More Fan Mail

One man's opinion In his letter of July 16, W. Russell Robinson states the following: "These boys have a history of throwing wild parties and underage drinking. These boys ordered up an exotic dancer for delivery." Is he referring to "these boys" as the lacrosse team or the three men charged with felony sexual assault? If it is "these boys" as a team, then how is it justifiable to charge three members of the team with crimes "committed" by the entire team? If it is "these boys" -- the three men charged with felony sexual assault -- then where is the proof that they specifically threw numerous wild parties and ordered an exotic dancer? Robinson is entitled to his opinion but he should at least recognize that opinion needs to be based in some concrete reality and not a figment of one's imagination fueled by hatred of a class of individuals and their families. T. HannanDurhamJuly 18, 2007

NEXT!!!

Bias freely admitted

I wholeheartedly admit, especially to Nancy McCaffrey [Letters, July 9] that, yes, I do have a bias. This could be the reason I submitted my bias/opinion to the opinions page. I welcome all opinions, and I am grateful to The Herald-Sun for publishing not just my opinion but all other opinions, including yours. This, I'm sure you may know, is what Jâ??ºrgen Habermas coined the as public sphere. In fact, if you have read any other of my biased letters, you may have observed the predilection for things that are fair and just. By design or coincidence, I noticed that you failed to mention that I considered former district attorney Mike Nifong's methods "reprehensible." I also observed that you chose not to challenge the facts I presented via ESPN nor take a position on the sexist and bordering on racist slur hurled by Rush Limbaugh. If we can, lets sidestep opinion for a bit and come back to some simple facts. These boys have a history of throwing wild parties and underage drinking. These boys ordered up an exotic dancer for delivery. Do these behaviors personify mature college students? W. RUSSELL ROBINSON Durham July 16, 2007

NEXT!!! Unedited

I W. Russell Robinson whole heartily admit, especially to Ms. McCaffrey that yes I do have a bias. This could be the reason why I submitted my bias/opinion to the opinions page. I welcome all opinions and I am grateful to the Herald Sun for publishing not just my opinion but all other opinions including yours. This, I’m sure you may know, is what Jürgen Habermas coined the as public sphere. In fact if you have read any other of my biased letters, you may have observed that have predilection all things that are fair and just. By design or by coincidence, I noticed that you failed to mention that I considered Nifong’s methods “reprehensible.” I also observed that you chose not to challenge the facts I presented via ESPN nor take a position on the sexist bording racist slur hurled by Rush Limbaugh. If we can, lets sidestep opinion for a bit and come back to some simple facts. These boys have a history of throwing wild parties and underage drinking. These boys ordered up an exotic dancer for delivery. Do these behaviors personify mature college students? Unless college has changed, theses actions are pretty thuggish. Nifong called them hooligans. Again, that’s not me, that Nifong speaking. One additional criticism I do have with Nifong however was that some deal was made to allow these boys to surrender to the authories. Somehow that was prearranged. In fact, in 2006 attorneys Mitchelson and Calloway suggested that lawyers have a media strategy in place. If you would like to know more about it we could meet for lunch and discuss it.

Sincerely,

W. Russell Robinson

More Fan Mail

An obvious bias

Regarding W. Russell Robinson's letter of July 2 titled "Familiar Formula": He writes that money was lavishly spent to defend the accused in the Duke case. That it was old money, strategically spent. Does he know the families personally? Does he know where that money came from? Of course not, but it fits his vision, his bias. He refers to the justice served on former district attorney Mike Nifong as a lynching. I believe the word lynching would be more appropriately used to describe the actions served by Nifong, not upon him. Odd choice of words, but it fits his vision, his bias. The accused didn't surrender under the cover of darkness to avoid media scrutiny. Someone made sure the media was alerted and waiting when they turned themselves in and the scene was replayed too many times to count. The innocent lacrosse players were taken to jail with handcuffs. Again, it fits Robinson's vision, his bias. The accuser painted herself as the "stereotypical black Jezebel," something Robinson blames on the defense counsel. She painted herself with her own choices, no one needed to say anything. But it's his vision, his bias. Robinson also wonders if the defense counsel for the declared innocent in the Duke case plan on doing pro bono work for others in jail wrongly accused. Have you asked any of them? Or was that your final shot of your bias and agenda filled letter? So many times Robinson is wrong that his bias is as clear as the facts of this case. It is a shame he chooses to be blinded by the former. Nancy McCaffrey Fuquay Varina July 9, 2007

Ode To Tony Montana Unedited

Money + Power = Respect (to some degree at least). The money that was lavishly exhausted on this defense team represents old money that was spent rather strategically: one portion going to legal expenses while the other went into a public relations campaign. According to ESPN, Bob Bennett, an ex-Clinton lawyer headed the external public relations campaign for the accused. Duke University followed suit retaining their external public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller, whose clientele include McDonalds, BP, and Cisco. Further, with the lynching of Mike Nifong there are still questions which remain outstanding. His methods, clearly reprehensible; could it be that he knew something we refuse to recognize; the negative equity of African-American women in the presence of white men of privilege. Was he was attempting to employ the same tactics used to demonize alleged black rapists in reverse? According to legal scholar Valarie Smith, the press tends to dehumanize black rapists as savages, wolves, and beasts which in turn fuel the fears about black men. Why is it that the accused in this matter were allowed to surrender themselves under the cover of darkness, completely prepared for the “perp walk” as opposed to being apprehended and drug into jail like the folk from lower castes of this country that we see on “cops?” Could it be that Nifong attempted to beat the Cheshire defense squad to the punch of media deflection and misdirection as they vehemently inundated the press by painting the accuser as the stereotypical black jezebel? Rush Limbaugh clearly called the woman a “Ho” but still has a job. http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004 One last question, being that Cheshire and others are riding this horse of justice, I wonder do they plan to do any pro-bono work for others in jail who have been wrongfully accused?

Ode To Tony Montana

Familiar formula

Money + Power = Respect (to some degree). The money that was lavishly exhausted on the lacrosse defense represents old money spent strategically: One portion went to legal expenses while the other went into a public relations campaign. According to ESPN, Bob Bennett, an ex-Clinton lawyer, headed the external public relations campaign for the accused. Duke University followed suit retaining their external public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller, whose clientele include McDonald's, BP, and Cisco. Further, with the lynching of Mike Nifong there are still questions outstanding. His methods were clearly reprehensible. Yet could it be that he knew something we refuse to recognize -- the negative equity of African-American women in the presence of white men of privilege? Was he attempting to employ the same tactics in reverse frequently used to demonize black rapists? Why is it that the accused in this matter were allowed to surrender under the cover of darkness, completely prepared for the "perp walk," as opposed to being apprehended and drug into jail like the folk from lower castes of this country we see on "Cops?" Was Nifong attempting to beat the Joe Cheshire defense squad to the punch of media deflection and misdirection as they vehemently inundated the press by painting the accuser as the stereotypical black jezebel? Rush Limbaugh called the woman a "ho" but still has a job. Cheshire and others are riding the horse of justice. I wonder whether they plan on doing any pro-bono work for others in jail who have been wrongfully accused? W. RUSSELL ROBINSON Durham July 2, 2007 Originally published in Durham Herald Sun July 2007

My Good Friend John McCann

Why no films on Turner, Chisholm or Garvey? In response to John McCann's question regarding the film, "Amazing Grace," I'd like to offer a response using a two-fold approach: intellectual and critical. First, I sincerely believe I am witnessing "race baiting" in reverse. Not all African-Americans look the same, think the same and most important, share the same e-mail list serve. The digital divide still contains many gaps along the color line. In reference to the film "Amazing Grace," the answer is quite simple: distribution. This appears to be an independent film which did not come through the pipeline of the five media giants (Fox, Disney, Viacom, GE/Universal or Time-Warner) that control the ideological and cultural capital within this country. So before you begin to sing the praises of "white folk," let's really get to the heart of the matter -- the powerbrokers who can green-light projects and enable distribution deals apparently felt this episode in history lacked the potential to generate revenue regardless of merit. Last, as a scholar and critic (in training) of culture, I do take issue with the dominant other attempting to tell the experiences of the historically marginalized from their perspective. What's more, I equally have issue with the propagandizing and normalizing of all things white. As you may have felt some degree of social consciousness viewing the gallant efforts of William Wilberforce, ask yourself this: Why has there not been a film about Nat Turner, Angela Davis, Marcus Garvey or Shirley Chisholm? W. RUSSELL ROBINSON Durham May 24, 2007

UnEdited Version of Duke Lacrosse Case

Dear Editor:

In regards to the Duke lacrosse case, first please allow me to say that American justice is the best justice money can buy. As this may represent a victory for the three exonerated players, for the community this episode represents a tremendous loss. Our justice system in North Carolina, it typifies no more than I expected were I privileged and white. If only justice could be this meticulous for all our citizens what a truly great state this would be. But I am not naïve. I am a son of the south albeit, a black sheep of the family. I do know our southern trees have bearded strange fruit in the guise of black men for “allegedly” raping white women let alone look at them. As I am happy to see this ordeal come to closure to some degree, I must also ask not just the families of the exonerated players but also supporters of this duke lacrosse case, how does it feel to be wrongfully accused in a matter of race and rape? True to form as many legal scholars have predicted, the case where a black woman may be the victim of a rape and her alleged assailants are white, rarely does the case ever see the inside of a court room. Again I reiterate, had these families come from different zip codes and attended a less prestigious institution these boys would be in jail right now at the mercy of a public defender, let alone an overly aggressive inmate as opposed to the media campaigns demonstrated. Did anyone ask why their perp walk took place in the wee hours of the morning dresses as though they were going to college interviews? It was a PR move well orchestrated by the defense and the media. I would love to see the final legal bill for this case and come back to the question is there really justice for all. To me this is one the causes of my ever going bout with White People Fatigue Syndrome.

W. Russell Robinson

Durham, NC

The End of the Duke Lacrosse Case -- Edited

Justice for some

In regards to the Duke lacrosse case, allow me to say that American justice is the best justice money can buy. This may represent a victory for the three exonerated players, but for the community this episode represents a tremendous loss. Of our justice system in North Carolina, it typifies no more than I expected were I privileged and white. If only justice could be this meticulous for all our citizens, what a truly great state this would be. But I am not naive. I am a son of the South, albeit a black sheep of the family. I do know our southern trees have bearded strange fruit in the guise of black men for "allegedly" raping white women, let alone looking at them. As I am happy to see this ordeal come to closure to some degree, I must also ask not just the families of the exonerated players but also supporters of this Duke lacrosse case, how does it feel to be wrongfully accused in a matter of race and rape? True to form, as many legal scholars have predicted, the case where a black woman may be the victim of a rape and her alleged assailants are white, rarely does the case ever see the inside of a courtroom. Again I reiterate, had these families come from different zip codes and attended a less prestigious institution, these boys would be in jail right now at the mercy of a public defender. W. RUSSELL ROBINSON Durham April 14, 2007 Published In the Durham Herald Sun

Free Speech Costs pt 3.0

Good Evening/Morning/Afternoon Brothers:

Let me start this by saying that I come to you all in the sprit of love. In some of the emails that have come back on this topic, particularly from my post; apparently I struck a nerve, which in my opinion was a pretty good thing. After all, Nietzsche says Out of Chaos Comes Order. That said and knowing I am addressing diverse intellectuals, I cannot assume that our bases of knowledge or even our perspectives on ontology will be the same. I celebrate the different opinions. The difficult thing for me is that as I try to examine this media debacle and smear on our sisters I want to look at this as objectively as I can, not just the portions which automatically can be incendiary provoking passionate rhetoric. Now if one takes a real good look at my posts, past and present, I initially stated that Imus’s remarks raised the question of revisiting the first amendment on the basis that this may be “hate speech.” Delgado and Stefancic (2004) define hate speech as speech that targets the characteristics of a person or a group which is aimed such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or nationality. Further, my initial post was based from the regulations across the globe in which Imus could possibly face arrest. In Canada, no question according to the CBSC clause 2 and 3 strictly prohibit this type of conduct. In certain countries in Europe, Holocaust denial is punishable by mandatory prison time. In fact when the Janet Jackson Super bowl performance, also known as the wardrobe malfunction occurred, she faced a $200,000.00 from our own FCC. When the 2 Live Crew were facing obscenity charges, if I am not mistaken Kimberly Crenshaw faced a crisis of conscious as she was one of their defense attorneys. Under CBSC clauses 2 and 3 these episodes would not have taken place in the first place ergo my question on the control of speech. This point was countered rather well by one of our brothers, I believe Brother Martin. In fact it is the position of the ACLU and the Supreme Court that speech not be controlled as to allow for solutions through discourse. This is easily demonstrated by our list serve. On point two, the second email generated I think as we all know black folk are exponentially sensitive about our hair. By me, an African American (African by design/American by trade © 2005) articulating this statement, some of my brothers took the nappy hair reference out of context and out of their own consciousness. I have nappy hair, in fact locks which extend all the way down to my spine. Our culture has used the phrase nappy hair/head ad nauseam. Again, our parents (don’t want to sound sexist) used the phrase in the spirit of love and sometimes as a term of affection. As for the ACLU and our parents, grandparents (specifically mothers and grandmothers); that was meant to be satirical. Then again, some of us may have felt the need to call the authorities on our parents but didn’t have the gumption to do it. Back to business, if we take a look at the hegemonic constructs of beauty in this country, even globally one can see that these constructs were not by our design because we do not represent the dominant class in this market driven media economy. The dominant class in this case would personify heterosexual WASP men of the ruling elite. One of the ill effects of globalization is this notion of cultural imperialism which touts culture from the West-predominately the Anglo culture as being supreme. This is why we see Beyoncee, Halle Berry even Queen Latefia pushing covergirl products to straighten out our kinky hair into some Eurocentric fallacy of beauty. Lets not forget about the brothers either. What was the expression, “If your hair is short and nappy, Conkaline will make it happy?” The hard pill to swallow is that we buy into it hook line and sinker. In fact, to go deeper Queen Latefia has gone a serious transformation from her initial outing to now. How does she go from Afrocentric Queen spouting UNITY to Comodified Dana Owens playing mammy in “Bringing Down the House?” Then if we look at the press conference at Rutgers today only one person had their hair in cornrows while the others had their hair straightened. Clearly their prerogative but I know in a game, their hair would be pulled back, possibly braided out of necessity. This was an obvious photo op. That said, those who take criticism with what I offer, I ask with all due respect, do you consider yourself a product of the hegemonic social construction of reality/race/gender? As I stated before, many of us have or have had at one time nappy or kinky hair. Is this something to be ashamed of or something to be embraced? Another binary to consider is Alicia Keys and India Arie. Let’s think about it if we can for a moment. Has anyone sat back and really examined critically the meteoric rise of Keys and the mediocre reception of Arie. Keys is a construct of market driven hegemonic design where as Arie is not. Both are equally talented well almost as I sincerely believe Keys rips off riffs where as Arie is strictly organic. One is dark complexioned and does not buy into the industry design while the other is bi-racial having the backing of white male elite backer. Arie even celebrates the hair politic. In fact I sincerely believe Patrice Rushen the pentacle female R&B and never has received her due credit partially due to the politics of race, gender and value in this country. Nappy hair by itself does not represent a racial slur but when you put nappy head/hair and hoe together, you have a verbal Molotov cocktail. As volatile as it is, the ACLU would come to Imus’s defense in a heart beat. In fact they could use Flynt vs. Falwell as a possible defense under the umbrella of satire. Hell, Mel Brooks in his comedic masterpiece “Blazing Saddles,” laughed all the way to the bank with his use of satire on race. As for the other remark which received criticism: here’s what I had to say offline:

Thank you for the response and I am sorry if my response came across as callous and offensive. That said, I guess my question goes back to what was offensive, degrading, or racist? In the context of what I said, hegemonic femininity, I am sure you realize that hegemony centers around the dominant reading of cultural texts. Taking a look at those who create the norms and standards in this county, I think you and I would both agree that its white men who control the ideological constructs. Within this particular discourse, those constructs are with race and gender. Taking a look at race and sport in this country, sports can be said to be raced and gendered. Billie Jean King, a public lesbian, lauds the Williams sisters not only on their style of play (athleticism) but also on their proud display of their muscular –well toned bodies. Unfortunately, they and other female athletes, particularly black female athletes are in a catch 22. They want to equally participate in sports however, we men folk want to dictate how we see them play. This might be why my post may have caught you off guard. The same positive qualities, including the hair, are icons we have come to associate with our male athletes, but not in our female counterparts. It’s a double standard that until I was brought on the carpet about it, there was these male biased expectations I had about females and athletics. Last, since when was being a homosexual a crime? As I advocate for human rights, I can’t do it a la carte. As I am not homosexual, I do realize they do have an equal place in the world next to me. I think Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway’s remarks were reprehensible, but did our leaders come out against these people? No. But their comments were just as hurtful, as you say.

So in short brothers, I feel we can’t have it both ways. If we want to be treated with respect we must start with self respect and complete acceptance of who we are and what we have accomplished in spite of the circumstance placed in front of us as a people. I come from people who kinky/nappy hair. Is that my sole definition? God no, I come from kings and queens from the cattle of civilization. That is how I carry myself and that’s how I try to treat others I come in contact with until I have reason to do otherwise.

Now as for my brother card being in question, I invite any of you to check out my blog “My Life and Times With White Folks” located at http://stayblackordietrying.blogspot.com/

Not that I have anything to prove about my ethnicity but let me just say though I choose to have a different POV on the issue, which is my own does not extend one right to challenge my ethnicity or my validity. Figuratively or literally I don’t live in a box but rather I try to re-conceptualize the box from my own sphere of personal context. Isn’t this one of the prerequisites of being an “intellectual?”

Peace

Russell

Free Speech Costs pt 2

Agreed,

But at the risk of playing devil’s advocate (not that the devil needs one) there are some critical questions raised by this incident. First, Brother Boyce makes a powerful statement when he says most Black folk don’t know who Don Imus is let alone his radio show, hence there after referred to as “Imus and Andy.” This two week suspension he received, I wonder is that with pay? But to me, what glares out is the possibility of hypocrisy/ double standard by our public intellectuals as well as our media outlets. This morning watching Today, of course there were the obvious two combatants, Imus and Sharpton going head to head; with Sharpton calling for Imus’s termination with extreme prejudice. The ringside commentators of course were Michael Dyson, a psychiatrist, notably white, and I think the Ex VP with the Urban League. Easily predictable, Dyson and the Urban League sided with Sharpton saying the term nappy headed hoes was racially and sexually charged. The sexual epithet I can buy but the racist part may be up for debate. Let’s think about it. Many of us on this list serve at one time or another had nappy hair. When your grandmamma or mamma said, “boy go comb your nappy hair,” did any of you go out and call the ACLU or the urban league or even the NAACP? No, without question you promptly sought out, the nearest fist pick and combed out your nappy head. Despite our best attempts (including the Jehri Curl), our hair would forever be nappy. The hard part to digest about this hair politics is that we bought into the idea of black hair (nappy) being inferior for a period of at least 100 years. Did Imus call these women the N-word? Unlike Michael Richards, the answer is no. Maybe (and I might be stretching this a bit) he made an attempt, albeit stupid, to offer a colorful descriptor of what he saw with an obviously limited vocabulary, possibly media driven. Lets face the facts, when the WNBA first appeared up, J. Anthony Brown of the TJMS called these women and I quote “crockagators.” Let’s even be more real, the WNBA isn’t exactly the bastion of hegemonic femininity. These women are muscular, athletic, have as many tats as Tupac, wear cornrows and may even be majority lesbian. If we look at the transcript of the Imus and Andy debacle, Imus didn’t initiate the ill spirited commentary but his executive producer did. That said, his sexist comments unequivocally objectify these women and their accomplishment and he along with his ExecProducer should face serious consequences. (if I had my way, jail time for assaultive speech) Click the link http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011 for the play by play. That said, I do agree with Marvin when he says that these remarks may have been prefabricated. I don’t know what the show’s ratings were but we can easily believe that this controversy has certainly caused the ratings to go up considerably. Remember, the May ratings sweeps are right around the corner and Imus’s return to the air chair is going to generate serious publicity. That said, this might constitute a stroke of media genius at the expense of the Rutgers women’s basketball team (if they weren’t in on it). Back to the hair dispute; he did cite Spike Lee who has referenced nappy hair in at least two of his films, School Daze and Malcolm X. bell hooks authored a book Happy to be Nappy. Lastly, lets look at Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and even Dyson. At lest two of these three brothers have texturized hair and one of them we all know has had a perm since the time before time. I am not making a judgment but strictly an observation. Obviously, they have the freedom of choice to do to their hair what ever they choose, but their message on the hair politic in my opinion is fogged. I would love to hear counter opinions if the list serve will allow it.

Russell

OK So I can't please everybody

Brother Russell, many of your comments about women and particularly these women are just as hurtful as the comments Imus made. Your comments “These women are muscular, athletic, have as many tats as Tupac, wear cornrows and may even be majority lesbian” is an insult in itself and as a result, I didn’t see the need to read the remainder of your comments.

I think Bro. Robinson's comments are seriously lacking in depth and relevance, e.g., why would i call the aclu on my Black grandmother? How does such a statement from my Black grandmother compare to a white man's disrespect of Black women?

I think Bro. Robinson's comments are indicative of a conversation that is needed-- one that attempts to answer the question: Has the assimilationist framework of education in this country "tricked" some Black intellectuals into believing that racism is a thing of the past and racist comments, such as Imus', are figments of our imagination?

We need to realize that the subtlties of racism are designed to put us in a state of Black nihilism, in which such statements by racists such as Imus are downplayed and downgraded as nothing but a mistake or a misunderstanding. I think Bro. Robinson's comments are sad examples of a black bourgeoisie mentality that will kill us all if it isn't curtailed. This brother(?) actually seems more critical of Blacks like Sharpton and Dyson, who questioned Imus' inappropriate statements, than he does of Imus. Goooootttttt dammmnnnnn!!! If those "nappy-head hoes" had been White, Imus would be put to professional (and perhaps physical) death! 2-week suspension my ass.

Free Speech Costs pt 1

You know,
I had a question like this on a test I gave to my media law students as Shaw under the context of Hate Speech. The situation involved Rush Limbaugh when he used the garden utensil pejorative about the woman at the center of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. As the history from that scenario showed, the guy wasn't guilty of hate speech as he was engaging in his first amendment rights. On top of that, in both cases this one and Limbaugh, the speech is exceptionally mild when you compare them to their counterparts, i.e. Mike Savage who actually was yanked from MSNBC. As economic boycotts actually my do some damage, in my opinion, the removal of one knucklehead shock jock will only result in their replacement by a new jack@$$ talk emcee. From a media pov (and I would love to hear other opinions on this) I think our FCC should take a page out of the Canadian broadcast rule book. They are completely intolerant of broadcasts which derogate on the basis of race, gender, color, sexual orientation, physical mobility, even class status. Of course this would mean major shifts in programming on BET and other rump shaking channels. In my opinion (once again) I think then the terminology is stopped at the grassroots level as opposed to these acute brushfires of stupidity and brain [you fill in the blank].
Russell