Search the ArchivesNavigation Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Response to predictable assertionsTue, 07/29/2008 - 3:23pm
By: Letters to the ...
There is an interesting cycle that occurs here in The Citizen with the frequency of a lunar eclipse: A local story will take a racial tack, tempers will flare, and a barrage of letters to the editor showing how “blacks have chips on their shoulders” or “blacks have still not gained racial parity” result. Welcome to the 2008 eclipse. To avoid confusion, let’s pick things up at Michelle Daniel’s letter to the editor of July 15. Ms. Daniels makes the assertion that Bill Webster’s July letter, “Crying wolf on racism,” was not negative, but “simply stating facts.” Here is a quote from her letter responding to Anthony Evans, who took offense to the “crying wolf” piece: “First of all, he must be racially sensitive to think that Mr. Webster’s ‘crying wolf’ letter (in the July 2 edition of The Citizen) was negative. To the contrary, the letter was simply stating facts. Are we no longer able to have an open dialogue without hurting the feelings of a collective group of people, when simple facts are being stated?” Let us put some of the “facts” expressed by Bill Webster under the microscope for closer scrutiny: Webster fact list 1 — reasons for whites to resent blacks: “What could white people resent about black people? Here is a partial list: affirmative action, O.J. Simpson, 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Jeremiah Wright, black racism, Duke lacrosse scandal, Al Sharpton, class warfare, Don Imus, Jesse Jackson, the N word, and Presidential voting conclusions.” I believe that when crafting a non-negative, fact-based letter on race relations, what better way to start than with a list of why my race should resent yours. Everyone with me so far? Webster “facts” on the U.S. legal system: “Everybody, black or white, knows that O.J. Simpson killed two people, but a black jury set him free. His trial began a period, which still exists today, where black people are justified for whatever they do or are judged to be innocent simply because they are black, i.e., racism.” This is how a person clouded by “resentment” towards a particular race would see the OJ verdict. Perhaps I can offer another perspective through comparison: Robert Blake; Phil Spector; OJ Simpson — What do they have in common? They are all wealthy men. They are free men who had the best legal teams money could buy. OJ’s team rightly presented evidence that one of the key LA investigators who had access to evidence was prejudiced against blacks by word and deed. His name was Mark Fuhrman. And this created what lawyers and judges like to call “reasonable doubt.” I would suggest this reasonable doubt had less to do with race than quality of legal defense. And as for Mr. Webster’s suggestion that blacks are “judged innocent simply because they are black,” I offer the exhaustive efforts of The Justice Project. According to the Justice Project and court records, since 2001, 19 men in Dallas County, Texas, alone have been set free after being cleared by DNA evidence of the crimes they were convicted of. That is just one county in this good ol’ U.S. of A. Patrick Waller is the latest man to be released. His kid-glove treatment only netted him 15 undeserved years behind bars. I can see why the resentment is festering in white America for that one. The common thread between the Americans being exonerated and cleared of previous convictions is that they are overwhelmingly black males. This in no way says that all black men in prison are innocent, but I believe it is solid proof that being black as a defendant will most definitely not earn one a “free pass.” In using the Duke lacrosse scandal as a reason for whites to resent blacks, I would remind Mr. Webster that the Duke lacrosse players were hounded by Mike Nifong, an overzealous prosecutor who is white. I’m not sure why the black community earns ire for his actions. If anyone faults the black community for Don Imus losing his job over very unprofessional words concerning an NCAA basketball team, they must not be a free market conservative. In the free market, as I understand it, businesses and corporations can hire and fire people based on their performance. To suggest Mr. Imus’ bosses should not have fired him for calling a championship team a group of “nappy headed hoes” flies in the face of a business’ right to define its message and messengers. Ultimately, I do hope that Michelle Daniels understands that it is not being “racially sensitive” to address someone’s “liberal” use of facts as they see them. I’ll use her closing comments as an example: “In closing, the beauty of this world we live in is that we are free to go where opportunity awaits us. If you can find one nation on the African continent where you can fulfill your God-given potential and have a better quality of life, then you should ‘go for it.’ “ I would respectfully suggest that someone who makes a nuanced “go back to Africa” statement while opining that a lack of negativity exists in such argument is truly locked in battle with themselves. May their best face win. Kevin King Peachtree City, Ga. login to post comments
|
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
