Political Discussions
Man Beaten For Wearing Obama Shirt
Posted by dailymindjob • 12/10/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: kaylon johnson, obama, racism, shreveport, violence
I'm not sure if anyone already posted this story. I didn't see it anywhere, so I thought I'd go ahead and bring it to everyone's attention. This is the first discussion I've started on BC.
Shreveport, Louisiana
On Saturday, December 6th, a man named Kaylon Johnson was attacked for wearing an Obama t-shirt. This is the gist of how I believe the story went based on what I have read. The attack was unprovoked. Johnson arrived at a gas station and some men began taunting him with racial slurs after seeing Obama stickers on his vehicle. Johnson shook it off and went into the gas station. When he came out, the men jumped him. He was badly beaten and the men shouted things like "F- Obama" and "F- that N-." Images of injuries are available in the links below.
Kaylon Johnson was apparently instrumental in local grassroots efforts during the election. Shreveport and Caddo Parish went for Obama even though the state went for McCain.
As a resident of Shreveport, I can't say I'm all that surprised. After the church shooting in Knoxville, I knew it was only a matter of time before something happened here. I encounter this sort of political animosity all the time in this town. This ugly sentiment is certainly not isolated to a handful of individuals. We already had to deal with Jena and post-Katrina. The racial divide is certainly tied to politics in this area.
My questions
Have you heard about this story? Should this be receiving more national attention? Should we be hearing condemnation from conservative pundits? (I don't listen to any, so have they said anything?) Should Republican Governor Bobby Jindal issue a statement? (Maybe he has. I haven't heard anything yet though. I suspect he wants to distance himself.) I know it shouldn't be like this, but by displaying Obama paraphernalia, are we asking for trouble? Is this just the beginning?
laforobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/man-badly-beaten-in-shreveport-for.html
sbc360.blogspot.com/2008/12/exclusive-obama-supporter-beaten-by.html
www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9479629
arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=50041
www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-159983
www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/8/231013/041
dailymindjob.blogspot.com/2008/12/man-assaulted-for-wearing-obama-t-shirt.h...
User Comments
-
I don't have any political bumper stickers on my car due to the hatred right-wingers have for democrats. I don't want to come out of a store and find damage to my car because of it.-
To be fair, Bush supporters with stickers were getting keyed all the time. Granted, the pendulum of hate swings awfully heavy from the other side.
-
Oh please, I'm hoping someone will blow my car up, that way I can get a new one with the insurance damages
Of course, they probably look at my car, see the Obama sticker and think "Figures..." -
Why? Did you buy his old Chrysler Gas Guzzler? lol -
Becasue it's a foreign car that has seen better days.
Sometime last century
(Chrysler - I wouldn't buy a Chrysler if you put a gun to my head ) -
I know you wouldn't.. But if i told you it ran on Tofu you'd be all over it like a hobo on a ham sandwich.
-
OK, that actually made me laugh really, really hard
-
What about the hate of those on the left?
I use to (no longer do for this very reason) out political and pro-life bumper stickers on my car.
My cars have been keyed untold times, bumper stickers ripped off.
I've been flipped off untold times.
Chased, threatened at stop lights, bottle of water thrown at my vehicle as I drove it. Etc...
Such stupidity and 'intolerance' of differing view points is NOT at all limited to right wingers. It's limited to the stupid, which both sides have plenty of.
-
-
Kids get beaten up for wearing the wrong Band t-shirt.
Sports fans gets beaten up for wearing the wrong team..
People get picked on and worse for not wearing the right fashion...
Idiots are all around, in all walks of life. What makes this any more relevant than your garden variety tailgating hooligan?-
Either way, there should still be a formal investigation. -
When you go to an opponent's stadium for a game, are you afraid for your life because of what you are wearing?
As for the formal investigation, I do not have high hopes for the Shreveport PD. They have already made the national headlines with a couple of screw ups.
My questions largely remain unanswered. -
Of course this should be treated like any other crime. Full investigation, and in case the responsible are found. The appropriate punishment.
I Just don't think that this is any more "shocking" than someone getting beat for wearing the wrong team colors.
And no, normally not. And apparently he wasn't afraid either or he wouldn't have "shook it off" like your story says. Which proves that idiots are all around. And not even the victim here was expecting it. -
So that still begs the question. If we decide to wear Obama related clothing, are we asking for trouble? Is public condemnation on a national scale expected? Did you hear about this story elsewhere? Should folks on the Right send a clear message that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated? You're side stepping things a little csi. It was suggested on one of the links that wearing Obama clothing could result in martyrdom.
-
LOL. no more trouble than you are wearing a sports cap.
This is one case. Why don't we do some looking around for violence between fans.
No, this does not warrant any more attention on the national scale just because it is Obama, It is an assault and battery case like any other.
A victim and perpetrators. Who's actions aren't related to the leadership of any party more than a drunk fan is the responsibility of the team.
I think that you are wanting this to be something more than it is. -
Re: Just because it is Obama
A sign of your complacency with regard to race relations in this country
As a resident of Shreveport, I can tell you idiots like this are definitely all around in large concentrations. That's why it is more than just a simple case of assault.
You continue to side step on a serious subject. It is apparent to me that you do not feel it necessary to send a clear message to right-wingers that this behavior is inappropriate. It is that lack of leadership that bothers me.
-
-
I've said it in another thread.
The mere notion that an assault victims damages are worth more or less based on the reason for the assault is insulting to the victim.
Race relations are something that has to be addressed. But to address them by saying that victim A is worth less attention because he or she did not match the race-relation victim/assailant criteria. Is ludicrous.
Since when does a broken bone hurt less or the medical bills become larger because of the reason for the assault?-
In an ideal world, I might agree with you. But when the hate has an obvious source with this sort of magnitude, you can't downplay the significance. The claim that the conservative leaders are somehow not responsible is really the ludicrous thing. They have stood by and allowed this fire to burn.
Again, that's why I asked if anyone outside of Shreveport has heard about this attack. -
The mere notion that an assault victims damages are worth more or less based on the reason for the assault is insulting to the victim.
Why? If someone beats you up because you're gay or of the "wrong race," why isn't that significant? And why would considering that fact be "insulting" to you? -
It insulting that the attack would be any less heinous if the victim wasn't part of a "protected group" and thus less noteworthy.
-
I have to agree with csi. As a white straight male, why shouldn't someone who attacks me be treated the same under the law as someone who attacks gays, blacks, females, etc.? -
For the same reason bombers and murderers are charged as terrorists, and not bombers and murderers.
"Hate crimes" offer a whole new sort of socially injected fear that works on an entire, specific group of people with just one or two specific acts of violence or hatred against one or two people in that group.
It's used as a way to create fear and hostility in the hopes of controlling an "unsavory" group of people into submission. If white men were, and had been routinely under attack, and you were targeted because of your race and gender, you'd be a victim of a hate crime too.
Intent matters -
In the law, "intent" has always been about what the person hoped to accomplish, or the reasonably foreseeable outcome of his actions. Intent and motive are two very separate issues, and motive has never been an element of a crime in the United States until we whipped up the idea of "hate crimes" from whole cloth. -
I random attack against a gay man, for example, is different than a coordinated attack against gay society.
-
It insulting that the attack would be any less heinous if the victim wasn't part of a "protected group" and thus less noteworthy.
But we consider the criminal's thoughts in the severity of a crime all the time -- a murder you've thought about is punished more than one that's the result of a bar fight. Is it insulting to the guy who's killed by some dumbass in a street brawl that his murder is "less heinous" than if the guy had planned to do it?
The state has a vested interest in controlling illegal behaviors that may become trends. If a crime is inspired by bigotry or hate, then the criminal is a larger danger to the population than an ordinary criminal, since his bigotry or hatred can inspire others to commit similar crimes. -
"intent" has always been about what the person hoped to accomplish,
Yup, and the intent of a hate crime is to create fear and wreak havoc for a particular group of people through violence directed at said group.
Kinda like terrorism, on a small scale. -
Anok, if I'd ever seen anything in a statute that reflected what you suggest here, I'd be less averse to the concept of "hate crimes". But I haven't. Perhaps there are hate crime statutes that require something like the intent you describe, and if so they're less egregious than the standard model.
-
Did you miss the Juno 6?
White kids in a terribly racist southern town hanging nooses from school yard trees (paired with other racially charged threats towards a certain group), triggering a backlash of violence from other students? Nooses, which represent lynching...causing havoc for school children...creating racial tensions and violence in a school...
I'd say that fits.
Hate crime laws were put into effect because of activities like...burning crosses on people's yards, lynchings, "fag bashing", graffiti and vandalism with minority charged epithets and other forms of harassment and threats of physical violence.
Hell, in parts of Georgia, there are STILL shops running with "no blacks allowed" signs in their windows. (Except "black" isn't the word they used).
I know you disagree with the law, but it does serve a purpose, and there was/is still a need for it. -
But, Anok, you've jumped subjects. I didn't say that no such events ever occurred--I said that I'd never seen a statute that made the intent YOU described an element of the crime. The reason the statutes were enacted is far less important than the actual impact they have when applied, and in this case the impact is that nothing remotely close to the Juno 6 case has to occur for someone to be convicted of a "hate crime". If what you described was, in fact, what these statutes sought to protect against, then they should have been written to say so, instead of in such as way as to be applied in any case where there might have been an element of racism or other discriminatory thought.
-
What cases have been tried as hate crimes that haven't had serious implications?
-
Again, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what cases have been tried thus far, in the relatively new life of these statutes. What matters is what they actually criminalize. I'm sure that if there was a law that said, "It's against the law not to like the government", but they were only prosecuting people who had actually taken violent action, you'd still see the ramifications of having that law on the books and be concerned about it even though it hadn't been thus applied so far.
Here's one, though I don't have time to look far because I have to take my daughter to school: www.pageoneq.com/news/2008/zapata080108.html -
There is a law that says just that.
It's called sedition, and further that, treason. It's on the books as we speak, and people have been tried for it.
The hate crime laws have a broad application, I understand that - it leaves some room for interpretation, I understand that. I would assume the reason for that is to not become too inclusive or restrictive so that the law has the ability to grow and progress with society.
How many people have been tried for a misunderstanding, or as some resulting abuse of the broad interpretation of this law?
How many people have been helped by this law?
Edit, that case has clearly made that the man killed the woman BECAUSE she was transgendered. It's a hate based crime. -
"A hate based crime"? Your definition has changed radically from what you said above: "Yup, and the intent of a hate crime is to create fear and wreak havoc for a particular group of people through violence directed at said group. "
Do you think this man was trying to create fear and wreak havoc for a group, or that he was personally outraged and reacted in anger at having been deceived (just like a thousand other people might have done in similar circumstances that had nothing to do with gender, such as finding out that someone had a social disease that hadn't been disclosed, or was married, or ....)?
So, if you freak out because someone didn't tell you about a social disease and kill them, or because someone didn't tell you she was married, it's a different (and more serious) crime than if you freak out because someone didn't mention that they had different genitalia than you were expecting?
I can't see how that's anything but absurd. It certainly has nothing to do with targeting groups or wreaking havoc in a larger community. -
I don't know enough about what happened to that man, what other actions he's been involved with, or how it affected the transgendered community to see one of their own murdered simply because they exist to make that judgment.
I only know what was in the source you provided.
The crime, however, was clearly based on hatred, not hatred of a person or dismay at being deceived, but the fact that she had once been a man. IF it fits the criteria of a hate crime, that will be reflected in the court's decision.
In any case, the need for hate crime laws are still clear, if you would like to argue that the law is poorly written (even if fairly ruled) that is an argument I can see being made.
But to say they're not necessary, or all around "bad law" due to abuse of the law, or broad interpretations is disingenuous. -
Ok Anok,
You said you hunt.. Hunters aren't a protected group.
So I guess that your husband will feel a lot better when a militant vegan beats you into a coma for being a hunter than for any other reason.
I suppose that your child will feel a lot safer knowing that it wasn't because you are a woman, or of a specific race, But just a Hunter. That should make him sleep much easier at night.
And It's nice that your medical bills will be affordable because you got beaten up for a non-protected reason.
And if you should die, at least it wasn't because killing you for your choice to hunt, So it isn't a hate-crime.
It was just a crime, and thus not worthy of punishing the person as much as they would have if it was for a "protected reason". So because the assailant chose a reason that weren't protected, they will get a lesser punishment.
It's great to know that everything will work out better for your faimly because it wasn't a defined "Hate crime". -
If hunters were a minority group who has over the years endured regular rounds on intimidation, beating, lynchings, assaults, threats, violence, socially accepted discrimination by means of laws and segregation, and socially acceptable forms of abuse towards them - then yes, it would be a hate crime.
But as it stands, this is not the case. -
Well good. so because this isn't so. The effect on you and your family will be less. And the attacker should be serving a lesser sentence.
-
They will serve the sentence for the crime(s) they committed. I don't see a problem with that. For example, a murder in the name of veganism (which, by the way, doesn't happen ) would be a murder that affects my family and friends.
If, however, a group came into my neighborhood, harassed and threatened the Pagans living here, and then committed a murder of one of the Pagans, you have a much larger problem. You have a series of crimes intended to threaten and harass one particular group of people until they become terrified to leave their homes. (Provided the harassment wasn't stopped prior to getting to that point).
You see - not all hate based harassment is technically a "crime", and the few that are are in no way sufficient to provide safety and peace to the intended targets.
Hanging a noose from a tree on the property of a black family would only constitute a possible "trespassing" charge. Harassing families on the street, schools, or work places isn't even worth going after in most cases. There are no consequences for the acts of intimidation that often escalate into violence.
Enter in, hate crime laws. They address the larger ramifications of groups that are and have been routinely oppressed, harassed, victimized, threatened etc....
I'll ask you this - were the deaths of the people at the World Trade Center any more important, detrimental or significant than the deaths of anyone else in this country?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Should terrorists be labeled terrorists?
(Oh, and by the way, extreme groups for ecological and animals rights that do engage in violence are now legally considered and tried as domestic terrorists which is a rather large step up from a "hate crime" so your theoretical vegan could be tried for that) -
NOW you're talking..
If a GROUP organizes and threahtens another GROUP, then we have something. That starts to look like what i would define a hate crime.
Someone getting beat up at a gas station by a couple of drunk rednecks isn't exactly that.
What gets me is that if i take a sledgehammer and break every limb you have.. Thats considered "level 1" but if i do somethign as Heinous as calling you a "ni..." in the process, then it's worse..
Is this just me or is there some rather serious disconnect here?
And as a sidenote Vegan action related deaths do occur, Vegans burned meat trucks and killed a sleeping driver in Europe some years ago. (think it was in france but im not sure)
Not to mention that animal rights activists killed 5000 chickens a little while ago in Finland.. ooops :)www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article3881026.ab -
When I said "group" I didn't mean a literal group (two or more people) I meant a grouping of people - like say, the KKK - that's a group where members can act alone or in concert, but they do fit into a group. Or, a protected group of people who fit into a grouping by race, religion, sexual orientation etc...
The hate crime laws apply however, to one or more person attacking another person in a particular grouping that has, in the past or present endured harassment, discrimination, violence etc...
The courts sort out the intent and greater ramification, though. For example, the guy in Tiffany's example is being tried for a hate crime, but may not be convicted of a hate crime. They'll have to look at all of the evidence.
As for the events in Finland, I get to plead ignorance I will say that your average vegan though doesn't go out and murder hunters. It isn't veganism, but rather the more extreme animal rights groups (who are probably vegan as well) that engage in the violent acts. Different grouping.
-
-
So you are sayign that the Democrat leadership are responsible for the keyed cars that you mentioned above? Or does this only apply to the other side.
Yes, I don't believe that soemone in washington is responsible for the actions that a drunk moron in Louisiana takes. Any more than I as a man is responsible for another man beating his wife.
And this has nothing to do with idealism, this is about simple fairness. The REASON for a crime, has no bearing on the crime itself. More than to serve as motive. But motive, or lack of motive makes no difference to the victim. To shoot someone because you didn't like their shoes is no better or worse than shooting them because they voted for Bush, Obama, or Ross Perot.
That you claim that a victim is worth more attention than another is a little worrying. I thought all were supposed to be equal before the law.-
The mentioned assault is a hate crime -- not because the man had on an Obama shirt, but because they called him a n----. That said, if you go to a Broncos game wearing a Raiders t-shirt, you deserve to get beat up.
-
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did expect Democratic leaders to come out against that behavior. I did come across a lot of public discussion related to Bush supporters being keyed. There was a lot of agreement that the behavior was not appropriate. It made the national stage. You must have missed it.
We are beyond fairness at this point. The negative rhetoric and misinformation has already seeded into these communities. You have not answered whether or not wearing Obama related clothing or having bumper stickers means they are asking for trouble. You side stepped that one by claiming they are no more in harms way than someone at a ball game. As a matter of fact, it appears they are in harms way.
So I ask again. Is this just the beginning? Are you going to call each incident that follows an isolated assault case or a pattern? I did see one comment that mentioned a college campus incident in the links I provided. It's far reaching and hardly isolated. -
"Asking for trouble"
I don't care if you wear a white hood in harlem. There is NO excuse for attacking another person. There is nothing in the REASON for the attack that makes it more or less illegal. Or worthy of more or less attention.
This all sounds like the defense that a rape victim was dressed too sexy. And therefore had some responsibility for the attack.
-
-
I would expect the pundits to say something about it.
I mean, they whined and wenged for the last 7 and three quarter years about how badly their president was treated by dirty liberal hippies - surely that can speak out against outright acts of violence directed at normal people over a candidate t-shirt or bumper sticker.
(I won't hold my breath).-
Dont worry.. Maddow will declare this event a national holliday in about 90 seconds.
-
Holiday or atrocity?
-
Both, of course.
A holiday in rememberance of the atrocity. -
If it's a paid holiday, I'm all for it.
-
Of course it will be.. I'm sure that they'll replace some holiday of minor importance.. 4th of July or something.
-
But have they? I mean, a guy puts up a sign in a parking lot to keep Obama supporters out and the news covers it for a solid week. A guy gets his face bashed in because he had an Obama shirt on and Obama bumper stickers and I barely hear a peep. Had any of you heard about this story prior to today?
-
-
Nope, I also haven't heard a damn thing even on the local news about the domestic violence beating that happened across the street this thanksgiving.
-
Well in the South, they tend to turn a blind eye to race related cases. While all this was going on, a woman trying to sell her truck went for a test drive with a potential buyer. She was found shot in the head in the truck and the stereo system was stolen out of the vehicle. The local news has covered that story every single day since. I didn't hear about this beating until Monday and haven't heard much since then.
-
SO you think that a beating warrants the same attention as a robbery/homicide?
-
If the suspects have not been caught, then it should probably be mentioned. I did not say it deserved the same attention. Don't put words in my mouth to try and stretch this out in another very convoluted debate.
-
1. You brought the other case into the debate as some kind of proof as to why this is "unfair" when the case details are obviously not even close to the same. So as far as putting words in your mouth. I think you have to assume your own responsibility there.
2. The catching and apprehension of the assailants have little to do with your original statement that this should be taken up in National media and discussed by party officials.
-
-
Like I said...convoluted debate and distraction. Avoid the questions and distract. Don't be a politician around me, k? I'd like this discussion to have some direction, but you seem to want to wander off. Let's avoid the tangential speak (here comes the finger pointing). Don't do it.
-
Let's get some new blood.
Has Bobby Jindal issued any statement? -
LOL
I think i've been more than clear. NO!, It warrants no more attention than any other attack of the same severity.
I think an assumption that this wansn't the first Assalt and Battery committed since Gov. Jindahl took office. SO... Show me where Gov. Jindahl has issues statements regarding any other assault and battery. And we'll discuss wether he should do the same here. -
Note that I did not ask at this point "Should he," but rather HAS HE, although in my original post, I did ask whether or not he should.
Because it's potentially another high profile case which paints Louisiana in a bad light. As governor, it's a good idea to go out and represent your state in a positive fashion. Speaking out against racism is a good way to do that.
The fact that we are in the South and it has been swept under the rug locally is just more of a reason to bring national attention to the problem.
Seeing as how this is the South, it is probably in Jindal's best interest to keep Louisiana looking less redneck than it really is. By coming out and condemning the act, it sends a message that similar actions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No bones about it. But say nothing, and these sorts of attacks are likely to continue. You already know how easily this sort of case will escalate with regards to race.
Asking whether or not he has commented on other assault cases is just another distraction on your part and I'll kindly ask you to avoid getting sidetracked. This is not just another assault and battery case. Your continued vigor to portray it as such, again, highlights your complacency towards racism in this country and to the responsibility of the Republican Party with regard to negative rhetoric surrounding the election.-
I have no complacency, I just don't think that someone being beaten up because of reason A, is any more noteworthy than reason B.
Again, please tell me how the broken arm would hurt less or the Medical bills would have been lower if he had been beaten up for any other reason. -
The reason alone threatens the safety of any Democrat. The attack would not have occurred had the negative rhetoric been extinguished. Downplaying that important aspect of this case by comparing it to your run of the mill assault absolves anyone on the Right of any responsibility for the hate that exists today.
-
wp
-
-
No it doesn't.
You make the logical LEAP between some idiots committing a single act, and this being about a general notion that right wingers are just waiting for one case to go unnoticed so that they can beat up all democrats.
Back to what i said in the beginning, this is no more a threat to all democrats than a single sports related attack is a threat to all sports fans of that particular team.-
Complacency. There is no leap. They are not isolated idiots. Right wingers are out there ready to beat the piss out of cars with bumper stickers or people with Obama shirts. They are pissed about this election. And before you say it, yes, any crazy left winger ready to cause harm to a republican in similar fashion is equally disturbed and also not an isolated idiot.
-
If this was anywhere near as big a problem as you make it. Wouldn't we have seen more of it?
I think you are overreacting to an isolated incident. -
As I have already pointed out, even one of the comments on one of the blogs discussed a college campus incident. Let's not forget the assassination plots and the "kill him" shouts at rallies. Road rage? What news are you watching?
You don't think that we are in for more of these incidents? You're fooling yourself. I'll remind you that I live in Shreveport. I don't think you realize how polarized this part of the country really is.
I did ask if this was the beginning. I suspect things will only get worse.
-
-
csiunatc said, "It insulting that the attack would be any less heinous if the victim wasn't part of a "protected group" and thus less noteworthy."
The penalty should be the same regardless of the reason(s) for the attack. A beat down is a beat down and regardless of what motivates the beat down it is an attempt on the person's life.-
The penalty is not the same though. It should not be the same. All beat downs are not simple beat downs. The common theme between you guys seems to be this notion that this sort of crime is no different than any other form of assault. You continue to ignore the reason behind the crime. I'm not sure why you guys don't get how something like that is crucial in cases like this. Perhaps nuance is not your strong suit. In a hate crime, it matters. You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make you right nor does it make this a simple assault case. All I can figure is that you either refuse to recognize the nuance or can't see it at all. The nuance is at the core of this debate and vital to healing the division in this country. Maybe you like the division. I don't. Denial is not an option.
Unless you have something else to add to the discussion, I suggest you stay out of it. There are other aspects to this tragedy, you know.
-
-
Wisco said, "Why? If someone beats you up because you're gay or of the "wrong race," why isn't that significant? And why would considering that fact be "insulting" to you?"
Because every persons' life should be given the same amount of value by the government. Change the penalties for all acts of violence against a person. Regardless of the underline motivation.-
Why shift the debate towards the value of life? The issue at hand has more to do with the motivation behind the assault. Again, that's something you are choosing to ignore or deny. It's amazing how skilled you guys are at the art of distraction.
Let's face it. The anger from the election is boiling over. There is no need to skirt around that issue. What are you going to do about it? Accountability goes well beyond the individuals who committed this crime. The sooner you get up to speed on reality, the sooner we can actually start having a productive discussion here.
The reality is, this case is being investigated as a hate crime. It will be treated differently than a basic assault case. Get over your legal nitpicking or start your own thread on the subject.
-
-
No one is skirting around the issue. I am well aware of the fact that their are some first amendment issues that are under attack. There are also some hate issues because he is Black. Were the attackers white? Would he had been attacked if he were a white man wearing an Obama shirt?
-
As someone living in Shreveport familiar with the local mentality, I would say yes. A white man wearing an Obama shirt would have been faced with a similar situation. I'm white, but not brave enough to put anything on my person or property which displays my political affiliations. I'd be met with lots of hostility. It shouldn't be that way, but that is the reality in areas like this in the South.
Were the attackers white? Did you skip over the links I posted?
Yes they were white.
-
-
The only way it will be an issue for some, is if a white man or a gay white man is attacked for wearing an Obama shirt. I have been in this forum since April of 2008, and some of the people in here will only get heated up about an issue that involves a group they are espousing.
-
dailymindjob said, "As someone living in Shreveport familiar with the local mentality, I would say yes. A white man wearing an Obama shirt would have been faced with a similar situation. I'm white, but not brave enough to put anything on my person or property which displays my political affiliations. I'd be met with lots of hostility."
Why do some of the locals hate Obama?-
Anything Liberal is a bad thing. Simple as that. Add race on top of it and you've got yourself a worse situation. I can't even get a haircut in this town without hearing this sentiment. I'd have to verify it, but a comment on the DailyKos link said that in Travel Advisor, there is a comment stating that if you are not one of them, you will be shunned. It's not a very welcoming place for anyone different from the southern norm. I have personally experienced that sort of thing, so the comment is not far fetched.
There is progress, however. Shreveport has elected its first black mayor who also happens to be a Dem. Like I said, Caddo Parish and Shreveport went blue for Obama. Unfortunately, it went red for the Congressional runoff. We're not out of the woods yet, apparently.
-
-
@dailymindjob
Thank you. I am a native New Yorker trying to get a glimpse into the world you live in. -
The best it would be when everyone would wear an Obama-Shirt:
nuhsarche.redbubble.com/sets/6444/works/1990723-3-barack-obama-the-presiden...
With a lot of greetings
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
