Using the victim card stifles the life of a community and sends a message of powerlessness. The identity of victim is always used for at least two purposes: appealing to emotions and searching for advantage.
I read with interest an article in the local newspaper, News-Press, concerning the arrest of an individual who was conducting a pirate radio station in the local black community of Dunbar. I do not know the man. Apparently, multiple other people in the community knew well of the illegal activity. The story begins recounting the arrest and describing the community by appeals of segregation-era pictures of a railroad dividing blacks from whites.
According to the story, the station exists because black voices have supposedly been excluded and even derided in regular radio. The argument goes the traditional way of victim-focused storytelling: Blacks are in the News only when there is a crime and no positive stories are available in the regular press about people of color. I know that to be an outright lie in the SW Florida region, where a good amount of positive coverage of minorities is indeed available on a regular basis.
In our area, by the way, there are legal Hispanic radio stations and multiple radio and TV programs. The reason given for stealing a radio signal someone else is paying for, is that there is a great need for the service, as assessed by those supporting the activity. If one does not like that Dunbar is in the news for crime, why commit a crime to change such perceived reality?
“Local voices and the voices of people of color have been left out in particular”, tells us an advocate for “community radio” with the Prometheus Radio Project. We get it, racism is the reason for committing a felony. After all, it seems to be an act of fighting for social justice, an act of civil disobedience. That is the party line. Again, there are several radio stations ran by “people of color” in our area, as well as TV programs prominently hosted by minorities. Several black and Hispanic churches conduct services on TV and radio. Local black personalities have run radio programs for years. There is no such exclusion. The gentleman who was arrested, I am sure, is a good guy. He skipped his arraignment to go to Washington to “tell his story.” Some community leaders praised the illegal action in the name of some good supposedly done; the end justifies the means.
The story goes into the absurd when we read that at a local Family Dollar store we can only hear the air conditioning hum as there is no longer the possibility of good Hip Hop music on the radio. I mean can’t they buy an inexpensive system and a few CDs? By the way, I remember listening to this local radio signal running at times the most foul Hip Hop music. It was the lofty community radio station. The same story tells us that a year ago the Local Community Radio Act was passed easing restrictions for licensing applications for new community-based radio stations. The good news apparently did not deter the radio signal stealing. A petition supporting the gentleman is ongoing and the apparent purpose is to support the community station. Why not do this before breaking the law? No, this is not the way to advance the good name of the very good people of Dunbar. This is playing the victim and justifying the unjustifiable by appeals to erroneous visions of “social justice.”
January 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm
There was no victim playing involved, by the way you cant still a airwave,
The FCC wasn’t doing their job and it was killing our community. I keep hearing they should just get a license from people that don’t know what their talking about.
January 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm
It was an illegal radio station, according to the story. According to the story they were violating the law with a clandestine radio station and what they were doing, if really guilty, was a felony. I have been hearing for a long time about this radio station and have heard it myself for years. Whether or not the FCC was “doing its job” is another matter, never a good reason to violate the law. All this according to the news story.
January 17, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I just wish you would give throught to the reason it was needed.
Try this, go to smokinggun.com there you will find a mug shot of Rosa parks
Now consider this,sometimes the law has to be broken for things to change, but it’s probaly easier for you to generalize, and after all you wouldn’t want to pass up the chance to claim that blacks are just playing the victim card.
January 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm
The issue is not whether or not something is needed. There are many things needed but such need does not justify breaking the law. There are multiple minority voices on radio and TV locally. If another is needed, go through the process other minority voices have gone through without violating the law. To compare this with Rosa Parks is baffling!
I have not generalized, I speak of this specific instance. And you do not know me and what I do to say I would not pass an opportunity to say blacks (in general) all claim victimhood. That would be generalizing! But that there are blacks (and Hispanics and whites and Asians, etc…) who at times play the race card goes without saying. The Civil Rights movement and civil disobedience is a totally different phenomenon than this. Civil Rights leaders requested often permits for which they have a right according to how the law was at the time. When denied, they openly told all what they were doing and took the consequences. If there were no minority radio stations anywhere in SW Florida this was something to change, openly and publicly. But that is not the case! If there would have v=been an open campaign to create a station for long and no one cared and you then said, publicly, “I will open it even if arrested.” Then there may be a similarity and I can respect that. Now, to own and operate a radio station is not a civil right (even if unjustly denied). The Civil Rights movement was a totally different thing and to create an artificial link is indeed generalizing!
January 18, 2012 at 4:38 pm
I am all for the community having a legal, effective radio station. I think it would be a positive instrument to do much good. I simply do not think that the way is by violating the law, as if this was a civil rights issue. Why not go first to the many organizations and individuals willing to help. It may have been a difficult process, maybe long. Good things demand such processes, they are worth it. In the meantime, why not have programs in the available media while engaging on a concerted campaign to open a station? Why not use News-Press, TV, and all other means to have a campaign before deciding to go clandestine? Perception becomes reality and you cannot erase a perception of “law violators” by violating the law. And no, there is no equivalency with the Civil Rights Movement. Such movements are last resort, open, direct. One must exhaust first all possible avenues to finally use that last resort. Many good things are accomplished without violating the law. For one, to be a truly “community radio” the community must have a say and a part, it cannot be a clandestine effort of a few people making decisions on an unlawful endeavor. I am all for it, done properly.
January 18, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Do you know anything about sw florida or the Radio situation? Where are these minority Radio stations?
You say it’s not a civil right issue and you don’t see the connection, you said “there’s never a good reason to break the law ” rosa parks has a mug shot because she was breaking the law when she refused to give up he seat to a white person, that’s why she has a mug shot.
Since this has accrued it has pricked the consciousness of people within and with out the Black community that agree that has not been fair treatment of the Dunbar Community in the local Media.
To be honest I have no problem with anything you’ve said but to act as if this is a simple matter that could have been avoided is non sense.
And as far as trying to go thought the proper channels I know how hard that is, I also know how it feels to get the door slam in your face at every turn.
I Have a great deal of respect for you, so any positive guidance you can provide would be appreciated
January 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm
You are taking that phrase out of the context of the entire sentence. Here the entire sentence: “Whether or not the FCC was “doing its job” is another matter, never a good reason to violate the law.” It is never a good reason to volate the law that a law is inefficient or erroneous or unwise. In other words, that an agency like the FCC is not doing its job is not an excuse to violate the law. That is the extent of my comment. This was not a general assertion that “never a law can be violated.” An unjust law that attempts against a human right can (and at times must) be violated. When a civil law attempts against a human right it fails to conform to the character of law.
You took a phrase that refers only to violating erroneous or ineffective laws (which are not per se against human rights) and generalized my comment; which was not general at all! Rosa Parks is a hero for doing what she did, openly and publicly.
We can “accrue the conscience of a community” without violating the law. Changes can occur without violating the law. We have the power and will to fight for the good people of Dunbar (and all their needs) without recurring to breaking the law. I do not see any unfairness in the local Media toward Dunbar. Just to allege something is not to prove it. But even if there was an “injustice” there the road was to garner support legally to change things, not to violate the law.
By now, I have been working in Dunbar for 15 years. As youth director, religion director and director of AFCAAM. Now with The Freedom & Virtue Institute. I love my people as much as the next guy. I am also a proud Conservative. I am married to the only woman in my life, an African American. My grandmother was born a slave in Puerto Rico, owned by the Gordils y Colon family. I do not want to see the reinforcement of stereotypes by our unwise actions.
If the door is slammed, garner support. If it is hard, try again. There are ways to do this without violating the law. I am not saying it was simple, but if it is hard try harder and wiser. Others in other communities have been able to solve larger problems through legal means. I repeat, I do not know who are the men who created this station. I do not know in what way they were empowered by the community to initiate this effort. I do know that if they were trying there were avenues and groups and individuals (me included) that would have used all our connections to help them get a radio station. I simply do not see the need to violate the law simply because something is tough. Our people have overcome tougher tests than this by lawful means. And I have nothing bad to say about those who did this. I acknowledge they were trying to do good and they may be wonderful people. Please, do not construe my position as a personal attack, as it is not. But the means used reinforce the very stereotypes they are trying to overcome!
January 19, 2012 at 12:10 am
I know who you are, it may surprise you to know you were discussed on one of the radio shows.
As for enforcing stereo types if anything this station showed what was possible to this community.
I can’t argue that it was done the right way, because by law, it was wrong, my personal hope was/is that people will understand why it was done, even if they disagree.
Also none of the people involved made any money or profited in anyway.
January 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Well, you may know me as an acquaintance. I might recognize you if I see you, but you do not know me with the intimacy needed to make sure assertions. But no, I am not surprised that I was discussed on a radio program. Now, was this on the illegal station? It is always nice and correct to inform people when they are “discussed” as to offer them an opportunity to speak for self. I would not have participated on a program in an illegal radio station but it would still have been correct to notify. Don’t you think? But I am used to being “discussed.” As I follow my conscience, I am ok with whatever is said.
I repeat, I am sure the station had some good programing but my point is not concerning the content of the programming but the means toward being on the air.
I never have said anyone was there for money. I have said clearly that I assume the people involved are good people. I listened to the station often and there was some good. There was some music played there I would have never hear myself or let my children be exposed to, but some good was done.
I simply expressed my opinion that in doing tings this way we are not doing what is in the long-term best interest of people. I do think the story (which was what I initially discussed) showed an instance of playing the victim. That is an assertion of how I saw the thrust of the story, not an indictment on anyone.
And I repeat, I am of course 100% for any community initiative, like a radio station, that is a good thing. But the end does not justify the means, in my view. I was happy to know there was a conservative voice there. But that fact, which I could use to justify the whole thing, has no bearing on my position. I wish I would have ever known people in the community were legally pursuing a radio station. I would have lent my support.
January 19, 2012 at 10:17 pm
I am sympathizing with you. I am praying for those who did this. I can see they were trying to do good and fr that, I commend them. I just have a problem with the way it was done. I truly do not want to go on in a negative way. I am a Christian before I am anything else. If my words offended, I am sorry, as it was not my intention. I do not apologize for my opinion but if in any way in trying to convey it I was less than charitable, I truly am sorry.
Peace to you.
January 19, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I apologize I should have explained, the host of one of the shows discussed a qoute you made in a documentary film called myaafa 21, it was nothing negative he said he was proud that someone local was apart of the film.
There was offense intended.
And you are correct we only know each other in passing, again there was no offense intended.
January 19, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Correction
“no offense intended”
January 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm
You seem like a good man. I wish you all the best in your endeavors. And yes, abortion is the defining human rights issue of our time, affecting blacks more than anyone else. But the black leadership (and most black pastors, unfortunately) remain silent.