Who put Sharpton in charge?

[h1]Who put Sharpton in charge?[/h1] [h3]By Leonard Pitts Jr.[/h3]
Beg pardon, but who died and made Al Sharpton president of the Negroes?

Not that Sharpton has ever declared himself as such. But the fact that some regard him as black America's chief executive was driven home for the umpteenth time a few days ago after TV reality show bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman got in trouble for using a certain toxic racial epithet - six letters, starts with "n," rhymes with digger - on the phone with his son.

As you may have heard, Chapman was expressing disapproval of the son's black girlfriend. "It's not because she's black," he said. "It's because we use the word 'n---' sometimes here. I'm not going to take a chance ever in life of losing everything I've worked for for 30 years because some f--- n--- heard us say 'n---' and turned us in to the Enquirer magazine."

Naturally, the son sold a tape of the conversation to the National Enquirer. Which leaves me in the awkward position of simultaneously loathing what Chapman said and pitying him for having raised a rat fink son who would sell out his own father for a few pieces of silver. Anyway, with his life and career circling the drain, an apologetic Chapman fell back on what is becoming standard operating procedure for celebrities who defame black folk. He contacted Sharpton.

In so doing, he follows the trail blazed by Don Imus, Washington shock jock Doug "Greaseman" Tracht, and Michael Richards, who sought out Sharpton (or, alternately, Jesse Jackson) after saying what they wished they had not. They were all in turn following the news media, which, whenever a quote on some racial matter is required, turn to the right reverends by reflex. You'd think they knew no other Negroes.

I don't begrudge Jackson or Sharpton their fame. Jena, La., might have gone unnoticed had they not used that fame to direct public attention there. Still, I question whether we ought not by now have grown beyond the notion that one or two men can speak for, or offer absolution in the name of, 36 million people.

Certainly, black America has a long and distinguished history of charismatic leadership, from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King Jr. It was King to whom the "president of the Negroes" honorific was jokingly applied during the civil rights era in recognition of the moral authority that allowed him to rally masses. Since King's murder in 1968, a number of men have jockeyed to position themselves as his heir. They have not been conspicuous by their success.

Louis Farrakhan couldn't do it, handicapped as he is by the fact that he is Louis Farrakhan. Sharpton couldn't do it; one hardly thinks of moral authority when one thinks of the man at the center of the Tawana Brawley debacle. Jesse Jackson seemed to presage a new era of charismatic leadership when he ran for president, but he is dogged by a perception some of us have that he serves no cause higher than himself.

But beyond the strengths and weaknesses of the men who seek to be charismatic leaders, there is a sense that the job itself has grown obsolete. Who, after all, are the nation's white leaders? To what one man or woman do you apologize when you insult white folks? Doesn't the very idea that there could be one person deny the complexity and diversity of the population?

Similarly, black America is served by dozens of magazines, Web sites, television networks and media figures that did not exist when King was killed. So it's about time news media - and those who will insult us in the future - get past this notion that one or two people are anointed to speak for 36 million. That is a simplistic, antiquated and faintly condescending idea.

I speak for myself. Don't you?




http://www.sunherald.com/205/story/185434.html

Click to expand...

People love to try to discredit Sharpton. The fact remains that he has done a lot of good for not just the black community, but America in general. Call him ridiculous, call him extreme, but what he does is necessary.
- just what the ##*# is that exactly?? im talking 'does anymore' not 'has done'.

- this white cat at work asked me a few questions about some racial issues in the media and kept saying Al Sharpton this, Al Sharpton that, then i asked himwhen someone of another race does something who do we go to as their spokesperson......he couldnt answer. i said EXACTLY! so why do people go ask Al Sharptonand Jesse Jackson their opinion as if they speak for all black people....he said you know, youre right.
- once i put him onto how we (as black people) feel about Al and Jesse speaking for us he says you'd never know it watching the news.....
- and thats the question at hand not what he does for the community.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by NYelectric

People love to try to discredit Sharpton. The fact remains that he has done a lot of good for not just the black community, but America in general. Call him ridiculous, call him extreme, but what he does is necessary.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by TkTheGirl

I wasn't feeling dude until I did researchhttp://www.nationalactionnetwork.net/

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that people's tendency to look to him for the final black voice is wrong, it is, but that has more to do with those people and less with Sharpton.
- okay.....so couldnt he respectfully decline when asked to speak for us? think about it, lets say you're being called by whatever news outletto speak for all black people.....REPEATEDLY. wouldnt you think to yourself maybe i shouldnt be doing this?? dont you think he has but keeps on doing it?

Click to expand...

the things he has done.
Therein lies the problem.

'Done', not 'does'.

In the here and now, he's a self-serving hypocrite who brings an issue to light only when it relates to his paramount interest of self-aggrandizement, notto mention being a man who repeatedly refuses to apologize for baseless, venomous statements that he makes about other individuals or groups.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by NYelectric

Call him ridiculous, call him extreme, but what he does is necessary.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

I'm not disagreeing that people's tendency to look to him for the final black voice is wrong, it is, but that has more to do with those people and less with Sharpton.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No. He is an activist. That is his job. He is speaking out publicly, using his voice, just like the author of the article did, and calls for people to do. The people who disagree with him should do the same. If the argument is that the media only goes to him, and would allow no time for anyone else to speak then again the issue lies more with them and less with Sharpton.

If he were to refuse to speak to the media based on those grounds then he wouldn't be doing using his job as a public figure. Maybe he should address the issue that the media doesn't cover all sides of an issue, but really, who doesn't know that there is a media bias?

Click to expand...

No. He is an activist. That is his job. He is speaking out publicly, using his voice, just like the author of the article did, and calls for people to do. The people who disagree with him should do the same. If the argument is that the media only goes to him, and would allow no time for anyone else to speak then again the issue lies more with them and less with Sharpton.

If he were to refuse to speak to the media based on those grounds then he wouldn't be doing using his job as a public figure.

- if not him couldnt he point them in the right direction of who to talk to. somone more suited to answer the questions for the media?? maybe notabondon his responsibilities as an activist altogether but there has to be a middle ground right?

but really, who doesn't know that there is a media bias?
- you'd be suprised....
- like i said the white cat i had a conversation with thought we as black people wanted him to be our 'spokesperson' and that everything he says is howwe all feel, and was suprised to hear different. so what does that tell you?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

No. He is an activist. That is his job. He is speaking out publicly, using his voice, just like the author of the article did, and calls for people to do. The people who disagree with him should do the same. If the argument is that the media only goes to him, and would allow no time for anyone else to speak then again the issue lies more with them and less with Sharpton.

If he were to refuse to speak to the media based on those grounds then he wouldn't be doing using his job as a public figure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

but really, who doesn't know that there is a media bias?
- you'd be suprised....
- like i said the white cat i had a conversation with thought we as black people wanted him to be our 'spokesperson' and that everything he says is how we all feel, and was suprised to hear different. so what does that tell you?
I'm white and don't think that. So what does that tell you? Some people are just misinformed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And if Al Sharpton is speaking for me somebody get him the word and tell him I don't approve.
-Hov

Click to expand...

You mean couldn't he point them in the direction of someone else who could speak for the entire black community?
- dont play dumb....the questions they usually ask him arent: "so Al, how does the black communtiy feel about this". but thats how italways ends up with him. get that dude outta here man.

I'm white and don't think that. So what does that tell you? Some people are just misinformed.
- alot of people.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...