Wednesday, June 5, 2013
"If I'm not mistaken, white Republican northeast Jackson voted overwhelmingly for the blacker of the two candidates. So exactly how can this be about race?"
—Wyatt Emmerich, publisher of the Northside Sun, in a May 30 editorial titled "It's not race, it's the ideology we don't like."
Why it stinks: Wyatt Emmerich, whose (white) grandfather stood up for civil rights when he held an editor's pen, has proclaimed himself up as the arbiter of "all things black." Surely, he implies, the deeper the color of one's skin, the deeper the "blackness" of an African American. By his twisted logic, the choice between the light-skinned Chokwe Lumumba and the "blacker" Jonathan Lee can't possibly be racial, because if race was the issue, Lee's darker skin would make him the obvious choice for black voters (despite his "liability" of holding a master's degree).
"Conflict," Emmerich opines, is the raison d'etre of Mississippi's (and Lumumba's) "older order," whereas "reconciliation" defines Lee's "newer order." And "kush" (as in the Jackson-Kush plan) is actually a code word for marijuana, which prompted the Jackson pothead vote. Good grief.
Then again, it's not surprising coming from a guy who gave an award to a columnist who wrote that "Every black in this country ought to give thanks every day that their ancestors were brought to this country where they were ultimately given every opportunity that everyone else has."
Emmerich might want to check himself before he so arrogantly and ignorantly declares himself an expert on what makes a black person in Jackson vote the way he or she does. That face staring back in the mirror? It's not black.
Comments
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
Wyatt Emmerich just sent this email, which I'm posting verbtim with his permission:
I have no problem with you criticizing any recent column I write, but I really wish you would quit doing that "award" reference. That was about 15 years ago and I have explained what happen to you on several occasions. The Sun was trying to encourage local letters to editors and was paying a small cash award for anyone who submitted a local letter to the editor. It was in no way an endorsement of the contents of the letter.
Continuing to make reference to this, when I have written many columns exhorting racial reconciliation, seems a deliberate attempt to distort who I am and what I stand for. Even worse, you mention my grandfather's stance on civil rights--which I have supported my whole life as did my father--as though I have betrayed his legacy in some way.
I have attached, and pasted below, a column I wrote this spring about Mission Mississippi. I have written many similar columns exhorting racial progress. I ask you to be honest with yourself: Would a racist write a column such as this?
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
Here is my response, verbatim:
Hey Wyatt,
I will have to confess and say I didn't write it. One of the other editors wrote it after the staff was blown away by that quote they pulled out. It was http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/...">actually nine years ago in 2004.
I understand your explanation for that columnist, which we're happy to post under it online if you'd like and as a letter in the next paper. But I think you probably understand that if we as newspaper men and women do something like that, it follows us around, especially if you write a column about your racial reconciliation efforts (that opens with a quote like the one we pulled out).
I'm going to be honest with you: I have not seen a lot of your writings that call for racial togetherness over the years, but maybe I missed them; I don't read it every week even though, admittedly, it is also distributed for free in many places in Jackson. I do remember one clearly about a kid sleeping with his Confederate flag, though.
This looks like a nice column. Of course, a racist could write such a column, but I'm pretty confident no one called you a racist in our paper. The bit was about a specific column and the language you used in it.
Again, though, send me something and I'll post it. I'll post this whole email if you'd like.
Thanks,
Donna
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
And here is Wyatt's column about Mission Mississippi that he sent, verbatim:
Last week a thousand people gathered in the Jackson convention center to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Mission Mississippi, an organization founded by one of my dearest friends, Lee Paris.
The crowd - half white, half black - included hundreds of our state’s movers and shakers and just about every significant government official.
A dozen prayers were said during that hour and a half. Heads were bowed, hearts were open. We prayed for mercy. We prayed for grace. We prayed for racial reconciliation in Mississippi.
At one point Democratic gubernatorial candidate Johnny Dupree laid his hands on Republican Gov. Phil Bryant and prayed for his former political rival.
If one wants to see the power of faith in Mississippi, look at these two Christian gentlemen who ran an upbeat, honest, respectful campaign. That doesn’t come from man. That is the power of God.
The rest of the nation is not like this. Mississippi is special - the most religious and charitable state in the nation. We need to appreciate the grace we have been given.
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
MORE:
The keynote speech of Myrlie Evers-Williams was in perfect pitch. Wife of the slain Mississippi civil rights icon, Medgar Evers, she spoke of hatred, redemption and reconciliation from her personal experience.
"I stand here looking before all of you. My friends. I don’t think I’ve always been able to say that, because I haven’t always felt it. And I haven’t always felt it because it hasn’t always been true. But here we are today across all lines, breaking bread and praying together. And let me tell you it is a far cry from what I left in Jackson, Mississippi, many years ago.
"Medgar Evers always said, ‘Mississippi is my home. I love the place where I was born. And I will do whatever I have to do to make it the best place in the United States of America.’ He would say to me, ‘Mississippi is going to be the best place in the country.’
"I told him you have to be out of your mind. There’s no way Mississippi can become anything better than what it is and quite honestly I don’t want any part of it and I don’t know how you can do what you do. And he said, ‘Because it is the state of my birth and I believe in it.’ And he gave his life, not wanting to die, but he gave it gladly to help lift this state to where it is today.
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
MORE
"I never thought I’d move back to Mississippi - never. But I’m here and I’m happy to be here. Mississippi is moving forward and all of you are part of making the dream of this state - no longer at the bottom of the list, but at the top of the list, in leadership, in development, in being able to nurture our children, to build a real democracy and I see it.
"Sometimes things happen and we don’t understand but if we stay around and see we get a feel for things and say, ‘Aha! So that’s why it happened.’ When my husband was cut down in the prime of life, people would say to me ‘You are so wonderful. You are so nice. You are so kind. You are so forgiving.’ I simply smiled and said thank you. But they didn’t know that behind that facade was a woman plotting how to get back at the state which was responsible for her children not having a father.
"I remember they let the schools out and the children cheered not knowing fully what they were cheering about. There were editorials in the papers that cheered that this man had been taken off the face of the earth. In my heart was anger. There was fury and I suffered from that split personality.
"The Lord works in mysterious ways. My revenge was not to be. So you embrace something that pulls you together and lifts you up.
"One day my child said to me, ‘Mommy it sounds like you hate and Daddy said we should not hate.’ And I thought, ‘my child you are right.’
"We have so many people here and in other places around our state who are proud to say ‘I am a Mississippian.’ We are gathered here today in friendship. We are gathered here today under wonderful leadership. What more could we want? The opportunity to be whatever our manhood or womanhood will allow us to do or to be. This is the promise of America.
"I thank all of you for allowing me to come before you and say that Mississippi, you’re OK. Mississippi, you are only going to get better. Mississippi, you will be the place, not quite yet, where we can all lift up our heads and be proud to say, ‘I am a Mississippian.’ And I will challenge anyone, any place in this country who will say ‘the old Mississippi.’ And you will say, ‘Not with me there. It’s a new day.’ It’s a new time and we are proving it by our coming together and marching together toward the future. A place where all of us can look and point and say, ‘I am a Mississippian. Thank God I am a Mississippian.’ "
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
BTW, I'm still confused by the idea of a master's degree being a "liability." Where does that come from?
833maple 10 years, 11 months ago
He's playing the skin tone/color rhetoric that is so divisive in our community . He has no "skin" in the game and his reference to the blacker of the two candidates is insulting, juvenile and racist. Why did he choose that faulty reasoning to begin with. He could have taken the higher ground but he chose not too.
I think I see behind the "master's degree" comment too.
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
I agree 833, it was difficult to take anything seriously that followed that quote, which appeared near the top of the column. If it was a joke, if was offensive; if it was serious, it shows how little he understands race dynamics in the city where he has a newspaper.
RonniMott 10 years, 11 months ago
Wyatt Emmerich sent the JFP another response late last night. Donna Ladd told him that it was too long for the print edition, but that we would post it online. Here it is:
Dear Editor:
Regarding your printed allegation that I have proclaimed myself "arbiter of all things black:" I reread my column about which JFP is referring and I could not find any language remotely related to a "proclamation" of myself "arbiter of all things black." So first of all, your allegation is patently false from the get go. Also, you have doctored my photo using Photoshop to give me a different chin, but let's just leave that aside.
What exactly was racist about my column? I wrote that it is Lumumba's politics--not his race--that makes him unpopular among northeast Jackson whites. I also wrote that I understand how African Americans could vote for Lumumba because he spent years in the trenches fighting the good fight during Mississippi's sordid period of segregation. How is that racist? Does calling segregation sordid strike you as something a racist would say? Google the definition of "sordid" and you will find these synonyms: squalid - mean - vile - filthy - nasty - foul - base.
The northeast Jackson distaste for Chockwe [sic] is his leftist ideology. The same leftwing ideology that led to a hundred million deaths in China and Russia. His advocacy of violence combined with his leftist ideology makes my skin crawl and it is not race.
As a publisher, I don't mind being poked at by a competing publication. It goes with the territory. But what has really offended me is your allegation that I have betrayed the Emmerich family's 80-year history of fighting for civil rights for African Americans.
Ten years ago or so, I lost probably a million dollars in advertising when my paper, the Clarksdale Press Register, reported on the blackballing of a black doctor's application to the all-white country club. Not only did we report on this with numerous stories, but we also editorialized on the wrongness of this. After campaign, the newspaper never recovered, eventually requiring us to go from daily to twice weekly publication. Not once did I waver in doing what was right. I would think such efforts would earn me a measure of respect among my journalistic colleagues. This is a prime example of what my newspapers have done, but I can tell you day in and day out my newspapers promote racial diversity and fairness throughout Mississippi. Do you think that happens in a vacuum? Is that the work of a closet racist? Do you realize how many African Americans work in my company? Check out the "diversity" of the Greenwood Commonwealth or the Greenville Delta Democrat Times or the Yazoo Herald.
RonniMott 10 years, 11 months ago
MORE: Although many civil rights battles have been won, other battles remain. The battle for life itself in Africa. To that end, I helped developed an organization called Clean Water for Malawi. Please check out our website at http://cleanwaterformalawi.org/">http://cleanwaterformalawi.org/ . Emmerich Newspapers has contributed thousands of dollars to make it successful. My newspapers around the state have run hundreds of free full page ads promoting this organization. We have dozens of Africans on the payroll in Malawi going out to impoverished villages drilling water wells so the children and elderly won't die of dysentery and cholera. You (Donna Ladd) say you frequently pick up the Sun. Have you not seen the hundreds of pro bono ads in the Sun promoting Clean Water for Malawi? This fall I spent 90 hours on a plane and countless hours on dusty dangerous African roads travelling mapping locations for wells and monitoring our drilling crews and meeting with the villagers. We have saved hundreds--perhaps thousands of lives. And not a one of them is white. Does this not mean anything to you? You say you want me to join you in your cause to help Mississippi improve. Is that the way you extend a hand? By allowing your staff to distort my face, call me a racist and imply I have shamed my family's legacy?
How about the Jackson Free Press running some Clean Water for Malawi ads for free? Or at least maybe JFP could do a story on Clean Water for Malawi. I am available 24/7 to talk to one of your reporters. Or maybe even an editorial commending our efforts. Or perhaps I could interest you and Todd in funding a well for $3,500? One well saves a minimum of one hundred lives. That's $35 a life. If JFP got on board, you could probably save thousands of African lives. Or better yet, you and Todd could come with me on my next trip to Africa. You can see for yourselves what great work we are doing there and help spread the word.
For years I have financially supported Mission Mississippi and written glowing columns praising their efforts. Is this the work of a racist?
RonniMott 10 years, 11 months ago
MORE: Regarding your allegation that the Sun avoids diversity: We have never, ever turned down any news submitted by anyone at the Sun based on race. I would love for the Broadmoor neighborhood residents to submit community news to the Sun. They rarely do. We have also exhorted the public schools to submit school pictures like the private schools do. They don't. We run ads encouraging readers to bring us news. Even so, there are dozens of African Americans in the Sun every week. I dare you to find one incident when any newspaper in my organization for any reason tried to turn away news from any African American organization.
Regarding the "letter to the editor" published ten years ago in the Northside Sun. Yes, a reader wrote that African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it brought them to America. We print letters to the editor from a variety of political viewpoints--left, right and in between. I can't believe you have to rely on one line from a letter to the editor a decade ago--something I didn't even write--to label me a racist and basically call me a discredit to my family's civil rights history--of which I am rightfully proud. I have explained the details of that situation to the JFP which you published years ago. To bring that letter to the editor up nine years later seems like a desperate attempt to scratch up anything you can find to label me a racist.
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
I can't post much now, but two quick responses: The piece above didn't call Wyatt a "racist." And, second, the Malawi projects sounds great. We can't afford to fund a well at this point, but will talk about ways to get it some publicity. We're currently focused on a cause closer to home: the horrible problem of sex trafficking in MIssissippi and even Jackson. We invite Wyatt to sign on as a Chick Ball sponsor and publish stories about sex trafficking as well. Also, I seem to remember that the "prize" piece was by a regular columnist with his picture above it. I probably have a copy at work. Still, not sure it changes anything.
donnaladd 10 years, 11 months ago
Also, I'm of the journalism school that says we must go look for diversity in coverage, staffing, freelancers rather than wait for it to come to us. Of course, we do look for most of our news, so this wouldn't be any different. Media diversity should be deliberate. It's our responsibility as editors, media owners and journalists to work hard to cover our entire communities -- proactively.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
As the editor who wrote the piece that Mr. Emmerich so vehemently objects to, and after reading his responses, I'm sure Mr. Emmerich earnestly believes the points he made in his May 30 column and that he believes neither he nor his statements are racist.
He states that I'm "alleging" he betrayed his grandfather's legacy when I mentioned that his grandfather stood up for civil rights. He can infer it, but I didn't allege it.
In his May 30 column, Emmerich implies that whites judge the value of a black person by skin color. I quoted him in the piece, but I'll reprint it here: "If I'm not mistaken, white Republican northeast Jackson voted overwhelmingly for the blacker of the two candidates. So exactly how can this be about race?"
The statement is simply absurd and offensive. The implication is along the lines of "the darker the cherry, the sweeter the juice." He is equating white support for the darker-skinned African American—Jonathan Lee—as a vote for the ideological "blacker" candidate. It seems amazing to me that I need to point out to anyone in 2013 that there is no correlation between the color of a person's skin to solidarity with an ideology. And frankly, I'm not aware of a monolithic black ideology any more than a monolithic white one.
He also implied in his column that Jonathan Lee's education was a liability among Jackson's Democratic majority (and thus, black) voters. His full quote regarding Lee's education is: "Simply possessing a master's in business administration is a liability in a city as Democratic as Jackson. Nevertheless, Lee miraculously won 34 percent of the primary vote."
Yeah, those dumbass Jackson Dem-o-crats just don't know nothin' 'bout no book learnin'. Emmerich is playing to at least two ridiculous stereotypes with that statement. The first is that African Americans (who vote Democratic) are neither intelligent nor educated, and in fact, they distrust anyone who is. The second is that all Democrats are anti-business. Only someone who holds one or both of those biases would find it "miraculous" that black Democrats would vote for an educated person—especially for someone holding a business degree. Again, the statement is blatantly absurd and offensive on many levels.
And how does Chokwe Lumumba's law degree factor into that argument? It doesn't. It can't.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
MORE:
Emmerich went on: "Young Lee, with his unifying politics threatens the old political order that gives (Rep. Bennie) Thompson and Lumumba power. Lee had to be stopped and stop him they did.
"Mississippi Democratic order over the newer order. The older order is more about conflict. The new order is more about reconciliation."
Emmerich seems to sincerely believe that Lee's politics were "unifying," when what they mainly served to "unify" was Jackson's white voters against Harvey Johnson and then against Lumumba. Not that Lee didn't have black supporters. He did; he had lots of African Americans pulling for him. But the poll results—which clearly show that Lee's support was strongest among the city's whites—present an awfully narrow view of "unity" in a city that is roughly 80 percent black.
From our analysis of the runoff: "After dominating the northeast Jackson precincts in the primary, Lee did even better in the runoff. In fact, Lee captured close to 100 percent of the vote in some precincts. In Precinct 33, where only 2 percent of voters are black, for example, Lee won 91.5 percent of the votes cast on May 7 (his nearest challenger, Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., got 6 percent). In the runoff, Lee's lead in Precinct 33 jumped to 99.2 percent over Lumumba. Similarly, in Precinct 34, where 99 percent of voters are non-black, Lee won 90.1 percent May 7 and captured 97.6 percent of the vote over Lumumba in the runoff."
Lee also received a lot of money from donors who gave freely to Republican candidates in national elections, and from the old traditional (white) power-structure players in Jackson. From all those numbers, one could conclude that Emmerich's "new order" looks a lot like "white conservative order"—which is fine, such as it is, but we shouldn't kid ourselves to interpret them as a vote for "unity" or "reconciliation."
Emmerich evidently can't get beyond self-interest when it comes to race, much like writers of "white hero" literature like "The Help" or directors of movies like "Mississippi Burning." In those narratives, black people just never seem to have what it takes to save themselves, darn it--whether that be intelligence, willpower or courage--and it takes a well-intentioned white person to "save" them from their ignorance, fear and/or lack of discipline to lift them up. That narrative isn't confined to African Americans, of course; just ask a Lakota American Indian about "Dancing with Wolves."
Good for Emmerich for standing up for a black man being denied entry to a country club. It was the right thing to do. In his second response, he points to the wells the organization he co-founded dig in Africa as evidence that he's not a racist, and to the free ads he places in his papers for his organization. Well, that's wonderful; I'm sure he's bettered and saved lives in Malawi.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
MORE:
It's also a splendid example of the white hero riding in on his white horse from half a world away to save the poor black Africans. I'm not saying saving people is a bad thing, but we should recognize such efforts for what they are.
I've got to ask: What about your back yard, Wyatt? What about the poverty and malnutrition in Jackson and the Delta, where you also own newspapers? What about the food deserts and the cuts to Head Start and the fact that Mississippi has one of the highest high school dropout rates in the nation? What about the unemployment and the incarceration rates of young Americans of color being exponentially higher than that of young white Americans? What about the millions in corporate welfare Mississippi hands out while denying funding for adequate education and basic health care to its citizens? Where is your outrage about these issues?
Again, I am not saying that work in Malawi isn't important. None of these issues are easy, and Emmerich should do what he believes is right. It demonstrates that he has a heart. It just comes up a little short as proof of anything else.
The problem, from my point of view, is that Lumumba's message doesn't fit into Emmerich's "white hero" narrative, so rejecting him must be about his ideology—which Emmerich connects to "a hundred million deaths in China and Russia" without any supporting evidence. It can't be about race, he implies. Instead, his election, Emmerich wrote, is an "embarrassing setback." Embarrassing to whom? A setback to what?
Lumumba's message can't be about reconciliation, either, at least not reconciliation on white conservative terms. The word "reconcile" indicates restoration of some lost state of harmony that once existed. Consider that such an exalted state may not exist in the mind of the oppressed, who were never in harmony with their oppressors. Equality, not reconciliation, is much more to Lumumba's point. Anyone who doesn't understand that nuance might want to deeply explore the institutionally racist issues that disproportionately affect (in huge numbers) people of color in America--such as poverty, imprisonment, lack of opportunity and so many more.
And, while I suspect not one of Emmerich's privilege-blindered opinions is accurate, I am not so arrogant to assume that I know "the truth" about him or about how an entire race in Jackson thinks--not even my own. If I have some mistaken impressions, I'm open to clarification, though so far, nothing Emmerich has written has changed my mind. I can say unequivocally that the African Americans I've spoken to about Emmerich's May 30 column are variously flabbergasted, horrified and angered—and I can infer quite a lot from those reactions.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
MORE:
It's interesting to me that Emmerich doesn't explain anything he wrote in his column of May 30, (except to say that he can't find anything racist in it) which may go down as just about the most blatantly biased and ignorant pieces I've read this year coming from a 21st century Mississippi news publication. Still the Sun's 2004 column—which, to the best of our memory was not labeled as a "letter to the editor" by the way—tops it for outright racism.
As a newspaper publisher, Emmerich certainly has every right to print (and pay for) anything he wants to. He could exercise that privilege to refuse to print, much less pay for, racist drivel. As a public figure who chose the former option in a public forum, he shouldn't be surprised that his judgments follow him. Perhaps, given that he seems blind to his own racism, he can't see others', either.
As evidence of his pure motives, Emmerich provided a column that is mostly a recitation of Myrlie Evers-Williams' words, not his. In the 200 words that he actually authored, he mentioned race twice—as if just being white and in the same room with people of color draw forth proclamations of "reconciliation" from his lips. It's not a word Evers-Williams used.
At some point, Emmerich may do well to do more than pray and sing "Kumbaya" with sincere and salty tears in his eyes. He might actually try taking his blinders off.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
Here's an editorial regarding another one of Wyatt Emmerich's columns I thought y'all might find interesting.
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/...">Wyatt Emmerich's ‘Welfare' Chart Dissected by The New Republic
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Ronni wrote: "In his May 30 column, Emmerich implies that whites judge the value of a black person by skin color. I quoted him in the piece, but I'll reprint it here: 'If I'm not mistaken, white Republican northeast Jackson voted overwhelmingly for the blacker of the two candidates. So exactly how can this be about race?'"
Good grief! I implied the exact opposite of what you think I implied. I "implied" that voters didn't care about the color of someone's skin. They care about their ideology. It is amazing that someone can interpret the exact opposite from what I intended.
So you really believe that I think that northeast Jackson voted for Lee because he was "blacker." Are you kidding me!!!???? My point was the election was not about race. it was about ideas.
The reason an MBA was a liability is that Democrats tend to be less supportive of businessmen than Republicans. It has nothing to do with education level. Democrats ten to like JDs. Republicans tend to like MBAs thus and MBA was a liability in an overwhelmingly Democratic area.
The JFP stated: "Emmerich proclaims himself the arbiter of all things black." Proclaim means "to announce officially." Show me just where in my column I announced myself officially as the arbiter of all things black. This is a typical JFP ploy. State that someone said something they did not say and then roast them for it. All you commentary follows this same pattern. You put words in my mouth then roast me for the very words you put in my mouth.
Did you see in the column where I call Mississippi's racist history "sordid?" Does a racist think segregation was sordid? Of course not! Yet you ignore the 20 things I say blasting racism and then divine a racist implication from an innocuous comment to crucify me. But then, according to JFP I must be a racist because I'm a white male businessman from northeast Jackson. Did I mention I just returned from Africa where I was drilling water wells to help save lives? Oh but actually life-saving efforts mean nothing when you can distort my words and insinuate racism when in fact my article did just the opposite. You even have the audacity to criticize Clean Water for Malawi as some sort of white chauvinist power play. Unbelievable. If you are willing to turn my dedication to Clean Water for Malawi into something racist, there is nothing I could ever do or say that would ever change the way you think.
Yes I care a lot about the problems "in my backyard." Mississippi's scourge of obesity is qualitatively different than the African scourge of famine. Communication and transportation has made the world much smaller. I choose to look globally and attack the worst problems first. It is you who are being short-sighted and provincial by not willing to look beyond your backyard and seeing more compelling problems than Mississippi obesity.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
As far as some "column" written in 2004 that you refer to, it was not a column I wrote. It was a letter to the editor in which some guy said African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it got them to America--the greatest country on earth. Personally, some of my impoverished ancestors came to America to avoid starvation and I am grateful for that but that doesn't mean I endorse starvation. But anyway, I didn't write it! It was a letter to the editor. Go ahead, do your best job to find something racist I have written. You won't find it because it does not exist. All that exists are your racist "implications" of what you misinterpret me saying. In the meantime, I attach a paragraph from the column I wrote in 2012 about James Meredith. The article concluded:
"In the end, 20,000 U.S. troops invaded Oxford to see Meredith prevail. For months, he endured vicious verbal and physical abuse with Zen-like calm. In his books, he expressed amazement that for months on end thousands of troops were there just to protect his individual rights.
"Some people are chosen for certain lots in life. Meredith’s iconoclastic stubbornness was perfectly suited for his mission. All Mississippians owe him a debt of gratitude. Thank God that chapter in our history is long gone."
Wow! Now that's some pretty heady race baiting there!
I could go on refuted you point by point but this is just too much of a good thing.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
I see you included a link about my welfare chart.
Here is my response to the New Republic criticism of my welfare chart, which, by the way, has been vindicated and verified by several think tanks.
Good job on Jesse Singal’s article (“From Mississippi to ‘The Corner’: A Tale of Right-Wing Wrongness,” February 8) picking apart my welfare chart apart. It’s an excellent counterpoint and adds to the debate. Despite your take on the various benefits calculations, I believe my argument still stands: That our generous welfare state provides disincentives to work. The hundreds (thousands?) of anecdotal confirmations of my chart in the blogosphere indicates there is, at least, some merit to this line of thinking. What did Mark Twain say about statistics? The chart hit a nerve, which I believe discredits your characterization that it has zero “relevance or legitimacy.” Such hyperbole in criticizing what you consider to be my hyperbole reminds me of the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black.
If you read my original article, I describe my very simple and modest methodology. I wrote, “It is quite easy to check my numbers, thanks to the Internet. In fact, it only took me a couple of hours on the net to gather this data. Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up ‘benefits calculators.’ Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.” I challenged readers to verify my data. Many did. In fact, many contended that I had underestimated benefits, just as you contend I overestimated benefits. Be that as it may, in a country where the GAO estimates 68 percent of the tax returns have errors, your confidence in welfare exactitude is a bit much.
There are literally dozens of paycheck calculators on the Internet. Just Google “paycheck calculator” and enter $60,000 of gross pay and you will arrive at my number. I have no idea who the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is, but their computation of payroll taxes on $60,000 in pay is at odds with every payroll calculator on the Internet. I’ll go with my figures. As for the distinction of gross pay and taxable income, this is ridiculous. Gross pay is gross pay. It is what an employer pays you. Again, just Google “gross pay” on the Internet and you can read about this for days.
In regards to the biggest ticket item of the chart—medical costs—I used a national average. You used a much-lower Mississippi number. As you wish. I just Googled “average cost of family health insurance per month” and was directed to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which states the cost is $1,147 per month. This figure is twice what you claim in your critique. So be it. You have your numbers, I have mine. Add co-pays and deductibles, and you easily get to the $16,000 or so number in my article. I believe this is a legitimate valuation of medical benefits. Obviously, you don’t. Wyatt Emmerich is president of Emmerich Newspapers and lives in Mississippi
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Wyatt, again, no one called you a "racist." It sounds like you're over-reacting a tad. Otherwise, we're putting out BOOM, and I don't have time to read all your comments right now. We did, however, find that column from 2004 in our files; it was not a "letter to the editor." We'll post more about it soon to jog your memory.
tstauffer 10 years, 10 months ago
While we're bringing up oldies but goodies, below is the link to my update of the notorious Emmerich chart to correct some of his mistakes in the original (at least at the time I wrote it).
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/...">Updating Emmerich's Chart
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
Well, Wyatt, I guess we have a fundamental disagreement here--a proverbial "failure to communicate." The fact that your words were "misinterpreted" not just by me but by many people should tell you something. If not, so be it. We're coming from different places--diametrically opposed places.
Granted, the bit about your proclaiming to be the arbiter of all things black was snarky. For the snark, I apologize. As for the rest of it, not so much. Proclaim also means to "declare something one considers important with due emphasis," which is how I used the word.
No one here ever said you wrote the 2004 column; however let’s put to rest, once and for all, that it was not a “letter to the editor.” As I write this, I’m looking at the copy I made today from the original clipping, which the JFP had in its files. It is clearly labeled “Guest Column” with a photo of the author and laid out on the page next to “letters to the editor.”
In the column, the writer comes out against naming the Jackson airport for Medgar Evers and against restoring Farish Street, because that would “memorialize” poverty and prostitution. He says African Americans should be thankful for slavery because without it they would never have opportunities America affords; they’d be in the “tribal slavery in Africa” of today. He advocates condemning “several blocks west of the Woolfolk State Office Building” for the convention center because he doubts the city could “wisely spend all that money.”
At the end of the column is this addendum (a couple of words are under highlighter and illegible on my copy, but I’ll update it when I get back to the office Monday):
“Publisher’s Note: Dan is the winner of the … Northside Sun column writing contest and we are mailing him a $100 check! The … angle and insightful commentary made the column stand out. Every five submissions, the Sun picks a $100 winner.”
Your words, Mr. Publisher—“insightful commentary.”
I also didn't disparage Water for Malawi. In fact, I wrote “that's wonderful; I'm sure he's bettered and saved lives in Malawi.”
What I disparaged was an impulse to help that comes from a place where I once stood--that poor oppressed people need my help. I don't stand there any more, and the shift came out of some hard work to realize that, ultimately, it's a position that keeps me a position of power and those I help subordinate. It’s a far cry from empowerment to achieve success and equality, which is where I stand today.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
The words that open your May 30 column are: “The election of Chokwe Lumumba as the Democratic nominee for Jackson mayor has everybody talking about race. That’s not a good thing.” The rest of the column justifies your position, including the insinuation that because white Jackson voted for one “blacker” candidate, their votes really weren’t about race at all, but ideology. You may sincerely believe that, but I don't agree with you.
Racial tensions are not something to be swept under the rug and not discussed. In fact, the campaign brought out some horribly racist comments, so it’s still very much a problem in Mississippi and in Jackson. It’s a symptom of our racialized society that more than 90 percent of northside whites voted for one candidate in a field of 11—the only one that they felt represented their interests.
It’s only through honest, open dialog that we can quell fears and resentments and resolve those issues. Not talking about race keeps the problem stuck; it’s not a solution.
Because the Northside Sun requires a subscription to read anything at all, I don't have access to answer your challenge to do my "best job to find something racist" you have written.. Charging for every word you publish is your right, of course, but all I can access is what you've chosen to provide here and some headlines. And some of those headlines—"Lumumba still embraces radical agenda" and "Unifier vs. Divider: Jackson election offers clear choice"—don't inspire me to read on.
Chokwe Lumumba doesn't scare me. Neither do I agree with everything in his plan. I don’t knee-jerk into fear and outrage at the mention of Socialism or Communism either, the words you danced around with your “hundred million deaths in China and Russia” comment. We all tend to fear what we don’t understand, and I’ve seen a lot of evidence that most people don’t understand those forms of government or the conditions under which they arose. Most Jacksonians haven’t read the Jackson-Kush plan either, or they couldn’t get past the rhetoric to a deeper understanding. Is Lumumba radical? Maybe. You and I likely have different opinions on what radical is, and both of our opinions are probably light years from what a black person in Mississippi believes is radical when it comes to their struggle for equality.
RonniMott 10 years, 10 months ago
At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm not black. I can't really know the depth and breadth of oppression and racism African Americans have experienced and continue to experience to this day. But understanding, even a glimmer of it, is a worthwhile goal that I continue to strive for. I bring to the conversation my own experience of second-class citizenship from being a woman in a society that has rarely provided women equal opportunity--not even smart, hard-working white women--or the right to their own life decisions. My parents, who shared a hard-earned wisdom learned through living in another violently oppressive society--the Third Reich--also shapes my thinking.
Here's what does scare me--that minorities and women still struggle daily to achieve equality in America despite decades struggling for justice. The myriad declarations that the problems don’t really exist any more scare me. We can't seem to learn from experience. It’s disheartening that some people would rather not talk about inequality or act to change it. I don't know what it means to be born a white male in America with money and power and position, either; that's an automatic and permanent head start in America. You've got the advantage, and as long as those in power see equality as a zero-sum game, little can change.
I expect that you and I share some opinions--such as the inanity of the Kemper coal plant. But on the subjects of race and equality, we have a deep divide. I choose to work within my sphere of influence and opportunity--my back yard. If that makes me "short-sighted and provincial," well, that's your opinion. And so far, that opinion has little relevance to me.
Capitolinsider 10 years, 10 months ago
Wyatt Emmerich pretty much just schooled your Editorial Board. This has become quite an interesting thread to follow. Please continue....
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Ha, Capitol Insider. One could only think that if you're listing inside Mr. Emmerich's bubble with him, refusing to peek outside it.
The bottom line here is that Emmerich launched the current column on several false premises. First, that having a discussion about race is a bad thing. Wow.
Second, that it somehow proves that race was no consideration when white Jacksonians voted en masse for one candidate--because they voted for the blacker candidate. If y'all can't see how offensive that is just to say out loud, I can't help you on that point.
But it's also not logical. I get what Wyatt is trying to say--that white Jackson voted as a bloc (largely) due to ideology over race. But obviously skin tone doesn't prove that; for one, throughout history, there are have been people of one race who have purposefully or not supported the policies that benefit another race, or hurt their own (not saying Lee did, by the way; this is for the sake of logical analysis). So, duh, of course it could happen.
And what hurts his argument more is that white Jackson voted en masse for one candidate in the primary when there were almost a dozen to choose from--and when no one can argue that the incumbent is an ideological radical. So Wyatt can't make that argument against Johnson; thus, it falls apart right there.
Not to mention the fact that a mindful consideration of this must probe why whites in Jackson vote largely as a bloc in the first place (or blacks for that matter). That part, on its face, is "about race." Of course, it's about the historic white supremacy that made Jackson the largely resegregated city that it is, but that is not something I've ever seen Emmerich discuss in print.
That brings me to the 2004 column. Above, Mr. Emmerich is outright misleading about the fact that he, "the publisher," chose that column out of five. I can understand if he regrets rewarding those comments, but for the love of honesty, he should just say that here, rather than making it sound like it a "letter to the editor" (which actually appeared next to it under a banner, "Letters to the Editor.") That is, he cannot argue that those words were not "insightful commentary" that he, the publisher, gave a prize to. It's written right under the column.
https://jacksonfreepress.media.client...">This appeared under the 2004 Northside Sun column in which the prize-winning writer say "every black" should give thanks for slavery. by Donna Ladd
https://jacksonfreepress.media.client...">The passage in the prize-winning Northside Sun column that said "every black" should give thanks for slavery. by Donna Ladd
kdavis 10 years, 10 months ago
I am not going to get in the fray between the JFP and The Northside Sun although I will agree with capitolinsider that it has been very interesting. I have never taken The Northside Sun editorials very seriously. In fact, I usually skip right past them in search of more pictures of my darling daughters. Plus, sometimes Lee Paris submits a guest editorial and it's impossible for me to take him seriously on any subject. That said, I have a simple theory on the recent election. I was looking for your copies of the finance reports and I could not find them. As I recall, Lee raised a lot more money than Johnson which is surprising since incumbents usually have a huge advantage. I will say that Lee worked his butt off in NE Jackson. I received several invitations to fund raisers for him in the area and atteneded one across the street from my home. I'm not sure why Johnson did not do better. Either he took this election too lightly or I do believe that politicians have a limited shelf-life and after serving 12 of the last 16 years, voters (both black and white) were ready for something different. Unfortunately, all of the hard work that Lee did in NE Jackson turned out to be a disadvantage when Lumumba labeled him a "Rankin County Republican". I do think that Lumumba's past scared off most of the voters in NE Jackson and I am not aware of any effort on his part to reach out to these voters. Hopefully he will now that he has won the election.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
kdavis, all the campaign finance reports are available at jfp.ms/documents.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Here's the full column. It rather meanders from thing to thing, but notice that it starts out talking about how the Jackson airport shouldn't be named for Medgar Evers. The point, again, is that the Northside Sun chose this column for a prize due to its "insightful commentary."
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Oops didn't post. Here is full column:
https://jacksonfreepress.media.client...">This 2004 column won an "insightful commentary" award from The Northside Sun. by Donna Ladd
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
For some reason, I can't edit my comment to CapitolInsider above: It should say in first line "living" instead of "listing."
I'll also add that, while I understand that it can sting to see your words criticized on another site, right-wingers (many of whom are friends and/or columnists of Emmerich's) have done that nearly every day to the Jackson Free Press and several of us personally, including Ronni and me, for many years. (Including lots of snark from Emmerich and his columnists.) We're used to it, though, and just consider it part of the journalism business.
Ronni did not write the Stinker Quote above to be snarky back to Emmerich, however. She wrote it because that quote shocked our whole office, and it deserved to be called out. And it has, indeed, opened up a discussion about race, and that's a good thing.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Yes I know all about the guest column that appeared in the Northside Sun 7,8,9 years ago. In fact, I admitted this was a mistake way back then in this blog. My point is this: It is petty, mean and vindictive to bring that mistake up every time I write something y'all don't like. No doubt, Donna and members of her staff have made mistakes and published things they later regretted. But I do not keep such records not do I try to bring them up at every chance. Give it a rest.
As I said back then, I will say again: I did not write the opinion piece. It was a submission. At the time, the Northside Sun was trying to encourage people to submit opinion pieces by "awarding" a cash prize for the best local submission. Our criteria was not ideological. It was local. The piece had to be about a local issue. As it happened, this guy was the only guy to submit an opinion piece on a local issue, so he got the $100. We discontinued this effort because it didn't work. Paying cash awards did not increase our submissions of local commentary. Only later did I realize another unanticipated liability associated with this effort: By paying cash for the submission of local commentary, the Jackson Free Press would peg me as advocating the ideological content of this commentary for the end of time. My bad.
Notice the headline of the controversial guest column that will haunt me in the annals of the JFP website until I die: "Free flowing traffic can help Capitol Street." Doesn't sound like a race baiting column to me. As I recall--remember this was something like 8 years ago--the guy wrote something like African Americans should count their lucky stars for slavery because it brought them to the greatest country on earth. It was in reference to the writer's objection to the renaming of the Thompson Airport to Medger Evers Airport.
Now I realize that remark is not easily defended and would never have written it. For the record, I believe slavery was an abomination and I am grateful the Civil War ended it. Some of my ancestors fled Ireland because of the potato famine. I have benefitted from their starvation because it made me an American, but I certainly do not advocate starvation. I think that was the point the guest column was trying to make, but I digress.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Had I read the column more closely, I would not have given it the "cash award" for a guest submission on a local topic and I'm not sure who on our staff did that. My guess is that I glanced at the headline and said, "That'll do. It's a good local column on traffic." When you publish thousands of pages for years and years, mistakes do indeed happen--a mistake for which I have apologized for. My point is that it is mean, petty and vindictive for the JFP to use this again and again every time my name is mentioned. Even worse, is for JFP to imply that this mistake--which I regret and have previously explained ad nauseum--somehow betrays my family legacy of fighting for civil rights, which I have continued at great cost. (That is, the campaign in Clarksdale to expose the country club's blackballing of an African American doctor, my investment in founding Clean Water for Malawi, my investment of papers in the Delta and their record of inclusion and diversity, etc.)
My request is simple. When you blast me in the future, please accept my twice-now apology for the guest colunm mistake and let that rest.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Wyatt, not much time over here, but here's the thing. You just wrote a column that began:
Do you honestly think you could write those two sentences and then be offended that someone brings up the fact that the same "publisher" who wrote that gave a prize to a man who wrote that blacks should give thanks every day for slavery for "insightful commentary" (and for saying that the Jackson airport shouldn't be named for Medgar) -- nine years ago? You may not be able to see it, but a man who allowed that prize to happen who then a few years later says that we shouldn't (a) talk about race and (b) argues that it can't be racist if whites voter for the "blacker" candidate is being mighty hypocritical on the subject of racial progress. The really big thing is that you clearly assume that your mostly white readership won't be offended by you saying any of it.
The same week, we re-ran my column about Charles Evers meeting Bob Dylan that I wrote 10 years ago, and it is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago. And I'm still proud of that piece, as I am most of my editor's notes, as well as editorial decisions and news judgement.
You clearly steer a different kind of ship over there. We don't give prizes for columns, but we do read them. We also edit them, factcheck them and choose columns that, for instance, do not say that slavery was somehow a good thing. And neither our publisher or anyone on the advertising side even knows what our stories say before they go to press (other than Todd writing a publisher's note) because that's an ethical breach, as I'm sure you know.
(I'm tempted here to bring up the irony of you serving as the chairman of the Mississippi Press Association board that won't allow the JFP to be a member, and compete for awards and use syndicated content, because we distribute free, even though the Northside Sun does as well. Even though we actually factcheck our stories and don't allow stories to be sold to advertisers and various other ethical breaches that we hear that certain MPA members allow. Talk about hypocrisy.)
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
And here's the big thing, which I seem to remember saying to you a few years back: If you realized (thanks to us) that the prize for the column you say you didn't actually read is so offensive, why didn't you apologize for it in the pages where it appeared? Your paper? Do you assume that your readership is racist enough not to be offended by that statement, or might even believe it's true? I have many readers in northeast Jackson of all races, and I assume that to a person they know how awful it was to give that column a prize. This isn't 1964, and many people have actually changed, Wyatt, including whites. Why don't you treat them like it and talk up to them, rather than than assume the worst about them?
Of course, we make mistakes, too (although never for giving a prize to a column for such a thing). And you know what? We correct our mistakes where we make them and make a big deal out of it. It's what our code of ethics requires, and it's what our readers expect. I dare say that if you meant the apology, you would put it in your own paper -- and not try to present it as something else entirely as you did in posts above this one until I posted photos showing the truth.
In other words, your excuses just sound like excuses, especially in light of what you wrote in that column a couple weeks ago. And, frankly, I think those attitudes (and your welfare "math") are dangerous, coming from a man who owns newspapers throughout the state and in some of the poorest areas of the nation: the Mississippi Delta. You are an example to your readers: a successful businessman who attended an Ivy League college. We should hold you to a higher standard than just acting like people in the Delta are poor due to their own laziness or that it's "not a good thing" that Mississippians try to have conversations about race, even as others try to drown us out and belittle us.
I believe all Mississippians must hold each other to a higher standard if we want to lift our state up and shed the chains of our past. I grew up around people who wouldn't face their own stuff, refused to talk about race, belittled those who did and blamed it all on someone else. I am a Mississippian who is not willing to do that any longer. The column you gave a prize to nine years ago was disgusting, and the column you wrote two weeks ago was naive and race-baiting. And I don't mind telling you that in public, being that you opened up this conversation. I believe you can do better, and I urge you to. Blaming us for daring to talk about these things is not going to change any of it or keep us from bringing up that prize-winning column in the future if it has an inkling of a chance of addressing ignorance.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Finally, as much as I admire your Malawi work, there is much to be done in the Mississippi Delta. I hope your newspapers will lead the way to defeating poverty, bridging racial divides, promoting diversity and helping people change perceptions about themselves and each other. As a (presumably) profitable newspaperman, I hope you take that responsibility very seriously.
There is nothing "provincial" about saying that we have the responsibility to help our little postage stamp of the world, as Faulkner put it. And if we're as successful as you seem to be, then perhaps a little Thinking Global and Helping Local would go a long way to strengthening the communities that your businesses thrive in.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
How is stating that ideology was a bigger factor than race in the Jackson election racist? You have yet to explain that to me logically. My point was simply that it wasn't about skin color, it was about ideas. How is that racist?
Here is another line from my column that you decry as racist:
But for most of us in Mississippi, we still dream of a state where the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. It is the classic American dream of a melting pot nation where our strength draws from our diversity. That is the destiny of America and no amount of race baiting will prevent it.
I wrote that in the very column you renounce as racist. Does that sound racist?
Here's something else I wrote in that column:
I can recall defending white politicians who were alleged to be racists based on groups they had spoken to or implied “code words” they used. My point was this: A true racist doesn’t try to hide it. Let’s take people at their own word. I will offer the same defense to Chokwe Lumumba. Lumumba has repeatedly denied he is a racist and has defended his politics as inclusive of all the people. If he were truly a racist, he has had ample opportunity to state it in plain English. Instead, he has repeatedly and consistently renounced racism throughout his campaign.
So here I am defending Lumumba, saying we should give him a chance and take him at his word that he is not a racist, despite the fact that Lumumba has supported the creation of a separate black nation. It seems to me I am bending over backward to give Lumumba the benefit of the doubt.
I also wrote:
Here is what Lumumba said on election night when asked about his goals for Jackson: “They’re to change the economic growth in order to build the economic growth. To take the infrastructure, to repair that infrastructure by giving jobs to our people to make these repairs by giving business to our contractors and subcontractors. This is going to create wealth, more property owners and more people with money to spend that money and attract businesses to Jackson.” Jobs, growth, infrastructure, economy, property, wealth, business. Sounds downright Republican. (Who, by the way, seem to have no problem with using the government to “create” jobs.) Let’s respect the democratic process and give Lumumba the benefit of the doubt. He has a mountain of challenges ahead of him as mayor. It will be hard enough for him as it is. And please, let’s not turn what is an ideological battle into a racial battle. There’s plenty enough to debate on the ideas alone.
Here I am writing--in the same column that you decry--that we all want the same thing--jobs, growth, prosperity. I am extorting readers to rally behind our new mayor and work together to meet the challenges of our city. Does that sound racist?
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Yes indeed you run a different ship over there at JFP. You have a strict set of ideological standards that any contributor must meet. I have a different approach. I believe in the marketplace of ideas. We run all kinds of guest columns and letters--from the far right to the far left. As we state on our editorial pages, the letters and guest columns are independent contributions and not our own opinions. That would be called freedom of the press.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
And as for never running an apology for that guest column on Capital Street traffic in the Northside Sun , the whole JFP brouhaha over the guest column emerged months, maybe years, after the column appeared. I can just see the Northside Sun apology: "Dear readers, there was a column published two years ago in the Northside Sun that Donna Ladd at the Jackson Free Press has stumbled across and is deeply offended by. The writer of this column accidentally received a $100 cash prize in an ill-conceived, short-lived effort by the Sun to encourage reader submissions on local topics. Because this submission was the only one we got that month, the guest columnist got the cash prize by default. Our publisher--who does the editorial page every week as well as running a company with 300 employees--was too harried that week to read the column in full and was misled by its innocent headline stating "Capitol Street Traffic Can Be Improved." Given that Miss Ladd will not accept Mr. Emmerich's lengthy mea culpas on her blog, we are publishing this apology in the Sun, in the unlikely chance she will forgive him and not needle him about this mistake until the day he dies (and probably after.)
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Wyatt, I've said already that I see what you were trying to do: make an argument that it was about ideology. But you didn't make it well -- and spent a whole column talking about race after saying it was a bad thing. And opening with what I have above: about "blacker." Come on, Wyatt. Do you really not see how that is offensive on its face, not to mention illogical. You have to know enough about history -- Harvard ??? -- to know that white people have used people of color throughout our history to do racist stuff. (Again, not saying that was the case with Lee.) Your statement made it sound like you have no clue about our race history!
And, sure, there are lines in that that don't sound bad when taken out of context. They sound nice, in fact. But you have them surrounded with privilege-soaked admonishments about how talking about race is "not a good thing" and idiotic statements about how it can't be about race because most people supported the blacker candidate. And you say nothing about the racist explosions that occurred when Lumumba was elected. THAT was about race, Wyatt. And a lot of ideology came from our race history, too. As Ronni says, that may be hard to see when you're swimming in the dirty fishbowl, but it doesn't make it false. It just means you refuse to see it.
Actually, I don't have a "strict set of ideological standards" that any contributor must meet. That is an unfactual statement about my newspaper, although I'll assume you say it out of ignorance rather than malice. One of my favorite reporters ever was a very smart evangelical with different views on many things. I am continually looking for columnists with a variety of viewpoints -- but their facts have to stand up to factchecks, which weeds the list down quite a bit. I've turned down columns left and right because they call the other party or ideology by names (such as your columnists you have attacked us in the past with name-calling).
It's been absolutely true (and truer than I expected) that the "conservative" columnists I get who can withstand factchecking tend to agree with Todd and me on a lot of issues ultimately (we like to say we're libertarian until it gets stupid and mean) -- because the truth is, you cut away all the B.S. ideology and partisan crap, and most people tend to fall into a similar space.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Your last post says it all, Wyatt. I'm astounded at your hubris there. You really do think very poorly of your readers. You don't think any white person other than Donna Ladd and maybe Ronni Mott would be offended by you giving a prize to a column that said blacks should give thanks every day for slavery. That is breathtaking contempt for your readers, the people of Jackson and how far we've come in 50 years.
Not to mention, you're factually wrong again. The "JFP brouhaha" was not months or years later. It was actually http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/...">an Aug. 4, 2004, column I wrote in response to your prize-winner (published July 22, 2004) 11 days after the offensive column appeared. So, yes, it would have made perfect sense to apologize to your readers and the city of Jackson for not bothering to even read such an offensive column before you gave it a prize for "insightful commentary."
Facts matter, Wyatt, and you have been very loose with them in this thread.
I'll also offer a bit of advice, Wyatt: Don't write columns saying talking about race is a bad thing and making offensive statement about what who is "blacker" proves, and folks might just forget this offensive race stuff you've published in the past. If not, all bets are off.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Also, this thread lighting up again reminds me to post Ronni Mott's wonderful column that she wrote in response to the above debate with Wyatt Emmerich:
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/...">Notes from the Fishbowl
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Ah the dog days of summer and the chance to blog forever with Donna!
Yes your article blasting that guest column did appear a few weeks after the nefarious guest column was written buy--correct me if I am wrong!--the extensive blog during which I apologized for it publication occurred quite a bit later.
Here, in full, is the nefarious racist column that I have apologized for running nine years ago int the Northside Sun.
Dear Editor: Although this letter has both negative and positive aspects, it is intended to be constructive and not destructive. The one thing which has triggered the writing of this letter is the publicity being developed during the last couple of weeks that the Jackson International Airport be named after Medgar Evers. Medgar Evers has no connection whatsoever with the airport and the suggestion by the City Council and some of the media that his name be emblazoned on the airport is simply pouring acid into old wounds. The mayor is bemoaning the fact that Jackson has a poor image and doesn't even have a cinema. Unfortunately the image being projected for Jackson stems largely from the activities of the municipal administration, including the mayor and the City Council. Our city image is perpetuated by the rebroadcast of the council meetings on Channel 18. I see nothing constructive coming out of any of these council meetings, but they do produce good comedy. It is not the image we need to project, however. Enough is enough; sometimes enough is too much. The city just spent untold millions of dollars refurbishing Farish Street. I just drove down that street this afternoon and there wasn't but one business operating. Everything else was boarded up with graffiti. I don't know why they wanted to memorialize Farish Street in the manner that they have. The old Farish Street had some fine establishments such as two Hunt and Whitaker operations. There was Coney Island which served hamburgers and hot dogs with chili, and they were something else again for a growing teenage boy. One small bakery made the finest dark rye bread that you could get in town and this was the same rye bread served by both Dennery's and Crechale's with their entrees. Gale Foster operated his own dry cleaning establishment on Farish Street. Mr. Charles Snow, always immaculate, had all of his tailored suits and jackets hand cleaned and pressed by Gale. In later years, however, Farish Street turned to poverty and prostitution and I can't imagine why the current administration would want to memorialize those two institutions.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
In short, I believe that we could improve our image if we start living for the future and not in the past. We learn from history, but that doesn't mean you live in the past. I recently read where a black man is defending his murder of his two-year-old child because he is suffering from post-slavery syndrome. I wonder if he realizes that if his ancestors hadn't been sold from slavery in Africa that he would still be living under tribal slavery in Africa. Every black in this country ought to give thanks every day that their ancestors were brought to this country where they were ultimately given every opportunity that everyone else has. Now for something which I hope will be positive. I don't know enough about the proposed convention center for the city. I have my doubts whether the current city administration can wisely spend that kind of money. I understand they have proposed that it go south of the telecommunications center which would put it in the flood plain of Town Creek. My suggestion would be that they consider condemning several blocks west of the Woolfolk State Office Building and placing it in that area where the new Farish Street would lead to something besides a blighted area. My office has been in downtown Jackson since June 1, 1949 and it will continue to remain in downtown Jackson. We need to revitalize the downtown area, however, and I suggest that for starters, we open up Capitol Street to two-way traffic. Let the cars park at angles on Capitol Street and that should bring in more traffic and activity. The entrance and exit ramps in the parking garage on Farish Street should be taken out of Capitol Street and Amite Street altogether. Restructure those facilities such that the up and down ramps are within the garage itself. This would free sidewalk space that would lend itself to retail shops which in turn would help draw customers. We need to beef up security on Capitol Street. I would suggest that two cops man two golf cart vehicles, attach flashing blue lights on the top of each. Equip the officers with two-way radios so that they can call for help when needed. Also furnish them a chalk stick in order that they can mark the tires of vehicles parking on Capitol Street. Once a vehicle has stayed as long as one and a half hours, it should be ticketed. This will prevent the downtown office personnel from feeding meters all day and allow for more access to the retail trade.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Three of the finest eating establishments in Jackson are already located on Capitol Street. You can't beat the seafood at the Mayflower. Equally good is the seafood and other items at the Elite, and the Elite's hot yeast rolls are the best hot bread north of New Orleans. The Jackson community has completely overlooked the Walthall dining room and bar. The Walthall dining room is a white cloth establishment with tuxedoed waiters. The food is well prepared and very reasonable. They have a piano bar in the lobby and you can be served by Cotton who is the best mixologist in the South. We once had a very fine restaurant in the Emporium Building. When we get this street revitalized, some other entrepreneur may want to reopen that establishment. Once we get the downtown area revitalized, I would suggest putting two Jatran buses on Capitol Street where they would run continuously from the Old Capitol Building to Gallatin Street. Make a nominal charge of ten cents or twenty-five cents per ride, and I believe that would help rejuvenate some of the activity on the street. Free flowing traffic and ample security will do more than anything to help revitalize Capitol Street. Although the Mayflower had its own security for Jubilee Jam, two of its customers on Friday night had windows broken out of their automobiles. The Mayflower elected not to open on Saturday night. I understand that the Elite closed down for three days to avoid the hassle of the unruly crowd at Jubilee Jam. I sincerely believe that opening up Capitol Street to two-way traffic would be a plus and certainly getting those atrocious entrances and exits to the parking garage out of the street would be a vast improvement. Dan McCullen
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
As you can see, the column is full of local commentary on restaurants, city government, traffic on Capitol street, Fairish Street redevelopment, the proposed telecom center, etc. Regretfully, I did not edit the line about slavery. I should have, for I don't try to intentionally offend anyone. But it would be a stretch to call this a racist diatribe. It represent local commentary on local issues--the only such submission I had that month, thus the $100 award design to encourage submissions on local issues. We had several others submissions that month, but none on local topics.
Anyway, it is what it is. You may see this as a racist diatribe, but I see it as good local commentary unfortunately marred by a bad sentence I should have edited out. That is my fault and I have apologized for this now a dozen times. (No doubt Donna will go through and count my actual number of apologies and correct me here.) And when I say 'good local commentary' I don't mean to endorse what he is saying (for I had no problem with the renaming of the airport) but that it adds to debate and contributes to the marketplace of ideas.
I have run a weekly page of commentary for 23 years in a very conservative area of the deep south. So my most egregious racist error in all these years is my failure to edit one offensive line from a guest column. Meanwhile, I have written many times calling for racial reconciliation and exhorting us to leave behind our sordid past of discrimination.
Pretty high standards over there at JFP! Y'all practically walk on water.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
Over the years, I have tried to avoid writing about race. Almost every issue can be discussed without using racial references. I realize that to some this is ignoring the white elephant in the room. To me, the more we talk about race, discuss race, focus on race, reduce issues to race, the more we promote racism. My goal--as I wrote in my column--is for the color of a man's skin to me of no more significance than the color of his eyes. I realize that eliminating racism will not eliminate discrimination of many other kinds--sex, age, poverty, etc. But to me, racism that derives from skin color is particularly noxious because it completely negates the spirit and mind and is completely indefensible.
Anyway, I hated that the mayor's race devolved into racism. My column was lamenting that and trying to point out that really the ideology was the dividing fulcrum more so than skin color. That was the point I was trying to make. This does not minimize the fact that ideological divisions can be as divisive as race, but at least those divisions stem from thought not from an accident of birth.
You seem to think the more we talk about race the less racism we will have, thus ignoring race sort of inculcates a status quo of de facto racist acceptance. I disagree. I think harping endlessly on racism furthers racial divisions and sets back progress. To that extent, I think younger people are less predisposed to seeing everything in racist terms, thus the surge in interracial marriage, which, by the way, I see as a sign of progress. I would posit that few racist would advocate this in a quasi-public forum, although I think we are mostly talking to ourselves at the moment. Just as you are hoping to educate me on the error of my ways, I am writing for the same motives.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Thanks for posting the racist 2004 column again, Wyatt. I'm sure you know that I posted a readable image of it above, right, that includes the prize part. http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/users...">Here it is again. Anyone can see that it's a meandering piece with lots of innocuous comments with lots of stinker comments in between like the idea that renaming the airport after Medgar is pouring "acid" in old wounds, that that bogus slavery excuse has anything to do with anything we're talking about and, of course, the zinger that blacks should give thanks for slavery. It's all there. The fact that he mentions restaurants does not take away from the fact that he said those things and that you, then, gave a prize for "insightful commentary" -- and that you have never tried to tell your own readers that it was a mistake, just mine.
And, no, I have never said that fixing our racial wounds are just about talking more about race. It's much harder that that, but it sure as hell takes more than not talking about the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and crap like you published in 2004 that makes white people feel all superior to all those other people who can't just shut up and be grateful that they're here with all these chances. Whether or not you regretted it, you fed racist, nefarious notions by putting crap like that out there and calling it "insightful." It was just one more way to tell whites who feel superior already that it's OK, that they're right. Do you realize that? Clearly not. Is that because you don't have these kinds of frank conversations enough with people much wiser than I could ever be about it? Probably.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
And to me, it wouldn't be so awful if you just owned a paper in north Jackson that specializes in party pics and old-white-guy conservative commentary for white conservatives. But you own newspapers in some of the poorest and least white parts of the state. And you do bogus junk like that welfare chart of yours to push the notion that the poverty is their own fault and to help whites feel OK about not supporting policies to help systemically reverse the legacies of our past. I find it all incredibly irresponsible and such a waste of good newsprint and ink. Why? Because I know h ow much good you could do if you had the will.
And not to correct your facts yet again, but my column about it appeared 11 days after you published the prize-winning column. I don't know why you keep trying to changing the timeline; it doesn't matter a whit. It was what it was, no matter when I criticized it.
Understand, Wyatt, as much as I wish you'd use your presses and influence to do more good right here in Mississippi, I'm not trying to change you. I will, however, continue to use every chance I get to talk about what I consider very important issues. And I will never give into attempts to reinstate that damn code of silence about race that so many white Mississippians shared in our past, the one that said that we never call out racism because it's somehow a way of being a traitor. I just don't play that game. And I hear from many more readers of all races that they prefer a more open state now where we can talk about these things. And so many people who visit and read our site from other places find it refreshing that we have the kinds of conversations here that they don't expect to see from Mississippians.
So you continue with your old-school ways, and I'll stay with my newfangled ones that work much better in the 21st century and with readers who want diversity to be a part of everyday life. It's time to stop living in the past; you hang out there all you want, but we don't roll that way.
SusanM 10 years, 10 months ago
To offer Lee's "darker" skin color as evidence that it was ideology, not race, that drove white Jacksonians to vote for Lee in overwhelming numbers is either disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
Emmerich seems to be trying to claim that ideology and race can be wholly separated, as if we are living in a "post-racial" paradise where no one notices skin color. (Cue Stephen Colbert: "Was Lee black? I didn't even notice!") But they were inseparable in the election.
The majority of Northeast Jackson whites clearly found Lumumba's ideology threatening because it is explicitly afro-centric. He has made a point of saying he wants to work with blacks and whites, but he has also made clear that he isn't going to waste a lot of time soothing white fears, particularly those based on rumors and unproven assumptions about what he will or won't do.
Lee, on the other hand, went out of his way to make white voters feel comfortable. For a lot of those white voters, this made Lee seem "less black"--in the more important cultural and ideological sense--which is the opposite of race not being a factor.
Duan 10 years, 10 months ago
I've said this time and time again - the only thing afrocentric about Chokwe is his name, period!
Mississippi politics is face value - Republican = must be white, Democrat = must be black. Blacks getting support from whites = must be an uncle tom getting support from crooked republicans. White Democrat = Blue Dog.
It's amazing how Louisiana and South Carolina can elect 1st generation american citizens to major statewide office - but people who have been on this soil for generations after generations are still considered second class citizens because of face value!
And people wonder where the frustration comes from
trusip 10 years, 10 months ago
SusanM, How would you say Lee "went out of his way" to make white voters feel comfortable? Ive heard that phrase used a lot post election. Saw discussions where folks said that Lee "sought White approval". Could you explain? because from what I saw he simply campaigned. Just as Lumumba did all over this city. One could say the "assumptions" of Lee were unfounded as well. I saw nothing that would indicate that he would be "less fair" to any segment of Jackson.
Duan, we do have to get away from these "labels". It sets us on a slower path to learning to judge these politicians on their ideas and not their "tags"
SusanM 10 years, 10 months ago
I don't think Lumumba would argue that his history in politics and civil rights has been "afro-centric." He has been reaching out more explicitly to whites during this campaign, but his focus has been on bettering the lives of blacks in Mississippi. This is what I meant by "afro-centric."
I don't know what the rest of your comment is supposed to mean or if it is supposed to be a response to my comment. I didn't mention Democrats or Republicans. I'm white and I supported Johnson in the first primary and Lumumba in the run off and general election. Does that make him an Uncle Tom?
And as a white Democrat I'd like to know if you think that all of us are Blue Dogs or if you think someone was saying that we are all Blue Dogs or... well, it would help if you explained what you mean because I really don't get it.
trusip 10 years, 10 months ago
SusanM, of course that didnt make Lumumba an "Uncle Tom" but it didnt stop a bevy of Black Jacksonians from calling Lee one because he garnered the majority of white support. from doing nothing more than campaigning. Neither was there an indication that he WASNT going to look to better the lives of Black Jacksonians. I think Lumumba was given the benefit of the doubt where Lee wasnt. In a lot of cases, I think it wasnt so much overwhelming comfort with Lee than it was apprehension with Lumumba. Thats why you saw so many White voters of different parties getting behind Lee.
wyattemmerich 10 years, 10 months ago
I think you would influence more people if you didn't attack them in a mean-spirited way.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Wyatt, my intern workshop just brought up this thread as a point of discussion this morning. They found it a helpful critical-thinking tool, so I thank you.
As for "mean-spirited," that may be in the eye of the beholder. I have a folder of columns that both you and your columnists did, talking about both me and the JFP by name in very belittling, shaming ways, even using "liberal" as an epithet. You know the old saying, "If you can't take it, don't dish it out." I can take it. You?
Duan 10 years, 10 months ago
@ Susan M
So since he fought for Human Rights as a black man - he's doing it from an Afroc-centric perspective?
Its fair to say Jim Hood, as an attorney as well, has a Euro-Centric perspective - regardless of whats good for the entire state of Mississippi?
I always took Chokwe positions as one that he believes in assisting those that need it most and do not have a fighting chance in a situation - whether its due to their lack of finances, lack of education or lack of mental fortitude.
"Afrocentricity is a theory that emerged in the early 1980s in the United States within the academic context of African-American studies. Afrocentricity was articulated by Molefi Kete Asante, a professor of African-American studies at Temple University and creator of the first Ph.D. program in African-American studies in the nation, in three major essays published between 1980 and 1990. Like most theories, Afrocentricity has come to be associated with different thrusts, some of which may even be contradictory or incompatible with the original definition of Afrocentricity. However, at its core, Afrocentricity is a theory concerned with African epistemological relevance, also referred to as centeredness or location. The ultimate goal of Afrocentricity is the liberation of African people from the grips of Eurocentrism. The primary and indispensable mechanism to achieve this goal is the fostering of African intellectual agency." retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3...">http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3...
Politics and Pan-Africanism are two TOTALLY different things - I don't think of you as anything to be honest in regards to you being a Democrat - all I did was give examples of labels and stigmas, inregards to why I say the only thing afrocentric about Chokwe is his name - but to just slap the "afrocentric" badge on Chokwe in regards to his politics is kind of naive when you look at what the true definition/meaning is in regards to afrocentrisim.
SusanM 10 years, 10 months ago
I put "afro-centric" in quotes because I didn't mean it literally, as in fitting some definition like you have above. I thought my meaning would be clear enough, but apparently not.
Lumumba's history, particularly with the Republic of New Afrika, suggests a focus on helping black people in particular which is what I meant by "afro-centric." Although I don't think that the definition you offer above would be completely irrelevant to Mr. Lumumba's point of view.
I really feel like we have a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem, in that you have latched on to a specific word I used and ignored pretty much everything else I said. I think it is good to try and devine the meanings behind the words people use, which is why I asked you to explain your comment as it honestly didn't really make sense to me. I still don't know what you mean--"labels and stigmas" isn't particularly helpful in explaining.
But this is all tangential to my main point about why so many white voters favored Lee over Lumumba and why race was, contrary to Emmerich's assertion, very much an issue for those whites.
cristenh 10 years, 10 months ago
TEAM DONNA
girlsgottareason 10 years, 10 months ago
It's a small point in this much larger discussion, but the "Clarksdale Press Register" did not go down because simply of Emmerich's allowing the then-editor and publisher, Steve Stewart, to frankly and aggressively cover the story about the desegregation efforts at the Clarksdale Country Club. It lost revenue because at the time - just like newspapers everywhere - it was contending with increasing online news content and readership and escalating print and operational costs, including escalating costs of healthcare benefits. I worked at the CPR during that time, and I can assure you that cutting back from a daily to twice weekly was based on many, many other considerations beyond any revenue loss that can be remotely attributed to the Country Club story. Did the paper lose some revenue as a result of the story? Yes. So did other businesses in town that supported the bylaw change effort. But the paper did not crash and burn simply because of that one storyline. And for Emmerich to flag that as an example of his open-mindedness is appropriating a LOT. "I would think such efforts would earn me a measure of respect among my journalistic colleagues," writes Emmerich. Truth is, it is Steve Stewart who is due that respect; Emmerich can only lay claim to it for having hired such a consummate and professional editor and publisher as Stewart. Look, I liked working for Emnerich. I think he is a good man. He always did right by me, and he allowed the staff during my tenure a lot of creative and editorial range... as any good publisher should, Yet I also know that upon applying for a position at the "Delta Democrat Times" a couple of years ago, the editor at the time warned me about outing myself as a Democrat to the publisher - who he said "toed the Emmerich Party Line" (suggesting, to me, that a significant swing to the Right had ensued). And, please, allow me one final point: while Mission Mississippi is a nice, tidy organization I am of the belief that Mississippi's racial divide will only be bridged by deep and painful soul searching and overt and brave action rather than a few blacks and whites getting together to pray, have cocktails and eat. Those are baby steps, yes. But Mississippi needs a few giant leaps. Maybe with the election of Lumumba, Jackson has finally taken one.
trusip 10 years, 10 months ago
My previous comments just made it thru moderation and I think my responses to SusanM and Duan eere missed. If you guys see this comment go back and check them out
SusanM 10 years, 10 months ago
trusip, it was my distinct impression from news accounts and from personal accounts of people who spoke directly with Lee and attended his campaign events, that whites were responding to him as someone they felt would be accessible to them and responsive to their concerns. Maybe that was just a fortunate accident and he didn't intend to give that impression?
I didn't say anything about whether or not Lee would be "less fair" to anyone and the "uncle Tom" comment came from Duan, not me.
trusip 10 years, 10 months ago
SusanM, IMO saying someone "went out of their way to make White voters feel comfortable" and saying "whites were responsive to him because they felt he'd be accessible and responsive to them" are a tad different. One denotes an actual effort or overture by Lee to appeal to White voters while not doing the same to get Black votes. Your second indicates a candidate who through normal campaigning attracted more White voters.
One statement says folks believed he willfully and blatantly gave a different message to white voters to get their thumbs up and blatanly showed less vigor with Black voters. The other says it was simply circumstance. What do you think?
The picture has been painted IMO that Lee was somehow this dunce who was a spineless puppett who we had to "save" from himself because the "white power structure" had gotten control of. him while Lumumba was this strong candidate who would give White guys the finger and could in no way let them "take over Jackson". When I saw no indication that EITHER candidate would be a "pawn".
Just e
trusip 10 years, 10 months ago
And Duan, Im a 58 year old Ward 3 resident who moved here from the great Northwest and I gotta tell ya we need some of these race dialogues in our ward. Ive got neighbors who would just as soon cut off their left arm than to be called a "sell out". Which to them means working with or even being publicly friendly with White people lol. Its why we cant get rid of the Stokes plague as I call it. They just come by tell ya "if ya dont vote for us, the white folks gonn' take over" and OOW they win again
riversongloves11thdr 10 years, 10 months ago
Wyatt, I just want to state I am a black woman and I am offended for the very reasons already explained. It truly troubles me that an editor of any publication would use "I didn't read it" as a defense for something racist they placed in their paper. Essentially you just said you were lying then when you gave the writer the $100 for, how did you describe it, "insightful commentary". Yes it is extremely offense to say black people should be grateful for slavery. It is equally offensive for you to try to justify his comment by comparing blacks being taken forcibly from our homeland to my Irish ancestors (yours too apparently) who fled Ireland during the potato famine. One was a choice (desperate that it was), one was not. If you don't understand the difference I am not sure what to tell you. Also you didn't have to award him anything you could have not given an award at all. As to your "welfare chart" I call BS on your methodology. What experts in social services or economics did you consult before you put that mess out? The reason I ask is because eligibility calculators mean next to nothing. They tell a family they MAY be eligible for benefits. Did you know that in Mississippi for a family of SIX for a parent to be covered on medicaid they can't make more than $570 a month? Clearly you didn't nor did you check. Only someone with no knowledge of the system-who didn't do their due diligence-would be so arrogant as to think they knew they lives of low income/working class Mississippians/Americans. I challenge you to do some internal work on yourself because Donna and Ronni may not have called you a racist but I am certainly calling you racially biased. You have a HUGE blindspot when it comes to race. You have proved it in this thread. You may want to do some work on your ideas about class too. I want to correct your assumption that someone has to be overtly racist to be a racist-WRONG! Most racism is covert and many racial stereotypes and biases live in places within us that we may or may not notice. As to diversity in the Sun as long as I lived here I assumed that your paper was for people in Madison because I have rarely if ever seen anyone who looks like me in your paper. BTW please don't respond to this post with "I have black friends and employees" either that won't get it.
riversongloves11thdr 10 years, 10 months ago
Also a few quote I feel are relevant to these topics - Personal fav- “…“white supremacy” is a much more useful term for understanding the complicity of people of color in upholding and maintaining racial hierarchies that do not involve force (i.e slavery, apartheid) than the term “internalized racism”- a term most often used to suggest that black people have absorbed negative feelings and attitudes about blackness. The term “white supremacy” enables us to recognize not only that black people are socialized to embody the values and attitudes of white supremacy, but we can exercise “white supremacist control” over other black people.” ― bell hooks, Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black
“We have to constantly critique imperialist white supremacist patriarchal culture because it is normalized by mass media and rendered unproblematic.” ― Bell Hooks, Homegrown: Engaged Cultural Criticism
justjess 10 years, 10 months ago
@SusanM
"But this is all tangential to my main point about why so many white voters favored Lee over Lumumba and why race was, contrary to Emmerich's assetion, very much an issue for those whites."
Riddle Me This:
Why did so many white voters favor Lee over Johnson?
Duan 10 years, 10 months ago
Hey trusip - I feel your pain - I've said it on numerous occasions that Haley Barbour and Kenny Stokes are one in the same.
I'm pretty sure their loyal constituents would disagree - but they draw to the common denominator and communicate to that base WELL!!
A majority of Mississippians - and I strongly say this - BLACK AND WHITE - base their votes on race. It's just that simple - so they judge the messenger and not the message.
If it weren't true - we would have half the issues we have with our infrastructure - regards to roads and bridges, wages, schools/education, overall development.
If middle class and working poor blacks/whites were on the same page - we wouldn't have half the politicians we have elected now!
But instead of voting with our wallets/pocket books, we are voting with our eyes.
Duan 10 years, 10 months ago
@ Susan M
I can only apologize for misinterpreting or reading too much into your comment.
I just thought you may have loosely used the comment "afro-centric"
AnnGarrison 10 years, 10 months ago
LOL; not that this is any siller than what happens out here where I live, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Just posted to my social networks. I'm lovin' the JFP coverage of this historic victory in Jackson. Please keep it up.
donnaladd 10 years, 10 months ago
Thanks, Ann. ;-)
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID