Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugar08
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 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.