|
Post by Ceci on May 13, 2007 3:20:46 GMT -5
Tonight on the Mad Radio show, I heard a very interesting commentary on Rev. Al Sharpton. It was argued that on his show, Rev. Sharpton has said far worse than Don Imus and yet nothing happens to the civil rights activist. It was also argued that when people of color discuss race in public settings they are "given a pass" while white people are not. In light of this opinion, I had read others as saying that Rev. Sharpton is nothing but an "ambulance chaser" when it comes to race. Because of this view, that his commentary and actions in public should not be taken seriously. Why is there the belief that Black people are blindly entertaining Rev. Sharpton's views (an actual statement on another forum elsewhere in the Web universe, and not mine. I am posing the question.)? My question is what purpose does Rev. Sharpton serve in American society? Should he not be a civil rights activist in light of all the controversy about him? Or does he represent more of a figure in the civil rights struggle than what people are letting on? Let the discussion begin.
|
|
F.Gordon
New CNV Member
Get Mad
Posts: 41
|
Post by F.Gordon on May 13, 2007 8:36:34 GMT -5
I've not had that following, I've heard on several shows, one was on Sharpton's own show when Imus appeared. Call-ins of people who felt it was an overreaction. Thats been why I think he shouldn't go on, I don't think he speaks well for it. I don't know if I have a place to say that, or if its true, but it is the first thing I deduct in some form. It seems like his time has passed, could he be taken less seriously now? I have no idea. I don't, because to me the situation with he and the mormon comment was very simular to Imus' comment controversy, the words taken out of context with his situation now are exactly what Imus plead, and he was shot down. It seems Sharpton is getting no more attention than what I saw on the Glenn Beck Program, and likely because Beck is a mormon himself, and was offended by it. Nobody seems to be recognizing it as much. My question to those who are not of my opinion: Is the latest Sharpton comment and his use of 'taken out of context' where he will not demand his own firing or resigning, is it hypocrisy? Or am I wrong about it all.
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 13, 2007 20:22:32 GMT -5
You know, rlupin, I have my specific opinions about what you've asked. But, I'd like to hear from other members first about this issue before I weigh in with my two cents.
|
|
SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 13, 2007 21:50:35 GMT -5
I hate (let me repeat that for emphasis, HATE) Al Sharpton. And no, it's not because I am racist, or a bigot, or a redneck republican... it is because Al Sharpton is one of the biggest racists around. Quite ironic, eh?
For instance, if I said to a black person:
"You people really like your rap music (something I wouldn't actually say, but work with me here). Now, that would be said without any malice, just a simple state of fact.
He would then say:
"You people can't call black people "you people", that's racist!"
Read that sentence again and notice the irony (and unintended double entendre)
Basically, if someone says ANYTHING about a black person, they are racist. Nevermind the fact that the person in question may have raped and murdered 48 people. He tries to battle blind racism with structured racism.
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 13, 2007 22:29:52 GMT -5
I hate (let me repeat that for emphasis, HATE) Al Sharpton. Rev. Sharpton is a controversial man who produces strong reactions in a lot of people. However, I am very neutral about him. I would like to say that he is not the figurehead of the Black community. Black people do not bow down to him and listen to everything he says. And, he doesn't speak for all of us. Instead, I would like to say that he is the type of guy that fights for civil rights. Because of his provacative stances, he turns off a lot of people in the dominant culture. So, your feelings are understandable, despite the strength of the words. Let me say something about this too. I think that the main problem about discussing race is the fact that when anyone describes anything about racial identity, they are immediately proclaimed a racist. And that should change. When we have discussions about race, people should listen and not be so judgemental. Instead, people should just focus on putting the cards on the table. Listening to one another is the most important part. However, what crosses the line is when someone says something that is unqualifiable in terms of a group of people (such as "Black people are always whining about race and asking for hand-outs when it comes to reparations"). Now that is something that is made in bad faith when it describes a group of people. What we want here is an honest assessment about race with no strings attached. And that means people are free to discuss racial issues without denigrating anyone . As for Rev. Sharpton being a racist, I think that there's a lot of room for discussion whether he is or not--as long as there is qualifiable proof and a definition of racism attached. So, what is your criteria for one to be a racist? As a Black person, I wouldn't think of this any differently. Although, I'd probably bristle at the words, "You people". There are better ways to say it. Well, "you people" historically, linguistically and socially has been maligned in popular speech because when it has been said in the past, it has had a negative intent attached to it. I would have to take this statement as a "case by case" basis, but ordinarily I wouldn't just say that the intent was racist. But, I think that Rev. Sharpton has his own criteria to deem what is racist or not. That should be respected, even though one might think his tolerance level for denigration of Black people should be low. Not really. I could say that in other talks that I've had with white persons about race, that if any person of color says anything about white people it is automatically deemed racist as well. In fact, I've been accused of "insinuating" that the white people involved are racist simply because I mentioned several instances in Jim Crow history. I think that people ought to drop the insinuations and just be honest about racial issues. So, I think that what you've said is quite a little extreme in terms of deeming who's racist and who isn't. I think that there ought to be some shades of grey in there too, right? What does everyone else think? ----------------------------------------------------------- rlupin, I will get back to your question. I still have to think about it before I answer.
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 18, 2007 18:51:30 GMT -5
After thinking about your comments for a while, there are things that I'd like to say now: I've not had that following, I've heard on several shows, one was on Sharpton's own show when Imus appeared. Call-ins of people who felt it was an overreaction. I think that one has to think here of who has been making the calls of "overreaction". Furthermore, for the people who were affected by Imus' comments, I would surely doubt that it was a mere overreaction--especially when the same words have been uttered to not only disparage gender, but also race. Mr. Imus, of course, will always have a market for his brand of talk. Despite what happened, I think that his audience will support him no matter what he says. However, he might have turned off a portion of his audience with his comments due to the fact that he might not consider their feelings whenever he uttered remarks about race and gender, which he commonly does. And this portion of the audience might have tired of his repeated apologies, because he hasn't learned from the past and might have the potential to do the same in the future. If it is Rev. Sharpton, you have to figure that he has to deal with his particular audience as well. I'm sure, that there are a lot of people out there who were just as outraged over these set of comments. And, of course, this might reflect badly upon him as well. I don't know if it is so much about hypocrisy. But, I tend to think that with both situations, there needs to be a line of thought of respect for different groups of people. The problem with a lot of talk show hosts is the fact that they don't go out of their way to respect anyone. In some circles, that might seem like a blow against Political Correctness. I don't know. But, I tend to think that if they are transmitting their attitudes to a large audience of disrespect for certain groups of people, then it might communicate that it is all right for other people to do the same without any consequences.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeka on May 26, 2007 11:13:38 GMT -5
SeventhSeal, you should have seen what happened when I made a white privilege thread on ATS. People who previously had my respect in other threads showed me their true colors (pun intended) with their reactions. And this was me putting articles OTHERS had written about WP up.
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 26, 2007 16:12:37 GMT -5
The sad thing about that thread is that they truly vented their spleen instead of actually analyzing what WP consisted of. What was especially fascinating about threads like that one is the fact that you can totally see how people truly react when discussing racial issues. And some people cannot be calm about it. They act irrationally and frustrated without even touching the subject at all. (Although there will be a future thread about this notion of "race-related phrases", it needs to be brought up again--especially when dealing with the Don Imus/Al Sharpton situation. [Yes, Truthseeka, I will]) But unfortunately, in some discussions there, people would just say phrases such as, "If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to Africa!". Or if they were feeling particularly nasty, they would not deal with the subject at all and instead reply, "Why don't you just take responsibility and get a job instead of whining about race!" These are both examples of phrases that have been aimed at the Black people there unprovoked. Maybe this might make it a little bit clearer why non-white people (esp. Black people) have been very upset with Don Imus' comments. It's not just about First Amendment rights here. It's about the attitudes that are transmitted by others against a group of people that serve no just cause. And unfortunately, people must not leave their consciences at the door when they deal with issues of culture, gender, and race. That goes for all of us.
|
|