[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Maybe before you call people racist, you might want to check your facts, District Attorney Mike Nifong’s website
I could be wrong, but he looks pretty white to me!
CMC fnord!
[/QUOTE]
I apologize. I thought he was black.
But I must quibble a bit: I didn’t call anyone was a racist. I said that voting for someone based on skin color is racist. I stand by that assertion, even though it doesn’t apply in this case.
Again, my apologies.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Unlike the paid representatives of the accused students who were so restrained in their haste to point out the history and character of the accuser.
[/quote]
The facts that have come to light in recent months seem to have borne out their comments. It’s not just that it was their job, although you’re correct that it was - what choice did they have after the actions of Nifong and the commentators I was talking about?
It does cut both ways, to me. I was equally disgusted by the Tom Leykises of the world during the Kobe Bryant case, the people who felt they had to stand up for their boy because some slut was doing him wrong.
Now that I know that Nifong is white, I have to ask what kind of name Nifong is. If he were African or Vietnamese, my interest wouldn’t be piqued, but for someone of obvious European ancestry, Nifong seems a very uncommon and weird name. What’s the ethnic origin?
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Now that I know that Nifong is white, I have to ask what kind of name Nifong is. If he were African or Vietnamese, my interest wouldn’t be piqued, but for someone of obvious European ancestry, Nifong seems a very uncommon and weird name. What’s the ethnic origin?
[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, this website says it’s Scottish.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
Believe it or not, this website says it’s Scottish.
[/QUOTE]
I guess it’s less surprising if you think of it as “Nih-FONG” instead of “NIY-fong,” even though the latter is the way everybody has been pronouncing it.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
I find it interesting how race is being used in this case. This is like OJ: the 10-Year Anniversary Special. Once again, the subject of conversation hovers around what black people are thinking and doing, what their motivations are, are they being racist, etc. Even with respect to Nifong’s actions, its all about the black folks. Almost half the voting public in Durham is white, yet for some reason we are to believe that Nifong is only concerned about pandering to the black half. The possibility that his actions just might be pissing off an equal if not greater percentage of white spectators just doesn’t seem to rate high in people’s awareness. Apparently, the default assumption is that any bias that exists in the court of public opinion comes solely from black people. Because, ya know, whites only look at the facts when reaching their conclusions, whilst blacks are prone to irrational, emotion-based judgements. Of course, no one says that. Out loud. But that unspoken sentiment still comes across just the same.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think commentary about the Willie Horton ad mostly centered around how it played to white people’s opinions of blacks.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
I find it interesting how race is being used in this case. This is like OJ: the 10-Year Anniversary Special. Once again, the subject of conversation hovers around what black people are thinking and doing, what their motivations are, are they being racist, etc. Even with respect to Nifong’s actions, its all about the black folks.
[/quote]
You’ve touched upon an interesting question, something that I, a white dude, have wondered about for some time. I’m going to use the OJ example because it’s relevent to the question at hand, in fact, it is the question in my mind. Back when the whole OJ trial was going on, I was friends with a black guy who also happened to be my boss. We’ve grown apart and not seen each other in about 8-9 years because he was a work friend and we took seperate jobs, but I would really like to find him again for 3 reasons. #1, he was a neat guy, and I liked him. #2, he taught me an awful lot about my profession which has helped make me very successful at what I do and #3, I think he could not just do well but excell with the people I work for, and I’d love to introduce him to the opportunity if he would be interested in persuing it. All that is neither here nor there, but I remember watching TV with him when the verdict was handed down in the OJ case. He jumped out of his chair and said “YES!”. That reaction has always puzzled me. Here is a man, as smart as or maybe smarter than I was, professionally successful (he was my boss), a college graduate (Rutgers, not a kiddie college by any means) and someone who had even been occationally critical of black folks who thought race trumped everything. He told me more than once “Just because something happens to someone who is black, it doesn’t mean that it happened because they were black”. Yet when OJ got off, he was elated. Why? I think most people would agree that the OJ case was one where a murderer (from my POV I’d say not a black man, a murderer), managed to get off scott free. Fine. It happens. However, his reaction is one that I noticed was not uncommon amongst black folks. For some reason OJ is not seen as a man who beat a justified rap, but as a vinbdication of…what? A system that has been very racist in the past? I’ll grant that, but how does a guilty man going free change that? You’re an eloquent black woman, maybe you can explain it to me, because I just don’t understand.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
For some reason OJ is not seen as a man who beat a justified rap, but as a vinbdication of…what? A system that has been very racist in the past? I’ll grant that, but how does a guilty man going free change that? You’re an eloquent black woman, maybe you can explain it to me, because I just don’t understand.
[/QUOTE]
Well since I didn’t share his reaction to the case, it’s going to be hard for me justify it. I didn’t see the OJ verdict as any type of vindication, it was what it was: the justice system at work. I accepted the verdict as the right one, but I felt there was no cause for celebration. I simply don’t believe that the prosecution proved their case. This is not the same thing as thinking he’s innocent, though. So unlike your friend, upon hearing the verdict, I mentally shrugged and went on with my day. (IIRC, I had a calculus test that day, so I had a lot heavier stuff on my mind. Like am I gonna flunk out of Georgia Tech!)
You note that your friend was elated at the verdict. I don’t get that any more than I get the opposite emotional response–anger and indigation. Yet I hear a lot of commentary on how black folks were cheering and doing the happy dance, and hardly any comment on how white folks were just as equally jeeped up–yet, simply on the other extreme. But why, America? Why did we invest all these polarized emotions to this case? It makes no sense to me. We are talking about strangers involved in the kind of conflicts that happen every day across the nation. And every day, “beyond a reasonable shadow of the doubt” keeps people from going to jail, even those that deserve it. That doesn’t mean the system is broken, which it seems so many white people kept insisting after the verdict. It just means that our system is designed to make it extra hard for people to lose their freedom, and this shouldn’t be changed just because some black guy possibly got away with murder.
I think many black people believed OJ was innocent because they wanted to believe he was innocent. (Flame me if you want, but I think a lot of white people are no different in this respect with the white lacrosse players in the Duke case.) And I also think other blacks folks believe he did it, but were enthusiastically relieved to see that the justice system is capable of giving the benefit of the doubt to a black person, even if that benefit is purchased only through wealth and celebrity. Their emotions, IMO, had nothing to do with a murderer getting away with it, or a black guy killing white people and not facing consequences. OJ* as a person probably wasn’t at the focus of their attention at all. “How is the system going to treat OJ?” was the focus of their attention, I believe.
So perhaps the elation that your friend demonstrated comes from the view that the system treated OJ as fairly as one would expect a celebrity of his stature to be treated. I don’t know for sure because only he can speak to what was driving him. But from hearing from others who applauded the verdict (and not indifferently accepted it like I did), I think I can understand what motivated others like him.
*If black people were rooting for anyone, I think it was Johnny Cochrane. It’s not everyday that just see a black lawyer work Perry Mason-style magic in the courtroom, so it was easy to want to see him “win”.
I can remember being quite jazzed about the OJ verdict. I was teaching and illegally turned off Channel One to see the verdict. (My fourth graders had no idea who OJ was.) I certainly thought he was guilty at first, but I saw the artful job Cochran et al had done in building a case against Mark Fuhrman and the way they picked apart every single piece of evidence that the police had.
For me, it proved that there was at least one way to get justice as an African-American man in this country: be a former football star, make cheesy-ass movies, and hire Johnny Cochran. Granted, most of us can’t do any of those things, but I’ve been seeing rich White people get off murder raps, assault, etc. all my life. I can’t remember a high-profile case involving a Black man getting off until OJ. We know how the “system” works in this country, and finally, it seemed to work for someone who was railroaded in the media and assumed to be guilty before the trial even started.
Let’s not forget LAPD’s role, and the history of the department’s racist behavior. The King verdict was only a few years before. It was also a fuck-you to LAPD and their corruption.
The whole trial was a circus, and the prosecution team just seemed to be so unlikeable, for another thing. Marcia Clark and Chris whats-his-face seemed out of their depth the entire time.
Honestly, I think most Black folks I know thought OJ was responsible to some degree. But no-one gave a shit about OJ. The hero was definitely Johnny Cochran, and you saw documentaries, bios, and a lot of attention directed toward him. For a good long while the joke was if you got into trouble, you needed to call Johnny Cochran. And he continued to be involved with a lot of high- and low-profile cases involving Black folks until he died. I think you with the face pretty much nailed it on this one.
I think this case points out all that is wrong with the elected attorney general system of prosecution in the USA. instead of a dispassionate search for the truth, we get these politicians who want to build a career-and don’t give a damn about the consequences. this is like what happened in the 1980’s-with the child abuse hysteria. A lot of innocent people were railroaded by ambitious DAs. And what about the costs? instead of this circus, Nifong could be putting dangerous , career criminals way. instead, he’ll spend a ton of money, ruin reputations, and cost the parents of these young men a fortune.