Ellington

You guys should know me by now. I'm that radical, angry rapper-guy who seems to have an opinion on everything. The guy who likes to stir it up, make you think. So as par for the course, I simply must reply to a letter printed in the JFP last issue. Phillip Ley of Flowood obviously took some exception to my last column blasting Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott for not co-sponsoring an anti-lynching resolution. While I have no problem with open dialogue (or criticism for that matter), I do have a problem with abject denial. And after obviously missing the point of my column, your response is, Mr. Ley, akin to your sticking your fingers in your ears, making annoying noises to tune out the truth.

Sure, I agree with you that there are two Mississippis. But not in the vein that you expressed. There is no "black" or "white" Mississippi as you claim. Instead there exists a "new" Mississippi and an "old" Mississippi. There are blacks and whites alike who have taken strides to tear down the vestiges of Jim Crow. We realize that future generations will suffer if we do not put our egos in check and repent for the sins of our forefathers. Face it, if you haven't lived in this skin, Mr. Ley, you have absolutely no idea what it is like.

Then there's the "old" Mississippi. Unfortunately, there still exist whites (and blacks) who were content with the way things used to be. They would much rather forget about the past. If they ignore it, maybe it'll just go away, they think. But the past doesn't go away, Mr. Ley. More importantly, justice never takes a holiday.

Those "educated" people that you say are so colorblind are only so to a fault. They don't wear white sheets or join lynch mobs. They smile to mask the fear of that which they don't understand all the while exclaiming "some of my best friends are black!" No, you aren't personally responsible, but you reap the benefits of the ignorance that was Jim Crow. Whenever you shop and a security guard follows a black patron down every aisle while letting you browse in peace, you benefit from racism. When you drive through Flowood and those lights and sirens pass you and pull over the black motorist, you benefit from racism. That's not whining, Mr. Ley; that's reality!

The majority of African Americans wish to succeed or fail on their own merit. We will continue to thrive despite the fact that the playing field is not always level. Look to the James Byrd incident in Texas or Andre Jones in Simpson County. These "inexcusable" things that you say aren't happening during my generation are indeed happening. What makes it so bad is that as an African-American male in this "new" generation, it could happen to me—still. And that's no excuse, Mr. Ley. Again, that's reality. You simply don't live under the same pressures.

And in response to your Richard Williams comment, Mr. Williams is no racist. He's a little kooky, yes, but a racist he is not. He only says what some black folks are afraid to say and what some white folks are thinking anyway.

And that's the truth .... sho-nuff.

Previous Comments

ID

70277

Comment

Excellent column. There is a discussion going on elsewhere in a much different context, in which the issue of showing and proving discrimination has come up. It got me thinking about this problem that I've seen in myself and that I'm sure other people experience too: You don't know what kind of discrimination is going on, if you're not suffering from it yourself. It's often hard to even believe it's happening if it's not happening to you. (In that discussion, the book Black Like Me was mentioned.) As an example, I found it difficult to believe that men hanging out on the street would actually make rude remarks to women until a close woman friend of mine told me it happened to her fairly regularly. Since I trust her to tell me the truth, I now accept that on trust, but as (I hope) a person of good will, it's often difficult for me to imagine that people really act like a$$holes. But they do. I think the same thing applies here. While certainly not everybody who cries "discrimination" has actually been discriminated against, and as a gay man I have to remind myself that my orientation is not the only reason people might not like me, give me that job I interviewed for, or whatever, still those of us who strive to treat other people fairly must remember that not everyone operates by those rules. Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-07-14T08:12:31-06:00

ID

70278

Comment

Exactly,Tim. As an African American male. It's almost impossible to explain to someone whos not what we go through. There are still some who havent gotten the memo that racism is out of style. That's cool. It will always exist in some form. But don't patronize me or insult me by telling me to "get over it" or "forget the past" Hell it aint the past it'sNOW!!!

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-14T09:34:10-06:00

ID

70279

Comment

We don't publish letters online typically, but I realized it would make sense to post Mr. Ley's letter from last issue that Kamikaze is challenging. Here it is verbatim: Sir, Reading Kamikaze's recent column after the Killen trial reinforced my impression that while white Mississippi has changed over the last forty years, black Mississippi has a long way to go. Attitudes like your writer's are why there are still two Mississippis. He also shows how he and many like him, while claiming that no one can understand his plight unless they walk in his shoes, fail to understand how truly color-blind most educated whites are these day. Many, many whites wish that blacks would just want to raise their families, get educated, work and contribute to their communities. I (we) just want the whining to stop. I know inexcusable, unconscionable things happened in the past, but they didn't happen to the writer's generation, and my generation didn't commit the crimes. I, and many like me, refuse to be held responsible for something we didn't contribute to. If you want to compete with me, do it straight-up, toe-to-toe, and quit using the past as an excuse for your failure. Let's go to school together, worship together and work together, on even terms. I will not, repeat will not, sacrifice so that some can exact a warped sense of payback for the past. Racism and hatred will always exist in some segments of the population, on both sides of the color aisle. If you don't agree, go to Serbia, where it's been going on for a thousand years. It may never, ever stop. As I write this, Venus Williams is playing Lindsay Davenport in the Wimbledon Final. Two Americans, one black, one white, competing in their chosen avocation at the highest level, and it's close. Whomever wins, America wins, we win. Unless, of course, Richard Williams spews his racist hatred for the cameras after the match. Respectfully, Phillip Ley

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-14T10:16:25-06:00

ID

70280

Comment

Excellent piece and you both make good points. I've experienced my share of discrimination for being white, for being gay, for being a male, for being in the wrong "neighborhood", for having a 'hawk and piercings... The list could go on. Like Tim said, it's important to remember not everyone operates fairly... It's also important to remember not everyone is a racist, homophobe, bigot, etc. Not everyone is out to get you. I often find myself with a nagging feeling that I'm being watched and followed in stores. This is a hang-up of my own from the days when blue hair, nose rings, and punk rock/goth would have security, a customer service rep and/or manager tailing you through a store for hours. In their head, a nosering meant you were a criminal... It would seem. I still can't shake the feeling even if I'm wearing a nice shirt, freshly shaved head and face, and slacks... aka business casual/professional in appearance. I still can't shake the feeling now when people accuse me of being a skinhead because I'm a white man with a bald head (partly genetic) and have threatened my life because I was in the "wrong neighborhood" of which I lived in... It doesn't go away even when the discrimination seems to stop. Once you've been persecuted for who/what you are it's hard to shake it. So, the battle is something we all have to endure. Those that prejudge need to let it go as much as possible (I don't think it's completely impossible for a human to erradicate all prejudice since it seems to be a natural shortcut for our brain's circuitry -- association). Those that have been judged or the victim of prejudice/bigotry need to try to let it go as well or at least see past it and understand not everyone hates/dislikes you/us/them... I'm not saying FORGET about it. But often, I've found I'm just as guilty of pre-judging others that I suspect are pre-judging me. But, I'm right... At least, in my own head, I'm right because I'm on the end usually involving persecution. It's a tightrope for those of us that have had the stones thrown at us for whatever reasons.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-07-14T10:32:30-06:00

ID

70281

Comment

Everyone is prejudiced and a bigot if those terms are defined as judging by appearance rather than character. And, if that is the definition of prejudice and bigotry, then we have also all been victims of it to some degree. Anyone not meeting someone else's norm has the potential for and probability of being discriminated againstówhether it is racism, sexism, classism, atheism, intellectualism, fashionism or any other -ism. The target of bigotry is in the eye of the beholder, not the geography or chronology.

Author

Johann

Date

2005-07-14T15:26:32-06:00

ID

70282

Comment

Good piece, Kamikaze. I've been meaning to read it (looking at the title) and just now had the chance. I feel embarrassed for Mr. Ley (he made himself look so foolish with that letter). Knol, you have/had a 'hawk and piercings? :-) Somehow I just didn't have you pictured that way. Doing a little mental head shaking to jiggle the old mental image out and the new one in! Strange how we get these little mental images of people with absolutely no physical clues (and my mental images have an unbelievably poor rate of match with the real thing).

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-14T20:32:44-06:00

ID

70283

Comment

C.W., Knol is bald now with funky, skinny little glasses with thick rims. Very urban-gay-chic. And there's nothing wrong with that. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-14T20:35:45-06:00

ID

70284

Comment

That sounds a bit closer to my mental image - but what I really want to know is if he is tall and very very thin (because that's what my mind's eye kept seeing when I read his posts). Probably means just the opposite (sorry, Knol, just kidding you, couldn't resist). :-) I do like those skinny little glasses - I tried to get some the last time I went to the optometrist, but they looked awful on me. Or I should say, I looked awful in them. Darn, I'm jealous of Knol, being able to wear those cool glasses.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-14T21:17:59-06:00

ID

70285

Comment

Kamikaze: "Look to the James Byrd incident in Texas or Andre Jones in Simpson County." In fairness, Ms. Ladd, isn't the writer "cherry-picking" crimes here? I seem to recall you criticizing me for that sort of thing in earlier threads.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-14T21:42:56-06:00

ID

70286

Comment

I know you asked Donna, but may I point out, while I'm here, that "the writer" reponded to a letter which stated, in part, I know inexcusable, unconscionable things happened in the past, but they didn't happen to the writer's generation, and my generation didn't commit the crimes. In fairness, Buck, NO, Kamikaze isn't cherry-picking, he's refuting false statements.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-14T21:48:58-06:00

ID

70287

Comment

CW, on the other end of the scale... I'm on record as making statements like "fight the tyrrany of normality", questioning whether we ought to have category labels called "weird" or "normal" for any kinds of harmless behavior at all (I think "normal" is nothing but a cultural bureaucracy filled with pointless "do's" and "don'ts"). Plus, I even spoke about "bigotry against stupid people" (all these made within the past few months). And I look much more like a typical Rankin Co. or Madison resident than I do a "funky Fondrenite" (Todd and Donna have seen me -- plus Ken Stiggers. So they can vouch for that)

Author

Philip

Date

2005-07-14T23:08:53-06:00

ID

70288

Comment

My first reaction to this was - hunh, I never thought of Kamikaze as particularly angry or radical. His attitude seems like a perfectly rational response to life in MS. When we moved back here, after 18 years in northern california, we decided that the unofficial motto of Mississippi is "change is bad, and strangers are scary." Which was, and is still, quite a shock for those of us who lived through the Internet bubble in Silicon Valley, where you couldn't change fast enough to keep up with the times, and 'strangers' were often your key to success, because they brought in new talent and new perspective.

Author

kate

Date

2005-07-15T07:01:42-06:00

ID

70289

Comment

Buck, the difference is glaringly obvious. You just pull out examples of black crime and post links a la Jim Giles to prove, I guess that black people who listen to hip-hop commit crimes. (Doh. But they're not the only ones.) Kamikaze, on the other hand, is using two examples of what he considers actual hate crimes, based on the victims' race, as examples that his generation is still subject to race violence, which Mr. Ley says is not the case. You're trying to bait-and-switch again with your logic of convenience (which inevitably comes out when the topic is race), and is fails this time as miserably as ever. Argue the issues on their merits, but this attempt to obscure your past cherry-picking isn't working. You have a long history of it here. If I were you, I wouldn'tt keep reminding people of it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-15T08:29:33-06:00

ID

70290

Comment

Its funny how supporters of Killen, the racists of old, kept calling those civil rights workers "intruders". Funny how they kept saying that they were "interfering" or that "they should have just minded there own business". I agree with Kate. It always seems that new folks with fresh ideas get crazy looks from those who fear change. It would be funny to see what those Killen folks say about us(meaning the U.S.) "sticking our nose in somebody else's business" i.e. Vietnam, Iraq. Wonder if they'll have some convenient excuses for that.

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-15T10:05:34-06:00

ID

70291

Comment

LADD: "Buck, the difference is glaringly obvious. You just pull out examples of black crime and post links a la Jim Giles to prove, I guess that black people who listen to hip-hop commit crimes. (Doh. But they're not the only ones.)" No, Ms. Ladd, you missed the nuance of my postings, which linked quite a few articles detailing violent incidents which occurred at rap concerts, many of which involved gun violence. And one involving gun violence in gun-control capitol of the world London, England. Your "guess" at what I was trying to "prove" is incorrect: my point was and is the same as that articulated by Sharpton, Cosby, Will Smith, and others, that is, pointing out the negative influence that some of these artists (i.e. Nelly, 50 Cent, Eminem, etc) are having on today's youth, including black youth. Is that really so confusing? But apparently that is "cherry-picking," in your opinion, while citing one hate crime from 1998 and one suicide from 1992 (alleged as a murder, after the fact) is not. "Cherry-picking" is your phrase: perhaps you should define it a bit more clearly.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-15T10:53:44-06:00

ID

70292

Comment

No, it's not confusing, Buck. At all. I've read your posts, and I've seen what you've posted and the context (and I know what you leave out when you talk about your buddies Sharpton and Cosby; talk about cherry-picking). It's hard to go back and try to make it sound now like it was so "nuanced." You might work on making your nuance a bit more sophisticated. And has been pointed outóyour attempt to draw the analogy between yourself and Kamikaze miserably failed. There is no logic there.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-15T11:03:24-06:00

ID

70293

Comment

I'd also like to point out another flaw in the writer's allegation that the two crimes he listed (a 1998 racially charged murder and a 1992 suicide) are somehow similar to race-based crimes of the past, presumably Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner as an example. What happened to the criminals who murdered James Byrd in Texas in 1998? They are undoubtedly on death row, as they should be. There are no words to describe the type of sub-human scum that they are. Does that really compare to the Neshoba county of the 1960s, where such crimes were carried out by sheriffs deputies and their buddies? No. Does making such tenuous comparisons lessen the impact of the realization that such state-sponsored terrorism ocurred in MS in the not-too-distant past? I think it might. Crime has happened in this generation and in every generation. To be sure, racially-motivated crimes still occur; but such things are no longer tolerated in MS or elsewhere. Noone, regardless of color or anything else, is above the law.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-16T11:25:57-06:00

ID

70294

Comment

Buck: Noone, regardless of color or anything else, is above the law. Is that so? I guess it's because no one is above the law that only Edgar Ray Killen is in jail, and our AG says it's over? Who you are has always made a difference in this world - not just in Mississippi, but we can't deal with the whole world. We have a back yard we need to clean before we rake thru somebody else's trash pile, and we need to get at it. Here, have a go at my poll: http://www.mississippipolitical.com/lynchingjusticepoll.htm

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-16T11:48:36-06:00

ID

70295

Comment

Buck, of course no one is above the law. I don't even understand the turn in logic you're taking now, and exactly how you're trying to "compare" the racist murder of James Byrd and those of 1964. Obviously, "sub-human scum" committed them both, and in both cases the people who did it, and orchestrated it, were bigots and taught by other people that black people's lives were less important, that they were more violent, etc. As much as it might pain you, your latest post rather backs up Kamikaze's argument, as least as it is (or is not) articulated. As usual on this topic, you've led a thread off topic and into a place that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So, as usual on race-related discussions with you, I'm going to bow out of wild goose-chasing your elusive point. I should stick with my plan and never respond to your taunts on these topics because we always end up the same place, and it's not very interesting or helpful, in my view.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-16T13:01:37-06:00

ID

70296

Comment

This story today seems quite relevant, however. Have y'all been following the twists and turns of the Wayne Williams murder case in Atlanta -- the black man is in prison for two of the 29 (at least) murders of young black men (boys, mostly) in 1979 and 1980? People have questioned for a long time whether Williams was framed for these murders. The Associated Press is reporting today (in story linked already) that recordings of an investigation of KKK in Georgia that indicated that Klan was killing the boys "to start a race war" have been withheld for years from Williams' defense and that they *may have been destroyed by the state.*: Williams, who is black, has long contended that he was framed and that Atlanta officials covered up evidence that the Klan was involved in the killings to avoid a race war in the city. State officials have countered that they believe they arrested the right man and that there is no evidence the Klan was involved. In addition to the tapes, the federal magistrate ordered the state to produce the juvenile records of a key witness against Williams within 30 days. However, the state filed a motion objecting to the order in part because it said the defense was on a fishing expedition. The issue is still pending. The juvenile records relate to a then-15-year-old boy whose testimony at Williamsí trial placed Williams in the company of one of the murder victims on the last day the victim was seen alive. Williamsí lawyers say they have information that the witness was in jail at the time he supposedly saw Williams. A new police chief in Dekalb County re-opened several of the cases in May, saying he doesn't believe Williams committed any of them. Needless to say, this is all very disturbing, and if the Klan was involved, and the state covered it up, it would certainly fly in the face of Mr. Ley's argument.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-16T13:11:15-06:00

ID

70297

Comment

There's an detailed summary of the Williams case here. I can't vouch for accuracy, of course, but it does match much of the other stuff I've read about it. The part about what evidence Williams was convicted on is very interesting. Also, check out the last paragraph in light of the AP story today about the missing Klan tapes: In November 1985, a new team of lawyers uncovered once-classified documents from an investigation of the Ku Klux Klan, conducted during 1980 and 1981 by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. A spy inside the Klan told GBI agents that Klansmen were "killing the children" in Atlanta, hoping to provoke a race war. One Klansman in particular, Charles Sanders, allegedly boasted of murdering "List" victim Lubie Geter, following a personal altercation. Geter reportedly struck Sanders's car with a go-cart, prompting the Klansman to tell his friend, "I'm gonna kill him. I'm gonna choke the black bastard to death." (Geter was, in fact, strangled, some three months after the incident in question.) In early 1981, the same informant told GBI agents that "after twenty black-child killings, they, the Klan, were going to start killing black women." Perhaps coincidentally, police records note the unsolved murders of numerous black women in Atlanta in 1980-82, with most of the victims strangled. On July 10, 1998, Butts County Superior Court Judge Hal Craig rejected the latest appeal for a new trial in Williams's case, based on suppression of critical evidence 15 years earlier.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-16T13:14:21-06:00

ID

70298

Comment

OK, one more. This May 15 AP story talks about Chief Louis Graham reopening the case, and about how the civil rights community and black leadership may share blame if Williams is, in fact, innocent, due to their rush to convict and now look at all of the evidence: Despite all these doubts about Williams' guilt, his case has never become a cause celebre. Journalist Jeff Prugh thinks he knows why. Prugh, a former Los Angeles Times reporter who co-wrote "The List," a book about the Williams case, says the civil rights establishment found it "politically expedient ... to sit on their hands rather than to attack the black power structure that they helped put into office." A member of that establishment, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, says it's not that simple. Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., says he and others felt it unlikely that a black mayor and black police commissioner would allow Williams to be railroaded. While he didn't believe Williams responsible for all the killings (he turned over to the FBI a letter from a reputed Ku Klux Klan member claiming Klan responsibility for some of the murders), Lowery felt confident that he was rightly convicted of the two. Rather than protest Williams' prosecution and conviction, the civil rights community rallied for a continued investigation and called on black parents to keep a closer watch on their children. "We called on the community to turn to each other, not on each other," Lowery says. "I think the community settled into the position that if Wayne did not do it, at least those who were doing it had stopped." Even now, there's nobody out in the streets picketing for Williams' freedom. But Atlanta is again buzzing with the story. Fascinating. They need to turn over every piece of evidence possible and get to the bottom of this, one way or another. It's truly amazing that the state wouldl try to keep evidence away from the defense. Williams is already in prison; keep them the evidence and see what happens. If it doesn't exonerate him, then at least people will know the state has the right man. But if the Klan did it, and the state and the civil rights community is trying to keep that from coming out, then wow. It just goes to show how important it is not to bury the past or the truth.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-16T13:25:14-06:00

ID

70299

Comment

LADD: "Buck, of course no one is above the law. I don't even understand the turn in logic you're taking now, and exactly how you're trying to "compare" the racist murder of James Byrd and those of 1964." I never made this comparison; Kamikaze did. I think I was fairly clear that I was criticizing it (with all due respect to the author)in my previous post. KAMIKAZE: "We will continue to thrive despite the fact that the playing field is not always level. Look to the James Byrd incident in Texas or Andre Jones in Simpson County. These ìinexcusableî things that you say aren't happening during my generation are indeed happening. What makes it so bad is that as an African-American male in this ìnewî generation, it could happen to meóstill. " Kamikaze was apparently responding to this portion of Phillip Ley's letter, which you posted: "I know inexcusable, unconscionable things happened in the past, but they didn't happen to the writer's generation, and my generation didn't commit the crimes." As always, Ms. Ladd, I am glad to clarify my point for you.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-16T16:10:29-06:00

ID

70300

Comment

Mr. Allred, I find myself in disagreement with Donna, and I also find your point unclarified. I don't know if your clarification does the job with anyone else, but it does nothing but further muddy the water. Donna, it does seem that some folks have operated above the law in the past, and I contend that some are still operating above the law (in that past crimes they commited are not being seriously investigated and pursued); I'd like to keep the pressure on to take that privilege away from them. It may not be possible, but that can't stop us trying as hard as we can. I know that we are likely quibbling over semantics, but I think it's important to make that distinction. If you think my language is imprecise, tell me how to better express it. (Tim, you can get your correction pen out, too). Buckallred: As I noted before, this was a refutation of an erroneous statement made by Mr. Ley with citations of examples. It was not a comparision - Mr. Ley was the one making comparisons between what has happened in the past and what happens now, and in the course of that comparison, he made a statement that these things don't happen now. He was (rightfully) corrected by Kamikaze. Just because you ignored my previous post to you doesn't mean it has no merit; it just makes you appear unable or afraid to answer it. :-)

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-16T16:39:48-06:00

ID

70301

Comment

CW: I assure you that I am able and unafraid to respond to any posts. Noone said that your post lacks merit. What about Mr. Ley's statement do you consider erroneous ("I know inexcusable, unconscionable things happened in the past, but they didn't happen to the writer's generation, and my generation didn't commit the crimes.")? Perhaps you need to re-read Kamikaze's statement that I quoted above. Comparison is defined as "A statement or estimate of similarities and differences." Kamikaze's quote: "Look to the James Byrd incident in Texas or Andre Jones in Simpson County. These 'inexcusable' things that [Mr. Ley wrote] aren't happening during my generation are indeed happening." Is that not a comparison, in your opinion? The distinction I cited above is that "these things" per your post (meaning the "inexcusable, unconscionable things" Mr. Ley refers to) in fact do not happen now. For example, while Mr. Killen and his ilk got away (for 40 years, anyway), the murderers of James Byrd are in jail. Whether you want to call the crime (singular) cited by Kamikaze an "example" or a "comparison," regardless of semantics the point fails either way. The "MS Burning" murders were state-sponsored terrorism; the Byrd murder was a crime that resulted in a swift prosecution and conviction.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-16T18:14:54-06:00

ID

70302

Comment

I assure you that I am able and unafraid to respond to any posts. Noone said that your post lacks merit. I had to wonder, since I've addressed questions directly to you on a couple of other threads (and again on this one), and you have come back into the thread each time, answered someone else and ignored my question to you. (Really, Mr. Allred, I might have gotten my little feelings hurt, had you persisted). ;-) If you said "the sky is green," and I said "it is blue, just look up and see for yourself," (and lo and behold, it's a clear day, and the sky IS blue) - am I making a comparison or am I refuting your erroneous statement? The way you are trying to apply the word "comparison" I suppose that would be a comparison to you. To me it would mean you are in error. ;-) The Byrd dragging did not go unpunished, yet it did happen and I would call it inexcusable. I know you are not trying to say that the Byrd incident was not "inexcusable". What you are trying to do is tell me what Kamikaze meant, but it's obvious that he was referring to lynching, not just state-abetted lynching. I agree with you on one thing - that the Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner murderers were aided and abetted by the state and that it was state-sanctioned terrorism; I don't know that I would go so far as to say state-sponsored, but I'll sleep on that one.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-16T21:07:12-06:00

ID

70303

Comment

Odd, I posted a response on this earlier ... or thought I did. Grumble. What I said, in essense, was: I'm not disagreeing with you, CD, about the "above the law" thing. I believe that no one is (or "should be") above the law; the tragic fact is that too many people are in reality. As for Buck's final argument -- it's just not making sense. Buck, you are twisting what was said both by Kamikaze and Ley. Neither were talking about whether the cases were prosecuted; they were talking about these horrendous race crimes. Ley said they do not happen to current generations; Kamikaze said they do and cited two examples he believes shows that they do. You are now interjecting whether they were prosecuted, which is a different topic and about justice, not whether race crimes are happening to current generations. Your "comparison" argument is not working, because you are not showing that you comprehend what was actually written. Thus, your comments are just confusing the arguments here, rather than adding anything to them. You end your last post with: The "MS Burning" murders were state-sponsored terrorism; the Byrd murder was a crime that resulted in a swift prosecution and conviction. I agree with that for the most part (although "sponsored" might be a little hyperbolic; maybe "supported"); however, that in no way addresses what Ley and Kamikaze are saying. They are not talking about prosecution; they are talking about whether or not these types of hate crimes kept happening to blacks after the 1960s. Kamikaze used examples to knock down Ley's argument that it never happened; he wasn't drawing a comparison as you've presented it as anyone can see. The only "comparison" he drew was between "old" thinking and "new." An attentive reading would reveal that the "old" thinking would not want such cases prosecuted; "new" thinking would call for the prosecution (a la Byrd case). He's applauded that difference; it's people who follow the "old" thinking (such as Ley) who he is criticizing. His argument is much more sophisticated than you're trying to paint it. You baited and switched the logic again, presumably trying to twist the argument so you can knock it down. But it just doesn't work here. Buck, it would be really helpful if you would start reading these threads, and the articles closer, before you start long tangents based on things that people did not argue. I truly don't know if you're doing it on purpose to change the subject when someone makes good points you don't want to be good, or if you're just reading too fast to comprehend what is actually written, or it's just plain old FUD. But I must ask that you read closer before you hit "submit." You are causing us to spend way too much energy trying to correct your faulty reading of other people's statements, and that is derailing the discussion. And, it would also help discussion to just admit it when someone points out that you've misread something rather than keep trying to twist and justify it even further away from the topic, perhaps to obscure your fallacy. It's good to remember that all of this stays here for people to read, and it's easy enough to go back and re-read to see what people said and didn't say. And too many times to count, people just aren't saying what you say they're saying. I'm going to have to ask you to reel that in.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-16T21:25:16-06:00

ID

70304

Comment

Thank you Kamikaze for responding so eloquently to Mr. Ley's letter. It struck a chord in me too.

Author

emilyb

Date

2005-07-17T13:22:39-06:00

ID

70305

Comment

I was sure that you and I were on the same page, Donna, but wasn't sure that it was clear from what you wrote in this post (newer readers may have missed past articles or posts that made it clear to me). And Mr. Allred can surely cause a person to waste time nitpicking, can't he?

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-17T14:21:49-06:00

ID

70306

Comment

No problem, C.W.; I saw your point, and I appreciate you asking me to clarify. And yes to your second question. I've been down too many a path trying to chase down Buck's ever-changing point. I'm really going to try to refrain from responding to him, as I've said I was going to several times before.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-17T17:09:25-06:00

ID

70307

Comment

C.W: "I know you are not trying to say that the Byrd incident was not "inexcusable". What you are trying to do is tell me what Kamikaze meant, but it's obvious that he was referring to lynching, not just state-abetted lynching." C.W: I would be interested to hear the author explain his meaning more clearly; as stated, my point was to distinguish a 60's era civil rights murder from a more recent murder that was based on race and properly prosecuted. As Mr. Ley correctly states in his letter, it is an unfortunate fact that crimes (including murders) that are racially motivated are a fact of life whether one lives in Mississippi, Israel, Chechnya, or anywhere else. They are all equally inexcusable. However, as stated, I think that the author's use of the James Byrd murder as an 'example' or 'comparison' or whatever to civil rights murders of the past to be inaccurate at best. As for nitpicking, I may well be guilty as charged. Ms. Ladd: I find it interesting that you accuse me of "twisting" the words of Mr. Ley and/or Kamikaze when I, in my previous posts, carefully quoted the portions of the two authors' points that I wanted to address. While I appreciate your backhanded compliment regarding my eloquence, even I am not able to change printed words . . . without getting caught, anyway. As for my chasing "tangents" and/or "changing the subject," see my response above. The two authors in question raised various issues in their respective posts, all of which are relevant in my opinion. If you find my perspective to be as tiresome as you say, then, by all means, refrain from responding.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-17T20:39:47-06:00

ID

70308

Comment

Buck, you just got "caught," as you put it. Neither Mr. Ley nor Kamikaze talk about "civil rights murders," much less compare them. They are talking about "inexcusable, unconscionable things" from the past as Mr. Ley called them. They are not just discussing civil rights-related murders, which are not always the same as crimes based on someone's race. You just inserted that phrase in your last post, seemingly to continue the twisting and justify your string of comments that haven't made sense re this article and the letter it was based o n. Now, I'm going to get a bit tougher with you than I usually am when you do this kind of thing. Stop it. You are twisting people's words, purposefully or not, and are derailing good discussions as a result. I am starting to believe you are doing it on purpose because it is truly hard to see the difficulty you're having reading the words that are on the screen. This is your last call, as putting words in other people's mouths is a violation of the user agreement and is considered trolling. Move on, Buck, and stop the word-twisting. I'm tired of you using our site to beat people up with words they never said. It's not for that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-17T20:50:22-06:00

ID

70309

Comment

The sky is still blue, Mr. Allred.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-07-17T21:34:14-06:00

ID

70310

Comment

Now THAT's Funny...I don't care who ya are. But its hard to NOT respond isn't it? Buck...some of YOUR best friends are black aren't they?

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-18T08:42:24-06:00

ID

70311

Comment

As a quick review (or, for Ms. Ladd, a view), here is a relevant portion of Mr. Ley's letter: "I know inexcusable, unconscionable things happened in the past, but they didn't happen to the writer's generation, and my generation didn't commit the crimes. I, and many like me, refuse to be held responsible for something we didn't contribute to." Apparently Ms. Ladd considers it unreasonable or an underhanded attempt by me to "twist" the meaning of the issues addressed in the letter (and responded to by Kamikaze) to assume that the "unconscionable things" referenced by Mr. Ley included civil rights murders (notably the 'MS Burning' ones). I do make that assumption and consider it to be an eminently reasonable one to make; do you disagree? Should we contact Mr. Ley to clarify his meaning?I offer to do just that, if you are interested. I have every confidence that he would confirm the reasonableness of my assumption. Just out of curiosity, what historical incidents do you think Mr. Ley was referring to? Trusip: As difficult as it may be to believe, I have many friends of many colors. And that is relevant to his thread. . how?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-18T18:24:30-06:00

ID

70312

Comment

Buck, I think what's unreasonable is your assumption that the heinousness of what you call (reasonably enough, in some ways) "civil rights murders" lies in the fact that they were not vigorously prosecuted. What's really horrible about them, though, is, first, that the victims were killed; and second, that they were killed for racist reasons. Once that's happened, the victims can no longer be helped by a prosecution, obviously. Certainly the fact that such murders tend to be prosecuted today says good things about our society, but the fact that they still happen -- the James Byrd murder being a good example -- says very, very bad things about our society. I think it's more reasonable to interpret Ley's letter, and his reference to "inexcusable, unconscionable things," as referring to the murders themselves rather than to the lack of prosecutorial effort in connection with them. In that sense, Kamikaze is entirely right in saying that "inexcusable, unconscionable things" are indeed still happening. Sadly enough. Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-07-18T23:25:21-06:00

ID

70313

Comment

no way will white or black people ever be able to understand how to understand how it feels to be the other in america. the same way men will never understand how it feels to be pregnant. this makes it important to understand for buck or mr. ley to say that we whine and dont support they are only judging us collectively based on what they want to see. if this is cool for them to do i can sit back and use their opinions to judge all white people. now i really wonder what donna or todd would think of themselves knowing that buck represents them in my mind. doesnt make much sense but as long as the majority of whites see blacks collectively and themselves as individuals it wont or cant work.

Author

skipp

Date

2005-07-19T09:19:35-06:00

ID

70314

Comment

and the idea that liberal whites or gays are victims of bigotry may be true in context. but if you shut up and change your clothes no one knows who or what you are. as soon as i walk in the room everyone sees so there is nothing i can do to avoid it.

Author

skipp

Date

2005-07-19T09:22:27-06:00

ID

70315

Comment

and the idea that liberal whites or gays are victims of bigotry may be true in context. but if you shut up and change your clothes no one knows who or what you are. as soon as i walk in the room everyone sees so there is nothing i can do to avoid it. And if you think that "shut up and change your clothes and no one will know who or what you are" is always an advantage, you've never made the effort to think about the severe problems it can pose.

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-07-19T09:45:59-06:00

ID

70316

Comment

Tim: "Buck, I think what's unreasonable is your assumption that the heinousness of what you call (reasonably enough, in some ways) "civil rights murders" lies in the fact that they were not vigorously prosecuted. What's really horrible about them, though, is, first, that the victims were killed; and second, that they were killed for racist reasons. Once that's happened, the victims can no longer be helped by a prosecution, obviously. Certainly the fact that such murders tend to be prosecuted today says good things about our society, but the fact that they still happen -- the James Byrd murder being a good example -- says very, very bad things about our society." I agree with that; that is undoubedly true. My point was to illustrate the differences between the "inexcusable, unconscionable things" of the past as opposed to more recent racially-motivated murders: that these crimes are now prosecuted like any other crime, and sometimes more vigorously so. Racially-motivated crimes still happen today, and the victims of those crimes are, sadly enough, members of every race or ethnicity. As stated in my earlier post, it is a sad fact of humanity that these sorts of crimes will always happen. Indeed, it could happen to Kamikaze, and it could happen to me or anyone else as well. skipp: I can't say that your post is very clear, or very flattering as for the portion that I do understand. I only represent myself; any greater meaning you take from my posts is on you. Also, I'd caution you against making broad assumptions about me (or any other individual) based on a few posts concerning a narrow range of issues on an internet message board.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-19T10:04:39-06:00

ID

70317

Comment

My point was to illustrate the differences between the "inexcusable, unconscionable things" of the past as opposed to more recent racially-motivated murders: that these crimes are now prosecuted like any other crime, and sometimes more vigorously so. I don't think that was Ley's point. I don't even think it's a reasonable reading of what he wrote. That's my point. As stated in my earlier post, it is a sad fact of humanity that these sorts of crimes will always happen. Then perhaps Ley shouldn't have said that they don't happen any more, eh? Indeed, it could happen to Kamikaze, and it could happen to me or anyone else as well. But I think we can agree that Kamikaze, as a black man, is more likely to be the victim of a racially motivated crime in the US than, say, I am, as a white man. -- Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-07-19T11:12:39-06:00

ID

70318

Comment

For the umpteenth time: in his letter, Mr. Ley was referring to the "unconscionable things OF THE PAST," was he not? What is the difference between a race-based crime against a black person "in the past" as opposed to those that occur in the present? NOW they are all prosecuted! That's the difference! Tim: "Then perhaps Ley shouldn't have said that they don't happen any more, eh?" If you think Mr. Ley's "unconscionable things of the past" refers to race-based crimes such as the James Byrd murder in Texas, he said no such thing: Mr. Ley's letter: "Racism and hatred will always exist in some segments of the population, on both sides of the color aisle. If you don't agree, go to Serbia, where it's been going on for a thousand years. It may never, ever stop." Hopefully Mr. Ley will view this thread and clarify his meaning . . of course, in my opinion his meaning is already perfectly clear.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-19T11:39:35-06:00

ID

70319

Comment

For the umpteenth time: Kamikaze's argument is exactly what I and others have been saying -- that that difference makes no difference in the final analysis. As for what Ley said, I'll quote this again: "I know inexcusable, unconscionable things happened in the past, but they didn't happen to the writer's generation, and my generation didn't commit the crimes." Inexcusable, unconscionable things ARE still happening and I can't believe you'd even deny that. They are happening to Kamikaze's generation and they are being committed by Ley's generation. THAT's the fscking point.

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-07-19T11:54:03-06:00

ID

70320

Comment

wow he got it

Author

skipp

Date

2005-07-19T12:24:14-06:00

ID

70321

Comment

Tim: "For the umpteenth time: Kamikaze's argument is exactly what I and others have been saying -- that that difference makes no difference in the final analysis." Race-based crimes are now properly prosecuted, some of them more aggressively prosecuted than other violent crimes ("hate crimes"), local sheriffs and their buddies no longer murder blacks with impunity, and in your opinion that makes no difference in the 'final analysis?' I'm afraid your 'fsking point' just about lives up to its name.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-19T12:31:02-06:00

ID

70322

Comment

Race-based crimes are now properly prosecuted, some of them more aggressively prosecuted than other violent crimes ("hate crimes"), local sheriffs and their buddies no longer murder blacks with impunity, and in your opinion that makes no difference in the 'final analysis?' Basically, yes. As I pointed out before, the victims, by definition, are just as dead after a prosecution as they would be if no prosecution were ever carried out. It's the murder itself that's the key. Why am I not surprised that you're not getting this? I'm afraid your 'fsking point' just about lives up to its name. It's never performed a filesystem check in its life, so I don't really think so.

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-07-19T12:38:08-06:00

ID

70323

Comment

A new police chief in Dekalb County re-opened several of the cases in May, saying he doesn't believe Williams committed any of them. Needless to say, this is all very disturbing, and if the Klan was involved, and the state covered it up, it would certainly fly in the face of Mr. Ley's argument. It will fly in the face of ALL racists in America who know the truth.

Author

Jocelyn

Date

2005-07-19T15:19:11-06:00

ID

70324

Comment

Trusip: As difficult as it may be to believe, I have many friends of many colors. And that is relevant to his thread. . how? ...I could tell you how its relevant but that would mean me calling you what you really are and per the user agreement I can't do that or I'll get banned. You use the excuse that you have friends of many colors but in reality by your comments and your denial..you are a...

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-20T08:40:37-06:00

ID

70325

Comment

Indeed, it could happen to Kamikaze, and it could happen to me or anyone else as well. ...Are you kidding me? This guy is a riot!!!! local sheriffs and their buddies no longer murder blacks with impunity. ...no really, are you kidding me? Buck my friend, methinks you're in the closet. That just proves Kamikaze's point. I believe I'd feel better if you just went ahead and used the "n" word. Then I could actually try to respect your stance.

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-20T09:11:11-06:00

ID

70326

Comment

according to Kamikaze and other hip-hop artists they refuse any and all attempts to hold hip-hop events there as well According to Kamikaze the sky is falling on black people(after reading some of his work), but I digress. Rock bands have the same issues as rappers....INSURANCE. The insurance to rent the Coliseum is high for rock bands and I assume even higher for rappers since violence, hyped up youth, drugs and peer pressure cause outbreaks at concerts. The Coliseum is a great place but is in need of great renovation. The Owners of it aren't willing to fund a renovation so the only thing that place is good for now is looking at. It's too dangerous to have anything in it now.

Author

Jocelyn

Date

2005-07-20T09:16:54-06:00

ID

70327

Comment

Nope, I refuse to give them excuses. Lynerd Skynerd was just there AND they hosted some wrestling event there a few months ago. When I leave work everyday I pass something going on there off high st, everyday. i think the issue is one of race plain and simple. If you watch, these rappers are pretty darn good businessmen. From what I hear, even when they have the money to pay insurance and have all paperwork in order, hip-hop concerts are still turned away. If that s the case its simply not right...regardless. Rock acts DON'T have the same problems rappers do, but to me they pose the same saftey issues that rappers do. ..Yep, if some people had their way, the sky WOULD fall on black folks. But we aint sweatin it. If it does, the stronger of us will hold it up while the rest of us dodge the falling pieces and we WILL keep truckin!

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-20T09:30:00-06:00

ID

70328

Comment

trusip: "You use the excuse that you have friends of many colors but in reality by your comments and your denial..you are a..." Let me finish your thought. . . "Lawrence Welk fan?" Here's some free advice for you trusip: you'll do much better here and elsewhere if you address the issues raised rather than making unfounded accusations and/or play name-calling games, especially with someone you only know through posts on an internet forum. If name-calling is all you have, then that's pretty weak. Even weaker is the fact that you come on this forum and play name-calling games under an anonymous username. As for local sheriffs no longer murdering blacks with impunity, no I am not kidding you, but glad to be of amusement. You will note that the crime that Kamikaze cited in his article is from Texas in 1998, and as a result of that crime the perpetrators (who were not law enforcement officers of any sort, by the way) are on death row. Got any other crimes to cite?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-20T09:59:42-06:00

ID

70329

Comment

"The Coliseum is a great place but is in need of great renovation. The Owners of it aren't willing to fund a renovation so the only thing that place is good for now is looking at. It's too dangerous to have anything in it now." No doubt that the Coliseum is in need of renovation. And, I think it COULD be a considerably nicer venue with some modernization (fix the leaky roof, put in a jumbotron, etc). But, concert promoters want bigger venues these days and the Coliseum is relatively small (around 10K max). AND, even if it were to get renovated, the fairgrounds commissioner apparently gets to rule the facility. I doubt that beer/liquor sales would be allowed again, and that's makes sporting events/concerts less appealing to many. I'm afraid that the Coliseum is destined for more of the same: rodeos and the high school basketball tournament. It's hard for me to believe that a new arena Downtown is not on somebody's drawing board. It'd fit in well with the convention center complex. And, thinking ahead to if Two Lakes comes into being, it would keep events downtown instead of a few blocks to the west.

Author

millhouse

Date

2005-07-20T10:36:21-06:00

ID

70330

Comment

Buck you just proved my point.The point is not whether or not the case wasprosecuted but the fact that it HAPPENED.and in 1998 no less, which is what Mr.Ley was implying by his letter. Whether the guilty parties are in jail or not is irrelevant. Fact is, A black man in 2005 can still get lynched!!! And to go even farther sir...You Can't(be lynched)!!!! and to go even farther still. If the shoe fits, wear it. I only call em like I see em. Your intelligent comments and eloquent words dance around the fact that you have some kind of latent disdain for those that are not your same skin hue. And I'm through.

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-22T09:36:54-06:00

ID

70331

Comment

You accusation of my 'racism' speaks only to your own careless use of that word rather than to any prejudice on my part. I am no racist, not by a long shot. However, I have an obvious (and non-latent) disdain for the type of exaggeration displayed in this article, and an even greater disdain for people who toss the term 'racist' around like you do.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-22T10:27:07-06:00

ID

70332

Comment

Buck just wrote: However, I have an obvious (and non-latent) disdain for the type of exaggeration displayed in this article, and an even greater disdain for people who toss the term 'racist' around like you do. Buck, doing a search on this page just now, the only time I see that trusip has used the word "racist" was in the following sentence: Its funny how supporters of Killen, the racists of old, kept calling those civil rights workers "intruders". You are putting words in people's mouths in a direct and offensive way, and you ae continually trying to bait arguments by ignoring or missing other people's points. At this point, you are contributing nothing to the discussion, but disruption based on things people did not say.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-22T10:32:47-06:00

ID

70333

Comment

Well I don't know this buckallred guy, but if I were him I would say: Ms. Ladd: My apologies. Please replace 'racist' in my post above with "some kind of latent disdain for those that are not your same skin hue." As for "contributing nothing to the discussion, but disruption based on things people did not say," how does that analysis fare with regards to trusip's comments directed toward me? Just curious. Some of them are posted below for your convenience. trusip: "...I could tell you how its relevant but that would mean me calling you what you really are and per the user agreement I can't do that or I'll get banned. You use the excuse that you have friends of many colors but in reality by your comments and your denial..you are a... Buck my friend, methinks you're in the closet. That just proves Kamikaze's point. I believe I'd feel better if you just went ahead and used the 'n' word. Then I could actually try to respect your stance. If the shoe fits, wear it. I only call em like I see em. Your intelligent comments and eloquent words dance around the fact that you have some kind of latent disdain for those that are not your same skin hue. And I'm through."

Author

This user is on probation for trolling.

Date

2005-07-22T10:51:26-06:00

ID

70334

Comment

...and your point is..what????

Author

trusip

Date

2005-07-25T08:51:15-06:00

ID

70335

Comment

Wow, in the last few posts, it seems that the User Agreement on this site is enforced in a rather selective manner against certain individuals and not against others. How unfortunate.

Author

grinder

Date

2005-09-02T13:58:38-06:00

ID

70336

Comment

Prof, if you're talking about "This user is on probation for trolling," I should probably clarify. This user was trolling hard on another thread, and we changed the user name as a warning. However, it changed all the previous posts; they are not necessarily all trolling. I had also deleted the most extraneous and offensive comments. This was before I re-activated the troll blog, unfortunatelly, or the comments would have been moved there. However, right now, I've got bigger fish to fry and no time to go back and justify every single warning I've given a troll on the site. We have a crisis on our hands. If you want to talk about how bad I suck, I suggest that you head to one of the sites devoted to that purpose. We have a disaster blog to run here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-02T16:35:20-06:00

ID

70337

Comment

Actually I was referring to buckallred, not the "This user is on probation for trolling" individual.

Author

grinder

Date

2005-09-02T20:29:45-06:00

ID

70338

Comment

The problem, Prof, is that Buck continued to misstate something very basic, seemingly on purpose, and to put words in other people's mouths. That's trolling 101.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-02T20:33:17-06:00

ID

70339

Comment

From reading the above posts, he clarified that point. And are you going to address the accusation made against him by "trusip?" Also, did you ask buckallred whether he "misstated something very basic, seemingly on purpose," or did you just ban him?

Author

grinder

Date

2005-09-02T20:40:02-06:00

ID

70340

Comment

And attempting to resurrect the thread six weeks later, in an attempt to get a quotable rise out of the overworked and (I suspect) a/c-less editor-in-chief, is Trolling 102. Very clever, Professor Amendment. Why don't you go back to the other forum? You know, the one where regulars have to stand in front of a mural of Donna at 3 o'clock every afternoon and chant "HATE! HATE! HATE!"? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-02T20:47:25-06:00

ID

70341

Comment

Prof, this is an old discussion, and I'll say again that we have bigger fish to fry right now. I'm not getting into a pissing contest over old thread and trolling. I suggest that you focus on what's really important right now: helping people victimized by Katrina. This disaster is really all that matters this week, at least on this site.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-02T20:50:36-06:00

ID

70342

Comment

I have no idea what forum you are talking about, and am not interested in participating there either way. I would, however, be interested in a response to the issues raised in my previous post.

Author

grinder

Date

2005-09-02T20:51:40-06:00

ID

70343

Comment

A deputy said Friday he saw convicted killer Edgar Ray Killen walking unaided and filling up his truck with gas on Wednesday. I suppose y'all have all read the Jerry Mitchell article in today's paper, right? Pore ole codger.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-09-03T19:59:44-06:00

ID

70344

Comment

Yeah, I saw it. Cough. Cough, cough.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-03T23:15:19-06:00