We hear a lot of talk about Al Sharpton both here and in the media. He's has been accused of being a racist, Anti-Semite, opportunist, and "poverty pimp" (a rather disgusting term I'd rather not have repeated here ).

Of which of these crimes is he actually guilty?


Is Al Sharpton a racist and/or an anti-Semite?
Is Al Sharpton a bigot of some other kind?
If so, what leads you to believe this?

How would you characterize Al Sharpton's overall place in the national dialog?

Are you sure you're not mixing Jesse Jackson, Kweisi Mfume, Louis Farrkan and Al Sharpton together?

Jesse is the racist, and poverty pimp and Louis Farrakan is an anti-semite.

Al Sharpton is a liar. He lies. Professionally. He's something of a huckster but nothing like Jesse Jackson who is an absolute shakedown artist. (I'm pressed for time - if anyone would like to challenge these assertions I'm more than happy to provide links that AS lies and JJ shakes down businesses and corporations. )

Al isn't a racist as much as he's an opportunist. Why it's disgusting is because for him to continue getting money (and that's what this is all really about) he MUST make sure there's racial tension. He strums the racial dischord... (ooh that's good I should write that down... oooh I just did!)

I have met Al a few times. Sat with him, talked about some projects he was running. Let me tell you something, he's a great guy to have a drink with... he's smart, funny, very very very quick. He'd be a nice guy if he weren't ruining the community he swears he loves.

Al Sharpton is a clown. Unfortunately he's a clown that some very very very dim, frightened people think needs to be appeased.

I'm just repeating the accusations I've heard. Clearly I can't explain them.

I'm not overflowing with free time myself but yes I'd love it if you could be specific about how Al Sharpton a a professional liar.


I think people really overestimate the power of one man to cause racial discord.

This country's problems on race run far deeper than any handful of persons often blamed for controversy, fact is racism in a grassroots problem in America.

Let me help you re-phrase this...

Fact is that TURNEA things that racism is a grassroots problem in America.

You're not the only one, but sir I wouldn't state that it's fact.

Al Sharpton, in my opinion, is a catalyst. He's a lightning rod. He intentionally stirs the pot of racism in order to keep himself gainfully employed speaking (and/or whatever he does). It keeps him in the limelight.

I looked in my grass, and there was no racism at the roots. Heck, if you ask me, most people don't think about it as a general rule.

Here's a funny, or rather ironic maybe, analogy I love to use when debating liberals.

Often in a social situation, particularly in offices, someone will say:
Person 1- "hey - Did you hear Kirk got that promotion?
Person 2- "who's Kirk?"
Person 1- "that guy that works out... you know, the guy with the Jetta"
Person 2- "you mean the black dude?"

The irony is that if someone is old, fat, tall, thin, etc often people will use the physical characteristic to describe them. Race- generally it's seen as taboo and causes social discomfort.

Why?
Well - because people perpetuate the cycle. Al Sharpton doesn't speak for all of Black America. Of course not. Neither does _______ (insert whoever) speak for all of White America. However- Mr. Sharpton does a good job of helping to create an atmosphere where race baiting and racially centered attitudes persist.

Tawana Brawley

Crown Heights Riot

Freddie's Fashion Mart

Duke lacrosse players

On December 15, 2005, Sharpton agreed to repay $100,000 in public funds he received from the federal government for his 2004 Presidential campaign. The repayment was required because Sharpton had exceeded federal limits on personal expenditures for his campaign. At that time his most recent Federal Election Commission filings (from January 1, 2005) stated that Sharpton's campaign still had debts of $479,050 and owed Sharpton himself $145,146 for an item listed as "Fundraising Letter Preparation — Kinko's."

Accusations of racism, homophobia, and bigotry
Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”[61] Sharpton defended his comments by noting that the term “homo” was not homophobic but added that he no longer uses the term.[62] Sharpton has since called for an end to perceived homophobia in the African-American community.[63]

During 2007, Sharpton was accused of bigotry for comments he made on May 7, 2007, concerning presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his religion, Mormonism:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."[64][65]
In response, a representative for Romney told reporters that "bigotry toward anyone because of their beliefs is unacceptable."[66] The Catholic League compared Sharpton to Don Imus, and said that his remarks "should finish his career".[67]

On May 9, during an interview on Paula Zahn NOW, Sharpton said that his views on Mormonism were based on the Church's traditionally racist views regarding blacks and its interpretation of the so-called "Curse of Ham". On May 10, Sharpton called two apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and apologized to them for his remarks; he also asked to meet with them.[68] A spokesman for the Church confirmed that Sharpton had called and said that "we appreciate it very much, Rev. Sharpton's call, and we consider the matter closed."[69] He also apologized to "any member of the Mormon church" who was offended by his comments.[69] Later that month, Sharpton went to Salt Lake City, Utah, where he met with Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Elder Robert C. Oaks of the Church's Presidency of the Seventy.

(all from wikipedia... I didn't even go spelunking for these.)

Is Al Sharpton a racist and/or an anti-Semite?

I used to think he was racist, in that he frequently, IMHO, played (overplayed?) the race card on just about every issue. Over the last few years, though, he seems to be more of an advocate for the lower class than for minorities, and as such doesn't seem to make as many race-based comments as he did in the past. So, I would not consider him a racist now.

Is Al Sharpton a bigot of some other kind?

He is as guilty as most politicians of seizing political opportunity when it presents itself, and is more outspoken and has a bigger stage than most. Does that make him a bigot? No more so than any other successful politician, most of whom will always promote themselves ahead of any other agenda, and are therefore bigoted towards themselves.

How would you characterize Al Sharpton's overall place in the national dialog?

Given his more populist, and less racist, tone I think his overall place in the national dialag has elevated. Conscious political decision or actual change of viewpoint? You make the call. Regardless of how one feels about his viewpoints/comments it is hard to argue that he is one of the more prominent liberal voices out there. As such, it cannot be argued that he has a fairly prominent place in the national dialog.

It also seems he is one of the more popular liberal voices in conservative outlets (for which I give him strong credit). He and Sean Hannity, for example, seem to have frequent discourses, and he seems able to present his viewpoint there in a cordial yet firm manner. This elevates his place in the national dialogue as it increases the audience he is exposed to.

You can't stir an empty pot, now, can you?? Al Sharpton, is now a necessary part for perpetuation of racism. He is more necessary to whites than to Blacks. He is the guy that when Whites see they can now just turn away from whatever he is pointing at, but at the same time say Blacks have a voice.

BA or Aevans

Tell me can either of you think of some positive well known Black Activists??

You see the very nature of being an activist for any minority is innately going to be controversial. If people thought something is wrong they wouldn't do it, they wouldn't rationalize it, and there wouldn't be a problem to be an activist against.

Look to say this may sound bad, but there is a truth about martydom. Jesus went on to become the son of God. And if MLK lived today you could forget about a Holiday, he'd be what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons are today. Pigeoned holed and relgated by a White media and majority into a trouble maker. Someone just stirring the pot.

I think Al Sharpton is a man, like any other, with self-interest. But having self-interest, which we all do, does not mean he doesn't have genuine interest in civil rights and the continuation of that movement through in his beliefs and actions.

You compare these two racial hucksters to MLK? Disgusting. One of them smeared his blood

How about Bill Cosby as a Black Activist? Or is he an Uncle Tom?

Yes I do. Or should I say that the perception of MLK would be the same or similar if he would have lived today. What exactly do you think MLK would be doing today were he alive?? You actually think he would have retired, believing we are equal?? You think he would not still be an activist.

Jesse, a man often disrespected by whites.. and Blacks sometimes, was so close to the inner cirlce of MLK that he was there when King was assassinated. Jesse was not the leader that Martin was, but then again, if Jesse was the leader that Martin was he'd have a bullet in his head too, so he should be thankful.

You call them hucksters and you memorialize King. I tell you this is because King is DEAD! He was a civils right activist, he STIRRED the pot then and he would STIR the pot now.

And what do you call pot stirrers BA?? You call them racial hucksters.



Neither. Alan Keyes is an Uncle Tom. Jesse Jackson is a Black/minority activist. I kind of agree with Hobbes description of Al Sharpton.

But here's the Kick. Cosby has always been a positive voice inside the Black Community, but other than Fat Albert, The Cosby Show, movies and stand-up, I never really heard about Cosby being an "Black Activist".... UNTIL... he got on a stage and placed the blame on problems of minorities, particularly Blacks on the shoulders of Blacks.

And all of a sudden he was a voice and leader of Blacks (to Whites).... Because he what he said felt like absolution (to Whites) of systematic racism. I would suggest a read of Michael Eric Dyson's book Is Bill Cosby Right: Or Has The Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?

But it's funny that Bill Cosby is the best you got... Come on BA can't you name a Black Activist that you like... you know like you would like MLK if he was alive today?? I mean someone fighting for civil rights among minorities.

All the data points in that direction.

Psychologists who study the implicit attitudes of Americans find over and over again a pervasive bias against African-Americans in our national mindset.

I started a topic on it a while ago:

(Don't) Fight the Power!


You'd have to prove that Sharpton didn't believe in his cause.

Does all of this make his a camera hound?

Sure. ...but not necessarily a liar.

...and droop224 hit the nail on the head. The fact is Sharpton is so hated mostly because he is a prominent advocate for the African-American community and controversy comes with territory.


That's the question the nation needs to ask itself. We have a disturbing pattern of demonizing or ignoring every black activist who rears his head.

MLK stirred the pot? MLK STIRRED THE POT? WHAT HELL ARE YOU STIRRING?

MLK spoke a dream - I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton LIVE ONLY to remind us of the color of our skin. Jesse Jackson smeared blood on his shirt (allegedly MLKs) so he could capitalize on MLKs death!!! You want to defend a complete fake like that. Go ahead put him in your "bag". Jesse Jackson is a race baiter and shakedown artist that actively wants, and needs to hold black Americans down for his own gain. Has the black middle class lost it's mind? NO! The black middle class wants to get the Hell away from race issues that only serve to keep them poor, uneducated and down.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the WORST of what MLK stood for! They are the dregs of what MLK was fighting for, what he meant, what he was doing. I can't believe for second you're so shallow you believe a thing those two say or do.

Wow such a reaction.. such passion... such... OMG, i'm gonna

All that and you know how many Black Activists you highly admire, you've come up with so far???

You see Martydom propels people to an almost untouchable level, but the sword cuts two ways. Their flaws that made them human also become untouchable, in a sense, they're almost dehumanized. Why do you think MLK was so Famous... because he was always on TV. Always complaining. You think he started out with his "I have a dream speech" What do you think he was doing the years and years before??

I'm showing you a pattern that you have fallen into, like most white America. The 60's are over. Look at statistics, there are still plenty of racial inequalities out there in the world of TODAY!! Yet, Minority activism is frowned upon. Name me a Minority Activist that fights for civil rights and equality. Name me a political movement that exists today that wants to further equality that is not frowned upon by mainstream White American. And since it is little much to speak for all White Americans, not sure if you are even white, just speak for yourself.

The new Black panthers, the nation of Islam?? Jesse, Al, Farrakhan, Harry Belafonte... all villified, demonized, and marginalized... not always in that order.

Yet you believe it would be different if MLK was around. I'll tell you why you do. Because you can believe that, cause he is DEAD. And this allows you to make a world that if MLK was alive today he would be like....

"My dream is realized, we have reached the promise land"

But that is nothing more than a White man pipe dream. If King was alive, King would have been discredited.. his marital affairs would be all Whites talked about, he'd be a hypocrite who talked about equality but still believed in Affirmitive Action, he'd be down there causing trouble marching on Jenna, just another demonized, villified, maybe not marginalized (thus the need for a bullet), race bating scumbag...

Now how do I know that??

Well look how you talk about the most notable Black Activists around now(like Al Sharpton )... need I say more???

Is Al Sharpton a racist and/or an anti-Semite?
Is Al Sharpton a bigot of some other kind?
If so, what leads you to believe this?


Why was this topic brought up? I am just curious. I don't feel that Sharpton's failures are any more worrisome than any other activist, certainly not enough for all the exclamations and capitalizations in this debate so far. Why does he evoke so much emotion? My biggest complaint with him would be that his own celebrity seems to often drown out the real issues and concerns.


Tell me can either of you think of some positive well known Black Activists?

How about Angela Davis.

I only know of Dr. King from what I've read or seen on television. I was simply born too late to know him otherwise. But what little I do know is that while he used controversial tactics (especially for his times), he also used dialogue that seemed inclusive...not divisive.

Droop is somewhat correct (if I understand him correctly) in saying that one mans pot stirrer is only 1 bullet away from being tomorrow's hero. I get what you are trying to say here. I can also understand that since the vast majority of civil rights advances over the past 50 years has been achieved by using the confrontational, divisive get in your face style they might want to continue with this. Go with a winner right? This to me is why we have in Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farakhan.

I humbly submit to you the following though. Today, would more be achieved for civil rights if it wasn't so in your face? I'm not sure. I honestly don't know the answer since its never been tried. But IMHO, until we stop "taking sides" on this issue it might never really go away. Its just too damn emotional a topic (once again just my humble opinion).

To answer the questions:

Is Sharpton a racist or Anti-Semite?

I'm not sure if racist is the right term to use here. I think racial advocate is a better one. He is a highly effective and vocal advocate for his position. His general position is if I understand him correctly (again, this is my interpretation) is that Blacks are persecuted (mainly by whites) and that ONLY black folks are persecuted against (or at least the only ones who deserve help). I cannot remember a time when Al Sharpton ever came out to defend/represent a white or latino or asian person in the manner he has so vociferously done for african americans.

Oh, and don't forget, he makes his living doing this so its in his best interest to "keep the pot stirred".

Is he a bigot of some other kind?

I have no idea what this question means. Sorry, but I don't know how to answer this one.

How would you characterize Al Sharpton's overall place in the national dialogue?

I think Hobbes gave a pretty good answer although I completely disagree about him becoming more "populist". In my experience, he is an exclusively an advocate for african americans and their positions. By definition, he is not populist.

Of course, if someone would show me evidence to the contrary, I would be more than willing to listen to it.

That's right no "whitey" could ever care about race relations. So if I think you're totally off base, oh screw it - If I think you're INSANE for putting Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Harry Belafonte in the same character as Martin Luther King - there must be something wrong with me? Screw that. And screw you and the list of Black Activists you want me compile so you can tell me how a white guy can't speak on the topic and that anyone I listed is an Uncle Tom. If you think Louis Farrakhan is a good representative for Black Activism then I say you're either a fraud or trolling. The guy is a flat out racist and anti-semite. Nation of Islam? Yeah... you know what's best for "your" people. Hell, how dare I even bother - how could white klan member like me know anything about Black Activism? I mean we're all in the klan aren't we? Hell, even if we're not we're tacitly members.

I never said the world would be different with a living MLK BTW but nice try. I said Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are hucksters and shakedown artists concerned only with their own incomes. They don't care about blacks or whites. They care about green. Too bad you're not seeing them for what they are - a detriment to society.

Baphomet'sAdvocate, maybe you need to take a reading course. Stated simply, Martin Luther King would be a huckster, to you, if he wasn't dead.

You still haven't answered the question. Can you name one non-dead black activist that you respect?

Barnaby

QUOTE

If you can't understand what I am saying, maybe Barnaby can help you out




Screw me??? Not going to happen, you're not my type. But you're becoming unhinged, just relax. I've met plenty of Whites that care about race relations. I know this one White guy who loves Black people so much he got him one for himself and made a child. That's race relations for you.

And Barnaby is right. You need to READ what I am saying. MLK is untouchable precisely because he IS dead and a MARTYR. We have Holidays after the man. But look at the circle of people closest to King.

Look all you got to do is do a google search of FBI and Martin Luther King, then... just read and learn.

This debate is about Al Sharpton, and I recognize that fact. But it is touching on a much larger issue. Can a minority or even a a White person point to systematic racism, can they point out racial inequalities, can they do this, without majority of Whites responding... in your words... "screw you"??

RingWraith


kinda.. .but not really. More like what Barnaby said is what i am saying.Anyone who speaks against racial inequalities, who is an activist against current racism, will be systematically destroyed. By the governmet, by the media, it matters not. IF MLK was alive today it would make no difference. But let's say Al Sharpton was assassinated tomorrow, he could never arise to the level King did.

This discourse is amazing.

If you like MLK, and appreciate the accomplishments and passion and milestones that he actually achieved, yet dislike Sharpton or Jackson for their dollars and sense(less) "activism", then you just like dead black activists "in theory".

Right, Barnaby? Droop?

Tell me then. What white race activists do you really respect? David Duke? Robert Byrd? Strum Thurmond? David Koresh? Or maybe the whites can choose their own leaders instead of the attention-needing self-proclaimed Prophets of Color that claim they are "TEH LEAYDURS".

Sure he would.

But there are a few differences you are forgetting, and instead of making parallel comparisons between MLK and the hucksters, you automatically slap "racist audience" when someone objects to the mere comparison. If that's not bad enough, you THEN make the strawman argument that the only reason people who like MLK, but don't like Sharpton or Jackson is because a dead person is ineffective! Thus, dead black leaders are cool with white people. What a crock.


There are HUGE differences between MLK and Sharpton and Jackson. It's obvious you missed that history lesson. So let me point them out to you.

Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister who was eloquent, yet passionate and firm with his message about equality. Using Ghandi's philosophy of nonviolent social protest, he became more convinced than ever that nonviolent resistance was the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom. He lived peacefully among everyone, and was a pillar of moral excellence.
Dr. King lead a Black bus boycott. He and ninety others were arrested and indicted under the provisions of a law making it illegal to conspire to obstruct the operation of a business.
Dr. King and several others were found guilty, but appealed their case. As the bus boycott dragged on, King was gaining a national reputation. The ultimate success of the Montgomery bus boycott made King a national hero.
Dr. King's 1963 "Letter from Birmingham Jail" inspired a growing national civil rights movement.
Dr. King's goal was to completely end the system of segregation in every aspect of public life (stores, no separate bathrooms and drinking fountains, etc.) and in job discrimination.
Dr. King delivered a historical speech of freedom and equality.

Sharpton was busted by the FBI for discussing laundering money through boxing promotions was not only recorded, but HBO aired it. Is that something MLK would have done?
Shaprton was responsible for the Crown Heights riot in 1991. Is that something MLK would have done?
Shaprton was respnosible for a 1995 arson attack on a Jewish Harlem jeweler that resulted in 8 deaths. Is that something MLK would have done?
Sharpton made remarks about the "white interlopers". Was that something MLK would have done?
Sharpton compared then-state Attorney General Robert Abrams, a Jew, to Adolf Hitler in the Tawana Brawley case. Is that an MLK trait?
Sharpton then linked then-Gov. Mario Cuomo to organized crime and the Ku Klux Klan in the same Tawana Brawley case. Is that something MLK would have done?
When the truth came out, Sharpton walked away without an apology. Is that the equality MLK espoused? To make wild accusations, and then to hell with the truth?

Jackson called himself reverend in 1968, without a theological degree, later given one by Chicago Theological Seminary. Yet Jackson is a Freemason, despite his honorary title. MLK was the real thing instead of using his "Reverend" title as a schtick to speak in churches.
Jackson left Illinois University for No. Carolina A&T "supposedly" because their "racist" football team didn't pick him for the black quarterback starter. Yet that same year, Illinois University starting quarterback that year was an black man. I know, it's never about qualifications, it''s always about race, right?
(remember that story. It becomes a theme for legislation, complete with racial accusations, quotas on skin color, and anything short of qualifications)
Jackson, before even speaking to the alleged raped woman in the Duke case said his group pledged to pay for her tuition even if her story proves false. Would MLK have stood up and benefitted someone even if they were proven to be a liar?
Jackson had an affair. MLK would have approved, you say?
Jackson not only covered up the affair, but used "RAINBOW/PUSH" funds donated by people actually wanting TO HELP BLACK PEOPLE to instead pay for the coverup and housing of his mistress and child. Would MLK have approved this?
Jackson very publicly counseled President Clinton over his guilt in the Monica Lewinsky affair, he had already impregnated his adulteress. Was MLK a hypocrite to this degree?

I think Jackson has more in common with Televangelist Jimmy Bakker than Martin Luther King. Both wanted a stage, claimed a message, and padded their pockets with donations made by genuine followers who actually believed them. They did it disguised as a Man of God. And then they went to bed with someone else. The difference is that you hold an actual televangelist accountable when the IRS holds Bakker accountable for a hooker, yet lets Jackson off scott-free for an affair AND a child with tax-free dollars.

Either way, comparing a champion civil rights leader to today's political action committee jaw-flapping, complete with funding, donations, payouts and scandals is insulting to everybody's intelligence. NO, MLK wouldn't have done any of that. Sure Jackson was close to MLK. Judas was close to Jesus. Have fun with that.

Droop said

Jesse is not the leader the leader that Martin was, nor will he ever be. MLK wasn't pompous, arrogant, nor did he have a plethora of lawyers. Yet despite that, MLK still did more than Jackson will ever accomplish.

Turnea said

Try again.

Controversy is suing family-run businesses because they don't hire "enough" black people, according to a very loud media attention-whore.

Sharpton is hated because he doesn't single out people, or groups, but uses the color of skin as a scale of justice to any supposed "injustice".

Sharpton is hated because he defends the guilty based on skin color alone, like Tawana Brawley. Those stupid white cops!

Jackson is hated because he defends the guilty based on skin color alone, like the black stripper in the Duke Rape Case. Those four damn white boys!

It's not the skin color people hate. It's the injustice of being "automatically victims" for blacks, and "automatic perps" for whites, which is the normal rhetoric from those two blowholes.

That isn't equality. MLK fought for equality. Jackson fights for "the underclass", regardless of merit (and lack of!), Sharpton defends the blacks - even if they're wrong. Whites and Jews are always the perps. That is NOTHING what Martin Luther King Jr. was about. MLK was "Hey, us too!" Sharpton and Jackson are "Hey, talk to our lawyers while we talk to the press."

NOTHING! LIKE! MARTIN! LUTHER! KING! JR!

And THAT is why Sharpton and Jackson, when compared to Martin Luther King Jr. are.... well.... hucksters.

Barnaby said

I can't.

When I hear "black activist", I automatically think Sharpton and Jackson. And what a shame. I mean, why would you have another another black activist emerge when you could donate to RAINBOW/PUSH and help raise Jackson's bastard child?

The said part is that I'm sure I'll be accused of racial insensitivity for that statement. No, I hate hypocrisy, liars, cheats and media attention whores who use the cameras to bully (often times innocent) people "in their fight" for equality. I hate scam artists. I hate people who are arrogant, and claim that their unintended/wrong/unintentional damage to someone's credibility is acceptable because "they're doing more right than wrong".

Here's one to ponder.

Planned Parenthood, Formerly "The Negro Project" was started by Margaret Sanger, who wanted to see the population of blacks in poor inner city neighborhoods decrease by use of abortion. (Malthusian Eugenics)

That gets a pass, and in fact, Jackson gets a 100% endorsement from Planned Parenthood.

But you better call them "African Americans", whitey.

/I'm actually Mediterranean
//but I'm getting a kick out of these replies
///edited for fun

Well I'm not going to put it as well as azwhitewolf did. There is NO comparison between MLK and JJ & AS. None.

Oh and Barnaby, I did post a respectable black activist but, um... he wasn't black enough.

In a word? Irrelevant.

Al Sharpton is as big as the media and his adversaries make him and no bigger. I caught Big Al's show at a convention for the
activist group ACORN about a year ago. He ate some rubber chicken, gave a dull stump speech, fired up the crowd, ducked out the back door, got into a limo and presumably sped off to the airport or the Happy Hour at Hooter's.

Color me unimpressed.

I became further unimpressed when it became apparent, in the aftermath of Don Imus and his self-inflicted wound from shooting off his mouth, Reverend Al had become the "go-to" guy for every White guy looking for racial reconciliation after a bout of blabbing too much. Michael Richards and Dog the Bounty Hunter were among those seeking absolution from their sins from Rev. Al and he was only too glad to provide it. Good for the soul and the ratings of his radio show (broadcast on a whopping 40 stations).

A friend of mine is quick to point out, "Who made Sharpton a Black leader? I didn't vote for him!" Neither did I.

Neither did Ta-Neshi Coates in a Washington Post article last October:

His list of misses includes backing Tawana Brawley's fraudulent accusations of rape and his shilling on TV for predatory lenders. His 2004 campaign was a farcical remix of Jackson's. According to published reports, Sharpton's campaign was backed by Roger Stone, a controversial Republican political operative.

And when the votes were counted, Sharpton came up lame. In South Carolina, where African Americans made up almost half of the Democratic primary electorate, he not only lost overall but lost among blacks. He finished third among his alleged followers, outdone by Sens. John F. Kerry and John Edwards.

Any other public figure with such a comic resume and dubious traction among his constituency would find himself swiftly jettisoned from the Rolodex of reporters and network anchors. But Sharpton endures. He is black America's first virtual leader, a product of a collective longing for the romance of the 1960s and an inability to cope with the complexities of 21st century African Americans.

There's another reason why the media have elected the reverend president of black America. For cable networks, Sharpton is the gift that keeps on giving. He provides an easily disposable villain, a simple out for his most loyal constituency: white racists. For those who already doubted the humanity of black folks, who believe that we spend our days counting the ways white people owe us, who think we chant "Reparations now!" at least once every seven minutes, the bombastic Sharpton is a perfect confirmation.

Memo to everyone everywhere: Al Sharpton isn't a black leader, he just plays one on TV. link

It's not that Rev. Al is entirely useless. He helped bring The Imus affair to the public's attention and served a valuable role in cases like the shooting of Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo or in Jena, Louisiana. Someone has to fill the void of a lack of African-American input in the national dialog. A void, Al is all too happy to fill and then some.

But in a Barack Obama world is there really a need for an Al Sharpton? Perhaps there is. Sharpton serves nicely as the personification of an era of racial politics whose time has begun to pass and whose influence is on the wane.

There is a new generation of Black politicians, professionals, entertainers, entrepreneurs, educators, athletes, artists and activists that owes a huge debt of gratitude to Al Sharpton. But his methods should not be their methods and gratitude should not be confused with obedience.

Just to be fair, it's pretty accepted that MLK .had some women on the side, too.

But is it really about everyone's faults? Everyone has them, and important people, for whatever reason, seem to have more. Clinton had a weakness for average women. JFK had a weakness for Monroe. Bush was a drunken cokehead cheerleader with a DUI. Every famous preacher out there turned out to be hiding something. That should not diminish their work. That should be judged on its own merits.

Having an affair is one thing. Having an affair, fathering a child and using the money from a charity/organization you run to cover it up is a completely different thing.

And what is Jesse Jackson's body of "work" we should all be admiring? Is it all his work on relations with the Jews?

I never said that his body of work was something to be admired. I don't listen to preachers, and I probably wouldn't be much more familiar with MLK were he alive today. But my post was addressing the laundry list of character flaws of Sharpton and Jackson being used to measure them against the list of accomplishments of MLK. That they have (lots of) character flaws is pretty plain. But, like them or not, they both have bodies of work on which they can be judged. I'm not saying they have great, MLK-type resumes - just that they have resumes.

I'm not a big fan of either one. But I think Droop has a good point. They serve a function, and both of these guys are going to come off better in books down the road than they do in the present, blabbing away on TV.

BA


No it wouldn't be. Martin Luther King was HUMAN!! Because he was Martyred his disgressions are glossed over. His speeches are exemplified. His life is sanitized.

What i am telling you is he 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. What I am saying is that if he was alived, you would not gloss over these deceits, his abhorrent behavior, you would highlight them.

Because that is exactly what the media and and mainstream America does to all the other prominent civil rights activists.

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".

How many times has Jesse Jackson gone to some foreign country and successfully negotiated the safe return of fellow Americans? Does it matter.... no? And it's not because you are white that the many good works of Jesse and Al go unnoticed and unappreciated, it's because media and government are damn good at discrediting and marginalizing people. It affects conservates and liberal alike, it just seem those on the right are just more gung ho with their enthusiasm to believe in worst of Black Activist for civil rights.

AZWhitewolf


Exactly my point!!! Do you get it now??

AZ makes a list of all the civic contributions of MLK , then he makes a comparison of all the flaws and blusters of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Finally he compares all the mess ups of the later two to all the great things about MLK.

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.

Martin Luther King alive today would have baggage. Mistakes made, mistakes not just brushed over but highlighted. And you and BA are the same people when given a choice to make a list of the good or bad things accomplished by Black activists... You choose... "Let's find the dirt!!!" Which is cool... for you... so, go ahead and do you. But imagine a MLK alive today. Still stirring, still bringing attention to things he feels needs to be addressed.

But, instead of this squeaky clean "I have a dream" persona, stands before you a man with flaws, BIG FLAWS, a man likely painted as a socialist, adulterous, hell maybe even a sodomist... Then you could look at everytime he got it wrong.

Now imagine that... Now you get to make a list again. Which list do you make??? Well for Jesse and AL it was a list of all negatives, but you want us to believe that if MLK was living he'd get a pass, you'd still give him the good list??


The proof is in the pudding... and say it all you want it's not because I think a white man can't do this or that. You showed what you would do, and I merely am saying you'd do it to MLK too if he was alive.

Al Sharpton mistake will continue to be highlighted, because we aren't supposed to look at living civil rights activist in a postitive light.

Your argument is possibly the most disjointed, crazy, bizarre thing I've read here in a long time. It's literally just nuts.

The premise is that MLK is dead so we like him but AS is alive so we hate him.

For the last time. Literally. MLK was a better human being than Al Sharpton. Whole cloth better human being. He was better, his message was better, his character was better and his persona was better. Al Sharpton should never be compared to, mentioned with, or spoken of during a discussion of Martin Luther King. Al Sharpton isn't a civil rights activist - he's a race baiter, liar, rioteer, and opportunist of the lowest kind.

I am truly amazed you don't the difference between these two men.

Is Al Sharpton a racist and/or an anti-Semite?

If you consider a racist as someone carrying a sign during a protest that said “The white man is the devil”, then yes, Al is a racist.

And droop, if you can find an instance where MLK demonstrated similar behavior then your argument would stand. Until then, you’re not even close.

How would you characterize Al Sharpton's overall place in the national dialog?

An opportunistic pimp. He’s waiting for the next PR opp instead of making news on his own.

F&D


So I have to find what exactly?? Then I can be close to what??


BA

The most disjointed?? I'm laying it out there crystal clear. Al Sharpton is a renowned civil's right activist. You could go google plenty of the great things he's done. The movements he's been a part of, yet, you only harp on the negative. Why??

I'm not saying you would hate MLK if he was alive today, I'm saying you'd be the same person that looks for flaws and points to flaws of prominent Civil Right Activists and ignore or minimize any things they've done positive.

Because that is exactly what you are doing. When describing Al Sharpton... here is what you have been able to come up with a "he's a race baiter, liar, rioteer, and opportunist of the lowest kind" but why is he a race baiter?? What makes him such a different liar than you,me, and the rest of the WORLD... Hell, how many deaths can be attributed to Al Sharpton for is lies?? How many riots did he sponsor?? As for an opportunist... hey man.. we live in a capitalist world.... WE'RE ALL OPPORTUNISTS!!

Come on why so much venom... let's get to the depths of your disgust. 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... because you don't have to only look at the negatives of Jesse or AL... you CHOOSE to.

How you are able to look past Tawana Brawley, the Crown Heights Riot, or Freddie's Fashion Mart and call Sharpton a civil rights leader is baffling.

BA


How I look past it... What did he do wrong?? What did he do illegal? What was he convicted of??

OK, droop, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, some of us are less educated about the good things that Al and Jessie have done for our country. Please share with us some of the good things that we should look at instead of all of the corruption, greed, racism, and hypocrisy that has been pointed out.

Scubatim


Scubatim, if you are being serious (which you are not) why wouldn't you just do a quick search. Go look at their names on wikipedia. There is plenty of information showing the orginazation and works of Al and Jesse. From operation bread basket, rainbow/PUsh, rescuing hostages, exposing or bring greater attention to racial injustice, like police brutality, disporportianate ruling and sentencing.

You wouldn't ask me to do something that you can just as easily to do, unless you had an angle right. So tell me, why the need for an angle, just be straight forward.

Is he racist? I think the word "racist" is so subjective these days that it's meaningless. One man's group's "racist" is another group's advocate for self-empowerment. Saying someone is "racist" or not really doesn't give any insight into that person's behavior.

At his best, Al Sharpton sheds light on injustice and gives voice to folks who have been wronged: Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Ousmane Zongo, and any of the numerous other listings on the wikipedia entry about him. At his worst, he's self-serving, divisive, and protects the old-guard black political power structure: Newark mayoral election, Imus/Richards comments, Obama comments, etc.

He forces people to confront very real issues, yet his effectiveness at getting those issues addressed is severely hamstrung by how divisive people consider him to be.



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.

If he were alive today, there's no doubt in my mind that he would be at least as reviled as Al Sharpton. Many of his writings, interviews, and speeches are freely available over the internet; You would be astounded if you read them. He was much more complex and polarizing and radical than his "I have a dream" speech lets on. When he was alive he was strongly anti-war (Vietnam), pro social spending (the Poor People's Campaign), anti-military industrial complex, pro-black, pro-affirmative action, etc. When he lead those marches in Memphis for the striking sanitation workers, the newspapers called them riots. He had a very public split with Lyndon B. Johnson over his strong opposition to the war. He has famous quotes chastising the government for how much it spends in "social uplift" in comparison to what it spends for defense. So why should I believe that he would by any different today?

If MLK were alive today, the only way that he wouldn't be reviled like Sharpton is if he shut his mouth. Because if he opened it, I'm sure he would be prominently speaking out against the Iraq war, police brutality, predatory lending, self destructive themes in hip pop... which are much the same things Sharpton speaks out about. People accuse Sharpton of being racist for only highlighting injustices committed by whites, which makes is seem as though only whites are perpetrators of injustice. How many non-white perpetrators of injustice did MLK rail against?

I'm not saying he would be exactly like Al Sharpton, but you can't deny that there would be significant overlap in the issues they chose to champion.





What does that mean? He should be going around encouraging police officers to shoot and abuse unarmed black men so he can make a big stink about it? And when has Al Sharpton carried a sign saying "the white man is the devil"?


He was wrong about Tawana Bradley, she lied. But you can't demonize Sharpton for sticking up for a liar if he truly believed in her. As far as Crown Heights and Freddie's Fashion mart, I admit that I've heard that he had a part to play, but I reserve judgment for when I actually see some sort of detailing of his involvement in the ordeals. Given the media biases against black activists that I've witnessed, it isn't hard to imagine him being blamed for more than his due. I've personally witnessed one of his press conferences about obscenity in hip hop, in which he spoke for 5-10 minutes. Yet the news coverage was limited to several sentences that glossed over much of what he had to say.

It's a rather funny thing going on here.

Some of us have weighed Al Sharpton's cons (no pun intended) against his pros and decided the cons far outweighed the pros. Others pretend the cons didn't happen or are some kind of acceptable aberration.

There's a simple Mussolini made the trains run on time anecdote here... but it's clearly pointless.

Baphomet's Advocate, you can't help yourself. You really can't. Al Sharpton protests the harsh treatment of blacks in New York and elsewhere. He is fighting for, the equal treatment of blacks. You don't believe in the equal treatment of blacks that is why you attack Al Sharpton. It is easy to hide your racism by attacking Al, he's a race-baiter. But your intentions are obvious when you argue against Al's positions. Is it acceptable to kill innocent people if they're black? If Al answers no, and you answer yes. What does that make you?

BTW, Al Sharpton wasn't involved in the Duke Lacrosse case. Just in case anyone was confused, or just plain ignorant.

You should post less. You're on a really weak retread at this point. When you post less your ideas seem fresh.

When whitey don't like Al Sharpton, whitey is a racist. Screw that. Screw you. I don't like Al Sharpton because I don't like Al Sharpton. I don't like what he does. What's his vocation - how does he make money - who pays for his suits? Oh that's right he ensures there's racial tension.

As for Al and Duke, on the surface he did nothing at all wrong. He backed the DA - which seems reasonable in a law abiding country. See how things shake out. Or in the case of Al Sharpton, shake down. The threat was out there:

First, droop, I am serious. Second, I personally find Wiki as a less than reliable source given their admission that articles could be inaccurate. Third, you are the one claiming that people only focus on the bad things these activists have done. If there is anything that is good that comes from them, I would be interested in you sharing that work. I am asking you because you are defending them, and in doing so, in the debate world, you have the responsibility to provide examples of why you are defending them, not me. I have no angle, and you are too defensive if you believe that. I have not drug these two men through the mud, and I don't intend to. If you want to get your point across, compare them to MLK and point out the great things they have accomplished that are in line with the great things MLK did. I am not against you in this debate, but I would like to see why it is that you so passionately defend them. You obviously know more about them than I do, and am genuinely interested in learning about the benefits America has experienced due to their work.


I think one point to make here is that fighting for equal treatment is a great thing, and I think most everyone would support that. What we need to watch for is fighting for special treatment such as hate crimes and affirmative action. I am not saying AS or JJ had anything to do with Affirmative Action, but it is policies such as that that create special treatment. Some would say that the special treatment comes out of 'White Guilt', but that is a completely different debate entirely.

You want to put Al and MLK on the same plateau as civil rights advocates. You base this on a flimsy assumption that the only distinguishing factor is the martyrdom of Doctor King.

To my knowledge, MLK never carried a sign that said “The White Man is The Devil”, or exhibited any behavior that would be considered racist. Al is a divider, Doctor King preached and more importantly lived unity.

All I’m saying is until you can prove that Dr. King exhibited the same racist behavior than your argument isn’t sticking to the wall.

While they may share some personal digressions, there is an obvious difference between the two in their approach to civil rights.

Who pays for his suits? And you call my position weak.

Also, stop with the Internet tough talk, it's pointless.

In the Duke case, you say he did nothing at all wrong, you could have stopped right there. Because of his history with Tawanna Brawley, he did not get involved.

Big Al Look at his history.
Howard BeachIn 1986, 3 African-Americans were beaten by a dozen white teenagers. This incident was the third one in which blacks were attacked by whites. Al marched. Do you believe it is acceptable for white mobs to beat on blacks? Al doesn't, what does Baphomet's Advocate believe?

Then there was Bensonhurst, 4 black teenagers were mobbed again by at least 10 white teenagers. One of the blacks were killed. Sharpton marched. Is it acceptable for white teenagers to mob and kill blacks? Al doesn't think so, do you?

Another incident was the Crown Heights riots. A seven year old boy was killed by a Jewish driver. The Jewish driver was attended to while the seven year old boy was pinned under the vehicle. Sharpton led marches through the streets, but the riots were a reaction. You have to ask yourself, would there have been riots if the police and ambulance would have triaged the 7 year old boy first? The police were correct to worry about the safety of the driver, but the police could have protected the Jewish driver while the ambulance attended to the boy. It was a bad decision, but a decision that was based on the devaluation of black life by the police.

Freddie's Fashion Mart was a situation where racial tension were increased by Sharpton. Even so, Sharpton really can't be responsible for the behavior of one person.

Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant was killed by police. Al protested and Amadou's family was awarded $3 million dollars for wrongful death, so it seems Al was right.

You can argue that Sharpton is stirring the pot, but you can't blame Al for everything. Al didn't incite white youths to kill black youths on multiple occasions. Al didn't make the police kill Amadou Diallo, or Sean Bell. In many of these situations you have black people dead and white people going free or getting soft sentences. It's not fair and certainly not the standard. As long as blacks are treated unfairly there will be Al Sharpton.

To scubatim,

When there is less negative special treatment for blacks, you will see a reduction in laws that demand positive special treatment. You have to understand, as Booker T. Washington did in his Autobiography, Up from Slavery, that blacks and whites need each other. And I'm paraphrasing here, because it's been a few years since I read the book, but he states that if you do not assist the black man from getting out of poverty then he will drag you down with him. And that's as true a concept now as it was then. I watch it in my city all the time. Black schools are shut down and consolidated. The student to teacher ration increases to 30 to 1. Less kids graduate and the crime rate increases.

It is hard for me to understand how reverse discrimination is going to solve discrimination. Isn't that swinging the pendulum too far the other direction?

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.

Edited to add Link

Here is another quote:

"We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If we're lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue us — sue us right now."
-On the Tawana Brawley hoax.

Has Sharpton been sued for libelous claims? Seems to me he's asking for it.