Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

In addition to this, Finn is ignoring a very simple geographic consideration. Rutgers University is in New Jersey. Along with his syndication, Imus broadcast in the clear from New York. In addition to the many employees of MSNBC and CBS to whom Snood referred, there is no reason to doubt that many, many (probably at least thousands) of friends and supporters of these women, and supporters of the university, heard these remarks as they were being broadcast live. That is sufficient to explain the furor, without making a big, bad boogeyman out of Sharpton, who was just a carrion feeder taking advantage of the corpse of Imus' career.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2055148,00.html

Blair blames spate of murders on black culture


· Political correctness not helping, says PM
· Community leaders react angrily to comments

Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.
One accused him of misunderstanding the advice he had been given on the issue at a Downing Street summit.

Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".




PC? Un-PC? Will Jesse & Al hop a plane to set Mr. Blair straight?

Holy crap! Bush would be crucified.

He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".

A good point.

...matches the one on your head.

while it is obvious that one sees a person's color in an instant, their economic level likely is a greater determinant towards violent behavior than the amount of pigmentation they carry on the surface of their skin, of course, to lazy folks that first glimpse of skin is all that is necessary for their judgment.

are black folk more violent than other folk, because they are black? only if blackness causes them to be economically disadvantaged. and i don't think its a "chicken versus the egg syndrome," either. lots of black folks get descriminated economically each day.

and i don't think any white american can speak with honesty about the black experience in america. as a white man in america (and truly a handsome white man at that!) i sure don't suffer the hidden differences and descrimination a black man endures constantly each day from the majority white culture.

its in simple things like driving up to a car at a light on the right and seeing the other person look and if they see a black man behind the wheel of the other car, watch the white driver on the left lean over and lock his passenger door.....or as a black man approaches a white guy on the street, the white guy will take his hands out of his pockets, you know, "just in case."

i have been harangued for being a passenger in a car full of black men by the cops who stopped us, wanting to know what a white guy was doing with black folks... my friends! the standard claim from blacks of DWB... driving while black is all too well stamped on blacks in america that they usually don't excede the speed limit much as white people do.

white people can say prejudice doesn't exist anymore, but it is still there under the surface like a coiled snake just waiting to strike. black folk know to the bone that if you piss off a white guy he'll likely say "ni^*%er" aloud or at least under his breath, if he has any self-control.

only our children can cure us, because if we attempt to build a world where it will be easier to be good maybe the sins of their fathers will not pass on to them as their own.

i wished i lived in a place where content of character was more important than color of skin, but i know i don't and i think it is foolish to think that i do. i can work towards that day, but i don't think that i ever will see it, i might like, dr king see it in my mind's eye, but i am too old think that 400 years of prejudice will be wiped out in 4 generations

whites don't see it because it doesn't affect us and it doesn't happen to us like it does to blacks. and i don't believe its black folk being just "too sensitive." it is hard enough in this world to be a man or woman, with all its vissicitudes and cruelty, and excess bagagge like being called a nappy headed hoe or pimp hurts, and people, even that idiot imus ought to have enough compassion not to speak so about other human beings.

we all bleed red.

You can see it... just not here. I proscribe 1 week in San Jose, Costa Rica... the magical world where black and white no longer measure anything (just watch out for the Nicaraguans :wink:)

Does Costa Rica have the same kind of history that we have here?

I know many countries where it truly doesn't matter what color your skin is. But none of them that I know of have the kind of history that we have.

Is it black kids from affluent families?

.........?


I'm suprised Blair is so small-minded.

Had an argument last night at 2AM on a streetcorner about this issue.
date=toast

Well, Blair "only" sparked controversy last week when he said the spate of gun murders was being caused not by poverty, but as a result of a distinctive black culture.

Costa Rica is just not the great center of racial accord.

Also, go to the east coast of CR, which is quite black, and the crime rate is considerably higher.

Not really. Their black population is descended mostly from Jamaican slaves... but most of them were free before they immigrated to the rich coast for work. Many Costa Rican Blacks have stayed on the Caribbean side, and you may run into some residual bigotry from blacks in fishing spots like Gondolfo... but in the mainstream society I detected none whatsoever (save they tend to blame most crime on Nicaraguans... the rest on Mexicans. :wink:)

On one of my trips I met a very dark skinned girl named Lucy (much easier for me since the Caribbean Blacks tend to all speak an English Creo mix that I can understand quite easily)... and when we submerged into the local culture together; no one batted an eye. Interestingly, she had once been to Texas and had a chance to immigrate... but she couldn't understand the mild prejudice she felt from white people and couldn't stand the major prejudice she felt from American blacks. <-- Her description, not mine. She said although the money is certainly attractive; she couldn't wait to go home where people aren't so petty and are basically happy most of the time without it. I understood perfectly, and my own perspective remains altered to this day.

k, it might be a matter of Catch 22. Nonblacks read about black crime and incarceration and will naturally be wary when they are near blacks. I think blacks know this. Moreover, upstanding blacks suffer from this.

Is black crime getting worse? It seems to be in my area, but this is just based on what one sees in the paper. I did just read that expulsions and suspensions of blacks in the public schools in my area are about three times that of nonblacks.

What about Rosie? Did she say something racist?

Oh - do you mean the Asian imitation she did, then immediately apologized for? Are you saying that's the same as Imus waiting two days, until he knew he was caught? Well, if you are suggesting these are the same thing, your balance is broke.

So if someone says or does something that is racist,its ok if they immediately apologize?

Thanks for chiming in so predictably, mm - nice that some things are so consistent. No, it isn't "okay". If you read my post, I was asking if she thought Rosie's and Imus' incidents were comparable. Imus has a history of racist and sexist rants - Rosie doesn't. Imus did two more days of radio before apologizing - giving the impression that he wasn't really sorry for what he said, but that he got caught. Rosie said something racist, immediately caught herself and apologized - she knew she was wrong.
Neither was "okay", but I gotta tell you... if I had been insulted face to face, and the person then immediately saw the error of their ways, compared with someone who would have to be threatened with their employment and public denunciation before ever thinking to say they're sorry, I know which I would think was worse. And if someone insulted me who had a history of making that kind of remarks, compared with someone who f-cked up and made a racist joke, stopped, and apologized, I know which one I think would be worse.

Imus got exactly what he deserved.

I wanted to go back to the whole thing about how relatively important Sharpton and Jackson were to the promotion of the argument against Imus.
This blog piece written by Byron Williams, who is a pastor and syndicated columnist, makes an important point about how Sharpton and Jackson are really more convenient commentators than they are "leaders". (bolded emphasis mine)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black Commentators, Not Black Leaders

There were several e-mails that got my attention which went along the theme: when are black people going to stop allowing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be their leaders? Given that I was unaware such was the case, I thought the matter warranted some investigation.

Sports columnist Jason Whitlock, in the aftermath of the Imus affair, wrote an article last week titled: "Time for Jackson and Sharpton to Step Down." Whitlock's piece strongly suggested Jackson and Sharpton were using their "leadership" for their own personal gain.

"We've turned Jesse and Al into Supreme Court justices. They get to speak for us for a lifetime," Whitlock wrote. He added, "Their leadership is stale. Their ideas are outdated. And they don't give a damn about us." Whitlock may be right, but he misses an important point.

Neither Jackson nor Sharpton put the Imus/Rutgers story into play. It was the National Association of Black Journalists, led by its president, Bryan Monroe.

But when the story took off, did the mainstream media solicit the comments of Monroe? No. The airwaves were flooded with Sharpton and Jackson. The day Imus was fired, Sharpton appeared almost simultaneously on MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Ironically, it was Sharpton who had Monroe and Imus debate the issue on his radio show.

The illusion Jackson and Sharpton somehow speaks for black America is fostered in part by those who seek the path of least resistance. On any issue that impacts black America, they are the dynamic duo that comprises the "A-list."

That is not to suggest there were no other African Americans who appeared during the Imus affair. Syndicated columnists Clarence Page and Eugene Robinson, along with PBS' Gwen Ifill, and others offered meaningful analysis, but the issue is bigger than Imus, or race for that matter.

Now that the dissonance of emotion that fueled the Imus/Rutgers fiasco has subsided, there might still be an opportunity for reason to have its say.

The laziness of the mainstream media, which always solicits the usual suspects, creates a two-fold problem. First, we are guaranteed to see black faces offering commentary when it is an issue of race. Second, it promotes the appearance that African Americans can only speak on issues of race.

For my money, Robinson is one of the best columnists around. He is as adept at writing on matters of race as he is toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the national economy or popular culture.
From the inception of the war in Iraq, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has been consistently on point -- much more so than his colleague, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Friedman. But Friedman's commentary is sought far more than Herbert's.


There are myriad African-American voices that can provide substantive commentary on a wide range of issues. The fact they are underutilized does not make Jackson and Sharpton de facto leaders of the African-American community.


There is an entertainment component that Jackson and Sharpton provide that is missing from Robinson and Herbert. Herein lies their appeal. It is no different than the mainstream media's incessant use of Ann Coulter. It is human nature to go with who you know.



Frankly, without Jackson and Sharpton, the Imus affair most likely would have ended up on the ash pile of irrelevance. But Jackson and Sharpton are no more the leaders of the black community than Michael Jordan.


In the post-Don Imus world, we have a responsibility to stretch beyond the current comfort zones of familiarity if we are serious about race. The failure to do so may again require the much-sought-after commentary of Jackson and Sharpton.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/black-commentators-not-b_b_46272.html




Here are the Black journalists and "leaders" mentioned in the piece whose opinions the media never seems to pursue much (thought I'd post pics of them so you could at least see 'em once, anyway)...

Bryan Monroe


Gwen Ifil



Bob Herbert




Clarence Page

Who is the gentleman who does the public television program on black politics? I can't recall the name, but i'll come back and post the name and picture if i do remember.

Tony Brown . . . and according to the PBS web site, Tony Brown's Journal is the longest-running public affairs program on PBS. He's a graduate of Howard, and a self-made media producer as well as on-screen personality. His range of topics is the complete political spectrum, but he is much more likely to take note of the views of Americans blacks, whose views might not be represented by the main stream media.