Racism: Abusers, Victims, and Apologies

Racism has been front and center as the nation debated issues of free speech and censorship, exploitation and empowerment, victimhood and responsibility.

There was so much finger-pointing. There were so many accusations, so many apologies, accepted and refused.

As the dust begins to settle a bit from the Don Imus controversy and the total exoneration of the Duke lacrosse players, it should be clear to everyone paying attention that some people have a vested interest in defining America as a racist, hostile place.

They promote victimhood. If you're not white, you're a victim. If you are white, you should feel guilty either for being an oppressor or for sharing the same skin color as the oppressors.

In The Washington Post today, Joe R. Hicks explains how destructive the victimhood mentality is, using Imus and the Duke case to illustrate his point.

Hicks writes:

What remains of the once-proud civil rights movement justifies its existence by contending -- despite widespread progress -- that black people continue to live marginalized and victimized lives. This oft-repeated theme was the base for the ugly stew that was the reaction to Imus's slur, and it was the operating theme for Nifong as he set about attempting to ruin the lives of three innocent men.

...The pattern of racial opportunism was well established by the time Imus offered his unsolicited comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team -- a team that recently competed in the NCAA championship game.

...Predictably -- like vultures awaiting the latest roadkill -- civil rights leaders began to clamor for Imus to be fired. To hell with sorry! The National Association of Black Journalists (I hate to be a pest, but shouldn't a group representing journalists take an objective stance?), along with Jackson, Sharpton and other black figures, turned aside Imus's repeated apologies. Protests were organized nationwide, often in front of CBS and NBC offices, and Imus took the risky step of appearing on Sharpton's radio show to ask forgiveness again, all for naught.

There is something surreal about someone like Imus prostrating himself before the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to save his job. The widespread assumption in corporate America is that these civil rights figures are "leaders" of the nation's black population. In reality, they have assumed this role through self-appointment and self-promotion.

...So, we are confronted with the specter of individuals who have little in the way of moral credibility, and have themselves made bigoted public comments (Jackson called New York "Hymietown" and Sharpton referred to Jews as "diamond merchants"), now presenting themselves as arbiters of public morality and good taste in broadcasting.

...This is more than just a double standard; it is an agenda of racial opportunism that promotes the view that blacks are powerless victims of white racism. In this view, blacks are always in need of government intervention to save them from white hostility.

This is the view that Nifong exploited in his narrow quest for political survival.

...As he prepared to run for reelection as Durham County district attorney last year, his victory was no sure thing. What elevated him from the pack of contenders was his aggressive stand on a developing case that was tailor-made for his purpose. An "exotic dancer" had said that she was raped after performing at a party thrown by members of the Duke lacrosse team. Because she is black and the three young men ultimately charged are white, the case soon became one of "racial justice." That, at least, was the view of the Durham County black community, which Nifong and the civil rights establishment soon exploited.

...[G]uilt for this attempted railroading must also be borne by the "progressive" political elements within the Duke University community who called for a full-speed-ahead prosecution -- damn the evidence.

...This strategy worked; he was reelected.

Hicks concludes that nothing constructive comes from playing the race card.

He believes that "figures such as Jackson and Sharpton, among others of their ilk, are dinosaurs fighting only to maintain a patina of relevance."

As comedian Bill Cosby has observed: "There are people that want you to remain in a hole, and they rejoice in your hopelessness because they have jobs mismanaging you. However, your job is not becoming victims. We have to rise up and fight on all levels to succeed."

Contrast Hicks' call to reject the racial opportunists and their promotion of perpetual victimhood with Eugene Kane's rationalization of the abuse of the three Duke lacrosse players.

Kane writes:

Walter Farrell, former professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, has been a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for several years. In a phone conversation last week, he compared the dynamics surrounding the Duke rape case to his memories of Milwaukee.

Farrell, who lives in neighboring Chapel Hill, said he felt the case was an example of both class and race issues in the Durham community coming to a head.

"Blacks have no power (in Durham), similar to what's happening in Milwaukee," he said. "The only thing they do have impact on is elections."

That's important because the local district attorney, Mike Nifong, was the man who filed charges against the lacrosse players. He's also the guy now being accused of being a rogue prosecutor who pandered to the black community in Durham by bringing charges even as questions about the case lingered.

"It was very politicized," said Farrell, who noted Nifong was in the midst of a contested race for district attorney. "When he got the case, he violated a lot of procedures. He didn't turn over all the evidence."

Farrell said Jackson and Sharpton did come to Durham to show support for the accuser, but he placed most of the blame on Nifong.

"The guy went against the political leadership down here," Farrell said. "The legal community was behind his opponent, so he catered to the black vote."

Farrell said the context of the case had been distorted with mishandling by all parties. Although the three players were exonerated, he noted that other nagging issues remained, included reports of athletes using the N-word during the party and a threatening e-mail about the stripper party that had been largely ignored.

Farrell also questioned the swift resolution of the case.

"If the accuser lied under oath to the grand jury, why isn't she being charged?" he said.

Farrell and Kane buy into the blacks as victims mindset.

The rich and powerful whites are guilty of abuse, whether it's a prosecutor bent on winning an election or college guys at fault for having a stripper at a party and allegedly using racial slurs.

The point is this: "Blacks have no power."

Kane even attempts to throw doubt on the players' innocence.

At no time does he suggest that the stripper, Crystal Gail Mangum, bears any personal responsibility whatsoever for falsely crying RAPE.

That's a major omission.

In fact, he blames the students, a classic example of blaming the victim.

...The Duke lacrosse players might be innocent of rape, but a team that throws a party with strippers and sex toys can't be totally absolved of bad behavior or poor decision-making.

In many ways, they put themselves in a bad situation by attending the party.

If Mangum had been raped at the party, would Kane blame her for putting herself in a bad situation by working as a stripper?

No way.

In order of culpability from the powers that be, I think apologies should come from Nifong, the Durham criminal justice system, the media that rushed to judgment and from Duke University itself, which canceled the lacrosse team's season and suspended the players without due process. (A statement from Nifong did include an apology to the three Duke athletes.)

If the accuser's story was suspect from the beginning, that should have been addressed by the initial investigation.

It might feel better for some to blame Jesse and Al - or all black people - because they're still angry about the way Imus blew it. But, like Farrell, I think the most of the blame in the Duke case should be directed at the powerful forces in that community who dictated what happened to the students. And like it or not, questions still remain.

"I still think something happened," Farrell said. "But in the end it got so contaminated, it's hard to tell what the truth is."

There is no question that Nifong is at fault for groundlessly bringing charges of rape against Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans.

Equally groundless is the notion that the stripper Mangum is guiltless, and Sharpton and Jackson have a positive impact on the African American community and the country in general.

Nonetheless, Kane, Farrell, and the proponents of victimhood still want to believe that the three white students were the victimizers rather than the victims of an out of control prosecutor, a lying and possibly mentally ill woman, and a black community eager to assume the role of being helplessly and hopelessly abused by white America.

Tonight on 60 Minutes, North Carolina Attorney General Roy A. Cooper speaks out. Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans also speak for the first time since all charges against them were dropped.

Cooper blasts Nifong.

He says contradictions in the accuser’s earlier statements clearly indicated that an attack never occurred, but neither Nifong nor his staff challenged her. "We don’t think that any of these tough questions were asked of her," says Cooper. What’s more, says Cooper, the accuser’s story continued to change as his investigators talked to her. "We started out knowing we had a problem…and the way it turned out, it was much worse than we thought." Cooper’s team also thought she was possibly inebriated. "Our investigative team who was to meet her that day believed that she was under the influence of something."

Among the new stories the accuser told was a fantastic account of the rape in which she contradicts the account she gave Nifong that led to him dropping rape charges back in December. "She was suspended in mid air and was being assaulted by all three of them in the bathroom," Cooper recalls the accuser saying. "And I’ve been in that bathroom and it was very difficult for me to see how that could have occurred." Cooper’s investigators were shocked by the situation. "A number of them said to me, 'I've never seen anything like this.' It was amazing how she could continue to tell different stories."

...Cooper says he used the word "innocent" to describe the three young men "because it wasn't a situation where it was just insufficient evidence… because what had gone on for so long was a tragedy. It should never have happened."

Why is it that Sharpton and Jackson and Kane and Farrell won't admit the reality that these white students were victimized by race baiting opportunists?

Could it be because they're race baiting opportunists?

It's shameful.