Explain the vitriol directed towards Jesse Jackson, please

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Zoe]
When Jesse was younger he did a world of good for young people. He was really able to get a message of pride across to the very youngsters who had thought of themselves as second rate. I can overlook at lot of “sins” for that.

When Al Sharpton first came on the scene, I compared him with Jesse and found him wanting. That was because I had never heard of him before the Brawley case. But when he debated when he was running for President, he certainly got my attention. He was the best debator on the stage. I still love to watch him in action.

I can’t say that I disagree with his politics and I think his mind is very sharp. But we’ve just been badly burned by a Prez with the Ego from Hell. I don’t think Al will have much of a chance at the top job, but I wouldn’t mind seeing him at an important post.

I think that when Al sees a problem that has to do with racial discrimination, he doesn’t think twice about doing something about it. Sometimes that pisses people off – even some fairly reasonable people. In the 1960s and 1970s I suspect some folks might have resented him for being a little “uppity.” They don’t realize that he is already head and shoulders above them quite naturally.

Just listen to what the man has to say.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry. I do not want to make this personal, but in this particular case I have to call you on this.

You constantly give people like Al Sharpton and Ramsey Clark a rather big pass because of the supposed good they have done, and ignore the hurt and harm they’ve caused with their irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric. And as far as I can tell, you give them this pass because you are in sympathy with certain of their political goals.

There is nothing wrong with saying that you agree with their politics but despise their methods or rhetoric. You, however seem to like their rhetoric - the nastiest most disgusting aspect of both men.

Can’t agree with that, sorry. What’s more, I can’t respect it. You’re asking us to listen to what the man has to say - well most of us have, and have heard a racist and anti-Semite who likes to incite people to riot and murder.

He’s hardly head and shoulders above most people, and you thinking he is says much about you.

22

[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
How successful of publicity whores are they, when I never even notice them until someone else mentions their antics on the internet?
[/QUOTE]

I think that just says you must not watch the nightly news very much or read the newspapers, if you never notice them until you read about them on the internet. The recent case involving the Duke Lacrosse players is perfect example. That was a national news stories (on TV and in the papers) for a considerable time, and Sharpton was very much out in front of the cameras and talking to the press.

23

White leftist. I think Sharpton needs to be more apologetic for Tawana as does Jackson for Hymietown. If you get beyond that and beyond their seemingly reflexive siding with the black side in whatever criminal case is in the news, both are good men that stand for a lot of the things I believe in. During the 2004 Democratic debates, it was Sharpton who was saying more of what I wanted to hear. I think with both I cut them more slack for their bad qualities because they’re on the whole much better people than that.

24

[QUOTE=Anaamika]

I don’t like them for all of the above reasons and also because they only seem to care about blacks. Now I wouldn’t expect anything else except I’ve read a lot of MLK’s stuff and it seems somehow more evident to me that he was speaking for all non-white people. I know a lot of what MLK accomplished affects me directly today.

[/QUOTE]

With MLK, you got the feeling he was talking for white people, too.

Anyway: Jewish, largely centrist. For me, Jackson’t anti-semitic insinuations tend to override everything else.

25

Both Jackson and Sharpton are serial publicity whores and race-baiters (Sharpton especially). This tends to overshadow whatever good they have accomplished.

Al has a great deal of sleaze in his CV that he has never apologized for. This includes his being caught on an FBI tape doing some business negotiation with a cocaine dealer (no indictments, Al claims it was a “setup”). He is widely seen as having provoked violence, i.e the Crown Heights riot:

"Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” and referring to Jews as “diamond merchants.”

Then there was the Freddie’s Fashion Mart killing:

“In 1995, Sharpton led a protest in Harlem against the plans of a black Pentecostal Church, the United House of Prayer, which owned the retail property on 125th Street to ask Fred Harari, the Jewish tenant who operated Freddie’s Fashion Mart to evict his longtime subtenant, a black record store, The Record Shack. Sharpton told the protesters, “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” On 1995-12-08, Roland J. Smith Jr., one of the protesters, entered the store with a gun and flammable liquid, shot several Jewish customers and employees inside the store and burned it down. He killed seven in the store, and himself.[46][47] Sharpton claimed that the perpetrator was an open critic of himself and his nonviolent tactics. Sharpton later expressed regret for making the racial remark, “white interloper,” and denied responsibility for inflaming or provoking the violence.”

Al also made comments to a college audience about blacks having taught philosophy and mathematics before Socrates “and the rest of them Greek homos” and recently expressed confidence that people “who really believe in God” will defeat Mormon Mitt Romney. This is the same Al Sharpton who told Don Imus he should resign for making racist comments.

Al leaped on the bandwagon to declare the Duke lacrosse players criminals. I have not heard any apologies from him concerning that debacle.

Al is not the apologetic sort. Or someone with an acute sense of hypocrisy.

Oh, in terms of politics/race I am an extreme centrist and card-carrying white person with access to passwords, the secret handshake and all applicable discounts.

26

[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
I also do not think they are perfect. Jackson had the “Hymietown” comment and the illicit affair; Sharpton had the Tawana Brawley case and the Crown Heights riot. Certainly dark marks on their careers, but not dissimilar to things we know about many politicians (ethnic slurs and extramarital affairs).
[/QUOTE]

I don’t care much for Jackson, mainly because of his shakedowns of corporations in order to benefit his family and friends. I pretty much hate Sharpton, though. To say that what Sharpton has done with the Tawana Brawley case and Crown Heights is “not dissimilar” to what other politicians have done is ridiculous. Continuing to defend a known liar who ruined a man’s life should immediately disqualify anyone from being taken seriously as a political figure. Furthermore, essentially inciting riots is also well beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Please list for me other public officials who have done similar things. Sharpton has done more to harm racial relations than any other public figure I know of.

BTW, I’m a white libertarian.

27

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think that just says you must not watch the nightly news very much or read the newspapers, if you never notice them until you read about them on the internet. The recent case involving the Duke Lacrosse players is perfect example. That was a national news stories (on TV and in the papers) for a considerable time, and Sharpton was very much out in front of the cameras and talking to the press.
[/QUOTE]
Alright, I’ll give you that. I as a rule never watch TV news, and I wouldn’t voluntarily keep up with a meaningless human interest story in the newspapers, so no, I didn’t catch on that Sharpton was much involved in the Duke Lacrosse players story (though I did hear something about Jackson offering to pay the accuser’s tuition).

28

This is a good topic, too bad I don’t have more time to elaborate my points right now. Maybe later.

White male, moderate conservative.

The problem I have with Jesse and Al are that they are too quick to take up white on black issues (even if it’s just percieved as such) but you will hear the crickets chirp if 20 black guys beat up an old white lady.
They play the race card too often, crying wolf needlessly.
If they were real leaders they would both applaud and criticise what happens in the black community and what happens to the black community.
Instead they seem to just want to bash whitey and give a pass to the mistakes made by anyone else.
In short, they’re too focussed on the negatives that are often just percieved to be happening to blacks and don’t focus on any real solutions.

29

I admittedly do not know much about their pasts, but one thing I have noticed about them, and do not like about them, is that they use the media to censor people (i.e. – Imus). I actually hate Imus, but I do not think he should have been fired for what he said. However, Sharpton was able to create such a media blitz out of what was, IMHO, a non-story, that Imus almost had to be fired lest his employers look like jerks. Knee-jerk, reactionary, media-whore censorship is still censorship, even if it is within the law.
Obviously, Sharpton and Jackson also have a right to say what they want, but if they want to be taken seriously as leaders, they should focus their attention on more important issues.
I am white. Lean left on social issues. pretty middle-right on econ issues. BIG believer in people not interfering with what anyone wants to say or do

30

Just my own perceptions but the pair of them seem willing to do absolutely anything if they can garner some publicity or a constituency or just a few more bucks. They do not seem to do what they do from a sense of conviction so much as calculated maneuvering with a knee-jerk reaction that anyone with sufficient melanin must be right in any given situation.

As far as my politics go: I’m fiscally conservative, social liberal and my perfect government would be one that I had zero dealings with. I’m also melanin challenged.

Regards

testy

31

I’m an Indian (Cherokee) Liberal (Libertarian). Both of them impress me as racists. Especially Jackson, with his slur against Jews and his comment about being followed by black versus white men at night. (Not to mention some of his alleged questionable financial and social practices.) And both of them came out against Bill Cosby’s perfectly sensible comments about black youth culture. They seem always to come down on the side of whoever is black against whoever is not. And Sharpton seemed to be taking the torch from Jackson in the Duke University LaCrosse team rape case.

32

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’m sorry. I do not want to make this personal, but in this particular case I have to call you on this.
[/quote]
Awww, you do that with everyone.

33

[QUOTE=Kevbo]
Beyond what has been said, their oration is in the over-the-top tradition common to black ministers. (and some white ones as well) If you were raised with that tradition, perhaps it seems normal. I was not raised in that culture, and to me it seems as forced and artificial as kabuki or opera. I don’t really hear what they are saying, I just observe this performance and wonder why in the hell they can’t speak “normally”.

[/QUOTE]

Despite not being a religious person, I have always found this style of preaching to be inspirational. Obviously it is most effective when the orator has something of substance to say but the style can be powerful if used properly. The problem is that when you see representations of this oratory style in the media it is often in a satirical manner. Consequently, if you have no first hand experience with intelligent use of this technique you will likely become skeptical of any speaker who employs this style in their speeches.

People on both sides of these racially charged cases are deeply invested in the outcome. We love to play the “if this were the other way around…” game because of the way that racial tensions affect us.

If there were a group of white guys running around campaigning against every black guy who mugged a white person and leading media blitzes against sports teams with not enough white starters on them I would call them loudmouth, racist media-whores too.

The problem is that I actually think these types of people help to balance things out. People in positions of power tend to think twice when formally addressing issues that have racial foundations. No one wants these guys jumping up and down creating chaos while they are trying to resolve a problem. It makes people think very carefully before acting. For that, I find them, collectively to be a necessary annoyance.

Separately, I prefer Sharpton to Jackson overall. In general, my thoughts are more in sync with Sharpton’s than Jackson’s and I find him to be more of a straight shooter.

Black, male, mostly middle of the center. Tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing leftie when it comes to the environment.

34

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]
Tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing leftie when it comes to the environment.
[/QUOTE]
Why is it there don’t seem to be any books written by tree hugging environmentalists?

35

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]
The problem is that I actually think these types of people help to balance things out. People in positions of power tend to think twice when formally addressing issues that have racial foundations. No one wants these guys jumping up and down creating chaos while they are trying to resolve a problem. It makes people think very carefully before acting. For that, I find them, collectively to be a necessary annoyance.
[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly think that Sharpton and Jackson are thinking very carefully before acting? As has been evidenced above they are responsible for helping to incite riots and murders (as in the case of the jewish business). It seems to me that they simply shoot off at the mouth and then disavow any responsibility for their statements. Furthermore don’t even try to garner an apology for what they’ve said, such as Tawana Brawley or the Duke lacrosse case.

36

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]

The problem is that I actually think these types of people help to balance things out. People in positions of power tend to think twice when formally addressing issues that have racial foundations. No one wants these guys jumping up and down creating chaos while they are trying to resolve a problem. It makes people think very carefully before acting. For that, I find them, collectively to be a necessary annoyance.

[/QUOTE]

Good post, except I must take issue with the quoted portion.

The problem with the way they create, what you call a necessary annoyance, is they use disingenuous statements and fear tactics. They rarely scrape off the crust and deal with what the real problems are, unless the problem happened to be a real racial issue. They do serve some overall good in certain context. However, I’m convinced that the black community would be better off if they dissappeared. I believe if they were out of the picture that someone else would have the chance to grab the reigns and steer race relations and black leadership in a different direction.

37

White moderate here. I have respect for Jackson as I feel he’s done enough good to excuse his lapses. Sharpton, on the other hand, I feel is just riding civil rights for his own personal benefit - he wants to be the leader of a movement and civil rights was just the most convenient one for him to get aboard.

38

This is an honest question and a reversal of the OP. What has Jesse Jackson ever done that is helpful and genuine. Everyone I have ever talked to, both black and white, views him the same way that they do Paris Hilton. He just grabbed on to coat tails and then did everything in his power to stay in the spotlight. What has he done on his own?

39

I’m white and impossible to categorize politically being far left on some issues, far right on others, and often times centrist.

A big issue I have with them is that descend on someone like Imus demanding an apology for what he said, then when he does apologize, they still carry on the same as before.

Meanwhile when they themselves are proven to be horribly and damagingly wrong, such as in the Duke case, no apology is forthcoming.

40

[QUOTE=Frosted Glass]
The problem is that I actually think these types of people help to balance things out. People in positions of power tend to think twice when formally addressing issues that have racial foundations. No one wants these guys jumping up and down creating chaos while they are trying to resolve a problem. It makes people think very carefully before acting. For that, I find them, collectively to be a necessary annoyance.

Separately, I prefer Sharpton to Jackson overall. In general, my thoughts are more in sync with Sharpton’s than Jackson’s and I find him to be more of a straight shooter.
[/QUOTE]

I’d like to ask you about this as well.

A few decades back, people in positions of power were changing their behavior because they didn’t want guys jumping up and down and creating chaos while they were trying to go about their business as well.

Those guys were named King, Abernathy, Wilkins, and Evers, among others. And rather than protest “diamond merchants”, they welcomed Jews as needed allies in the civil rights movement. Rather than preach against “white interlopers” they tried desperately to turn the tide of white public opinion.

Sharpton is a straight shooter? He seems to go off without warning and aim to me, and some of the folks who get wounded are people he purports to help. The victims of Freddie’s Fashion Mart, after all, weren’t white, at least not for the most part.

So given all of that, why is Sharpton valued?