Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is in the news again over something silly. I say this not in the same tone as most journalists some of whom unabashedly display anti-McKinney bias in their reporting but most of whom are anti-McKinney but do a fair job of hiding it by being uncritical of the capitol police account with ad hominem criticism of the Congresswoman. I say 'silly' in the context of my support for anyone who hasn't been found guilty of a crime yet is dealt with in media and scholarship as if he/she was guilty.
Just a couple of points here regarding context. Because most folks aren’t political and since Cynthia McKinney is, context is needed to understand what is going on here. That being said, it segues nicely into the first point.
Cynthia McKinney is famous.
Perhaps not among the general public but there are many types of fame. And in D.C. Cynthia McKinney is and has been famous. This point is aimed squarely at the cornerstone of the case of the capitol police, which can be reduced to ‘we didn’t know who she was’.
This is their case. And with a little context, without going any further, any thinking person can walk away from this entire incident knowing that this is a case of political smear, character assassination, an electronic political lynching in an election year. In case you’re reading fast, I’ll say that again, in an election year. Back to context. After 9/11 McKinney was the first high-level elected official to ask a question that is now household,
‘What did the administration know and when did it know it?’
To understand what is happening now you have to understand 2001. Congresswoman McKinney was attacked by US media establishments across the country. The AJC ran a front page story about her the headline was in (pay attention now) 5 inch bold letters. The headline was a single word in reference to the black congresswoman from Georgia’s 4th district.
LOONY!
This was the journalistic response of the largest paper in the home state of the congresswoman. And this response was indicative of national coverage as well. All for asking what did they know and when did they know it. And as a member of congress, you know, the legislative balance for the judicial and executive branches of government. When an attack like 9/11 happens isn’t it a congresspersons job to ask that kind of question about the top military figure in the country tasked with protecting the citizens of the United States, the President of the US? For performing her job description, she was labeled loony by this paper, which is among the top 20 newspapers in the country in terms of circulation. The smear campaign from that event culminated in a Republican plot for crossover voting in the 2002 Democratic Primary, driving McKinney from office. Without the influence of Republicans crossover vote in the 2004 Dem primary McKinney regained her seat the 2 years later.
It should be pointed out that it was later discovered that, contrary to claims from the President’s office and the President himself, there was prior warning. So what was characterized as loony and resulted in the loss of her congress seat is now common knowledge. McKinney has spoken up on many controversial topics, all making her fair game for an establishment that sees her as the biggest single thorn in its side.
CIA selling crack in Los Angeles
Govt involvement in 9/11
The plight of the Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid
Ending the Iraq occupation and associated profiteering
Not to mention the situation of non-whites in America dealing with racial discriminatory practices daily.
In light of her efforts in these regards, the magnification of what was yet another incident of racial profiling into a situation where a white male cop is apparently the victim of assault at the hands of the black female congress member is just the latest chapter in an assault to lessen the effectiveness of this agitator of powerful interests at the highest levels of US govt.
Another often ignored point in this silliness is the fact that the capitol police claim to have video evidence corroborating their account, but they won’t release it. Fancy that.
Meanwhile, the media smear with the racists, on the both the left and the right, propelling it continues.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
The Character Assassination of McKinney...Some Context
posted by Marc Garvey at 9:51 AM
| Permalink |
| Permalink |
4 Comments:
-
At April 18, 2006 11:25 PM,
Hastey WordsAbsolutely wrong. I'm usually not this blunt, but this has got to be the worst analysis of a current event I've read in months (and I go to a white-hick-dominated Liberal Arts College in the suburban Midwest, so I've heard plenty).
McKinney is one out of 435 congresspeople. Security guards and police are rotated in and out of their stations and cannot be expected to instantly recognize every single member of congress. Moreover, she simply did not present her ID. There's not anything wrong with that in itself; a few words of conversation would have quickly cleared the issue up. Instead she tried to continue to enter after being told by capitol security, the people whose job it is to monitor the entrance of people into the building, to stop for identification or screening. She refused and struck (legally synonymous with aggravated assault) the police officer.
The African-American officer was not profiling, he was doing his job by the book. McKinney has acknowledged her role in escalating the situation and apologized for her inappropriate behavior. However, any average citizen who assaults a police officer would not get off with an apology, and since none of us would argue that members of congress are above the law, neither should she.
To inflame this into supposed evidence of character assassination or a racially motivated incident is, as you say, silly. -
At April 19, 2006 5:35 AM,
Marc GarveyAs always I appreciate bluntness as it allows a dialogue to come closer to touching the truth, not wasting time with superficialities.
McKinney is one of 435 congresspeople
Untrue. She's one of 535 congresspersons. But I get your point. You mean the House of Representatives, 435. But since your actual point is recognition, that's not right either because all the members aren't female. And of the, I think, 70 that are female, 13 are Af-Amer.
Not 435, but 13.
Beginning to see the reality of the situation? All of that may be obscure info for you, as you say, attending a white-hick dominated Liberal Arts College, but for a capitol police officer, this is essential job related information used repeatedly on a daily basis. And as I said in the initial post, even of the 13, McKinney is famous. Maybe not to you, but on the Hill she is. And the capitol police know who she is.
If you still think discerning a famous Af-Amer female of a group of only 13 Af-Amer females is too much to expect from an officer whose job it is to do so, please take a moment to consider the points of this article by Jeffrey Blankfort, A Tale of Two Members Of Congress And The Capitol Hill Police. It speaks directly to what you wrote,
since none of us would argue that members of Congress are above the law...
It elucidates, for even the most diehard racism deniers, a reality I and others am all too familiar with.
And I challenge you to devote your critical thinking skills to asking the questions like why won't the capitol police release the video evidence they claimed, from day one, to have? The release of police video to the press is customary and in my history of dealing with law enforcement, when (in controversial cases) they claim to have evidence yet refuse to produce it, that tells me a lot. The evidence in this case could speak for itself if they released the video of the incident.
This incident is not unique. It falls in line with a long history of racial profiling. White dominated media then report the incident taking the side of law enforcement, leaving black folks to try and convince white folks who have, as a group been denying racism for centuries.
So if the history of our country combined with the facts of life on Capitol Hill today combined with McKinney's celebrity status as the #1 establishment agitator in Congress combined with the refusal of the police to release video evidence, nothing will convince.
You said this is the worst analysis of an event you've read in months. I'm inclined to believe that this is simply an analysis with which you, probably having had a healthy dose of corporate media reports, disagree with. My facts are right. You disagree with the conclusion. -
Congresswoman McKinney actually did show her ID. She states that she did not have on her pin but did show her ID. Also, I believe the police officer was white. Regarding apologies, the acting chief of the capitol police apologized to McKinney for the officer not recognizing her and promised to work on that problem, as this wasn't an isolated incident. This would seem to indicate some level of culpability on the part of the Capitol PD. Finally, I'd like you to look closely at McKinney's wording in her statement of March 31. She said the incident started with the "inappropriate touching and stopping of me..." Perhaps this is why the police are reluctant to show the video. If McKinney did retaliate against the officer, perhaps it was justified. This officer was a) in a position of authority b) white and c) male--for all of these reasons, the dominant culture of our society will tend to believe him over her.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.