Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bolded portion of the statement is more compelling than the remainder of the statement. He is troubled by his reaction.
But only because it is instinctive and valid -- not because he is ashamed of himself for having expressed what might be misconstrued by others as bigotry.
This, to me, is the real tragedy of Mr. Jackson's remarks: that the issue which he addresses in given lip service, at best, or meets with uncomfortable silence, or is lost in debates like this one, with its focus on the nature of the observer's speech, rather than the problem at hand, which is real, pervasive, and which threatens society's future.
Like Mr. Jackson (and, I assume, Mr. Williams), I have never held that the preponderence of violent crime committed by African-Americans is anything but a national disgrace, and one which needs to be addressed by the nation as a whole. We cannot continue to waste the potential of so many of our young men.
In my view, this is the real issue at hand in the Jackson context, just as our concerns about personal security and the hijacking of the principles and images of Islam by extremists is the real issue in the Williams contretemps. We ignore these cogent facts at our peril if we continue to reject out of hand, as NPR has done, honest expressions of unease which run counter to egalitarian notions of political correctness.
In your opinion, is the person who made this statement a bigot?
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved...."
The speaker was Jesse Jackson. His remark is honest, and not bigoted. Neither was Juan Williams'.
NPR needs to apologize and rehire Mr. Williams.
First of all, we all know that Jesse is a racist so it would not surprise me whatever he says.
But that hearing footsteps thing... I don't think it has much to do with race. If the person following you were dressed in a suit and tie with a smile on his face, it wouldn't matter what color the are. You would feel fine.
But if the person following you were dressed in punk kid gangster clothes with a mean look on his face, you might feel threatened no matter what color the are.
To me it depends on the situation, and where I am. Dark alley at 3am, parking garage and I'm the only one there, unfamiliar dark park at night I'm crossing it alone. I don't suspect anyone as mugging me more or less because they're "black or white".
I don't care if someone looking like Albert Einstein was walking behind me and I thought he was devious, it doesn't make me any less relieved to see that it's Albert Einstein. "Albert what the hell are you doing in a dark alley at 3am?".
And Albert would probably say "Lucky, what the hell are you doing in a dark alley at 3am?"
In your opinion, is the person who made this statement a bigot?
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved...."
The speaker was Jesse Jackson. His remark is honest, and not bigoted. Neither was Juan Williams'.
NPR needs to apologize and rehire Mr. Williams.
When was this statement made??
Since, Jesse commented he's safer with a white guy behind him, it's not racist. Are you kidding me.? I'm suspicious of everyone. I jog in the morning. A white or black guy are jogging in my direction, I cross. I'm on elevators I grab my purse. It doesn't matter, which race of guy it is.
How about I'm nervous, when I board a plane and I sit by a priest. I believe, when I close my eyes he will grab my young nephew's penis.
If you feel that the instinct for self-preservation is prejudicial, or that the motivation for posting analogous remarks by Juan Williams and Jesse Jackson is indicative of mental illness or anger, you might consider Vivian Schiller's advice for Mr. Williams.
Well I always appreciate being the recipient of the standard internet insult. I'll bet that fifteen years ago no one had a clue that the Net would be the land of the anonymous insult. But I'm glad you didn't target my nose with your zinger. I'm sensitive about the size of my snoz. However your insult was misplaced. Apparently reading is not your strong suit (I have trouble with both math, and in my youth, the curveball). I don't say that as a retorting insult, for there is evidence to your lack of reading skills. (To be honest, I think you're probably just worked-up about the subject matter and in your frenzy, rushed through my post.)
First, I feel that the instinct for self-preservation can be prejudicial. Why can't it? And I said that I think the lack of an emotional reaction to an episode of self-preservation could be tantamount to mental illness. That's what I wrote.
I can only relate this to my own life, in response to the original question. This is what happened and you can judge for yourself what you would have done.
It was a couple of years ago now, that there was a young black male in the tri-county area where I lived that was robbing convenience stores. He had been caught on surviellence (sp?) cameras as wearing a parka style coat with black fuzzy trim on the hood.
I was on my way to work one evening, and had stopped off at a gas station/convenience store for something and as I was entering the store a young black guy wearing the same discribed jacket was
coming out. He was sweet enough to hold the door open for me and greeted me nicely. I couldn't resist asking, "Honey, have you been out of town recently?" (I had never met this kid before so this was a strange question to him)
He answered, "Yes. How did you know that?"
"Because it is all over the news that there is a young black man robbing stores all over this area wearing a coat just like yours. The only thing I can think to tell you is either go home and change coats, or go turn yourself in."
This kid was so impressed that I didn't automatically assume that he was the guilty party that he
actually teared up. He thanked me and quickly removed the offending jacket and then went back into the store to apologize to the clerk there if indeed he had scared her (which she had admitted that he had). I guess the point is that if you 'read' people as you meet them, you would be very surprised at
how few of them there are to actually be afraid of. That being said, always try to keep your receptors
open to dangers around you and you will be delighted to find that some of the people that 'scare' you initially will generally help defend you should the need arise.
well said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
But only because it is instinctive and valid -- not because he is ashamed of himself for having expressed what might be misconstrued by others as bigotry.
This, to me, is the real tragedy of Mr. Jackson's remarks: that the issue which he addresses in given lip service, at best, or meets with uncomfortable silence, or is lost in debates like this one, with its focus on the nature of the observer's speech, rather than the problem at hand, which is real, pervasive, and which threatens society's future.
Like Mr. Jackson (and, I assume, Mr. Williams), I have never held that the preponderence of violent crime committed by African-Americans is anything but a national disgrace, and one which needs to be addressed by the nation as a whole. We cannot continue to waste the potential of so many of our young men.
In my view, this is the real issue at hand in the Jackson context, just as our concerns about personal security and the hijacking of the principles and images of Islam by extremists is the real issue in the Williams contretemps. We ignore these cogent facts at our peril if we continue to reject out of hand, as NPR has done, honest expressions of unease which run counter to egalitarian notions of political correctness.
also well said
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 10-23-2010 at 03:19 PM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
"Let's say that 50% of robberies were committed by black males. That doesn't mean that 50% or even near that number of black males are robbers. There are such things as variables and repeat offenders."
If a greater percentage of the 'black' population commit crimes, lets take robbery as your example, and say 5% of black people are robbers, and 4% of white people are. If you were to take a random black person and a random white person, it would be more probable that the black person would be a robber.
The police tend to keep records of who they arrest, feel free to look up the statistics, and there are many causal arguments that can be made, but I'm afraid a given black person is more probable to be a given than a given white person.
Well I always appreciate being the recipient of the standard internet insult. I'll bet that fifteen years ago no one had a clue that the Net would be the land of the anonymous insult. But I'm glad you didn't target my nose with your zinger. I'm sensitive about the size of my snoz. However your insult was misplaced. Apparently reading is not your strong suit (I have trouble with both math, and in my youth, the curveball). I don't say that as a retorting insult, for there is evidence to your lack of reading skills. (To be honest, I think you're probably just worked-up about the subject matter and in your frenzy, rushed through my post.)
First, I feel that the instinct for self-preservation can be prejudicial. Why can't it? And I said that I think the lack of an emotional reaction to an episode of self-preservation could be tantamount to mental illness. That's what I wrote.
Sorry. No insult was intended -- just a gentle tweaking to remind us all of whose remarks were the truly offensive ones in this episode -- Ms. Schiller's.
You seem to want to up the ante, heat-wise, in this conversation ("lack of emotional reaction = mental illness"? Come on, now....); perhaps you are "worked up", as well?
Back on earth, I conclude that NPR is in the wrong in this affair. You apparently disagree. Let's let it go at that, shall we?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
