Civil Rights Leaders Failed Jena 6 Defendant Mychal Bell
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

One very conspicuous person missing from the cast of thousands in Jena was Mychal Bell. The seventeen year old more than any other of the Jena 6 teens fueled the furor over the case. Bell has languished in jail since last December. He’s stayed there in part because of the heavy duty charges against him. The DA claims that several other scrapes with the law helped keep him there. But he’s there in bigger part because his family couldn’t raise the portion of the $90,000 bond the courts slapped on Bell. For a working class, black family, in a low wage small Southern town, this seems like a King’s ransom. But as bail goes in felony conviction cases, this is not exorbitant. So why didn’t civil rights leaders, the black celebrities, and the marchers that made Bell a cause celebre and eagerly mugged for the TV cameras pony up the cash to get him out?

The painful answer to that is that civil rights leaders let Bell down. They filled the air with harsh rhetoric about a new civil rights movement, hawked and wore black T-shirts with slogans like "Enough is enough" and "Free the Jena 6," and saber rattled the DA with talk about hauling him before a Congressional committee. Instead, they should have filled baskets with checks to spring Bell. British rocker/actor David Bowie pointed to this shameful failure when he did more than shout and fist wave. He put up $10,000 for the Jena Defense legal Fund. Any one of the legion of high profile, millionaire black entertainers and athletes that routinely shell out big bucks for dinners, soirees, and celebrity bashes could have easily written a check for $10, 000. But the Jena 6 cause is not a social event or a respected and safe charity. These are the kind of feel-good, safe and respectable conscience salvers that athletes and entertainers are comfortable giving too. The Jena 6 case is edgy, controversial, and squarely finger points the deep and troubling racial bias in the criminal justice system, it also makes some squirm at the uncomfortable thought of siding with black male teens. They have been relentlessly tagged as crime prone and deviant.

The reluctance of the black endowed to fork over Bell’s bail makes makes some sense given what they typically give too. The parsimony of the civil rights groups and leaders, as well as the chanting marchers, doesn’t make sense. But this is hardly the first time civil rights leaders and activists have been knocked for not putting their money where their protest is. During the heyday of the 1960s civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., logged more hours begging, cajoling, and pleading with wealthy white Hollywood celebs, foundation heads, and corporate executives to bankroll SCLC than in the streets. Without their backing SCLC would have been out of business.

The NAACP found itself on the financial rocks in the 1980s when the nickels and dimes that it relied on for decades from working class blacks dried up. To keep the doors open, it had to hustle dollars from major corporations through pricey dinners and banquets. The organization in turn was rapped by black activists for retreating from cutting edge social activism. Yet, if their corporate benefactors hadn’t filled the NAACP’s coffers it would have sunk.

The reluctance and refusal of activists that shouted until they were hoarse for “freedom for the Jena 6” to back up the call with cash for Bell is only part of the reason why Bell sat in a jail cell during the march. There’s the deep suspicion that funds raised for a political cause often get lost on the way to helping the cause. That’s a charitable way of saying that more than once large sums have been raised for a cause, and the cause turned out to be a fatter bank account for those who hustled the money. The Jena 6 case is no exception. One well-known national civil rights organization touched off howls of protests when it announced on its website that it was raising money for the teen’s legal defense. The problem was that it asked that the money be sent to it. It backpedaled fast after the outcry and quickly announced that the funds should go directly to the address of the Jena 6 Legal Fund in Louisiana.

The disgust at the injustice within the injustice of Bell still having to scratch and claw for bond money even as thousands screamed for his release prompted several civil rights groups in Los Angeles to immediately write checks for his release and his legal expenses. They didn’t stop there. They challenged the national civil rights organizations and leaders to match their donations. Their challenge was more than a grab for money for Bell. It sent a message that shouting about injustice rings hollow if it’s not matched by a willingness to make a financial sacrifice to combat that injustice.

The Reverend Al Sharpton said that he was practically moved to tears at the sight of Bell in shackles and a prison jump suit. It’s not tears that will get him out of that suit, it’s dollars. The shame is that many of those who demand his freedom didn’t put up a nickel to see that he got it.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Can Even O.J. Be a Victim of a Police Rush to Judgment?
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
O.J. Simpson screamed loud and long that anyone who thinks he’s stupid enough to commit robbery in of all places Las Vegas has got to be nuts. The world’s best known accused and acquitted double murder defendant seems to have a point. His mug is known far and wide, and any and everything he does generally makes news. And when it doesn’t he makes sure that he turns up at a sports card signing, makes a reality show pitch, or takes a failed shot at a self-confessional book to grab some headlines and further stir the public’s hate Simpson juices.

So why did Simpson according to police feel that he needed to charge into a hotel room and snatch and grab some sports memorabilia from two collectors, at gunpoint no less? Why not call the police if the items as he claims are his and have them recover them? Simpson says the explanation is simple. The police won’t lift a finger to help him. That’s a clumsy, but tactful way of saying that he’s a marked man, and that police have had it in for him ever since he beat the double murder charge.
At first glance this seems to be the desperate rant of a guy who’s prone to lie, cheat, and as most think kill. But beyond his vehement protest that he’s innocent, Simpson also knows that playing the anti- police card might resonate if ever so slight with some. There’s no evidence at this stage of the case that Simpson was framed, or that Las Vegas police licked their chops at the thought of getting him back in a legal noose. He was at the hotel, the goods were taken, and a robbery complaint was filed.

From the day that he beat the double murder rap and walked out of a Los Angeles court a decade ago, he has gone wherever he pleased and done what he pleased. He’s at times been trailed by a pack of doting former fans, and celebrity gawkers. There is no evidence that police in any of these cities have routinely subjected him to a special get Simpson profile. Yet, Simpson’s ill gained notoriety and perverse celebrity virtually guarantee that the legal hammer will drop especially hard on him at the first whiff of criminal wrongdoing. There is little chance that given the savage public mood toward him and the two person truth squad of Fred Goldman and Denise Brown continually wagging the guilt finger at him that Simpson would get benefit of the doubt on any charges against him, and he, of all people, should know that.
Since the bloody and mangled bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were found in the walkway of his Brentwood, California apartment a more than a decade ago, it seems that time has stood still with him. Tongues still furiously wag at the mention of the murders and at him. If a poll were taken today, a majority of the public will still rage that Simpson is a murderer who skipped away scot-free, and that the trial and his acquittal were a farce and a blatant travesty of justice. But there are also some who would contend that Simpson was victimized by a biased criminal justice system and the verdict to acquit was a just one.
Simpson didn't invent or originate this sometimes ugly divide in public opinion about celebrity guilt. It has always lurked just beneath the surface. But his case propelled it to the front of public debate and anger. The horde of Simpson media commentators, legal experts and politicians that branded the legal system corrupt and compromised also fueled public belief that justice is for sale. Simpson's acquittal seemed to confirm that the rich, famous and powerful have the deep pockets to hire a small army of high priced, high profile attorneys, expert witnesses, experts, and investigators that routinely mangle the legal system to stall, delay, and drag out their cases, and eventually allow their well-heeled clients to weasel out of punishment. Even when prosecutors manage to win convictions of or guilty pleas from celebrities, their money, fame, power, and legal twisting often guarantee that they will get a hand slap jail sentence, if that.
Whether the police did indeed as Simpson claims rush to judgment and grossly overcharged him, and he eventually stands trial, the chatter from most will be that a killer is finally getting at least some of his due. Others will say that even Simpson can be a victim of a vindictive and unforgiving criminal justice system. The truth as always may lie somewhere between the two views. In any case, Simpson will do his best to make sure that a public that believes that everything he says is a lie believes that even he can be falsely accused. A second non-trial of the century, anyone?

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Why the Feds Won’t Prosecute West Virginia Torture Case as a Hate Crime
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
The Reverend Emanuel Heyliger, pastor of the Ferguson Memorial Baptist Church in Dunbar, West Virginia was livid when he got word that federal prosecutors won’t prosecute the attack on Megan Williams as a hate crime. It seemed that if ever there was a case that screamed for the feds to jump in and charge the six crime prone, apparently hate spewing whites that assailed the young black woman with a hate crime, this was the case. The heinous facts seemed beyond dispute. The bunch allegedly kidnapped, tortured, raped and harangued her with racial epithets.
But Heyliger in his understandable anger missed one thing. The feds will do anything and everything possible to stay out of state criminal cases, especially cases that are racial tinged. There are two reasons for their keeping hands off. Federal prosecutors are loath to step on the toes of police and prosecutors in criminal cases, no matter how badly the crime is tainted by race. Federal prosecutors flatly said that William’s assailants are more likely to be convicted and get stiff sentences in state court. That makes perfectly good legal and political sense.
The other reason for their non-involvement is much more troubling. Federal prosecutors have rarely placed much stock on bringing criminal civil rights cases. They see them as no-win cases with little political gain, and the risk of making enemies of local police, DAs, and state officials. The rare time that the feds cracked down on civil rights violence was during the 1960s civil rights battles. The wave of violence then stirred national and international revulsion and forced then President Lyndon Johnson to order more civil rights prosecutions.
Though federal prosecutors in recent times have had more than sufficient legal ground to bring cases in the old race murders from the 1960s, the prosecutions have been almost exclusively in state courts. The only exceptions to the set in stone rule that prosecutors stay out of state cases occurs when a hate crime triggers a major riot, generates mass protests or attracts major press attention. The Rodney King beating case in Los Angles in 1992 is still the best example of how it took a mass civil upheaval to move the feds to go full blast after a conviction of the police that beat King, and then only after a failed prosecution in state court. The King case is also an example of how criminal cases with clear civil rights abuses become highly politicized and racially divisive.
The Williams case is a near textbook example of how prosecutors deal with crimes, even possibly racially motivated crimes. They may be horrific, but they are seen as common crimes and are treated as such. Few state prosecutor will chance inflaming racial passions and hatreds by slapping a hate crime tag on a case.
There’s also the belief that hate crimes are mostly a thing of the past. When they do occur, they are isolated acts committed by a handful of quacks, and unreconstructed bigots, and that state authorities vigorously report and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.
When Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, it compelled the FBI to collect figures on hate violence. However, it did not compel police agencies to report them. Record keeping on hate crimes is still left up to the discretion of local police chiefs and city officials. Many police departments still refuse to report hate crimes, or to label crimes in which gays, and minorities are targeted because of race or sexual preference as hate crimes. Still other police departments don't bother compiling them because they regard hate crimes as a politically loaded minefield that can tarnish their image and create even more racial friction. The official indifference by many police agencies to hate crimes prevents federal officials, even if they wanted to more aggressively enforce civil rights laws, from accurately gauging the magnitude of civil rights violence.
The picture of how much hate violence there actually is in the country and even what constitutes hate violence is even more blurred by confusion and uncertainty over what makes a crime a hate crime. Simply pillorying someone with racial epithets while committing a physical assault may not pass the legal muster of what is a hate crime. The crucial element is whether the racial epithets shouted out were incidental to the attack or were they the precipitating factor in the attack? It’s the finest of fine legal hair splitting. But ultimately that’s what prosecutors rightly or wrong look at in deciding whether they have any chance to get convictions in crimes where race is involved.
The black ministers in West Virginia are dumbfounded at the apparent refusal of federal prosecutors to recognize what they see as a cut and dried case of white bigots brutalizing an innocent young black woman. That’s probably exactly what happened. Yet when prosecutors try to sort out whether a crime is a hate motivated crime or just plain crime it’s anything but cut and dried.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Jena Case Won’t Help Black Teen Offenders in Louisiana (Or Anywhere Else)
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Four years before an indifferent, drowsy press and public finally fumed at the news that a prosecutor and judge tossed the book at six black teens in a small Louisiana town for beating up a white teen following a racially charged incident, a Louisiana legislative investigating team sternly warned that the state’s juvenile justice system was horribly mangled. It found that the state couldn’t lock up juveniles fast enough for mostly non-violent crimes. The team noted that the sentences slapped on them were wildly out of proportion to their crimes, and that the kids had almost no access to counseling, job and skills training, and family support programs that could ensure that they didn’t wind up back in the slammer. Though alternative sentencing programs are far more cost effective than jailing, they are scarce and under-funded, and Louisiana officials have resisted calls to increase funding and resources to boost these programs.

The investigators also found unsurprisingly that black teens were hit with far stiffer sentences than white teens for the same crimes. It made no difference whether the whites had a prior history of criminal or bad behavior and the black teens were alter boys and had a squeaky clean record. The blacks still got harsher sentences. Countless studies show that a black teen is six times more likely to be tried and sentenced to prison than young whites, even when the crimes are similar, or even less severe than those committed by white teens. Nationally, blacks make up 40 percent of youths tried in adult courts and nearly 60 percent of those sentenced to state prisons.

In Jena, the prosecutor, mostly because of the public furor over the case, reduced charges against two of the youth. But that’s an exception. Prosecutors nearly always push for hard time for offenders. This is infuriatingly apparent in Jena. One of the defendants, a star football player, was convicted on a reduced battery charge. Yet, he still could get a 15 year prison sentence.

The investigators implored the legislature to do something to correct the problem. They came up with a series of reform recommendations. They were largely ignored and four years later, state legislators have shown little inclination to fully enact the juvenile justice reforms. Louisiana legislators haven’t turned a tin ear to screams for reform solely out of ignorance, inertia, or fear of a public backlash. The legislators read and watch the same relentless stream of newspaper and television reports of drive-by shootings, drug shootouts, and gang wars, most of them involving young blacks. This confirms the terrified feeling that many Americans have that young people -- especially young black males -- are out of control.

They are convinced that teen violence has spawned a new class of youthful "super predators" and that the juvenile justice system is far too easy on them. The notion that juveniles are running wild though is a myth. According to recent FBI crime figures, the rates for murder and assault among teenagers have plummeted since 1993, even among black teens.

Yet politicians have overreacted badly to the public panic. In the past decade, more than thirty states have loosened if not eliminated laws requiring juveniles be tried and sentenced in juvenile courts. The criminal justice system's harsh treatment of young blacks, like the Jena teens, fuels the suspicion of many blacks that judges, prosecutors and probation officers bend way over backwards to give young white offenders the benefit of the doubt and are far less willing to label and treat, them as dangerous habitual offenders, even when they commit violent crimes. One study of the attitudes of probation officers toward black and white teen offenders found that they were far more likely to attribute black juvenile crimes to family or character flaws such as chronic disrespect toward authority and to brand them as inherent troublemakers. They were more likely to blame white bad behavior on conditions outside their control such as hanging out with the wrong crowd, or to troubling family conflicts. Judges and prosecutors read the probation reports and heed their recommendations and if they are favorable, as they are more often than not with young whites, judges are much more inclined to approve alternative sentencing or treatment programs for them. An unfavorable report is just as likely to result in hard time in juvenile or adult jails.

The outrage over the Jena case will probably force town prosecutors to edge away a little more from the harsh charges against the teens, but only a little. They, like prosecutors everywhere, are convinced that black teens are habitual lawbreakers and that the public clamors for them to heave the book at them. And that’s exactly what they routinely do in daily courts throughout the country. It’s business as usual for black teen offenders and Jena won’t change that. And that’s an even bigger tragedy.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Oprah’s Star Power Does Zilch for Obama
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

What do Willie Nelson, Madonna, Jon Bovi, Martin Sheen, and in reverse, George Clooney have in common? They are big money celebrities and virtual household names. They all endorsed Democratic presidential candidates in 2004. Nelson endorsed Dennis Kucinich. Bon Jovi endorsed John Kerry. Sheen endorsed Howard Dean. Madonna backed Wesley Clark. One of their picks went down to flaming defeat. The other three never came close to getting the Democratic presidential nomination.
As for Clooney, he publicly declared that he hoped that his non-endorsement of Kerry probably helped him at the polls. It didn’t. But at least Clooney recognized a political truism that’s etched in stone. That’s that a celebrity cheer lead of a presidential candidate does absolutely nothing to boost the candidate.
Yet mega star Oprah Winfrey thinks things can be different now that she’s signed on as one of Barack Obama’s major bankrollers, an ex-officio campaign cheerleader, and celebrity marketer. After all how could millions of voters refuse a command from the closest thing to America’s earth mother to back Obama? It’s simple. Almost no one pays any attention to what celebrities have to say about politicians. A September Newsweek poll removed any doubt about that. Barely three percent of respondents said that a celebrity endorsement had any influence on who they voted for. Oprah will have zilch effect on Obama’s White House run for two common sense reasons.
In between an occasional touch on social issues, Oprah feeds millions of daytime housewives and house husbands a steady dose of sneaks and peeks into gossipy movie star chit chat and self-help marital and family relationship problem solving. Now in one big leap she’s asking the same millions that dote on her sage advice on relationships to shift gears and trust her judgment that Obama is the best to handle global warming, tax policy, the Iraq war, terrorism, job creation and inflation, failing public schools, criminal justice issues, and judicial appointments. That’s like asking millions to accept disgraced Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick as the chair of the Humane Society of the U.S.’s animal cruelty prevention week. It’s a terrible fit, and Oprah lovers will see through that.
The one group, though, that Obama is banking that Oprah can help pry loose from the Hillary column is women. But polls have shown that women voters don't march in lock step with a woman candidate solely based on gender no matter how much personal sympathy and empathy they may have with the female candidate. They also judge a female candidate on their stance on the issues, their political beliefs and party affiliation. Hillary is a tough sell to many women who either like or loathe her, and she's a politician. There's absolutely no reason to think that women voters will stampede to Obama because their favorite female talk show guru told them too.
The ultimate irony is that Oprah's roughest sale of Obama will be to black women. Polls show that they are overwhelmingly backing Hillary. Though most adore Oprah and are well aware of her long standing backing of Obama, that hasn't shaken their support of Clinton the least bit.

The other reason Oprah's lusty public cheer of Obama won't work is Oprah. She’s fabulously bankable, and much beloved, but she’s also an African-American. And so is Obama. Oprah hasn’t given the faintest hint that her tout and bankroll of Obama has anything to do with race, and is careful to make it clear that it’s based solely on her belief that his competence and qualifications make him the right presidential stuff. However, an underlying suspicion is that there’s more to it than that and that she’s just as thrilled as many other blacks at the thought that an African-American can actually bag the presidency. That’s not exactly playing the race card, but for an untold number of skeptical voters, and that include those that are enraptured with Oprah, it edges uncomfortably close to a racial motive.
Recent polls have shown that more whites than ever say they are willing to vote for a black candidate for the presidency and that they like Obama. They also say by big margins that he is to new on the scene, inexperienced, and unknown. His gaffes on foreign policy in debates, and his grope for a killer position that will separate him from the other Democratic candidates hasn’t done much to mark him as a sure-handed, experienced, public policy wonk.
Super celeb George Clooney came closest to sizing up the media and public’s infatuation with Obama when he compared him to a rock star. That's not good. How many voters would vote for Madonna for president, or even Clooney for that matter? That's not to say that endorsements don't help a candidate, but they have to be the right endorsements. The right ones come from seasoned politicians and respected industry, labor, or public interest groups that have the trust and confidence of voters, and a solid track record in fighting for legislation and public policy change.
Oprah can dump plenty of cash into Obama’s campaign coffers, and that counts for something. But it’s not the adrenalin shot that his candidacy needs. That’s the something even America's most beloved day time talk show host can’t give.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

The Unbearable Whiteness of Viewing Tween-Teen Film

By Sikivu Hutchinson

On Friday nights, after the clamor of the school day dies down and the kid-driven euphoria of the weekend mounts, a simple trip to the video store in search of a children’s DVD can resemble a cultural minefield. While feature length DVDs of Barbie, imperiled princesses, anthropomorphized ponies with flowing hair and big blue eyes, and Europeanized Japanese characters abound, cartoon or dramatic depictions that center on girl of color protagonists are, not surprisingly, absent from the shelves.* The lack is a reminder of how little progress has been made in the tween/teen film industry, despite the widespread mantra that youth multiculturalism in advertising and programming is “hot” and a colorblind standard is the norm.
To be a girl of color and a media consumer is to be positioned as perpetual voyeur. Media savvy, deluged with the latest fashion and glamour news on pop singers and fifteen minutes of fame movie stars, girls of color negotiate a morass of cultural products that supposedly promote “affirming” themes for tween/teen girlhood. In this era of tween/teen consumer sophistication, the narrative of the empowered heroine predominates. One of the more shopworn examples of this empowerment narrative is represented by the scrappy white heroine, alà the protagonist of the summer movie musical hit Hairspray, set in 1960s Baltimore. The scrappy white heroine is a time honored tradition in literature, mainstream movie melodrama and teen flicks. She is generally an outsider of sorts; either in appearance, class station or both. She fearlessly treads where the more self-absorbed won’t deign to venture, breaking curfew, defying the strict Christian mores of her straight-laced family and/or most daringly, consorting with the denizens of black communities. For this heroine racial otherness is an adventure, a resort vacation into heretofore unexplored vistas of self-discovery. As always in these kinds of scenarios blackness holds special appeal for the white outsider because of its transgressive potential. Black music, black dance styles, black lingo—are all ripe territories for vigorous Euro mining and imitation. The exploration of these hackneyed themes via the travails of a white female protagonist struggling with her own “outsider” status in the thin, blond-worshipping, relatively privileged world of middle class Baltimore has its precursor in literature like Norman Mailer’s infamous 1950s “White Negro” shtick and the global appropriation of hip hop by white consumers.
In Hairspray, the white female protagonist’s spiritual journey officially takes off when she is sent to detention and discovers that it is merely a showcase for “funky” black dance shenanigans. The blacks, of course, are just waiting to corrupt an impressionable young white thing like her. Much of the film’s visual spark lies in its near obsessive focus on Tracy’s bright-eyed bushy tailed exuberance over her dalliances with forbidden fruit.
What are young black female viewers to make of these portrayals? While my elementary school-aged nieces loved the singing, dancing and pageantry of the film, they are old enough (with some prompting), to grasp the relevance of all the black students in the film being confined to detention. Disciplinary action at any age is a harsh and ever present reality for black children, one that satirical movie portrayals of frolicking black youth can’t obliterate. Since images of unruly black children abound in American culture, featuring a group of black teens dancing in a classroom with no teacher in evidence is just another slice of comic relief for most mainstream audiences.
When presented with evidence of their irrelevance, children of color make the painful adjustment to misidentification. Socialized with white beauty norms, consuming and misidentifying with whiteness becomes an intimate part of the young female viewer’s experience of visual “pleasure.” Countervailing images of black, Latino and Asian femininity are available in literature (and to a much lesser extent in alternative film by artists of color) but are insidiously measured against the gold standard of white femininity. In fact, a recent revisitation of the 1954 Kenneth and Mamie Clark “doll test” by a young filmmaker named Kiri Davis found that black children still identified white or lighter skinned dolls as being “nice,” while darker-skinned dolls were still rejected as being “bad.” Davis’ widely acclaimed documentary on black female teen self-identity, “A Girl Like Me,” is a welcome antidote to depictions of black female hypersexuality, and a reminder that more black women need to be behind the camera to truly turn the tide of disfigured black images.
The dominant culture’s equation of female agency with unbridled sexuality and exhibitionism is especially damaging for young black women. While white women like Hairspray’s fictitious heroine have always had the luxury to flout patriarchal categories of “good girl” “bad girl” without fear of relinquishing their claim to white privilege, black women and other women of color are already marked as amoral, sexual and hence outside of “normative” femininity. Early exposure to these kinds of narratives sets a dangerous precedent for tween/teen girls of color, who are readily deployed in white TV programs and films as streetwise/commonsensical sidekicks for imperiled white girls and/or the “sassy” antidote to white girl “blandness.”
If efforts like Davis’ are to be more than just a drop in the bucket there must be a nationwide push to train middle and high school aged black women to do similar documentary and narrative film work around image construction. Programs such as L.A.’s Inner City Filmmakers and New York-based Women Make Movies help connect youth with production, development and distributional resources to critically engage the media regime with their films. Without these initiatives, and more, the multi-billion dollar tween/teen film industry will continue to thrive on our complicity in the distortion of black female subjectivity.

*With the possible exception of such popular staples as Dora the Explorer and the Cheetah Girls.

Sikivu Hutchinson is an author and writer specializing on women's and cultural issues.

Here They Come Again: Another Go Round for Wacky 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

There isn’t much that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists say that can or should be believed. That even includes the windy claim that their celebration in New York of the sixth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks will be the biggest in history. The problem with that grandiose boast is that the same bunch claimed last year that their fifth anniversary event would be the biggest yet. In the fine print at the bottom of the wearechange.org website release, they add the “clarification” that many of the performance artists for their big 9/11 concert shebang are only tentatively scheduled to appear. Translated: The conspiracy theorists dumped any artist’s name they could find on the bill, and they’re keeping their fingers crossed that a few might actually show up.

None of this should surprise anyone who has the dimmest notion of what and how the 911 conspiracy theorists operate. We’re all by now well familiar with the way they’ve spun the 9/11 plot. The attacks were part of a sinister plan by President Bush, the GOP, the CIA, FBI and Justice Department to wipe out civil liberties protections, impose a national security state, create a pretext for the quagmire in Iraq, regiment the American people, and strengthen the hand of the pro Israeli lobby in U.S. politics. Some of the more shrill theorists with an anti-Semitic bent flat out say that the terror attack was part of a decades old web of intrigue woven by international Jewish groups to dominate global politics.

Conspiracy theorists allege that explosives were planted at the WTC, Jewish and Israeli Tower workers and occupants were warned the day before supposedly by Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) to stay away, a missile slammed into the Pentagon, the government hid the wreckage of the United Airlines plane that terrorists crashed in Pennsylvania. Every one of these theories has been subject to repeated and meticulous tests, studies, and examinations. And every one of them has been proven absolutely groundless.

But thousands of Americans still believe them. That’s easy to understand. The American woods swarm with groups that fervently believe that government, corporate, or international Zionist groups busily hatch secret plots, and concoct hidden plans to wreak havoc on their lives. The Manchurian Candidate syndrome popularized in books and countless movies and TV shows has firmly implanted the notion that shadowy, government groups routinely topple foreign governments, assassinate government leaders, and brainwash operatives to do dirty deeds.

9/11 conspiracy theories have so easily infected the popular imagination for two other not so zany reasons. Government agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, Army intelligence, with the connivance of presidents, have often played fast and loose with the law and even the rules of democracy. They have spied on, harassed, and jailed thousands of Americans from Communists to anti-war activists. The biggest, juiciest and most relentless target for government spymasters during the past decades has been African-American political groups from the moderate NAACP to the radical Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam. Just two weeks before this years 9/11 anniversary a fresh batch of publicly disclosed FBI documents show that the agency waged a kinder, gentler, but no less illegal, spy campaign against Coretta Scott King then the relentless, and lethal campaign the FBI waged against her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The other reason for the paranoid style about 9/11 is the fury that many Americans have toward President Bush. Many Americans are still convinced the GOP hijacked the White House by rigging the votes in Florida in 2000, and repeated the ploy in Ohio in 2004. That makes it easy to believe that the GOP and the administration will say and do anything to win and hold power. The Florida vote was a mix of registrar ineptitude, bureaucratic bungling, partisan political haggling, legal interpretation, and Democratic Party capitulation rather than a concerted conspiracy to seize the top office. The Ohio vote in 2004 was more of the same on a smaller scale. But Bush ultimately conned more voters in Ohio (including the black evangelicals) into believing that he would do a better job of defending family values and fighting the war on terrorism than Democrats. He and the GOP did not need to hatch a conspiracy to do that.

Bush, as other presidents that have got in hot water with the American people with their domestic and foreign policy fumbling, are hardly above beating the war drums and fanning national security jitters to boost their poll ratings, secure public allegiance, and increase their party’s political standing. Bush has done that at times. But his in the tank poll ratings, and the resistance of Congress, and the Democrats, and millions of Americans to the war and the further erosion of civil liberties protections, prove that if there was indeed a 9/11 conspiracy to seize power it didn’t work. But of course there wasn’t one. Yet, on the six anniversary the conspiracy theorists will again busily spin their shopworn 9/11 conspiracy fantasies. And that’s part of the fun of conspiracies; they don’t require any proof, just true belief.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.