Saturday, April 26, 2008
Black-on-black political crime
Glenn Reynolds, re Al Sharpton's plan to shut down New York City:
As with Jeremiah Wright, it's almost as if Sharpton is trying to hurt Obama.
I do not pretend to know the conscious motives of Al Sharpton, and neither does Glenn. This much is clear, though: The elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency would vastly diminish the influence of leaders who have built up their power by stoking, rather than alleviating, the grievances of African-Americans. The era of the "civil rights" leader would be over, perhaps sooner by decades than if Barack Obama loses. Even if Al Sharpton believes that would be a good thing -- and that is surely looking on the bright side of Sharpton -- it has to be unnerving for him. It is not a great stretch to suppose that Sharpton is rationalizing his way to public eruptions that frustrate Barack Obama's need to win votes from the vast American center.
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Apr 26, 10:22:00 PM:
"Vote For Obama, Turn America Into Detroit!"
By 
aberman, at
Sat Apr 26, 10:50:00 PM:
With all due respect, Tigerhawk, you argument is not supported by history. Specifically, take a look at what happened in New York City under David Dinkins, who also ran as a 'unifier.'
To quote Richard Brookheiser:
"Worst of all has been his record on race. White liberals who voted for Dinkins as a "healer" discovered that he understood healing to mean never looking cross-eyed at rabble-rousers of color. New York was spared a Rodney King riot, for which Dinkins can take some credit. In its place, the city had a boycott of Korean fruit stands, a riot of Hispanic drug dealers, and the one fatal mob attack on a Jew in the Western world since the Forties."
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Apr 26, 11:08:00 PM:
Sharpton knows how to energize his constituency, and may believe he is doing Obama a service. This outlines in sharp relief exactly what is wrong with identity politics. Each constituency needs to keep itself in perpetual resentment to have any power at all.
White liberals would predict that you are right, TH, and I hope you are. But Andrew's scenario seems very plausible.
By Kathy, at
Sat Apr 26, 11:24:00 PM:
I don't think that Al Sharpton is trying to harm Obama, either consciously or unconsciously. I think he is outraged that the police officers who killed an innocent man on his wedding day are getting away with it.
I don't think Sharpton's statement about shutting the city down as a result of the verdict in the Sean Bell case indicates that Sharpton is anti-police or anti-white, either. I think it simply means he is anti-murder, and does not believe that killing an innocent person in cold blood is acceptable -- even if the killer is a police officer and even if the killer is white. Wearing a police uniform does not give you a license to kill innocent people at will, you know.
And to tell you the truth, I don't really understand what Obama has to do with this at all. Is he involved in some way with this case? How can something Al Sharpton says hurt Obama? They're two separate people, and as far as I know he (Obama) has not commented on the case, or on Sharpton.
By Elijah, at
Sat Apr 26, 11:55:00 PM:
unjustified killing as the criteria for shutting down cities... interesting perspective
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 12:27:00 AM:
As it was my comment that seems to have elicited Kathy's response, let me ask what about "Kill the Police!" is not anti-Police? Sharpton may not have said it (and I did not allege that he did), but his call to action inspired it.
The anti-white rhetoric will follow, despite the fact that two of the accused cops are black. Sharpton does not exist without anti-white rhetoric.
The merits of the case are irrelevant. It certainly appears to be a case of gross police incompetence at least, but a judge ruled that no crime occurred. The law being enforced is stupid, but it remains on the books. What matters now is not what happened to Sean Bell, but how the rest of the country will perceive an Al Sharpton led mob marching through the streets.
I did not suggest that the case itself has anything to do with Obama whatsoever, but that is not how it will be seen. It will also hurt Hillary because she has kissed Sharpton's ass in the past. People will see a man with a history of inciting violence (Crown Heights, Freddie's Fashion Mart) inciting violence yet again. If people are shouting "Kill the Police!" after he speaks, what good can come of his words? People associate Sharpton with the Democratic candidate because the Democrats have embraced him. The more he makes a fool of himself, the more damage he does to the Democrats.
That was the point of my email to Professor Reynolds. Not to accuse, not to claim anything about Obama or Hillary or McCain, but to analyze how the buffoon Sharpton might affect the election.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 12:45:00 AM:
Kathy --
Obama is campaigning as the Black Candidate(tm) who gets Block Black Voting (92%) and has over and over again made it clear that he will not repudiate his church, pastor, or anyone else who is black who behaves badly. Howard Dean left his church over a bike path. Obama won't leave over Rev. God Damn America annointing Louis Farrakhan.
What this reminds everyone is what Obama would do: release Black criminals from jail through federal orders, and refuse to prosecute Black criminals. He's soft on Black Crime, that's been his whole legislative career, and anti-police too.
For anyone owning a home, this is the "depreciating home ownership candidacy." Since crime = low real estate values.
As for the Bell case, it's the inevitable result of vice squads working aggressively and suspects (Bell and Company) acting stupidly. Trying to run over police officers will get you shot. Yes Bell was Black, as were two of the police officers. Black identity politics demands police simply look the other way.
If Bell had been white, there would not have even been a trial.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 02:00:00 AM:
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 04:31:00 AM:
Dinkins was a pathetic mayor.
The closest I came to Sharpton's brand of politics was living a few miles from Teaneck (NJ) when a black kid was threatening people with a modified starter pistol. He wound up getting fatally shot by a young cop named Spath. Sharpton mobilized his "peoples", who came over from NYC to burn up a bunch of cop cars, vandalize the town and rob stores.
Let's face it ... his kind fire up the angry criminal element. He doesn't inspire good things. For Sharpton to remain on the money train, he needs really pissed off blacks.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Apr 27, 06:50:00 AM:
I'm going to stick up for Kathy here, at least up to a point. She wrote this bit, and it is a very good point that ought to be true:
And to tell you the truth, I don't really understand what Obama has to do with this at all. Is he involved in some way with this case? How can something Al Sharpton says hurt Obama? They're two separate people, and as far as I know he (Obama) has not commented on the case, or on Sharpton.
On the one hand, it is true that we are only talking about Obama and Sharpton in the same breath because they are both black. That is, as Kathy suggests, manifestly unfair to Obama on its face.
On the other hand, for almost 40 years the leftier elements of the Democatic party have made political hay by promoting grievance among African-Americans. Obama has gotten where he has by riding that tiger, not in the same way or with the same culpability as Sharpton, but he has not shied away from it either.
And, of course, he is asking the American voter to make a great leap and vote for a black for president. You can say that should not be a great leap, but it is. It will require a lot of people to make a decision that they themselves would have found surprising 30 years before. Obama needs every one of those people to make the decision easily, without concern that they are putting a racialist in the White House. Sharpton knows that. He is easily smart enough to know that these demonstrations will not help Obama, even if they are peaceful. That's a fact, even if a sad fact. Sharpton also knows that there will be plenty of racial outrages to campaign about after November. That's also a fact. So he has obviously decided that raising a ruckus about this case now is worth doing, regardless of its impact on white fears or Obama's prospect at the polls. Also a fact.
Draw your own conclusions.
By JPMcT, at
Sun Apr 27, 08:43:00 AM:
The real fun will come when Sharpton "does his thing" and some member of the press who has not consumed the kool-aid has the balls to ask He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Middle-Named how he would handle Sharpton. I suspect the answer will be similar to how he handled Wright, Ayers and Rizko.
As long as there is racism, there will be Sharptons...and as long as there are Sharptons, there will be racism. There were no white middle class riots afte the OJ verdict.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 11:07:00 AM:
Sounds like AL SHARPTON is trying to blackmail NEW YORK CITY and blackmails a crime and frankly he is no revrend and he should get life in prison for blackmail
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 12:53:00 PM:
I don't know that Sharpton's engaging in blackmail; he just seems a bit hazy on the subject of the independent judiciary.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 04:39:00 PM:
are there any black democratic politicians that are admirable, that are working to improve the lives of their constituencies? because all the ones i know about are out and out scoundrels. take that a step farther -- are there any democrat run cities that are not complete nightmares? now ask me again to give obama the benefit of the doubt on how his administration would turn out n this regard.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 07:05:00 PM:
I do not agree that an Obama presidency would alter the "civil rights leader" (read: race hustler) dynamic one bit.
The reason why this is so, is already evident today -- every criticism of Obama and every opposition to him will be exploited as "racist" by Sharpton and his ilk, and will work to sustain their power base and its Leftist ideological underpinnings. Barring the above mentioned scenario, this will work no matter how an Obama presidency plays out.
If Obama is elected, there are two likely results: either the opposition is able to sto him from implementing much of the Sharptonist agenda over his term -- or Obama himself turns out to be significantly more moderate than the Sharpton wing, refusing to do some of its bidding -- or a combination of these.
The extent to which Obama is contained, would be the extent to which the Sharptons say that whitey is fighting to retain power and keep the black man down etc.
If Obama himself were to wander too far off the plantation, distancing himself from them and moving towards a more moderate position -- they will simply use their ultimate weapon: they will call him an "Oreo". An "oreo" is black on the outside, white on the inside. This simply relocates Obama into whitey's camp and again, Sharpton's power base remains solidly at heel. That discussion of some months ago among Leftist intellectuals-- "Is Obama black enough?" -- was prep for that option.
Of all the Leftist conceptual instruments for the purpose of sustaining the racism that gives Sharpton his power, "Oreo" is the absolute bottom in moral depravity. It is the one such weapon specifically aimed at blacks themselves -- in particular young blacks who may be harboring dreams and aspirations of success. It works by painting those blacks who walk off the plantation and succeed as individuals, as sellouts (or "race traitors", Harry Belafonte be damned). "Oreo" is meant to shut the one door out of poverty that every black in America is free to access at any time -- the self-assertion of moral individualism.
The only exception to the above -- the only one that might knock Sharpton and his sort out of prominence for a while -- is the extremely unlikely scenario that Obama simply does their bidding and enacts their entire agenda without any oppositional impediments. Such would becalm those waters for a while, but at an unbelievably high price of stoking the fires of racism across the board, the consequences of which would explode some years down the road.
By Kathy, at
Sun Apr 27, 09:19:00 PM:
On the one hand, it is true that we are only talking about Obama and Sharpton in the same breath because they are both black. That is, as Kathy suggests, manifestly unfair to Obama on its face.
Exactly. Thank you for getting my point, even if you don't completely agree with it.
On the other hand, for almost 40 years the leftier elements of the Democatic party have made political hay by promoting grievance among African-Americans.
That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that African Americans *have* grievances -- legitimate ones -- and don't need Democrats or anyone else to "promote" their grievances. Your statement above makes it sound like there actually are no legitimate grievances, and the only reason black people believe they *have* legitimate grievances is because "leftie" democrats are getting them all stirred up and making them think they have grievances.
This is exactly what Southern whites used to say during the civil rights movement. They used to say things like, "We never had any problems with our n*****s down here until the Northern agitators came down and put ideas into their heads."
I'm not trying to say that's what you intend to say, but when you suggest that African Americans' grievances are manufactured by Democratic leaders (presumably mostly white)outside of the black community, that is what it sounds like.
Obama needs every one of those people to make the decision easily, without concern that they are putting a racialist in the White House.
Obama has never said that he thinks it should be easy for white voters to vote for him, and I don't actually think he believes that. If, after listening to his vision for the country, what he believes, what he says is important to get done for the country, etc., etc., voters, white OR black, don't want to vote for him, then they shouldn't. I think it's unfair to ask Obama to somehow make himself more attractive to white voters if that entails saying or doing things or taking positions he does not believe. No white candidate has ever been asked to turn himself into a pretzel trying to reassure black voters that he is not anti-black. Why should Obama be asked to walk on eggshells trying to prove he's not anti-white?
I support Obama's candidacy because I *like* what I understand his agenda and values to be. If others don't, they should vote for someone else. That's the way our system works.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Apr 28, 10:40:00 AM:
Sharpton is in it for Sharpton, no more, no less.
If Al thought he could score political points by supporting McCain, he would. The truth is that there are a lot of people, myself included, who think it is wrong for the police to fire fifty shots into an unarmed man and get away with it. Al is capitalizing on this group angst and funneling it into an activity that will promote Al.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:04:00 AM:
My parents were too young to understand the Civil Rights movement. I now have children of my own.
So please, tell me what legitimate grievances (that you linked to old Southern segregationist speech) still exist, through three generations? I'd like to know, because I'm apparently ignorant of the matter. And I'm a Southerner.
Latent racism? Sure, that's an issue, but it's an issue for *everyone*. I can't count the number of times that I've been referred to as 'fuckin' white boy,' 'cracker', or 'whitey' by blacks. AS A CHILD. By black CHILDREN. Where do you think they learned that?
Answer: They were taught that. At home.
But they're the victims of racism.
How about the young black Army and Marine recruits who show up to boot and refuse to take orders from white Drill Sergeants? I've seen that. But I've never seen a white recruit refuse orders from a black Drill.
But the black recruits are the victims of racism.
What about the Koreans who were targeted by the Rodney King riots. You think that maybe they have grievances against the black community? Legitimate ones, even?
But the black rioters were the victims of racism.
Where are the Koreans' Al Sharptons? Where are the politicians lined up to air a 'national dialogue' about their issues?
Nowhere to be found. But I find their *actual* persecution and suffering at the hands of black rioters to be infinitely more important and persuasive than vague claims of institutional racism and under-the-table persecution that is constantly harped upon by black 'civil rights' leaders.
This situation reminds me of nothing so much as the 'Arab street.' Perpetual claims of persecution and harassment which supposedly justify periodic outbreaks of violence as 'frustration.' Murdered Jews and maimed French police officers are just manifestations of anti-Arab injustice.
