posted March 25, 2008 01:07 PM            

Yes Blue, the 1st black President, Commander Corruption..aka Bill Clinton had a mentor named Senator J William Fulbright, democrat who along with his pal, father of Al Gore, Senator Albert Gore Sr. attempted to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other civil rights legislation.

Today, there's a former KKK..Klan member of high office in the Klan still in the Senate. That would be Senator Robert KKK Byrd, democrat from WV.

posted March 25, 2008 03:11 PM              

May I ask a question? I'm not African-American and I'd like to better understand this. The girl that used the racial slur, do you believe she subscribed to a white supremicst philosophy? Or do you believe she instinctively knew, in that most astute way young children do, the easiest way to hurt you? And if that be the case, how often do you suspect true racism and how often would you chalk it up to a general insult?

For example, let's say Joe is waiting in line and Bob cuts in front of him. Bob happens to be overweight. Joe, in his anger, calls him a "fat baastard" and tells him to get to back of the line. In a calmer moment, Joe might laugh at the concept that someone with a few extra pounds is somehow "less" or inferior, but he assumed Bob would be hurt by the weight comment and he pounced.

For the record, I agree with you that true racism does exist. I've had the misfortune of runing into it and it's an ugly thing.

posted March 25, 2008 05:09 PM            

Who was in power?
Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson
Senate Majority Party: Democrat
House Majority Party: Democrat

There HAD TO BE serious political maneuvering just to get the bill to a vote in the Senate. That maneuvering was done by Democrat Mike Mansfield. In the end it was the first time in U.S. history that the Senate was able to muster enough votes to end a filibuster on a civil rights bill. The person managing the bill was Democrat Hubert Humphrey.

In the House, President Johnson was the one who had to finesse the bill past Howard W. Smith's Rules Committee. Howard Smith was a Southern Democrat.

In conclusion, the vote was only able to take place thanks to Democrats.

The Voting Stats:

What Jwhop posted is correct. However, he failed to mention that the Republican portion of the passing vote only totaled 44% of the vote, which means that 56% of voting in support of the bill came from Democrats. In the House there were almost as many Democrats voting for the bill (164) as the sum of ALL Republicans in the House (172). In the Senate more Democrats voted for the Bill than the total sum of Republican Senators.

By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
  
  
• Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
  
• Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
  

• Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
  
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

posted March 25, 2008 05:49 PM            

Certainly holding up this legislation or finessing it through committee was not because of Republicans...as you attempt to imply.

Your argument is specious at best and disingenous at worst...as usual.

The lowest percentage of Republicans voting for the Civil Rights Act was 80%, the highest was 84% and both or either is an overwhelming majority of Republicans.

Liars do figure don't they acoustic. Perhaps the reason 44% of the total vote to pass the Civil Rights Act by Republicans reflects the very large majorities of democrats in the House and Senate.

posted March 25, 2008 06:17 PM            

If I am a manager, the constitution does not stop me from preferring a blond as my secretary.

Fat people discriminated, jews discriminated, women discrimnated in job applications ...just to give an idea.

They often say blacks are more likely to be stopped behind wheels on interstate highways for drug checking. So if you happen to be one - sue the state.

Why join a moron Pastor who thinks he has legal means to free blacks ? In fact the government should start making his organization for profit because he seems to be showing a preference for presidential candidates

I believe in individual liberation firt before group liberation. Spread education, awareness of legal rights. etc...

There are better ways to show that you are hurt than feed the negative. Unless everyone is going to the pastor just for amusement

BTW, what can Obama do as a black president? Will it make your and others ego satisfied when a black president finally makes it. Can we then permanently get civil rights off the table. Provide some valid reasons and I can convince me to vote for a black man. The eyes of the constitution does not make color, religion or sex as qualification for the president.

posted March 25, 2008 06:34 PM            

quote:

---

Certainly holding up this legislation or finessing it through committee was not because of Republicans...as you attempt to imply.

---

I wasn't trying to imply that at all, and even named a Democrat committee leader who was blocking it.

quote:

---

Your argument is specious at best and disingenous at worst...as usual.

---

I'm not presenting an argument. I'm presenting the facts. The facts aren't specious in the slightest.

The facts show that Democrats worked the bill into law despite largely Democratic opposition. The facts show that despite Democratic opposition there were still more votes in favor of the bill from Democrats than there were from Republicans. The facts show that it was Democrats who pushed the it through. The facts show that virtually all Southern Republicans voted against the Act, and that the percentage of Northern Democrats voting in support of the bill beat the percentage of Northern Republicans in both the House and Senate.

posted March 25, 2008 08:28 PM            

"May I ask a question? I'm not African-American and I'd like to better understand this."

Ummmm.....I am not African American either.
I am mixed Black,Portuguese,English,German,French,Italian,Puerto Rican,Native American,and Jewish to be exact. I don't believe in any one drop rule that tells me that I am part Black,then I am black. that rule is outdated and was used to ban interracial relationships. I always hated Society try to fit me into a box that I don't fit. It's not just whites do that. Blacks too. The NAACP wants multiracial people mixed with black to embrace the one drop rule,and that's why I don't support the NAACP.

"The girl that used the racial slur, do you believe she subscribed to a white supremicst philosophy? Or do you believe she instinctively knew, in that most astute way young children do, the easiest way to hurt you? And if that be the case, how often do you suspect true racism and how often would you chalk it up to a general insult?"

It doesn't matter. Nobody should be called the n'word. It really hurt like hell. It was worse than being called "retard" for being Dyslexic,Dyspraxic in special education and that was mainly by white school children.
It introduced me to what it's like being "Black" Before that,I was being called "retard" a lot and was singled out for having special needs. That hurt like hell too. Every other time that I was called the n'word in my life, it hurt like hell and made me angry just as much as being called "retard","stupid" or other words to imply that I have low intelligence even though I am Dyslexic,Dyspraxic,ADHD with above average intelligence. There are a lot of people who think that Blacks are not intelligent just like there a people who think that neurodivergents are not intelligent.

"For the record, I agree with you that true racism does exist. I've had the misfortune of runing into it and it's an ugly thing."

I am glad that you agree. Unfortunately,many don't agree. They think that we have great interracial relations. Racism of any kind is wrong...doesn't matter what race a person is.

BTW...my girlfriend is Irish,Scottish. So she's white. So I am in an interracial relationship just like I was born from one.

posted March 25, 2008 08:42 PM            

You're my fu-letters-ing hero, dude!

Just saying...

Sometimes, I wish I could be there to see jwhop's face...

Ghani

posted March 25, 2008 08:47 PM            

They are very connected. Discriminated because of race is part of racism. I am not stupid. I don't need to read a legal dictionary.

"Why join a moron Pastor who thinks he has legal means to free blacks ? In fact the government should start making his organization for profit because he seems to be showing a preference for presidential candidates"

Who said that I was joining the Pastor? Why is he moron for speaking the truth about race relations here in USA? Just because people say/do things that a person doesn't like nor agree with doesn't make them a moron. A lot of people think people who practice Astrology are morons,and I have been called a moron for practicing Astrology. I have seen others being called morons too. Some people believe that I am moron because of my history of special education. Some people call me stupid for telling the truth about neurodivergent conditions don't mean being moron. Many people are called "morons" and other words to imply lack of intelligence for their views,beliefs,and practices.
BTW..my religious/spiritual beliefs are Unitarian Universalism,New Age,Neopaganism. I don't go to church. For me,God is a personal thing. I don't need to pray and worship in front of people.

I believe in individual liberation firt before group liberation. Spread education, awareness of legal rights. etc...

"There are better ways to show that you are hurt than feed the negative. Unless everyone is going to the pastor just for amusement"

It's not about showing that somebody's hurt and feeding the negative. People go to certain churches because they want just go to church. I don't go to that church nor any church for that matter,and so I can't talk about people that go there. There is nothing wrong to go a church where a pastor believes in liberation,independence of blacks..especially when they are minorities that deal with a lot of racism,discrimination,and mistreatment.

"BTW, what can Obama do as a black president? Will it make your and others ego satisfied when a black president finally makes it. Can we then permanently get civil rights off the table. Provide some valid reasons and I can convince me to vote for a black man. The eyes of the constitution does not make color, religion or sex as qualification for the president."

I don't view him as a black president myself. I reject the one drop rule. That's why I don't view myself as black because my being part black. I embrace all my heritage just like Tiger Woods does and calls himself Cablinasian.I was one of 4.6 percent of the US population who marked down multiple race boxes on 2000 Census form. It was the 2000 Census which was the first Cenus that people were allowed to mark down multiple boxes for race. That idea was originated by multiracial people in Berkeley,California I don't support Obama because he's half black. So don't even go there. I am a liberal person,and I choose to support liberals. At the beginning of the presidential race to a month ago, I didn't care what democrat would win presidency as long as GOP was out of office. So don't try to twist things and assume that I want Obama to win because he's half black.

I only wanted to point that there is serious racism,discrimination,mistreatment of blacks in spite of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being passed. I felt like I had to defend Rev. Wright in that he is right about race relations suck here in USA and that racism is alive an well here in USA.

Just because that I do that doesn't make me a person who wants Obama to be president because he's half black. I don't care what color Obama is as long as he's a liberal.

Personally, both he and Hillary aren't liberal enough for me. They don't support gay marriage. I believe in gay rights,and I signed a petition for Gay Marriage. No religion should infringe on the rights of others. Religion was used to ban interracial marriages. Mildred Loving of the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court ruling that led to the end of all interracial marriage bans supports gay marriage and states that no religion should keep others from being married. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's late widow, Corretta Scott King said that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

2 of the main issues that I want addressed is education reform,psychiatric reform. My main issue is that schools don't match the learning style of many neurodivergents as well as too many neurodivergents are misdiagnosed and on psychiatric medications. That's why I created a petition to stop misdiagnosing neurodivergents.

posted March 25, 2008 09:21 PM            

The constitution is not written in stone. That is we can change it when liberty, life and happiness is threatened. Amendments are not meant to be added on the fly. Government must be free to do other important things. Are two gay men going thru a great stress because they can't marry? When you go to countries like Bahamas they will not allow you to enter if you are gay. Americans must cherish the freedom. July 2th 1776. In fact that day is most important than even christmas day. The world will come to an understanding one day

Anyhow I am not trying to twist your words. Perhaps we are not aquainted with each other yet. You have your own outlook of the world and I mine. As long as we respect each other there should not be an issue.

I believe people who have discernment will not join Wrights church. What did Oprah do? She quit his church

Anyhow who am I to spoil Obama's commitment to his church or Wright. He is free to do what he wants to do. But next time don't say you have "better judgement" than others. You will fall from better heights and bleed more

*Added later:
Since when does federal government interfere with support for gay marriages? It can be addressed at the state level. you must take it up to your state. Hillary and Obama can't help you on that matter. And besides how is that issue affecting you most immediately as you mentioned you are married already.

posted March 25, 2008 09:24 PM            

Peace

posted March 25, 2008 09:32 PM            

Neither do your facts overcome the factual account of what I said about Bill Clinton's political mentor J William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. who attempted to table the civil rights legislation and thus kill it.

Your argument is specious precisely because there were many more democrat House and Senate members than Republican. Therefore saying only 44% of the yes vote came from Republicans is the kind of disingenous number doodling which is irrelevant but intended to show democrats supported the civil rights act at a higher level than Republicans which is not true since Republicans lowest support percentage was 80% for the act. This is a far higher percentage of Republicans for the act than democrats who only managed support of 68% and that was their high number. The Republican high number wasn't 80% support but 84%.

My point, which you didn't grasp was that the Civil Rights Act was passed because Republicans heavily supported the legislation. Democrats, even with their large majority on both houses of Congress couldn't have passed the legislation because a large contingent of democrats were against the act.

If you ever see my face Ghani, be prepared to see a big grin.

posted March 25, 2008 11:10 PM              

yup, my words here are not anonymous words on a screen. what i say here has very real repercussions outside of cyberspace. believe me, i know only some of the extent to which racism and white supremacy thrive and flourish. i say "some" because my skin color does not classify me for discrimination, but i experience it merely for my values and interests. i honestly cannot imagine the reality of it. i don't pretend to.

i grew up in a very privileged and sheltered way. so i have a lot of weaknesses in that respect, but, because of this, i also have an inside view of the situation, that in a way, exposes me to the reality of it even more.

currently though, i find myself living in quite difficult circumstances, partially because of my attitude about these things, i believe. i am a single mother of a bi-racial child (asian), and we have experienced some racist attitudes already. as i have very little income, my child's father insisted that i apply for government assistance. i did so, reluctantly, only because i wished to avoid fighting with him about it, as our conflicts have a seriously adverse effect on my child.

but i have received so much ill will because of this, as though i were some sort of evil incarnation from hell. i see the hatred and venom reserved for those whom people term "welfare queens" and yes, it most definitely has more to do with race and gender than anything else. minority women are faced with such enormous stigma it's mind boggling. anyone who says otherwise is severely misinformed or lying with an agenda. believe me, the corruption and free-ride welfare offered to corporations far, far exceeds the $1 per meal that poverty level welfare families receive.

i live in a decent, but quite low income community. and i see the values and integrity of the people around me, people who love their families very much and work their hardest to survive in a system that is harsh and unrelenting. people who get characterized with all sorts of discriminatory attributes because of their life circumstances and skin color. it's sad and heart-breaking, but their strength and courage is unbelievably powerful.

also, how the people who arrived on this land only a few generations ago have the gall to demonize those whose ancestors were born here, or just south of here, is mind-boggling to me.

i love this country, and i love the amazing strides it has achieved for humanity on so many different levels. however, i also recognize the abuse inherent in the power it wields, and i don't condone the nefarious schemes to which it is, and has been, vulnerable. in that respect, i do believe that it is not prudent to avoid criticizing our downfalls in a fervent, mind-numbing haze of fear, which is very prevalent these days, for very good reason, as sad as it is to acknowledge that .

you have great and commendable courage for broaching and explicating this topic. i daresay that i am beginning to fold in response to the cowardice and threats that such openness engenders.

blessings,
zanya

posted March 26, 2008 12:01 AM              

Jim Crow's Children

By CHARLES MODIANO

Did you hear the good news on "The Jena 6"? The adult conviction and potential 22 year sentence of Mychal Bell has been overturned. This comes less than one week before widespread protests scheduled for this Thursday in Jena, Louisiana. Since this case and the fate of the other five boys are a looooong way from being resolved mass protests will continue as planned.

The development of Jena story is only part of a much larger "Cyber Rights Movement" that has been gaining greater ground in America in 2007. Let's call it "BLOG POWER"! It goes a little something like this: yet another African-American teenager falls victim to Jim Crow-like criminal injustice; the injustice is covered in some local newspaper; national mainstream media completely ignores story; story spreads like wildfire across hundreds of predominantly African-American blogs; national media still ignores it; bloggers still blog; national media keeps ignoring; bloggers keep blogging on irresponsible national media; one national mainstream outlet might pick up story; bloggers keep blogging; other embarrassed national outlets might pick up story; bloggers keep blogging; finally, previously voiceless activists start to receive national media attention; bloggers keep blogging; more well-known activists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are part of planned widespread national march; bloggers keep blogging; just days prior to the scheduled protest the charges against the young teenager have been reduced or thrown out. While there exist many examples of BLOG POWER, perhaps the greatest two in 2007 involve "The Jena 6" and Shaquanda Cotton. But before we examine what they represent, some context might be necessary.

JIM CROW'S CHILDREN

More than 40 years ago it took an unrelenting civil rights campaign and appalling television images of government abuse to wake up the wider and whiter nation from its slumber about the terrorism of the Jim Crow South. But something not-so-funny happened on the way to the freedom march. Jim Crow never really went away ­ like Madonna, he only reinvented himself. While Jim Crow has produced various offspring (see separate schools, health care, and employment access), Mr. Crow's two most successful children are America's criminal justice and juvenile justice systems. As the 1960s came to an end, a whole new set of laws were enacted in the 1970s and 1980s at a time when the term "gangsta rap" didn't even exist as a political scapegoat. As politicians became savvier, and policies became slicker, the signs of Jim Crow became subtler. Gone were the likes of George Wallace who proudly and unapologetically defended "the good ole days", and in came the likes of Trent Lott who only publicly reminisced about it at birthday parties. Political slogans such as "segregation forever" were buried forever as new mantras like "tough on crime" came into vogue. Brand new mandatory minimum sentencing laws for NON-VIOLENT drug offenders hand-cuffed judges and turned prisons from places that housed violent criminals into places that CREATED them. With the proliferation of private prisons in the 1970s, the term "non-violence" went from a protest strategy built on gaining rights, to a prison-building buzzword built on denying them. By the 1980s separate water fountains were officially replaced with drastic disparities in punishment between crack and cocaine. By the 1990's mayors in every depressed rural area in America were begging for a new prison as their economic-development strategy. When the 21st century came around, a nation that was once outraged at images of young children being hosed by water and bitten by dogs became fully comfortable with the more tastefully oppressive-images of kids walking right out of performance-reducing schools and right into profit-producing prisons.

As a result, America's prisons have grown SIX-FOLD in a 30 year span after relative stability the PREVIOUS 50 YEARS. Of course, this completely dwarfs all other industrialized countries in the world. This statistic, in and of itself, would be cause for national crisis and wholesale prison reform in any other country. But the majority of new prisoners are not just non-violent, they are non-white. And if there is one subject that white Americans have collectively and historically been in denial about: it is about its own institutional racism (for more see The Absurdity and Consistency of White Denial by Tim Wise). Whether in 1776, 1896, the 1960s, or 2007. But while Jim Crow at least had the decency to put his race cards on the table, his children have not been so kind. Politicians want no part of prison reform for fear of being accused of "coddling criminals", and most white Americans have little outrage because it hasn't been their children being locked up. Even the best of anti-racist movements have failed in fighting the terror that is our criminal and juvenile justice systems. There are perfect foils or evil faces attached to Jim Crow's offspring. Martin Luther King had Bull Conner, FDR had Adolf, and George Bush didn't even need the right "evil guy" to garner public support. But when it comes to prison reform the collective white non-response for the last 30 years has essentially been "Data schmata. I'll believe in institutional racism when you show me some actual lynchings!"

ENTER "THE JENA SIX"

Jena Six in Context: No actual lynchings occurred, but just about everything else ­ rope included. Discussing the Jena Six is an exercise in determining just where to start: subjects like "the white tree"; tree permission slips; hanging nooses; school boards wrist-slaps; DA threats; "deadly" tennis shoes; and outrageous sentences are all worthy of outrage in their isolation. Taken together, they form a coordinated web of systemic Jim Crow terrorism that even the likes of Rush Limbaugh can understand. It must be noted that "The Jena 6" is also happening in a town that needed a federal emergency court order back in 2000 to stop the abuse of children at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center, a facility where local Judge Mark Doherty told NPR "treats juveniles as if they walked on all fours."; and a facility, not surprisingly, that is owned by one of America's largest and often scandal-plagued private prison industries, Wackenhut Corrections (since renamed The GEO Group). And, of course, Jena is located in Louisiana: the state whose majority white population voted for David Duke for Governor back in 1991; the state where a town's very first African-American mayor was executed (immediately ruled a "suicide" of course) just two days before he was set to take office way back in 1957 2007; and a state that is essentially the prison-building capital of a country that is the incarceration capital of the world.

Mainstream Media Coverage

This CounterPunch article reports early local grassroots resistance and how the Lafayette public access TV show, "Community Defender," was the first media outlet from outside Jena's immediate area to give coverage of the case right after the arrests last December. For the next few months the story was kept alive largely by the efforts of non-corporate alternative media and, mostly, a vast network of predominantly African-American bloggers (called "the Afrosphere" amongst other names). By May you were still more likely to learn about "The Jena Six" living in England than in America. While the BBC posted an article on May 24th and aired a documentary on the case, it wasn't until July 1 that CNN investigated the story. And it wasn't until September where most mainstream outlets were domestically and internationally shamed into covering it. In this July 11 post, dna from Too Sense, one of hundreds of bloggers on the case, critiques the initial CNN coverage and the mainstream media's (non)coverage prior to July.

"the mainstream media has felt absolutely no obligation to cover the story with appropriate depth. The New York Times has not covered it at all. Neither has the Washington Post, whose vast website carry a single AP article on the subject. MSNBC has twice the AP articles on the subject the post does, which brings the grand total to two, with no original coverage on their website. Fox seems to have found one more AP article than MSNBC, with the extra one titled "White Students Removed Over Nooses," the poor dears."

ENTER SHAQUANDA COTTON

Cotton in Context: If the Jena Six represent Jim Crow's son that is our criminal injustice system, Shaquanda Cotton from Paris, Texas is the daughter that representing our juvenile injustice. Unlike then-16 year old Mychal Bell, Cotton could not be tried as an adult as she was only 14 when she shoved that fragile school hall monitor. Instead she was merely sentenced to up to 7 years. The same judge sentenced a 14-year-old white girl to probation for burning down her family's house. With absolutely no assistance from mainstream media and an avalanche of BLOG POWER, Shaquanda Cotton was freed on the significant date April 1st. This day kicks off "April Fool's Month" a time that 30 years from now will a subject for some "Race and Media" college course's attempt to grasp American culture in 2007. You may recall April as the month that our national media dissected the grave racial injustices such as the job status of Don Imus, the trials and tribulations of the Duke boys [1], and those oppressive hip-hop double standards. While white rage seethed over issues like "why can't we all use the 'N-word' while that darn Snoop Dogg gets to run amok", you may have missed some other April news like:

DNA evidence exonerated James Giles after serving 25 years;

Jerry Miller was also exonerated after serving only 24 years (Miller marked the 200th person exonerated by DNA evidence) [2];

and Billie Ray Johnson won his civil trial after being racially mocked, knocked unconscious, and left for dead by four white men none of whom received more than 60 days of jail time.

And for those wondering, yes, it was over 50 years ago that Ralph Ellison authored "The Invisible Man".

Cotton Media Coverage

The story -- first exposed March 12 by Howard Witt of the Chicago Tribune (note: Witt was also reported "Jena 6" in May)-- led to an unprecedented blogging blitz. In a follow-up article, Letter from Cyberspace, Witt explains:

"every once in a blue moon, you write something that literally explodes across the Internet in ways no one could predict. That has now happened with a story I wrote nearly two weeks ago If you had Googled Shaquanda Cotton, the day before the story was published, you would have gotten zero results. On Friday afternoon, there were more than 21,000 hits. The story has been picked up on more than 200 blogs around the country, many of them concerned with African-American affairs. It has generated thousands of postings to Internet message boards And now the story has jumped across the ethernet into the physical world: Dozens of talk-radio stations across the nation were buzzing about Shaquanda last week, protests on her behalf were held in Paris, a petition- and letter-drive aimed at Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the judge in the case, Chuck Superville, is underway, and civil rights leaders from the NAACP and the ACLU to the Rev. Al Sharpton are weighing whether to get involved. I've written thousands of stories for the Tribune over the last 25 years, from around the nation and across the world, and I've never seen a reaction like this before."

Perhaps, Mr. Witt has never seen such a reaction in part because of the relative newness of BLOG POWER. Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the Cotton story was the virtual shut-out by the national mainstream media [3]. If you were to do another google search today, Ms. Cotton would receive more than 50,000 entries -- almost exclusively from alternative media and bloggers. However, a CNN website search only reveals quality links on cotton bedding. Want a good deal on "400 Thread Count All Cotton Sateen Sheet Sets"? Our national media will be there for you. Want to expose institutional racism within our juvenile justice system? BLOG POWER! In his Cyberspace article Witt would go on to write:

"But what's particularly interesting to me has been the vehemence, and what it may tell us about the powerful new Internet communications tools we all now have at our fingertips but don't yet fully comprehend. I had no idea, for example, of the extent of the African-American blogging world out there and its collective powers of dissemination. But now, after reading thousands of anguished, thoughtful comments posted on these blogs reflecting on issues of persistent racial discrimination in the nation's schools and courtrooms, what's clear to me is that there's a new, "virtual" civil rights movement out there on the Internet that can reach more people in a few hours than all the protest marches, sit-ins and boycotts of the 1950s and 60s put together."

This powerful observation is one that hundreds of other bloggers have also already made. In this context, it should be noted that reminiscent of this week's dismissal of Mychal Bell's charge, Cotton was released exactly one day before Sharpton and others had planned a widespread protest. This suggests that protest marches ain't dead yet, but have just been heavily augmented as part of a multi-pronged strategy toward achieving justice. A collaboration between new school blogging and old-school marching will allow thousands to "get on the bus" and get over to Jena, Louisiana this Thursday.

BLOG POWER and THE CYBER RIGHTS MOVEMENT

One must wonder if without the aid of the internet: would "The Jena 6" ever made national mainstream news?; would Shaquanda Cotton still be locked up?; or even, would we have experienced the meteoric increase in profit-inducing prisoners over the last 30 years? And what about all the other Bell's and Cotton's who never received a protest march in their name. Is it because we simply don't know their stories? Witt reports that thousands of juvenile cases in Texas are currently being reviewed "as part of a sweeping overhaul of the scandal-plagued system". While this is encouraging news, what will happen in Louisiana and the other 48 states? In 1964, grotesque television images helped coalesce just barely enough national support to get President Johnson to sign a new "Civil Rights Act" in the face of vitriolic segregationists. Is it possible for BLOG POWER to wake up America to deal with Jim Crow's children and get a "Criminal Justice Reform Act" signed at a juncture in American history that boasts a rise in hate groups?

While such a suggestion may only be a pipe dream, BLOG POWER is not quietly hoping for Senators, governors, and other elected officials to do their job, nor is it patiently waiting for Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, or Joe Scarbarough to determine what is newsworthy. BLOG POWER is a place that demands an end to mainstream media's insidious practice of "racism-by-omission". It is a "cyber rights movement" that won't stop until widespread white denial is widely denied. It is a new virtual democracy at work and a voice for the voiceless. But perhaps the greatest contribution that a handful of committed local journalists and thousands of committed bloggers can make is not its ability to show that Jim Crow has returned, but only to demonstrate that he has never really left.

Charles Modiano writes for the new sports media watch website COSELLOUT" and can be reached at: modi@cosellout.com."

Notes

[1] Of course, what happened to the Duke Lacrosse players is an injustice. However, it is important to note that case was NOT symbolic of racial and economic discrimination in our justice system. In and of itself and given the case's sensational backdrop, there is nothing wrong with the media coverage of their tribulations, but such coverage COUPLED with the virtual absence of any real mainstream coverage of exponentially worse AND symbolic criminal justice travesties detailed in point is a complete slap in the face to the suffering of Shaquanda Cotton, James Giles, Jerry Miller, and Billie Ray Johnson. Perhaps the worst effect of "racism-by-omission" in media coverage is it completely distorts the viewers understanding of racism embedded in the criminal justice system. Ironically, one of the few people to get it right was lacrosse player Reade Seligman when he stated: "This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I can't imagine what they'd do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves. ... all of us need to take a step back from this case and learn from it." Good luck to Mr. Seligman who started his first semester at Brown last week to become criminal lawyer.

[2] One may ask the legitimate question if these African-American DNA exoneree examples of racial bias or just criminal justice failures as we can all point to individual white defendants who have been wronged. A look at The Innocence Projects Report "200 Exonerated: Too Many Wrongfully Convicted" will answer this question and show that black defendant are much more statistically likely (proportionate to racial incarceration rates) to be the victims of such system failures.

[3] Cotton received a couple of token website articles and TV segments on the day that she was RELEASED.

posted March 26, 2008 08:19 AM              

firstly, its just that of recently we have had too many newspaper stories of Indian students being murdered on campus, in a country which is the numver one foreign education destination.and all iwanted to express was my complete inability to comprehend this recent development, for years nothing like this has happened to indian students in USA.

none of my friends working or studying in USA and there are 10 of them have evr faced any discrimination. when i contrast that to what Glaucus has said and i am suddenly seeing being talked about on CNN , across the world.....this election has become so much racially inclined it force me to think why so.. all i m doing is trying to make sense of reality.

unlike you JW.. i dont google something about a country and claim to be the know it all judge - jury - executioner. i am trying to participate in a discussion on a topic that obviously gets to u.... like all discussions.

posted March 26, 2008 08:36 AM              

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were entirely Black. That's quite a resume list btw You should be proud of that.

While I agree that the frame of mind behind the insult matters little to the person feeling the sting of it, I do wish to better understand it. We've all been insulted, of course, and even though I'm white I've had a few racial slurs hurled in my direction. Admittedly this didn't hurt. It was a novelty almost. And that difference also interests me.

Like zanya, I also admire your frankness and courage. Very often (and understandably so) these issues are broached in a hateful or confrontational manner and I don't sense that with you.
Thank you, Glaucus

posted March 26, 2008 12:22 PM            

What I posted about the problems of discrimination and oppression directed against the so called lower castes of India was accurate.

You countered by saying it was all fixed now....because the Indian government had passed laws against it..recently.

Then, as usual, I find you talking about problems in American society..in this case "racism" while ignoring..as usual..the ongoing oppression and discrimination still going on in India...no matter what the laws say.

On the hypocrisy scale of 1 to 10, your comments rate at least a 7.

So, I pointed out that the US passed laws against discrimination and for equal protection of the laws of the United States and did so long ago...in 1866. Not only is this the law but we enshrined that law in an Amendment to the US Constitution.

Governments can pass law until the end of time but changing hearts and minds is beyond the power of government to change. There are racists and bigots in the US and there probably always will be. There are also enough "caste bigots" in India to go around..those who believe they are "superior".

Yet, here you are once again commenting on problems in America...instead of using your time and effort correcting what's wrong in India.

posted March 26, 2008 12:36 PM            

Thats the point I tried explaining Glaucus with an example on the racist Boss.

And thats why the constitution begins with "We the people..." Its about individual people respecting rules of the land they live in and participitating in changing the world they can . Just believing and taking no action does not work...ooh...I am just spiralling reading those words