I've written things about Al Sharpton that some see as my support for him. It's not that I support him, it's that what he has said has been accurate, or most likely the case, what people have said about HIM, has NOT been accurate.
This article that appears in The Washington Post Outlook Section states things that I have written concerning Sharpton and his MEDIA APPOINTED position as a "Black leader."
Sharpton's r¿sum¿ isn't even in the same pile. His list of misses includes backing Tawana Brawley's fraudulent accusations of rape and his shilling on TV for predatory lenders. His 2004 campaign was a farcical remix of Jackson's. According to published reports, Sharpton's campaign was backed by Roger Stone, a controversial Republican political operative.
And when the votes were counted, Sharpton came up lame. In South Carolina, where African Americans made up almost half of the Democratic primary electorate, he not only lost overall but lost among blacks. He finished third among his alleged followers, outdone by Sens. John F. Kerry and John Edwards.
...
This "black Jesus" paradigm has become even more useful in the era of the 24-hour news cycle. It allows a struggle -- indeed, millions of people -- to be boiled down to a single, preferably colorful, person. The problem is that the past 30 years have seen the rise of a generation of African Americans with unparalleled opportunities. From their ranks have sprung leaders in nearly every field. If there is a message in the Obama candidacy, it's that being president of black America is irrelevant in an age when you could take the whole thing.
But the many competing and cooperating strains of black activism are impossible to capture in a sound bite or a five-minute "Crossfire" segment. Thus Sharpton is invoked as shorthand, as a way to avoid the time it takes to show complexity, nuance and humanity.
There's another reason why the media have elected the reverend president of black America. For cable networks, Sharpton is the gift that keeps on giving. He provides an easily disposable villain, a simple out for his most loyal constituency: white racists. For those who already doubted the humanity of black folks, who believe that we spend our days counting the ways white people owe us, who think we chant "Reparations now!" at least once every seven minutes, the bombastic Sharpton is a perfect confirmation.
To me, THIS ONE is the kicker!
A few weeks ago, when Fox News's Bill O'Reilly ventured to Harlem and discovered that black people, like other sentient beings, consume solid food and inhale oxygen, it was no shock that Sharpton was his guide. In describing the encounter, O'Reilly asserted that African Americans were moving away from "the Sharptons and the Jacksons, people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.' "
How ungracious.
This is America's racial rift transformed into a reality show -- a place where Sharpton can cross swords with O'Reilly one day and take him out for fried chicken the next. O'Reilly was, of course, widely criticized for his dim comments. In his defense, he summoned the very man whom he claimed African Americans weren't listening to: Sharpton.
This is what I wrote concerning the O'Reilly comments:
Isn't this more proof of the symbiotic relationship the media has with "race hustlers"? Isn't this even more proof that Sharpton and others are more important to the media than to those who the same media claims these people "lead"?
But I'm just a Black person with an opinion. What do I know?
Recent Comments