Leadership

[FishHooks]

While I dont like Jesse Jackson at all, I think Al Sharpton deserves a little more credit he isn't all that bad, seems like a decent guy.

[FishHooks]

heh I was thinking the same thing, but eveyone did condemn them unlike the black leaders are doing in this situation.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Blacks have in many ways segregated themselves by supporting and endorsing racial "leaders".

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't believe you're asking the question. If any identifiable group of people allows another to speak for them unchallenged -- they will be associated with the beliefs of the speaker. There are many black "leaders" who have built careers perpetuating race as an issue in society, and will never miss an opportunity to use race when looking the cause of problems. These leaders like to think of "their" community as a monolithic group, and speak for them as if it is -- as such, they should condemn the behavior -- at least in general, if not as a the leader of a community.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
eveyone did condemn them unlike the black leaders are doing in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is (and this should be obvious but)...everyone condemns looters!

Why should black leaders be more responsible for codemning looting than anyone else?

Should we demand white leaders come out and condemn corporate crime everytime it occurs, even though white people make up the vast majority of corporate crime predators? Shouldn't it be clear that white people condemn corporate crime already?

I think it should be pretty obvious why it's unreasonable to demand black leaders ought not to be especially responsible for condemning looting. And I think the motivation to ask black leaders especially to condemn looting is highly suspect - and I hesistate to use stronger words than that.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So every time we see a Jeffrey Dahmer, or white gay bashers killing someone, or a Tim McVeigh, white leaders should view this as a PR problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we demand white leaders come out and condemn corporate crime everytime it occurs, even though white people make up the vast majority of corporate crime predators?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course white people are responsible for most corporate crime, white people make up the vast majority of corporate leaders. And we do condemn it.

If I made the same link to looting, you would call me a racist.

Should Saudi Arabia speak out against terrorism? Just because most of the terrorists were Saudi? That's not a bad reason.

[cadillac1234]

Obviously this entire catastrophe is based on the lack of black leadership.

[FishHooks]

I'm starting to think they should. It sesms that everyone thinks Islamic leaders should comdem terrorists. However I dont know why the black leaders dont condemn the looters on their own behalf so the mass public doesn't get this bad impression of the black population while watching them loot on TV. Of course the black leaders think its wrong, I think coming out and saying its wrong would help people who have negative veiws of blacks, which many people do weather they admit it or not.

[FishHooks]

I dont...but other racial goups might which is why we have to publically condemn it like we do.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course white people are responsible for most corporate crime, white people make up the vast majority of corporate leaders. And we do condemn it.

If I made the same link to looting, you would call me a racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone does condemn corporate crime - you're right.

And everyone condemns looting - and as I said, it's highly suspect to demand black leaders (especially) condemn looting; because the implication in the demand is that they don't - or at the very least, that they might not.

This is obvious, right?

And it should be obvious, then - the implication that black leaders might not condemn looting - it should be obvious why we might think to ourselves what kind of deeper motivation lies behind such a demand.