C-Mac Gits Her Posse On
This may come across as a tad harsh, and I apologize in advance if I offend, but I just can't seem to let go of this one...
Cynthia McKinney has (sort of) apologized--and, in a characteristically provocative and unconventional move that has chagrinned her congressional colleagues of all ethnic and political stripes, she has engaged a bodyguard, who promptly intervened today in a decidedly inappropriate fashion when a Cox reporter tried to interview the distinguished Ms. Thang (R-Ga).
"I put yo' ass in jail!" said McKinney's personal security consultant, while claiming to be a "police officer." The incident was captured on video here.
I realize that I have given this matter a bit more attention that it probably deserves, but among my most petted peeves is the propensity of some people not only to scream racism whenever they're called to account for their own, manifestly bad behavior, but to openly encourage others to do the same.
The irony here is that, as the C-Mac/Cop-Slap saga continues to unfold, her position becomes blacker and blacker and wronger and wronger, as she edges closer and closer to that rarest of social transgressors: the African-American racist.
It has been said that such a thing cannot exist, that black people, by definition, cannot be racist. This theory typically specifies that only white or Korean or Latino or Jewish people can be racist. It's on account of slavery, you see, which, historically speaking, always trumps famines, invasions, occupations, pogroms, etc. (And don't you dare say nothin' 'bout no Black folk in Africa back in the day, selling off they own people into the slave trade. Dat'd be racis'.)
Unbridled inanity? I think so. But to openly and honestly argue this point is to don the garb of the villain--especially if you're a straight white male (we're responsible for everything from slavery to tooth decay), but the world's most celebrated black activist/comedian with a couple of PhDs: Bill Cosby.
So, call me a racist, but I jus' gotsta say dat, on accounta dis C-Mac thang, I sho'ly does gots my shadenfizzle on, and I wants to thank the sistah fo' givin' me the opportunity to speak mah mind. Y' feel me?
And now...On to the Grand Jury!
It never ceases to amaze me how folks look for reasons that are racist, to describe McKinneys RESPONSE but never once acknowlege that her actions were PRECIPITATED and PROVOKED by racist behavior towards her. The officer had no reason to put his hands on her, as she was not engaged in committing a crime. He should have not touched her person AT ALL.
Who in this country does not understand racial profiling? Who thinks for one minute that the capitol police do not know the 14 black faces on the Hill??
How is it that the vast majority of her white constitutency need not wear their label pin, daily, and yet they enter without going through the metal detector. Who here believes that a little blond lady that changed her hair from a curly perm to a straight as silk look would be 'unrecognizable' please.
White females change their hair on a regularly basis, from color to perm to cutting it off and adding extension....yet a face of color somehow becomes unrecognizable when the hair style changes? That statement alone is sufficiently suspect to call race into question. White females have no problem changing their hairdo and being recognized so why do women of color?? ....could this be that long standing stereotype.....'all colored folk look alike' such a universally understood and ubiquitous mainstream bias that by the white media and society that they do not 'question' why a professionally trained 'white' officer would have such difficulty???
Is this the same reason the Simi Valley jurors could beleive that 8 police officers with guns were 'intimidated' and 'feared for their personal safeyt' despite having surrounded the black male who was on the ground being beaten over and over.....and thus the juror found them not guilty of using excessive force?
All the racial permutations of the mainstream society....beating the black man in the French Quarters during Katrina, kicking him caught on camera, yet they insist the man was drunk and loud. O my how they doooooo spin race in America.
Blame the belligerent beleagured negro who speaks out and defends themselves against these daily acts of racism...blame the victim for seeking redress for being under constant surveillance and suspicions when doing their jobs. Blame the negro for the hypersensitivity of police officers to black folks..
Who is naive enough to believe that some one who is trained to identity criminals by facial features does not know those of the minority face...since they also are engaged in racial profiling everyday?? Or is this the reason that so many folks of color are picked up and suspects without reason...which speaks directly to C-mac's response. She experiences this suspect treatment as a person of color so often until it is no longer acceptable, particularly at her PLACE of WORK.
Blame her for believing that the trained professionals who provide security for her, and are there to protect her as a congressperson would be able to know her face by now and not detained her or chase after her, or accost her physically while claiming they do not know who she is....blame C-mac, for having that reasonable expectation....as a person of color not to be a suspect 24-7 when ON the JOB.
The issue here is racial profiling not C-mac, nor her posse.
April 6, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Balderdash.
McKinney’s stock and trade is ethnic outrage and specious complaint. She’s been at it so long, it’s become her professional niche. Her behavior has been no less petty and counterproductive than was that of Newt Gingrich when he shut down the federal government in 1996 because Bill Clinton made him deplane from Air Force One via the back door. The only difference is that Newt took his snub personally--and it was.
McKinney, being possessed of a Gingrichian self-image—if not intellect—sees her little contretemps as an full-blown assault against an entire race. It wasn’t. There was no racist intent on the part of the poor, hapless cop who was just doing his job, monitoring a checkpoint at the entrance to a congressional office building. If a cogent argument could be made to the effect that this particular cop, ever in his life, did anything at all that could possibly be construed as being even vaguely racist, it’d be the Furhmanesque twist in this pathetic sideshow that everybody in America would be talking about.
Talk about blaming the victim! This guy was damned if he did or if he didn’t. He went with did—and he probably regrets it—but that’s the gig. Or maybe it was a bit of corridor rage. Maybe he didn’t like being disrespected. (Ya feel me?) Maybe he overreacted, not because Ms. McKinney was black—but because she utterly disregarded his voice command—three times. Maybe he thought she went out of her way to be a self-important pain in the ass, and he wasn’t having it.
If this is the case, it’s indicative of a problem. He’d need to be let go. After all, it’s safe to assume that, while only a fraction of the membership can be found “guilty of being in Congress while black,” an overwhelming majority would be convicted of being in Congress while arrogant. Such a workplace should be staffed accordingly. Even so, one gets the sense that Ms. McKinney takes this occupational hazard to a higher level than her colleagues. Her behavior in the aftermath certainly suggests as much.
In any event, the crux of McKinney’s complaint wasn’t insolence. It was racism and violence. Having dispensed with the racial angle, let’s examine the violence. It’s not as though the cop took her down like a roller-derby goon. This wasn’t the Rodney King beating. Nor was it remotely similar to the old man in the French Quarter. Let’s stick to the matter at hand. He called and he called and he called—then he took her by the arm and said something like, Hey! Lady! I said stop! The congresswoman is neither a deity nor an orchid. At that moment, she was just a person passing through a checkpoint, blowing off authority, and she was treated accordingly.
He says he didn’t recognize her. What was he supposed to do? Let her go?
The distinguished lady from Georgia is riled by the indignity of not being recognized everywhere she goes. Perhaps she ought get over herself. “The Pin” rankles her like it’s some pre-apartheid South African ID card. Fair enough. None of the members of Congress are required to wear their pins. They are asked to do so. Most of them do—proudly, one might suspect—and those who do not are subject to the same misunderstanding that occurred with Ms. McKinney.
Obviously, if Nancy Pelosi or Katherine Harris happened to neglect their pins, they would likely be recognized nevertheless—but it wouldn’t be because they’re white women. They’re recognizable because, unlike most of the other female members of congress (and for decidedly different reasons,) they’re high-profile members.
It would seem a certainty that Ms. McKinney won’t ever go unrecognized on Capitol Hill ever again for the rest of her life.
unclesmedley
April 6, 2006 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh what poppycock!!
This is the same indefensible conclusion by the Simi Valley jurors, that the officers were just doing their job. Prrotect and serve...riiiiight.
O but no.
This is not about the individual's rrecord on race...it is about the way race permeates the public consciousness to such an extent that racial profiling is the terrible threat that all people of color must live with. You need to see the movie CRASH obviously, if you think this is as simplistic, as the officer was just doing 'his job'.
How dare you attempt to assert that you know the cops intent, oh, but that's right you know that C-mac is a racist too. You just are a regular Ms. Cleo, eh?
Let me make a distinction here, that clearly seems to go over your head....officers of the law do not need to be racist to aggresively pursue racial PROFILING. It is part of their JOB to be hypervigilant about people of color as SUSPECTS. The fact that white folks do not come under this heightened sense of suspicion in their DAILY lives means they tend to 'blame the victim'...which is the most threatening aspect of RACIAL PROFILINg...you are suspect based on race and then accused of being racist when you confront the issue of RACE that was used to ACCOST and violate your CIVIL rights!
It is racial PROFILING that is racist.
Again...the issue here is RACIAL PROFILING.....understand what that means, and understand how that creates the racial tones in this circumstance...as it is not what C-mac SAID it is the fact of her being a person of color that caused this incidence.
You obviously do not watch C-span...Virtually none of the members of Congress wear those pins. On any given day you can see this. Moreover, those pins are not ID badges, they do not have a face on them. So, if this is the 'security' the capitol police are using....it is bogus from jump.
Please do you not understand that C-mac was RACIALLY PROFILED? The officer had no reason to put his hands on her, whatsoever..NONE. And it is the officer who is claiming he was assaulted...it is C-mac who is being charged with assault not the officer. This is just like the King and Katrina cases.
The reasons that officers in all these instances, overreacted and physically accosted or beat the suspect was due to RACIAL PROFILING.
If C-mac had of been treated accordingly the officer would have KNOWN she was a member of Congress...and not acted out his RACIAL PROFILING to such a degree that he placed his hands on a member of Congress who was merely going to HER JOB. You will never get me to beleive that that officer, had no clue that C-mac was a member of congress. Or did you not hear the newsreports that said her picture is plastered on the wall in the Capitol police offices...since their behavior towards her has been consistently racist by virtue of the incredible fact that they continue to be UNABLE to RECOGNIZE her. These officers should be written up for professinal negligence on that fact alone. How can you work in Congress and not know the 14 black faces that work there, when your work requires you to .RACIALLY PROFILE individuals.
White officers not being able to recognize BLACK faces that work on their turf DAILY is absolutely unbelievable and racist by virtue of their inability to recognize the black people they friggin' PROFILE!!!!!
O aren't you rich. People of color on the Hill are ALWAYS high-profile by virtue of color alone. That is why it is called RACIAL PROFILING Surely you know that race makes you high-profile in any circumstance where color is the minority...since folks like C-mac stand out like flies in buttermilk when they are in the corridors of Congress.
Which brings us full circle, to why it is racial PROFILING that caused this incidence. People of color on the hill are ALWAYS high-profile
April 7, 2006 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
from todays SF Chronicle:
"...The incident with McKinney began when she tried to go around a security checkpoint, as members of Congress are entitled to do. She wasn't wearing her members' lapel pin, and it appears an officer did not recognize her...
"...She was challenged, but didn't stop. When an officer tried to stop her, and apparently touched her, McKinney allegedly struck the officer in front of witnesses...
"...House members from both parties and all races said they have also been challenged by police when they weren't wearing their lapel pins...
"...McKinney's fellow Georgian and Democrat, civil rights pioneer Rep. John Lewis, has also been stopped, and reportedly told her to stop making an issue out of the incident..."
As usual, John Lewis shrinks from a race-based issue and abandons a black, Democratic colleague from his home state. If only he were as principled and courageous as Sister Cynthia...
unclesmedley
April 7, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in conclusion (from NYT 4/9)...
"Ultimately, Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and 1960's civil rights leader, told Ms. McKinney, 'You need to come to a nonviolence workshop.'"
...Ouch! that's gotta hurt.
April 9, 2006 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The facts are being divulged:
WASHINGTON, April 18, 2006, (Updated at 10:00 a.m., April 19) - A source said an officer, who says Rep. Cynthia McKinney struck him in the chest with a closed fist, knew who she was, and claims the incident has caused infighting among U.S. Capitol Police.
The source, who is close to the ongoing grand jury investigation of the March 29 scuffle, said Paul McKenna, a third year officer in the U.S. Capitol Police, was given a picture of the congresswoman in training.
"No one believes that a man with a name that similar to hers would not know who she is," the source told Redding News Review. "He clearly knew who she was and what she looked like but stopped her anyway."
McKinney faces charges that she assaulted McKenna, who the source says is white, while entering a House office building last month. The Democrat, who has changed her hairstyle from her trademark cornrows, has said she was not wearing proper identification.
She has since apologized for the misunderstanding, which she first hinted may have been racism.
The source - who did not want to be identified in fear that they might lose their job - also said that the incident has resulted in "fighting and heated arguments between white and black officers."
"This case is tearing the department apart," the source said. "The blacks say the whites were screwing with her, but the white officers are saying that she should have stopped."
April 20, 2006 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my two cents: She did not have to be grabbed. The officer could have stood in front of her to get her attention.
Someone grabs me from behind, damn right I'm swinging.
The pin thing is bull, as apparently no one wears them. And it's a little scary to know the entire security of our Congress rests on a tiny, easily steal-able, probably easily forgeable, and probably easily social-engineer-able (Hi, this is so and so's aid, she lost her pin -- can we get a new one?) pin.
All that said, I'm glad she apologized, because this was taking up way too much media time. I support her, but it's a distraction we don't need, and my guess is that's what her fellow Dems told her.
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 7, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink