Nice logic leap, Kevin. :confused:

I'm not sure why you didn't make that leap? I mean, surely, if he's not out parroting the party line, he's on the side of the racists? That's what being an Uncle Tom is, right?

Serious question: Why?

Fail of a response.

So, seriously asking:

If you don't disagree with him. And his op-ed is an example of "Uncle Tom", please explain why it is "Uncle Tomism".

Edited: I felt that my original statement could be misconstrued.

Are you being facetious? Just in case you're serious, no that is not what an Uncle Tom is.

I didn't catch your original statement, but the tone of this one is fine by me.

For LaneSig and MysticCat (thank you for the "serious" inquiry):

I don't disagree with his statement, because it is accurate. Mychal Bell did commit a crime, and this criminal behavior possibly could have been mitigated early on by positive attention from a strong male role model, or from members of the community. Or maybe not. It's all speculation, as Kevin would say.

But one thing remains crystal clear in my mind, and for many others: the punishment in this case did not fit the crime. That is the crux of this issue. And yes, the charges were reduced, but they should never have been so high in the first place. And as I've said before, this case is not an isolated incident of injustice -- it's merely one more addition to a very long chain. There are cases across this country that we never hear about where African American minors receive a heavy-handed charge for a minor crime.

As to the Uncle Tom statement: I regret saying it in a forum where the majority of the people don't—and perhaps can't—understand a) what the term means and b) why I'm using it. But I'll happily break down my logic for you. An Uncle Tom is one who seeks to ingratiate himself with whites by mimicking a stance which is essentially (and/or subversively) anti-black, or behaving obsequiously.

While the author's suggestion that the lack of role models may have been a contributing factor is an accurate one, I think he was behaving irresponsibly (or "Uncle Tomishly" — not a word, I know) by avoiding the real problem in a very touchy issue and only saying: where were the protesters when Mychal Bell was growing up?

Because he was avoiding the issue of institutional racism and injustice, and instead attacking those (black) people who rallied, albeit after the damage was done, I call him an Uncle Tom.

I really do enjoy your parachute posting.

Serious inquiry: How is the author's statement "anti-black"?

(and yes, I was being facetious in my placing him into the Nazi party for you, I was sort of playing up the 'with us or against us' mentality you seem to have adopted, the comparison was unnecessary and distracting.)

By being active in our communities and in our spare time posting in this Jena thread. ;)

I didn't get the 'attacking' tone as much as you did (critical, sure, but I didn't feel it was an attack), but I wasn't really reading for it - if we avoid that, what part of his 'avoiding the issue of institutionalized racism and injustice' could be construed as obsequious or anti-black?

This didn't seem servile or 'stereotypically white' at all - I feel like he thinks he's highlighting a root problem rather than a superficial example, and he feels protesting in Jena is akin to attacking a symptom and not a problem. That seems both pro-black, and the furthest thing from obsequious pandering I could imagine.

Racism doesn't lead to bad families, but improving family life for young blacks could help avoid the issues that give empowered white racists opportunity - sure, that's not the ideal solution, but it seems like a response just the same . . . and certainly not a servile or ingratiating one at that, since it still says "hey, black people are getting screwed, we have to help ourselves" too - and I can't fathom that being anti-black, even if he was anti-Sharpton.

He wasn't addressing what the potentially fixable issue is ... instead, he was redirecting the brunt of the problem onto people who aren't there. There will always be crime, there will always be broken homes and children without parents there for them. The only thing that can be done is make sure that those who go down the wrong path receive equal treatment.

It's all very well to say what he said, but I think it IS a matter of "with us or against us." It's not a mentality to me, it's an unfortunate fact of life. It clearly isn't so for you... which is why we're two different people with (obviously) differing opinions on several topics.

And yes, the comparison was unnecessary and distracting.

Well, the tone is subjective. And you're right, he wasn't attacking, he was scolding. But honestly, I simply think that brushing off the factor of racism in favor of criticizing that which cannot be helped at this point is anti-black.

Your opinion is just as valid as mine is.

Why do people equate pro-black with Sharpton? The man is an utter baffoon who couldn't stay away from a camera if his life depended on it. Sharpton is pro-Sharpton and that's about it.

And you're wrong... racism DOES lead to bad families. It's not the only factor, but a history of racism has taken a toll on the black family unit.

Thanks for your response Sugar08. I do understand better now where you were coming from on the Uncle Tom label.

I guess I didn't read the column as laying out everything the writer had to say on the subject, but rather as simply discussing a specific reaction he had to the protest. That is to say, I perhaps assumed that he was not dismissing other real or root problems, but was just doing what I do sometimes -- taking particular note of a particular reaction.

But I can see your point.

Ksig....check out the story from logan west VA