IMUS IMUS IMUS.........................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

I've read the articles you linked earlier. One article actually sought and quoted Rush Limbaugh -- RUSH LIMBAUGH -- so that one was automatically dismissed, and the other one from Ridley was basically a shameless one-sided hit piece on Jackson by one of his detractors. Though they, and other articles I've read, confirm that Jackson did initially get involved with the Duke case, the key word is initially.

---

Being unaware of their involvement in the Duke rape case, you requested links establishing that Jackson and Sharpton had, indeed, involved themselves on behalf of the accuser. Chef and I merely provided some of the top google links available.

What you seem to be avoiding is that both men rushed to support a woman whom most experts already believed was being untruthful well into the period that Jackson and Sharpton were supporting her. That they chose to do so, despite her serious criminal history, despite her having previously made a very similar claim against three other men that she had to drop due to lack of evidence, and despite the fact that she was clearly lying early on is to their eternal discredit. Jackson, for his part, when asked whether he/Rainbow Push would still pay her tuition if she was lying, specifically stated that he would. What integrity the man must have to reward that sort of conduct, thereby encouraging it in other women. Bottom line: Jackson rushing to support this woman – based solely on the color of her skin – regardless of whether she was telling the truth or not makes him no better than any white racist he might oppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

Many out there who don't know Jackson -- AND MANY HERE DON'T FROM WHAT I'VE READ.

---

With all due respect, I know enough about him to know the specifics of his involvement in the Duke rape case, something you didn’t. I also know the specifics surrounding Jackson’s “Hymietown” comment, and they don’t come close to matching your benign portrayal. For your edification, the true specifics are as follows:

Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson's rocky relations with American Jews.

A storm of protest erupted, and Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. The Nation of Islam's radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and old Jackson ally, made a difficult situation worse by threatening Coleman in a radio broadcast and issuing a public warning to Jews, made in Jackson's presence: "If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm."

Finally, Jackson doused the fires in late February with an emotional speech admitting guilt and seeking atonement before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue. Yet Jackson refused to denounce Farrakhan, and lingering, deeply rooted suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews. The frenzy also heightened tensions between Jackson and the mostly white establishment press.

These aren’t the only anti-Semitic comments made by Jackson over the years. Furthermore, the history of Jackson's own racism goes far beyond anit-Semitism – admitting that, when he was a waiter, he used to spit in the food of white patrons and that it “gave him a psychological gratification,” etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

The thing that disturbs me about all this is that some of you are quick to slam Jackson and Sharpton by utilizing their past to discredit or disparage them don't or can't see this issue or position THROUGH A MINORITY PERSPECTIVE. You're most likely white and completely miss the forest for the trees. You can't relate in other words. You see Jackson or Sharpton on TV and your first thought has to be, Oh, what's that black idiot clown stirring up now..?

---

LMAO… I don’t know about the “black idiot” portion of your statement, but the “clown” part certainly applies, at least in relation to Sharpton. This part of your post actually addresses, indirectly, one of my main issues with Sharpton and, to a lesser degree, Jackson. Why? If a man is going to be a truly effective “civil rights leader,” he needs to have credibility outside of his own community. Copious hypocrisy on the part of an aspirant leader never results in that needed credibility. Sharpton, for his part, has next to no credibility outside the African American community. Those few outside the African American community who do take him seriously are limited to a very small portion of the white Liberal Left and, recently, since Viequez, parts of the Latino community. To the overwhelming majority of American’s he will always be the man behind Tawana Brawley, the guy on the FBI tape arranging for Kilos of cocaine to be dealt within the same community he is supposed to be protecting, and the guy with his own history or racist comments (white interlopers, diamond merchants, etc.). Jackson, for his part, used to be credible outside the African American community, but has lost a lot of that credibility over the last five years or so for reasons most people are already familiar with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

Despite whatever baggage one might attribute to them, and THEY DO have baggage, only public figures such as Jackson and Sharpton can bring light to such issues because of who they are, and it is stupid to cite and focus on things such as Hymietown or Tawana Brawley and not focus on the good they have done. Both of the aforementioned gaffes are what, some 20 years old? Is championing for economic fairness as Jackson has wrong? Healthcare? And the reason the "double standard" line falls flat with a huge thud in most cases, is that it is premised on an equal standing among two parties, and right now in this country we just aren't there yet.

---

While the “Hymietown” and “Tawana Brawley” incidents are distant issues, many of the other issues surrounding both the character and conduct of the not-so-dynamic duo are far more recent. Furthermore, I am surprised that you would talk of a “double standard” when you yourself are applying one. Think about it. You are asking us to look past the flaws of these two men based upon the good that they have done. Imus, by contrst – who I do not like either by the way – merits no such consideration in your posts. Why the double standard? By conservative estimates, Imus has personally raised over $40 million dollars for the charities he champions. That’s far more than Jackson and Sharpton have ever done combined. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that Imus has never aided and abeded an individual making false accusation to destroy innocent people. Neither Jackson nor Shaprton can say that, let alone apologize for actually doing it. What integrity........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

By the way, I think what Sharpton put people through in the Tawana Brawley case warrants an apology from him. I think Jackson would have done it. Sharpton claimed yesterday that because he felt the woman was convincing and telling the truth, that his actions were in accordance to that, and therefore no apology is needed.

---

Study the specifics of the Tawana Brawley case and you’ll quickly discover what most New York City residents already know: there’s no way Shaprton couldn’t have known she was lying. The evidence was obvious and overwhelming. Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with your position that Jackson would have apologized. Why? He still hasn’t apologized to the Duke Lacrosse players for his comments or actions in that matter, and that whole thing bares a striking similarity to the Tawana Brawley incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

All that being said, once again, I'd like to know what every Jackson and Sharpton detractor and cynic in this thread would do in cases such as the Rutger's case?

---

Due to the immense hypocrisy of their positions, neither Jackson nor Shaprton should have been involved. Contrary to the unsupported assertions of some in this thread, there would have been plenty of credible African American critics who would have acted on this without Jackson or Shaprton.

Look, Real, you’re a cool poster and I definitely respect your opinion, but, on this matter at least, I don’t think we’ll be able to find common ground. I’m off to battle my insomnia. Have a good night.

-Quinn

I'll respond to your post tomorrow, as I also have to hit the sack in a few minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

The only problem I have with that take of yours, Otto, is that the former act as journalists, where those from Hollywood are just highly visible private citizens. Many out there look at a Hannity or O'Reilly as actual journalists, but they'll dismiss the Hollywood type because they aren't.

---

I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter. If we are talking strictly about shaping opinions and public knowledge base, it makes no difference what podium the speaker is talking from here in America,(i won't speak for other countries). Unfortunately, how a message is received by viewers or listeners is not often dwelled upon, that that message comes from a Nobel laureate, or a self proclaimed Reverend, or a tabloid journalist. The public finds different outlets to get their own particular take on an isssue...

Take Rosie Odonell. She has a forum, a rather large venue that reaches millions of women each day...and she speaks her often rather ignorant opinions in areas of science she has herself admitted to as uneducated in. Yet she has an impressive opinion. Do these viewers who sit there, nod their heads, and rally to her side, really understand the depth of her intelligence, or limited years of education in the topics she rants about?? No. But it shapes their views (curiously why its called the View). Most cases surrounding politics, the listener/viewer has a predetermined point of view (correct or not), and is looking for validation in many ways, plus information is now disseminated through the entertainment side of television to certain demographics purely. (IE. Daily show, MTV news)etc..

I could cite, a plurality of those who oppose Coulter, Oreilly and the likes of Rush, on the left have substantially more weight, outreach, and a perceived status to espouse their pet theories, scientific "facts", to the general populus who digest it just to feel good about their own beliefs. Al Gore is a prime example. I think you get my point. YOu can pick apart the right side for being egregious, and mock Oreilly...i'm with you...but to be intellectually honest, you cannot ignore the left's iconoclastic political movers and shakers. Different points of view from different podiums..all having the same relative effects on their target audiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ_Asia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabuki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freak

The 60's are over, it is now 2007 no need to keep opening up those wounds.

---

The wounds never healed though :cry:

---

You seem like a cool person and this in no way is a personal attack but have you ever stopped and asked yourself why the wounds have never healed?Asked yourself why the cops pull you over due to the color of your skin.Why Imus makes inflamatory comments?Perhaps if black america looked inward to see the problem instead of blaming "The Man" for everything,healing might have a chance to take hold.

How long do we have to be reminded that the reasons for the double standards are because of slavery?How many years and generations has to pass before slavery is no longer a crutch to justify double standards and reverse racism?

Have you ever studied the country of Liberia,why it was created and why it has the problems it still has today?The US government assisted in establishing that country as an independant nation for former slaves to return to Africa if they so chose.America was wrong on the slavery issue and admitted as much and offered Liberia as a way to fix the problem.Yet today Liberia is only just beginning to get its act together.Why?Do we blame "the man" here as well?

Pretty much every race and religion has been persecuted through the times at some point and yet most of these people have stood up brushed themselves off and made life better for themselves,yet when black america continues to live life according to their own rules and clearly through actions and words have declared themselves different and entitled to behaviour that is privy to just them,America has to accept it due to slavery.Chapelle says "nigga" its funny..Imus says "nappy headed" he loses his job.why? Because of slavery and how hard life is for a black person in America is what i keep hearing. You can make excuses all day long,but its a double standard which reinforces the differences between black and white america.

Dont you think that if black leaders spent as much time and effort and money ridding the black community of gangsters,gangster rappers who glorify an outlaw lifestyle,putting real money into education and jobs for the black community instead of blaming Imus and his kind for all the problems that beset the community then perhaps the healing process might proceed?

From a person who's grandfather was a black man.

---

I think there is less man blaming in the black community than you may realize. I don't think too many black middle class and upper class families are making those complaints. I can understand all the sides of the black community struggle. I'm educated, and my Mother has a Masters degree, and she's working on her PhD. But I still have family members in the ghetto. I'm in both worlds. I see many families working hard in the ghetto, and I see the people who sell drugs on the street.

I actually do know about Liberia, since I plan to take a trip to the region. America reluctantly supported the country. The American Colonization Society established Liberia

"The American Colonization Society was established in 1816 by Robert Finley as an attempt to satisfy two groups in America. Ironically, these groups were on opposite ends of the spectrum involving slavery in the early 1800's. One group consisted of philanthropists, clergy and abolitionist who wanted to free African slaves and their descendants and provide them with the opportunity to return to Africa. The other group was the slave owners who feared free people of color and wanted to expel them from America.

Both the these groups felt that free blacks would be unable to assimilate into the white society of this country. John Randolph, one famous slave owner called free blacks "promoters of mischief." At this time, about 2 million Negroes live in America of which 200,000 were free persons of color. Henry Clay, a southern congressman and sympathizer of the plight of free blacks, believed that because of "unconquerable prejudice resulting from their color, they never could amalgamate with the free whites of this country."

Liberia has had issues due to a lot of outside sources among other issues though. First, because early citizens didn't integrate with Africa. They called themselves Americans. The native Africans and the "Americans" didn't trust each other. Understandable. These "Americans" considered themselves as more civilized over the natives...hmmm...interesting. Britain and France annexed a lot of Liberian territory, and economic issues destabilized Liberia. So, there are many reasons why the country struggled like it did. Basically, like everything else...it's complex.

As for South Carolina cops....the south never truly changed in the first place. The south was pushed into change since the civil war, and you can still feel the hate in parts of the south.

I will say that black people act differently since we were ALWAYS treated differently. Change can't just happen in the black community. You need the country as a whole to change. Corporate america controls the music industry. White america supports the current music just as any part of black america. That's a fact. It's a mess, but you just can't blame every black person for the issues in our community.

In a few posts back, I posted how Sharpton and Jackson have attacked the music companies as well. As for the argument about black leaders, I was just debating the topic after viewing this link:

http://www.blackprof.com/archives/20...k_leaders.html

I would like to have better leaders in the spotlight. Obama seems genuine, and I'm curious to see if he will take that role. I do know that we have to incorporate men of all races in a new civil rights movement. The states are from being black and white these days.

It is complex and you are correct change needs to happen on both sides of the fence.

I would venture to guess that if black america supported leaders that have actually earned respect transcending the color barrier such as Obama or Colin Powell.as opposed to the current usual suspects that pop up whenever they feel the time is right,then perhaps white america might actually pause to listen as opposed to automatically dismissing Jesse or Al's words as yet another example of playing the race card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ_Asia

It is complex and you are correct change needs to happen on both sides of the fence.

I would venture to guess that if black america supported leaders that have actually earned respect transcending the color barrier such as Obama or Colin Powell.as opposed to the current usual suspects that pop up whenever they feel the time is right,then perhaps white america might actually pause to listen as opposed to automatically dismissing Jesse or Al's words as yet another example of playing the race card.

---

Obama or Colin Powell really haven't done anything to gain support from black america because their political positions do nothing but advance themselves and breaking the color nowadays isn't quite as powerful as it used to be (jackie robinson)i doubt any African americans would consider sharpton and jackson as any kind of leader,now if you wanted to talk about earned respect and leadership material look at deceased dr. martin luther king he earned much respect from both white and black people because he believed everyone should get along and be looked at as equals to progress as a nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ_Asia

It is complex and you are correct change needs to happen on both sides of the fence.

I would venture to guess that if black america supported leaders that have actually earned respect transcending the color barrier such as Obama or Colin Powell.as opposed to the current usual suspects that pop up whenever they feel the time is right,then perhaps white america might actually pause to listen as opposed to automatically dismissing Jesse or Al's words as yet another example of playing the race card.

---

Obama or Colin Powell really haven't done anything to gain support from black america because their political positions do nothing but advance themselves and breaking the color nowadays isn't quite as powerful as it used to be (jackie robinson)i doubt any African americans would consider sharpton and jackson as any kind of leader,now if you wanted to talk about earned respect and leadership material look at deceased dr. martin luther king he earned much respect from both white and black people because he believed everyone should get along and be looked at as equals to progress as a nation.

---

True on MLK but sadly he isnt around.
If what you imply about Powell or Obama is correct then thats too bad as both men have proven that regardless of skin color they have suceeded in their fields of expertise and anyone who denies their credentials as intelligent leader candidates are biased.

White america would listen much closer to them then the Rev or Al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ_Asia

It is complex and you are correct change needs to happen on both sides of the fence.

I would venture to guess that if black america supported leaders that have actually earned respect transcending the color barrier such as Obama or Colin Powell.as opposed to the current usual suspects that pop up whenever they feel the time is right,then perhaps white america might actually pause to listen as opposed to automatically dismissing Jesse or Al's words as yet another example of playing the race card.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legend

I heard sirius radio is hiring,oh wait they are already occupied by a jackass howard stern!

---

um, you realize that sirius is a pay service, right? that means you don't have to listen...

why is it that only this type of speech being held to a high moral standard when it comes from the right? i would think that it much more relevant to this day and age that the rap artist (and i use that the term artist loosely) is not held to the same standard? the lyrics are homophobic, insulting and degrading to all women, lewd and excessively crude. I don't see anyone calling Snoop Dog or Ludicrious to task or the record companies canceling contracts. When we decide to draw a line it needs to be drawn clearly and apply to all people no matter political, racial or gender affiliation.