quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
I don't think Reid should be drummed out but I lost all respect for him when he apologized. I don't think Trent Lott should've been removed for his toast to a man on his 100th birthday. Lott was a Dixicrat and Robert Byrd was a grand poobah of the KKK. Byrd and Reid get a pass, Lott or any other R that might've said the same thing as Reid would be crucified. Donovan McNabb is and was overrated and the NFL would like to have a black quarterback succeed....was Rush wrong? He was fired. If Al Sharpton said that McNabb was overrated, it would be accepted.
And that is the whole point. Was what reid said racist? Maybe not . Should he step down? I can't say. But I do believe that if a Republican had said the exact same thing, in the exact same way, he would not have been able to just apologize and move on. McCain had to apologize during the election for calling Obama a boy. Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, he was speaking about Obamas age, and not the color of his skin?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
BTW, it doesn't matter if McCain WAS talking about his age, it was still not appropriate, and a stupid thing to say.
Rush didn't just say he was overrated, and claiming that is why he was fired is a load of crap. Claiming that the NFL hyped him only because he was black is a completely different horse. Hell, it's a completely different horse race.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
... Well what you just said was racist, yes, or rather it speaks to a rather troubling prejudice you hold. Not hiring someone who wouldn't appeal to your customer base is not so racist, no. I sense a basic problem for you is differentiating between those two things.
Now Mal, keep in mind a few things. Saying that baggy pants and ebonics and dread locks exist is fine. Saying that certain people have all those attributes is also fine. Approaching this discussion with that as your presented baseline image of a black person... not so fine. So while you are justified in not hiring someone who is not appropriately dressed or groomed for work or doesn't speak in a dialect you find appropriate for dealing with customers (not to mention one's potential employer), you are not justified in approaching these characteristics as strictly racial attributes. It tells me and everyone else here that even if a clean cut black man or woman with a clear speaking voice and slacks on came into your office looking for a job, you would hire that person not for being an appropriate candidate, but for being a confirmation by exception of your prejudices. That's why you talk about black people you know who don't conform to the stereotypes you believe in- because they seem to confirm, to you, the superiority of your ethnic and cultural background. Your actions don't really matter that much, because what you believe- the way you approach people, is marred with this prejudice. That's why nobody buys your nickle stories about black friends- it's because you say crap like *this* that tells us all what you're really all about. Whether that be sinister: the elimination by social and political pressure of the "impure" or "un-American" black culture, or the rather more mundanely racist: "I don't want anything to do with those people." Again Mal, this can have *nothing* to do with your actions, and everything to do with your reasons for acting as you do. Since you've demonstrated zero understanding of the distinction, I'm not optimistic at all that this will even reach you- nothing else has.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: McCain had to apologize during the election for calling Obama a boy. Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, he was speaking about Obamas age, and not the color of his skin?
Obama was at the time a 47 year old man. It was insulting, and because of the highly racially charged nature of that term, particularly to middle aged black people who can remember it being used, the connection leapt out- it was not insinuated by cynical ears looking for mistakes.
A couple of battles are going on. While there indeed *are* cynical ears and opportunist pundits spinning things out of control, there remain subtle yet very real verbal cues and subliminal rhetorical devices being used to appeal to prejudice. I don't even suppose that McCain was perfectly conscious of the nature of his statement at the time. However, his intent was to diminish Obama through his choice of words, and the word that came out was "boy." There is no way, mark me, that McCain is not familiar with the racial history of that word. Though I don't believe that every statement should be guarded, or every intent shrouded in opaque and neutral language, if you're going to commit to using words in order to undermine someone else, you are going to have to accept responsibility for the hurt that those words can cause. That was a big mistake, and though it may not have gone over as McCain had expected or hoped, it was also not an accident. Liken it, if you will, to speeding or rolling through a stop sign. McCain thought, or maybe just "felt" in a more subconscious sense, that he could slip it by without having it pop back up at him. It didn't slip by, and I'm glad of that.
That said, we're only talking about an apology. When you say something like that, and it is taken very poorly by the person you're talking about, you apologize. Even if McCain didn't mean that or wasn't thinking about that on any level, an apology was still in order. The fact that I think he *was* thinking that and appealing to others who also have that thought isn't so important, except to show that there are people who remain sensitive to such language. I know, for myself, that I would never, ever say something like that about a black man. I probably wouldn't ever say it about anyone who wasn't an actual boy, but I know damn well what it means and why it is hurtful, and McCain should know that too. Ignorance is a weak defense for a man in his position.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank goodness I don't think of boy as a racially charged term (in that, in my generation there's a good chance it won't be racially charged).
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:...there remain subtle yet very real verbal cues and subliminal rhetorical devices being used to appeal to prejudice.
Actually, I would put the words 'Negro' and 'speaks so well' as words and phrases that appeal to prejudice, too. In Reid's case being used to say, "He's a black man, but he is not like these things."
I can say that with about as much certainty as you're reading McCain's mind, Orincoro, please keep that in mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's already in mind, Rakeesh. I see a difference in that Reid is actually talking directly about race, so while he's calling to mind to these stereotypes, he's doing it to a purpose that is different from McCain's. He's doing it so that he can talk about it- talking about it is not wrong, although some people still do object to the word in any context, even if someone is using it particularly because it has a conflicted history. Subtle rhetoric is not disallowed from politics- it's only really wrong to do it, and then to deny doing it, or of course to do it with a more nefarious purpose, like imprint the notion of Obama being a "boy" in the way that the word can be used.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's doing it so that he can talk about it- talking about it is not wrong...
Whether it's wrong or not seems to me to depend entirely on intent.
If the intent is to offer up 100% analysis on the situation and nothing else, then no, I don't think it's wrong. If the intent is to offer up, say, 50% analysis and 50% persuasion, though...well, that makes things different.
Because I'm trying to think of what, exactly, he could have been attempting to persuade people of with those remarks, and coming up with only a few guesses. Some of them are dubious at best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Reid's statement wasn't racist. America was ready to elect a person of color who sounded intelligent. Especially after the verbally handicapped Bush. The double standard is this.....you come into my shop with your sagging pants, dread locks and ebonics, I'm not going to hire you to represent my company. Is that racist?
... Well what you just said was racist, yes, or rather it speaks to a rather troubling prejudice you hold. Not hiring someone who wouldn't appeal to your customer base is not so racist, no. I sense a basic problem for you is differentiating between those two things.
Now Mal, keep in mind a few things. Saying that baggy pants and ebonics and dread locks exist is fine. Saying that certain people have all those attributes is also fine. Approaching this discussion with that as your presented baseline image of a black person... not so fine. So while you are justified in not hiring someone who is not appropriately dressed or groomed for work or doesn't speak in a dialect you find appropriate for dealing with customers (not to mention one's potential employer), you are not justified in approaching these characteristics as strictly racial attributes. It tells me and everyone else here that even if a clean cut black man or woman with a clear speaking voice and slacks on came into your office looking for a job, you would hire that person not for being an appropriate candidate, but for being a confirmation by exception of your prejudices. That's why you talk about black people you know who don't conform to the stereotypes you believe in- because they seem to confirm, to you, the superiority of your ethnic and cultural background. Your actions don't really matter that much, because what you believe- the way you approach people, is marred with this prejudice. That's why nobody buys your nickle stories about black friends- it's because you say crap like *this* that tells us all what you're really all about. Whether that be sinister: the elimination by social and political pressure of the "impure" or "un-American" black culture, or the rather more mundanely racist: "I don't want anything to do with those people." Again Mal, this can have *nothing* to do with your actions, and everything to do with your reasons for acting as you do. Since you've demonstrated zero understanding of the distinction, I'm not optimistic at all that this will even reach you- nothing else has.
Keeping in mind that there are many whites who dress, look, and talk the exact same way, is it still racist? Because I personally as an employer would not hire ANYONE who I deem is not appropriate for my business, regardless of race.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't Reid's comment made in private as well? Doesn't that change something? I have also given a pass to Republicans on somethings (which if you search on hatrack, you can see). I believe the tar baby comment was made by a republican and I said that was ridiculous to get upset over, and I also defended McCain's racist comments about Vietnamese (not that the comments were ok, just that with his history, I can understand).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give McCain a pass on any comments he has made against Vietnamese in the past. I don't agree with the statements, but if you were held as a POW for as long as he was and went through that experience you may make the same kind of comments.
Orinoco, I agree with you on the intent of Reid's statements, but how can you possibly know what McCain's intent was? Yes, he was speaking about his political opponent and it was meant to put him down.
McCain is old! Old enough to be Obama's father. To say that McCain was referring to race and not age is stretching it. Obama called his grandmother a "typical white woman" but not a lot of people took that as a racist comment. I didn't at least.
The point Orinoco is that there are unfortunate statements made on both sides of the isle. Many things politicians say can be interpreted and spun any way you want. They may not have meant it in a racist way, but then the next day people are up in arms about it saying that it was racist.
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that racism only exists to the extent that it does in the US because people want it to. Hell, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make a living of it. I lived in Brazil, and I will say that I never caught any hint of racism. White people were called "Branca" or "Branco" and black people were called "Negra" or "Negro". I knew two guys that went by the names "Negao" (Big Black, "Brancao" (Big White) That is just how people are described down there.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the significant thing to look for here is whether any particular comment is part of a pattern of behaviour.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I give McCain a pass on any comments he has made against Vietnamese in the past. I don't agree with the statements, but if you were held as a POW for as long as he was and went through that experience you may make the same kind of comments.
McCain doesn't get a pass. He gets a mitigating-factors qualifier. I can certainly understand some of the sources his remarks might come from, but you don't get to be President if you're certain things-even if it's perfectlyunderstandable if you're those things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You didn't see the memo? Republicans aren't allowed to use "Democratic" anymore when describing Democrats, as that sounds far too nice.
"What, they're Democratic? Why, they must love Democracy and freedom then!"
We can't have that. It's hard to call them America hating commies when their name implies they might actually appreciate or represent democracy.
Wow. I mean really? Really? Lyyrhawn, are you seriously suggesting that because I said Democrat party instead of Democratic party that I was implying all the nonsense you posted about Democrats being America hating commies? Please be assured I do not believe that Democrats or the Democratic party are America hating commies. I do agree that there are people here, like Malanthrop that may say that, and probably has (I skip most of Malanthrops posts and typically roll my eyes if I make a mistake and read them) but I do not think that. I simply go with Republicans and Republican party....Democrats and Democrat party....I will make sure to use Democratic party in the future. I tried to take as much snark out this as I could...I know there is some left in it though.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
But, regardless of my tongue-in-cheek portrayal there, there HAS been a concerted effort in the last few years by major Republican nation figures to refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party. You can check editorials if you want to see what the pundits think of it, but that's my personal opinion as to why. It's a rhetorical trick, and nothing more.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't hire a white kid who inserted "dude" into every sentence. I wouldn't hire a white kid who speaks ebonics or otherwise sounds like an idiot. I might hire him to work a menial job away from the customer. Reid was right, America is beyond color. Reid wouldn't throw his support at Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Those are token black guys for the Democrat party. Republicans actually have minorities in real positions of power...even dark skinned ones. It's a sign of progress that the Democratic Majority leader believes his party is at least ready for a well-spoken, light-skinned negro. Republicans are color blind but called racist since they care about actual qualifications ahead of skin color. Democrats made a political calculation that both white and black folks would vote for a well spoken light skinned negro. We'll make real progress in this country when Democrats decide to support a dark skinned negro with actual qualifications.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you just rode that logic train right off the rails there, malanthrop.
Republicans are color-blind now because they have actual minorities in positions of power (strangely, even though they're so prominent, you're not naming them). Democrats, though, are hypocrites, because their minorities in position of power are light-skinned.
Man, you are such a hack. Isn't there some Rush Limbaugh forum that would be a better fit or something?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wow, you just rode that logic train right off the rails there, malanthrop.
Republicans are color-blind now because they have actual minorities in positions of power (strangely, even though they're so prominent, you're not naming them). Democrats, though, are hypocrites, because their minorities in position of power are light-skinned.
Man, you are such a hack. Isn't there some Rush Limbaugh forum that would be a better fit or something?
I think the site your thinking of is Stormfront.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was always irritated by the term "house nigger" as it was usually applied to "well spoken" (non-negro dialect) educated conservative blacks. I now realize it's a perfectly appropriate term and is more fitting to Al Sharpton defending Harry Reid.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
So that's one blatant count of being a total hack.
General Powell serves as a much better example than the really crappy example of Gov. Pinchback, as does Secretary Rice. Though of course, Powell is not at all popular with your sort of far-right Republican these days.
Senator Brooke is a good example, though Hiram Revels is not-you don't get to claim the Republican party of Reconstruction as the modern GOP, at least not outside of your dittohead sycophants.
I notice with some surprise you don't include the first black President on your list, nor in fact the first black leader of the Democratic party-also the President, when it's a democrat.
Don't you have hundreds of hours a week to be working, to make your large sums of entirely self-earned money, or something malanthrop? Couldn't you, y'know, go do that instead?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was always irritated by the term "house nigger" as it was usually applied to "well spoken" educated conservative blacks.
Heh. No it wasn't, malanthrop. It was also, by some, applied to 'well-spoken', educated, conservative blacks. But don't let accuracy get in the way of your conservative political talking points.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow mal. I think that is a bit much. I may not agree with a lot of people here politically, but let me be one of the first to say, I think that was a little too far.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correction....the first half-black president. He was a political calculation, tolerable to whites and blacks due to his light skin and non-negro speech...unless he wants to talk black. Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Codoleeza Rice, JC Watts, etc are real blacks but not really since they are conservative. You want to see racism, watch the left's attacks on a minority who holds conservative beliefs. A black conservative is a traitor.
As far as my work schedule, I work nights and have Thur/Fri off. Strange, I know. If you're lucky, I'll be absent for a while...my Reserve Unit is gearing up to send me to Haiti. If you don't hear from me next Thur, you'll know where I'm at. Strange how the most evil country on the face of the Earth is always the one other nations come to in a time of need.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Wow mal. I think that is a bit much. I may not agree with a lot of people here politically, but let me be one of the first to say, I think that was a little too far.
I always viewed that term as a slander against educated conservative blacks. The slander "Uncle Tom" or "House Nigger" was always applied to my educated conservative friends. I had an epiphany. A house nigger is still a slave to his master. That phrase is more appropriate to Al Sharpton defending Reid. Sharpton was never given any real power but Michael Steele is the head of the RNC. To fit that bill, you have to have a master. Steele came right out and told the party, “If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up.”.....house niggers don't say things like that. He's a man who believes in what he says and stands on principle.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's an interesting and thoughtful point. Lots of people - especially around here - regard America as the most evil country on Earth, sort of like an anti-Disney, but with countries. Your pithy remarks will put them in their place!
Also, as for your 'correction'...why do you bother? Who are you persuading? You're annoying people and making yourself look like quite a fool by asserting Obama isn't actually the first black President.
If I want to see racism, maybe I'll look for prominent, powerful Republicans looking back with regret on not electing one of the most famous segregationists ever to the office of the President.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's a man who believes in what he says and stands on principle.
Unless he's talking about your man Rush Limbaugh, in which case standing up firmly for himself becomes something of a slippery concept...and not something to be admired among Republicans, for that matter, because after all, Steele didn't puss out because people in the Republican party weren't upset.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes a man who is 50% black and 50% white....black? Didn't mean to be "pithy". Would he still be black if he was 1/4 black? 1/8th? Only a racist would call him black for having a heavy tan. I'm the racist here despite the fact that in this very thread, I've shared my admiration for a dark skinned black. When I look at Michael Steele I don't see a black man, I see a man and he's darker than Obama. I'm not a racist for opposing Obama.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, what you expressed was admiration for a dark-skinned black Republican.
When a black man toes your political line, then he stops being a racial cut-out. Before that, though, at best he's one of millions of easily-duped and/or bought-off minority nimwits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To you Obama is the first "black" president. To me, he's the 44th president of the United States.
He's half white and half black. I don't view African heritage as some kind of taint that overpowers and erases the other genes. Democrat Georgia segregation laws defined a negro as anyone who had 1/16th of that nigger gene in them.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the eyes of mainstream America, malanthrop, half black counts as black. That is changing but it's still true, and as much as you far-right conservatives would like to chant repetitively that America is color-blind, it just isn't true.
Obama is the first black President, among other things. But that was a nice subject change you just attempted. You're consistent on that if not effective.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are correct, the left is far from color blind. The left love's to categorize people...gay, lesbian, woman, black, hispanic, trangender, whatever.
My great, great, great, grandmother on my mother's side was black. The blacks in my old unit called me "Two Percent". To them I was white and they laughed when I shared my family heritage with them. Could I have been the first black president? Maybe if I was a genetic throwback and looked black I could be? Your definition of "black" is based upon the most racist position of all......appearance. Obama could've ended up looking white with straight hair.
posted
For a man who's so well off, you apparently don't understand simple counting very well, there being a substantial difference between two and fifty.
Obama didn't end up looking white with straight hair, which is why in the eyes of most in America, he is considered black. I know you, in your heroically conservative-minded tolerance of anyone and anything, who doesn't see color, gender, or creed at all, ever, may not think this way...but most people aren't like that. That includes most Republicans.
Well, I'm getting tired of baiting you-should've been tired of it an hour ago, but sometimes you're just so obnoxious I can't bring myself to summon my apathy. Go on telling us how great Republicans are, and how stupid and treacherous the vast majority of minorities are for not belonging to it!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respect liberals who honestly believe in their position even if I disagree with them. Difference of opinion in a democracy is good. Minority conservatives aren't attacked for their positions but for being a traitor to their protected class. I can't imagine a politician telling me I'm a traitor to my race for voting this/that way. Minorities in our nation are told this by the left all the time.
If blacks are the most persecuted minority in our country, how do you think the 5% of blacks who voted against Obama feel? Conservative minorities are the minority of the minority and are persecuted worst of all.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think at this point about 80% of malanthrop's replies could be responded to with "That's great, but how on earth is that related to my post?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because I'm trying to think of what, exactly, he could have been attempting to persuade people of with those remarks, and coming up with only a few guesses. Some of them are dubious at best.
I can't disagree, I just don't find this particular case as dubious as the McCain case we were talking about. In my opinion, this is mildly odd and embarrassing, while the McCain flap was a real lapse in judgment.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I lived in Brazil, and I will say that I never caught any hint of racism. White people were called "Branca" or "Branco" and black people were called "Negra" or "Negro". I knew two guys that went by the names "Negao" (Big Black, "Brancao" (Big White) That is just how people are described down there.
Yeah, haven't we seen you float this idea before? Why do people come on this board and make some statement, see it argued over for 3 pages, leave, and then come back a year later and offer up the same turkey? Just curious. What's the fun there?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You didn't see the memo? Republicans aren't allowed to use "Democratic" anymore when describing Democrats, as that sounds far too nice.
"What, they're Democratic? Why, they must love Democracy and freedom then!"
We can't have that. It's hard to call them America hating commies when their name implies they might actually appreciate or represent democracy.
Wow. I mean really? Really? Lyyrhawn, are you seriously suggesting that because I said Democrat party instead of Democratic party that I was implying all the nonsense you posted about Democrats being America hating commies?
He's not saying that, he's mocking you for being a sheep led by people who actually *do* think that. That's why you picked up that little piece of Republican jargon and started using it, right? Or else why do you say it?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, regardless of my tongue-in-cheek portrayal there, there HAS been a concerted effort in the last few years by major Republican nation figures to refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party. You can check editorials if you want to see what the pundits think of it, but that's my personal opinion as to why. It's a rhetorical trick, and nothing more.
That isn't why I did it and I will call it the Democratic party from now on
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother in law is half black. He's response to the half question was that half really doesn't exist in America. You are either black or white. People who are racist and are going to judge you on your skin color aren't going to ask for your genealogy first. They also don't care if your black relative was a slave or an immigrant for Africa. As long as you look black, you get to experience the whole being black in the US perspective.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I lived in Brazil, and I will say that I never caught any hint of racism. White people were called "Branca" or "Branco" and black people were called "Negra" or "Negro". I knew two guys that went by the names "Negao" (Big Black, "Brancao" (Big White) That is just how people are described down there.
Yeah, haven't we seen you float this idea before? Why do people come on this board and make some statement, see it argued over for 3 pages, leave, and then come back a year later and offer up the same turkey? Just curious. What's the fun there?
Have I brought this up before? I don't remember. My apologize if I did. I'll do a search to see the responses from this post a year ago.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, regardless of my tongue-in-cheek portrayal there, there HAS been a concerted effort in the last few years by major Republican nation figures to refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party. You can check editorials if you want to see what the pundits think of it, but that's my personal opinion as to why. It's a rhetorical trick, and nothing more.
That isn't why I did it and I will call it the Democratic party from now on
I don't think anyone here thought you did, but it is funny where it crops up now and then. Things like that have a way of spreading without the knowledge of some of the people who do it.
BTW, I appreciate MOST of the comments in this thread, even when I don't agree with them. It is such a sensitive subject that it is nice to hear what people think about it wihtout flying off the handle.
Other than calling a modern political figure a house nigger, that is.
While I hope Mal comes back safe and does a lot of good while in Haiti, the fact that he will be representing the US in a country that is 95% black scares the hell out of me.
Perhaps that type of situation is why we are not views so well in other countries. We are so divided ourselves on these issues that you never know what we are going to say or do.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My brother in law is half black. He's response to the half question was that half really doesn't exist in America. You are either black or white. People who are racist and are going to judge you on your skin color aren't going to ask for your genealogy first. They also don't care if your black relative was a slave or an immigrant for Africa. As long as you look black, you get to experience the whole being black in the US perspective.
Let me begin my post by saying that I don't think we ought to self-identify, in this day and age, on the basis of what racists might think. I'm not saying you, or your brother in law said that, but I wanted to get it out of the way.
I can't speak from personal experience, but I highly doubt that dealing with white racists accounts for the "the whole being black in the US perspective." A significant portion, to be sure, but not everything. I'm sorry your brother-in-law feels the way he does, but his experince, while perhaps broadly true, is not universal.
My father is Japanese, and my mother white. When people ask me what I am, that's usually what I say. It's the shortest possible way I can think of to accurately answer what they're asking. One key difference between a man that's half white and half black and myself is that I'm very obviously mixed. He might only rarely have to answer the question, because it might be only rarely asked and people who might otherwise have asked did not think to do so. This does not necessarily mean that mainstream America thinks that mixed-black is equivalent to black. It simply means that mainstream America is unable to tell the difference at a glance.
With Obama specifically, there is very good reason to think of him, by default, as mixed, rather than black. He was raised in Hawaii, then Indonesia, rather than, say, inner-city Baltimore or Chicago. His primary caregivers were white, and according to his autobiography, many of his friends were black. In his speech on race he talked about his racial background like this: "I am the son of a black man from Kenya, and a white woman from Kansas." That reminds me, uncannily, of how I explain my own background.
I am keenly aware of my race(s) because they're written, almost literally, on my face. I submit that Obama is just as aware, although he is less obviously biracial, because of the context(s) in which he grew up.
I further submit that thinking of Obama as mixed race is helpful, though not necessary, in understanding his presidency. I see in him some things I consider strengths in myslef: his willingness to listen, to seek a middle ground between extremes, and his skills at mediation. I also see the weakness that can occur when compromise is taken to far, as I am prone to do. If liberals are wondering why Obama just doesn't seem to be carrying their agenda like they thought he would, this is goes a long way toward explaining why. I also hope that if Republicans come to understand this, they will learn that they can trust Obama's offers - he sincerely wants everyone to agree.
Perhaps mainstream America can't or doesn't care to tell the difference between black and half-black. That doesn't, in any way, make Obama simply black. It just makes mainstream America ignorant, which isn't the worst thing in the world. But I would certainly hesitate before labeling anything, or anyone even more so, based on appeal to that ignorance.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was always irritated by the term "house nigger"as it was usually applied to "well spoken" (non-negro dialect) educated conservative blacks. I now realize it's a perfectly appropriate term and is more fitting to Al Sharpton defending Harry Reid.
You keep saying this, so I might as well bring this up here.
First: You are the only person I know of who frequently uses this term. If you'd like to define it as you have here, please do. And while you do, continue to insist that you're "not a racist" even though you think a racial slur is an appropriate label for another person.
Second: Black conservatives don't need your defense. You claim - repeatedly - that blacks suffer oppression for taking conservative positions; it doesn't seem like you've given much thought to the issue. I doubt you care about it except as a convenient line of attack at the so-called "Democrat Party."
You say that the blacks are called "traitors" For voting for the GOP. Meanwhile, Republicans insist that liberal policies "keep blacks poor," as if by voting for Democrats they are sabotaging any chance for upward mobility. If that does not imply that they are somehow "race traitors," I'm not sure what does.
Third: I find it ironic that Colin Powell makes your list of blacks-but-not-really, particularly since so many conservatives still accuse him of endorsing Obama simply because of his race alone. It's as if he's just another man when you agree with him, but just another black sheep when you don't. And Condi Rice? What, you think helping to craft Bush's War in Iraq had nothing to do with her unpopularity among liberals?
Further: you continue to repeat the term "color-blindness" as if its some sort of ideal. There is a belief system that states that the differences between various cultural groups need to be taken in context -- and that they shouldn't matter in most contexts. That absolutely is not the same as pretending that they don't exist. You've chosen ignorance in place of understanding, and you wear it as a badge of honor. I understand why you do it; it's so much easier and doesn't require much thought. Most people wouldn't be so proud of it.
Perhaps that's why you feel so comfortable speaking of things you know nothing about. Poorly examined, disconnected talking points only get you so far.
quote:I was always irritated by the term "house nigger"as it was usually applied to "well spoken" (non-negro dialect) educated conservative blacks. I now realize it's a perfectly appropriate term and is more fitting to Al Sharpton defending Harry Reid.
You keep saying this, so I might as well bring this up here.
First: You are the only person I know of who frequently uses this term. If you'd like to define it as you have here, please do. And while you do, continue to insist that you're "not a racist" even though you think a racial slur is an appropriate label for another person.
Second: Black conservatives don't need your defense. You claim - repeatedly - that blacks suffer oppression for taking conservative positions; it doesn't seem like you've given much thought to the issue. I doubt you care about it except as a convenient line of attack at the so-called "Democrat Party."
You say that the blacks are called "traitors" For voting for the GOP. Meanwhile, Republicans insist that liberal policies "keep blacks poor," as if by voting for Democrats they are sabotaging any chance for upward mobility. If that does not imply that they are somehow "race traitors," I'm not sure what does.
Third: I find it ironic that Colin Powell makes your list of blacks-but-not-really, particularly since so many conservatives still accuse him of endorsing Obama simply because of his race alone. It's as if he's just another man when you agree with him, but just another black sheep when you don't. And Condi Rice? What, you think helping to craft Bush's War in Iraq had nothing to do with her unpopularity among liberals?
Further: you continue to repeat the term "color-blindness" as if its some sort of ideal. There is a belief system that states that the differences between various cultural groups need to be taken in context -- and that they shouldn't matter in most contexts. That absolutely is not the same as pretending that they don't exist. You've chosen ignorance in place of understanding, and you wear it as a badge of honor. I understand why you do it; it's so much easier and doesn't require much thought. Most people wouldn't be so proud of it.
Perhaps that's why you feel so comfortable speaking of things you know nothing about. Poorly examined, disconnected talking points only get you so far.
--j_k
I agree wholeheartedly with most of your points, but I would like to point out one thing. During the election, I believe it was either Jackson or Sharpton, I can't recall which, who questioned if Obama was "black enough". I may be wrong in my interpretation, but that sounds almost racist to me.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whites don't have a monopoly on racism, that's for sure. Sounded like they were having the flip side of Harry Reid's comments to me.
Which is part of why I don't have an issue with him at this point. He was honest, and was speaking about difficult topics like race and inclusion in America.
He was tactless, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
