« Bush-CHIP | Main | Collective Action Problems in Iraq »
September 21, 2007
More on the Jena 6
Over at Tapped, Kate does some interesting work collecting the statements of presidential candidates on the Jena 6, and evaluating how they differ from Obama's. As she concludes, "words that Obama can't use include, but are not limited to: segregation, black, white, racism, criminal justice system, racial tension, and intolerance. He has to temper his statement as an inclusive, all-humanity call to action against injustice, rather than a call to action against a criminal justice system that is inherently racist and a white-dominated society where cases like Jena are still too-common."
I remember being in New Orleans for John Edwards' presidential announcement. He stood in a muddy backyard in New Orleans' 9th Ward, before a tableau of African-American children bussed in by the NAACP. One reporter wondered whether Obama could have announced his campaign in such an overtly racialized setting. "No," agreed the assemblage. That's the fun thing about running for President as a black man: You have to convince the electorate that you never really noticed you were a black man.
September 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Right. It's going to have a horrible effect if he ever gets elected President, too. He's going to have to be a rabid drug warrior, because black men, especially former users, would never be allowed to move anywhere but more prohibitionist.
Posted by: Sam | Sep 21, 2007 11:29:34 AM
regarding the jena 6
i think that al sharpton has evolved into a voice for right action, courage and hope.
i find him to be a really inspiring person in public life.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 21, 2007 12:26:57 PM
"That's the fun thing about running for President as a black man: You have to convince the electorate that you never really noticed you were a black man."
It seems to me as a Democratic candidate Obama really doesn't have to jump through these hoops (at least not in this current environment with the toxic GOP), even considering the fact that the right-wing and their enablers in the media (who will never vote for him anyway) would try hard to make it an issue.
I think Obama's numbers with African-Americans might actually have started out much stronger if he had made such a statement. It would have also won him incredible and immediate support from progressives who would have applauded it as a brave move. Obama is never going to get the racists' votes even those that traditionally vote for Democrats, since he didn't design and devot his whole campaign around African-American voters that initial step would have been easy to overcome as he developed 'hope' as his campaign theme.
In a year when even most independents think any Democrat is going to be better than any Republican, this is the most fertile grounds for electing a minority candidate. With Hillary being in a similar but stronger position as the historic candidate, Obama might have been better off taking that risk at the start of his campaign it might have buoyed him through these down periods when he isn't looking like anything special compared to his competitors. Of course, if he would have just taken on the progressive mantle from the start instead of ceding it to Edwards, I think he would be running neck and neck with Hillary.
Posted by: Ricky | Sep 21, 2007 1:43:05 PM
I would respect Sharpton more if he would finally admit that he was WRONG about Tawana Brawley, and sincerely apologize for some of the truly shameful things he said and did during that time.
I was living in Poughkeepsie during that time and it was a ringside seat to demagoguery in action.
Posted by: lux | Sep 21, 2007 2:17:56 PM
had I known you were in nola for that, I'd have offered to buy you a drink.
Posted by: brandon | Sep 21, 2007 2:54:32 PM
...this is the most fertile grounds for electing a minority candidate.
Is that the goal? Really?
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 21, 2007 4:18:58 PM
Jacqueline, I appreciate your giving Sharpton credit for recent good acts; I think one should always keep in mind the road that got him to the place he's at now is a complicated one, and there remain unanswered questions from his past (such as the Brawley case, and that's really just a starting point). I don't doubt Sharpton's intentions, these days, but I know people who do, strongly. I may not agree with their suspicions, but I can't say that I blame them for having them.
On Jena, I think the point is that Obama's in a bind, both in terms of the white audience and in terms of the black audience, and that's not just because of what's happening in Jena, or because he's the black man who seems to really have a chance at winning the Presidency, but also because he's a man of mixed race who calls up an even dicier aspect of our American story that we really never talk about (a place where I happen to live as well). "Not black enough" isn't just about his Jena statement. It's about who he is. And while I wish he would take more of a stand on the Jena case, I also appreciate that in some ways, there's no good answer here for him, and that's not really his fault.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 21, 2007 4:43:39 PM
By the way, having now read Kate's post, I have to say the statement that impresses me most is Edwards.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 21, 2007 4:53:57 PM
weboy....
his road may have been complicated, mine has been too.
but hopefully, we all evolve.
this period in our history seems fraught with lies that become almost indistinguishable from truth, since we are given so little information.
not only that, but leaders cant/wont/dont speak out.
...because dennis kucinich speaks out against the war and asks for total withdrawal, he is unelectable.
because people dont speak out, here we are.
at least al sharpton is willing to speak out now.
he is not afraid to speak out.
at least he says what he means and means what he says.
....
weboy, for me, this is erev yom kippur, the eve of atonement, forgiveness.
these are some of my questions for tonight...
feel free to add any commentary.
1. why didnt al gore become president? what causality has given us this war and all that will come out of it for now and always?
2. why cant we see the flag draped coffins to mourn our young fallen, and see the reality of this war.
3. why cant we see where our billions are going on the opacity of blackwater?
4. why are african-americans still being persecuted in this country?
5. why didnt al gore run for the presidency this time, as our best hope?
6. why cant we see photographs of where our money is going in iraq: on amrican infrastructure in iraq.
7. why cant we see photographs of what iraq really looks like?
8. what are the secret raids taking place in syria?
9. is nelsom mandela still alive? i hope so.
10. what does this moment in time really look like?
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 21, 2007 5:08:20 PM
So, what charges would you consider appropriate for these black boys?
Is there any doubt that race played a major part in their attack on a white teenager? This is clearly a hate crime and whatever charge is finally leveled, it should be augmented as a hate crime.....unless you think that hate crime charges are only appropriate if you are WHITE.
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 21, 2007 10:24:39 PM
El V - I think the point is that what happened in Jena leading up to the attack is what needs to be considered - create an atmosphere in which these racially motivated conflicts get ratcheted up without being dealt with by law enforcement, and at some point, things will go too far. The failure to arrest any whites involved in earlier fights around this incident - never mind the whole question of "the white tree" - helped create an atmosphere of general lawlessness, and then prosecuting black men while ignoring the behavior of whites is what's got people up in arms.
I am always surprised to discover that I am not alone, as a liberal, in not being particularly thrilled with the notion of "hate crimes." I think the modifier isn't the issue; the crime is the issue, and that's what needs to be addressed - this crystallized for me around Matthew Shephard, because I felt his killers should be prosecuted, appropriately, for murder, not a hate crime. Hate crime charges, I think, stem from the suspicion of poorly treated minorities in our society that they cannot expect justice in court. I continue to believe that the solution is not "hate crimes," but proper justice using existing law. So do I think these kids should be charged with hate crimes? No, because I don't generally like the approach of "hate crime" distinctions. Do I think it's possible black people to be biased against white people? Sure. Do I think that's the key issue in Jena? Not by a long shot.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 21, 2007 10:40:32 PM
Is it just me, or do jacqueline's comments often seem like poetry about current events written under the influence of mescaline?
Posted by: Clark | Sep 22, 2007 8:41:04 AM
there are some very moving segments on youtube that can be found under "jena 6 defense fund".
some clips also, from howard university, particularly the prayer rally arranged by the students.
...it is really heartening to see young people speaking out with passion and peaceful organization against racism and unfair justice and social issues that seem to get lost in the news and the immense shadow cast by iraq.
...perhaps this will turn our attention back to issues festering at home, and the work that needs to be done here.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 22, 2007 8:48:34 AM
clark
that is because i understand a lot more about poetry than politics.
though i keep trying.
and it's not mescaline, it must be my meteorite collection.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 22, 2007 9:03:06 AM
So, what charges would you consider appropriate for these black boys?Is there any doubt that race played a major part in their attack on a white teenager? This is clearly a hate crime and whatever charge is finally leveled, it should be augmented as a hate crime.....unless you think that hate crime charges are only appropriate if you are WHITE.
Of course there's doubt, unless you think that verdicts on guilt or innocence should be made prior to trial. No wonder you're not concerned about the display of a hangman's noose and the evocation of lynching. Apparently such things fit right in with your sense of "justice."
What's particularly lunatic is your attempt to claim that the black students are getting preferential treatment even though they are the one's facing criminal prosecution, whereas the white students who engaged in Klan style tactics of terror and intimidation got off with a slap on the wrist.
Pathetic.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 22, 2007 2:03:30 PM
Is it just me, or do jacqueline's comments often seem like poetry about current events written under the influence of mescaline?
Posted by: Clark
It's not just you.
Also, I thought Robert Zimmerman/Fred Jones/The Traveler/El Viajero was banned? There's no proof that we've seen El Viajero before under a different name, of course, but he/she seems very familiar. Word choice, syntax, preferred complaints, topics of interest, total (or near-total) anonymity...
Posted by: Cyrus | Sep 24, 2007 12:25:22 PM
