Dangler condemns Jesse Jackson's use of the N-word

Finally.

Even though it is buried in deep in a Courier article about my intentionally controversial use of the N-word, an African-American leader, Lorenzo W. Dangler, President of the Greater Long Branch NAACP said, "The Rev. Jesse Jackson, as a one-time revered civil rights leader in our country, was wrong, whether or not a microphone was on. As a reverend, Jesse Jackson should never have than kind malice in his heart for anyone."

Yet, Dangler went on to justify Jackson's filthy remark. According to the Courier, Dangler said jealousy for Barack Obama's success thus far in his presidential bid may be a cause for Jackson's vulgarity.

It seems to me that Dangler called Jackson a jealous has been and a charlatan. On that we can agree.

Dangler also characterised my posts about Jackson, the N-word, and race as "not acceptable", "ignorant", "not reasonable," and "not productive." I respect his opinion.

Dangler was also very generous with me. He said that this blog is influential and that I am "an intelligent and educated man, but one who is still thinking back to the early civil rights days and earlier. That is why the United States is where it is at today. People think this is a way to generate conversation and it truly is not."

I appreciate Mr. Dangler's kindness and disagree that my thinking is still back in the 60's and earlier. I think in terms of race relations and equality, The United States is a better place than any other and better than it has ever been. We still have a ways to go. From what I have heard second hand, Mr. Dangler had to deal with quite of bit of anger before making such a gracious statement.

My only regret about the controversial posts, so far, is the angst I understand that they brought up for Mr. Dangler.

Please note I said "brought up" not "caused." I maintain that I did not cause this controversy. I take full responsibility for stirring it up and keeping it going, but it is always brewing below the surface of our inter-racial relationships. Generally speaking white people are fearful of this conversation and black people are angry about it. Thus, we go out of our way to avoid the conversation rather than work through those volatile and unpleasant emotions and get to a place where we better understand each other.

I hope to be able to establish a dialogue with Mr. Dangler wherein I am perfectly willing to genuinely understand the error of my ways, if that proves to be the case, rather than to simply avoid using the term with no understanding of what the usage of the term means when a white person uses it, vs. when a black person uses it.

The other critics of mine cited in the Courier and with their own blogs are laughable liberal white suburbanites looking for attention. I suspect that none of them have any significant relationships with any black people or members of any other minority. The loon blogger wannabes who tried to make this a partisan issue by attempting to drag Eric Sedler and Joe Oxley into it are pond scum of the DailyKos, Moveon.org variety, but with a lot less talent.

To me, it is very telling that in our little corner of the blogosphere and in Northern Monmouth County where The Courier articles will be read, that my comments are more controversial than Jackson's, and that Jackson's comments are old forgotten news for most of the rest of the world.

I am grateful to my friend Jim Purcell for giving this conversation exposure in his paper and on his blog. He knowingly took my bait, even though he disagrees with my methods.