JENA 6

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Your opinion is just as valid as mine is.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

And you're wrong... racism DOES lead to bad families. .

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

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.

That's fair - it's just a different (and possibly deeper?) view of the intent of the criticism.

Originally Posted by Sugar08

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.

I agree completely - and I think Rev. Sharpton's presence turns off some parts of the target audience, which is incredibly unfortunate. But yeah, I definitely didn't mean to imply that being anti-Sharpton = anti-black, but instead the opposite.

Originally Posted by Sugar08

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.

I meant more that the link is much much longer and more convoluted (in a causation sense, especially) than the link between both a father and mother figure in the house and lower incidence of criminal or detrimental behavior, but this point is well-taken.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

That's fair - it's just a different (and possibly deeper?) view of the intent of the criticism.



I agree completely - and I think Rev. Sharpton's presence turns off some parts of the target audience, which is incredibly unfortunate. But yeah, I definitely didn't mean to imply that being anti-Sharpton = anti-black, but instead the opposite.



I meant more that the link is much much longer and more convoluted (in a causation sense, especially) than the link between both a father and mother figure in the house and lower incidence of criminal or detrimental behavior, but this point is well-taken.

The U.S. is the world leader in families without fathers. From 1960 to 1990, the number of children living only with their mother jumped from 5,100,000 to 15,600,000. Just 27% of American kids live with their biological mother and father.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...wp=body_middle

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

That's fair - it's just a different (and possibly deeper?) view of the intent of the criticism.

Like I said, I'm somewhat more sensitive to these matters than others may be. I've been steeped in journalism and the power of newsprint since I was a child. I believe an op-ed is rarely what it appears to be on the surface.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I agree completely - and I think Rev. Sharpton's presence turns off some parts of the target audience, which is incredibly unfortunate. But yeah, I definitely didn't mean to imply that being anti-Sharpton = anti-black, but instead the opposite.

Thanks for clarifying. And yes, Sharpton turns off people of all races, I'm sure. Many African Americans with higher education find him quite ludicrous. The one time I met him in person, I was pretty unimpressed. He's made his name by making his name, if you get what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I meant more that the link is much much longer and more convoluted (in a causation sense, especially) than the link between both a father and mother figure in the house and lower incidence of criminal or detrimental behavior, but this point is well-taken.

True. But the reasons behind fathers not being in the household are more complicated than him "just not being there." If he isn't at home, where is he? Why?

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

The one time I met him in person, I was pretty unimpressed.

Ditto. Today, I remember 2 things about meeting him: 1) He was fun to watch. 2) His hair was fly. That's it.


I agree (for the most part) with Sugar. While I wouldn't say his tone was necessarily "attacking," it was definitely more than "critical." Also, I don't want to call it "anti-black," but seeing as how the whole country has taken up a "for us or against us" mentality(not just GC members), there's not a whole lot else you could call it(though I'm sure I could list some if I had the time to think about it right now). I appreciate his opinion and his stepping up to provide a fresh look at factors that have remained buried, but it didn't come off as looking at a particular stance to uncover new truths. IMO, skating past all the racial issues negates a lot of the reason people were out there protesting, though I'm not sure he meant it to do so. By that, I mean that I felt like he was writing as though the fact that the public did not know the whole story gave him the right to make out the situation to be more like it was thousands of misguided people supporting a boy who didn't deserve it and would never have gotten into trouble if a, b, and c had been in place. That's not true. Firstly, just because the public may not be aware of those details, does not mean these details were any less true. Secondly, I agree that the community should aim to be a more preventive community than one that tries to remedy a problem after it's gotten out of control. However, did the other 5 boys have absent fathers? What about the person who pulled a shot-gun on those teens or the kids who hung the nooses or the ones who hit the boy over the head with a bottle? I don't think all of those wrong-doers came from broken homes. Furthermore, did any of them have prior criminal records? Having a loving set of parents and a clean record does not guarantee that kids won't do things they shouldn't. I felt that, while the article helped me understand where Mychal's problems may have started, bringing up his absent father and past record unnecessarily took away from the heart of the argument (the unfairness of the charges and the fact that he's still in jail) without providing anything that really needed to be thought about. It was a good read and I'm glad to have seen it because it adds to the bigger picture, but the author conveyed himself (to me) in the way that he meant(if he did, in fact, have the best of intentions when writing it).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Ditto. Today, I remember 2 things about meeting him: 1) He was fun to watch. 2) His hair was fly. That's it.


I agree (for the most part) with Sugar. While I wouldn't say his tone was necessarily "attacking," it was definitely more than "critical." Also, I don't want to call it "anti-black," but seeing as how the whole country has taken up a "for us or against us" mentality(not just GC members), there's not a whole lot else you could call it(though I'm sure I could list some if I had the time to think about it right now). I appreciate his opinion and his stepping up to provide a fresh look at factors that have remained buried, but it didn't come off as looking at a particular stance to uncover new truths. IMO, skating past all the racial issues negates a lot of the reason people were out there protesting, though I'm not sure he meant it to do so. By that, I mean that I felt like he was writing as though the fact that the public did not know the whole story gave him the right to make out the situation to be more like it was thousands of misguided people supporting a boy who didn't deserve it and would never have gotten into trouble if a, b, and c had been in place. That's not true. Firstly, just because the public may not be aware of those details, does not mean these details were any less true. Secondly, I agree that the community should aim to be a more preventive community than one that tries to remedy a problem after it's gotten out of control. However, did the other 5 boys have absent fathers? What about the person who pulled a shot-gun on those teens or the kids who hung the nooses or the ones who hit the boy over the head with a bottle? I don't think all of those wrong-doers came from broken homes. Furthermore, did any of them have prior criminal records? Having a loving set of parents and a clean record does not guarantee that kids won't do things they shouldn't. I felt that, while the article helped me understand where Mychal's problems may have started, bringing up his absent father and past record unnecessarily took away from the heart of the argument (the unfairness of the charges and the fact that he's still in jail) without providing anything that really needed to be thought about. It was a good read and I'm glad to have seen it because it adds to the bigger picture, but the author conveyed himself (to me) in the way that he meant(if he did, in fact, have the best of intentions when writing it).

wheer was the fathers of the teen boys who was driving with the nooses on the trucks trying to incite a riot and what are they or are they not teaching them about people of other ethnicities?