
According to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for a white man to call his Black employee "boy", that is is NOT an indication of racial animus!
Two successive Alabama juries had found in favor of John Hithon in the case of Ash vs. Tyson Foods, awarding him back pay, $300,000 in compensatory and $1 million in punitive damages. His claim was that he had been passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified white employees. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the two juries.
One of the more shocking findings of the appeals court was that the use of the term "boy" towards Mr. Hithon WAS NOT racially significant, but instead was one of several "ambiguous stray remarks". At one point, the supervisor called Mr. Hithon "boy" in front of his wife, which prompted her to respond "He is not a boy, he's a MAN!"
Post racial America, my ass. The use of the term "boy" to infantilize and dehumanize Black men has a long history in this nation. So strong,in fact, that during the Civil Rights movement, Black men were often seen with signs reading "I am a Man" in protest of the habit Americans, particularly Southerners, had of referring to Black men as "boy". For the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to IGNORE this long history of the use of "boy" as a derogatory, racist term is a travesty of justice.
The two judges who came to this conclusion, Judges Edward E. Carnes and William H. Pryor Jr, are both sons of the south, who obviously are familiar with the nasty history of the use of the term "boy" towards Black men. Yet, they STILL reached the decision that it is OK for the supervisor to refer to Mr. Hithon in this manner. They even had the AUDACITY to CHASTISE a lawyer for the plaintiff for attempting to elicit testimony drawing parallels between the use of the term "boy" and the N-word. It is REALLY time for the antiquated, racist attitudes of these two judges to be removed from our legal system.
Hopefully, the Supreme court will agree to review this case, and the decision of this court will be reversed.
For more information click HERE
Friday, August 27, 2010
He's not a Boy, He's a MAN!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Labels
"reverse racism"
"you people"
9/11
abuse
aclu
activism
advertising
affirmative action
afghanistan
aiyana jones
american exceptionalism
anti-racism
AZ
Bagram
barack obama
bethany storro
big business
biometric identification
bizzare foods
blackface
blaming the victims
blind side
bloggers unite
blogging
bones
books
Boondocks
BP
brainwashing
bullying
C.O.W.S. radio show
cabbagegate
carl paladino
cartoons
celebrities
center for immigration studies
children
cholera
christianity
civil rights
class divisions
cnn
conservatives
conspiracy
constitution
crime
cultural appropriation
cultural tourism
culture
dating
death
democrats
discovery channel
disease
domestic violence
Domino's
Dr. Laura
economy
education
elections
eminem
environmentalism
erica winchester
ethnocentrism
family
fashion industry
fat discrimination
fbi
feminism
food stamps
foster care
fox news
funny videos
george grier
george w. bush
Glen McConnell
glenn beck
globalizaton
government
ground zero mosque
Guantanamo
guatemala
guest
haiti
halloween
hate crimes
history
hit and run
homeless
hostages
hugson jean
immigration
imperialism
in memorium
injustice
intelligence
interracial relationships
Iraq
isis papers
Islam
israel
Jamal Thomas
james hart
james jay lee
james jones
jasiri x
Jennifer Hyatte
jews
johannes mehserle
johns hopkins
juneteenth
just desserts
karen owen
kkk
kraft
law
lgbt
literacy
loose change
lynching
malcolm x
manheim farm show parade
marriage
martin erzinger
martin luther king jr
media
medicaid
medical experiments
melissa harris-lacewell
melissa petro
Mensa
mental health
michael moore
military
monte smith
mother
move
movies
music
N-word
naacp
nazi
neely fuller jr.
new jim crow
new world order
nutrition
Oil spill
omar thornton
oscar grant
parade
parents
patriotism
Patty bigbee
paul epley
paul warren pardus
pen pals
pictures
police
politics
poor people
poverty
prison reform
privacy
progress
prop 107
prostitute teacher
public housing
race
racial profiling
racism
rand paul
rap music
Raul grijalva
reality tv
relationships
religion
reparations
reproductive coercion
republicans
Rich Iott
rich people
rick sanchez
Robert F. Williams
rush limbaugh
satire
sb1070
school lunches
segregation
self harm
sex
sex thesis
sexism
sexual assault
shirley sherrod
social security
socialist worker
socioeconomics
steve miller
steven thrasher
suicide
syphilis
technology
teen pregnancy
terminology
terrorism
the code
the nation
the progressive
theatre
tim wise
torture
tribal wives
trojan horse
village voice
violence
voting
war
war on drugs
warren davis
welfare
west indian day
white people
white supremacy
women
workplace violence
yvonne hiller


3 comments:
I'm gonna have to throw the bullshit flag on this one!!!
And Reggie, I am not really sure of the details, but I believe the supreme court had even told the court it had to rethink its decision that
"boy" was not racist, and they STILL came to this conclusion!
This is an example of Federal judges telling Black and female plaintiffs to go fu . . . migate themselves. Many other courts have decided the opposite with the respect to this sort of color-aroused antagonist behavior by co-workers and managers, and other courts have ruled against systemically color-aroused workplaces.
The fact that they minimized the behavior, calling it "ambiguous stray remarks", just shows how much they have to manipulate their account of the trial record while trying to justify their decision.
I guess saying, "Boy, would you like to eat some watermelon and fried chicken before we take these nooses, hang you from a tree, and cut you big black dick off?" would also be considered a string of unrelated "ambiguous stray remarks." This could really raises the bar in the 11th Circuit if it's allowed to stand.
It's on a par with the Ledbetter case, where the US Congress had to legislate a solution for a class of women to whom the US Supreme Court had closed his doors.
Post a Comment