« New! Fresh! Exciting! | Main | Bush-CHIP »
September 21, 2007
the Jena 6
I agree with Chris that the lack of blogospheric coverage of the Jena 6 is telling as to the tenuous relationship between the online left and what's more traditionally been the left. Indeed, I've been part of this problem. That's largely because I haven't known what to say, and kept trying to figure out how to link to this Courtney Martin article on the subject while still adding some valuable commentary. But I've got sadly little to add.
I will say that the bizarrely long prison sentences imposed on the Jena 6 are obviously racist retaliation, and should be beaten back as such. But the disproportionate sentences that millions of black men get everyday for reasons that aren't explicitly racist, but have to do with -- let's face it -- an institutionally racist criminal justice system, are in some ways a bigger problem, and if the plight of the Jena 6 could lead to a broader conversation as to what the fuck we're doing, that would be positive.
September 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Odd. On NPR this morning, they reported that blog based reporting was the reason that this case came to national attention. Perhaps Chris refers to lack of coverage by some parts of the blogosphere? Or perhaps NPR just has the story wrong? Or maybe there is more to racism than we really think?
Ezra, I fully agree with your identification of the broader problem. When justice is unjust, we all suffer - ultimately.
Posted by: George | Sep 21, 2007 10:35:56 AM
Good point. I realized this a few days ago when I heard Amy Goodman reporting from Jena -- on the scene -- and wondered why I hadn't heard about it from the blogs I read every day.
It's usually the case that I hear news from blogs first and then radio or TV or print -- but this was different, for sure.
I'll bet if Steve Gillard were still around, no one would have missed it.
Posted by: Garuda | Sep 21, 2007 10:36:19 AM
Not to co-sign Jesse Jackson's "acting like he's white" outburst (which was crazy and stupid), but Obama's silence on Jena has been pretty disappointing.
Posted by: Jake | Sep 21, 2007 10:36:52 AM
Yeah, the entire justice system is tainted by anti-minority actions where white majorities are out to maintain control - but not so much in areas where diversity is favored/preferred. The criminal distinction between crack cocain and powder cocain in sentencing is but one example.
I don't support violence in any form, to frame my argument. But the Jena case is a mix of schoolyard fighting/bullying and race hate. I can't justify saying hanging a rope noose from a tree to defend the tree as 'white territory' is a prank, while a fist fight is aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery when only applied to the black students - who were responding to obvious incitements. This is serious injustice. A proper response would likely be misdemeanor violations (or no legal charges at all) but vigorous response from school and city officials with programs to reduce violence through dialogue, suspensions from school, mandatory counseling, etc.
The police and the prosecutor look to me from this distance to be no different than Bull Conners 40+ years ago.
In a non-Bush world, the US Justice Department would probably investigate this whole incident as a potential case of civil rights law violation by public authorities.
The silence from the DoJ is telling. The fact that GOP candidates will not debate in minority settings is yet another indication that race baiting is becoming the platform of one of our parties, yet again. The Nixon southern strategy was and still is deliberate exploitation of racial tension for electoral advantage and white control of society, and yet the national and local media ignore this obvious and disgraceful truth.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 21, 2007 10:46:10 AM
Kate Sheppard at Tapped has the roundup of Dem. candidate's statements on Jena.
And I agree with her on Obama, which also says lots about the state of race and politics.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 21, 2007 11:09:47 AM
One happy sign is that the human rights campaign got involved with this even if the blogs did not. they have traditionally not gotten involved.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 21, 2007 11:10:36 AM
I will say that the bizarrely long prison sentences imposed on the Jena 6 are obviously racist retaliation.
Sadly, no. What is easy to miss if you don't have a lot of contact with the criminal justice system is that 15 years for beating someone unconscious is about normal; it's a problem with criminal sentences overall, not just this case.
And Jim--so long as you don't do anything with the noose except hang it, it counts as speech and 1st Amendment issues come in.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 21, 2007 11:13:00 AM
"if the plight of the Jena 6 could lead to a broader conversation as to what the fuck we're doing, that would be positive."
It sure would be positive, but it won't happen. White folk will sincerely condemn what went on in Jena, and congratulate themselves: "I am not a racist." Case closed. Since nothing less is racism, white folk can then feel good about themselves.
Weaselly as Obama might be, he understands the social psychology well. You are not going to get anywhere with race. The taboo against racism is so strong, and the softer forms of racism is so prevalent, that cognitive dissonance takes over whenever the topic is race. Therefore, progressives must pretend that the topic is something else: poverty, injustice, education--call it what you will. Hypocrisy, I'm afraid, is an invaluable social lubricant.
Posted by: Joe S. | Sep 21, 2007 11:18:32 AM
SamChevre,
The Jena 6 are all facing prison sentences of 20 years or more, and they're all being tried as adults. This doesn't happen in all cases, even in ones where someone is beaten unconcious.
The charges, the bail, the likely sentences are all excessive, even by the excessive standards we already have.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 21, 2007 11:30:42 AM
I might not even object to the ridiculously severe charges (attempted murder) and long sentences for the black defendants, if the white strudents involved had been charged. I understand that one, at least, had threatened the black students with firearms, and got nothing but a talking-to. Attempted murder, indeed.
Posted by: Fruity Bev | Sep 21, 2007 11:54:32 AM
Sam: And Jim--so long as you don't do anything with the noose except hang it, it counts as speech and 1st Amendment issues come in.
That is just bullshit, and you know it. How about a burning cross? Or a Nazi emblem? Or wearing white robes to school? Or carrying a plastic gun or rubber knife? Or wearing a fake body bomb? Or sprinkling white powder on lockers and people?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 21, 2007 12:00:00 PM
"-- an institutionally racist criminal justice system,."
And one equally tuned into the monied elite.....
All those really 'comfortable' usually whitish people
It all works so well that way, you see.
[For a great model find a Topsy/Turvy doll
and do the upside-downsy..or just lift the skirts]
Posted by: has_te | Sep 21, 2007 12:01:05 PM
"-- an institutionally racist criminal justice system,."
And one equally tuned into the monied elite.....
All those really 'comfortable' usually whitish people
It all works so well that way, you see.
[For a great model find a Topsy/Turvy doll
and do the upside-downsy..or just lift the skirts]
Posted by: has_te | Sep 21, 2007 12:01:42 PM
"-- an institutionally racist criminal justice system,."
And one equally tuned into the monied elite.....
All those really 'comfortable' usually whitish people
It all works so well that way, you see.
[For a great model find a Topsy/Turvy doll
and do the upside-downsy..or just lift the skirts]
Posted by: has_te | Sep 21, 2007 12:01:51 PM
Blogs actually did have a pretty big role in spotlighting the plight of the Jena Six. Just not the blogs we immediately might think of, though.
Posted by: Greg Greene | Sep 21, 2007 12:42:08 PM
Sam: And Jim--so long as you don't do anything with the noose except hang it, it counts as speech and 1st Amendment issues come in.
That is just bullshit, and you know it. How about a burning cross? Or a Nazi emblem? Or wearing white robes to school? Or carrying a plastic gun or rubber knife? Or wearing a fake body bomb? Or sprinkling white powder on lockers and people?
Jim:
Weapons (even fake weapons) don't count. But wearing Nazi regalia or Klan robes is legally protected. Cross-burning is generally legally protected as well (it's not if it's intended to intimidate, but intent has to be proved.)
And note that I'm not saying that noose-hanging is definitely unforbiddable under the 1st--just that it would be quite contestable.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 21, 2007 1:07:20 PM
Noose hanging isn't meant to intimidate? Gimme a fucking break.
Posted by: jj | Sep 21, 2007 1:34:58 PM
unforbiddable
That's a great word.
Unforbiddable, protected free speech
Unforbiddable, noose hanging from a beech
Like a cross of hate burning in front of me
White pointed hat for all the world to see
It's all good in a white county
It's all. . .unforbiddable
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 21, 2007 1:44:31 PM
actually sam- but cross burning where it occurs in way to intimidate isn't protected speech- no more than any of other things you mention are per se protected. the s ct has found that such things can constitute action rather than words. by your definition of speech one could never proove intimation
Posted by: akaison | Sep 21, 2007 1:46:16 PM
by the way other examples of how speech can intimidate are of course the abortion protect cases
Posted by: akaison | Sep 21, 2007 1:46:52 PM
Could this have simply been an example of really poor communication?
I don't know about anyone else, but even though I kept on hearing the occasional reference to "Jena 6," that conveyed no information to me about what it was. Hell, I assumed it was some SF show - maybe I was pattern-associating from "Babylon 5" and the like. So I tuned it out, not because it was about black people, but because I had no idea what it was about, and hadn't been given a reason to be curious.
The odd thing was, this was happening despite the fact that I'd heard the story of the Jena 6 awhile back, just not with that name attached.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Sep 21, 2007 2:21:23 PM
The beating of the white boy was, indeed, racially motivated. The question is even if lesser charges are used against the gang of blacks that beat him (six against one), don't they STILL deserve to face an agumentation of those charges as a hate crime? Or is hate crime legislation reserved for those who have WHITE skin?
Goose, Gander
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 22, 2007 9:59:42 AM
And Jim--so long as you don't do anything with the noose except hang it, it counts as speech and 1st Amendment issues come in.
Look up the definition of terroristic threats and incitement before you claim that displaying a noose is protected speech. It's the least you ought to to do before echoing the specious talking points of white supremacists and neo-nazis.
The beating of the white boy was, indeed, racially motivated. The question is even if lesser charges are used against the gang of blacks that beat him (six against one), don't they STILL deserve to face an agumentation of those charges as a hate crime? Or is hate crime legislation reserved for those who have WHITE skin?
Of course the reality is that hanging the noose in the tree was racially motivated but no one called for the application of the hate crime statutes to the white students. Certainly not "El Viajero". An odd sense of "fair play" at work here. Racially bigoted incitements to lynch law by white students are a high school prank but a school yard brawl justifies prosecuting black students for hate crimes.
I imagine that "El Viajero" would insist that there isn't a racially bigoted bone in his body as well.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 22, 2007 1:51:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
