November 16, 2007
Hate Crime March in Freedom Plaza This Morning
Civil rights leaders like Rev. Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King III and others are gathering with supporters on Freedom Plaza at 10 a.m. this morning to march to the Justice Department in a "March Against Hate Crimes."
NBC4 says that organizers hope the march will bring attention to racism and recent hate crimes against African Americans that have been popping up around the country. The march was also designed to bring attention to the Jena 6, the group of black high school students who were charged with attempted murder after a fight with a white student.
If you plan to head down to join them, a series of speakers are scheduled to take the microphone at Freedom Plaza beginning at 10 a.m., with the march planned to the Justice Department beginning at noon.
Photo by Cary Scott Photography
|
The DCist headline makes it sound a bit like this is a march in support of hate crimes.
But I do have to wonder..... why is there no mention of hate crimes against gays or women in the National Action Network website?
Or, of course, hate crimes against white people.
I'm not dismissing hate crimes against blacks. There certainly is hate toward blacks on a daily basis in the US. But isn't a bit, well, selective to focus only on those and not even mention these others?
In fact, while walking by this morning, I heard a speaker actually say that this is just about hate crimes towards african americans. Not any other hate crimes. way to go, homophobes.
No, hate crimes can only happen to black people. According to Sharpton.
Someone really needs to take that guy out, he's more separatist and racist than any of the "causes" he takes up.
Hey Sharpton, don't you still oh a certain Duke lacrosse team an apology? Hey, remember Tawana Brawley?
Race bating asshole.
*owe, not oh.
As much as I'd like to despise Sharpton for his manipulative ways, a part of me likes the guy. He's always entertaining, and his speech cadences are eerily soothing.
Yes, I know that half of what he is saying is BS and he's taken a legit issue (racial hatred toward blacks) and made the problem actually worse instead of better. But, still, he's just so darn entertaining.
Have I missed news of any African Americans being the victims of violent hate crimes in Washington, DC in the recent past? I've read about gay men being targeted in Logan Circle and Asian delivery guys being killed in SE, but have not read anything about non-black groups targeting African Americans.
Outside the American people of the Jewish persuasion....how many of you out there have ever been victimized on a regular basis? Towns burned down...Lynchings... Land stolen.. Mass killings..
Jobs denied.. Cabs refusing to pick you up. etc etc.
Hate crimes have happened before and they will happen again but not like they've happened to the Black population. Every time we turn around there's
something to remind us..slavery...Jim Crow..Apartheid. This is a reminder folks.
As a black person, I'm sorry to admit that Sharpton & Jesse Jackson's involvement is one of the reasons I'm not going to be part of this march. Like smelly hippies on the environment and world trade, once Sharpton & Jackson's involvement turns whatever issue they've touched to shit. He seems to think that once he gets involved, a problem will be taken seriously. The sad truth is that once he gets involved, everyone assumes black people are just whining about nothing.
I've found myself giving up on any issue they speak out on at this point. Race baiting assholes, indeed.
Also, I think it's a little misleading to simply call this an anti-hate crime March- it's just an extension and expansion of the Jena 6 protests (which I support...sans Sharpton & Jackson).
Deep:
Well, let's see.
American citiznes that are gay are regularly beaten, verbally taunted, and treated generally like crap. They are denied housing, health care, jobs, and even personal safety (all perfectly legal in many states in the US). They have to choose where they live based on how likely it is some loser will treat them like crap or even beat them senseless. Vast parts of the country are off limits to them.
Plus, of course, the legal discrimination. We're not allowed to marry. When we die blood relatives often get our belongings even though we stipulate otherwise. Often we see lifelong partners denied even the right to possession of the body of their dead partner.
In many parts of the world we are killed just for being gay. No ifs, ands, or butts (come now.... we can't have a post about gays and not reference butt sex once, since that's apparently what so may gay-haters are hung up about).
So, yes, a reminder. Hate isn't just toward blacks.
And you know the irony? By and large one of the groups fighting hardest to keep discrimination against gays legal is blacks. Of course not all, but the anti-gay BS from many in the black community is fairly stunning.
Deep,
Ever heard of Matthew Shepard?
P.S. "Jewish Persuasion".
Actually, Deep, there were many attempts to ethnically cleanse California and other Western states of the Chinese in the 1800s and around the turn of the century. People were murdered, settlements burned down, anti-Chinese laws passed, property stolen, women were kidnapped & forced into prostitution...you might be surprised how much it sounds like our post-Reconstruction story.
Nevermind what gays, Sikhs, Muslims, and anyone who looks to be of middle eastern descent has to go through. And how about the treatment of Latinos these days- everyone's an "illegal alien" until proven otherwise. One COULD argue that these forms of prejudice are worse than what we go through because they're so much more socially acceptable nowadays than racism towards blacks.
I really don't think it's worth getting into an argument about who has it worse. These things shouldn't be happening at all. As bad as we've had it, we can't afford to be so self-centered. We all need to band together to fight hate crime. It comes from all directions and goes in all directions.
Why is it necessarily wrong for this to focus on a specific population in response to specific attacks on that population?
Maybe it's just a matter of their misguided use of the term "hate crimes," which is not population-specific.
Still, though, wasn't a gay-specific response necessary in the wake of Matthew Shepard's murder?
More to the point, Hillman:
If there were some kind of advocacy addressing hate crimes against gays, would you say "Why is there no mention of hate crimes against blacks? Hate isn't just toward gays."
Thanks! Just wanted to know who my company was.
I didn't know what was PC when saying Jewish People
so I said persuasion. I am aware of the trials and tribulations of others. Jessie and Sharpton do not speak for me either. Now we know, we hate each other. And a hate crime is a crime.
And let's not forget that unless you are Native American you're probably parking your butt on stolen or swindled land to begin with.
GBert:
You raise some valid points.
And of course each specific group has their best interests as their number one goal. That's understandable.
But last time I checked very few gay people are advocating that blacks be denied basic legal rights.
Unfortunately, the reverse isn't always true.
On a broader level, I've actually always been a bit queasy about the whole idea of hate crimes, as it's a big step toward punishing people for thoughts, not actions.
Where I do think the hate crime legislation is good is that it forces localities to treat the crime as a real crime (in many places crimes against blacks, gays, women, etc. are simply ignored or at best barely investigated). So using the power of the Feds to force local cops to do their job is a good thing.
But some hate crimes are more equal than others.
For instance, suppose a gay black gang member gets into a fight with a transgender muslim cab driver because the latter refused to pick up the former at H20. Now suppose the Native American doorman-with-a-handicap tries to break up the fight, but they overturn her Radio Flyer buttwagon and proceed to beat eachother unconscious. Who is MOST guilty of a hatecrime?
That's right: Marion Barry.
[If you were paying attention, a variation on the above scenario occurred on an episode of Star Trek between the two guys from the Planet Cheron, one of whom was The Joker.]
Um, don't Jews just refer to themselves as Jews, pure and simple? Of course, it's a bit tricky as there is there is the racial/ethnic identity and the religion. But, really, both are often targets of bigotry.
But last time I checked very few gay people are advocating that blacks be denied basic legal rights.
Unfortunately, the reverse isn't always true.
Well, this is where civil rights and identity issues get dicey, isn't it. My first reaction is to say "And?" I don't think any group should be criticized for defending itself against prejudice simply because some members of that group have prejudices of their own.
Certainly, you can call it hypocrisy if leaders of that community fight against civil rights for others while demanding them for their own.
But leaders are also constrained by the politics within the communities they lead. And if the choice here is to speak out against these crimes against blacks, or lose your core supporter base by broadening your argument to include other populations, I'd have to choose the former. And given that different populations have very different histories of oppression, I think a population-specific reaction is valid.
That said, it's not without a cringe that I refer to Sharpton as a "leader." He's more of a caricature/straw man that conservatives/racists use to discredit racial grievances than a leader with widespread support among African Americans.
And I do agree about hate crime laws treading the fine line of thought crime...
Shoot, meant to include "Unfortunately the reverse isn't always true" within the quote of Hillman.
Is there a Gay spokesperson?
Is there a Jewish spokesperson?
Is there a White spokesperson?
That speaks for the whole of us?
Why are Jackson and Sharpton spokepersons for
Blacks. I'd much prefer Bill Cosby.
"And you know the irony? By and large one of the groups fighting hardest to keep discrimination against gays legal is blacks."
"way to go, homophobes."
People seem really comfortable throwing that baseless assumption around. I guess we can also assume that the reverse is true, and there is no racism in the gay community. Right...
Deep, shouldn't you instead be asking why it is acceptable to assume that Jackson or Sharpton are spokespersons for blacks, while we would rightfully think such an assumption is absurd for other groups?
Yep! What Dixie said.
South Carolina, May 16th 2007, 20 year old Sean William Kennedy was minding his own business while leaving a local bar in Greenville. A random car pulled up, and 18 year old Stephen Moller got out of the car and approached Sean. Stephen then called Sean a "Fagot" and punched Sean so hard in the face that it broke his face bones. The unexpected blow to his face caused Sean to fall back against the payment resulting in his brain separating from the brain stem and ricochet in his head. Stephen then went back into his car and left Sean dying on the payment. Later he left a text message on one of Sean's friend's phone saying, "“You tell your fagot friend that when he wakes up he owes me $500 for my broken hand”.
Sean died hours later but he was an organ donor and saved 5 other people's lives. Since there are no hate crime laws in the state of South Carolina, killer Stephen Moller will only get 1-5 years for manslaughter and won't be tried for murder.
http://www.seankennedy.com
http://groups.myspace.com/seankennedy
Dixie:
Of course some gays are racist. But I have yet to hear a single gay person say they think blacks ought to be denied marriage rights or any other basic civil rights.
And the comments that some (not all) blacks are leading the fight against even basic human rights for gays is not baseless. It's based in fact and decades of dealing with this BS both locally and nationally.
My bad, http://www.seanslastwish.com is Sean's mother website.
Dixie:
You mean Ian MacKellan isn't a spokesperson for all of us 'mos?
No? How about Elton John? There's nothing gayer than Elton John in spandex shorts..... unless, maybe, some actual hot masculine man on man action, regretless and damn mind-blowing.
And of course we all forget that lesbians are 'mos, too...
I used to prefer Alexander The Great as a gay rights spokesman (sometimes a dead spokesperson is best), but then I saw that horrible movie with Colin Farrell.....
And I'm definitely on the ABR bandwagon.... Anybody But Rosie....
Hillman - Yukio Mishima FTW!
"Since there are no hate crime laws in the state of South Carolina, killer Stephen Moller will only get 1-5 years for manslaughter and won't be tried for murder."
Wait, I'm confused. How would the presence of hate crime laws enable the prosecutors to bring murder charges? Is that how they work? If you commit a crime motivated by prejudice you get prosecuted for a different more severe charges that wouldn't be able to be brought absent the prejudice? I thought the point of hate crime laws was to enact harsher penalties for the same charges, not to make it easier to bring unsupported more severe charges.
But if I'm wrong, then hate crime laws are even more screwed up than I thought they were.
Wondering the same thing, Reid.
We need new judges and laws. Life shouldn't be this unfair for anyone.
Hillman: Again, I think you're wrong on the blacks are homophobic stereotype. There has been a lot of research on this, mainly in response to the mythology of the "down low brother", and the evidence actually points to the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. While a larger percentage of blacks may (evidence is limited) disapprove of homosexuality than whites, blacks are "moderately more supportive of gay civil liberties and markedly more opposed to antigay employment discrimination than are whites."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0432,coates,55837,6.html
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/1/59?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=homophobia&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
As for the Alexander movie, it was so terrible that I didn't even make it through the childhood scenes. I wouldn't want to advocate violence on a hate crimes thread, but if Colin Ferrell ever attempts such a thing again, he should be dragged into the street and beaten.
This is like reading the notes an undergraduate film student scribbled in the margins of his copy of the screenplay for "Crash."
Dixie:
I always thought the 'down low' thing was mostly myth and BS. Mostly a media creation.
But you leave out a vital qualifier in that bold statement about blacks still hating gays but being a smidge more willing to give them some basic legal protections than whites.
The actual quote is:
"Once religious and educational differences are controlled blacks remain more disapproving of homosexuality but are moderately more supportive of gay civil liberties and markedly more opposed to antigay employment discrimination than are whites. "
So we have to control for educational and religious differences? Now why would that be?
All I know for sure is that I routinely hear blacks in DC say fairly stunningly hateful things about gays, everything from how they wouldn't hire one to they don't think they should have marriage rights or other civil rights. I hear it very frequently. And I almost never hear even more decent blacks take them to task for it.
The fact that they feel it's perfectly acceptable to say these things out in the open tells me a lot about how their social circles accept hatred of gays.
True, this is anectdotal. But by the same token I've NEVER heard a gay person say they don't think blacks should have basic equal civil rights.
Saying that selected black people (after having apparently been specially selected to weed out presumeably more hateful blacks based on religious or educational backgrounds) are less hateful when it comes to being ok with civil rights protections than the rest of the bigots in the country ain't much solace.
This, even after you 'control for religious and educational differences'.
Especially when you consider that a lot more blacks live in urban environments, where social attitudes are far more liberal and they have a lot more exposure to gay people. Even after all that exposure many are still hateful.
As for a larger percentage of blacks 'disapproving' of homosexuality, all I have to say is: Fuck anyone that has that attitude. You can't demand that I treat you without rancor and as an equal and then you get to 'disapprove' of my very existence. That's pretty much the ultimate in hypocrisy and bullshit.
That's pretty much the ultimate in hypocrisy and bullshit.
Welcome to DC! We put the "po" in "hipocrisy." And you thought that smell was the Blue Plains Treatment Facility.
Didn't they turn Blue Plains into 'luxury' condos? What with being waterfront and all. Wasn't the marketing campaign "Smells Like Success From Here"......
Hillman:
Maybe you didn't read my sentence. I said, "While a larger percentage of blacks may (evidence is limited) disapprove of homosexuality than whites, blacks are "moderately more supportive of gay civil liberties and markedly more opposed to antigay employment discrimination than are whites." The qualifier is clearly there.
As for the part about the controlling for religious and educational differences, that doesn't imply that the sample group itself was limited or controlled (quite to the contrary the study involved 40k blacks and whites from 1973), but rather to statistical analysis of the results. Because blacks are more likely to identify as religious and attend church than whites, it makes sense to hypothesize that higher rates of homophobia in the black community stem from a more conservative religious outlook. When you are analyzing large data, you use controls to try to tease out the meaning behind your results. It's routine, not some special trick they pulled to try to make the black people look less homophobic.
You can try to twist the words as much as you want but the study clearly states, "Yet evidence that blacks are more homophobic than whites is quite limited." More specifically, what you said was blacks are leading the cause to deny basic rights to homosexuals, when the evidence is actually saying that they are MORE likely than whites to support laws prohibiting anti gay discrimination. You can do what you usually do, which is to give us anecdotal "evidence" (we are all familiar with the seemingly trifling black people in your neighborhood and your thinly veiled contempt for them), but your claims here are baseless, and you know it.
The lack of hate crime laws in South Carolina wouldn't allow the killer to be tried for murder, but it would ensure that he got a much, much lengthier sentence for the crime.
Ah, now, Dixie, I was hoping for better from you.
Please don't accuse me of racism. It's just so tiresome.
I'll be the first to admit I haven't read that study. Only the abstract, as I'm too cheap to pay for the whole thing.
As for my claims being baseless, you cite one study. One. And even that has some serious disclaimers in it.
So I'll cite a study.
Here's the link
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_42/ai_n15929173/pg_1
Money quote, page 1..
"Attitudes and affective reactions to lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals are generally negative throughout the United States. Herek and Glunt (1993), for example, found from a national telephone survey that roughly half the respondents indicated that homosexuality was "perverse" and that gay and lesbian individuals were "disgusting." Various authors have noted that anti-gay attitudes and sentiments may be even more pronounced among African Americans. For example, Fullilove and Fullilove (1999) have commented that "homophobia is very common in the African American community" (p. 1,123). That sentiment was echoed by Kennamer, Honnold, Bradford, and Hendricks (2000), who reported that homophobia appears to be "a major part of the African American culture, driven by both religious forces and political forces" (p. 522)."
And your entire argument is a bit irrelevant. My original point was that very few gays are pushing for second class citizenship for blacks (even though I'm sure there are at least a few out there doing that). While a great many blacks are pushing for exactly that for gays.
Perhaps I should have said that of course there are white bigots out there hating on blacks too. I just assumed that would be obvious.
But, then, white bigots aren't leading 'hate crimes' marches, are they?
Since both blacks and gays have been pissed on by the rest of society for generations, you'd think blacks would be a bit more sympathetic, to the point that finding a black person that would 'disapprove' of homosexuality or would not fully support the gay civil right struggle should be extremely difficult, not the everyday occurance many of us see.
Not just at a slightly lesser rate than whites. You'd think there would be practically none.
And, actually I said certain blacks were 'one of the groups fighting hardest'. I didn't say they were the only ones. Just 'one of'.
As for 'evidence' - one of the most vocal groups fighting against gay marriage has been black churches. So much so that Republicans saw enough of a trend here to target their hatin'-on-gays rhetoric to a black church audience, in a rather cynical attempt to get some of the black vote. True, that isn't codified in some study. But that doesn't make it any less true.
Even here in DC the difference is striking. Do you not recall the black church here on the Hill that posted the "Adam and Eve - Not Adam and Steve" message on their billboard out front? Or how about those that actively fought Be Bar's liquor license.
Funny how I don't recall gays doing the same sort of crap.
Correction.
My sentence
"Perhaps I should have said that of course there are white bigots out there hating on blacks too. I just assumed that would be obvious."
above should have read
"Perhaps I should have said that of course there are white bigots out there hating on gays too. I just assumed that would be obvious."
It also worth pointing out that here in DC proper we may be getting the 'uncontrolled for' sampling of blacks that are overly churched and under educated. Hence the more common BS we see aimed at gays daily here.