quote: Authors of the new book "Game Change" quote Reid, D-Nevada, as saying privately during the 2008 presidential campaign that Obama could be successful as a black candidate in part because of his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
The authors write that "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination."
He's under fire from Michael Steele, chiefly, on the GOP side, but the criticism isn't limited. That's ironic I think, since Steele himself has come under fire for trying to sound "black" and generally failing at it.
In general though...am I the only one who thinks that not only are Reid's comments not racist, but probably pretty accurate? If Obama was from the hood and hadn't grown up in Hawaii, Nebraska and Indonesia, would the country have responded as favorably? I really don't think so. Maybe I would have been pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it. And I do think that his race helped him cement minority votes without turning away a great deal of voters who might have voted for a Democratic president. I think by and large, though not universally, people who wouldn't vote for a black man just because he's black weren't leaning Democrat anyway.
Republicans have better targets than Reid's fairly un-racist analysis of Obama's electability. And for that matter, Reid is an awful majority leader that regularly caves to GOP demands.
And then they wonder why we the people think that Congress is utterly inept at doing its job.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think being able to speak in the same dialect as the majority of the other serious contenders for the presidency is a bonus, yes.
I'm not as convinced about his skin colour.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It definitely wasn't politically savvy to say it, but its hard to argue it isn't true.
The skin color issue is a hard one. I'd like to think it wasn't true but we are influenced by a lot of things at a subconscious level. People generally feel more comfortable with people who look familiar (as in like family) so its reasonable to presume that white Americans feel more comfortable with Obama than they would with someone with darker skin and less European features. And I suspect that makes a difference even when we rationally agree that it should not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Very true indeed. In fact, I think it might be reasonable to presume that even many non-white-non-black Americans might have felt more comfortable that way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do think his statements are accurate as far as the politics goes. I also think, though, that if you're an old white male politician talking about how black a black politician sounds and looks, well...you'd damn well better be a Democrat, or you're in for some serious trouble.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If Obama was from the hood and hadn't grown up in Hawaii, Nebraska and Indonesia, would the country have responded as favorably?
I suspect that being from the hood may have influenced him in ways different than his actual upbringing so he would not be the exact same person he is today. However, if he could run his campaign almost exactly the same as he did, then he still would have won.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do think his statements are accurate as far as the politics goes. I also think, though, that if you're an old white male politician talking about how black a black politician sounds and looks, well...you'd damn well better be a Democrat, or you're in for some serious trouble.
Well Harry Reid seems to have landed in trouble over it even though he's a democrat, so I'm not sure I understand your point.
I would also add, that back the 60s the GOP made a conscious choice to court the racist vote in order to win the south. That isn't speculation, its established fact. When your party made that kind of choice, openly, you have to live with repercussions and one of those is old white republican men will be viewed more critically on racial issues.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
To point out, some of those comments about "the african-american community" make it sound like he sees a division between the interests of white and black communities instead of the interests of Americans. But kudos to Pres. Obama for responding politly and kinda discharging the whole thing, I imagine that I would be annoyed by how often the whole race keeps coming up for him.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Reid had a valid political point, but it's still offensive; and also, we don't use the word "Negro" anymore. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But kudos to Pres. Obama for responding politly and kinda discharging the whole thing
The amusing thing is that this is the second time he's had to do this, since a similar flap popped up when Reid made the comments the first time.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Even if the gist of his comments were accurate (which I don't grant they were), it's a long time since the term "Negro" was usable in polite political conversation (as Fyfe pointed out).
If identical statements had been made by, say, Lindsay Graham or some other prominent middle-of-the-road Republican Senator there would be an entirely different magnitude of uproar. Al Sharpton (and other politicians who specialize in umbrage-taking bellicosity) would be on a war path rather than adopting a decidedly conciliatory tone. That the response is political makes it no less hypocritical.
<edit> I should add that I think the response (other than from Michael Steele) has been entirely appropriate in this case. Poor word choice, offensive, bone-headed, but no need to crucify Reid. It's the other type of response, the umbrage taking bellicosity (practiced by Steele here on a very low level), that I find problematic.</edit>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Basically what Peter said. Reid is in some mild trouble, yes, but little if any of it appears to be coming from his own party, and there isn't a widespread outcry to oust him.
quote: I would also add, that back the 60s the GOP made a conscious choice to court the racist vote in order to win the south. That isn't speculation, its established fact. When your party made that kind of choice, openly, you have to live with repercussions and one of those is old white republican men will be viewed more critically on racial issues.
Well, no Rabbit, that's a pretty lame argument, don't you think? If one an old white Democrat makes statement x, it's not going to be viewed critically in racial terms, but if an old white Republican makes the exact same statement, he's going to be viewed more critically in racial terms? Actually, that pretty much illustrates my point: if you're going to be using awkward, borderline racist language, you'd better not be a Republican, because then there's repercussions. If you're a Democrat, though, you get a pass.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I would also add, that back the 60s the GOP made a conscious choice to court the racist vote in order to win the south. That isn't speculation, its established fact. When your party made that kind of choice, openly, you have to live with repercussions and one of those is old white republican men will be viewed more critically on racial issues.
The GOP was against civil rights in the 60s? I think you might be mistaken. Of course repeating the incorrect mantra of "GOP is racist" is common now, hence the double-standard for how these issues are treated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps "the '60s" was a typo, and "the late '70s" was meant. Certainly the GOP made the conscious decision to court the racist vote in the '70s; I don't think it had done so by the '60s.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In other racially charged news, our ex-governor was born a poor black child.
I can understand them running something like this on a slow news day, but Blago is like the village idiot. Why they make a big deal out of anything he says is beyond me.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Blago can probably cash in on just his celebrity status and become very rich from it
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Maybe Blago is altruistically trying to take the attention off of Harry Reid.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Perhaps "the '60s" was a typo, and "the late '70s" was meant. Certainly the GOP made the conscious decision to court the racist vote in the '70s; I don't think it had done so by the '60s.
No, it was definitely 60s. Opposition to the civil rights movement was evident in Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign (remember Goldwater actively opposed civil rights) and the "Southern Strategy" was a key part of Nixon's 1968 campaign.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This quote from DarkKnights article pretty much makes my point.
quote:Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable.
The author isn't arguing that the GOP didn't make a conscious choice to court racists, he's only arguing that its unfair to claim that racism is the sole or even primary motivation for GOP policies like cuts in welfare and abolition of affirmative action. Fair enough but I was never arguing that.
My point was simple, the Republicans chose to court the racist vote a few decades back. That choice has consequences. The republican party worked to create a racist image in an era where that bought them support. If people continue to see them it that way, whose fault is it?
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
Anyone who looks at recent history can see that there is a definite double standard. We constantly are told that if we oppose something we are racist. I believe it was Reid( I could be wrong) who compared people that are against health care reform to people that were against ending slavery. How can you support that kind of thinking? When it comes to affirmative action, I feel that the most qualified person, regardless of race or gender, should get the job, or entrance into college, or whatever. If you really want affirmative action to work, then base it on finances. If there are more poor blacks, as most believe, then it will still accomplish its goal.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
kanelock1- on affirmative action, I wish I could agree with you. That seems like a nice simple solution. The problem comes that people do not hire the most eligible candidate and they don't say that is why they aren't hiring that person. For example, where I went to grad school, they hired 7 professors while I was there. 6 were male. When they invited candidates for an interview, the ratios were very balanced- 50/50 on gender. The female candidates though lacked the proper motivation or drive, that undefinable something to make them a good professor. After hearing this about every female candidate but not a single time about the male candidates, my thought was- what they lack really is not that undefinable- physical manifestation of a Y chromosome. When I said something, everyone looked at me like I was crazy. They were not sexist. They were in no way judging based on gender. It was not their fault the men all gave better presentations then the women. We have reached a place where outright discrimination is wrong, but the subconscious judgments are still there. I do not know the best way to combat them, but simply saying hire the best candidate is far too simplistic.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Anyone who looks at recent history can see that there is a definite double standard.
Maybe you could provide some examples because frankly I'm not seeing.
Harry Reid is a democrat. He made a comment which pretty much everyone on both sides agrees was accurate although impolite and he is now (for the second time) caught up in a scandal over it.
Bill Cosby is a democrat. He got taken to the cleaners over derogatory comments he made about black culture even though most people agree they were valid.
Please point out to me some republican who has made equally valid but politically incorrect statements about race who was treated more severely or some democrat who made open racist statements who was let off the hook.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If people continue to see them it that way, whose fault is it?
That is a very long list of blame. The misperception is continued by Democrats and a lot of willing members of the press because it serves their needs. It's very easy to dismiss all Republicans simply by saying 'racist' no matter what. I suspect that you believe Republicans are, by and large, racist and bigoted and that opinion will not change. One campaign decades ago for you is enough to continually brand a vast amount of people as racist and it completely overlooks Democratic attitudes around the same time.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:When it comes to affirmative action, I feel that the most qualified person, regardless of race or gender, should get the job, or entrance into college, or whatever.
That would be reasonable except there is virtually never any objective way to identify the most qualified candidate for any position. I've been on graduate admission committees. Very commonly, the "marginal" candidate who was only accepted as an alternate turns out to be the best one in the group. Its very likely we rejected some other candidates we thought were "marginal" who would have been better than those we accepted. I've been on faculty search committees. I know of specific examples where a candidate we passed over, was hired by another University and proved much more successful than the person we picked.
There is no objective qualified measure of who is most qualified for any position.
Look at a concrete example. People made this "best qualified regardless of race and gender" argument over and over again when Obama appointed Sonya Sotomayor, but I never heard anyone suggest an example of someone who was objectively better qualified. What factors do you think objectively qualify someone to be a supreme court justice?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I suspect that you believe Republicans are, by and large, racist and bigoted and that opinion will not change.
No I don't. Most of my family are Republicans and they are not in the least bit racist. I agree with the essay you linked that racism is not a major or central motivation for most of the current republican policies, even those that disproportionately hurt minorities.
What I do think is that republicans (as a party) need to own up to the fact that their racist reputation is largely their own fault and not some conspiracy by liberals. The GOP chose make a racist image for themselves and they succeeded. If you don't like that image any more, you are going to have to work hard to change it and not just whine about it being unfair.
Republicans are always big on personal responsibility, when they are talking about others. Let's see you walk the walk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: One campaign decades ago for you is enough to continually brand a vast amount of people as racist and it completely overlooks Democratic attitudes around the same time.
It wasn't one campaign decades ago. Like I said, if you want to change this representation -- stop whining and take responsibility for what your party did. Then work to change it.
Talk about culture of victimization.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: Reid had a valid political point, but it's still offensive; and also, we don't use the word "Negro" anymore.
The US Census Bureau is including "Negro" in the 2010 census because, in the past, tens of thousands of African Americans bothered to write it in.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It wasn't one campaign decades ago. Like I said, if you want to change this representation -- stop whining and take responsibility for what your party did. Then work to change it.
Again, double standard as Democrats do not have to do the same. I do not need to take responsibility for what happened before I was born.
quote: Republicans are always big on personal responsibility, when they are talking about others. Let's see you walk the walk.
So by apologizing for things I didn't do, and were certainly not done to you, would somehow make things better? If a Republican apologizes, does he/she still get to keep thier office? They are forced to resign to try and show how Republicans won't tolerate any hint of wrongdoing. Why would Democrats ever stop these kinds of attacks when it suits their needs? How about someone like Al Gore lying about his father's civil rights record? Is he held accountable for that in the same way a Republican would be? Showing how some people continually perpetrate a stereotype is one of the ways Republicans can work to change the label. Democrats and many in the press will work very hard to keep Republicans labeled as racist. The easiest way to do is by keep running the same old lines such as this one
quote: for most of the current republican policies, even those that disproportionately hurt minorities.
It's nothing but rhetoric once you start to look at it closely. I can make the same claim that Democrat policies disproportionally hurt minorities.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: Reid had a valid political point, but it's still offensive; and also, we don't use the word "Negro" anymore.
In what way would you say that something can remain valid while still being offensive? Is all frank talk about racial politics offensive, full stop?
I'm more sort of sick of the whole culture on this point. It's as if people are not willing to say obvious things because all the things that are also true, that they don't *also* get quoted as saying, *MUST ABSOLUTELY BE SAID*. It's as if the public, or more accurately the public that is now portrayed and crystallized by the media, is not capable of abstraction anymore. It's as if no one can say: "he got elected partly because of his race," because nobody will ever take from this anything positive, like "he got elected partly because he lived a life that reflected social and economic divides in 20th century America that gave him a unique and useful insight into American culture, and gave him the tools to run a successful political campaign, and speak for his nation."
But at the same time, it's not that people are less capable of abstraction, it's actually that the media itself is not capable of or willing to deal with abstraction, and so it gloms onto literalism, convincing everyone who watches it that everybody else out there, "the rest of the country," is so stupid that they actually think that a politician saying that Obama's race worked for him in his campaign (with the implication that Obama *made* his race work for him through his political career), is actually thinking that somehow Obama was elected solely for that reason.
So how do we cut through this big "dumb" cycle? Can we just insist to ourselves that no, the "public opinion" as told by the media for the purposes of mass consumption is not accurate any longer?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Which specific Democrat policies disproportionally hurt minorities?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the problem is just plain how much easier it is to nail Republicans for policies that appear racist. Whenever a Democrat stands up to talk about revising federal sentencing guidelines for narcotics, because they disproportionately target minorities over whites (the whole crack versus powdered cocaine thing). I can't remember which is which, but the majority of either crack or powdered cocaine users are white, and black for the other. The sentencing guidelines for the white crime are considerably less than the black crime. When Democrats in the past have tried to make the guidelines more equitable, they've been painted as weak on law and order by Republicans every time. Are Republicans racist for doing so? Well, whoever created the initial division might have been, but this isn't evidence of Republican racism, merely political opportunism, which is a different sin One committed frequently by both sides.
The problem with this sort of political opportunism is that when a disproportionate percentage of the minority population is in jail, and Republicans continually stymie Democratic efforts to reform the prison system, it becomes very easy to tag them as being against minorities in general. When Democrats talk about treatment versus jail time, in trying to reduce recidivism rates by making sure recently released convicts have jobs and aren't addicted to drugs, they again get pegged as soft on crime, and the result of the status quo is to perpetuate the cycle of recidivism and decay in the inner city, which is also predominantly black and Latino.
It works for Republicans because for every vote they sacrifice in the black and Latino communities, they pick up at least one in middle class America for appearing tough on crime. It might not be particularly fair in the 21st century, but if Republicans want to fight charges of racism, they'll have to address their positions on policies like that, even if they aren't pursued for racial reasons.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: for most of the current republican policies, even those that disproportionately hurt minorities.
It's nothing but rhetoric once you start to look at it closely. I can make the same claim that Democrat policies disproportionally hurt minorities.
Well, in the sense of motivation, I think you're right, it is just rhetoric to talk that way. However, I *do* think a greater number of republican policies are aimed at favoring the rich and politically enfranchised. Race aside, the Republican party has catered to money for a very long time, and this it still does, under various guises (excuse the pejorative terminology) like "freedom of small business," its idealization of "the self made man," and more overt policies like supply-side economics. The racism thing is more latent, and more a holdover of the actual policies that perpetuated it, but are no longer in place. The Democratic party has other ways of catering to money, which appeal more to vanity in the professional classes, rather than greed. Still, I'm a democrat only because I think the economic policies themselves are more sound and equitable, and not because either party sucks pathetically at the udders of rich idiots.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Which specific Democrat policies disproportionally hurt minorities?
I think Republicans would point to schools. Democrats generally are against allowing federal funds to be allowed for kids to be sent to private schools, and instead insist on kids, especially in this case inner-city kids, going to crumbling, dangerous schools rather than using those same federal dollars to send them to a theoretically better private school for the same amount of money.
Now, generally the Democratic position is usually paired with vast increases in spending for inner-city schools, but despite massive sums of money being spent on education in America, the funds never seem to be targeted in quite the way that Democrats say they want it to be. At least, not with regards to minority schools.
In fact, if you ask me, I think affirmative action is a big Democratic cop out. It's a way to attempt to level the playing field without having to actually spend any money to ensure that minorities will ever have a chance to get to that level playing field on their own. Rather than spend billions to improve inner-city education, all we have to do is give them a leg up on admissions applications and we can claim to be racially enlightened. It's a rip-off, and totally ignores the fact that the handicap given to kids in failing school districts isn't racially defined, it's economically defined. White kids in the inner city have just as few opportunities, and black kids in the suburbs have the advantages. Affirmative action is just one more way that we can ignore urban blight but still sleep guilt free at night.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Those of us who are old enough to remember the Civil Rights Movement first hand, and the battle that LBJ finally won to get the Civil Rights Act enacted, will recall that the chief opposition came not from Republicans, but from the "Dixiecrats."
The GOP has long been regarded as "the Party of Lincoln," and for that reason alone many Southerners preferred to support and be part of the Democrat party. Lincoln, you will recall, presided over the Civil War inwhich the South was defeated. The most arch-segregationist political leaders, such as Governor Faubus (who tried to block integration of Little Rock public schools by standing up in defiance of Federal Marshalls) were Democrats, as were virtually all the influential political leaders in the South.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We were watching Demolition Man the other night. Boy that movie is a hoot. When it came out in the early 90's, it did seem like a plausible result if the PC movement continued to gather steam.
I don't see why these comments are different from comments that are made about Hilary Clinton's or Sarah Palin's respective feminine appeal or lack thereof.
If we excuse Reid's statements because we know he's a democrat, doesn't that constitute a bias against/for a party?
Because Reid is Mormon and I am too, I facepalm on his behalf.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The problem with this sort of political opportunism is that when a disproportionate percentage of the minority population is in jail, and Republicans continually stymie Democratic efforts to reform the prison system, it becomes very easy to tag them as being against minorities in general. When Democrats talk about treatment versus jail time, in trying to reduce recidivism rates by making sure recently released convicts have jobs and aren't addicted to drugs, they again get pegged as soft on crime, and the result of the status quo is to perpetuate the cycle of recidivism and decay in the inner city, which is also predominantly black and Latino
This is a good example, but it's also more general than that. Republican economic policies, in general, tend to hinder those of lower socio-economic status more compared with Democratic policies. Since racial minorities tend to inhabit the lower rungs of the economic ladder, they will tend to be hurt more by these policies. In my opinion, it speaks more to a preference for simplicity vs. complexity, but I think that's a separate conversation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It works for Republicans because for every vote they sacrifice in the black and Latino communities, they pick up at least one in middle class America for appearing tough on crime. It might not be particularly fair in the 21st century, but if Republicans want to fight charges of racism, they'll have to address their positions on policies like that, even if they aren't pursued for racial reasons.
I agree with everything you said in your post.
FYI: Crack is the "black" cocaine, and powdered is the "white" cocaine. It all had to do with the initial introduction of crack into inner city drug markets, while cocaine was still seen as too expensive and high class a drug for said market. So crack was marketed to the same areas that consumed heroin in large amounts, while powdered cocaine was marketed to more spendthrift consumers. It so happened that crack was the drug war equivalent of Hiroshima, while powdered cocaine could still be consumed casually by many people. Crack was more hardcore, and was not marketed to a casual crowd of drug users.
The crack v. powder divide has a lot to do with, I think, the economics involved. For a long time, and still today, users of powdered cocaine are more likely to have money and be able to fight prosecution than crack users. Aside from that, legislators are a hell of a lot more likely to be familiar with powdered cocaine use, and to be more accepting of it, or to demonize it less. It is seen by our culture as a less dangerous or low class drug because it actually *is* a slightly less dangerous and slightly "higher class" drug. And when cops arrest a white guy in a nice neighborhood for coke possession, they will associate that form of the drug with a lower danger, and up the chain this impression will travel. The racism part of that is the end result, not the beginning. It gets tied to race because race is the obvious demarcation, but it starts with class and economics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Those of us who are old enough to remember the Civil Rights Movement first hand, and the battle that LBJ finally won to get the Civil Rights Act enacted, will recall that the chief opposition came not from Republicans, but from the "Dixiecrats."
The GOP has long been regarded as "the Party of Lincoln," and for that reason alone many Southerners preferred to support and be part of the Democrat party. Lincoln, you will recall, presided over the Civil War inwhich the South was defeated. The most arch-segregationist political leaders, such as Governor Faubus (who tried to block integration of Little Rock public schools by standing up in defiance of Federal Marshalls) were Democrats, as were virtually all the influential political leaders in the South.
Yeah...and interesting how southern Dixiecrats bolted the party for the GOP when Democrats like LBJ, who supported Civil Rights legislation, became leaders of the party.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
"Political Correctness" has obviously gotten way out of hand. We are violating freedom of speech in our zeal to avoid ever offending anybody.
I would have enjoyed it if Obama had said to Reid, "That's OK Honky, I forgive you!"
In a freer, less-uptight America, that would have drawn a few chuckles and no one would have been upset.
It is interesting that no one has claimed that what Reid said was untrue. But apparently that doesn't matter.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The GOP has long been regarded as "the Party of Lincoln," and for that reason alone many Southerners preferred to support and be part of the Democrat party. Lincoln, you will recall, presided over the Civil War inwhich the South was defeated. The most arch-segregationist political leaders, such as Governor Faubus (who tried to block integration of Little Rock public schools by standing up in defiance of Federal Marshalls) were Democrats, as were virtually all the influential political leaders in the South.
Any other chestnuts from 150 years ago with no modern relevance you'd like to share in this topical discussion? I don't think it could be more than two weeks ago the last time you stated almost exactly the same thing in a different discussion only to receive a flood of responses you never dealt with.
"Party of Lincoln..." Seriously dude? You know the Communist party stood up to and eventually defeated the Nazis in eastern Europe? So really, if you're against Fascism, you should be a Communist... right?
I take back what I said about the dumb cycle.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: "Political Correctness" has obviously gotten way out of hand. We are violating freedom of speech in our zeal to avoid ever offending anybody.
No, it's not political correctness. "Political Correctness" is just an empty buzzword your party has decided to blame for ruining America this year. The problem is a slackening faith in people to comprehend subtlety and nuance, and to accept humbly the possibility that misunderstandings may occur, and to deal with them graciously.
That's a trend that is fed by conservatives and liberals alike- it is a rather straightforward symptom of unprecedented access to and abundance of information, without a concomitant increase in our collective ability to process that information. In fact we even have a word for it in music production: we call it "clipping."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
"Political Correctness" has obviously gotten way out of hand. We are violating freedom of speech in our zeal to avoid ever offending anybody.
I would have enjoyed it if Obama had said to Reid, "That's OK Honky, I forgive you!"
In a freer, less-uptight America, that would have drawn a few chuckles and no one would have been upset.
It is interesting that no one has claimed that what Reid said was untrue. But apparently that doesn't matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The "Party of Lincoln" thing DID paint the GOP as unfavorable to southerners for several generations. I'm not sure if it was still around as of 1950, but it lasted at least into the 1920s. The anti-Republican bitterness of the south went beyond just losing the Civil War. Reconstruction was a nightmare for southerners, and when Democrats retook control of state governments in the 1870s, they had massive public support and an entrenched hatred of Republicans that lasted for several generations, at least into the 1930s. Racial politics are what started the political landscape to shift in the middle of the century, and while today the whole Party of Lincoln thing holds no value, it did 50 years ago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: "Political Correctness" has obviously gotten way out of hand. We are violating freedom of speech in our zeal to avoid ever offending anybody.
No, it's not political correctness. "Political Correctness" is just an empty buzzword your party has decided to blame for ruining America this year. The problem is a slackening faith in people to comprehend subtlety and nuance, and to accept humbly the possibility that misunderstandings may occur, and to deal with them graciously.
That's a trend that is fed by conservatives and liberals alike- it is a rather straightforward symptom of unprecedented access to and abundance of information, without a concomitant increase in our collective ability to process that information. In fact we even have a word for it in music production: we call it "clipping."
I think that's half of it, and the other half is political tourette's syndrome. Politicians might understand perfectly well what someone is saying, but if they can make political hay out of it, they pounce. The frequency of these sorts of useless attacks that make something out of nothing have only increased as the level of partisanism has increased nationally. They can't help themselves. This is one of those things that I think exists far more in Washington than it does in the rest of America. The majority of Americans are a lot more easy going.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Semi-related: the Palin "O'Biden" thing. Seriously. Who thought this was a good story?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QB]
quote: It wasn't one campaign decades ago. Like I said, if you want to change this representation -- stop whining and take responsibility for what your party did. Then work to change it.
Again, double standard as Democrats do not have to do the same.
Its not a double standard, its using relevant context when making a judgement. If someone is wearing a red shirt with a big block U on it and starts making jokes about Max Hall, I'm going to interpret it differently than if some wearing a blue shirt with a big block Y on it makes a Max Hall joke. That isn't a double standard, its looking at all the relevant available information before making a judgement.
quote:I do not need to take responsibility for what happened before I was born.
What happened before you were born isn't the problem. The problem is that you chose to join a party which had a well earned reputation for racism and which continues to support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately. The fact that you chose to associate with the republican party is a good indication that those things don't bother you very much.
That does not necessarily make you a racist. There are lots of reasons people support the republicans that aren't racist. But being a racist is obviously one possible reason why those things wouldn't bother you. If you also made racially insensitive remarks, then I'd have two things that suggest you could be a racist and not just one so I'd be more likely to suspect you of being genuinely racist.
The stereotype that republicans are racist isn't something that was unfairly thrust on you by a hostile media or political opponents. It something the GOP did intentionally. The GOP wanted people to think they were racist and they got it. You are the victims or your own party. If the GOP doesn't want that image any more, its the GOPs responsibility to change it. I don't care whether they made that choice to be the racist party before you were born or last week. You have chosen to be part of the GOP, it is partly your responsibility to fix it.
[ January 11, 2010, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Does anyone not already politically aligned actually care about this controversy? This clearly wasn't racist.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Semi-related: the Palin "O'Biden" thing. Seriously. Who thought this was a good story?
If you're refering to the 60 Minutes piece, I thought the "Call me Joe" angle was a clever way of dealing with that.
FWIW, you have to watch that bit and remember that Steve Schmidt is a political strategist. That's his day job. He himself said he thinks Palin 2012 would be a disaster for the GOP, so he probably believes that by participating in a piece like that he's helping avert it.
--j_k
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Republicans are always big on personal responsibility, when they are talking about others.
It's strange, but I think that when you put the right mix of personal responsibility with family values and small government, you can end up with a strange clannishness.
[ January 12, 2010, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The problem is that you chose to join a party which had a well earned reputation for racism and which continues to support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately. The fact that you chose to associate with the republican party is a good indication that those things don't bother you very much.
You are stating things as fact that are completely debatable. Obama's policies have disproportionally hurt minorities as evident in the massive unemployment numbers and his payoffs to companies that he deems worthy. Obama and the Democrats' plan to build new roads has not helped unemployment which again means that minorities are being hurt by the Democrats. They willfully and with full knowledge committed these and many other acts against minorities for no other reason than to hurt them as they enriched themselves. Now that we have established that Democrats are purposefully destroying minority communities we can label them as racist. As you can see, perception goes both ways. You choose to label Republicans as racists yet Democrat policies are disproportionately hurting minorities. EDIT:
quote: You have chosen to be part of the GOP, it is partly your responsibility to fix it.
This, like most of your post, is a strawman. I am sure your advice to 'fix it' means to allow Democrats to do whatever they want and to blindly follow the Democrat party.
[ January 12, 2010, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You are stating things as fact that are completely debatable
It's debatable that the Republican Party has capitalized on the racism of many of its members in living memory, DarkKnight? That, at least, doesn't seem very debatable to me, though I do take issue with much of the rest-not to the extent you do, though.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's debatable that the Republican Party has capitalized on the racism of many of its members in living memory, DarkKnight?
To clarify I meant it's debatable that Republicans support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately. Democrats have institued generational poverty programs to keep minorities poor. It's all in the perception of events which people use to paint Republicans as racist and not Democrats. In the newly released book "Game Change" Bill Clinton said a fairly racist comment about Obama getting them coffee but not much will come of that. Remember Clinton was the first black president.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QUOTE] Obama and the Democrats' plan to build new roads has not helped unemployment which again means that minorities are being hurt by the Democrats. They willfully and with full knowledge committed these and many other acts against minorities for no other reason than to hurt them as they enriched themselves. Now that we have established that Democrats are purposefully destroying minority communities we can label them as racist.
Is this hyperbole, or do you actually believe this, or expect other people to believe this? LOL
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To clarify I meant it's debatable that Republicans support policies that hurt racial minorities disproportionately.
Yes, I thought as much-but what do you think about the idea that the GOP has capitalized on racism to score political gains?
That's actually quite different from the Democratic party endorsing policies that, according to you at least, 'keep minorities poor'. Unless you think there's an element of intent there, that Democrats are specifically targeting minorities for 'generational poverty' for political purposes.
In which case I'd challenge you to provide something resembling evidence, because that's not just a matter of perception, it's a wild-ass conspiracy theory unless you can substantiate it somehow.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Republicans are always big on personal responsibility, when they are talking about others.
It's strange, but I think that when you put the right mix of personal responsibility with family values and small government, you can end up with a strange clannishness.
I agree, except that I don't think its the least bit strange.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Anyone who looks at recent history can see that there is a definite double standard.
Maybe you could provide some examples because frankly I'm not seeing.
Harry Reid is a democrat. He made a comment which pretty much everyone on both sides agrees was accurate although impolite and he is now (for the second time) caught up in a scandal over it.
Bill Cosby is a democrat. He got taken to the cleaners over derogatory comments he made about black culture even though most people agree they were valid.
Please point out to me some republican who has made equally valid but politically incorrect statements about race who was treated more severely or some democrat who made open racist statements who was let off the hook.
Trent Lott?
You could also argue that every entitlement program that Democrats put into law affects minorities as well. Creating dependency on the government doesn't help minorities. Essentially releasing minorities of personal responsibility doesn't help minorities either.
And regarding the Civil Rights movement, I found this little quote:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
Wow, sure looks like he was looking to help people because he felt it was the right thing to do eh?
The thing is, it goes both ways. Both parties have their own problems, and depending on YOUR point of view, you can blame the other party as being racist.
Hell, here are some other quotes from Democrats:
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -Senator Joe Biden
Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton
Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."
-- Roger Clinton, the President's brother on audiotape
Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax
"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."
-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess
I'm sure you can find many by republicans as well. I am pointing out that saying someone belongs to the racist party is completely ridiculous.
[ January 12, 2010, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think Trent Lott has already been discussed here. Trent Lott said "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either."
The statement is too vague to state whether he was "valid but politically incorrect" but Strom Thurmond ran as a staunch segregationist. Assuming the most plain interpretation of that comment - that he supported a segregationist platform and regrets it's failure - it's not only politically incorrect, but unambiguously racist. He'd have to elaborate on what he meant by "all these problems" to make judgement about whether it was valid.
Now he could have just been making an empty complement to his friend, in which case it doesn't qualify as "valid but politically incorrect about race".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Please point out to me some republican who has made equally valid but politically incorrect statements about race who was treated more severely or some democrat who made open racist statements who was let off the hook.
Trent Lott?
I think George Allen's 'macaca' comment is a significantly better example. Lott was specifically praising Thurmond's segregationist campaign, which is pretty odious (personally I think he just got carried away with his praise and didn't think of the implications of that praise, but I think it goes beyond a lapse in word-selection judgment).
In Allen's case his passing use of a pejorative probably sank not only his 2006 campaign (he had a pretty comfortable lead over Webb at the time), but his likely 2008 presidential bid as well.
<edit>Thanks Matt for the "valid, but politically incorrect" pointer. I'd missed that, and I guess 'macaca' isn't much of a 'valid statement'</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I am sure your advice to 'fix it' means to allow Democrats to do whatever they want and to blindly follow the Democrat party.
Hey, by the way, it's "the Democratic party," not "the Democrat party"
Also, if you're going to accuse people of strawmanning, don't be a huge hypocrite and do it right back.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
DK:
quote: Obama and the Democrats' plan to build new roads has not helped unemployment which again means that minorities are being hurt by the Democrats.
Wait, what? A plan to build new roads, which means employing people to do it (nothing to do with minorities by the way...) hasn't significantly helped unemployment (I take your assertion as a given for the sake of your argument) so it therefore has *hurt* minorities?
So like, if a new medicine comes out to treat diabetes, and it doesn't show the results that the Rx companies had hoped for, minorities have actually been *hurt* by GSK? The failure in any case to improve any situation, not for lack of trying, is actively hurting people? And why, specifically, minorities?
I feel DK, like you are asking this forum to bend over backwards to see things in a way that favors your side, but you're doing an exceedingly weak job of building any kind of case for that. If this one is an indication of your arsenal of examples, if this is the *first* one that springs to mind for you, I can't see as how you can expect it to be taken seriously. Now I vaguely feel that you will cry foul at my misinterpretation of your statement, but I want to preempt that by saying that if it doesn't mean what I think it means, which appears to be quite clear, then you have also done a doubly poor job of presenting it to us as an example.
Geraine- an orgy of embarrassing quotes doesn't cut much ice on this forum, or in any mature discussion of politics. There's a reason those lists appear on t-shirts and spam emails or blog posts (where you doubtless collected them). It's because hack wannabe politicos with nothing substantial to say about much of anything collect them like souvenir tokens to show that they are "keeping up" with "what's being said," and because they find constructing unhinged lists of embarrassing context-free material easier than actual analysis, investigation, or creative production. You'll find a gazillion Bushisms online that are just as dumb, and just as pointless. Anybody and everybody can find and assemble these quotes to any purpose. It's easy, and like anything, it's easy because it's not really worth doing.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
And yet, how many "embarrassing quotes" are used as examples that Republicans are racists?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Nowhere did I say this was not a bipartisan failing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I am sure your advice to 'fix it' means to allow Democrats to do whatever they want and to blindly follow the Democrat party.
Hey, by the way, it's "the Democratic party," not "the Democrat party"
Also, if you're going to accuse people of strawmanning, don't be a huge hypocrite and do it right back.
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: And yet, how many "embarrassing quotes" are used as examples that Republicans are racists?
I haven't seen any in a while. Since there are so many, can you please link me to some examples?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
“I’m happy to learn that after I speak you’re going to hear from Ann Coulter. That’s a good thing. I think it’s important to get the views of moderates.” — right before Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot.”
-Mitt Romney
“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
-Rush Limbaugh
Hereis a link to audio of Vernon Robinson's comments about Latino's.
McCain had a long history of racist comments about Asians, and several other ethnic groups. I can look it up, but not right now.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You know, I've been looking over all of this and came to a startling idea. It seems, while not all Republicans, or even a sizable minority are racist, most (again, not all, but most) fervent racists do seem to be Republican. Ask most Nazi's, Klansmen, or skin-head if they would vote for McCain or Obama--and you'll see my obviously valid point.
So next time there is a race crime I think we should do that profiling thing, and just round up all the Republicans and question them about their actions when the crime took place.
After all, most conservative Republicans can't understand why we don't use profiling on terrorists, or Hispanics driving north, or African Americans dressed in a certain way driving in upscale parts of town.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
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?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Reid was honest, but not bright.
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
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).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
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.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
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).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the significant thing to look for here is whether any particular comment is part of a pattern of behaviour.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
You put it better than I did.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which is strange because I said something quite different than what you did.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not you, no.
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Um....Michael Steele. Still waiting for the black head of the DNC.
First supreme court, secretary of state, secretary of defense, senator, governor, on and on.
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
[ January 15, 2010, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
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?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: To you Obama is the first "black" president. To me, he's the 44th president of the United States.
Earlier:
quote: Correction....the first half-black president.
...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
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
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
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.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
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.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Excellent post, Juxtapose.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
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
Posted by kanelock1 (Member # 12230) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
One committed frequently by both sides. ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)