Would you mind explaining the scare quotes around the word “hostage”? I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m genuinely curious.
Sorry. They were probably not needed. The question I was answering was about someone who was arguably a POW, but there are other cases involving civilians, I think:
When a person, whether or not they are in uniform, is being used as a bargaining chip in negotiations, I consider them a hostage, independent of being a POW.
“You release this list of folks you are holding in your prisons, or you will never see GI Joe alive again! Bua-ha-ha-ha!”
African-American, broadly socialist leaning, somewhat fiscally moderate, middle-class and college educated.
Jesse and Al egg on the vitriol aimed at them by doing precisely whst they’ve done for almost 30 years: they wade into the middle of unfolding controversial racial issues; they inflame situations with threats of boycotts, marches, accusations and public pressure; they inflame crowds with their rhetoric; and they summon from the four winds added media focus to a particular issue whether that pressure is needed, requested, necessary or no.
That said:
After years of hoping otherwise, I have been long convinced that Jesse is no more than a huckster and an opportunist and a savvy, if somewhat crass manipulator of the media. There are fundamental ways that Jesse has tried to misrepresent his character and public image that Sharpton never has: first, and most damningly, as King’s blood-soaked heir apparent; later, as a faithful devoted husband, ministering to Bill Clinton while he himself was conducting an extramarital affair AND impregnanting his mistress the child out of wedlock. To echo a sentiment I once read online: “I can forgive Jesse for being a weak man. I can’t forgive him for being a stupid one.”
After years of unfairly dismissing him as a lightweight, I think Al Sharpton has a least a modicum more ability to reign himself in, learn from his mistakes and has a decidedly less pronounced sleaze factor around him than Jesse, which I recognize is the kind of comparison that makes me seem like I’m insisting that Ernie is the more butch between himself and Bert. But like Jesse he is adept at manipulating the media and very astute; but I deplore his personal attack style and unnecessary provocation on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation and creed. Sharpton most likely will not ever apologize for his role in the Tawana Brawley hoax, nor for the slanderous remarks made to the prosecuters.
Neither man is racist, especially by my definition of racist. However, both are profoundly bigoted toward conservative whites and New York Hasidic Jewish community, with their own conduct echoing tensions between many blacks and Jews in that city.
My advice: ignore them. Without cameras they are no more dangerous than streetcorner preachers. By flinging the virtiol you justify their media plan.
Just curious — how can you be socialist leaning *and * fiscally moderate? Socialism is at the far left of the economic spectrum.
Lib, I’m gettiing to be more of a libertarian socialist as I get older. Limits on taxes, welfare, government spending on miltary defense, increases in universal health care, housing and emergency domestic and international relief, while being liberal on social platforms, from sexuality and gender issues to multiculturalism
The reason you wonder is that he has had piss-all to say about the case since the truth has come out. Any way the wind blows is the way Jackson rolls. He has the integrity of a gnat. I was a huge fan of Jesse for years, until I realized that what he does for personal glory; any benefit to others is incidental.
I think when your job is sticking up for “underdogs”, you’re bound to step into mess and get it all over your shoes. I don’t think Sharpton’s involvement with Tawana Brawley case was intentionally malicious. I think it was a horrible case of a normally super-bright guy getting wayyy over his head and not knowing when to give up. Sharpton also annoyed me when he stood side-by-side by Michael Jackson when the latter was calling Sony racist. Maybe Sony is racist, but MJ isn’t anyone’s victim (well, except maybe from himself and Joe Jackson).
But there are two things that make me respect Sharpton: 1) He doesn’t speak in that meaningless, bullshittery, fake-ass politician talk. He speaks frankly, boldly, eloquently, and nine times out of ten, he’s right on point. No one can deny his impact on the last presidential elections, as far as keeping the Dems on their toes. 2) He represents people who would not normally have a voice. Even if this feeds into his attention whoredom, he’s still providing a valuable service. He wouldn’t be the person I would call on if I needed to get out of a jam (he’s much too polemic a figure…I would need all the attention on ME!), but I do respect him for trying to get others out of jams and not being afraid.
Jackson gets more of a “meh” out of me. No specific reason; he’s not just as smart or bold as Sharpton, and he also lacks the charisma. He’s much more of a politician. IMHO he jumped shark after he lost his nomination run back in '88. For an old running buddy of MLK, I’d rather have a John Lewis or Andrew Young. Both have served their communities pretty well and have done so through more behind-the-scenes hard work than glad-handing and camera-hogging.
It occurs to me that there’s never been a “black leader” who’s been widely accepted by the mainstream. As the OP states, MLK was not mainstream until he died. It seems that to take on the role of “black” leader, you have to ruffle feathers. You can’t be popular. We live in a society that labels people (white or black) as “race-baiters” or “racist” whenever they talk candidly about race. I can’t see how an effective civil rights leader could escape such attacks (Morris Dees comes close…though he doesn’t have to worry about being labeled “black leader”). I’m not saying that Sharpton and Jackson have been flawless innocents who’ve been unfairly maligned, but I don’t think they’d EVER be widely acceptable to white people as a whole, even if they were. It just comes with the job.
Well the key to that statement is in the use of the quotes. If a leader is Black and tries to lead all of the people, tries to connect on issues of all of the people, then (s)he is not a “Black leader” … (s)he is a leader who is Black. We have had a few of them … too few perhaps, afterall racism does exist on both sides. Some Whites have a hard time with it and some Blacks do too. But they exist and they are not what you are rferring to as a “Black leader.” A “Black leader” is person whose issues are focused mainly on the issues relevant to the disadvantaged Black community. It can’t be a surprise that advantaged Whites fail to find that (s)he represents them and fail to identify with him/her.
I’m not so sure about that. Cosby talked candidly and was not labeled a race-baiter. So have many liberal White politicans. So does Obama. Oh the risk always exists, as we’ve both seen in various threads in the past. But it can be done if the communicators are effective. What gets one labelled for sure is when the rhetoric becomes an “us”/“them” polarizing shrill. And when a dislike for a leader is assumed to be because of skin color when the same characteristics of demagogary and media whoredom are despised in White leaders as well.
Because he wasn’t just talking about race; he was scolding those “bad” black people. Cosby makes the white establishment feel good because he was placing the ills of the black community on the black community, and not on them. And listening to the white Dopers here, you’da thunk he was the first to ever do so, that prior to Cosby, black people were only standing around, pointing at Whitey.
But I’m betting he wouldn’t have been patted on the back so hard if he had mentioned anything about racism and its legacy. Many whites can stomach a black guy talking about “black” problems as long as he’s pointing the finger at the “right” target. To them, that’s not “race baiting”. That’s “truth telling”.
I disagree with that last part. Obama has gotten so much political traction not because of his candidness about race, but because he doesn’t talk about it, unless asked. The media loves to talk about Obama’s “differentness” from other black leadership (remember that awful week of “IS OBAMA BLACK ENUFF OMG?!1”). Obama is careful never to mention anything racially controversial or associate himself with polemic black people. He has to stay “clean”, as Biden would say.
A couple of weeks ago at the last Democratic debates, Obama was asked a question about the AIDS crisis and its disproportionate effect on the black community. He gave a very scripted, “safe”, politician-y answer. Hillary, however, was very blunt: “If H.I.V./AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.” If Obama had given this response, he would have been blasted for “race-baiting”. But Hillary got applause (as she should, because her answer was the right one).
Yeah, but you never hear White leaders being called “White” leaders. White people are the only folks who get to elect their spokespeople.
Jesse and Al may camera hog, but it’s gotten to the point where we can’t talk about anything racially controverial without their names being brought up–even when they have yet to make an appearance or say anything on the subject. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I think people do this intentionally, so that for every Tawanna Brawley that’s dismissed, so are the Amadou Diallos. Al and Jesse are in part responsible for this (the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomonem), but I think the white establishment is more than happy to let them play their roles.
Middle-aged White Guy; pragmatist – er, no one seems to recognize that as a political stance, so call it somewhat left of center.
I’m at a disadvantage commenting because a) I don’t follow their careers very clsosely and b) it seems highly unlikely that Jackson or Sharpton are at all relevant to my situation. I do hope they have been beneficial overall in the struggle for equality, but I doubt they have any interest whatever in arguing in favor of my rights. Not that they have to, or even should, necessarily, given the roles they’ve staked out for themselves. They’re nowhere near highest on my list of insufferably annoying people, but I do object to dishonesty in political leaders (yeah, I know how naive I am) and I have the perception that these guys, at various times, have been at least as dishonest as, say, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, both of whom I loathe.
That said, it chaps my ass whenever I hear the umpteenth argument from other M-aWGs such as myself that they should just shut up because there is no longer any need for anyone to be an activist on behalf of African-Americans; everything is just peachy-keen now and all the old roadblocks to progress have been swept away, don’t ya know? Well, I don’t believe that’s necessarily so, so let 'em talk, if they have something useful to say. If they don’t, I’m perfectly OK with changing the station. In the marketplace of ideas, all may present their wares, IMO, and the public gets to decide what to buy.
White, Independent, socially liberal. I don’t know that I’ve had enough exposure to either of them to make a definite statement. I don’t like Al Sharpton really at all what with the white interloper statements and such and some activity that borders on inciting violence against others. Jesse Jackson I don’t really know enough about. I’ve heard and read that some shady stuff went down with respect to his son getting a beer distributorship. The remarks about Jews were not cool, but he may have apologized, I don’t know whether he did or not. If he did then good enough.
How can I join this white establishment? Is there a secret handshake? Do I get to join even if I was raised poor, or do people like me just get to have aspersions thrown at them without getting any of the benefits? Maybe I can have my father complain that peckerwoods don’t get enough Coke distributorships so they’ll give me one to shut him up.
So Monstro candid only means speaking the “corrrect” POVs? Nope. Candid means just that - candid - calling it as you see it. Yes, it helps avoid the race baiting charge if it is Black person chastising Blacks or a White person disparaging racist actions by Whites or White society against Blacks. And yes, the offense goes both ways: some will accuse any Black disparaging of racism as race-baiting and some will label any White pointing out negative aspects of current urban poor Black cuture as racist. Both frustrate in the same way.
I’ll avoid making this into an Obama thread, sorry I brought it up, but yeah, you have a point. He is being a bit too careful and I think that its part of what is keeping him from getting the traction that I hoped he’d have by now. He needs to be a lot less of the blank slate.
As to “White leaders” … if a White person made a career out of addressing issues that were explicitly just issues regarding Whites … said so in speeches … like traditional “Black leaders” do … well, I think there would be other names for them than “White leader” That’s the nature of majority and minority status.
There are times that Jackson or Sharpton haven’t already weighed in on something racially controversial (meaning that a camera is present)? Cite please! 
I agree with everything Monstro said but I’d substitute “rich establishment” for “white establishment.” As I’ve said many many times before, the real division in America is class, not race, and I think that racial issues are played up (by the establishment) as a smoke screen so people get distracted by race instead of focusing on the very real economic issues. Not to say that race doesn’t play a role - of course it does, and yes, I’d readily believe that the average white person in America has a better chance than the average black person - but the white poor are just as fucked as the black poor. Farms deteriorate, factories sit abandoned and rusting, jobs disappear and communities sink into alcoholism and meth - it’s not a pretty sight.
No. It means saying truths that are harsh and hard to take. White people have been blaming black people’s dysfunctions on black people for centuries. Maybe what Cosby said was “candid” if you were one of the people he was talking about. But to most people (including most black people), he was preaching to the choir.
Can you give an example of a well-known contemporary black person talking about contemporary racism, either as a witness to it or as a victim of it, who has not been wildly villified or dismissed as a hypersensitive race-baiter? It’s alright for a black person to talk about incidents that happened in the past (as long as they don’t dwell on them), but heaven forbid they talk about the stuff that happens today. It’s taboo; if you break the “rule” you will be required to sit through long, self-righteous lectures about minority “hypersensitivity” and “victimhood”, served with a generous helping of “my grandfather came to this country with nothing and he made it, why can’t you?” and ending with “stop whining and give me back my job, you job-stealing Affirmative Action beneficary!”
America will never embrace a public figure who talks about racism as if it’s a contemporary problem that–and this is key–affects one group MORE than others. People don’t want to hear this message because it feels divisive and “us/them”, even when it’s 100% true. So while I agree with you that candor doesn’t rest on a certain viewpoint, I can’t agree with you that all truth-speakers are candid.
A more interesting question (but not as humorous): “Are there times that Jackson or Sharpton aren’t asked to weigh in on something racially controversial?”
My guess is no.
Or, when these two jokers die will the media appoint other “Black Leaders” that America will love to hate?
The cynic in me says YES!
Okay, I can’t think of a name off the top of my head, but I’ve heard interviews. Usually its the stopped for driving while Black bit or taxis not stopping. Aresenio Hall telling how Rupert Murdoch assumed he was the parking attendent, so on. And of course the bigger discussions about how the healthcare system ends up not serving the poor well which disproportionatly impacts Black Americans. How predatory lending has also hit upon the Black poor more. How Black elementary schools are in poorer neighborhoods and systematically get less funding despite having bigger needs. But those don’t quite qualify as personal stories. But those examples of how societal systems have racist effects are, I think, the cause of more discriminatory effects than all the overt racism combined. And as Agent Towers declares, the reason is often class based, but the effect is racist. My point has been that the polarizing rhetoric that Jackson and Sharpton are infamous for does little to address those issues. A leader who is Black (or White) who articulates the need to provide univeral healthcare and lending reform with teeth and equity in school funding perhaps most of all, for those of all colors, will be more likely to change the systems by building broad consenses, than the good Reverends ever will, and thereby to better fight racism than getting a thousand offensive shock jocks fired.
But of course the both the shock jock and the boycotter make for beter copy.
Well, it is hard to provide a cite for something that did not happen, but i have no recollection of either Jackson or Sharpton inserting themselves into the lawsuit against Tom Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance movement that was filed by the Southern Christian Poverty Law Center on behalf of Mulugeta Seraw an Ethiopian immigrant who was stomped to death by skinheads in Oregon in 1988. They may have done so, but in searching the web I see no sign of it. The lawsuit is said to have bankrupted the KKK.
Funny you should mention that.
"In November 2005, Sharpton appeared in advertisements for LoanMax, an automobile title loan company. Sharpton was criticized for appearing in the ads, as LoanMax has been accused of predatory lending charging fees, and for marketing them to primarily poor, urban and African American audiences. The ads featuring Sharpton were run in predominantly African American markets. [49]
On December 7, 2005, he ended his relationship with LoanMax. In a letter to Rod Aycox, LoanMax president and chief executive officer, Sharpton said, “I respectfully, but firmly decline your offer for further engagement on my part, and will not engage in any business relationship to promote auto lending with LoanMax.” Sharpton said he had not done the research before agreeing to the commercials."
Oops.
My perception is that there a LOT of people who are willing to get behind these guys judging by the number of followers they have. I think a leader is wanted more than needed.
Also, I don’t necessarily believe that they need a leader to hold their hand, but I do think that there can be a lot gained by having the right person create a path in the right direction for blacks and minorities.
What we have now are people who point the finger at others for why the black community struggles with its issues (crime, drugs, single parent families, gangs, education, jobs, etc., -mostly inner city troubles). They want to have things given to them instead of picking themselves up and doing the right thing and creating an example to others around them. It could be contageous. Instead we hear the mentality that they can’t succeed because they aren’t allowed to.
The fundamental family structure needs to be re-established first. I think that takes a leader(s) to innitiate on a community (city, neighborhood) level and then even a greater presence nation-wide to prove that it works and that you don’t have to be stuck in your current hopeless situation. There isn’t enough positive, constructive criticism of the way the black community is handling its problems. There needs to be a strong, honest person that can be trusted to tell people (black and white) what the problems are and what mistakes are being made on both sides. Neither Al or Jesse are that person.
What is intersting to me, regarding Jackson, is that he spent a substantial portion of the 1970s and early 1980s preaching respnsibility to the black community of Chicago. While he was “shaking down” or “demanding responsibility” of corporations in Chicago, in the Loop and the suburbs, he was also going back into the projects and other neighborhoods and delivering a message very similar to the one that Bill Cosby has been delivering. (And he continues to do that, although it is hard to tell whether he does it less often or simply gewts less press when he does.) For quite a while I continued to defend his actions among grumbling whites, based on his “speak to the audience” approach. (This while acknowleding that he has always been a publicity hound.)
Where he really began to lose me was in the Decatur, IL football brawl incident. Had he originally argued simply that the two-year expulsions were too harsh, I’d have had some sympathy for his position, but his initial claims–to which he held for weeks–was that the kids were just horsing around and that they had done nothing wrong. His claims that the kids were being “denied an education” when most of them had truancy rates in the 50% range and the kids rejected an offer to go to an alternative school setting (for which the school board had to arrange for the governor to make an exception to the rules just to admit them), was simply ludicrous. This despite overwhelming evidence, including a video, that it was a very violent brawl that endangered others in the stands. When he cries “racism!” in cases that really have nothing to do with race, he loses my support pretty quickly.