In two recent posts (here and here) I criticized the Washington Post for its refusal to characterize any of Louis Farrakhan’s remarks as anti-semitic, anti-gay, or anti-Catholic, hiding behind a weasly-sounding “criticzized by some as….”
Now comes what purports to be a news story in the Los Angeles Times that is similarly unwilling to characterize Farrakhan’s views in a direct, forthright manner. In the craven construction of LAT staff writers Ryan Murphy and Emma Vaughn:
Farrakhan, long a polarizing figure because of views that have been branded anti-Semitic and sexist, stoked his reputation for generating controversy in the run-up to the rally last week by challenging the Bush administration to disprove claims that levees protecting low-income neighborhoods in New Orleans’ 9th Ward were deliberately breached.
This is rather like saying the Ku Klux Klan was a polarizing organization because of its views that have been branded as racist and that its latest white-sheeted parade stoked its reputation for generating controversy.
Remember Hans Christian Anderson’s emperor, who wore a suit made of special cloth that, he was told by the swindlers who sold it, only wise people could see? Had Washington Post and Los Angeles Times reporters been in the audience, they would no doubt have reported, even after the fraud (and the emperor) had been exposed, that “the emperor was said to be wearing no clothes.”
I wonder if those reporters have been to the “mother ship” hovering about the earth with Louie …?
Farrakhan’s claim about the levees is unfortunately not limited to a few nuts. the idea seems to be gaining in the black community, where to so many of us, everything wrong in the world is the white man’s fault. If you don’t know anything definite you make something up. So there’s a permanent excuse and rationalization for what we have not done. Instead of lets do this or that, its always how can we get white people to give us something, or do something for us. It’s depressing. As for the Post, I believe that white people who won’t admit black people can be wrong (unless they’re conservative) are coming from a viewpoint that black people can do nothing to them, so it’s like the bleating of helpless sheep. We’re not responsible for what we say, so white liberals will protect us from other white people who might not like what we say. So they’ll pretend that people like Farrakhan are not what they seem. But it’s pointless. People notice anyway. Better to deal with it honestly than to pretend that racist remarks are only wrong if white people utter them. If the aim of such pretence is to help us, it is not a good aim. We’re not children. And it does not work anyway.
Anita,
If you read your history about flooding and the New Orleans levy system, you’d learn a few things.
Now, far be it from me to leave Discriminations readers in the dark about HISTORY, so I shall proceed:
>>>”The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was the most destructive river flood in United States history until the Hurricane Katrina flood of 2005.
The Mississippi River broke out of its levee system in 145 places and flooded 27,000 square miles or about 16,570,627 acres (70,000 km
What about aids? Was that invented specially to kill black people? and slavery? did only white people practice it? And what will such beliefs do for black people? I say again, give up the idea of white people giving you something.
Anita,
Why are you bringing up AIDS? I thought this was specifically about Farrakhan and the treatment of African Americans during Katrina and its historical significance?
As far as your statement…
” I say again, give up the idea of white people giving you something.”
Maybe you need to read that Declaration of Independence again.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ”
That means that according to Tommy Jefferson, white people “aren’t giving me something”, or doing me a favor as I engage life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights come from a far HIGHER authority, and they are INALIENABLE. Tommy also states that if people aren’t receiving those rights, they should CHANGE the government so that they are.
Anita, you should also consider the 14th Amendment:
>>>”Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That means that I as a black man am entitled to the same protection of for my life, liberty and property as any other America. Apply that clause to the flood of 1927 and Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/CONDI-RICE-KATRINA-NAT.jpg
–Cobra
Of course, to lend credence to Cobra’s point, one has to believe that nothing has changed since 1927. Nothing.
Nobody important writes:
>>>”Of course, to lend credence to Cobra’s point, one has to believe that nothing has changed since 1927. Nothing.”
It has been written, that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history, are doomed to repeat them.
–Cobra
Let us assume for sake of arguemnt that this account is totally accurate.
As the flood approached New Orleans, Louisiana 30 tons of dynamite were set off on the levee at Caernarvon, Louisiana and sent 250,000 ft
Richard,
You didn’t post the rest of that paragraph, sir.
>>>”Over 13,000 refugees near Greenville, Mississippi were gathered from area farms and evacuated to the crest of an unbroken levee, and stranded there for days without food or clean water, while boats arrived to evacuate white women and children. Many African-Americans were detained and forced to labor at gunpoint during flood relief efforts.”
Do you see a problem with any of the above?
–Cobra
I also see problems with slavery and lynching but what does that have to do with the blowing up of a levee? Are you really incapable of seeing the logical flaw in your argument? You have compared a real event that was used to save the city with an imaginary event that would have devastated the city. In other words blowing up the levee in 1927 had the exact opposite effect of what Farrakhan claimed was done now. However all you can see is that the levee was blown up and not the reason why it was done. You know that your charge about the levee makes absolute no sense but you stated it anyway.
As to your other charge what does that have to do with what happened after the hurricane? Were Whites rescued while Blacks were left to drown? No, that did not happen. The Coast Guard rescued everyone regardless of race. Are you referring to what happened at the Superdome? It was the mayor who was in charge of that fiasco and the last time I looked he wasn