I am writing in response to a letter published by Josh Stanley entitled “Racism vs. Violence.” I agree with the sentiment that the psychological violence perpetuated against the six young men, and the black student population in general, fails to justify the violence evident in the beating of the other young man. I believe that they were certainly wrong to do so. However, I don’t think the issue here is what was morally right or wrong.
Why were the six young black men charged in this altercation while none of the young white men were charged for other incidents proceeding from the hanging of the nooses from the white tree? Who brought the charges against them, the young man who they beat or the state? Again, I agree that what they did was wrong as I am a pacifist, however I think inquiries into the Jena legal system are more pertinent than ones about their moral decision.
Another objection I have about Mr. Stanley’s notion is what seems to be the implication that “proud, dignified black community” should not be affected by the racist influences and indictments against it. Perhaps the writer has not been subject to significant psychological violence. Perhaps he has not had to think concerning what the prejudices of the majority group in power may mean for the quality and extent of his life. The black community has been affected and, largely, wisely, they have not pretended otherwise.
Would the civil rights movement have occurred if the black community pretended to be hermetic to the injustices they suffered?
And by the way, a hate crime is defined as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity/national origin” according to the FBI Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/.
Information retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm on Sept. 28, 2007.
–Respectfully, Charles Jones

Author