The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Truth About the Jena 6
For some time, I've being trying to explain to people the absurdity of the uproar about the "Jena 6" - six criminals who assaulted an entirely innocent man and then, somehow, managed to make themselves into victims. But this article, from the Assistant Editor of the Jena Times lays out the case far better than I ever could.
Here is the most striking portion:
The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a "schoolyard fight." But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school's gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)
When Barker tried to leave through another exit, court testimony indicates, he was hit from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Barker was immediately knocked unconscious and lay on the floor defenseless as several other black students joined together to kick and stomp him, with most of the blows striking his head.
Let's review: this group of thugs ambushed an innocent individual and savagely beat him unconcious. Yet they're the ones who are getting songs written about them and who are being held up as heroes of civil rights? What brave martyrs they make! Though, they're more likely to make Bull Connor than Martin Luther King proud.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Truth About the Jena 6:
See, Ms America, we even tolerate DJ our own resident race baiting Canadian(?).
He wants Canada to be an all White society and has a particular fetish for Jew bashing.
DJ is a troll.
None of the regulars here like him but he keeps on coming back to pour sand in the gears and divert thread topics to his private neurosis.
I called him our resident Nazi once and he got all chafed about it.
I was probably wrong.
DJ is most likely a provocateur for the Leftist neo-commies who comes here to co-opt legitimate debate on immigration reform by assuming an extremist position.
A troll is someone who comes to a blog to assert points for the purpose of disruption.
Trolls are the people who come to your 'home' and urinate on your carpet.
A specific trait of trolls is to post under more than one nic.
eg.(Ms America=Mz Isis)
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 1:01:58 PM
Thanks Marc! Yup it's really me.
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:03:31 PM
Confirm or deny.
The nooses hung on the tree were put up there after a pep rally for an upcoming football game.
The Jena team was about to play a team nicknamed Cowboys and the Hang 'Em High was part of the theme.
So, the alleged incident, apparently, was to set an atmosphere for a game kids were playing.
And, for this, an innocent kid had to die?
Another question. Do you think affirmative action would be a good idea if applied to the NFL?
Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-24 1:05:12 PM
Oh no! I am not Mz Isis if that's what you meant. I am not a troll, I am an angel.
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:06:21 PM
>"Oh no! I am not Mz Isis if that's what you meant. I am not a troll, I am an angel."
Posted by: Ms America | 24-Oct-07 1:06:21 PM
Having read what you have written through the whole thread, I see that I was wrong to call you a troll.
I am sorry.
You, Ms America, seem to be very well spoken and largely on topic.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 1:10:49 PM
"You mean you've been posting at a Canadian web site without knowing it's a Canadian web site?"
It's a Canadian Web site...?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-24 1:15:07 PM
"You, Ms America, seem to be very well spoken and largely on topic."
. . . but a Leftoid nonetheless. Still, since you are courteous you are welcome to post here despite your leftist opinions.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 1:16:42 PM
Ms America I must admit to being somewhat confused by your posts. However I shall accept your word as you described yourself and your situation in your last posts. It is indeed very surprising that you would be unaware of this being a Canadian blog, but all things are possible.
I must also admit that I have little to no patience with the American obsession of race, because I have never judged a person by his colour. I use colour since in reality there is only one race - the human race. As a result I have no tolerance for the real bigots who come in all shapes, sizes and colours. So I am glad to read your comment that neither do you buy into the race/victim ideology.
We shall remain however in disagreement over the issue that I call moral equivalency. I strongly believe in free speech, even offensive (to me) speech and do not support the so-called "hate laws". Inciting people to murder and cause violence to others is not free speech and should be dealt with accordingly under existing laws.
Last I am often disappointed to see how often justice is distorted due to the colour, sex, financial or social situation of the accused. True justice must be blind; no special treatment for one group above the other. So we shall agree to disagree.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-24 1:23:21 PM
All of which proves what? Are you saying racial diversity lessens racial discrimination and animosity? If so, show us some examples. The puerile tirade serves only to avoid answering the question. Of course you won't address the issue because you can't.
The racists are those who have no regard for the people, black and white, that suffer under the great liberal/Christian vision of diversity. Surely a religious man does not take glee in the suffering of his fellow humans?
What reasonable debate about immigration reform?
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 1:26:46 PM
Hmmmmm, interesting set you free.
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:28:21 PM
blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 1:28:29 PM
Get a load of this DJ guy...
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:33:59 PM
No one here--with exception to DJ--is a racist. Most people here--with the exception of DJ--could not care less what the colour of anyone's skin is. And most people here--with the exception of DJ--are sincerely looking to create an equal playing field, without creating special status where people are lulled to sleep with the subtle racism of and by low expectations.
And no one here cares less whether you are white, black, yellow, red, or purple.
What bothers me about your rants, is not what you proclaim but that you do not appear to be able to put forward your argument without using your own "skin-colour" card.
Now, I have a skin colour-card too, and the only time you will ever read me using it--is to argue with people who feel that they are more entitled to being listened to--and therefore more right than others--just because of the colour of their skin.
Goodness, decency, being proper, ladylike and gentlemanly as well, does not require a special treatment by the colour of one's skin--as to do so is an argument, not for, but against equality.
An example of a person who has the blood of what I have heard are maybe three races runing through his veins, who behaves as a real gentleman at all times, is Tiger Woods. He has never used the colour card and always behaves well. Of course, some people say that as a pro-golfer, who is as wealthy as he is, that it is easy--but do recall, it was not always that way. He does come from humble beginnings, and his story is one of success that did not get to where he is by using the colour of his skin--as the golf ball really could not give a damn!
And neither do I.
Oh my, I have perspired.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-24 1:35:15 PM
There, there Lady, (hands her a hankie for the sweat)
No need to worry. I wasn't using the "race-card." I don't believe I ever have. Imagine what my household would be like... "Hey Nick, honey you drank all the orange juice! It's cause I'm black isn't it?" LOL. I mentioned my being Black to give life, so to speak, to the "victimization" concept. What better example than that of oneself?
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:42:40 PM
>"Of course you won't address the issue because you can't."
Posted by: DJ | 24-Oct-07 1:26:46 PM
This thread is not about that issue.
It's a matter of won't, not can't.
We have, in the past, had threads about immigration.
This isn't one of them.
No doubt there will be threads about immigration in the future and then you'll have your chance to shine, DJ.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 1:43:06 PM
Did you guys see the BET awards? What do you think about the 2 Jena6 boys showing up?....
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:51:01 PM
Were they in shackles? And if not, why not?
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 1:52:14 PM
"This thread is not about that issue."
You raised it now you can't address it. The comments made by this writer focused on diversity not immigration. Despite the efforts of liberals like Lady and Oswald and you, diversity is still a source of massive tension. Jena 6 is a perfect example. A young man attacked simply because of the colour of his skin. The brutal murder of James Byrd, simply because of the colour of his skin. Why do racist liberals and people of faith continue to feed the suffering of both black and whites by forcing the folly of racial integration upon us. They must receive some visceral thrill by seeing the damage, fear and hate they have created.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 1:55:57 PM
I don't know but they were dressed up all nice looking like rock stars and they were captured on camera holding up five fingers on one hand and one finger on the other (symbolizing 6). WOW. They also recieved a standing ovation when they walked out on the stage right before they presented Kanye West with the "Best Hip Hop video" award or something like that.
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 1:56:52 PM
Another reason why I'd never tune into that station.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 1:58:28 PM
No, Ms America, you used the race-card, when you did that.
How it reads is that it appears you perceive your own success to be even more successful, because of your colour--as if it is in spite of your colour. Although I am not boo-hooing the power of role models, I am saying that we all have to get out from behind race-cards of all kinds.
You know my race? You know my colour? You know anything? You know my success? You know the combined wealth of posters here? You know who we work with, play with, and what clothes we wear?
Fact is, crimes as committed by the Jena party are getting presented as though colour can wipe away all crimes--as if there are crimes that could be justified by skin colour--like OJ Simpson and the like. Just because anyone has ever done a crime, does not justify a counter crime. To permit such to occur is to destroy the very sense of justice on which our free nations have been founded upon--and to which we all should strive.
And one last thing.
When a lady is young, she needs two things. Her looks and her brain developed.
When she is middle aged, she needs her career, her business, and her intelligence.
When she is old, she needs her grace, her money, and the wisdom she gained from developing her brains, using her intelligence, and doing good business. Failure at any one of those levels, results in poverty in old age--cause looks honey--they always go bye-bye.
You understand, hmmm?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-24 2:05:31 PM
I have a few questions for you but first... My opinion of my success, is not "in spite of" me being Black. It is because I made the decision to be successful. Again, I mentioned my being Black to explain that I am NOT a victim of being Black, as an example if you will. You understand what I am trying to express to you? If someone says, "Black people have a victim mentality" and they expect a response, I will say, "Yes, some do, but not THIS Black person (thumb to chest). Why not? Because I am successful, educated, and I don't rely on pity or excuses." What about that makes it appear that I view my success as "in spite of"? *shrugs shoulders* Even IF I did, it seems warranted considering the many STATISTICS that suggest that I should have gotten pregnant and been on welfare without an education by now. With all due respect, it seems as though YOU are the one who views my success in such a light. By the way, where on earth did "looks" become a part of the subject matter as posted in your last thoughts? :-)
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 2:26:47 PM
Justin Barker was not attacked because of the color of his skin.
Justin Barker was attacked because a group of Black students were indoctrinated to believe that a 'noose' contains an injurious race specific message that entitles them to commit an act of violence and that by acting this way they would become heroes in their own little racial ghetto that indoctrinated them in this way of thinking instead of teaching tolerance and pluralism.
The sort of indoctrination that lead to the violence has to be discredited and the Jena 6 have to made an example of.
Race baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan need to be discredited and put out of work.
Malcolm X needs to be seen as a racist instead of an Icon.
Your solution, DJ, would be segregation and widening the gulf that exists between the races with the inevitable result that future violence will be orders of magnitude greater.
Like Charlie Manson you, DJ, seem to yearn for a race war.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 2:28:32 PM
"You know my race? You know my colour? You know anything? You know my success? You know the combined wealth of posters here? You know who we work with, play with, and what clothes we wear?"
Oh yeah, what does this mean? I'm sorry, I don't get it.
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 2:34:44 PM
OMG, I agree with that entire post Speller. Well said. Better copyright, I may cut and paste that for a future debate. In my community, I am the only one who feels that way about Malcolm X but believe it or not, many, many Blacks don't like Sharpton. He's a hypocritical looser. You might have a problem with Jesse Jackson though-lot's of people think he can do no wrong.
Posted by: Ms America | 2007-10-24 2:39:39 PM
"Justin Barker was attacked because a group of Black students were indoctrinated to believe that a 'noose' contains an injurious race specific message..."
They could have attacked Hispanics, Chinese or "Bobby" Jindal, however they didn't. They chose a white victim. They chose him because the noose is a symbol of whiteness. Wilberforce (and Lincoln) chose not just emancipation, but repatriation as well.
"Your solution, DJ, would be segregation and widening the gulf that exists between the races with the inevitable result that future violence will be orders of magnitude greater."
For instance? Give us an example. You don't because you can't. Conflict between the races comes with proximity.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 2:42:53 PM
blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 2:44:43 PM
No disrespect meant but ...
Looser is the opposite of tighter.
Loser is the opposite of winner.
That being said, welcome to this blog. I like the positions you're articulating.
America, for all its faults has one strength ... it's a land of opportunity, or at least used to be moreso than it is now.
When I was a young child of immigrant parents, I was called DP (displaced person). Later in the workplace, I was called a f***king Russian.
Oh, yeah. My father left us when I was eight years old. My sister and I were raised by a single mom primarily on welfare.
I had enough excuses to pursue self-pity and become a failure. Instead, by the time I retire, I have a good shot at being a millionaire.
The point being is I'm thankful for the opportunity Canada gave me and my family history is no reason for me to become a loser.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-24 2:56:28 PM
>"Conflict between the races comes with proximity.
Posted by: DJ | 24-Oct-07 2:42:53 PM
There is the example of you, DJ, championing segregation.
>"Wilberforce (and Lincoln) chose not just emancipation, but repatriation as well."
Posted by: DJ | 24-Oct-07 2:42:53 PM
Neither of the chose repatriation.
They merely considered and then discarded it as impractical, probably immoral as well.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 3:01:41 PM
"There is the example of you, DJ, championing segregation."
Still no example Speller? There won't be one because you can't provide one!
At least 10,000 were repatriated to Africa, some from Canada, by the British. Lincoln, of course, was shot before his plan came to fruition.
Conflict between the races comes with proximity.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 3:23:59 PM
blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 3:25:05 PM
You make DJ sound so one-dimensional and that just isn't the case.
He's a sexist as well as a racist.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2007-10-24 3:45:47 PM
Obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 3:50:04 PM
Lincoln never intended to repatriate or emancipate the slaves. His initial idea was to send them all to Panama where they could have their own country and live as they wished as Freemen.
After seeing how many of them joined the Union army to fight the Confederacy,and how successful they were in battle, he had a change of heart and decided to emancipate them instead as a reward for their dedication to the Union.
Make of that what you will.
Posted by: atric | 2007-10-24 3:53:25 PM
Ok, DJ, so calling you a segregationist was inaccurate.
You are a forced repatriationist. I see that now.
Sorry for underestimating your extreme position.
I don't suppose that it matters to you that the repatriated slaves you cite opted voluntarily to go back to Africa and nothing stops any Blacks from opting the same way?
it's a small world, DJ, and getting smaller every day.
You want to segregate non-Whites with oceans in between us and them.
Oh, and your forced repatriation would lead to a race war.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 4:10:17 PM
"He's a sexist as well as a racist."
Undoubtedly, Kathryn delights, gains some sort of visceral thrill, in the suffering that is wrought by her feminist heroines. Undeniably her hate is both sexually and racially motivated, embodied in the pronouncement of pioneering feminists like Susan Sontag, who said, "Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history."
All white men and their evil creations. Clearly, the world would be a better place if women were dominant. Of course, we'd all still be living in caves. :)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 5:05:39 PM
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
...notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence--the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color--perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man."
(v. 3, pp. 247-8. Sixth Debate with Steven A. Douglas at Quincy, Ill., Oct. 13, 1858)
Make of that, what you will. The dark side of Atric hero, the Great Liberator. :)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 5:08:54 PM
blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 5:12:01 PM
Still grasping at straws, Speller? Even if we accept your position (which is a bounty of lies, surprising for a religious man)for arguments sake, you still provide not a shred of evidence that forced repatriation has ever ignited a race war.
Put up or shut up, old boy. We won't hold our breath.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 5:12:48 PM
Wow, DJ, I'm impressed. You got all that from one sentence.
Actually, I'm basing it a comment you made to me a year or so ago when you were harping on about the forced removal of Muslims from Canada. As I recall, you said I couldn't possibly understand something because I was a woman. That's the very embodiment of the term "sexist".
Anyway, I see you're now harping on about the forced removal of blacks. I'll give you points for consistency, if nothing else. You were wrong then, advocating ignoring the Constitution, rule of law and common decency and you're wrong now.
And you're still a sexist.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2007-10-24 5:16:59 PM
blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-24 5:17:22 PM
Are you for forced repatriation, DJ?
Do you have the courage to clearly state your position or are you going to weasel around?
State an example, DJ, of forced repatriation of a specific armed and educated race of people who numbering about 35 million, possessed wealth, land holdings, pan generational citizenship, and protection under the law that didn't ignite a race war.
Actually, don't bother, DJ, whatever your position, it is too fringe to matter anyway.
The point is so abstruse as to be less than moot.
Continue to be a weasel, DJ, I know you will.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 5:33:59 PM
that's 1858, DJ.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-24 6:07:53 PM
you're kidding Katherine, right...?
This blog is a place promoting "the forced removal of Muslims from Canada" daily.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-24 6:34:01 PM
Who is this Katherine of whom you write? And no, I'm not kidding. I never kid about sexist racists or racist sexists.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2007-10-24 6:53:03 PM
"hey Nick honey, you drank all the orange juice! it's because i'm black, isn't it?"
heh heh heh :) you're a breath of fresh air, Ms America. come back any time.
after reading this thread, i'm sure all people capable of critical thought can find many points on which to agree.
Posted by: shel | 2007-10-24 7:12:52 PM
actually, this blog is a place promoting (by me, at least) "the forced removal of 'any non citizen who commits a crime' from Canada" daily.
Posted by: shel | 2007-10-24 7:26:43 PM
"And you're still a sexist."
As Bill Clinton, beloved of all feminists once said, "Cigar, anyone?"
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 7:40:40 PM
"State an example, DJ, of forced repatriation of a specific armed and educated race of people who numbering about 35 million, possessed wealth, land holdings, pan generational citizenship, and protection under the law that didn't ignite a race war."
The Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations of 30 January 1923;
"According to the convention, approximately 1.1 million Greeks from Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace were expelled to Greece and almost 400,000 Moslems, primarily from the Greek provinces of Macedonia and Epirus, were expelled to Turkey."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-24 8:05:40 PM
Pathetic example, DJ.
Your example doesn't even begin to fit the bill.
I won't even attempt to note how many ways you have failed in your example, but rather I will state again that you are a weasel and a coward for refusing to state your convictions on where you stand regarding forced repatriation of non-White Canadians and Americans.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-24 9:47:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.