My Response to the Comments from Greg Flannery of CityBeat
I will start off by giving an apology to Doug Trapp. As Greg stated, Doug originally used the term "riot" in place of "uprising" and "rebellion", but Greg changed them. Greg then should at least be in my Media Dog House; the Hall of Shame was a bit harsh. I really do not think Greg's reasoning as to why he felt those words were better than "riot" holds up. If the intention was to illustrate the motivations of specific members of Stonewall, then I believe the way those words were used fails at that intention. The words were used in a manner that indicated a fact to the reader, not as the motivator of the people referenced. Here is the paragraph in question from the original article:

More so than the other new board members, Ford, McCleese and Bruins were energized by the social movement that followed the April 2001 uprising in Over-the-Rhine. From the rebellion emerged two new groups -- the Coalition for a Just Cincinnati and Citizens Concerned for Justice -- that joined the Black United Front in a boycott of downtown businesses.

What I found to be the problem is that the article declares that the "events" as Greg called them in his email, were not what motivated them, it was the aftermath of the events. Those events cannot honestly be called an uprising or rebellion. They were riots. I stated in my article that calling them a civil disturbance or unrest was not ideal, but they are politically positive terms for the black activist community that became generally acceptable by most of the media. They became reasonable. They were still not accurate, but they were within reason. By changing these words you spun the story to support the propaganda of boycotters.

As to Greg’s overall comments on the April 2001 riots I can only read it as revisionism. They only day with nonviolent protests was the Saturday after the Funeral of Timothy Thomas. Those were not technically illegal protests, but they were nonviolent. On the nights of rioting there was no nonviolent protests on the streets, at least none to speak of. Claiming that the riots were justified is not only wrong, it is sad. There is no justification to run around town breaking windows, throwing bricks and bottles at white motorists, looting stores, and shooting at police.

Luken's term “terrorist” was correctly used for hate groups like the "Black Fist" and the "New Black Panther Party." Those types of groups, whose members are wrapped up in with the boycott groups, are a few steps from becoming a "PLO" or "Islamic Jihad" type group. At this point the CBUF and the CJC have even been tainted by allegations of the use of threats and intimidation as stated by former Judge Nathaniel Jones. The boycott is extortion, so “terrorist” really is not a bad comparison. I can see where the timing of when Luken used it as a problem, since it was not to long after the 9/11 attacks.

What I find terrible about the entire situation, not so much of an issue with CityBeat, is that several of the boycott demands are things that I would agree with. What I cannot agree with is the means the boycotters seek to gain those demands. Instead of organizing a political campaign, they are trying to force a brand of progressive-populism on the populace with a neo-Leninist style to it. As a liberal I can find it difficult to draw a line with groups that under different circumstance I might find common causes. Instead I am pushed away and blamed for history based on the color of my skin. That is sad.