It's a wonderful fall day here on the east coast, and I am trying to relax and enjoy my Sunday routine of watching some football, kicking back with some cold ones, and talking shit to my buddies from other cities on the phone.
So then, like a bad breakup coming back to haunt me, here it comes; Mr. house Negro, and acquitted wife killer himself, O.J. Simpson, who is all over the freaking news. (Yes I like to channel hop). On FAKE NEWS they are having multiple orgasms, and trotting out the usual suspects, like, I never used the "N" word Fuhrman, to tell us all about it. And to be fair, CNN is wall to wall with this shit too. If you are a white person in America, who had to sit through that day when those Howard Law Students were cheering their asses off, this is your revenge. Dumb J has given you another bite of his black ass, and I am sure you are going to make sure that "justice is served" this time. The shit pisses me off on a bunch of levels. Not the least of which is that I am going to have to listen to all these over night lawyers and legal experts for the next few weeks talk about this shit. "So field what do you think about the O.J. case?" That's all I will be hearing at work and at every turn from now on until this latest O.J. nightmare is over.
Now for the record, I despise O.J., I think he is a despicable human being who did get away with murder, and who sold out his fellow athletes during the 1968 Mexico City games to be accepted into "Charlies" house. And in the house he sat for many years, until he fucked around and killed "Charlies" woman who was on loan to him.
But I hate racism as much as I hate O.J., and I think O.J. played right into the hands of every racist in America who hates his black ass, not because he got away with murder, but because he is a black man who got away with murdering a white woman. Not to mention, he was acquitted by a literal jury of his peers. Mostly black people who used his trial to get back at whitey for all the injustices we as black folks suffered at the hands of whitey's legal system.
So what does dumb J do, he goes to Vegas and bum rushes some guy who was trying to sell his sports memorabilia.---including the suit he wore the day he was acquitted for killing his wife---It seems O.J. tricked his way into the room, and brought, as FAKE NEWS described it, some "black guys" with him. And of course, you know, the black guys were packing. Yep, a bunch of packing "black guys" breaking into a room with O.J., is guaranteed to get you major headlines, not to mention an arrest, every time in America. So now that they have the house Negro in custody again, what are the chances he beats these charges? The Vegas police must feel like they hit the jackpot! "That nigger killed one of our women, and was running around, playing golf, and grinning like he owned the fucking world. Well, we have his black ass now." Yes O.J. they have you now, and this time, don't expect your people to come to your defense like they did the last time. This time, you are all on your fucking own.
57 comments:
Ouch, Field, your anger shows, but the thing of it is, your analysis is spot on correct, on all counts.
Co-sign, FN.
I sincerely hope that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson stay the fuck out of this.
It's time to call a wrap on his foolishness.
O.J. made it too easy for the Vegas police. Now that they have him, they will make sure that there aren't any slip-ups this time.
Yes anon. I am pissed. And to top it off, all my picks from my office pool (recreational purposes only)are losing :(
And denise, if Al and Jessie gets involved with this, with all the stuff that's going on with black flks (Jena comes to mind) they should have their heads examined.
O.J. narcissistic a$$ thinks he is going to get away with this. His excuse of going to retrieve what belonged to him doesn’t fly. If the sport memorabilias were his he probably sold them under the table to keep the Brown estate and the Goldman family from getting their hands on the money.
I bet a silver dime whatever the maximum time is on the charges O.J. will receive the max when they convict him.
I'm sooo sick of anything OJ. He only got off because a racist LAPD screwed up the evidence. That's the ONLY REASON he got off.
We Blacks cheered at his acquittal like Chris Rock said: "WE WON!!!"
WON WHAT? 12 years later and I'm still waiting for my OJ prize. He should have known that since he got off, all cracker America would be gunning for him. You would think he'd be on his best behavior, since he had money that the Goldman's can't touch (NFL pension of $25K a month). All he had to do was live his Black ass on a golf course and fade out like a bad dream.
What does this SOB do?
Writes a book called "If I Did It" which was basically, a CONFESSION.
Taunted the Goldmans at every turn - not that I could really blame him for that; it's not like Fred Goldman will be winning any Father of The Year awards anytime soon, and tried to cash in on his son's death.
And now, the attempted robbery of his auctioned shyt.
Now, I'm cussing, but this crap, especially from a doofus like OJ, just frosts my cookies.
I already have my answer for any white person asking me about OJ:
"You've waited a long time to do this. Sorry to disappoint you, but I could care less about OJ. And that's all I have to say about it. Don't insist I answer you because you won't like me accusing you of not paying this sort of attention to the Jena 6 or that young woman in West Virginia, would you?"
If they insist, I might have to bust them in the chest (LOL).
Being in the neighborhood of this mess I can tell you with absolute certainty that Vegas PD are not at all thrilled to have this dumped in their laps.
They're used to it because Vegas is a magnet for every assclown in the country of all flavors...but it does not especially thrill them. It means more work, more scrutiny, and having to navigate around herds of reporters. The only one possibly seeing any gain here is Palace Station which is not an "A list" hangout, more of a locals place where retirees mob the buffet.
Personally, I could give a flip though I AM extremely grateful we aren't host to the West VA case.
Please don't call on me to march to gain THIS idiot's freedom!
I'm tellin' y'all right now: I'M BROKE AND BUSY!! LOL
OJ is holding back racial progress in this country. Every time blacks start talking about systemic grievances they've had from Emmett Till to Jena 6, OJ always trots out on cue.
OJ, if you manage to survive the white supremacists in jail, once you get out, take your $$$ and move to Dubai or Monaco or one of those places where they cater to wealthy shady people, no questions asked.
OJ, just go. Do it for your people, do it for America.
Jimbo
I doubt if Al or Jessie would get involved with this. I hope they stay focused on Jena 6 and that woman in Virginia instead of that Idiot OJ.
This could turn out better for the Juice in the long run, three meals a day and free room and board. Whitey has set up an environment for the Juice to be taken out permanently Jimmy Hoffa style. He does not have any body guards. All he does is play golf and bang white girls. So prison may keep this crazy nigger alive. Go Juice Go.
Hey FN. Congrats on winning a Black Weblog Award. I voted for you and added you to my blogroll. Keep up the great work.
As far as this O.J. mess is concerned, I agree with you. We shouldn't cry for him Argentina, because he's loving every minute being in their custody.
Speaking of crime Field...you often talk about the high crime in Philly.
You going to do ask the Chief Request and patrol the hood?
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2007/09/sylvesters-blac.html
You can't make this sh*t up.
And talk about a long fall from grace... (starting almost 15 years ago). Tyson and weird --- Michael Jackson come close. But Simpson is in a league all his own when it comes to stupidity.
I just saw portions of the Las Vegas PD Press Conference. It was almost as if I could see the saliva dripping from the detectives mouth as he spoke.
You could tell that this was the moment that they had been waiting patiently for. All they had to do was wait for this fool to open up the door of opportunity.
Somehow, I don't think O.J. consulted his lawyers before he developed this bone-headed plan to retrieve his football trophies.
That's assuming that what the press reports about this is true. Even if O.J. killed his wife, I think he EVIDENCE of it was fabricated. And I wouldn't put it past the US criminal justice system to do the same thing again.
If he is convicted and gets sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for attempted robbery, then you'll know this case is about Los Angeles and not Los Vegas.
This post doesn't sit well with me. You show zero sympathy for OJ's victims.
"This post doesn't sit well with me. You show zero sympathy for OJ's victims."
Which ones? His children? Nicole, and Ronald Goldman? His race?
There are many of victims in this American tragedy.
Cobb, I am afraid I won't be heeding our police commissioner's call. There are some issues which I won't get into right now. But let's just say I am not on board with his latest plan.
azziza, thanks for the love!
A.I., I co-sign with you and the other people who are fed up with "the Juice". I guess we can add all of us to the victim pool.
I strongly disagree with this one. We can't tolerate any form of racism. Racism is an amoeba that spreads with the slightest airing. We can't cherry pick the placement of it, and expect it not to spread. I would think that the Field position would be to give no, absolutely no--credence to white folks' lingering obsession with OJ and their insistence that the jury of OJ peers were just bunch of stupid black folks.
Why would we pay attention to this story just to put O.J. down. I can't see freedom in reacting to every and anything the white media showcases--especially when we do so in a way consistent with the white media.
We don't won't Jesse or Al to respond to this in a supportive way (because of how their support might play out in the white media) but we will to disparage O.J.(because we're fatigued by the racial projections of O.J. in the white media.)
It is clear that this prosecution of O.J. is trumped up. O.J. is no burglar. That's ridiculous. He goes into a Las Vegas Hotel room from a camera filled hallway without disguise, etc. to commit armed robbery. This is silly. It is just pandering to the white public who can't allow a black constiuency to self-determined--the way they have with every major white celebrity who has ever been charged with a serious crime.
People, let's get with it. I think our effort would be better spent insisting that Robert Blake be hounded and brought up on trumped up charges. This would demonstrate just how racial and ridiculous the focus of O.J. is.
On behalf of all white people, I must say we are not satisfied. You see, we white people have a little saying that "Justice deferred is justice denied."
So we don't exactly have our pound of flesh yet. We're going to take it out on some other black guy....Maybe....Michael Jackson?
Oh wait. Come to think about it, we literally do have our pound of flesh there,,,maybe more than a pound....
Never mind.
Field, I have to bow to your superior legal knowledge. But as a person who has served on the jury for a capital murder trial, I have to disagree with you about the motive of the jurors in OJ's first case. I know, because I've been there, that there is a big difference between having a gut feeling about the guilt or innocence of a defendant and following the judges instructions to vote guilty if the Prosecution leaves you without reasonable doubt.
The OJ prosecutors were phoning it in. They were so certain that the jury had internalized the unwriten rules (the ones you alluded to about never killing white women) that they didn't have to worry about presenting a clear cut case. As it turned out, they were wrong. The jury took the judge at his word and spent considerable time combing through the evidence. And there was only one conclusion to reach. The investigation of the murders was handled so poorly that it might not ever be possible to find out what really took place.
There is such a bias in favor of the prosecution in this country. In OJ's case, his legal team turned that bias against them. By showing the prosecutors and police to be bumblers, they shook people out of that bias long enough to look for the trees instead of being overwhelmed by the forest.
But the rest of what you wrote is completely right. Since the day he was acquitted, OJ has been marked for destruction by the Powers That Be. It looks like they finally brought him down, like a stag in the forest.
Damn, I love visiting your blog.
He says he thought what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas - yeah that mostly right if you don't call some friends and gansta your way into a hotel room with guns, have an audio tape running in the background, and be one of the most recognized Black man in America.
I agree with Field, good posting.
All weekend this was the lead story on local news radio. Last week it was Britney. In England they have tabloid news & real news & everyone knows the difference. Over here, they jump on anything that pushes Iraq off the headlines. War? What war?
If O.J. had been convicted and jailed for life, white people would still regularly offer up his case as evidence of Black barbarism--and as justification for stepped up controls. Whites will never let such a potent opportunity for white community bonding go. (So, expect Vick--even after jail--to be paraded out forever more. Bonds will forever be the poster child of cheating but Belechik hardly be mentioned beyond the moment.)
So, even a conviction here is not going to put O.J. out to pasture. He will remain as a white rallying cry.
(The only thing is that if O.J. is not convicted of the new charges his image can continue to trigger for black people a memory of a moment of empowerment.)
To quote Geroldo
"Big Burly Black Man"
I dont'thing I ever seen such celebrating on Fake New, since Clinton got caught with his pants down. Geroldo had an orgasm
I agree jusus!
Geraldo was definitely having an orgasmic moment! He wanted every detail told to him .... slowly!
Just gag me with a spoon!
you know, I don't care about O.J. one way or the other, but if you had seen that take down that Anderson Cooper did of O.J. you'd wear him a brand new ass for that. The hateration of white folks showed for that man is not just about him but about all black men and how they truly feel. They held Simpson upside down and tried shake all the coins from his pocket that they could, running down all the ways in which he can hide money. As one white man said, he just ain't "transparent". They went on to guesstimate his true worth and you could just see them salivating. For that piece of hateration I hope O.J. slides out of their grimmey white paws once again issuing their white faces a stinging slap.
The paranoia and level of denial evidenced in these comments is really astonishing.
We all know OJ's a murderer (so why even care if he's a burglar), if you don't think he's a murderer, I'm wondering what other delusional beliefs you maintain, and even if he weren't a murderer, which he is, he would still be a vicious, sexist, narcissistic wife beater; why is anyone here defending him?? Why even waste time on this stupid story? The reason it's in the news is because he's still a "celebrity."
What we're really looking at with O.J. and Vick is a weekly public lynching of a Black man for the entertainment of white people. Can they find a Black jaywalker a week with his pants down and put him on the nightly noose. (OOps, I meant to says "news!")
Yeah, they'll always be able to find some stupid a** to parade in front of white people, who are trying to publicly confirm the righteousness of the color-aroused systemic persecution of Blacks.
It's just like lynchings. It's targets Black people for white people's amusement.
Suggestion: Respond to white people's O.J. hard-on should by reciting what whites say to our complaints about continued effects of slavery, rampant discrimination, police abuse and to wrongly convicted black folks--who might have served 20 years in prison before being released:
"Hey, don't be bitter and angry. Forgive. Move on. Let it go. That was the past. This is the present. You have to learn to love."
We might say this to the Goldmans--who, at first, was disgusted by O.J.'s book (a monster, to have written it) but now are OK pimping their son and Nicole for a profit--this.
Against this backdrop, it is clear to me how truly insincere whites are--and how stupid they presume we are.
Let's stop seeking some moral high ground--and choose effective arguments.
Offensively mock and ridicule.
If O.J. is a monster, the Goldmans must be sad parent-pimps. We have no one in the black community to play this role--and this demonstrates how beholdened and impotent we truly are. But the whites, they have this down. Talk radio, Faux News, Geraldo, will call us monsters and animals whenever they want. But we terribly want to appear civilized. People should be afraid of getting into the ring with us for fear of damage to reputation. But Kanye West and Ray Nagin (after he started cussing over the radio and calling people out almost by name) who prommpted action around Katrina.
We're way too nice--too moralistic (elizabeth)-- and understanding. This preening strategy is recipe for stagnation.
I'm back. And, I was in Vegas, where this was Topic #1 for their newscasts.
I think this is hilarious.
The level of stupidity with this man is off the charts.
He got away with a Double Murder, and is going down for a robbery - not because he needs to feed himself - he get hundreds of thousands in tax-free, untouchable (to the Goldman and Browns) money, and yet, he's resorting to robbery, because, what?
What exactly is his reason for this?
You could sit him down with 10 shrinks, and I bet they couldn't tell you the reason.
There are some Black people that other Black people have NO BUSINESS DEFENDING.
OJ Simpson is at the top of that list.
He's so pathetic, it's ridiculous.
He got away with double murder, and will go to the pokey for utter BS.
KARMA BABY.
It is clear that this prosecution of O.J. is trumped up. O.J. is no burglar. That's ridiculous. He goes into a Las Vegas Hotel room from a camera filled hallway without disguise, etc. to commit armed robbery. This is silly. It is just pandering to the white public who can't allow a black constiuency to self-determined--the way they have with every major white celebrity who has ever been charged with a serious crime.
When the audiotape arrives on TMZ.com, um....sure sounds like OJ on that tape.
Got tired of reading comments early on... There's a lot to talk about in America when it comes to racism, but claiming "white America" has been gunning for OJ, and that that has any relevence in this case is simply absurd. It really is. I haven't read or heard any details about the "story" excepting what you wrote here Field. You say he broke into a room with several armed accomplises? White America gunning for OJ would be auditing him yearly to try to catch him on a tax technicality. (Has that happened? Seriously, maybe it has, but I'm too tired and don't care enough to research if it has. If it has my point is undermined.) But arresting OJ for this crap isn't anyone "gunning" for anything.
I know there's history. I know there's context. But above it all is right and wrong. The reason racism is a big deal isn't because it's inconvienient or annoying. It's a big deal 'cause it's WRONG. Let's try to remember that even the victims of one wrong (racism) can do wrong.
Frankly the interpretive framework most commentors seem to have taken (historical and present context includes racism? If yes, justify ludicrous behaviour by ANY member of race discriminated against in the past) is intellectually dishonest, if it can be called intellectual at all. Morality cannot be appealed to, justice cannot be referenced, if their integrity as ideals (including consistency of application) is not vigorously guarded. Are any of us going to ever be perfectly consistent with our application of morals and ethics? Of course not. But it doesn't even seem like half of you here are even trying to be so.
This is anonymous from 2:04 am just above. I'm sorry I had to go back and read more... That's when I read Francis l. Holland's comment. It included this statement:
"It's just like lynchings."
That is to speak simply, a hyperbolic and outrageously offensive statement. (And yes, I understand analogies. No need to ask.) I don't know much, but I do know that I wouldn't compare the news coverage of the arrest of a celebrity (black, white, otherwise) for a crime such as the one OJ is accused of, to such awefull injustices of the past. It's shockingly disrespectful to those who suffered and died in the past for doing *nothing* wrong, and is such a rough analogy, with such wildly disparate terms of comparison, that the point of it all is discredited even as the words are read. Compare if you must OJ's coverage to that of a similarly accused white sports celebrity. Or just a white celebrity. And you know what? There's is probably an arguement to be made there. I'm a big fan of Field's blog. And normally the comments section is very informative to me. But this one just left me shaking my head.
I should have stopped reading. After my last comment I decided to go ahead and read all the comments.
I really have nothing to say, except that I am genuinely discouraged. Reading Field's blog helped open my eyes. I'm so far from perfect it scares me. But if the people commenting here represent the torch-bearers for racial justice and moral accountability (at least as it relates to race) in this country... I'm just discouraged. The comment that sent me from a little angry (see last two comments) to discouraged was the comment referencing OJ's aquittal of murder (a charge few question he was guilty of) to a moment of black empowerment. (I'm not trying to argue the technical merits of the prosecution's case, or say that OJ *should* have *techinically* been convicted. Maybe there was that smallest sliver of doubt.) But it's not a victory for any people when someone gets away with wrong-doing because for whatever reason. And to hear it claimed as such discourages me as I try to learn and grow so as to be better equipped in my own personal life to fight racism and injustice.
OK, so I made a mean comment about Goldman profiting off of that book on another site and they didn't like it - said I should consider that I don't know what it's like to have a family member murdered, being in that position justifies [anything?]. But in New Orleans we have relatives of murder victims on almost every block and they don't all get to pimp out a book on it, rake in cash and traumatize some kids. So I came over here for a breath of fresh air ... and it is one, Alhamdulillahi.
I'm with Rikyrah - OJ is off the charts nuts, maybe 1 of those 10 shrinks would realize it's classic more or less psychopathic narcissistic abuse he's into. It took me some study of that subject - for other reasons - to finally recognize that in him.
The news is talking about the Vegas adventure so as not to talk about the serious news.
Anon., the justice system is not very just. For all the reasons brought up in this thread the vote to acquit was rational. This meant that a wife beater got away with murder. But do white wife beaters get convicted of murdering Black wives was my question at the time, and now.
This is what I mean about the law not being just:
http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2007091824?pt=0
Ravensravings:
"Hey, don't be bitter and angry. Forgive. Move on. Let it go. That was the past. This is the present. You have to learn to love."
We might say this to the Goldmans--who, at first, was disgusted by O.J.'s book (a monster, to have written it) but now are OK pimping their son and Nicole for a profit--this.
Yes. That 'pimping' is OK because they must be grieving, angry, and so on ... but others should 'move on' ... this is a rhetorical move made again and again. Heavily manipulative and very irritating.
Just above anonymous, I hope you're right and that we're not all struggling here to be a moral ideal. That's bondage and self-indulgent. I can think of no better way to under-equip a people than to require them all to a moral ideal. I would hope most fields would know when to get dirty and selfishly fight for yours.
About Rik's point, Robbery is a technical, legal term that involves "theft," taking property that (you know) is not your own. Just because O.J. was in the room (which O.J. does not deny) does not mean that O.J. "robbed" the occupants. And for the life of me, I can't figure out this new kidnapping charge. Where is the factual basis of transport? If the things O.J. sought were in the room, what need is there for kidnapping.
There is reason to step up in this O.J. circumstance. It is not about O.J. I thought that we all understood that the fight for racial justice is well beyond personality appeals.
I'm also tired of Black folks using race and racism as an excuse to defend OJ Simpson (or Michael Vick or any other thug). It's down right embarrassing for me as a Black person. Just like someone mentioning above that- "It's Like Lynching"- describing what THEY are doing to poor OJ. When I go to work, my White co-workers will probably start asking all kinds of silly questions... asking me why Black people are defending him and why Black people cry racism all the time to defend these kinds of people (as if I am the representative for Black people). I get tired of that s---!
I usually tell them... "I don't know"... "Why in the Hell are you asking me".
Anyone who wants to see the official charges... I have the pdf link for the actual official compaint. It explains all the charges, including the charge of kidnapping. Link Here
Main Page
ravenravings: I appreciate the point you make, and understand that sometimes you just have to fight back to defend what's yours. And if that's all this is for this country, an amoral struggle for power and advancement of various groups' interests (whatever they may be), then may the strong conquer the weak.
I don't believe that's what you're advocating. To escape such a cold evolutionary perspective of society, we have to in some way or the other adopt a morality, system of ethics, or social contract. And any of those perspectives that would condemn racism as (morally) wrong, (ethically) unjust, or (according to the social contract) detrimental to society, would also have to make the same judgement concerning a murderer walking free. To espouse a double-standard of right and wrong, just and unjust, helpfull and detrimental, is to undermine *all* judgements extrapolated from whatever system one uses to judge an action. Subtlies exist. OJ isn't one of them. Using him as any sort of rallying cry is shamefull.
Anonymous--Under all the systems of ordered rectitude you identified--social contract, morality and ethics--a "murderer" must walk free if the system of laws to which all the people have agreed has refused to formally identify the accused murderer as a "murderer"--or has otherwise required his freedom. Such is the case of O.J. Only a corrupt interpreter of the social contract would turn a blind eye to a retrial on a murder charge under the guise of an attempt to retrieve a person's own memorabilia.
First: perhaps the social contract would require one to be satisfied with and support *any* decision of the courts. Morality and ethics supercede society and demand no such blind allegiance to laws and their implications. I would contend that we have an obligation to actively examine our legal system and our laws to make sure they are moral and/or ethical. And when they fail to support our morals or ethics, we should not celebrate that failure. At least not if we are to, in other cases, appeal to morality or ethics as the basis for social change.
I suppose we will have to wait to see how this plays out. And I will pre-emptively condemn any corruption that may be present in this latest saga with OJ. If he is innocent of these charges I hope he is found to be so by our justice system.
My problem is when his actual innocence or guilt of murder is of no consequence to those who rally behinds his aquittal. If our ultimate appeal is to the decisions (and machinations) of the court and legal system, then if they find him guilty of whatever charges can be invented in this latest case we should be consistent and support them. This "retrial on a murder charge under the guise of an attempt to retrieve a person's own memorabilia" (if that's what is happening) would be wrong because he isn't guilty of murder in this case. But if you are going to celebrate the courts setting him free (guilty or not of murder) then you must also celebrate the court's decision in this case (guilty or not of these charges.) I guess my point is that his guilt is what concerns me. Not the court's decision. Doesn't seem like that is the general view of most posters here in these comments. If OJ's guilt as a murderer isn't a concern for someone then I don't feel they have a right to be concerned about the guilt of a racist society (and the people therein.)
Anon wrote,
"If OJ's guilt as a murderer isn't a concern for someone then I don't feel they have a right to be concerned about the guilt of a racist society."
That's it in a nutshell--self-hatred. So, if a black person doesn't accept the given sense that a lone Black person (here, O.J.) is guilty--and must be condemned--then the right to be free from oppression must be forfeite
All of that must be sacrificed because of obliviousness about O.J.? That's drinking the Cool-Aid.
So . . . unless white folks are caught up in bringing Robert Blake to justice--, white folks have no moral right to maintain freedom and justice for themselves?
Because . . . to demand justice and fairness black folks--all folks--must prove they have met some moral standard--even that their moral philosophy and their moral demands are consistent? Otherwise, Blacks don't deserve to demand freedom. They must meet this uber standard to overcome the presumption that don't merit fair treatment.
Is that it?
I know this is what whites think but for blacks to espouse this in 2007.. . . I'm surprised.
I don't care if O.J. was thrown a parade at every black-occupied house he passed, black folks--flawed or perfect--don't deserve oppression--and would retain the right to demand freedom---the same right to freedom, btw, the flawed, unproductive, racist doesn't even have to demand. It is his by virtue of being born human.
First of all, I am white. Just to be open and honest about that... I completely agree with you anon. I don't think I expressed myself well above. It isn't that I expect or even wish that more black people would condemn or care about OJ. But I do think it undermines the force of one's moral or ethical indignation about any injustice, if one (by one's own accord) cites OJ,*with open and complete disregard for his whether or not he is guilty*, as a specific cause around which to rally. To be clear, it's not that I believe anyone black or otherwise, needs to be morally consistent to cry out against injustice (or any other breach of morality/ethics.) If that were the case, we must all be mute. But the one who does cry out (and thank God for them) should not shamelessly say "I don't care if Mr. Blank did X, Y, or Z, I don't care if he is guilty, I will rally myself and my people to him, and celebrate his good fortune even if it is a gross breach of justice, as even I would define it." This is especially important when the moral/ethical inconsistency is in the same theme as that which is cried out against. Assume OJ killed them (for the sake of arguement.) It is unreasonable and irrational to celebrate his aquittal just because he is black, and in the next breath condemn racism.
What I hear in OJ's case is some black folks saying "OJ's race matters more to me than justice. Even if he is guilty I am glad he is free because he is black." And it is those people I feel who lose the right to then appeal to justice in the struggle to overcome other people who similarly place race above justice, i.e. racist whites.
BTW, if Robert Blake is guilty (I know next to nothing about the details of his case) then I hope he rots in prison. But I don't feel obligated to decide for myself if I think he's guilty because I don't plan on citing him as a rallying point/cause for celebration.
Oh, you're white, White Anon. That's a relief! As I said in my post, I was really concerned about a black man writing your post.
Well, anyway, you're a racist. I found your last post highly offensive.
I believe your distortion and misinterpretation of the motives for what appeared to be celebration of O.J.'s acquittal scream anti-black mindset.
In short, you are incapable of attributing to blacks sophisticated analysis and rationality. You ignore, disregard and devalue concerns about racial injustice.
How could you have read the "black reaction" to O.J. as a mere O.J. love fest? You had to dismiss out of hand every comment of a black commentator during the entire two-year O.J. ordeal to reach that conclusion. Every black commentator explained the support, approval, celebration as one of the triumphed of the the rule of law over rampant systemic bias and police abuse. Rather, than celebrating O.J.'s freedom, blacks celebrated the opportunity to hold the system accountable for its racial bias--and the brief moment of self determination.
But you didn't get that? Did you just tune out whenever a black commentator spoke--or did you listen but pronounced all of the black commentators liars and make up some basic, barbaric mindset to attribute to black people.
(And even if Black commentators hadn't explained the "black reaction," why didn't you reason this on your own? You followed O.J.'s trial? You were acquainted with all the evidence of police abuse, N-word this and that, planting evidence, etc.? When you heard all of the police transgressions, didn't you cry out for a lost conviction of O.J. as a lesson to the system? Indeed, if you cared at all about the mistreatment of blacks at the hands of the police, you could not have missed that in black people's celebration after the trial. If you cared, you might have been--should have been--celebrating too.
"Thank God, although we lost O.J. (he's in the hands of God now,) we still won. The acquittal will asure that we won't have to suffer the traffic death of the so many black people who are killed by cops because whites won't beleive that their innocent-looking cops are N-word using racist." That should have been what you said, white anon, if you weren't dismissal of black people and their concerns.
Finally, by setting racial considerations apart from "justice" considerations in your summary of black thought (O.J.'s race matters more to me than justice,") you apparently disregard the goal of racial justice. Race and justice are not polar opposites.
Where have you been. Blacks raise race to secure justice--not as oppositionn to it.
I'm tired.
First of all, I assume (maybe erroneously) that the goal of racial justice is (surprise!) justice. Race and justice aren't polar opposites? Thanks for the insight. Here's another: There is no special kind of justice (e.g. racial) which is different in it's very nature from the concept of justice. If you're crying out for racial justice, you're crying out for justice, and if you're doing that, you cannot celebrate someone you believe is a murderer walking free. Well, you can, but you're not credible if you do.
I would cheer loudly for the cause of an innocent black man in any court case. I will (and have) spoken out in defense of the Jena 6 and against the too harsh charges brought against them. I want liberty and justice for all. But I want it to be real liberty and real justice. You make my point for me - some people (blacks included) in this country speak about and rally for fragments of ideals (i.e. "racial justice" instead of justice), and then are offended when someone reminds them of the responsibility of holding to an ideal, and that is you have to be willing to line up with it in it's entirety. Justice isn't a buffett. If OJ murdered those people he should be in prison. No amount of racist LAPD, and no amount of history can change that. Was the verdict the wrong one? Probably not. They jury had to follow instructions about "reasonable doubt." The LAPD alone were enough to doubt. But I am not talking about doubt. I'm talking about people who will openly say "I don't care if he's guilty, I'm glad he's free."
I didn't listen to too many commentators (black or white) about the OJ case. I somehow doubt "every" black commentator's "every" comment "explained the support, approval, celebration as one of the triumphed of the the rule of law over rampant systemic bias and police abuse."
- "In short, you are incapable of attributing to blacks sophisticated analysis and rationality."
Are you serious? All I will say about that statement and the other personal analysis of me you make is that you seem rather shallow in your reasoning and far too quick to draw conclusions about specific people.
Finally:
"didn't you cry out for a lost conviction of O.J. as a lesson to the system?" First let me say this: I believe OJ did it. With that in mind, no, of course I didn't cry out and hope for an injustice for the sake of justice. That is so plainly ridiculous I shouldn't have to say it.
Ok last thing I promise. I never advocated setting aside racial considerations when it comes to justice. What I do advocate, is declining to let racial considerations supercede justice in my hierarchy of priorities. You yourself do this every time you call out a white racist. Their fault is in whiteness being more important to then than rightness. And you very willing to call them out on it, as you should be. Once again, my appeal is for consistency.
I have a sincere request for you or anyone else who would be willing to do this: Can you simply show me where I am wrong in my contention that justice is a unified concept and to promote it one should (as much as possible) consistently do so, not pick and choose as it benefits them? And once again I'm not talking about inconsistency due to human weakness - I am well aquainted with that myself. I am talking about open and knowing disregard for guilt, in the "service" of race.
Thanks, Missionary (white) Anon. Wow, you have nerve. I must give you this.
"Justice" is, perhaps, the most hotly contested concepts in western epistomology (Plato's dialogue with Socrates, Aristole-- John Rawls, more recently)--and debates around appropriate method of argumentation are some of the more intense. Yet, here, you purport to impose your own alledged preferences for as the ones--Justice means, and persuasive argumentation requires consistent application of your "justice" understandings.
What? Do you presume us stupid--or just ignorant?
The whole debate between Plato-conjured Socrates dialogue was over whether there was a unified theory of jusice--with Aristole--and quantum physics even, chiming in to argue against a settled concept--unified idea.
But worse than your arrogance in this regard is your (barely implied) insistence that Blacks defer to white standards. You claim that an argument focused exclusively on racial justice wouldn't be credible. To whom? To white people? Obviously, "black sentiment" about O.J. resonated--and was, therefore, credible with black folks. So, you're not talking about black folks--and probably a lot of brown folks. I guess we don't matter, huh?
But you say I don't know you.
Your dismissiveness is also apparent in your insistence on viewing the "black commentary" around O.J. as a fragmentary argument of justice. Is it--even accepting your definiton of justice. Why can't it be that blacks believe that--at least in regard to the criminal justice system--racial justice is the linchpin and completely defines systematic injustice of the system. Such a thought would incorporate a consideration of the totality of the system, right?
And it is a rational thought, too. Perhaps, outside of racial disparities, the American criminal justice meets acceptable standards for safeguards and adjudicatory consistency.
But, no, you can't presume or hear well rational, complete thoughts of black folks. You are only willing to presume an impoverished one.
But, finally, to extend a gesture of good will. I know you don't presume yourself to be a racist. For you, white standards are not foremost in your thinking. You write here mostly because you want to be assured that your life--efforts--are valued--given your sensitivity and interest in racial justice. (You don't want your life disgarded and devalued like you believe black people are in regard to Nicole Simpson and Goldman. You also just really want to get O.J.)
And that doesn't seem so bad, on its face, does it? Not an irrational desire, perhaps.
However, though, not irrational, regrettably, very white. You can't assert yourself in a conversation and make it all about providing you with psychologocial comfort for the long racial journey.
We can't pause in our effort to save lives to give you a hug and reassure you. For you to expect this is supremacist per se---in my opinion.
First of all, let me apologize... I re-read some of what I wrote a few minutes ago, and the way I said some things was arrogant. That is not my intention and I am sorry.
"...racial justice is the linchpin and completely defines systematic injustice of the system."
Racial injustice cannot completely define the systemic injustice of the system *unless* the system functions only to judge racial matters. What of injustices in our courts involving parties of the same race? Clearly injustices occur that cannot be explained via racial injustice. And that is my point. Our justice system is in place to deal with wrong-doing, according to our laws. And matters of right and wrong (as defined by our laws) in any specific area, still fall under the general jurisdiction of our justice system as a whole. A white mob beating a black man for no reason is wrong. Doubly so if motivated by racism. But each "wrong" (the beating and the racism) is wrong as defined by a more general system of judging such thing (the law, or our own personal ethics.) My problem is when anyone ascribes to a certain system of judging right and wrong and then picks and chooses which implications of said system they will accept. How can someone be committed to justice in our justice system and yet celebrate it's failure to be just in any specific case? One cannot, whether the failure in justice is letting a murderer walk free or letting a racist beat up another human being. I think we both agree that both actions are wrong. In that sense (if in no other) we agree that they both demand justice. But you won't explain to me how your committment to justice can have thorough integrity while openly not caring about justice on one case of wrong-doing.
Just for the sake of arguement, agree with me that OJ is guilty. If he is, should he not be held accountable, insofar as we want justice satisfied? Is not justice left wanting if he is free? I don't feel that one can effectively speak out for the cause of justice and still of their own accord openly declare that he does not care if a guilty person is brought to justice. That is the sum of what I am saying.
And I am aware that justice (and almost all other such terms) are objects of philosophical discussion. And if it's a socratic dialogue you want, count me out. I don't believe you and I see "justice" so differently. If nothing else, let's agree that in this case justice is defined according to the laws and justice system of the U.S. If we do that, OJ is free because of the *failure* of the justice system to prosecute a guilty man (still going on the assumption he is guilty.) And the failure of our justice system, be it racially motivated or not, is what we ostensibly are fighting against. Now your focus may be on one specific failure of the system, but isn't the point to have a system with no failures (if such a thing is possible.) If you are working on the bow of a boat and I on the stern to fix leaks, are you going to celebrate a new leak in my area, all the while furiously working to fix the leaks in yours? The point is a boat that floats, without *any* leaks right?
On a final note: Your bold assertations (without caveats) regarding my motivations and perspective are troubling. I would think even to yourself.
- "But, no, you can't presume or hear well rational, complete thoughts of black folks. You are only willing to presume an impoverished one."
Unless your thoughts are the sum of blacks thought, this sentence makes no sense whatsoever. How would you know whether or not all of my intellectual influences and heroes are black? You don't. And just because I disagree with you (and perhaps in the case of OJ, a significant portion of the black population) doesn't mean I'm racist or completely counter to *all* black thought. Isn't that a fairly large point of discussion among the black intellectuals (on the web and otherwise)?: the fact that "black-ness" of thought or character is not something any one person or group gets to define? I assure you there exist many black people that agree with me. Are they racist? Do they dismiss their own thoughts as impoverished because they are black? You make rather devastating (if they are true) attacks upon my character based upon simplistic and divisive thinking. Nothing I've said has been in any way racist. Doesn't mean I'm not racist, but you don't know me well enough to judge that and yet you do. Seems rather unjust to me no matter how you define justice.
Wait, I am out of popcorn! The exchanges between you two have been a joy to read.
You both should be hosting some cable cross fire point,counter point show or some shit!
Wow!
Good stuff, OJ be going down at last; after the upcoming circus that is...
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
KILL your wife
deny it then write book
showing how you would do it
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
acquit a murderer
his race should not matter
simply ignore evidence
..
Missionary anon,
No, you don't have this right. Justice defined by a system of laws can--and, indeed, in many situations must tolerate allowing the guilty to go free. So, a free but guilty O.J. is not necessarily an affront to the American system of justice.
It might have been Justice Oliver Holmes who observed that it is better that 100 guilty are set free than an innocent perish.
Our system contemplates and allows the acquittal of the guilty. Indeed, that is the test of a system of laws--whether an outcome will be permitted because the law says so and notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary.
It may be that a "moral law" supercedes positive law but if so--in regard to O.J.--it is for a higher power to administer the punishment--not the system of laws that has acquitted him.
About my over-generalization, I wasn't wrong. In Economics, we prove ourselves by our ability to predict. In my first response to your post, I expressed dismay at how "white" your comments were. You had not admitted your race then. But I knew.
In your second comment, I hinted that you were an arrogant white person who didn't value black thought, and was offering white as standard.
In your response, by your own admission, you were arrogant--and, I believe, I showed quite well--how you were insisting that Blacks comply with a "white standard" to prove themselves credible.
And we say in law, if a person is right about some things, she is probably right about other things.
Finally, you still don't get it--despite your black heroes. Black people are full human beings--and we know this. We are not looking for your approval--and, indeed, you have none to extend.
Thanks for the exchange.
A perfect justice system would convict all the guilty and aquit all the innocent. I think that is what we'd both like to see. I read a story today about a gay rights activist marching in Jena yesterday. The reason he was there was because (and I roughly quote): "when any of us suffer injustice, we all suffer injustice." I agree with him. I am not sure if you do or not, because I am not sure if he is black or not. I guess if he is black, you agree, otherwise F*** him. I'll say it again - I am discouraged when I read that those claiming most vocally to care about justice, in fact care about race more.
The standard I was advocating isn't a white one. Your comments to that effect border on outright racism.
My approval, when extended, isn't for black people's sake. Ultimately, I approve of something for my own sake. As do you.
I wonder to myself if you live your life consistently with the sentiments you expressed here. I can't imagine you do. You reference law and economics in your comments. I'm sure you realize much of those disciplines are comprised of "white" thought. I personally think that that has no relevence whatsoever to their validity, but apparently you do, and as such I wonder what theories of law and economics you support which are devoid of "white" thought/standards. The reality (I'd wager) is that you readily and without reservation base much of how you think and live upon systems of thoughts devised (largely) by white people. The reason for that is you agree with said thoughts. That too is my standard. I don't care if the progenitor(s) of a thought or system is black, white, or otherwise. If I think it fits with reality, I will adopt it as my own. So your implicit condemnation of my thoughts or standards because they are white, is yet another inconsistency on your part. I'm either right or wrong on the merits of what I say. Not because the thoughts originate in the brain of a white man. And to even bring that element into play is racist. And you know it.
No, a perfect America system of justice might NOT convict all "guilty" and aquit all "innocent." At minimum, even a perfect American system of justice would even for jury nullfication. Jury nullification is woven into the system--a morality check, if you will, on the possible severity of a system that alerts to whether a person "did it" or not--and not whether a person is necessarily deserving of punishment or whether society deserves to punish. (E.g., O.J.)
But you're right the problems with economics and law are (1) that they are too shaped by white thought-and experiences and (2) don't admit their origins in black thought. But those are the problems with all western "knowledge"--even our langa franca.
I offered the disciplines more as a check on you. You won't hear black folk. Maybe, you'll hear your own kinfolk.
But now--in this post--you admit that your deficiency is not that you're deaf. It is that you refuse to learn. You're only willing to take in that which "fits with [your own] reality." The problem is, of course, is that "your reality" is deliberately limited. You admitted in an earlier post that during the most high profile media event of the last so many years, you didn't listen to anything, I guess, but yourr own thoughts.
NOT the way to learn. And not the best tester of the quality of other folks observation--just what you been willing to open yuorself up to see.
Now too your racist allegation again. Classic. This is the way of white folks--having never given any thought to their own racism, slaps the racist label on any race aware comment---especially a claim that they themselves are racist.
That dog may hunt (for your pleasure) in conservative circles but not here. The nonracist--and very specific personal criticisms I make here of your comments--are demonstrated by the fct with yur every comment mine are shown to be that much more true.
I suppose my question for you is this... Can a system of thought (or an individual thought)be invalid only because of its racial origin? Your criticism of some of what I have said has come down to the fact it is coming from a white mind. Maybe I mis-understand what the word "racist" means, but that seems racist to me. I haven't dismissed anything you've said because of your race. My criticisms arise because I actually believe you are wrong on some things. My thoughts are right or wrong. As are yours. You are advocating for yet another double standard, in which a black person can dismiss white thought merely because it is white, and in the next breath criticise someone for dismissing black thought because it is black. What's it gonna be? Is it right or is it wrong to dismiss thoughts and ideas because of the race of the thinker? Or am I trying to force another "white" standard on you which asks you to apply the same standard you apply to a white person to yourself?
As for my (white) experience informing and limiting what I believe and think... Sure, that is true. I cannot go by any other version of reality than that which I experience. So it's not that I refuse to learn. It's not even that I refuse to consider (and sometimes adopt) a different perspective than my own. But I have not ever experienced a reality in which double-standards in thought make any sense. My reality includes the idea that if it's the purpose of a justice system to be just, then it should be so in all cases. The color shirt a murderer was wearing when committing the murder is of as much concern to me as the color of his skin.
If you would, I'd like to ask you another sincere question: would you feel justice had been served in OJ's case if he were a famous white football player and his victims black? Would it then become unjust in your mind? It would most certainly *remain* unjust in mine. I don't know how you would truly feel if the above scenario were true. It seems likely based upon the evidence that you *would* consider that unjust.
- "...and not whether a person is necessarily deserving of punishment or whether society deserves to punish. (E.g., O.J.)"
I liked this point you made. And it troubles me, because I hadn't considered much at all the idea of a society deserving to punish someone. My view has been that it is the explicit purpose of the justice system to judge, and in doing so to punish the guilty, and aquitt the innocent. You didn't say this outright, but I take what you did say to imply that maybe our justice system didn't deserve to find OJ guilty and to punish him. Maybe you're right. But then, when could it ever find a black man guilty? Should our justice system aquitt all black folks accused of a crime for a set amount of time until the debt of injustice against blacks has been paid? That is not a rhetorical question... The debt is real, but I am not sure suspension of justice is the answer.
In response to your criticism concerning my lack of interest in "learning" from the media coverage of OJ's trial... Tell me if I am wrong about this, but my guess is that you often criticise the media for how they portray and cover black issues. Once again my pesky dislike of double-standards raises its head - you can't criticise the media for how it covers black issues and then send me to it to learn about them. Just doesn't make sense. Either way, I have never trusted the media and whenever I hear of an issue that does concern me I try to research it on my own as much as I can. Part of that research often includes coming here to see what Field has written about it because (though I don't always agree with him) he helps me to see things from a different perspective. I've learned a lot from doing this.
Is justice really a black/white thing and not a green($$)/non-green thing?
Did OJ get off because he was black or because he was rich. Did robert blake, phil spector, etc. get off because they are white or rich?
Do rich white people get rousted by the police? Do poor white trash not get rousted by the police?
It largely plays out as a black and white thing. That's what the statistics show. Remove the mask and correct the race disparities. The system will straigten itself out through public pressure.
Post a Comment