I think I finally understand why I don't like Sharpton as much as I could.
This isn't a Sharpton bashing post, most of the things he's concerned about I'm concerned about, and he's pretty brave about getting on issues even when he might be perceived by the vast majority of white folks and a even a good handful of black folks of being on the "wrong side" of the issue. He defends people who are hard to defend, he's not waiting around for a perfect Rosa Parks to make his case. Instead jumps on every instance of racism, no matter how small it might seem initially, and makes an issue of it. He says "There it is! That's racist." When other people keep their mouth shut and roll their eyes because the person he's standing up for is less than perfect. So, I give him credit for that.
But, the problem I have with him is he's always seems to arrive so late on the scene, it's after a shooting, after Katrina, after something happens that he shows up. And even though he's organizing other things, he only manages to get media attention AFTER some racist thing happens and then whatever he says is just twisted and manipulated by conservative pundits. I just feel like he's playing in to their hands some of the time. And it gives the impression that anti-racism is just always on the offense: something bad happens THEN there is a reaction. Then something else happens and there's another reaction-- what we need is an overriding philosophy. Otherwise, the whole thing just becomes reactionary. I want to move away from focusing on issues that only have an impact on one or two people, incidents and random occurrences and look at the overall pattern that the occurrences inhabit.
The United States is a racially segregated country. The more I read about it the more I think this is the heart of the issue. Segregation. There are a number of factors that contribute to this trend and the better we understand and document those factors the better off we'll be in terms of taking action. For example, segregated housing and neighborhoods means that certain banks exist in some places and not in others. Some of these banks have more predatory lending practices than others and hence the sub-prime housing meltdown is having a greater impact on minority families than on other families. Segregation and local school funding makes it possible for blacks and whites to attend segregated schools of vastly different quality. Joblessness is also a function of segregation, and this feeds in to higher rates of crime. Police also use different tactics in different neighborhoods and this leads to higher arrest-rates for minorities, which creates fatherless families and on and on it goes. (And that's before you add a good measure of prejudice however minor on the part of every actor in this system to the mix.) These are the trends that lead to the specific incidents, can we stop chasing-the-ambulance and address the big picture?
There's no use in trying to inflate an incident in to something that it's not. American racism is subtile persistent and it takes small bites. It's like being bitten by mosquitoes over and over until you have no blood left. Some of the time I think Sharpton spends to much time smashing one little bug to death while the swarm is still breeding out in the swap. We need to DRAIN THE SWAMP. (I hope this metaphor isn't too obtuse.)
Now for all I know Sharpton is trying to bring up these bigger issues, but just never gets press for it. That would not surprise me. But, at this point, I wonder if the incident chasing really helps or hurts. Why, for example, will he even go on FOX news? Why even dignify people like Imus, or Oriley with a form or a sounding board for their racism? This is part of a larger problem with US politics: it's so ephemeral, one media circus follows the next and no one ever sums it all up or makes any sense of it.
I was watching the news on New Years Eve at my in-laws and they had one of those "the year in review" videos where they play rock-music and show a bunch of news clips to say what happened in the past year. It was just one stupid scandal after another, nothing was connected or in context, it was a meaningless tide of information facts and occurrences and said nothing about how the world has changed in the past year. BUt this has been a big year: in this past year people became more aware and serous about problems of global waring, financial markets have become destabilized, we are becoming aware of the costs to international peace that come with a reliance on foreign oil, the issue of unfairness in the criminal justice system has become more important, we have seen the US is still grappling with the issue of race, and the issue is growing less abstract and idealized, and more personal. Feminists say that the personal is political, and I think that is becoming true for anti-racists too. Racism can't ever really end unless we address our personal prejudices and segregation.
But, you would get none of this from the news "year in review" --it reminded me of the "blipvert" from 1985 film Max Headroom: 20 Minutes into the Future -- remember those? The high speed ads that made people's brain explode. Our current manner of political interaction is doing the same thing, it's a non stop blipvert 24-7, and to some extent, Sharpoton's way of addressing racism is a part of the problem.
But, the problem I have with him is he's always seems to arrive so late on the scene, it's after a shooting, after Katrina, after something happens that he shows up. And even though he's organizing other things, he only manages to get media attention AFTER some racist thing happens and then whatever he says is just twisted and manipulated by conservative pundits. I just feel like he's playing in to their hands some of the time. And it gives the impression that anti-racism is just always on the offense: something bad happens THEN there is a reaction. Then something else happens and there's another reaction-- what we need is an overriding philosophy. Otherwise, the whole thing just becomes reactionary. I want to move away from focusing on issues that only have an impact on one or two people, incidents and random occurrences and look at the overall pattern that the occurrences inhabit.
The United States is a racially segregated country. The more I read about it the more I think this is the heart of the issue. Segregation. There are a number of factors that contribute to this trend and the better we understand and document those factors the better off we'll be in terms of taking action. For example, segregated housing and neighborhoods means that certain banks exist in some places and not in others. Some of these banks have more predatory lending practices than others and hence the sub-prime housing meltdown is having a greater impact on minority families than on other families. Segregation and local school funding makes it possible for blacks and whites to attend segregated schools of vastly different quality. Joblessness is also a function of segregation, and this feeds in to higher rates of crime. Police also use different tactics in different neighborhoods and this leads to higher arrest-rates for minorities, which creates fatherless families and on and on it goes. (And that's before you add a good measure of prejudice however minor on the part of every actor in this system to the mix.) These are the trends that lead to the specific incidents, can we stop chasing-the-ambulance and address the big picture?
There's no use in trying to inflate an incident in to something that it's not. American racism is subtile persistent and it takes small bites. It's like being bitten by mosquitoes over and over until you have no blood left. Some of the time I think Sharpton spends to much time smashing one little bug to death while the swarm is still breeding out in the swap. We need to DRAIN THE SWAMP. (I hope this metaphor isn't too obtuse.)
Now for all I know Sharpton is trying to bring up these bigger issues, but just never gets press for it. That would not surprise me. But, at this point, I wonder if the incident chasing really helps or hurts. Why, for example, will he even go on FOX news? Why even dignify people like Imus, or Oriley with a form or a sounding board for their racism? This is part of a larger problem with US politics: it's so ephemeral, one media circus follows the next and no one ever sums it all up or makes any sense of it.
I was watching the news on New Years Eve at my in-laws and they had one of those "the year in review" videos where they play rock-music and show a bunch of news clips to say what happened in the past year. It was just one stupid scandal after another, nothing was connected or in context, it was a meaningless tide of information facts and occurrences and said nothing about how the world has changed in the past year. BUt this has been a big year: in this past year people became more aware and serous about problems of global waring, financial markets have become destabilized, we are becoming aware of the costs to international peace that come with a reliance on foreign oil, the issue of unfairness in the criminal justice system has become more important, we have seen the US is still grappling with the issue of race, and the issue is growing less abstract and idealized, and more personal. Feminists say that the personal is political, and I think that is becoming true for anti-racists too. Racism can't ever really end unless we address our personal prejudices and segregation.
But, you would get none of this from the news "year in review" --it reminded me of the "blipvert" from 1985 film Max Headroom: 20 Minutes into the Future -- remember those? The high speed ads that made people's brain explode. Our current manner of political interaction is doing the same thing, it's a non stop blipvert 24-7, and to some extent, Sharpoton's way of addressing racism is a part of the problem.