A rebuttal


Recently, I was attacked by a fellow Black blogger for calling out Andrew Young for his  blatant corporate flackery, I didn’t elaborate. This post is meant to be a rebuttal to him and an enumeration of my reasons for denouncing Young. Young’s shameful advocacy on behalf of corporate thieves, corporate killers and African dictators is legendary.   

Others have studied his manifold sins in detail and slammed him in more expansive and eloquent prose than I.   To put it succinctly, Young is multinational crook who conveniently uses the bravery of his youth at the side of Martin Luther King Jr as a public relations shield for the multinational corporate criminals that line his pockets and those of his partners at the Orwellian sounding GoodWorks, International.   

Young was the prime mover behind former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo’s “Presidential Library,” which is nothing more than a façade for corporate extortion and thievery from the public purse. 

Moreover, Young participated in spinning Nigeria’s last two presidential elections as successes that were rife with fraud and extrajudicial killings.  Lastly, he is bed with corporate thieves and killers like ChevronTexaco, which is being sued by Nigerian nationals for conspiring with Nigerian military security under the command of the former President for killing innocent civilians to protect corporate profits.  

As an ordained minister and man of God, Young knows better than to be cavorting with these people.  His actions tarnish the legitimate sacrifices he made on behalf of our people during the movement and he defecates on Dr. King’s legacy.  I shall not give him a pass. 

Mark, I like you brotha and wish you and your beautiful family happiness and success, but I have nothing good to say about Andrew Young and never will.  He is a fraud, a criminal and a corporate whore that has been faking the funk for years-period.  As an attorney and writer, you’re far too well-educated to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.


8 thoughts on “A rebuttal

  1. SB,

    I was wondering if you had read that link. You really did do your homework on this. Reading those links made me disappointed all over again in Andy Young.

  2. Well, thing is, I didn’t call you out for exposing his ties to corporations. Anyone in the know knows his taking many seats on many boards. One can debate which pieces of evidence presented means anything, whether they are damning of him*. My point was not to defend Young in particular, especially on any of his latter day activities, it was a broader point about the tone in which we speak of those who came before us. Someone can dispute what you’ve presented. Can we dispute the role he played in the 60’s (and 70s)? We can disagree with any of these people. I don’t think we have the stripes to diss.

    *Seems to me that Young is still playing the role he was assigned by the SCLC, to act as a bridge, to be the one who could “talk to white folks.”

  3. Maybe, but Andy Young burned those bridges when he started taking checks from those who have a sole purpose in keeping Black people down. He dishonored his own legacy when he started sleeping with the enemy, and he’s not doing anything to correct that. So, SB is well within his rights as a journalist to administer the take-down.

    Our problem is remembering what people like Andy Young used to be, and allowing them to skate on that memory, even when they’re wrong as two left shoes. My generation’s not giving the free pass on him, especially since he’s still aspiring to be a leader of Black people, and not willing to train other young Blacks to pick up the baton and keep moving forward.

  4. What take down? This, I think, is the problem. Snark is not journalism (nor is posting links, to be honest). Nor is guilt by association “sleeping with the enemy.” That stuff doesn’t bother me so much since it is a common plague in progressive causes — the battle for the space of who is more to the left (or more black or whatever). It’s just to be expected.

    Don’t confuse defending Young with arguing for respect. Still, my point was not about Young in particular, though SB has made it about Young in order to defend himself. This is about how “we” find it so easy to disparage people who made it possible for us to have the wherewithall to sit at a desk and type out our rebellion.

  5. Sounds like somebody should remind Rev. Young about the man he used to be. I agree with Mark that the old guard put their lives on the line and walked the walk with dogs at their heels and guns pointed at their heads. That cannot be ignored. But his transformation from a leader in the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement to corporate pimp is pretty damn convincing, regardless of his SCLC mission.

    What’s the protocol in respecting the man he used to be, after having been betrayed by the man he is now?

  6. Mark,

    You may be of the opinion that marching and organizing during the civil rights movement gives the holder of those credentials a lifetime pass to pursue the agenda of whatever multinational corporate evil they’ve affilliated themselves with, but I don’t. I am sorry that the tone of my remarks about Ambassador Young is disrespectful in your mind. However, I am tired of people like Young who insult the intelligence of blackfolks, conspire to profit from white supremacy, and then demand that we stick by them in a show of racial solidarity. He is a charlatan and I don’t have a problem saying it and neither should you. Again, I wish you and your family every good thing.

  7. civil rights movement gives the holder of those credentials a lifetime pass to pursue the agenda of whatever multinational corporate evil they’ve affilliated themselves with, but I don’t.

    You’re arguing against something I haven’t said. In fact, every time I’ve pointed out that leadership is not above criticism. This isn’t about Young in particular. I haven’t tried to argue with what you believe to be his faux pas to keep this from being about Young and Young alone.

    Even if I believed that he’s some how a traitor to the cause, I wouldn’t call him a “so called civil rights leader.” And frankly, unless and until he’s caught with hands in the cookie jar, history will remember him as a civil rights leader, not a charlatan, and his service on boards and controversial remarks as a senior citizen might not even be a footnote.

    You roll how you roll and I roll how I roll I guess. thanks for the well wishes.

  8. The Observationist

    Quite frankly, America does not need any Sodomites in the White House, nor mass murderers or thieves. The Clintons should go hide under the biggest rock they can find and hope that when the real hailstorm comes they are granted mercy and spared from eternal destruction. Furthermore, all of the “OLD GUARD” blacks ought to be ashamed of themselves for supporting these creeps anyway. There are thousands of people who will have their hands out if the Clintons do slide in the oval office again and will be expecting payoff. America’s politics is all about patronage, because to the “victor goes the spoils.” Many folks have “sold their soul” in the interest of “faith based initiative thought” just to fleece America and the Black Community. Someone once said, “that Black people are their own worst enemy” and this truth is being played out all across the country between those of them who have and those who have not. It’s a tragedy that not one candidate on either side has mentioned how they are going to include rather than exclude those Blacks who feel shutout and betrayed by a country who rather put guns in black boys hands than college degrees. This stuff is all hypocrisy, if you ask me! The devil has manipulated you people into thinking that this is all worth fighting for. So, of course the Clintons, Romney’s and Edwards will be stooping to all-time low, in the days to come, to fend off MR. OBAMA’S chances. Listen to them carefully, the code language has just begun.

Comments are closed.