Race and dialogue
An mean-spirited, juvenile video made a brief but auspicious run on YouTube Monday.
It featured photos of Greensboro Police Chief Tim Bellamy and was set to the theme song to a 1970s blaxploitaion movie, "Nigger Boss."
That's all I'll say about it. That's more than it deserves.
Meanwhile, a commenter, Steve Flynn, did not take kindly to our Sunday editorial cartoon on the Pulpit Forum.
He wrote in the comment thread on my Sunday column:
"Allen, Sorry this is off-topic but unsure where to vent my concern. Does the N&R believe it helps this community to move forward when editorial cartoons are published like today's 'pulpit forum' race card business. I'm ashamed."
I replied that "cartoons by their nature are rarely subtle and tend to offend someone."
Then I asked Steve to be more specific about his concerns. Did he disagree with the point of the cartoon or its execution?
Here is what he wrote:
"As a white guy seeking community dialogue, I wonder why the n&r would totalize in this fashion the Pulpit Forum's motives in that "race card" cartoon.
"Do I disagree with the point of the cartoon: absolutely. That said, if it spurs decent dialogue throughout the white and black community and not simply reinforce views of one group, that could be useful. I'm skeptical. My experience tells me that the N&R represents the status quo.
"Now that you have printed that cartoon, where is the space to debate it as a community?"
We did not mean to offend by publishing the cartoon. But, as I replied to Steve in the thread,
I told Steve I would provide that space. Here it is.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
What about this one Mr. J?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qVoMiw7bKdc
Posted on July 25, 2007 12:26 PM
So, you're saying you authored the piece on Chief Bellamy?
Posted on July 30, 2007 10:31 AM
That space is also provided by the letters to the editor page (to which we now devote a blog), any of various blogs here (including the new editorial one), the opportunity for people from the community to write guest columns in the paper, etc.
I'm also not sure what the writer means by "represents the status quo." The paper is so often accused of representing "the status quo" by carrying water for officialdom and especially minority groups and their representatives that it's always sort of confusing to me when we also get flak for so obviously being against these things and people. If the conclusion about "which side the paper is on" is so obvious, a lot of people are missing it.
Posted on July 31, 2007 7:53 AM