JENA 6

[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.