Do we over-react to, and in effect empower, very notion of Farrakhan?

A part of me becomes amused every time I learn of an incident where someone becomes offended by the very concept of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

We won't see encore come January of 2017 women's march in Chicago

Then again, another part of my essence is bothered by people who want to demonize Farrakhan as the ultimate example of antisemitism in this country.

BECAUSE MY OWN thought is to think of the group with their mosque down around 73^rd Street and Stoney Island Avenue as a fringe element – one that almost borders on irrelevance in the daily lives of the bulk of our society.

Do we manage to elevate their significance every time we try to portray Farrakhan as some sort of demon presence? Are we managing to over bloat the egos of those people inclined to think of Elijah Muhammad as a grand historic figure (and Malcolm X as some sort of renegade)?

And are we feeding into the victim mentality of modern-day Nation of Islam members into thinking they are the ultimate victims – being picked upon by the masses of our society.

Particularly by all those white people amongst us, including the many who do have their racial hang-ups.

FARRAKHAN: Seems to enjoy offending masses

THOUGHTS OF THE Nation of Islam popped into my head on the Day After Christmas when I read news accounts of how there won’t be a Women’s March next month in Chicago.

The event that in recent years has cropped up in placed across the nation to give women a chance to express themselves and show they’re not going to be intimidated into submission in our society was to be held locally on Jan. 19.

The past two years have seen the women march in great numbers (several thousands of people) through the streets of downtown to Grant Park – with the crowds being so great that some marchers hadn’t even begun their walk yet while others were already gathered at the park on the lakefront.

But not in 2019.

IT SEEMS THE Chicago activists who would have coordinated the local version of the Women’s March are upset that the national leadership have expressed support for Farrakhan.

Or maybe it’s that they haven’t thoroughly repudiated Farrakhan enough to satisfy certain elements of society – particularly people who are bothered by the fact that Farrakhan himself gave a speech earlier this year where he both praised Women’s March Inc. leaders, while also blaming “the powerful Jews are my enemy.”

Or, quite possibly, it’s that a whole lot of disparate groups are upset thinking that somebody else is trying to usurp the position they think they ought to have as the ultimate victim?

I’m wondering if the Chicago activists (who say they’ll hold their own event to be held separate of the Women’s Marches that will take place in Washington, D.C., and other cities across the nation) are really doing nothing more than empowering the Farrakhan followers.

GIVING THEM MORE reasons to think he’s a great man worthy of dignity and their respect – instead of just another crackpot saying whatever he thinks will gain him some public attention regardless of how ridiculous he sounds or how offensive he comes off as being.

Farrakhan followers congregate on Stoney Island, and nowhere else

And yes, I’m very aware that some people will read that last sentence and think I’m attacking Farrakhan himself.

Even though a part of me thinks we all tend to focus way too much attention on the man himself.

I’m sure the only real winners in all of this verbal brouhaha turns out to be that segment of our society that takes great pleasure from this Age of Trump we’re now in – as I’m sure they view the constant haggling amongst the majority of us as evidence of their own narrow-mindedness having a touch of legitimacy.

  -30-

How many tried to march in Chicago to show contempt for Donald Drumpf

I remember once talking with an Illinois State Police trooper (now retired) who explained the art of putting together an official crowd estimate at large-scale events.
 

Evidence was about of the women's rally

He told me the trick was to count out a group of 500 people, figure out how much space they occupy, then figure out by how many multiples the total event is larger than that group.

A QUICKIE MULTIPLICATION then gives you a crowd estimate that sounds like it’s official and scientific. But in a way makes about as much sense as the so-called rules of crowd estimates that always said a president would draw 100,000 people, an astronaut would get 300,000 and the Pope would draw 1 million people. While Republican political candidates (in Chicago, at least) would be lucky to draw 10 people.

Well-mannered crowd let contempt be known

The point is that these estimates ought not to be taken too seriously.

Which is what entranced me about the Chicago version of the women’s march that occurred Saturday. The crowd got so big that the event originally planned got overwhelmed.

Organizers who wanted to have a crowd march from Grant Park to the plaza outside the federal government buildings for Chicago (about a three-block walk) expected it would be about 50,000 people.

BUT IT SEEMS the crowd that actually showed up would have stretched so long that you would have had some marchers literally arrived at the destination and waiting for followers while others would have been waiting for their chance to start marching.

Jessica, my niece, makes her view known. Photographs of rally provided by Vicki Magginnis-Burnett

The crowd was too big. The event wound up becoming a mid-day rally Saturday in the park.

Which probably makes a certain level of sense. Personally, I’d think a chance for people to gather and listen to speakers would make more of a physical impression than people walking through the streets.

Taste of 'Hamilton' for those who can't get tickets

Which would have the potentially negative impact of irritating passing pedestrians and possibly making some of them into Trump backers. Or maybe just crochety old people upset that their business downtown was interfered with?

SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 150,000 and 250,000 people (two of whom were my sister-in-law Vicki and teenage niece Jessica) was enough to overwhelm Chicago, and make us the national exception. Other cities were capable of doing marches, particularly in the District of Columbia.

Where it seems the official amount is 470,000 people. Which march organizers are claiming is more people than showed up for the Inaugural ceremonies held Friday for the beginning of the Trump presidency. Which we’ll never know for sure because federal officials are refusing to provide a figure for the number of people who showed up to see Donald J. take the oath of office.

Which may be a responsible thing to do.

Thinking of this event brought to mind the most recent large-scale event – the World Series parade and rally following the Chicago Cubs’ victory in early November. Five-Million-People is the officially recognized stat for that event.

NOW I REALIZE the Cubs’ rally was a stationary event, rather than a moving march. Which means it would be natural for more people to be present for baseball rather than showing contempt for the man they will forevermore refer to as Donald Drumpf (allegedly, that was once the family name).

But do we really believe the Cubs gain greater significance because of the concocted figure? Which always struck me as being something concocted by insecure fans who want history to record their World Series-winning rally as being bigger than the one held for the Chicago White Sox (which allegedly drew 1.75 million people) back in 2005.

The new expert in the field of crowd estimates?

The point of crowd estimates is often to provide a “fact” meant to reinforce whatever stance was being asserted by a particular group. Personally, I only offer crowd estimates when I report a story if it is possible that I can do a count for myself.

At least then, a reader can merely question my cipherin’ abilities (remember the Jethro Bodine gazintas?). None of these figures ought to be taken any more seriously than that.

  -30-