Stogie is absolutely right:
In a prior post I denied that the term "Negro" is racist (by "racist" I mean "demeaning" or "insulting" for purposes of this discussion. Webster's has a broader definition.) Therefore, Harry Reid did not display "racism" in using the term and all of the race-baiting hoopla now in play is just dirty politics.
However, I did not fully discuss Reid's other remarks, i.e. that Obama is "light skinned" and doesn't speak with a "Negro dialect." From a purely objective viewpoint, Reid was factually correct in making this observation. But what does his statement imply?
Here are some thoughts and observations:
1. Reid was arguing that Obama's "light skin" is more politically viable than that of someone who is 100% black (Obama is the offspring of a mixed marriage). Therefore, Obama's electoral chances were not as impaired by his racial composition as some Democrats might fear. This observation is very politically incorrect, but from a realpolitik point of view, a valid point for discussion when assessing a candidate's chances. The electorate, after all, is not comprised merely of enlightened university graduates, but little old ladies from Topeka, Baptists from Abilene, and PTA members from Peoria. And a whole lot of others.
My conclusion: the "light skin" remark was discussed in a valid context, was not used or intended in any hateful way, and was therefore not racist.
2. Obama doesn't speak in a "Negro dialect." Again, a valid point for discussion when assessing a candidate's chances. The way a candidate speaks is very important, as it provides a powerful first impression. Ethnic accents can be charming to some and annoying to others, particularly if they make speech more difficult to understand. (An example: I love Sarah Palin, but her rural Alaskan comment "You Betcha" is rather annoying.)
My conclusion: the "Negro dialect" comment was also not used or intended in a hateful way, was discussed in a valid context and was an appropriate item for discussion. Therefore, the comment was not racist.
Good Lord, what is the world coming to when I am put into a position of defending Harry Reid?
The Republicans who are now taking advantage of his statements do the conservative cause more harm than good. They are reinforcing the liberal standard of racial hypersensitivity, where even objectively true statements automatically render the speaker "racist."
8 comments:
I wonder what Robert Byrd might have said:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Compare and contrast. Robert Byrd's statement is truly racist. That man ought not be accepted in public life.
I'd have to respectfully disagree here, though I have no intention to argue or belabor the point.
Reid may not have intended the comment as mean-spirited toward Obama. And the word Negro in and of itself is not derogatory.
BUT, when phrased the way he did, it shows a contempt, however concealed, for blacks. There is no Negro Dialect. By implying there is, and that Obama doesn't use it and therefore is above it, he is saying he thinks those who don't rise above it are inferior.
Rob Taylor states it better than I can (Damien has a link to it on my Poor Harry post below).
Guess that's why he makes the big bucks :)
I entirely agree you, but I dont think the Republicans really expect their position to be taken seriously in this episode of political theater, as much as they are just trying to document the hypocrisy of the left.
.... cause you know if someone on the right had made those exact statements verbatim, the left, with their defacto monopoly on racial grievances, would have milked it for all they could as well.
Its just how the game works, and the Republicans were only trying to document how unfair the rules are written.
I don't think Harry Reid was making a statement of his own preference, but rather one of marketability.
Pastorius is right. Reid was discussing Obama's viability as a candidate and the discussion was appropriate to the topic.
And yes, there is a "Negro Dialect." It has sometimes been referred to as "ebonics" and there was quite a public discussion about it in 1996, and whether Oakland school children should be taught in ebonics or standard English.
No matter how you cut it, however, ebonics is just bad English.
Stogie said: No matter how you cut it, however, ebonics is just bad English.
I say: Yep.
And, so is saying nucular, when you are saying the word nuclear.
The whole Texan way of speaking is a white guy version of the "Negro dialect".
Every part of the country has its bastardizations, uh, charms.
Anyway, how are all y'all?
LOL
Post a Comment