Introduction

Cool, I'm the first comment. I don't know why it says "Hueguenot" at the beginning of my post, this is actually Pat.

Gee, Hueguenot, great idea. You're obviously a very smart person. I bet you're very attractive, too. Good luck on this super-duper good idea!

Hey, read your post on "Reject the Lie of White Genocide".
By the bye, I did indeed read the column. If I didn't address the subject directly, it's because I think the limiting factor in any such debate is the mistaken attitude about Europeans vis-a-vis other peoples (such as the Amerinds themselves).
As long as people assume that the Europeans were an anomalously genocidal bunch, they won't pay attention to the real factors involved (such as naturally-occuring disease); they already *know* the solution.

-Tallil2long

Well, I was afraid my post might have come out garbled. I was not thinking of you when I talked about people not reading the column. I was talking about the same people you're talking about in the second paragraph of your post here, like johnnie - people whose minds were made up by people like Ward Churchill.

Sorry for the confusion. I mentioned inviting thoughtful and informed posters to this here blog, and that's why I invited you. You are obviously in command of a truckload of facts that are germane to the discussion.

Thanks.

No, I didn't take your post amiss. I considered that there was room to suggest that I had not read the column, as the majority of my posts didn't address the subject of the column directly; so I figured it wouldn't hurt to clarify why I posted in the manner I did. My style is rather dry, though, so I sometimes seem more Serious than I intend!

I am definitely not a bigot. I have lots of ethnic friends and a fair dollop of Indian blood. I disagree with Gallagher on this.

In a similar incident in my home town 10 years ago, four young Alaskan Native guys went on a mini-crime spree, robbed a guy in a parkinglot before he escaped to his car and gun, so they ran away. He later ID'd them by photo lineup. Maybe an hour later, while the limited police of our small city were across town,a 15-year-old was kicked, beaten and sexually assaulted on a deserted downtown street. A witness saw them from far away.

The 15-year-old boy died of brain injuries, having been kicked in the head with tennis-shoed feet. One of the four confessed and named the other three, supporting copious forensic evidence. A jury found the four guilty.

People today still insist those boys are behind bars because they're Native, but all the evidence says these guys were just starting their harm to society.

I don't see a difference between them and the Jena 6, particularly the ring leader. Nobody likes to hear their kid is a violent thug, but my experience with this sort of reverse hate-crime is that the ethnic minorities always claim they're being railroaded on count of their race when in reality, they thought their race should protect them from prosecution.

I think Gallagher is just a bit naive about the situation. Maybe he's never lived in a city with a large racial community that insists that members of their racial group can never be guilty of anything, but I have. If the evidence warrants it, the Jena 6 need some jail time, because it might just prevent them from kicking some other kid to death in the future.

Jena has a history of racially-inspired problems, it seems. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of all the data in this link, but several of the incidents described therein I have independently verified:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12353776

A large part of the problem is a perception that, since justice wasn't done in some previous cases, it should not be done in this case of the Six. This is understandable, but doesn't tend towards effective rule of law. Rather than let the guilty off *now*, people should work to correct *past* miscarriages of justice. The outcome of the case of Reginald Denny is perhaps illustrative of this erroneous concept. Since justice was perceived not to have been done in the case of the LA police officers, people expected that Denny's assailants likewise be treated leniently despite the obvious severity of their crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny
Personally, I don't think one should EVER protest in support of a potential criminal's escape from justice.

Understand that, for the sake of argument, I am speaking as though the six are guilty of assault and that previous allegations of misconduct on the part of white students are also true. None of this has yet been proven in court.

Further, confusion about the severity of various sorts of misconduct seems to be involved. I find nothing more despicable than the 'prank' of placing nooses in the tree, alluding to our past history of lynchings. On the other hand, this action is a far cry from physically assaulting someone. Being unable to distinguish difference in kind and degree of kicking someone in the head while unconscious, versus a gesture (no matter how racist) is a real problem.
Are racist gestures vile? Yes. Has anyone ever suffered brain damage from them? Not as far as I am aware. People routinely suffer brain damage from being struck in the head.


Finally, one further note. Had six white kids attacked a lone black kid, I believe it would have instantly been labelled a hate crime and the additional potential penalties invoked. Not doing so just because the victim is white constitutes a double standard.
In my opinion, the solution to the problem lies in eliminating the 'hate crime' distinction. No person is worth more than another solely on the basis of race, religion, etc. No person should therefore have greater protection under the law; or less. ALL crimes should be taken equally seriously and punished to the full extent of applicable law.

In the Jena case, the thing I am most sure about is that I'm not sure of anything.

I followed somebody's link to the testimony of a white pastor in Jena that was supposed to set a lot of things straight and be the most fair and balanced account, yet. And it sure seemed that way, and may well be as far as I can tell. Yet a black woman in town took him to the woodshed for various problems she had with his account.

So, I am more convinced than ever that without a time machine, I'll never know exactly what happened.

I also think that hanging up nooses in a tree for the purpose of intimidating blacks should be punished severely by expulsion from school, and that any 6 kids knocking any 1 kid down and proceeding to stomp on him until restrained should be punished with a conviction of aggravated assault.

There, now I probably have both sides mad at me.

is that I have no less reason to believe the black woman than I do the white pastor. If they can't agree on it, I'll sure never know.

I probably would have suspended the noose-hanging students rather than expelled them, but that's a minor point.

What I see in Jena (admittedly from a long distance) is that teh black community thinks the nooses are somehow equal to the beating. The nooses justify the beating and all other incidents against white people and black people participating in assault or other crimes in reaction to this situation should be given a pass because whites "started it". It doesn't matter who started it. The nooses were wrong, but the assault was worse. Until people accept that hurt feelings are not a justification for physical violence no matter what your skin color may be, we're going to continue to have problems like these.

Bigots come in all colors and I think Jena has white bigots and black bigots. Neither of them is right in what they are doing. It's time for everybody to take a really deep breath and count to whatever number is required for calm to settle and ask themselves clearly -- if those were white kids who had stomped a black kid, what would be their legal status right now? I know what would be going on in my community, but I can't say anything for certain about Jena.

A lot of blacks are talking about the unequal application of justice between whites and blacks. I won't dispute that, but in this case while perhaps not exactly a red herring, it is irrelevant when the offense is six people stomping on one unconscious person. It doesn't give the Jena 6 a pass. You are exactly right, it is unjustifiable.

It's like the Jena 6 apologists are grasping for candy at the bottom of a jar. They can't get their fist out of the jar, they have to let go of the candy to get their hand out, and they just won't let go of the candy. If they admit there is no justification for the beating, it's like they're losing, like it's a concession they can't bring themselves make to the enemy.

To be fair, I see that phenomenon at work with conservatives who see a racist act and hesitate to condemn it. In that case, I think the words racism and racist have been so overused, so leached of meaning, and so exploited by the Reverends Jacksons and Sharptons, that they can't bring themselves to say it without feeling slightly embarrassed and dirty. Maybe the other side has similar justifications. I don't know. My head hurts and it's time for bed.

Thanks for contributing.