Well, we certainly can't indict all liberals to support such a "gangsta" mentality. Indeed, not only is that not true of white liberals, but its not true of all blacks.
Okay, we can't indict all liberals. Good.
He is making the indictment against a prevailing culture and whoever those constituents may be. I'll give you a for instance, however, of how liberals have tended to praise such affectations.
Where is the evidence of this "prevailing culture"? Let's count the liberals you cite as evidence:
Along comes Ward Churchill, practically the poster child for frenzied liberal crusaders. The cry heard is of the vast rightwing conspiracy.
One. On the basis of this evidence, you assert:
The point is, there is this entire counter-culture who fight for people like Mumia Abu-Jamal or Tookie Williams simply because they are black.
One cited liberal = entire counter-culture?
The truth is that slavery has been around as long as humans have been. And while American slavery, in many cases, epitomizes all the horrors of what slavery can bring about, the reality is the standardized belief portrayed in "Roots" was far from the norm.
All the other guys were doing it, so it was okay? Ever try that argument on your parents?
You're simply repeating the vague assertion from the book jacket: how was "Roots" far from the norm? What was the norm of American slavery? How does Sowell describe the reality of American slavery? I gather he doesn't think it was as bad as "liberals" believe it was--what
is his corrected view?
I have to admit that I'm prepared to be underwhelmed by anyone I've never heard of who is touted as America's leading public intellectual by a Fox News commentator. Tell me why I'm mistaken.
Because you're a liberal?
I assume you resort to the L-word because you have not--and apparently cannot--offer any actual evidence. You offer no evidence for your liberal conspiracy paranoia, and you cite a single anecdote as an example of liberal pathology and use it to indict an amorphous set of people you seem unable to identify.
I'm not a liberal--I'm far to the left of contemporary American liberals (who would have been mainstream Republicans 30 years ago).
I was prepared to be underwhelmed by someone touted by a Fox News commentator because I've watched Fox News, and I've listened to black conservatives who pander to their white counterparts (often for profit, a la Armstrong Williams), and I've listened to white people say "I'm not a racist but..." for decades.
I don't know the details of the Mumia case, and you don't seem to think
you need to know the details before drawing your own conclusions. I do know that black defendants accused of crimes against whites are sentenced to death more often that blacks accused of victimizing other blacks or whites accused of the same crime: those are facts. So I'm prepared to tentatively conclude that critiques of a particular conviction in this context are attempts to correct that historical bias until I see evidence to the contrary.
In the south, especially since Reconstruction (since the south rarely bothered with trials for slaves, yes?), trials of black defendants were thin veneers over lynch parties: often the defendants were denied even the pretense of a trial, being pulled from their cells by mobs and tortured.
I also know that an ever-growing list of black death row inmates have been freed in the face of exculpatory DNA tests and evidential misconduct by police, prosecutors, and crime lab scientists. Typically, the reversals are based on evidence revealed by teams of college students; one concludes the police/prosecutor/judical system didn't look too hard at the evidence at the time of trial. Why bother? They already knew--like you--what must be the truth of the matter. Who needs evidence?
Given that historical context, and the current statistics showing the racially biased imposition of the death penalty and lengthy sentences, I conclude it is still extremely difficult for a black man to receive a fair trial--indeed, the notion that an all-white jury does not constitute a jury of a black defendant's peers is a recent one, in terms of appeals court reviews.
Given all that, on what grounds do you assume that Mumia's conviction was fair and unbiased merely because it was an American trial?
So, yeah, I'm underwhelmed by Sowell, as expected, and, further, I believe you launched this racially charged thread now because it is the Martin Luther King holiday weekend, traditionally a target of American racists.
Because you're a...what?
Edited by Omnivorous, : typo
Edited by Omnivorous, : clarity
Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
™ Version 4.2