Emmerich went on: "Young Lee, with his unifying politics threatens the old political order that gives (Rep. Bennie) Thompson and Lumumba power. Lee had to be stopped and stop him they did.
"Mississippi Democratic order over the newer order. The older order is more about conflict. The new order is more about reconciliation."
Emmerich seems to sincerely believe that Lee's politics were "unifying," when what they mainly served to "unify" was Jackson's white voters against Harvey Johnson and then against Lumumba. Not that Lee didn't have black supporters. He did; he had lots of African Americans pulling for him. But the poll results—which clearly show that Lee's support was strongest among the city's whites—present an awfully narrow view of "unity" in a city that is roughly 80 percent black.
From our analysis of the runoff: "After dominating the northeast Jackson precincts in the primary, Lee did even better in the runoff. In fact, Lee captured close to 100 percent of the vote in some precincts. In Precinct 33, where only 2 percent of voters are black, for example, Lee won 91.5 percent of the votes cast on May 7 (his nearest challenger, Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., got 6 percent). In the runoff, Lee's lead in Precinct 33 jumped to 99.2 percent over Lumumba. Similarly, in Precinct 34, where 99 percent of voters are non-black, Lee won 90.1 percent May 7 and captured 97.6 percent of the vote over Lumumba in the runoff."
Lee also received a lot of money from donors who gave freely to Republican candidates in national elections, and from the old traditional (white) power-structure players in Jackson. From all those numbers, one could conclude that Emmerich's "new order" looks a lot like "white conservative order"—which is fine, such as it is, but we shouldn't kid ourselves to interpret them as a vote for "unity" or "reconciliation."
Emmerich evidently can't get beyond self-interest when it comes to race, much like writers of "white hero" literature like "The Help" or directors of movies like "Mississippi Burning." In those narratives, black people just never seem to have what it takes to save themselves, darn it--whether that be intelligence, willpower or courage--and it takes a well-intentioned white person to "save" them from their ignorance, fear and/or lack of discipline to lift them up. That narrative isn't confined to African Americans, of course; just ask a Lakota American Indian about "Dancing with Wolves."
Good for Emmerich for standing up for a black man being denied entry to a country club. It was the right thing to do. In his second response, he points to the wells the organization he co-founded dig in Africa as evidence that he's not a racist, and to the free ads he places in his papers for his organization. Well, that's wonderful; I'm sure he's bettered and saved lives in Malawi.
As the editor who wrote the piece that Mr. Emmerich so vehemently objects to, and after reading his responses, I'm sure Mr. Emmerich earnestly believes the points he made in his May 30 column and that he believes neither he nor his statements are racist.
He states that I'm "alleging" he betrayed his grandfather's legacy when I mentioned that his grandfather stood up for civil rights. He can infer it, but I didn't allege it.
In his May 30 column, Emmerich implies that whites judge the value of a black person by skin color. I quoted him in the piece, but I'll reprint it here: "If I'm not mistaken, white Republican northeast Jackson voted overwhelmingly for the blacker of the two candidates. So exactly how can this be about race?"
The statement is simply absurd and offensive. The implication is along the lines of "the darker the cherry, the sweeter the juice." He is equating white support for the darker-skinned African American—Jonathan Lee—as a vote for the ideological "blacker" candidate. It seems amazing to me that I need to point out to anyone in 2013 that there is no correlation between the color of a person's skin to solidarity with an ideology. And frankly, I'm not aware of a monolithic black ideology any more than a monolithic white one.
He also implied in his column that Jonathan Lee's education was a liability among Jackson's Democratic majority (and thus, black) voters. His full quote regarding Lee's education is: "Simply possessing a master's in business administration is a liability in a city as Democratic as Jackson. Nevertheless, Lee miraculously won 34 percent of the primary vote."
Yeah, those dumbass Jackson Dem-o-crats just don't know nothin' 'bout no book learnin'. Emmerich is playing to at least two ridiculous stereotypes with that statement. The first is that African Americans (who vote Democratic) are neither intelligent nor educated, and in fact, they distrust anyone who is. The second is that all Democrats are anti-business. Only someone who holds one or both of those biases would find it "miraculous" that black Democrats would vote for an educated person—especially for someone holding a business degree. Again, the statement is blatantly absurd and offensive on many levels.
And how does Chokwe Lumumba's law degree factor into that argument? It doesn't. It can't.
MORE: Regarding your allegation that the Sun avoids diversity: We have never, ever turned down any news submitted by anyone at the Sun based on race. I would love for the Broadmoor neighborhood residents to submit community news to the Sun. They rarely do. We have also exhorted the public schools to submit school pictures like the private schools do. They don't. We run ads encouraging readers to bring us news. Even so, there are dozens of African Americans in the Sun every week. I dare you to find one incident when any newspaper in my organization for any reason tried to turn away news from any African American organization.
Regarding the "letter to the editor" published ten years ago in the Northside Sun. Yes, a reader wrote that African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it brought them to America. We print letters to the editor from a variety of political viewpoints--left, right and in between. I can't believe you have to rely on one line from a letter to the editor a decade ago--something I didn't even write--to label me a racist and basically call me a discredit to my family's civil rights history--of which I am rightfully proud. I have explained the details of that situation to the JFP which you published years ago. To bring that letter to the editor up nine years later seems like a desperate attempt to scratch up anything you can find to label me a racist.
MORE: Although many civil rights battles have been won, other battles remain. The battle for life itself in Africa. To that end, I helped developed an organization called Clean Water for Malawi. Please check out our website at http://cleanwaterformalawi.org/ . Emmerich Newspapers has contributed thousands of dollars to make it successful. My newspapers around the state have run hundreds of free full page ads promoting this organization. We have dozens of Africans on the payroll in Malawi going out to impoverished villages drilling water wells so the children and elderly won't die of dysentery and cholera. You (Donna Ladd) say you frequently pick up the Sun. Have you not seen the hundreds of pro bono ads in the Sun promoting Clean Water for Malawi? This fall I spent 90 hours on a plane and countless hours on dusty dangerous African roads travelling mapping locations for wells and monitoring our drilling crews and meeting with the villagers. We have saved hundreds--perhaps thousands of lives. And not a one of them is white. Does this not mean anything to you? You say you want me to join you in your cause to help Mississippi improve. Is that the way you extend a hand? By allowing your staff to distort my face, call me a racist and imply I have shamed my family's legacy?
How about the Jackson Free Press running some Clean Water for Malawi ads for free? Or at least maybe JFP could do a story on Clean Water for Malawi. I am available 24/7 to talk to one of your reporters. Or maybe even an editorial commending our efforts. Or perhaps I could interest you and Todd in funding a well for $3,500? One well saves a minimum of one hundred lives. That's $35 a life. If JFP got on board, you could probably save thousands of African lives. Or better yet, you and Todd could come with me on my next trip to Africa. You can see for yourselves what great work we are doing there and help spread the word.
For years I have financially supported Mission Mississippi and written glowing columns praising their efforts. Is this the work of a racist?
Wyatt Emmerich sent the JFP another response late last night. Donna Ladd told him that it was too long for the print edition, but that we would post it online. Here it is:
Dear Editor:
Regarding your printed allegation that I have proclaimed myself "arbiter of all things black:" I reread my column about which JFP is referring and I could not find any language remotely related to a "proclamation" of myself "arbiter of all things black." So first of all, your allegation is patently false from the get go. Also, you have doctored my photo using Photoshop to give me a different chin, but let's just leave that aside.
What exactly was racist about my column? I wrote that it is Lumumba's politics--not his race--that makes him unpopular among northeast Jackson whites. I also wrote that I understand how African Americans could vote for Lumumba because he spent years in the trenches fighting the good fight during Mississippi's sordid period of segregation. How is that racist? Does calling segregation sordid strike you as something a racist would say? Google the definition of "sordid" and you will find these synonyms: squalid - mean - vile - filthy - nasty - foul - base.
The northeast Jackson distaste for Chockwe [sic] is his leftist ideology. The same leftwing ideology that led to a hundred million deaths in China and Russia. His advocacy of violence combined with his leftist ideology makes my skin crawl and it is not race.
As a publisher, I don't mind being poked at by a competing publication. It goes with the territory. But what has really offended me is your allegation that I have betrayed the Emmerich family's 80-year history of fighting for civil rights for African Americans.
Ten years ago or so, I lost probably a million dollars in advertising when my paper, the Clarksdale Press Register, reported on the blackballing of a black doctor's application to the all-white country club. Not only did we report on this with numerous stories, but we also editorialized on the wrongness of this. After campaign, the newspaper never recovered, eventually requiring us to go from daily to twice weekly publication. Not once did I waver in doing what was right. I would think such efforts would earn me a measure of respect among my journalistic colleagues. This is a prime example of what my newspapers have done, but I can tell you day in and day out my newspapers promote racial diversity and fairness throughout Mississippi. Do you think that happens in a vacuum? Is that the work of a closet racist? Do you realize how many African Americans work in my company? Check out the "diversity" of the Greenwood Commonwealth or the Greenville Delta Democrat Times or the Yazoo Herald.
Herring registered as a lobbyist on March 13, 2013, with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2013--the earliest date possible for this year as printed on the registration form.
So, is she *now* making money from lobbying? If not, why bother registering?
LadiesFirst, statistics without context is almost always sensationalism, IMHO.
Just repeating that Jackson had 66 homicides says absolutely nothing useful. Who are the victims? Who are the perpetrators and have they been apprehended? What were the circumstances? Where did the crimes occur?
If all you're going to do is repeat the numbers, it's fear mongering. Knowing the answers to the questions and putting those crimes into their proper context may actually provide a way to deal with them rationally.
Let's also admit that people known to their victims are responsible for most violent crimes--murders, rapes, assaults and so forth . The reason that "stranger" crimes are so shocking is that they are not the norm when you look at the bigger picture.
From the [Bureau of Justice][1]: "From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims."
Most violence occurs in families, between "friends" or associates, etc. If our society is going to address violent crime effectively, we have to also deal with attitudes that make it OK to slam a "loved one" into a wall, punch him or her in the face, or resort to rape when a person is drunk.
It's all connected, and those attitudes begin to take hold in infancy.
RonniMott says...
MORE:
Emmerich went on: "Young Lee, with his unifying politics threatens the old political order that gives (Rep. Bennie) Thompson and Lumumba power. Lee had to be stopped and stop him they did.
"Mississippi Democratic order over the newer order. The older order is more about conflict. The new order is more about reconciliation."
Emmerich seems to sincerely believe that Lee's politics were "unifying," when what they mainly served to "unify" was Jackson's white voters against Harvey Johnson and then against Lumumba. Not that Lee didn't have black supporters. He did; he had lots of African Americans pulling for him. But the poll results—which clearly show that Lee's support was strongest among the city's whites—present an awfully narrow view of "unity" in a city that is roughly 80 percent black.
From our analysis of the runoff: "After dominating the northeast Jackson precincts in the primary, Lee did even better in the runoff. In fact, Lee captured close to 100 percent of the vote in some precincts. In Precinct 33, where only 2 percent of voters are black, for example, Lee won 91.5 percent of the votes cast on May 7 (his nearest challenger, Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., got 6 percent). In the runoff, Lee's lead in Precinct 33 jumped to 99.2 percent over Lumumba. Similarly, in Precinct 34, where 99 percent of voters are non-black, Lee won 90.1 percent May 7 and captured 97.6 percent of the vote over Lumumba in the runoff."
Lee also received a lot of money from donors who gave freely to Republican candidates in national elections, and from the old traditional (white) power-structure players in Jackson. From all those numbers, one could conclude that Emmerich's "new order" looks a lot like "white conservative order"—which is fine, such as it is, but we shouldn't kid ourselves to interpret them as a vote for "unity" or "reconciliation."
Emmerich evidently can't get beyond self-interest when it comes to race, much like writers of "white hero" literature like "The Help" or directors of movies like "Mississippi Burning." In those narratives, black people just never seem to have what it takes to save themselves, darn it--whether that be intelligence, willpower or courage--and it takes a well-intentioned white person to "save" them from their ignorance, fear and/or lack of discipline to lift them up. That narrative isn't confined to African Americans, of course; just ask a Lakota American Indian about "Dancing with Wolves."
Good for Emmerich for standing up for a black man being denied entry to a country club. It was the right thing to do. In his second response, he points to the wells the organization he co-founded dig in Africa as evidence that he's not a racist, and to the free ads he places in his papers for his organization. Well, that's wonderful; I'm sure he's bettered and saved lives in Malawi.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 7 June 2013, 10:21 a.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
As the editor who wrote the piece that Mr. Emmerich so vehemently objects to, and after reading his responses, I'm sure Mr. Emmerich earnestly believes the points he made in his May 30 column and that he believes neither he nor his statements are racist.
He states that I'm "alleging" he betrayed his grandfather's legacy when I mentioned that his grandfather stood up for civil rights. He can infer it, but I didn't allege it.
In his May 30 column, Emmerich implies that whites judge the value of a black person by skin color. I quoted him in the piece, but I'll reprint it here: "If I'm not mistaken, white Republican northeast Jackson voted overwhelmingly for the blacker of the two candidates. So exactly how can this be about race?"
The statement is simply absurd and offensive. The implication is along the lines of "the darker the cherry, the sweeter the juice." He is equating white support for the darker-skinned African American—Jonathan Lee—as a vote for the ideological "blacker" candidate. It seems amazing to me that I need to point out to anyone in 2013 that there is no correlation between the color of a person's skin to solidarity with an ideology. And frankly, I'm not aware of a monolithic black ideology any more than a monolithic white one.
He also implied in his column that Jonathan Lee's education was a liability among Jackson's Democratic majority (and thus, black) voters. His full quote regarding Lee's education is: "Simply possessing a master's in business administration is a liability in a city as Democratic as Jackson. Nevertheless, Lee miraculously won 34 percent of the primary vote."
Yeah, those dumbass Jackson Dem-o-crats just don't know nothin' 'bout no book learnin'. Emmerich is playing to at least two ridiculous stereotypes with that statement. The first is that African Americans (who vote Democratic) are neither intelligent nor educated, and in fact, they distrust anyone who is. The second is that all Democrats are anti-business. Only someone who holds one or both of those biases would find it "miraculous" that black Democrats would vote for an educated person—especially for someone holding a business degree. Again, the statement is blatantly absurd and offensive on many levels.
And how does Chokwe Lumumba's law degree factor into that argument? It doesn't. It can't.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 7 June 2013, 10:17 a.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
MORE: Regarding your allegation that the Sun avoids diversity: We have never, ever turned down any news submitted by anyone at the Sun based on race. I would love for the Broadmoor neighborhood residents to submit community news to the Sun. They rarely do. We have also exhorted the public schools to submit school pictures like the private schools do. They don't. We run ads encouraging readers to bring us news. Even so, there are dozens of African Americans in the Sun every week. I dare you to find one incident when any newspaper in my organization for any reason tried to turn away news from any African American organization.
Regarding the "letter to the editor" published ten years ago in the Northside Sun. Yes, a reader wrote that African Americans should be grateful for slavery because it brought them to America. We print letters to the editor from a variety of political viewpoints--left, right and in between. I can't believe you have to rely on one line from a letter to the editor a decade ago--something I didn't even write--to label me a racist and basically call me a discredit to my family's civil rights history--of which I am rightfully proud. I have explained the details of that situation to the JFP which you published years ago. To bring that letter to the editor up nine years later seems like a desperate attempt to scratch up anything you can find to label me a racist.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 6 June 2013, 1:49 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
MORE: Although many civil rights battles have been won, other battles remain. The battle for life itself in Africa. To that end, I helped developed an organization called Clean Water for Malawi. Please check out our website at http://cleanwaterformalawi.org/ . Emmerich Newspapers has contributed thousands of dollars to make it successful. My newspapers around the state have run hundreds of free full page ads promoting this organization. We have dozens of Africans on the payroll in Malawi going out to impoverished villages drilling water wells so the children and elderly won't die of dysentery and cholera. You (Donna Ladd) say you frequently pick up the Sun. Have you not seen the hundreds of pro bono ads in the Sun promoting Clean Water for Malawi? This fall I spent 90 hours on a plane and countless hours on dusty dangerous African roads travelling mapping locations for wells and monitoring our drilling crews and meeting with the villagers. We have saved hundreds--perhaps thousands of lives. And not a one of them is white. Does this not mean anything to you? You say you want me to join you in your cause to help Mississippi improve. Is that the way you extend a hand? By allowing your staff to distort my face, call me a racist and imply I have shamed my family's legacy?
How about the Jackson Free Press running some Clean Water for Malawi ads for free? Or at least maybe JFP could do a story on Clean Water for Malawi. I am available 24/7 to talk to one of your reporters. Or maybe even an editorial commending our efforts. Or perhaps I could interest you and Todd in funding a well for $3,500? One well saves a minimum of one hundred lives. That's $35 a life. If JFP got on board, you could probably save thousands of African lives. Or better yet, you and Todd could come with me on my next trip to Africa. You can see for yourselves what great work we are doing there and help spread the word.
For years I have financially supported Mission Mississippi and written glowing columns praising their efforts. Is this the work of a racist?
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 6 June 2013, 1:48 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
Wyatt Emmerich sent the JFP another response late last night. Donna Ladd told him that it was too long for the print edition, but that we would post it online. Here it is:
Dear Editor:
Regarding your printed allegation that I have proclaimed myself "arbiter of all things black:" I reread my column about which JFP is referring and I could not find any language remotely related to a "proclamation" of myself "arbiter of all things black." So first of all, your allegation is patently false from the get go. Also, you have doctored my photo using Photoshop to give me a different chin, but let's just leave that aside.
What exactly was racist about my column? I wrote that it is Lumumba's politics--not his race--that makes him unpopular among northeast Jackson whites. I also wrote that I understand how African Americans could vote for Lumumba because he spent years in the trenches fighting the good fight during Mississippi's sordid period of segregation. How is that racist? Does calling segregation sordid strike you as something a racist would say? Google the definition of "sordid" and you will find these synonyms: squalid - mean - vile - filthy - nasty - foul - base.
The northeast Jackson distaste for Chockwe [sic] is his leftist ideology. The same leftwing ideology that led to a hundred million deaths in China and Russia. His advocacy of violence combined with his leftist ideology makes my skin crawl and it is not race.
As a publisher, I don't mind being poked at by a competing publication. It goes with the territory. But what has really offended me is your allegation that I have betrayed the Emmerich family's 80-year history of fighting for civil rights for African Americans.
Ten years ago or so, I lost probably a million dollars in advertising when my paper, the Clarksdale Press Register, reported on the blackballing of a black doctor's application to the all-white country club. Not only did we report on this with numerous stories, but we also editorialized on the wrongness of this. After campaign, the newspaper never recovered, eventually requiring us to go from daily to twice weekly publication. Not once did I waver in doing what was right. I would think such efforts would earn me a measure of respect among my journalistic colleagues. This is a prime example of what my newspapers have done, but I can tell you day in and day out my newspapers promote racial diversity and fairness throughout Mississippi. Do you think that happens in a vacuum? Is that the work of a closet racist? Do you realize how many African Americans work in my company? Check out the "diversity" of the Greenwood Commonwealth or the Greenville Delta Democrat Times or the Yazoo Herald.
On Stinker Quote of the Week: 'Blacker'
Posted 6 June 2013, 1:47 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
Pilgrim3, since the city (aka citizens) is paying for the report, I expect the information will be public information. We'll be following up.
On Rating the Streets
Posted 2 May 2013, 1:38 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
Thanks, Sara. Meeting Rep. Straughter was a defining moment for me. It brought many conversations into sharp focus.
On Move Your Feet
Posted 10 April 2013, 1:51 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
Herring registered as a lobbyist on March 13, 2013, with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2013--the earliest date possible for this year as printed on the registration form.
So, is she *now* making money from lobbying? If not, why bother registering?
On Terri Herring: Lobbyist?
Posted 30 March 2013, 5:13 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
LadiesFirst, statistics without context is almost always sensationalism, IMHO.
Just repeating that Jackson had 66 homicides says absolutely nothing useful. Who are the victims? Who are the perpetrators and have they been apprehended? What were the circumstances? Where did the crimes occur?
If all you're going to do is repeat the numbers, it's fear mongering. Knowing the answers to the questions and putting those crimes into their proper context may actually provide a way to deal with them rationally.
On Quinn Campaign Fires Back On New Crime Stats
Posted 29 March 2013, 2:23 p.m. Suggest removal
RonniMott says...
Let's also admit that people known to their victims are responsible for most violent crimes--murders, rapes, assaults and so forth . The reason that "stranger" crimes are so shocking is that they are not the norm when you look at the bigger picture.
From the [Bureau of Justice][1]: "From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims."
Most violence occurs in families, between "friends" or associates, etc. If our society is going to address violent crime effectively, we have to also deal with attitudes that make it OK to slam a "loved one" into a wall, punch him or her in the face, or resort to rape when a person is drunk.
It's all connected, and those attitudes begin to take hold in infancy.
[1]: http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&ii…
On Quinn Campaign Fires Back On New Crime Stats
Posted 29 March 2013, 11:43 a.m. Suggest removal