In celebration of Black History Month, there is one poster in a DC Courthouse entitled, “Black Women Paving the Way to Greatness in Politics.” so far so good. And the list of eight women are:
Shirley Chisolm
Patricia Roberts Hall
Barbara Jordan
Carol Mosley Braun
Fannie Lou Hamer
Condoleeza Rice
Michelle Obama
and…
Angela Davis
By the way, I was very pleased to see Barbara Jordan on the list. Her speech at the 1980(?) Democratic Convention is one of the best speeches ever given in a forum like that.
:eek::mad::eek:
Yes, the Angela Davis as recounted here. The one who played a role in the the kidnapping and killing of a judge from his courtroom.
I understand how she may be liked by some portion of the fetid-brained among the left, but isn’t this a slap in the face to the others on the list? Not to mention a horrible message to send to all young black women? Is there any way that this sends a good message?
What do you mean, “played a role in” the crime? She had purchased the guns that were later used in the crime, but at her trial she was acquitted of all charges concerning actual involvement in the crime.
Wait, you think it was a bad thing for Davis to exercise her Second Amendment rights?
You know, magellan01, if it was a conservative white man who had been tried and acquitted of criminal charges stemming from his having purchased guns that were later used in the commission of a crime, you would be absolutely outraged if anybody tried to insinuate that he had somehow disgraced himself thereby, and that it was a shameful thing to honor him for his subsequent achievements.
Actually, of the ones on the list, the one I’d object to is Michelle Obama. While I like Mrs Obama, her claim to greatness is basically that she married well. Not sure that really sends a great message.
Sorry to disappoint you, but nope. You turn her into a white man, and turn her compatriots into white people, I’m still of the same mind. You provide the guns used in the commission of a crime—especially one like that, and you’re persona non grata. You’re also scum who deserves to be locked up but got lucky.
But it appears that you and JB think that someone not being convicted removes all negative judgement, is that right?
I agree with that assessment, but can’t get too worked up about it. While I’m not a huge fan, she is the First Lady. At least it’s not an offensive pick.
What crime, exactly, are you accusing Davis of having committed? What is it that she “deserves to be locked up” for, according to you?
If not being convicted means that they’re not guilty of what they were accused of—and that is what an acquittal is supposed to mean, after all—then why would there be any negative judgement?
You seem pretty convinced that there was a miscarriage of justice and that Davis committed a crime that she was mistakenly acquitted of. Care to explain?
That is not my stance. I was just shedding light on the charges, which you made (by omission) sound like Davis was shoulder-rolling into the courtroom in camo, a black beret, and a knife between her teeth Rambo-style.
Pardon me for asking, but what did Carol Mosley Braun do other than be in the right place at the right time (i.e. run for Senate pretty much on a “my opponent voted to put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court” platform)?
I actually sort of like the placement of Davis in the Federal Court building. While I don’t agree with much of her politics and think she pretty massively over-reaches in her rhetoric against the current court system, the fact is the judicial system in the 60’s was starkly unfair to black people, and it is much less unfair now. That’s something thats worth being commemorated and remembered, and Davis was amongst the most prominent black woman advocating for reform. The arguments for her placement are stronger then for Michelle Obama, IMHO.
She’s the only black female senator and is more generally an active political figure. For obvious historical reasons, the bench of black female leaders in the US isn’t exactly deep, the US wasn’t didn’t let a black woman lead our troops on the beaches of Normandy or whatever. As a result, overcoming the barriers to power that being female and being black have historically had is seen as something of an accomplishment in and of itself. So being “first female black Senator” is seen as a bigger accomplishment then being the five-thousand and third WASP to get elected to Congress.
Obviously there’s a certain amount of “right place, right time” element to such accomplishments, but that’s true of just about anything.
Whereas, according to Davis’s account of the case, the guns in question were purchased by her and kept in her house for protecting her own safety. As a prominent Communist who had notoriously been fired from a university position for her radical views, Davis apparently got a lot of death threats and consequently hired bodyguards.
She was involved with the legal defense in the cause celebre of the “Soledad Brothers”, three black prison inmates accused of murdering a white prison guard who had killed other black inmates. The brother of one of those inmates became one of her bodyguards, and it was he who stole the guns from her house for the hostage seizure attempt that was supposed to let the Soledad Brothers escape.
Under California law, the fact that the guns used in the commission of the crime were registered in Davis’ name ipso facto made her “concerned in the commission of the crime”, and that was the reason that she was charged with criminal offenses. However, nobody ever showed that she actually knew anything about the hostage-taking plot or contributed to it in any way, so she was acquitted.
Of course, I don’t know for certain whether or not the above version of the facts of the Marin County Courthouse Case is true in all its particulars. You can never absolutely rule out the possibility of some kind of secret conspiracy and successful cover-up. What I do know is that that is the version of the facts that the jury at Davis’s trial apparently considered convincing enough to acquit her. What’s more, I don’t know of any actual evidence contradicting that version.
So, magellan01, if you’ve got a case to make for the claim that Angela Davis is actually guilty of murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit a crime, or related offenses, and that her acquittal was a miscarriage of justice, then by all means, go ahead and state it.
Otherwise, though, you are getting your panties in a bunch over the fact that a woman kept guns in her own home for her own protection and they were stolen from her and used to commit a crime.
I did. Passing over the fact that it’s from the extremely anti-liberal Washington Times and therefore possibly not a totally unbiased source, I’ll just note that absolutely all it has to say about any actual evidence concerning Davis’s alleged role in the crime is the following:
None of which contradicts the version of the facts that I laid out above.
:eek: