WS: May be, or may be not.
However, if I were the NAACP, I would make Jonathan Luna, http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/crime/bal-md.luna08dec08,0,624434.stor y?coll=bal-local-headlines the "poster boy" against violence directed against the black people. I think Mr. Luna, being a successful professionsl, is an excellent role model that defies stereotypes, and his violent death makes it an excellent case against the violence that black people face in their everyday life.
According to DoJ data, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm Blacks are more likely than any other groups to be victims of violent crime (28 per 1,000, as compared to 23 whites and 15 of other races).
However, the fact that Mr. Luna was a prosecutor may not sell well with the "wannabe gangsta" crowd - and that may explain the NAACP's and other group's silence on his case.
This pandering to identities based on delinquency and criminality is not, of course, limited to the NAACP and other black organizations - it is a general tendency of the left, that contributes to its image of being "soft on crime." This, imho, is one of reasons that the left is so easily outmaneuvered by the right. The left's views are generally more in line with those of the general public than the position taken by the right - but the right wing propaganda has no problem portraying the left's views as being "soft on crime and delinquency" , which turn most reasonable people off.
CB:
>
> In this particular case, in my opinion, using cocaine and other drugs
does
> not make one a criminal thug. And certainly the death penalty is a way
too
> stringent punishment for getting high. I missed it. Are they even
alleging
> the victim had a weapon ?
WS: Based on the report I got from the BBC, he assaulted an officer called to the scene. They tried to subdue him, and he apparently suffered a heart attack during the struggle. Cocaine was certainly a contributing factor to his behavior (uncontrollable violence is a tell-tale sign of cocaine high), and probably to his heart condition.
CB:
> Rereading your original post , I see that you urge the NAACP,etc., to
avoid
> contributing to the stereotype by avoiding certain cases. And that
they
> should, instead, work on cleaning up people who fit the stereotype ( "
> work(ing) to change behavior that fuels racist stereotypes "). This
reminds
> of your idea that black youth should stop playing loud music, so that
white
> men will like them better.
>
> I mean this is a sort of novel approach, but it is problematic because
it
> seems to imply that the root of racist attitudes in whites is actually
bad
> behavior by blacks. In other words, you imply that the stereotype is
true,
> not false.
>
WS: I think it is both. There is prejudice and there is behavior feeding into that prejudice. For this reason, I think organizations like NAACP have a special responsibility to popularize images of black people that defy stereotypes - like doctors, lawyers, teachers, academics, and other professional types. I am not saying that such efforts are not being made, but then Frederic Douglass or Harriett Tubman are long dead, and a more recent positive role models (such as Mr. Luna whom I mentioned earlier) should get much more exposure. Perhaps you should apply :)
CB:
> Think of it like this: the line " Hey, we better clean up our act,
because
> we are making white people prejudice against us " is not likely to
catch on
> with Black people.
WS: No, but the lines like 'Hey we better clean up our act, because we are doing the dirty job for the white racists (can you imagine the outcry if the hip hop lyrics were sung by a white artist? Or if most of those 28/1,000 black victims were victimized by white criminals?) , and killing our communities in the process" or "Hey we better clean up our act, because we can be as professional and successful as the white folks" may catch on. Again, I am not saying that such lines have not been uttered, but that they have not been uttered loud and clear enough.
Wojtek