we do when we find something racist? Find the leader (Gov. Symington) and kill him?
Sharpton and Jackson would simply pontificate about how crappy Arizona is, probably file a lawsuit or a boycott.
Anyway, I'm sure Public Enemy made it sound peaceful.
I'll bet they didn't use any "N" words, any "B" words or "ho" on that album, either.
Oops. The "N" word was used.
Oops. So was the "B" word.
Oops. And wouldn't you know. They used the word "ho"
Public Enemy must not like Sharpton's group because they speak out against people using this language. Therefore, opposition to Sharpton = racism, so they hate black people. Wait a minute....
(Sorry, seriously, I couldn't resist the swipe) Sharpton gives blacks a pass at words like "ho". But try being Imus.
Maybe MLK was a hypocrite like that. But even if he was, it doesn't make it right to single people out and tell them what they can and can't say.
QUOTE
Sat right up front, just to hear what he had to say. No one bothered me, and, in fact, many people came up to me and said "It was very nice of you to come here, why did you come here"- and my response "curiosity" seemed to really confuse them.
See, I find that disturbing. A white man at a "black" event, and people are confused that you're curious.
WHY were they confused? Because perhaps they've been taught that you're the reason for their problem, and they're genuinely surprised that you'd take an interest.
Or they were suspicious of your presence.
Either way... How sad.
QUOTE
But now, as opposed to 1980, we are nearly 40 years since his death- MLK is a bit safer.
And so has society's attitude. People have become more tolerant in 40 years. Thus, the black community has made progress.
40 years ago, slave owners were still alive. So logically, it would make sense that the racist mentality would move along with past history, except for some actual racist parent-to-child pass-me-down.
SOME credit can be the black community. But I don't see where Sharpton or Jackson can claim the authority on this. Perhaps the rappers of today understand their message.
But if we can make serious claims that Abe Lincoln was a homosexual, and Thomas Jefferson was an athiest, I think we could dig up dirt on MLK if it was there. He believed in his cause, but here's the difference. THINGS CHANGED with MLK. He didn't biatch about "whitey", he went out and changed attitudes.
Sharpton made a crack on the Jewish community with that yarmakule statement.
Should people be so forgiving if they responded with a fried chicken or watermelon retort?
Yet the Jewish leaders refrained, and Sharpton never issued a public apology. Way to lead by example!
So the argument that Sharpton is fighting racism, or stereotypes is a complete crock. Now we're whining about words that "artists" are allowed to use on their record albums, and holding corporations hostage if they don't follow suit, afraid they'll be blasted in the media as "racist". That's legislating morality.
QUOTE
I hear a much more noble message coming out of thier mouths than I do , oh, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, the Pope etc etc. those being all white dudes and all- that aren't elected, and live off the donations of others.
I suppose you have a point there.
I do have some respect for Graham as an evangelist. The guy is pretty clean, all things considered. Check out some of his accomplishments. He wouldn't even allow pictures of him with other women without his wife or kids in the picture. Lumping Graham with televangelists was an oversight, I'll assume.
But I would argue that those men are making money off of God existing.
So therefore, can I say that Al and Jesse are making money off racism existing?
QUOTE
MLK supported AA, and welfare and all those "liberal" causes you love to hate. Why is it so hard for our greatest civilian non-elected leader in our countries history to be so very, very liberal.
Even conservative parents teach their kids "brown and yellow, black and white, we are precious in His sight..."
There is this invisible belief that under all of the fighting, name calling, and race-sore-opening, that there will be a point in time where ever person will treated 100% equally as the next guy, and the belief that this can't be achieved without the fighting, name calling and race-sore opening. It's a vicious cycle.
And then we have the belief that people are too stupid to, without some goofy legislation, have the ability to look past color without fear of reprisal. The belief that government, and not people can solve our problems plays here. Legislation like race quotas suggest that America IS racist, and needs to be regulated. So then going along with it suggests "white guilt" and adds credibility to that argument, and standing up against it singles you out for being a racist. Either way, the race-baiters get credit for that supposed "advancement". THAT is my beef. If that's what our greatest civilian non-elected leaders can offer, no thanks.
Do you not see that a ditch digger will never be paid what a doctor is paid?
Do you not see that there will always be rich and poor?
Attempts to even that up by using the government usually end up in taxation and restrictions, which is opposite of everyone's freedom.
People of any color can use any bathroom. (men, still, please use the men's bathroom, but hey, that's up for grabs if you're a cross dresser)
People of any color can register to vote in America.
People of any color can sit anywhere on any bus or train.
Now we argue that not enough blacks get accepted at college, and that we need a quota.
And small businesses are "supposed to" (in theory) have a token black or if some member of the black (or any minority) community is offended enough, they'll bring in the racial henchmen to "even it up".
At what point, at what DETAILED POINT do we say to someone of ANY color... "Hey dude, that's life, and sometimes life is unfair" without someone claiming racism as a trump card? I've run into blacks who are so fed up that the minute they can find it, fully looking for it, they're ready to claim "racism". How is that fair to any other race?
I've also run into whites who still get angry that a more qualified black gets a promotion. How fair is that to any other race?
Answer me this. Paint a scenario between a white man and a black man that UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE could NOT become a racist issue when we're taught to look at color as a racist issue?
I grew up in a neighborhood with blacks, italians and greeks. And I lived in an all white neighborhood for a few years.
It's a funny thing. We didn't see each other as blacks, italians and greeks. And whites didn't look at me as a greek. And we didn't see each other as anything else as just kids. We were friends. Our parents weren't often seen mixing, but we did without knowing that we were really all that different.
Racism is learned.
Who is on the news teaching it?
QUOTE
Droop said:
BTW, Al Sharpton wasn't involved in the Duke Lacrosse case. Just in case anyone was confused, or just plain ignorant.
AZWW said:
BTW, Al Sharpton wasn't involved in the Duke Lacrosse case. Just in case anyone was confused, or just plain ignorant.
AZWW said:
QUOTE
Oh Really? Not according to THIS famous person. Wait. It gets better. She's black!
I know, letting all these silly facts get in the way of my confusion and ignorance.... laugh.gif
Droop said:
Laughs on you .. i didn't say that... Now apologize!!
I know, letting all these silly facts get in the way of my confusion and ignorance.... laugh.gif
Droop said:
QUOTE
Laughs on you .. i didn't say that... Now apologize!!
Whoops.
That was Barnaby.
I apologize.
I don't want my confusion and ignorance get in the way of properly quoting somebody!
This has been a most entertaining debate to watch here from the cheap seats. It's even more so when you consider that one of the main protagonists recently lectured me at length about the unimportance of race in the current political season and on a national level.
The reason you take race out of the debate is because race isn't an issue. Our taxes, our foreign policy, the national debt, the budget, education, and healthcare are issues. Race, like abortion, like gun control, like gay marriage is a distraction from the real issues. These are topics that are discussed so we are divided and distracted from the real issues. You and I could argue all day about race and never find a common ground because you're black and I'm white. Same with women on abortion. Or peaceful people and aggressive people on gun control, or tolerant people and intolerant people on gun control. But what does any of those distraction issues have to do with our taxes. How will talking about race get us healthcare? The answer is that it won't, and that is exactly the reason it is thrown into the debate. Mulit-billion dollar insurance companies want whites and blacks to argue about race because if we are blaming each other for our financial problems then we won't be blaming them. I look at my check stub every pay period and never see a deduction for blacks on there. Yet here I am arguing with you about race. The reason we take race out of the debate is because it's divisive, unproductive, and stupid.
Fast forward to slightly more than a week later aaaannnddd....
So it appears that when it comes to Barack Obama, a man who inspires people both home and abroad and cuts across color lines, party affiliation, and age, debates concerning race are "divisive, unproductive and stupid."
However, when it comes to the Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who frequently polarizes and exacerbates racial conflict and division, then debates concerning race are not "divisive, unproductive and stupid."
Which just goes to show that it's easy to condemn others for behaviors we indulge in ourselves.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Jan 24 2008, 12:15 PM)
The reason you take race out of the debate is because race isn't an issue. Our taxes, our foreign policy, the national debt, the budget, education, and healthcare are issues. Race, like abortion, like gun control, like gay marriage is a distraction from the real issues. These are topics that are discussed so we are divided and distracted from the real issues. You and I could argue all day about race and never find a common ground because you're black and I'm white. Same with women on abortion. Or peaceful people and aggressive people on gun control, or tolerant people and intolerant people on gun control. But what does any of those distraction issues have to do with our taxes. How will talking about race get us healthcare? The answer is that it won't, and that is exactly the reason it is thrown into the debate. Mulit-billion dollar insurance companies want whites and blacks to argue about race because if we are blaming each other for our financial problems then we won't be blaming them. I look at my check stub every pay period and never see a deduction for blacks on there. Yet here I am arguing with you about race. The reason we take race out of the debate is because it's divisive, unproductive, and stupid.
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Jan 25 2008, 04:31 PM)
An issue that when addressed does what nighttimer? Divides us even more. I watch people on this board create threads to draw you out. Juneteenth Violence or White Christian Male Power Structure. The debates go nowhere, the issues never resolved. Two sides blasting away at the ill-behaved of the other race, yet you believe addressing race is somehow helpful. Have you bothered to watch the increase in ethnic hostilities recently. The image of the noose has made its way into the news more. Blacks descend upon Jena and how do the white people respond? They hang nooses on their cars or trucks, or in fire stations. There is no healing process. People tribe-up and draw a line in the sand, justice be damned.
All problems affecting race are local. Schools, police, justice system, and poverty are all local problems. National issues are too widespread to have granular effect on blacks in America. Taxes are applied to social security numbers, healthcare is irrelevant of color, gas prices are gouging us all, inflation continues to increase for every race, jobs are being exported overseas, but you still think we need to talk about race. All day long we could argue about race, but I think we can both agree that gas prices, prescription drugs and health care coverage are all way too high. I'm sure that you are feeling the effects of inflation the same way I am, or that our tax dollars are being wasted on a war nobody wants. These things we can agree on. If we do agree on them and we have a consolidated voice on the issues, we can influence change in our federal government's policies. If we continue to focus on the nit-pick issues like race, gay marriage, and gun control then we'll forever stay divided.
All problems affecting race are local. Schools, police, justice system, and poverty are all local problems. National issues are too widespread to have granular effect on blacks in America. Taxes are applied to social security numbers, healthcare is irrelevant of color, gas prices are gouging us all, inflation continues to increase for every race, jobs are being exported overseas, but you still think we need to talk about race. All day long we could argue about race, but I think we can both agree that gas prices, prescription drugs and health care coverage are all way too high. I'm sure that you are feeling the effects of inflation the same way I am, or that our tax dollars are being wasted on a war nobody wants. These things we can agree on. If we do agree on them and we have a consolidated voice on the issues, we can influence change in our federal government's policies. If we continue to focus on the nit-pick issues like race, gay marriage, and gun control then we'll forever stay divided.
Fast forward to slightly more than a week later aaaannnddd....
QUOTE(barnaby2341 @ Feb 2 2008, 09:26 AM)
Such an interesting response Mrs. PigPen, there were two entries for blacks being mobbed by whites and you left that out to focus on the negative of Al Sharpton. You ignored the killing of innocent men in Sean Bell and Amadou Danillo. What does that say about you Mrs. PigPen? You continue to focus on the negative of Al Sharpton and not what he is fighting for, but I don't expect you to see it any other way. You may be one of those that justify the killing of black men by police. I don't know. It seems to me that those are the type of people that are on this board. People who love authority, hate minorities, and justify the murder of innocents. Al Sharpton could make anit-Semetic statements, sleep with multiple women at a time, wear loud suits, and snort lines of cocaine off of a church pew and all of those things don't change the fact that it is wrong to kill innocent people. It's wrong for the killers of innocent people to receive light sentences. You are attacking the messenger and not the message. Are you a racist Mrs. PigPen? Baphomet's Advocate? Fife and Drum?
So it appears that when it comes to Barack Obama, a man who inspires people both home and abroad and cuts across color lines, party affiliation, and age, debates concerning race are "divisive, unproductive and stupid."
However, when it comes to the Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who frequently polarizes and exacerbates racial conflict and division, then debates concerning race are not "divisive, unproductive and stupid."
Which just goes to show that it's easy to condemn others for behaviors we indulge in ourselves.
I hear you, (this is on AZ's post- NT posted before me) and understand your points- and as far as the liberal angle goes- well, there are quite a few black libertarians as well- blacks aren't any more monolithic in nature than whites in the US- one of those "similarities" that show us to be more similar than different in many ways I suppose.
but I dont' understand this statement:
I've also run into whites who still get angry that a more qualified black gets a promotion. How fair is that to any other race?
I would get mad if a LESS qualified person got the job over me- but that happens all the time- not based on race- you very rarely hear about "the rich white person's AA" as an issue that needs to be addressed- you know, a friend of a friend of Daddy's that is absolutely a muck up about everything, got the job because of his rich daddy, hired ahead of a more qualified applicant?
Why is everyone so against AA (which, BTW, is NOT what most people think it is- ) and not so mad at Rich person AA?
I have to agree with you on criticisms of white leaders in America- we criticize them because they suck, not because of thier race- but when a "black leader" sucks- we also tend, as a society, to criticize him on something more than just his suck-age- but his race as well. And that sucks too.
I lumped Billy Graham in with the rest- because they pimped thier religion for money- period.They got rich off gawd.
Al Sharpton didn't become a Televangelist setting out to make money off gawd- he did it by starting out okay- and THEN was getting rich off racism.
Not the most respectable way to get rich, but better than being an oil company CEO, or a Tobacco executive or lawyer. Or many other 'respected" professions in America.
So, while I don't always agree with Al Sharpton, and do see him as a con-man, he has done his job- period.
And, once again, if I were black, and getting the shaft or treated unfairly compared to whites on some issue- I would be DAMN happy to see him coming, very, very happy. Because he gets the job done. And that is why those that support Al Sharpton CONTINUE to support him- because he gets results when he is needed.
Is he anti-semetic? I have no idea- except- for all the hoopla over the crown hieghts riots we have been talking about, and all the bad things that have happened there to both sides of the issue- it appears that some genuine healing has happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_Riot
Healing in Crown Heights
Relations between Blacks and Jews in Crown Heights began to improve almost immediately following the rioting. A week after the riots, Hatzolah helped repair an ambulance of a Black-owned volunteer service. The following year, the Brooklyn Children's Museum held an exhibit on the contributions made by Blacks and Jews in New York. In 1992, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was active in promoting improved Black-Jewish relations. In 1993, a series of neighborhood basketball games were scheduled between the two groups, including a scrimmage held as part of the halftime entertainment of a New York Knicks vs. Philadelphia 76ers professional basketball game. Also that year, while on the anti-crime patrol, Shemtov rushed to the aid of a black woman who had been shot on the street in Crown Heights, putting her in his car and taking her to the hospital.[30] The Crown Heights Mediation Center was established in 1998 to help resolve local differences. On August 19, 2001, a street fair was held in memory of Cato and Rosenbaum, and their relatives met and exchanged mementos of hopes of healing in Crown Heights.
[edit] Aftermath
Jews did not flee from Crown Heights after August 1991. In fact, the Lubavitch population of Crown Heights increased after the riot, the area in which they reside has expanded, and property values in the area have risen dramatically.[31]
Hmm, so Jesse Jackson, who is a compadre' of Al Sharpton, when to work on healing race relations between the Jews and Blacks in that area- so much for "pimpin' racism" in that area I suppose?
What kind of money can a race-baitin' homey make off healing and such?
but I dont' understand this statement:
I've also run into whites who still get angry that a more qualified black gets a promotion. How fair is that to any other race?
I would get mad if a LESS qualified person got the job over me- but that happens all the time- not based on race- you very rarely hear about "the rich white person's AA" as an issue that needs to be addressed- you know, a friend of a friend of Daddy's that is absolutely a muck up about everything, got the job because of his rich daddy, hired ahead of a more qualified applicant?
Why is everyone so against AA (which, BTW, is NOT what most people think it is- ) and not so mad at Rich person AA?
I have to agree with you on criticisms of white leaders in America- we criticize them because they suck, not because of thier race- but when a "black leader" sucks- we also tend, as a society, to criticize him on something more than just his suck-age- but his race as well. And that sucks too.
I lumped Billy Graham in with the rest- because they pimped thier religion for money- period.They got rich off gawd.
Al Sharpton didn't become a Televangelist setting out to make money off gawd- he did it by starting out okay- and THEN was getting rich off racism.
Not the most respectable way to get rich, but better than being an oil company CEO, or a Tobacco executive or lawyer. Or many other 'respected" professions in America.
So, while I don't always agree with Al Sharpton, and do see him as a con-man, he has done his job- period.
And, once again, if I were black, and getting the shaft or treated unfairly compared to whites on some issue- I would be DAMN happy to see him coming, very, very happy. Because he gets the job done. And that is why those that support Al Sharpton CONTINUE to support him- because he gets results when he is needed.
Is he anti-semetic? I have no idea- except- for all the hoopla over the crown hieghts riots we have been talking about, and all the bad things that have happened there to both sides of the issue- it appears that some genuine healing has happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_Riot
Healing in Crown Heights
Relations between Blacks and Jews in Crown Heights began to improve almost immediately following the rioting. A week after the riots, Hatzolah helped repair an ambulance of a Black-owned volunteer service. The following year, the Brooklyn Children's Museum held an exhibit on the contributions made by Blacks and Jews in New York. In 1992, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was active in promoting improved Black-Jewish relations. In 1993, a series of neighborhood basketball games were scheduled between the two groups, including a scrimmage held as part of the halftime entertainment of a New York Knicks vs. Philadelphia 76ers professional basketball game. Also that year, while on the anti-crime patrol, Shemtov rushed to the aid of a black woman who had been shot on the street in Crown Heights, putting her in his car and taking her to the hospital.[30] The Crown Heights Mediation Center was established in 1998 to help resolve local differences. On August 19, 2001, a street fair was held in memory of Cato and Rosenbaum, and their relatives met and exchanged mementos of hopes of healing in Crown Heights.
[edit] Aftermath
Jews did not flee from Crown Heights after August 1991. In fact, the Lubavitch population of Crown Heights increased after the riot, the area in which they reside has expanded, and property values in the area have risen dramatically.[31]
Hmm, so Jesse Jackson, who is a compadre' of Al Sharpton, when to work on healing race relations between the Jews and Blacks in that area- so much for "pimpin' racism" in that area I suppose?
What kind of money can a race-baitin' homey make off healing and such?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 2 2008, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE(droop224)
It actually makes sense to you that Blacks are so savage when enraged that we wouldn't let medical personel attend to a seven year old boy pinned under a car?? This is before the riot even began. However, the next ambulance to come could get to the boy.
"We"?
Were you there? Are you using the royal "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? The driver was taken away after being beaten, while 200 people chanted "Jew Jew Jew". The ambulance personel stayed and tried to help. The child wasn't abandoned of medical attention while they whisked away the driver. But it was obvious at the time that mass violence was imminent. QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 2 2008, 08:42 PM)
QUOTE
"We"? Were you there? Are you using the royal "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket?
Were you there? Are you using the royal "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket?uh.. yes. I was using present tense in the sentence When I said "Blacks are so savage" and since I was born... I have been Black.
I really don't understand this response. Are you saying that because you are black, you are one and the same with the thugs who beat this man and yelled, "Jew! Jew! Jew!" ? I'm reminded of New Kids on the Block. Anytime anyone would criticize their horrible band they had a ready line to shut down all argument, "You just don't want kids to succeed!" It was particularly humorous because they continued to say this into their thirties. It truly made every bit as much sense as your argument here.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Feb 3 2008, 01:31 AM)
Hmm, so Jesse Jackson, who is a compadre' of Al Sharpton, when to work on healing race relations between the Jews and Blacks in that area- so much for "pimpin' racism" in that area I suppose?
What kind of money can a race-baitin' homey make off healing and such?
What kind of money can a race-baitin' homey make off healing and such?
Jesse Jackson isn't the same person as Sharpton. This thread is about Sharpton. What tangible measure has Sharpton made towards "healing" lately? (...well, other than having a bad lid, which does have some comedic value)
Nighttimer, the general theme of my argument has not changed. Do not support someone based on race. Do not oppose someone based on race. I've asked for Obama's ideas and I've asked for arguments against Sharpton's ideas. Ideas don't have a race.
BTW, Clinton routs Obama on Super Tuesday, 17-6.
BTW, Clinton routs Obama on Super Tuesday, 17-6.
What are we debating now? Are we debating that Al Sharpton isn't as bad as Jesse Jackson but not as good as Martin Luther King, but not nearly as great as Barack Obama?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2008, 03:52 AM)
Jesse Jackson isn't the same person as Sharpton. This thread is about Sharpton. What tangible measure has Sharpton made towards "healing" lately? (...well, other than having a bad lid, which does have some comedic value)
Well, that is almost a debate question by itself
- from what I have read, not knowing them personally or belonging to thier organizations, they have a complex relationship that is sometimes symbiotic and sometimes contentious- but, in white America, they are almost ALWAYS mentioned together- they are rarely seperate in the lexicon of white Ameirca- do a google search, and man oh man, it is easier to find thier names mentioned together than thier names mentioned apart! Do you really think that Jesse Jackson would be doing this in Crown Heights without the blessing and help of Al Sharpton- whose National Action Network is EXTREMELY active in that area (from what I have read anyway- who knows if what anyone reads is true, but it seems true logically- Al's organization is based in New York, Jesse Jackson's is based in Chicago.
To be honest- I have not been able to find out one way or another if Al Sharpton is part of Jesse's attempt to reconcile those neighbors together- but I am sure he is probably part of it. He certainly hasn't spoke out against it.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/07/al_sh..._chicago_t.html
Interesting article above.
Like I said- it is hard to seperate the two in the news, or in the lexicon of hate speech leveled towards them, in racist jokes and comments directed towards them- they are almost always mentioned in the same breath.
Look at this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Al+Sharpton...tart=0&sa=N
If you look at the negative news about them- they are rarely seperated. Why should we seperate them when they are doing good then?
BTW- I said it once, I will say it again- Al Sharpton had nothing to do with the Duke Lacrosse case- despite right wing media's assertations.
Al Sharpton's quote:
“ The thing that gets me is, you get blamed for stuff you did not do. A lot of people think I led the Duke case. I never went to Duke; I never went to North Carolina. Never ever. They asked me to come, but I said unless I talk to the victim I’m not going. So you get criticized for what you do organize and lead, and you get criticized for stuff you had nothing to do with, just because people assume you were there. And it’s crazy! ”
—Sharpton on his lack of involvement in the case., [
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Feb 3 2008, 11:32 AM)
What are we debating now? Are we debating that Al Sharpton isn't as bad as Jesse Jackson but not as good as Martin Luther King, but not nearly as great as Barack Obama?
The rest of us are debating, you are just adding underhanded comments that merely detract from the debate. Go back to your other debate site, www.Deng.com. Your arguments are better suited for that environment.
Mrs. P
QUOTE
I really don't understand this response. Are you saying that because you are black, you are one and the same with the thugs who beat this man and yelled, "Jew! Jew! Jew!" ? I'm reminded of New Kids on the Block. Anytime anyone would criticize their horrible band they ha