Cecile Emeke is still at it. The Young Black Voice.
The Strolling series by the young producer Cecile Emeke is, in
my opinion,
one of the best things to happen in Black media in recent years. Ms
Emeke is in the
act of combining the power of social media with her knack for video
storytelling
and presenting the voices of young articulate and efflorescent Black
people from
various localities (so far in Europe). She is giving them the
opportunity to
freely express their feelings with regard to the various cultures that
they find
themselves at once immersed in and excluded from. The series is not
only one of
the few outlets that allows these young people to vent their feelings
but at the
same time it demonstrates clearly their diversity. Each subject has his
or her
own unique story about their impressions and experiences in their
particular
society which, I feel, were very well told. I see that this is a work in
progress and I hope we will all recognize and support this effort for
the
valuable service that it brings to the people of the African diaspora
wherever
we find ourselves. I also hope that the series will stimulate others to
share
their talents with us while creating works that unify us to the same
degree as
Cecile Emeke is doing. I am so impressed with the work this young woman
is
doing. I hope we are sharing these videos to the max.
It looks like you will have a chance to experience this series on youtube.
It appears that she wants to relaunch the series.
:Go check out her new Youtube channel and more like the following
Six black kids from #Ferguson, MO bluntly and sarcastically educate white America about the racist reality in 2014. Recruited from the very block where unarmed black teen Michael Brown was gunned down by a white police officer, these kids ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, use sometimes uncomfortable humor to show white people the continued racism their generation faces. Armed ONLY with statistics (hands up, don't shoot) these articulate and adorable kids are not having it while much of white America would rather pretend racism is over.
Dr. John Henrik Clarke Origin and Impact of Racism.
This talk by Dr. Clarke is very appropriate for "Black History Month" because here he addresses the very reason that such an occassion needs to exist at all. There really isn't much I can say other than to suggest that you take the time to listen to this talk, then discuss it with your family and friends. If you want the right answers then ask the right questions.
"Sen was pushed to death by a woman who "hated Muslims", as anti-Muslim bigotry in the US sinks to violent new depths." Whats very telling is where it says "bigotry in the US sinks to violent new depths". I'd have to question why Murtaza Hussain considers such violence to be new? Perhaps he would be better to say well, now we too are beginning to feel the real depth of the violence that has existed in the US for centuries. He doesn't seem to understand that the time to speak out against that violence was long ago. To become indignant now is like closing the barn door after the livestock has made it's exit. Doncha think? Who else in the US wants to wait for their turn to come around as a recipient of violence? Just wait and your turn is surely coming. Now is the time for all Americans to be speaking out agains the violence that has been for far too long allowed to be committed in the US against her own citizens. We can't continue to tolerate/condone this behavior and expect to exist in the new world demographics. If we don't get it right we won't fare any better than who were here originally. Now isn't that something to think about?
People might think that this can't happen today but one should remember that this outrage was just halted 40 years ago. One can only wonder how long it would have continued if reporter Jean Heller had not brought it to light or if it would have finally been covered up to this day. This begs the question, what else should we know? It's a sad state of affairs when it is so difficult to have confidence in what is supposed to be our own democratic government.
The Tuskegee Institute, located in Macon County Alabama, was opened in 1881 by Booker T. Washington. It was founded as the Tuskegee Normal School for Colored Teachers and became America’s leading Black agricultural and industrial school.
Between the years 1932 and 1972, the United States Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, conducted a study on the effects syphilis has on the human body. The study was meant to determine the different ways that the disease effected blacks as opposed to whites. It was thought that syphilis did more damage to the white race’s neurological system while mainly affecting the cardiovascular system of the black race. The plan was to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men. The team of doctors and researchers recruited 600 poor and uneducated black men from the Macon County area. Three hundred and ninety nine of these men already had syphilis, and the other two hundred and one did not.
To entice the men into participating in their study, the researchers offered them free medical care, hot meals, and free burial insurance. The doctors withheld from the men the fact that they were suffering from syphilis and instead told them that they were being treated for “bad blood.” The term “bad blood” was a local term used to describe several illnesses. The Surgeon General of the United States also participated in enticing the men to continue in the study by sending them certificates of appreciation.
The real reason for the study had to be kept from the patients to ensure their cooperation. Since the men were mostly uneducated sharecroppers, they were easy to manipulate. The true nature of the experiment had nothing to do with treating or curing the disease. The Public Health Service doctors sent letters out to the men saying, “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” This was to coax the men into coming in for painful spinal taps.
Storycorps is a great source of Americana. Listen as John Hope Franklin, the late scholar of African American history, tells his son, John, about being a Boy Scout during the 1920s.
This is a very interesting report which shows that from 1965 until 1969 there was virtually no street gang activity in the LA area. The gangs had all become politicized and were in fact working together for the good of the Black community. The federal and local police found this situation to be so undesirable that they in a very short time destroyed the young Black leadership by assassination, subversion, imprisonment on false charges in other words by any means necessary.
These actions on the part of the authorities left a vacuum for the present day gangs and if that wasn't enough the Feds injected massive doses of drugs into the community to insure that the people would become mired in an even bigger problem.
Black Street Gangs in Los Angeles: A History (excerpts from Territoriality Among African American Street Gangs in Los Angeles
Alejandro A. Alonso
In Los Angeles and other urban areas in the United States, the formation of street gangs increased at an alarming pace throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Bloods and the Crips, the most well-known gangs of Los Angeles, are predominately African American[1] and they have steadily increased in number since their beginnings in 1969. In addition, there are approximately 600 Hispanic gangs in Los Angeles County with a growing Asian gang population numbering approximately 20,000 members.
Post WWII to 1965
The first major period of black gangs in Los Angeles began in the late 1940s and ended in 1965. There were black gangs in Los Angeles prior to this period, but they were small in numbers; little is known about the activity of these groups. Some of the black groups that existed in Los Angeles in the late 1920s and 1930s were the Boozies, Goodlows, Blogettes, Kelleys, and the Driver Brothers. Most of these groups were family oriented, and they referred to themselves as clubs.[2] Max Bond (1936:270) wrote briefly about a black gang of 15-year-old kids from the Central Avenue area that mostly stole automobile accessories and bicycles. It was not until the late 1940s that the first major black clubs surfaced on the East side[3] of Los Angeles near Jefferson High School in the Central Avenue area. This was the original settlement area of blacks in Los Angeles. South of 92nd Street in Watts and in the Jefferson Park/West Adams area on the West side, there were significant black populations. By 1960 several black clubs were operating on the West side[4] of Los Angeles, an area that had previously restricted black residents during the 1940s.
Several of the first black clubs to emerge in the late 1940s and early 1950s formed initially as a defensive reaction to combat much of the white violence that had been plaguing the black community for several years. In the surrounding communities of the original black ghetto of Central Avenue and Watts, and in the cities of Huntington Park and South Gate, white Angelenos were developing a dissatisfaction for the growing black population that was migrating from the South during WWII. During the 1940s, resentment from the white community grew as several blacks challenged the legal housing discrimination laws that prevented them from purchasing property outside the original settlement neighborhoods and integrate into the public schools. Areas outside of the original black settlement of Los Angeles were neighborhoods covered by legally enforced, racially restrictive covenants or deed restrictions. This practice, adapted by white homeowners, was established in 1922 and was designed to maintain social and racial homogeneity of neighborhoods by denying non-whites access to property ownership.
In Huntington Park, Bell, and South Gate, towns that were predominately white, teenagers formed some of the early street clubs during the 1940s. One of the most infamous clubs of that time was the Spook Hunters, a group of white teenagers that often attacked black youths. If blacks were seen outside of the black settlement area, which was roughly bounded by Slauson to the South, Alameda Avenue to the east, and Main[5] Street to the west, they were often attacked. The name of this club emphasized their racist attitude towards blacks, as “Spook” is a derogatory term used to identify blacks and “Hunters” highlighted their desire to attack blacks as their method of fighting integration and promoting residential segregation. Their animosity towards blacks was publicly known; the back of their club jackets displayed an animated black face with exaggerated facial features and a noose hanging around the neck. The Spook Hunters would often cross Alameda traveling west to violently attack black youths from the area. In Thrasher’s study of Chicago gangs, he observed a similar white gang in Chicago during the 1920s, the Dirty Dozens, who often attacked black youths with knives, blackjacks, and revolvers because of racial differences (Thrasher 1963:37). Raymond Wright was one of the founders of a black club called the Businessmen, a large East side club based at South Park between Slauson Avenue and Vernon Avenue. He stated that “you couldn’t pass Alameda, because those white boys in South Gate would set you on fire,”[6] and fear of attack among black youths was not, surprisingly, common. In 1941, white students at Fremont High School threatened blacks by burning them in effigy and displaying posters saying, “we want no ******s at this school” (Bunch 1990: 118). There were racial confrontations at Manual Arts High School on Vermont and 42nd Street, and at Adams High School during the 1940s (Davis 1990:293). In 1943, conflicts between blacks and whites occurred at 5th and San Pedro Streets, resulting in a riot on Central Avenue (Bunch 1990:118). white clubs in Inglewood, Gardena, and on the West side engaged in similar acts, but the Spook Hunters were the most violent of all white clubs in Los Angeles.
The black youths in Aliso Village, a housing project in East Los Angeles, started a club called the Devil Hunters in response to the Spook Hunters and other white clubs that were engaging in violent confrontations with blacks. The term "Devil" reflected how blacks viewed racist whites and Ku Klux Klan members. The Devil Hunters and other black residents fought back against white violence with their own form of violence. In 1944, nearly 100 frustrated black youths, who were denied jobs on the city’s streetcar system, attacked a passing streetcar and assaulted several white passengers (Collins 1980: 29). During the late 1940s and early 1950s, other neighborhood clubs emerged to fight the white establishment. Members of the Businessmen and other black clubs had several encounters with the Spook Hunters and other white clubs of the time.
During the 1960s, conflicts among the black clubs were growing and, as more white residents continued to move and the white clubs began to fade, the black clubs moved from interracial violence to intraracial violence. The Gladiators, based at 54th Street and Vermont Avenue, were the largest black club on the West side, and clashes between other black gangs were increasing as intra-racial violence between black club members was on the rise. By 1960 several clubs emerged on the West side and rivalry between East side and West side clubs developed, along with infighting among clubs organized on the same side of town (Figure 4.1). The Businessmen (an East side club) had a rivalry with both the Slausons (an East side club) and the Gladiators (a West side club). Even though more than 50 percent of the gangs active in Los Angeles were Hispanic, black gangs represented a significant proportion of gang incidents that were rapidly increasing in numbers (Study of Delinquent Gangs 1962: 1). During this time, disputes among these were handled by hand-to-hand combat and by the use of weapons, such as tire irons and knives, but murders were rare. In 1960, the six gang-related murders that occurred in Los Angeles were considered an extremely high number. At that point, black-on-black violence between the clubs was becoming a serious concern in Los Angeles. On the surface, the rivalry between East side and West side clubs was associated with altercations on the football field, disputes over girlfriends, and disagreements at parties, but most of their clashes were rooted in socioeconomic differences between the two. East side youths resented the upwardly mobile West side youths, because East side residents were viewed as economically inferior to those residents who lived on the West side. On the other hand, West side youths were considered less intimidating and lacking the skills to be street savvy and tough. In an effort to prove themselves equally tough, West side youths engaged in several confrontations with East side youths during the early 1960s.
Social-Political Period, 1965-1970
In the aftermath of the rebellion, young people, namely former club members from the community, began to build political institutions to contest social injustices, specifically police brutality, which sparked the 1965 Watts Riots. Following the Watts Riots, and throughout the rest of the 1960s, black groups were organizing and becoming politically radical.
For nearly five years, beginning in 1965, there were almost no active black street gangs in Los Angeles. Several reports that black gang activity was on the decline began to circulate (Klein 1971: 22). According to Sergeant Warren Johnson, “during the mid and late 1960s, juvenile gang activity in black neighborhoods was scarcely visible to the public at large and of minimal concern to south-central residents” (Cohen 1972). It was the formation of these new movements that offered black youths a vehicle of positive identification and self-affirmation that occupied the time and energies that might have been spent in gang activity. A sense of cohesiveness began to form, along with self-worth and positive identification, as pride pervaded the black community (Los Angeles Times 3/19/72).
After the Rebellion in 1965, club members began to organize neighborhood political groups to monitor the LAPD and to document their treatment towards blacks. Ron Wilkins (ex-member of the Slausons), created the Community Action Patrol (CAP) to monitor police abuses (Davis 1990:297), and William Sampson (ex-member of the Slausons), along with Gerald Aubry (ex-member of the Orientals), started the Sons of Watts, whose key function was to “police the police” (Obtola 1972:7). The B started a chapter in Los Angeles shortly after Huey Newton, and Bobby Seale started the Party in Oakland, California, in 1966. The BPP in Los Angeles also organized both the black on several high schools campuses in Los Angeles and the black, a meeting place for black residents concerning community issues on Florence and Broadway in 1967. Ron "Maulana" Karenga organized a nationalistic group called US Organization, and Tommy Jacquette organized the Self Leadership for All Nationalities Today (SLANT) in October of 1966 (Bullock 1969:67; Tyler 1982: 222). After splitting away from the US Organization, Hakim Jamal started the Malcolm X Foundation in 1968, and Robaire Nyjuky founded the Marxist Leninist Maoist (MLM) which had an office on 78th Street and San Pedro (Tyler 1983:237). Student Non-ViolentCoordinating Committee (SNCC), a national organization of black nationalists visited Los Angeles and opened an office on Central Avenue in 1967. Also during this period, Ron Karenga created Kwanza, a non-religious holiday that celebrates African heritage.
All these groups were formed in the wake of the 1965 rebellion to provide political support to the civil rights movement that was gaining strength within the black community of Los Angeles. There were several other black nationalist groups in Los Angeles, but the Panthers and US Organization were considered to have the largest following and the most political influence in the black community of Los Angeles following the Watts Rebellion. The BPP heavily recruited members from the Slausons, an East side club, while the US Organization had a large a following from the West side clubs, including the Gladiators, but members of both political groups came from a variety of different clubs from all over Los Angeles. _____________Carter was elected president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the black Panther Party (BPP), whose sole purpose was monitoring the actions of the Los Angeles Police Department. Several members of the black Panthers and the US Organization[7] headed by Ron “Maulana” Karenga, were at one time members of the black clubs of Los Angeles during the 1950s and early 1960s. Some experts have suggested that the rivalry between the BPP and US was rooted in previous club rivalry, but it was actually associated with the opposite philosophies of the two groups.
After the formation of several progressive groups in Los Angeles, local and federal law enforcement agencies began to target those groups that they viewed as a threat to society and the nation as a whole. The emerging black consciousness of the 1960s, that fueled the political movement, was viewed as hostile. The efforts of these political and militant groups to organize young blacks against police brutality were repressed by the FBI, because they specifically viewed the actions of the Panthers and other groups as subversive and a threat to the security of the nation. Chief Thomas Reddin of the Los Angeles Police Department retained the military model and police tactics that his predecessor (Chief Parker) had employed for sixteen years. Reddin believed that the black Panthers represented a major threat to the safety of his officers and their authority on the streets (Scheisl 1990: 168).
By 1967, the Panthers were one of the strongest black political groups in the nation, and by November 1968, J. Edgar Hoover dispatched a memorandum calling his field agents to “exploit all avenues of creating ...dissension within the ranks of the BPP” (Churchill and Wall 1990:63). This was accomplished by the use of counterintelligence (COINTELPRO) which are tactics designed to divide, conquer, weaken, and to make ineffective the actions of a particular organization. COINTELPRO tactics that the FBI began to use against the BPP to weaken its power base, were previously used during the 1940s and throughout the 1950s against the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Communist Party (CPUSA) in the United States (Churchill & Wall 1990:37). From 1968-1971, these tactics were used against the BPP to control and neutralize what was believed to be “a dangerous black political group.” The most vicious and unrestrained application of COINTELPRO techniques during the late 1960s and early 1970s was clearly reserved for the BPP (Churchill & Wall 1990:61; Horne 1995:13).
Dr. Laura cited "hateful special interest groups" as the reason for her getting out of radio. She feels her first amendment rights have been violated.
She said she's tired of being threatened by these hateful groups who, even though she apologized, want to persist in attacking her ability to earn a living. She said she's going to the internet where she can be free to express herself.
Now, what really happened? Who is really under attack? How will the internet change things for Schlessinger?
First of all Schlessinger I doubt if going to the internet with her own money. She will still have no doubt plenty of commercial sponsorship. Was she planning on getting out of radio already and using this event as an excuse? Did she create the situation on purpose in order to foment the reaction of the "special interest groups? Let's not forget she has been on radio for umpteen years and has plenty enough media saavy to forsee the result of her recent action. Before we go taking things at face value, we need to create a healthy skeptical attitude and then examine the situation very carefully. IMO Schlessinger and her sponsors would love to demonize and silence these "special interest groups" this move looks like a good start from where I sit. What do you think?
Media Matters For America
August 12, 2010 7:02 pm ET by Jeremy Holden
On August 10, Dr. Laura Schlessinger launched into a racially charged rant, during which Schlessinger -- in her own words -- "articulated the 'n' word all the way out -- more than one time." Among other things, Schlessinger also told an African-American caller that she had a "chip on [her] shoulder." Schlessinger has since apologized for her remarks, but audio from the discussion appears to have been excised from the recording of that day's show that appears on Schlessinger's website. Media Matters has obtained full audio of Schlessinger's comments:
FULL AUDIO: Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Schlessinger said something that caught my attention much more than the word nigger.
She said
I really thought once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop, but it seems to have grown. And I don't get it. Yes, I do. It's all about power.
This statement is so typical of ignorant white folks. Imagine, Black folk are demonizing whites now.
This is why whites are the last hired and the first fired. Why the prisons are overflowing with white folks doing hard time for crimes that Black people are slapped on the hand for. Why whites are profiled by police or why whites don't receive equal pay for equal work. Everyone knows a white man can't get the best rates on a loan. They don't even have a month dedicated to their own history. We really should be ashamed of ourselves for treating our whites so badly. Some day we're going to have to pay dearly for the way we've been treating them, over these last few centuries, mark my words.
The previous post falls right in line with this video I found on youtube.
The temptation to label the caller a racist might be strong
but listen to what is said in the following video before you say anything.
In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case determined that "separate but equal" was constitutional. The opinion of the Supreme Court stated, "A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude."
The Plessy v. Ferguson legitimized the numerous state and local laws that had been created around the United States after the Civil War. Across the country, blacks and whites were legally forced to use separate train cars, separate drinking fountains, separate schools, separate entrances into buildings, and much more. Segregation was the law.
On May 17, 1954, the law was changed. In the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision by ruling that segregation was "inherently unequal." Although the Brown v. Board of Education was specifically for the field of education, the decision had a much broader scope.
Although the Brown v. Board of Education decision overturned all the segregation laws in the country, the enactment of integration was not immediate. In actuality, it took many years, much turmoil, and even bloodshed to integrate the country.
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They Shock Again
Journalist and author Naomi Klein spoke in New York last night and addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations. This is not conspiracy theory. They have done it again and again.”
Haiti has truly suffered enough. It's high time we in the west come to grips with the responsibilty we have in the plight of some other countries in this hemisphere.
A plea deal has been reached. Ellis plead guilty to disturbing the peace and resisting the peace. She was given 4 days in jail that she can serve over the weekends, anger management classes, and 1-year supervised probation.
Tim Wise-The Pathology of White Privilege Part 3/6
Here is the November 20 update of the Heather Ellis trial.
Following are some comments I collected from a blog, I hope for her sake that the jury can get beyond the opinions of most of these people.
joseph November 19, 2009 7:06AM CST I am tired of the racial issue being played out each time the law is broken. This woman was pushing white people around stepping in front of them and fighting. Send her to jail...lets see how tough she is there.
USA-GreatestCountryonEarth November 19, 2009 5:13AM CST I agree; it's sad that whites are always blamed for everything.
luvmysoftail November 19, 2009 4:46AM CST Most blacks are pre-programmed to use the race card whenever there is a white in charge. It gets people to focus on race instead of the real issue. When was the last time a black was accused of committing a crime becasue of race? Never, that I know of. Based on my personal experiences, the behavior Ellis is accused of is not unheard of.
spamsucks2004 November 19, 2009 7:11AM CST Looks like Ellis is guilty of having a loud, ignorant mouth. Of course it doesn't help that she immediately pulls out the 'race card' as most of her kind do. She looks like a person with an attitude in her photo. I don't feel she deserves 15 years for her stupidity but I fell she at least a half year in jail then placed on parole for several years. if she gets away with this, there will be others...
knjse November 19, 2009 7:32AM CST I can see it now...however this ends, Ellis will apply to Med School. If she gets denied for whatever reason, the race card comes out again, and she was denied because of this incident, because she's black, etc. ad nauseum. Displaying behavior like this (having your cousin hold a place in line when he has no standing because he had no items) makes me realize I wouldn't want her making major medical decisions for me anyway, black or white.
zimm413 November 19, 2009 7:57AM CST So typical. Being a minority myself you do not see other minorities acting like a bunch of fools. Even if her cousin was jumped in line why are you going to physically assault someone. This is how they are taught.
justracn November 19, 2009 8:02AM CST Let's see.... butt up in line, get called on it, get into altercation, police get called, decide to start swinging at police and screaming rasiss....hmmmmm.....guilty as charged. If this were a white woman she would have already taken her punishment and been done with it instead of playing da ol race card and trying to win the lottery!
fair is fair November 19, 2009 8:13AM CST First and foremost, the national media should stay out of this mess. This is just another small town issue that should have been worked out as such. Secondly, the "supremacists", both black and white, should shut the hell up, and mind their own business. They are all there just to stir the pot. They are all haters, every last one, and it disgusts me that everytime some wanna be nazi shows up, they bring the Confederate flag with them. That is the flag of MY forefathers, and was/is a source of pride and heritage, not one of hatered. All the while the blacks are always victimizing themselves to the community, when they are the main cause of their own plight. This should never have gotten to this point.
Tony LaGenius November 19, 2009 8:21AM CST Black person doesn't obey police requests, hits and kicks police, and can't understand why they get arrested. Must be raceism. First time this has ever happened.
MattyMo November 19, 2009 8:20AM CST Old Guy 1- Did you ever think that decent folks just want to live in nice quiet neighborhoods where you can take a walk at night and not worry about some hood rat robbing you or worse? These hood rats have brought a lot of this on themselves by THEIR actions. Get a job and earn what you have. Quit stealing and waiting for Government handouts. This is only a racial thing because you made it one.
Whatthe? November 19, 2009 8:23AM CST It's weird. I'm 60 years old and I've been in hundreds and hundreds of stores and restaurants over the years, and I've never once seen or heard a black person treated rudely or disrespected. I guess I've just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. But in a country of 300 million, if there is just one incident in one town somewhere, the media will play it up and make it sound as if it is commonplace.
French November 19, 2009 8:25AM CST This would be a non-story had it not been for her race. Why do people think they can get away with bad behavior just because the are a minority.
obammithemarxist November 19, 2009 9:17AM CST She acted stupidly, Come on Obama, she needs your support. Please, forget everything else your doing, oops...besides nothing and provide your support.
Deaus November 19, 2009 9:19AM CST First, she assaulted the police officers, thats a big no-no. I don't doubt that the cops were likely barney fife knockoffs -most small town cops possess little education and little mediation skills-but that doesn't excuse her assaulting them. However, I am blown away by the fact that so many many white people are still aghast when they hear of a black person claiming discrimination. I mean, just reading the comments here is proof enough that racism and bigotry is ALIVE and well in middle america...And please, for the love of God, stop with the whole "slavery ended 150yrs ago" diatribes. If you don't think that the social and economic effects of racial discrimination are still FULLY impacting our society, then you are naieve at best. I don't doubt one bit that the boot'hell' citizens and police acted like ignorant clowns, but you NEVER hit a cop. Period.
Gardenia November 19, 2009 7:59AM CST Amazingly, many posters can ascertain Ms. Ellis' (1) poor attitude, (2) sense of entitlement based on her race, and (3) guilt simply from her photo. The popular phrase/stance seems to be to accuse anyone Black who makes a complaint of "playing the race card". Perhaps, Ms. Ellis has some hard facts on her side that will exonerate her; if so, I trust that she will prevail in the trial and can get on with her career and her life.
The Heather Ellis Trial entered day 2, with surveillance video being shown to jurors by both attorneys. Each has said the video will show the jurors their side of the story.
Prosecutor Morley Swingle says the video proves his point that Ellis “went ballistic” and went on a “profane tirade.” The video shows Ellis pushing another customers merchandise into the floor.
Defense attorney Scott Rosenbloom says the video simply shows Ellis joining in line with her cousin, and no where does it show Ellis assaulting police. Another video shows Ellis being escorted from Wal-Mart by police.
Wal-Mart employees also were called to the stand this afternoon, and a police officer also took the stand.
This evening Dr. Boyce Watkins said "When I held the rally for Heather Ellis last week, the woman facing up to 15-years in prison after allegedly cutting line at a Wal-Mart, I was hoping that one day the rest of the world could see what I saw nearly two weeks ago. In spite of the prosecutor's contention that the video tape would prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the truth is that the video is highly inconclusive.
I find it incredibly interesting that police say that Heather refused to leave the store, when in fact, she was leaving and the officers were following her out the door. Also, given that the alleged assault can't be proven and in the words of the prosecutor "There was no serious injury," why in the world is she facing 15-years in prison?
We await the verdict tomorrow. If justice is not served, then I plan to get on an airplane tomorrow. This kind of justice should not be acceptable to any of us."
Meanwhile I've noticed lots of folks talking about the race card, after all, they say the girl was belligerent .
We all know if she was white she would have been indignant, priviledge card.
Tim Wise speaks on white priviledge
Shinin' the Lite on White Privilege
by Sharon Martinas
� Sharon Martinas, 1998. Defining the Problem Why Can't We Just Get It Together? In 1996, progressive activists in California waged a massive, multi-racial and militant struggle to save affirmative action. Though we raised the consciousness of millions of people, voters and non-voters, we lost at the ballot box. Fifty-six percent of California's electorate voted "Yes" on Proposition 209, thus wiping out affirmative action in the public sector: in education, employment and contracting.
What happened? There were many analyses among activists, all of which held important kernels of truth:
* The electoral arena in California is a stacked deck when the Right uses racist initiatives. Though 47% of the population is people of color, 83% of the voters are white. * The left was out spent by the right, and the Clinton campaign failed to keep its commitment to provide millions of dollars to wage an effective media campaign against the initiative. * The wording of the initiative, billed as a "civil rights" policy, deliberately confused many well-meaning voters who would be expected to support equality in government programs. * To wage a comprehensive grassroots organizing electoral campaign, in a state the size of California, activists should have started in 1995 and coordinated their efforts much more effectively.
These are important points. But something is missing. The organizers in communities of color reached their electoral objectives: hundreds of thousands of new voters went to the polls, and the NO on 209 votes looked like this:
Asian Americans 61%, African Americans 74%, and Latinos 76%! But the groups organizing among white feminists did not reach their goals. To defeat 209, 55% of white women needed to vote NO. Instead, 57% of white women voted YES!
What happened? Most feminists know that white women have been the major beneficiaries of affirmative action in all its spheres. So why did we white women vote overwhelmingly against our own interest as well as against social justice for people of color?
To begin to analyze this problem, I believe we have to understand the history and role of white privilege in this country.
"White" is . . . "White" isn't
What does "white" mean to you, as it refers to people? Here are some questions to think about:
* Is "white" a skin color? * What does your dictionary and thesaurus say about "white" as referring to people? * Are "white" people a race? * Is "white" an ethnicity (like Norwegian, Irish, Jewish, Russian)? * Are white people who live in the USA "Americans?" * Is there such a thing as "the white community" in the U.S.? * If you are a person of color, what do you call people whose ancestors came from Europe? * If your ancestors came from Europe, what do you call yourself?
White is -- White Privilege Webster's New World (sic) Dictionary defines privilege as "a right, advantage, favor, or immunity specially granted to one; esp., a right held by a certain individual, group, or class, and withheld from certain others or all others.' (Emphasis added. Third College Edition of Webster's, 1988)
The CWS Workshop defines white privilege this way:
"U.S. institutions and culture give preferential treatment to people whose ancestors came from Europe over peoples whose ancestors are from the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Arab world; and exempt European Americans -- white people -- from the forms of racial and national oppression inflicted upon peoples from the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Arab world.
This web of institutional and cultural preferential treatment is called white privilege. In a white supremacy system, white privilege and racial oppression are two sides of the same coin."
Non-ruling class white people are both oppressed and privileged. They are oppressed most significantly on the basis of class, gender and sexuality, and also on the basis of religion, culture, ethnicity, age, physical abilities and politics. At the same time, they are privileged in relation to peoples of color. Historical Origins of White Privilege
In the early 1600's, 50 wealthy Englishmen bought stock in the Virginia Company of London. Their stock options included large parcels of (indigenous) land in the new colony of Virginia, as well as the right to govern the colony.
These English gentlemen did not intend to work their lands in Virginia. To get workers, they contracted with English merchants who delivered impoverished English teenagers and kidnapped African people. By the second decade of colonization, working servants, both English and African, outnumbered "gentlemen" by perhaps 100 to 1.
Living and working conditions for African and English laborers were horrendous. Workers were regularly whipped, nearly starved to death, denied days of rest, and were refused permission to marry. English servants, who were supposedly protected under English poor laws, had limited times of servitude, but owners disregarded the laws. Those servants who were freed as required, usually died within a few years.
Under these conditions, African and English servants struggled to survive and resist their common oppression. They traded together, they made love together, and they made war together against their masters. Most servants were armed, since the wealthy used their servants to protect the frontiers against "hostile Indians."
Virginia records document ten servant revolts in the mid-1600's, culminating in the famous Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. African and English servants, free workers and farmers, demanded land and pay for their labor. They burned down Jamestown, the colony's capital. Colonial rulers had to call in the British army to subdue the rebellion.
Colonial land-owning legislators responded with a series of Slave Codes, enacted from 1680 through 1705. These codes legalized chattel slavery (the child of an enslaved woman would be enslaved for a lifetime) and severely restricted the rights of free Africans. The codes equated the terms "slave" and "Negro," thus institutionalizing the world's first system of racialized slavery.
The codes also set out the "rights" of and restrictions for "servants." At first, "servants" referred ambiguously to both Africans and English. But as "slave" became synonymous with "Negro," (the Spanish word for "Black,") "servant" came to mean "white," the term which replaced "English," "Christian" or "wench" to refer to poor or indentured Europeans. (read more)
There are all kinds of comments on this turn of events. I get a little tired of the white folks complaining about the playing of the race card. When that shit just doesn't happen to them. Let's hear them talk about the priviledge card. It's possible the ms Ellis reacted badly to being not served in Wal-Mart but who calls the police on someone over an issue of standing in line in a retail store? Is there actually a law that says one must stand in line or the police get involved? What policeman is going to charge someone with no history with a felony because they are in disagreement with a store clerk? Let's get real and stop with this petty you do crime you do the time b/s. The fact is changing position in line is not a crime in the first place. The police have no business being in volved in a dispute of this nature and if Wal-Mart can see the need to involve the police in this way then I say we go for it and find some other retail outlets that appreciate our business.
From The Daily Dunklin Democrat
Protestors for Heather Ellis chanted, "No justice. No peace," during an organized rally in Kennett on Monday, claiming that the allegations against the African-American woman accused of assault on police are false.
Approximately 100 protesters gathered at the Kennett Walmart at around 11 a.m., including members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Also attending was event organizer and founder of the Syracuse, N.Y.-based Your Black World Coalition, Dr. Boyce Watkins.
The march led from Walmart, down First Street to the steps of the Dunklin County Courthouse. Along the way, approximatley 30-40 counter-protestors held up confederate flags with skulls and crossbones and swastikas.
At the courthouse, various individuals took turns speaking on behalf of Ellis, claiming the incident is one of "civil rights abuse."
One of the speakers was Ellis' father, the Rev. Nathaniel Ellis.
"We are summoned here today from all over America," Ellis said, "because Dr. King, Jr., was right when he said, 'An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' Your presence here today has proved that love is thicker than hate.
"As we march forward, the question may be asked, 'What are we here for?' These proverbial questions are asked because seldom is Bootheel justice challenged with a force of this magnitude. We have converged upon Kennett, Missouri by the thousands because the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of a young, black, vibrant, intelligent, and well-educated young lady's rights have been strictly violated.
"This young lady happens to be my first born daughter. The daughter of a Church of God in Christ pastor who pastors in this town and an adjoining town, who happens to be an educator. We are here to voice our outrage and to publicly say that Heather Ellis is innocent of all bogus charges and I demand that all charges be dropped and her record be expelled."
