Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The Week in Racism
Originally published in the New York Post, April 30, 2014.
Race in America is like everyone’s favorite Facebook relationship status: “It’s complicated.” Last week’s news, from Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, proves the point.
Blame conservatives (mostly) for helping make Bundy — locked in a conflict with the federal Bureau of Land Management — a national story in the first place, by “adopting” him as one more victim of federal overreach in the Obama era. How dare the feds send armed agents to threaten Bundy with eviction? How dare the feds hold onto nearly 90 percent of the land in Nevada?
In reality, the fact that Bundy was still on the land was a symbol of absurd federal restraint. He’s refused to pay fees, fines, etc. for more than two decades. But the “victim” coverage actually emboldened him, leading to daily press conferences — one of which provided The New York Times with the quote that “Negroes” might have been better off under slavery than being on welfare.
After first claiming he was misquoted, Bundy doubled down: “Are they happier now under this government-subsidy system than they were when they were slaves and they [were] able to [keep] their family structure together and … people [had] something to do?”
It’s easy to conclude that Bundy is a flat-out racist (who never learned that slavery actually tore black families apart), but then there’s some of his other comments: “Now let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people … Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. Don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people … We need to have those people join us and be with us.”
That makes the “racist” formulation more, yes, complicated. Bundy’s a bigot? But his views on immigration sound like what most Democrats have been saying for some time. And his welfare comments clumsily echo not just conservatives, but Democrats like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
So do his welfare remarks make Bundy a full-fledged racist — any more than his Hispanic comments make him a spokesman for immigration reform? Ahem, no.
Together, they make him a confused clown who shouldn’t have been given a national platform in the first place.
Some on the right tried to change the subject to Bundy’s own “neighbor” — Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.
Bundy wasn’t the only old, crusty Nevadan who had used the other N-word — “Negro” — in discussing black people, these conservatives noted. The history of the 2008 campaign, “Game Change,” quoted Reid as saying — privately — that then-Sen. Barack Obama was a strong presidential candidate because he was “a light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Hey, isn’t that racist?
Hardly. Reid was stating in rather non-PC terms what just about anyone steeped in political history would’ve said about the prospects of a black man winning the presidency. Recognizing this nation’s awkwardness with race, it’s hardly rocket science to divine that a light-skinned African-American with oratorical skills might gain an edge with white voters.
OK, but Donald Sterling’s surreptitiously recorded comments reveal old-school racism, right?
Yes, there’s no N-word or other slurs on this tape. And he’s revealed as happy to have black players on his teams, have a black coach — but he doesn’t want his Mexican/black girlfriend (with whom he’s been in a long adulterous relationship) coming to the arena or being pictured with high-profile blacks like Magic Johnson.
That’s reminiscent of slave-era and Jim Crow plantation managers who saw blacks as inferior, yet had no problem cavorting with black women sexually (see: Strom Thurmond).
But then there’s this: Sterling was about to be honored by the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP for a second time.
This, despite a history of racial animus that included referring to his players as n - - - - - s during an interview with a prospective head coach and being sued twice in federal court for discriminatory housing practices. In fact, both the NAACP’s national office and many of its local chapters have a recent history of choosing monetary support over the obvious best interests of their African-American constituency (in New York, see charter schools). Monday, the LA chapter declined to reveal how much “sterling” it’s received over the years from the Clippers owner.
America has taken great strides in dealing with its “original sin” — slavery — and its legacy. But just about anything touching on race is still more “complicated” than our pundits or our press care to admit.
|
Race in America is like everyone’s favorite Facebook relationship status: “It’s complicated.” Last week’s news, from Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, proves the point.
Blame conservatives (mostly) for helping make Bundy — locked in a conflict with the federal Bureau of Land Management — a national story in the first place, by “adopting” him as one more victim of federal overreach in the Obama era. How dare the feds send armed agents to threaten Bundy with eviction? How dare the feds hold onto nearly 90 percent of the land in Nevada?
In reality, the fact that Bundy was still on the land was a symbol of absurd federal restraint. He’s refused to pay fees, fines, etc. for more than two decades. But the “victim” coverage actually emboldened him, leading to daily press conferences — one of which provided The New York Times with the quote that “Negroes” might have been better off under slavery than being on welfare.
After first claiming he was misquoted, Bundy doubled down: “Are they happier now under this government-subsidy system than they were when they were slaves and they [were] able to [keep] their family structure together and … people [had] something to do?”
It’s easy to conclude that Bundy is a flat-out racist (who never learned that slavery actually tore black families apart), but then there’s some of his other comments: “Now let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people … Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. Don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people … We need to have those people join us and be with us.”
That makes the “racist” formulation more, yes, complicated. Bundy’s a bigot? But his views on immigration sound like what most Democrats have been saying for some time. And his welfare comments clumsily echo not just conservatives, but Democrats like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
So do his welfare remarks make Bundy a full-fledged racist — any more than his Hispanic comments make him a spokesman for immigration reform? Ahem, no.
Together, they make him a confused clown who shouldn’t have been given a national platform in the first place.
Some on the right tried to change the subject to Bundy’s own “neighbor” — Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.
Bundy wasn’t the only old, crusty Nevadan who had used the other N-word — “Negro” — in discussing black people, these conservatives noted. The history of the 2008 campaign, “Game Change,” quoted Reid as saying — privately — that then-Sen. Barack Obama was a strong presidential candidate because he was “a light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Hey, isn’t that racist?
Hardly. Reid was stating in rather non-PC terms what just about anyone steeped in political history would’ve said about the prospects of a black man winning the presidency. Recognizing this nation’s awkwardness with race, it’s hardly rocket science to divine that a light-skinned African-American with oratorical skills might gain an edge with white voters.
OK, but Donald Sterling’s surreptitiously recorded comments reveal old-school racism, right?
Yes, there’s no N-word or other slurs on this tape. And he’s revealed as happy to have black players on his teams, have a black coach — but he doesn’t want his Mexican/black girlfriend (with whom he’s been in a long adulterous relationship) coming to the arena or being pictured with high-profile blacks like Magic Johnson.
That’s reminiscent of slave-era and Jim Crow plantation managers who saw blacks as inferior, yet had no problem cavorting with black women sexually (see: Strom Thurmond).
But then there’s this: Sterling was about to be honored by the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP for a second time.
This, despite a history of racial animus that included referring to his players as n - - - - - s during an interview with a prospective head coach and being sued twice in federal court for discriminatory housing practices. In fact, both the NAACP’s national office and many of its local chapters have a recent history of choosing monetary support over the obvious best interests of their African-American constituency (in New York, see charter schools). Monday, the LA chapter declined to reveal how much “sterling” it’s received over the years from the Clippers owner.
America has taken great strides in dealing with its “original sin” — slavery — and its legacy. But just about anything touching on race is still more “complicated” than our pundits or our press care to admit.
Labels: Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling, Harry Reid, racism
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Post Racial America: Greenwald vs. Carter vs. Limbaugh
The always oh-so-helpful former President Jimmy Carter has added some gasoline to the fire sparked by Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie" last week, declaring that Wilson's outburst had racial animus at its heart:
"There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African American should not be president," Carter said last night, discussing the verbal attacks on Obama that have included last week's outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
In doing so, Carter became the most prominent member of the bandwagon being ridden by Maureen Dowd last weekend:
I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.
I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
Politico also identified other Democrats adopting the growing belief that the intense hostility toward Obama is driven by race.
Ironically, the strongest pushback to this growing meme comes from someone on the left. Salon's Glenn Greenwald produces a rather compelling reminder that Bill Clinton arguably had far stronger criticisms -- fair and unfair -- launched against him than Obama has to date:
To see that, just look at what that movement's leading figures said and did during the Clinton years. In 1994, Jesse Helms, then-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claimed that "just about every military man" believes Clinton is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief and then warned/threatened him not to venture onto military bases in the South: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He better have a bodyguard." The Wall St. Journal called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possible "murder" of Vince Foster. Clinton was relentlessly accused by leading right-wing voices of being a murderer, a serial rapist, and a drug trafficker. Tens of millions of dollars and barrels of media ink were expended investigating "Whitewater," a "scandal" which, to this day, virtually nobody can even define. When Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden, they accused him of "wagging the dog" -- trying to distract the country from the truly important matters at hand (his sex scandal). And, of course, the GOP ultimately impeached him over that sex scandal -- in the process issuing a lengthy legal brief with footnotes detailing his sex acts (cigars and sex talk), publicly speculating about (and demanding examinations of) the unique "distinguishing" spots on his penis, and using leading right-wing organs to disseminate innuendo that he had an abandoned, out-of-wedlock child. More intense and constant attacks on a President's "legitimacy" are difficult to imagine.
Obviously, this list comes from a left-wing writer, so it comes with its own bias on what might be considered legitimate criticisms of Clinton. But the overall point is valid: There was a venom directed toward the Clintons that was somewhat unprecedented. And it had nothing to do with race.
(Now, yeah, Clinton was, pace Toni Morrison, "the first black president" but still...All jokes aside, most of the above-mentioned attacks occurred well before Morrison's famous New Yorker piece. Indeed, Morrison partly looked to the ferocity of those attacks to create the foundation for her "black president" construct.)
All that said, Rush Limbaugh does nothing to help conservative critique of the Obama administration with bits like this -- blaming two black kids beating up a white kid on "Obama's America." Obviously, if a liberal blamed a school shooting in the early part of the decade on "Bush's Wild Wild West" attitude in favor of Second Amendment rights, it would be grossly unfair and conservatives would howl. But, even so, such a charge would not carry with it the racial aspect that Limbaugh is intentionally injecting into the mix. It's outrageous and offensive -- and gives fuel to the Carter liberal charge that conservatives are trying to mine racial animus as much as possible out of anything having to do with Barack Obama.
Labels: Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, racism, Rush Limbaugh
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Maybe It Does Matter If You're Black or White (African)
Some 20 years ago, a white roommate once asked me -- half-joking: "If an Afrikaner South African moved to the United States and became a citizen, would he and his offspring be considered 'African American'?" I said, I guess so -- also in a somewhat semi-serious/semi-not manner.
|
It's no laughing matter these days.
Paulo Serodio, a Mozambique-born student at a New Jersey medical school is suing the institution for permitting serial harassment to occur after he responded to a question about cultural heritage by identifying himself as "white African-American."
Now, I certainly want to hear the school's response: On the face f it, the case brings together two awful trends in contemporary American society -- academic PC run amok, on the one side vs. personal aggrievement-sparked litigation on the other.
But based on the facts as put forward by the plaintiff, he seems to have a pretty good case. Assuming that there wasn't any overt, intentional, harassment of other students by Paulo Serodio, it appears to me that the university's administration reacted awfully to this situation. It doesn't surprise me that students would be offended by a white person describing themselves as "African American." But that's why instructors are supposed to be able to recognize teachable moments and get a real conversation going.
Of course, as noted above, this sort of thing could have been foreseen decades ago -- as soon as the term "African American" came to be more popularized, replacing "black" in many instances. As soon as the current American descendants of African slaves chose to use geographic location as shorthand for ethnic identification (as opposed to the older, more clinical, descriptors -- Caucasian, Negro, Asian, etc), such problems were bound to crop up in a much closer global village. There are millions of first-generation dark-skinned Africans living throughout Europe and the United States. Are such people "French/German/Italian/etc" or are they "French-African" (counting the ones born in France), "German-African," etc.?
In the U.S., is an Ethiopian New York City cab river who gets his citizenship an "African-American" in the same way that a kid who grew up in the South Bronx his entire life? Of course not, yet they both can be referred to in the same way. Society -- and census documents -- tell me that my ethnicity is "African-American" -- even as I embrace my status as a natural born Trinidadian-American ( raised on the right).
This New Jersey case may turn out to be nothing; Serodio may have overstated the criticism he got. However, one never knows the full twist and turns of once the lawyers are involved. A settlement may go well beyond whatever monetary compensation the litigant seeks. It may help shine some useful light on a diverse, yet still racially obsessed society.
Labels: political correctness, racism
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Al Qaida Nader
So nice to see who's bringin' racial slurs back! Not so long after Ralph Nader called Obama an "Uncle Tom", Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Number 2 guy in Al Qaeda -- calls him a "house negro."
Al Sharpton denounced his fellow "Al": "Americans must be united with our President to stamp out terrorism and racism of any stripe."
Not for attribution, an Obama spokesman claims that the president-elect's response is: "You can call me WHITE HOUSE negro, M.F.-er -- while I can call you dead!"
|
Al Sharpton denounced his fellow "Al": "Americans must be united with our President to stamp out terrorism and racism of any stripe."
Not for attribution, an Obama spokesman claims that the president-elect's response is: "You can call me WHITE HOUSE negro, M.F.-er -- while I can call you dead!"
Labels: Al Qaeda, racism, satire, terrorism
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Ralph Nader, Racist A-Hole
And, no, this isn't the first time Nader has decided to pull out the rhetorical overseer's whip on Obama.
Oh, and good for Shep Smith for calling Nader out on his bullshit.
Labels: racism, Ralph Nader
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Polling The Really Racist Vote
Esquire polls leaders of various racist organizations to figure out who they're for. Not exactly how one might imagine.
And, yes, a "black supremacist" expresses his rather unique perspective too. Not the Obama fan you might think.
|
Rocky Suhayda of the American Nazi Party may be my new favorite extremist:
Who: Chairman, American Nazi Party
Likes: Hitler, white people
Dislikes: Jews, immigrants, multinational corporations
Career highlights: Being widely quoted bemoaning in the fact that so few Aryan-Americans had the cojones of the 9/11 hijackers: "If we were one-tenth as serious, we might start getting somewhere."
"White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals--basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women--when usually negroes who have 'made it' immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize--that’s the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern Sodom and Gomorrah."
Meanwhile, an exercised anti-Obama blogger -- after pursuing the "mystery" of Obama's supposedly missing birth certificate -- reveals the biggest media cover-up of the campaign so far: Obama is actually the son of Malcolm X!! (Hat tip to Ezra Klein, who also includes some great computerized artwork of Obama as a member of the X-Men). Of course, the downside of this is that it means Obama really was born in the United States. really sucks when one conspiracy theory screws up the foundation of the conspiracy theory which launched the search in the first place. Oh well.
Labels: racism
Monday, October 06, 2008
Progress Of A Sort...
Ben Smith reports on the odd case of the "undecided" racist voter.
Of, course, as a commenter to Ben's post puts it, another way of looking at this is that McCain's running such a bad campaign that he can't even count on racists voting for him.
|
Of, course, as a commenter to Ben's post puts it, another way of looking at this is that McCain's running such a bad campaign that he can't even count on racists voting for him.
Labels: Presidential Race, race, racism
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Ron Paul's Racism...
Very tough New Republic piece.
He's going to have a difficult time refuting these charges. I hope he does, but this is pretty ugly stuff. Andrew Sullivan wants answers. A fomer Paul-leaner finds it "indefensible."
If nothing else, this report could severly damage a third-party run that might depend on anti-war votes from the left.
|
The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
......
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
He's going to have a difficult time refuting these charges. I hope he does, but this is pretty ugly stuff. Andrew Sullivan wants answers. A fomer Paul-leaner finds it "indefensible."
If nothing else, this report could severly damage a third-party run that might depend on anti-war votes from the left.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, racism, Ron Paul
Monday, July 16, 2007
I Must Admit...
...the same thought occurred to me.
There are only two ways to think about what Novak is saying, neither too flattering.
It's either 1) The American public is basically racist and sexist and are unlikely to vote for a black or a woman or, 2) Republicans are uniquely positioned to run a racist/sexist campaign. The second scenario offends me as a Republican; the first offends me as an American.
If Novak had made the caveat that America isn't ready to vote for this black (as opposed to, for argument's sake, Colin Powell) or this woman (as opposed to, for argument's sake, Condoleezza Rice or Elizabeth Dole), that would have been one thing.
But he didn't.
Given the way he characterized it, I'm not sure if he was endorsing this sentiment or just reporting it as being prominent within the GOP. And since this was an "off the record" comment, he won't bother sharing exactly who in the party is preparing to make racist or sexist appeals in the general election.
And, as Steve Benen at TPM noted, none of the four other white men on the panel found it worthwhile to call him on it.
Pathetic all the way around.
UPDATE: Some of the Comments section asked for clarification on what I found "offensive" in Novak's remarks. Well, I was offended by the notion that Americans, collectively, are still so racist and sexist enough to reject a black person or a woman out of hand (which is a different proposition from rejecting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton specifically). I'm offended that Novak's unnamed Republican -- with issues and political circumstances seeming to be running against the GOP in '08 -- was hoping that Democrats nominate a black or woman in order to run what could be considered a racist/sexist campaign.
But, upon reflection, what I found most offensive actually was Novak's glee at this prospect.
Looking at the video of him on MTP , it seems pretty clear that he was not engaging in neutral reporting: The prospect of Republicans trying to exploit sentiments on race and gender was exhilarating to him. And, neither Russert or Hunt (forget about Shrum) bothered to explore the implications of his statement -- either from the GOP's perspective or his own.
Just to be fair in context, Russert's roundtable was in the midst of laudatory look at Novak's just-released autobiography, and so everyone was in a jocular "those were the days" mode. Still, if the show is called "Meet The Press," you'd think there might be occasion to actually explore a sensitive topic if it comes up in the course of the conversation.
|
There are only two ways to think about what Novak is saying, neither too flattering.
It's either 1) The American public is basically racist and sexist and are unlikely to vote for a black or a woman or, 2) Republicans are uniquely positioned to run a racist/sexist campaign. The second scenario offends me as a Republican; the first offends me as an American.
If Novak had made the caveat that America isn't ready to vote for this black (as opposed to, for argument's sake, Colin Powell) or this woman (as opposed to, for argument's sake, Condoleezza Rice or Elizabeth Dole), that would have been one thing.
But he didn't.
Given the way he characterized it, I'm not sure if he was endorsing this sentiment or just reporting it as being prominent within the GOP. And since this was an "off the record" comment, he won't bother sharing exactly who in the party is preparing to make racist or sexist appeals in the general election.
And, as Steve Benen at TPM noted, none of the four other white men on the panel found it worthwhile to call him on it.
Pathetic all the way around.
UPDATE: Some of the Comments section asked for clarification on what I found "offensive" in Novak's remarks. Well, I was offended by the notion that Americans, collectively, are still so racist and sexist enough to reject a black person or a woman out of hand (which is a different proposition from rejecting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton specifically). I'm offended that Novak's unnamed Republican -- with issues and political circumstances seeming to be running against the GOP in '08 -- was hoping that Democrats nominate a black or woman in order to run what could be considered a racist/sexist campaign.
But, upon reflection, what I found most offensive actually was Novak's glee at this prospect.
Looking at the video of him on MTP , it seems pretty clear that he was not engaging in neutral reporting: The prospect of Republicans trying to exploit sentiments on race and gender was exhilarating to him. And, neither Russert or Hunt (forget about Shrum) bothered to explore the implications of his statement -- either from the GOP's perspective or his own.
Just to be fair in context, Russert's roundtable was in the midst of laudatory look at Novak's just-released autobiography, and so everyone was in a jocular "those were the days" mode. Still, if the show is called "Meet The Press," you'd think there might be occasion to actually explore a sensitive topic if it comes up in the course of the conversation.
Labels: Dem 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, racism, Robert Novak
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Hello, Imus Be Going
|Wednesday, April 11, 2007
MSNBC-Ya, Don't Wanna Be With Ya
Consider me surprised!
MSNBC announced today that it was parting company with Don Imus by dropping his simulcast.
Given that MSNBC perenially trails Fox and CNN in every part of the day -- and CNN having its own morning-show upheaval -- this decision to disassociate itself from an individual who produces one of its more successful time periods is stunning. But, it shows what an incredible blunder Imus made -- and the economic ramifications it has had.
With General Electric, Ditech and American Express pulling out as advertisers, MSNBC has to watch its bottom line. Even despite the millions Imus was reportedly bringing into MSNBC in the morning, it's clear that the cable station believes that showing him the door is the less costly option.
With MSNBC caving, the pressure on CBS Radio to keep him will be very intense.
Even if CBS stayed with him, how many of the political and journalism heavyweights (particularly those from NBC News) will continue to drop by for interviews?
|
MSNBC announced today that it was parting company with Don Imus by dropping his simulcast.
Given that MSNBC perenially trails Fox and CNN in every part of the day -- and CNN having its own morning-show upheaval -- this decision to disassociate itself from an individual who produces one of its more successful time periods is stunning. But, it shows what an incredible blunder Imus made -- and the economic ramifications it has had.
With General Electric, Ditech and American Express pulling out as advertisers, MSNBC has to watch its bottom line. Even despite the millions Imus was reportedly bringing into MSNBC in the morning, it's clear that the cable station believes that showing him the door is the less costly option.
With MSNBC caving, the pressure on CBS Radio to keep him will be very intense.
Even if CBS stayed with him, how many of the political and journalism heavyweights (particularly those from NBC News) will continue to drop by for interviews?
Labels: Don Imus, political correctness, racism
Monday, April 09, 2007
RAG Gets Results
Of course, this site takes full credit for MSNBC's decision to suspend the Imus simulcast, which we called for over the weekend.
Right.
No, we don't take credit for it. In fact, I thought Imus was too much of a money-maker for the cable station to blink. Apparently that is more true on the radio side of things, given that CBS is sticking with him. However, the continued likelihood of visuals of Imus with NBC's journalistic superstars probably created too much heat for MSNBC to take. They figure that two weeks from now, hardly anyone will remember this.
In the meantime, Imus managed, I'm sure, to boost Al Sharpton's ratings, a fact that proves God (or Someone) does have a sense of humor (in the sense that the pair make an ideal couple).
Finally, speaking of visuals, given Imus' hair issues, isn't he, like, the last person who should be calling anybody a "nappyheaded ho"?
UPDATE: Well, CBS Radio announced later Monday that it would also suspend Imus -- beginning April 16th. Huh? That sounds weird: "We're punishing you, but we're waiting until NEXT week?" I dunno. That sounds more like a vacation to me.
As the saying goes, quite appropos here: Stay tuned -- or not, as the case may be.
UPDATE II: New York's NBC station, Channel 4 got Al Roker on tape Monday evening saying that, "Imus has played with fire on this for a while. Eventually, you're going to get burned." As one of the mainstays on NBC's "The Today Show", Roker carries a lot of weight (no pun intended). If he sends a signal that Imus has worn out his welcome, this story could go further than anyone might anticipate. The Rutgers players and their coach have scheduled a press conference Tuesday.
|
Right.
No, we don't take credit for it. In fact, I thought Imus was too much of a money-maker for the cable station to blink. Apparently that is more true on the radio side of things, given that CBS is sticking with him. However, the continued likelihood of visuals of Imus with NBC's journalistic superstars probably created too much heat for MSNBC to take. They figure that two weeks from now, hardly anyone will remember this.
In the meantime, Imus managed, I'm sure, to boost Al Sharpton's ratings, a fact that proves God (or Someone) does have a sense of humor (in the sense that the pair make an ideal couple).
Finally, speaking of visuals, given Imus' hair issues, isn't he, like, the last person who should be calling anybody a "nappyheaded ho"?
UPDATE: Well, CBS Radio announced later Monday that it would also suspend Imus -- beginning April 16th. Huh? That sounds weird: "We're punishing you, but we're waiting until NEXT week?" I dunno. That sounds more like a vacation to me.
As the saying goes, quite appropos here: Stay tuned -- or not, as the case may be.
UPDATE II: New York's NBC station, Channel 4 got Al Roker on tape Monday evening saying that, "Imus has played with fire on this for a while. Eventually, you're going to get burned." As one of the mainstays on NBC's "The Today Show", Roker carries a lot of weight (no pun intended). If he sends a signal that Imus has worn out his welcome, this story could go further than anyone might anticipate. The Rutgers players and their coach have scheduled a press conference Tuesday.
Labels: Don Imus, political correctness, racism
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Tolerance Tales
While on the subject of stereotyping:
1) Zev Chafetz has a non-PC take on former NBA player Micheal Ray Richardson's recent statements about Jews:
Seriously, it's a great column that speaks to the conundrum of how and whether one can speak of group "positive" stereotypes. Everything Richardson said was stereotypical of Jews -- good lawyers, "crafty", wise in business -- but as Chafets says, there is no hint of malice in Richardson's words. On the contrary, they are laudatory. And, given Richardson's history of "creative" language use such as "the ship be sinking" (speaking of his Knicks team's crumbling playoff chances), should be taken at face value.
The problem, of course, is that members of embattled or ostracized groups often anticipate the other side of the coin in such images. Thus, if someone says that blacks excel at sports and physical pursuits, the feared unspoken flip side is -- "but otherwise they're dumb, violent or sexually promiscuous."
So, the flip side of Jews being "crafty" or "business-wise" is "devious" and "underhanded." But, as Chafets suggests, can't we read the words in the context of what is suggested in the heart of the speaker -- not what is perceived in the mind of the listener?
2) Meanwhile, morning talk-jock Don Imus eats some well-deserved crow for his comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. On Wednesday, he and sidekick Bernard McGurk called the women, "nappy-headed ho's" while their opponents, the Tennessee Lady Vols (who won) were "cute." As it happens, Rutgers is a virtually all-black team, while Tennessee is more racially mixed. McGurk called the game a contest between the "Jigaboos and the Wannabes." After dismissing the criticism Thursday, Imus finally apologized on Friday.
In the interest of clarity, it should be noted that the "J. vs. W." line was -- as McGurk correctly noted -- lifted from Spike Lee (though -- contrary to what Imus' other sidekick, Charles McCord, stated -- from School Daze, not Do The Right Thing). That, of course, was in the context of a movie where Lee explored intra-racial sensibility set at an all black college.
Regardless, the apology was a day late and a dollar short. First, his comment was, not just racist, but unnecessarily thuggish. Like their male college counterparts, the Rutgers players aren't professionals. They're not making huge amounts of money playing a sport. They are student athletes, who, unlike their male counterparts won't make the multi-millions if/when they go professional. None of the players said or did anything to deserve that sort of verbal abuse. On the contrary, as a #4 seed, they defeated a #1 (Duke, the top overall seed in the women's tournament), #2 and #3 seed to make it to the championship game. They were a great example of good sportsmanship -- and a good sports story (whether one is a fan of women's college basketball or not). And he calls them "nappyheaded 'hos." Given his platform, he should be suspended.
Given the amount of money he brings in to radio station WFAN and cable's MSNBC, he won't be.
3) Newt Gingrich responds to the uproar of his "ghetto" comments by sharing his views on the importance of English in cultural assimilation and success in the U.S.:
|
1) Zev Chafetz has a non-PC take on former NBA player Micheal Ray Richardson's recent statements about Jews:
Asked about his contract negotiations, Richardson said he didn't expect problems because "I've got big-time lawyers. Big-time Jew lawyers."Oh, and one more thing: What about the Beastie Boys, Jewish rappers, who said of a new "girlie" that "she's crafty --she's just my type"?
Alarmed, the reporters warned Richardson that his words could be considered insulting because they fit the stereotype of Jews as crafty and shrewd.
Richardson didn't even blink. "Are you kidding me?" he demanded. "They've got the best security system in the world. Have you ever been to an airport in Tel Aviv? They're real crafty. Listen, they are hated all over the world, so they've got to be crafty. They got a lot of power in this world, you know what I mean? Which I think is great. I don't think there's nothing wrong with it. If you look in most professional sports, they're run by Jewish people. If you look at a lot of most successful corporations and stuff, more businesses, they're run by Jewish [sic]. It's not a knock, but they are some crafty people."
For these observations, Richardson was suspended by the Patroons, forbidden by team owner Ben Fernandez to even attend practice. Predictably, Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, praised this punishment and demanded an apology...
Excuse me, but Richardson didn't say anything offensive...In fact, Jews, as a people, are smart, in my experience. And they're proud of it (especially the dumb ones). Wake up a Jew in the middle of the night and he can rattle off the Jewish Nobel Prize winners in alphabetical order. Believe me, I've been a Jew for 59 years, and I know what I'm talking about.
What other hurtful things did Richardson supposedly say? That Israel has the best airport security in the world? This is both true and something Israel itself brags about. That Jews are hated and need to protect themselves? That's the founding premise of the Anti-Defamation League itself.
Sure, Richardson exaggerates when he says that Jews own most sports teams. As far as I can tell, Jews (about 1% of the population) only own about half the teams in the NBA (and a pretty fair proportion in baseball and football too). So what?
As to the observation that Jews run a lot of successful businesses, no kidding. Jews are very likely the most economically successful ethnic group in the U.S. What's the matter with that?
Seriously, it's a great column that speaks to the conundrum of how and whether one can speak of group "positive" stereotypes. Everything Richardson said was stereotypical of Jews -- good lawyers, "crafty", wise in business -- but as Chafets says, there is no hint of malice in Richardson's words. On the contrary, they are laudatory. And, given Richardson's history of "creative" language use such as "the ship be sinking" (speaking of his Knicks team's crumbling playoff chances), should be taken at face value.
The problem, of course, is that members of embattled or ostracized groups often anticipate the other side of the coin in such images. Thus, if someone says that blacks excel at sports and physical pursuits, the feared unspoken flip side is -- "but otherwise they're dumb, violent or sexually promiscuous."
So, the flip side of Jews being "crafty" or "business-wise" is "devious" and "underhanded." But, as Chafets suggests, can't we read the words in the context of what is suggested in the heart of the speaker -- not what is perceived in the mind of the listener?
2) Meanwhile, morning talk-jock Don Imus eats some well-deserved crow for his comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. On Wednesday, he and sidekick Bernard McGurk called the women, "nappy-headed ho's" while their opponents, the Tennessee Lady Vols (who won) were "cute." As it happens, Rutgers is a virtually all-black team, while Tennessee is more racially mixed. McGurk called the game a contest between the "Jigaboos and the Wannabes." After dismissing the criticism Thursday, Imus finally apologized on Friday.
In the interest of clarity, it should be noted that the "J. vs. W." line was -- as McGurk correctly noted -- lifted from Spike Lee (though -- contrary to what Imus' other sidekick, Charles McCord, stated -- from School Daze, not Do The Right Thing). That, of course, was in the context of a movie where Lee explored intra-racial sensibility set at an all black college.
Regardless, the apology was a day late and a dollar short. First, his comment was, not just racist, but unnecessarily thuggish. Like their male college counterparts, the Rutgers players aren't professionals. They're not making huge amounts of money playing a sport. They are student athletes, who, unlike their male counterparts won't make the multi-millions if/when they go professional. None of the players said or did anything to deserve that sort of verbal abuse. On the contrary, as a #4 seed, they defeated a #1 (Duke, the top overall seed in the women's tournament), #2 and #3 seed to make it to the championship game. They were a great example of good sportsmanship -- and a good sports story (whether one is a fan of women's college basketball or not). And he calls them "nappyheaded 'hos." Given his platform, he should be suspended.
Given the amount of money he brings in to radio station WFAN and cable's MSNBC, he won't be.
3) Newt Gingrich responds to the uproar of his "ghetto" comments by sharing his views on the importance of English in cultural assimilation and success in the U.S.:
Still, it's important that we not allow passion to rule the debate. Too often, sincere expressions of support for English as our unifying language are interpreted as a lack of support for welcoming and respecting new Americans. For example, those who support "English-first" are often mistakenly portrayed as supporters of "English-only." English-first supporters believe that English should be the official language of the government but that other languages are fine in communities and commerce. In contrast, English-only advocates want to outlaw all languages other than English.Exactly right and a far more approprate response than his silly Espagnol YouTube performance.
Clearly, these two positions are very different. Promoting English-first is not — and should not be — disrespectful of other languages. In fact, supporting English instruction for immigrants demonstrates our confidence in their ability to pursue happiness here and contribute to their families, communities and new country.
As a part of any comprehensive immigration reform, we should renew our commitment to making sure that all new immigrants have the opportunity to learn English. In public schools, children should have intensive English instruction rather than bilingual classes. For adults, we can adopt something similar to a program Israel has for its new immigrants. There, every new resident is entitled to 500 hours of intensive Hebrew language instruction paid for by the government. And along with intensive English language instruction, they could receive U.S. history and civics training.
Equally important, we must abolish federal rules requiring that government documents — including ballots — be printed in multiple languages. These multilingual documents discourage immigrants from learning English as rapidly as possible, limiting their ability to engage in a truly common political culture. Rather than expanding opportunities for new Americans, these mandates help limit them.
Labels: Don Imus, Micheal Ray Richardson, Newt Gingrich, political correctness, racism, Rutgers University
Thursday, December 14, 2006
N***a, Pretty Please
A recent thread in the Comments section ended up bringing up all the interesting words Archie Bunker tossed around. Given the Michael Richards to-do of a few weeks ago -- and Rosie O'Donnell's muffed joke about the Chinese, I thought it would be a good idea to dive into the subject further.
Anyway, here's what seems to be a great resource for racial and ethnic slurs of all types. Not sure I would call this exhaustive, but it's a good place to start!
Everyone get their fighting words out of the way!
Technorati Tags: Michael Richards, comedy, racism
|
Anyway, here's what seems to be a great resource for racial and ethnic slurs of all types. Not sure I would call this exhaustive, but it's a good place to start!
Everyone get their fighting words out of the way!
Technorati Tags: Michael Richards, comedy, racism
Labels: Michael Richards, racism, Rosie O'Donnell
