What people are implying when they gang up on Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is that they have some kind of significant power or authority over all black (or minority, even) communities. Because, really, if you believed that Al Sharpton was just some kooky black minister who only held sway over his flock, why would it matter what he said anymore than any other religious-type-with-a-mission?
And that's the irritating part. Attacks against Al Sharpton are really a way of, by extension, calling every black person (or person of color) who ever agreed with him about anything (or even thought the man made a relevant point on an issue) militant, bigoted, and crazy. It's writing everyone off without looking at the issue at hand, or what's a reasonable position to have on the matter. It's "Oh, you're one of those Al Sharpton supporter-type black people?" I've personally watching black people jump backwards to explain to white people what a fucking joke they thought Al Sharpton was; it's like, seriously, you're really going to go that hard about Al Sharpton just to give someone some lame sense of comfort?
It's incredible offensive to me as a person of color that anyone assumes that my community shares a single opinion on a significant number of 'racial' (or even general social) issues, and it's doubly offensive that I've really got to damn-near smite down Al Sharpton (who I could care less about, honestly) to prove some point about how progressive I am or whatever. Truth is- I think the man's a media-whore like most social-leader types. I've also seen him be right on some stuff.
I'm trying to figure out: who exactly made Al Sharpton the spokesperson of the black community? #racism
@TheMac: Oh good grief. It's the editors and producers, who say "book Al" or "see if we can get a comment from Al" They're too intellectually lazy to seek out others. #racism
@TheMac: Thank you very much. If Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson speak for ALL black people, then is it safe to say that Rush Limbaugh speaks for all WHITE people? I don't think Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are a 'joke' and I sure as hell don't say it just so white folks will think I'm one of the 'good ones'. Both men have become the default talking head for the black community but I'm guessing that CNN calls them not the other way around. The fact is if Rev Sharpton or Rev. Sharpton didn't exist then Rupert Murdoch (and a lot of others) would have to come up with a satisfactory substitute. Here's an idea; try considering black people as individuals. #racism
A few years ago, I did an extensive piece on the issue of hate crimes for the Los Angeles Times Magazine. As part of my research, I did a search in the L.A. criminal courts records, and to my astonishment, found that most hate-crime accusations and convictions were against minorities (blacks against latinos, and vice versa, and far more rarely, either of them against whites). It makes a certain amount of sense, because an undereducated, undisciplined youth from a deprived background is much more likely to utter an offensive ethnic slur during a confrontation than a middle-class person (of any race). Such a slur is considered prima facie evidence of a hate crime.
It has also been argued that the motive (hate, in this case) for a crime is commonly factored into the punishment. True, as far as it goes. However, in a traditional criminal proceeding, motive can be shown as evidence to show likelihood of guilt, but not as a basis of guilt in and of itself. Motive can also be a factor in the severity of a sentence given by a judge who, even within sentencing guidelines, can give stiffer sentences for heinous crimes.
Other quick points:
The hate-crimes add-on charge puts a great burden on the defendant, especially one with a public defender, because the prosecutor can use it as an arm-twister to gain a plea bargain. In other words, the prosecutor can say, "If you plead guilty to assault and battery [for example], we'll dismiss the hate-crimes charge." That puts unfair pressure on a lower-income defendant who can’t afford a protracted defense and is tempted to cut his or her losses by pleading guilty to a crime he might be innocent of.
Another aspect of the argument is that the frighteningly high “hate crimes statistics” that are regularly given out by various law enforcement agencies, especially the FBI, are misleading. Their figures represent reported or alleged hate crimes, not convictions. And needless to say, there are far, far more accusations than convictions, and it is the latter that is the meaningful statistic.
The thing you're ignoring here is that she DATED this guy before he supposedly abused her. It's a little difficult to label something a "hate crime" when the guy clearly has no problem with having an interracial relationship. Being a serial abuser in no way implies racism.
So yes, you can still blame Al Sharpton for pushing this as a hate crime when it clearly wasn't.
These are clearly not good people, but to call it a hate crime simply because he's white and she's black is ridiculous. What, is *any* violence between people in an interracial relationship a hate crime now? It seems to me that *that's* more racist than the crime itself.
The whole argument, though, *should* point out why hate crime laws are stupid to those who don't see it. Why should any of us be sitting here debating whether or not these people are racists? Isn't kidnapping, violence and rape against a defenseless woman enough? (Assuming they had actually done it...) Why should skin color even enter into it? #racism
@badasscat: It might not be a bad idea to Google this incident and find out just HOW Rev. Sharpton and many others came to view this as a hate? Perhaps then it would be easier to avoid jumping to the same conclusions that this post clearly label as uniformed and frankly riddiculous (my opinion). Unless you really believe that Sharpton has so much pull in WEST VIRGINIA. #racism
@badasscat: You also do understand? that it is possible to be raped, beaten and kidnapped by someone you're dating, right? And that just because you're fucking someone doesn't mean they can't call you 'nigger'. Racial tolerance isn't sexually transmitted. #racism
Um HamNo? Hate crimes laws are not stupid, in that they are intended to dissuade bigots from acting on their bigotry. Further, they enable the Federal government to assist in local investigations into crimes against minorities, which is the only assistance that minorities who live in some rural areas are likely to get.
Also, women named Frankie are always bad news. #racism
@BettyCrocker: I don't think they dissuade anybody from anything. I just think if you assault somebody, you should be prosecuted regardless of who you assaulted, or whether your motivation was racial hate or just some OTHER sort of hate. You still assaulted somebody.
Also hate crime statutes tend to end up being twisted and taken to absurd extremes. Many examples. #racism
@BettyCrocker: I agree with you regarding the intent, but I also agree with Hamilton regarding the reality (I don't think they dissuade anybody either.)
What I'd like to see is attacks on larger gatherings of people (like opening fire in a gay bar) prosecuted as terrorism. #racism
@Hamilton Nolan: I know Jack Price, the 49-year-old gay guy who got the shit beaten out of him in College Point Queens two weeks ago. It was a hate crime -- they broke his jaw, ribs, injured his spleen, etc. BECAUSE HE WAS GAY.
If properly prosecuted, I think it will send a message to the animals out there who think they can attack people purely based on membership in a group they don't like.
I know that a lot of people don't get this. Let them think about it from a comfy little jail cell.
As someone who was raised in West Virginia, I take issue with the following statement: "[Al Sharpton is] also on the right side of most issues. Particularly racial issues. Unlike Drudge, or the New York Post, or most of West Virginia." I've encountered more racist folks on the south side of Boston, than I ever encountered in my home state. In addition, the reason why Al Sharpton is so "cartoonish" to most people is because anytime there is a contoversy involving black and white people, he's Johnny-on-the-spot before most of the facts are known. The man has never seen a TV camera he doesn't love. Also, when this whole thing went down, the word "back home" was that there was a lot more to the story than was making it to the national news- drug dealing, prior convictions, etc. For someone so seemingly passionate about the situation, I find it hard to believe that Al Sharpton wouldn't ask for all the facts. He exploited the red herring race issue for more of what he loves most- time in the public eye. How can you possibly deny that this is a recurring theme for him? #racism
@TheBusinessGuy: That's my point. I'm sure his was privvy to many more details than the general public, and yet, he STILL chose to portray the incident as a hate crime because it was a way for him to get on the news. #racism
@pooks: The same can be said about any so-called social or public activist/advocate, not to mention politician. And why would you assume he had access to case details? #racism
@pooks:
Friendly advice: Are you trying to convince the Gawkers of this world that their frank bigotry about places like West Virginia is bigotry, or that viciousness is a matter of the heart and mind rather than the Zip code? Good luck with that, my friend. #racism
While I agree that the Post is doing the "backfires" bit and the good reverend couldn't have known in this case - if Al Sharpton believes in a cause, why can't it be that he gives emotional, financial, legal, whatever support without it turning into a loudly trumpeted race issue?
Can't it just be "let's pay attention to this abused woman and get the perps" - be the woman black or white or Hispanic or chartreuse? It is that aspect of him that bothers me more than the cartoon. #racism
The problem with Al Sharpton is that the central reason for his involvement in this stuff - unfair courtrooms that institutionalized racism - are dismissed as bygone relics by most observers. While untrue, the perception is that we're a post-race, empirical society and Al Sharpton is racializing perfectly objective legal processes. This is what he's good for.
Problem? His solution to this is to move the trial to the media. That's ineffective and irresponsible. Like we saw in the Duke Lacrosse case, media trials can be disastrous. As bad as our courts can be - and they can be very, very bad - the court of opinion is less just. #racism
@Unsolicited Advice: He was all over that Duke case as I recall - went to Durham, said some pretty inflammatory things, and never apologized. That whole episode was a sad, sorry time. #racism
The former state prosecutor also has called her recant "absurd", not to mention that these people all pled guilty. So yes, let's do skip the Blame Al Sharpton bit as it's quite premature. #racism
Since TB (Tawana, ye of feces fame) has been mentioned ad nauseum here, I'll just say that Al Sharpton's Hair-astache gives me great joy. Always has. Always will. I forever imagine it shaking furiously and comically whenever he flusters and blusters about. I blame longtime friend James Brown. Check it out around 2:40. Gotta love Soul Train. #racism
The reporting in the Times article was confusing. Fine, she recanted the statement about being forced to eat feces and whatnot, but no one (not even the ex-boyfriend and his mother) seemed to dispute the fact that she was abused while being held against her will.
"In a letter in March 2008, that person, Alisha Burton, wrote that Ms. Williams had been held captive but only after a romantic relationship with Mr. Brewster took a turn for the worse...Ms. Burton confirmed that Mr. Brewster had beaten Ms. Williams, but rejected the notion that the abuse was a hate crime, since Ms. Williams and Mr. Brewster had dated for months."
So is the problem with calling what happened a hate crime? But that's not really a problem, right, since they weren't convicted of hate crimes. They were convicted of attacking her while holding her captive, which the physical evidence and various statements corroborated. Obviously the girl is unstable, but are we supposed to now believe that absolutely nothing happened? #racism
@ronniedobbs: There's no doubt she was held against her will, beaten, and maybe raped (either forcibly or statutorily). There were no trials; the prosecutor relied only on physical evidence and the defendants' own confessions and statements to position the defendants for plea bargains. To that extent, Ms. Williams' recantation has little to do with the fact that some seriously fucked up folks are in jail for a very long time.
One other thing. She's not "unstable," she's mildly retarded. #racism
Physical evidence and their own statements convicted these miscreants as sadistic raping abusers. They may or may not be RACIST sadistic raping abusers depending on who last spoke to(or paid) the mentally challenged victim who's testimony was not presented at trial. I can't wait to watch Drudge, Limbaugh, Beck etc. to defend these sadistic raping abusers. #racism
Good thing for Al there are NO similarities between this case and his involvement in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. Otherwise, he'd look like a complete idiot. Oh, wait. #racism
@scroll_lock: Hey, look at that! You can string together two incidents separated by twenty years and use them to indict a guy who's done more good THIS WEEK than you've done your whole life. Good for you! #racism
Except in this case the accuser is retarded and there was an endless amount of physical evidence and numerous confessions and the victim's own testimony was never used used at trial.
@Botswana Meat Commission FC: Oh, I agree with you on the "highly dubious part" for the reasons you stated. Clearly, there's a lot more to the story still to be examined. #racism
10/22/09
And that's the irritating part. Attacks against Al Sharpton are really a way of, by extension, calling every black person (or person of color) who ever agreed with him about anything (or even thought the man made a relevant point on an issue) militant, bigoted, and crazy. It's writing everyone off without looking at the issue at hand, or what's a reasonable position to have on the matter. It's "Oh, you're one of those Al Sharpton supporter-type black people?" I've personally watching black people jump backwards to explain to white people what a fucking joke they thought Al Sharpton was; it's like, seriously, you're really going to go that hard about Al Sharpton just to give someone some lame sense of comfort?
It's incredible offensive to me as a person of color that anyone assumes that my community shares a single opinion on a significant number of 'racial' (or even general social) issues, and it's doubly offensive that I've really got to damn-near smite down Al Sharpton (who I could care less about, honestly) to prove some point about how progressive I am or whatever. Truth is- I think the man's a media-whore like most social-leader types. I've also seen him be right on some stuff.
I'm trying to figure out: who exactly made Al Sharpton the spokesperson of the black community? #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
A few years ago, I did an extensive piece on the issue of hate crimes for the Los Angeles Times Magazine. As part of my research, I did a search in the L.A. criminal courts records, and to my astonishment, found that most hate-crime accusations and convictions were against minorities (blacks against latinos, and vice versa, and far more rarely, either of them against whites). It makes a certain amount of sense, because an undereducated, undisciplined youth from a deprived background is much more likely to utter an offensive ethnic slur during a confrontation than a middle-class person (of any race). Such a slur is considered prima facie evidence of a hate crime.
It has also been argued that the motive (hate, in this case) for a crime is commonly factored into the punishment. True, as far as it goes. However, in a traditional criminal proceeding, motive can be shown as evidence to show likelihood of guilt, but not as a basis of guilt in and of itself. Motive can also be a factor in the severity of a sentence given by a judge who, even within sentencing guidelines, can give stiffer sentences for heinous crimes.
Other quick points:
The hate-crimes add-on charge puts a great burden on the defendant, especially one with a public defender, because the prosecutor can use it as an arm-twister to gain a plea bargain. In other words, the prosecutor can say, "If you plead guilty to assault and battery [for example], we'll dismiss the hate-crimes charge." That puts unfair pressure on a lower-income defendant who can’t afford a protracted defense and is tempted to cut his or her losses by pleading guilty to a crime he might be innocent of.
Another aspect of the argument is that the frighteningly high “hate crimes statistics” that are regularly given out by various law enforcement agencies, especially the FBI, are misleading. Their figures represent reported or alleged hate crimes, not convictions. And needless to say, there are far, far more accusations than convictions, and it is the latter that is the meaningful statistic.
Fred Dickey
10/22/09
So yes, you can still blame Al Sharpton for pushing this as a hate crime when it clearly wasn't.
These are clearly not good people, but to call it a hate crime simply because he's white and she's black is ridiculous. What, is *any* violence between people in an interracial relationship a hate crime now? It seems to me that *that's* more racist than the crime itself.
The whole argument, though, *should* point out why hate crime laws are stupid to those who don't see it. Why should any of us be sitting here debating whether or not these people are racists? Isn't kidnapping, violence and rape against a defenseless woman enough? (Assuming they had actually done it...) Why should skin color even enter into it? #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Also, women named Frankie are always bad news. #racism
10/22/09
Also hate crime statutes tend to end up being twisted and taken to absurd extremes. Many examples. #racism
10/22/09
What I'd like to see is attacks on larger gatherings of people (like opening fire in a gay bar) prosecuted as terrorism. #racism
10/22/09
The one thing all hate crimes have in common is that they are all already crimes before you make them hate crimes. #racism
10/22/09
If properly prosecuted, I think it will send a message to the animals out there who think they can attack people purely based on membership in a group they don't like.
I know that a lot of people don't get this. Let them think about it from a comfy little jail cell.
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Friendly advice: Are you trying to convince the Gawkers of this world that their frank bigotry about places like West Virginia is bigotry, or that viciousness is a matter of the heart and mind rather than the Zip code? Good luck with that, my friend. #racism
10/22/09
Can't it just be "let's pay attention to this abused woman and get the perps" - be the woman black or white or Hispanic or chartreuse? It is that aspect of him that bothers me more than the cartoon. #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
Problem? His solution to this is to move the trial to the media. That's ineffective and irresponsible. Like we saw in the Duke Lacrosse case, media trials can be disastrous. As bad as our courts can be - and they can be very, very bad - the court of opinion is less just. #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
"In a letter in March 2008, that person, Alisha Burton, wrote that Ms. Williams had been held captive but only after a romantic relationship with Mr. Brewster took a turn for the worse...Ms. Burton confirmed that Mr. Brewster had beaten Ms. Williams, but rejected the notion that the abuse was a hate crime, since Ms. Williams and Mr. Brewster had dated for months."
So is the problem with calling what happened a hate crime? But that's not really a problem, right, since they weren't convicted of hate crimes. They were convicted of attacking her while holding her captive, which the physical evidence and various statements corroborated. Obviously the girl is unstable, but are we supposed to now believe that absolutely nothing happened? #racism
10/22/09
One other thing. She's not "unstable," she's mildly retarded. #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Except in this case the accuser is retarded and there was an endless amount of physical evidence and numerous confessions and the victim's own testimony was never used used at trial.
Her "recanting" is highly dubious. #racism
10/22/09
Duke Lacrosse? #racism
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
Personally, I couldn't believe he survived the Tawana Brawley case. #racism