Is Harry Reid a racist? It depends on what the meaning of racist is:
If by "racist," you mean somebody who feels antagonism toward black people, then Harry Reid isn't a racist. Harry Reid thinks we are racists.
If by "racist" you mean somebody who would use other people's feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power, then Harry Reid is a racist.
ADDED: To fight the charge of Type 1 racism, the Democrats are rolling out their Type 2 racism in all its virulence.
AND: Eugene Volokh responds to this post:
Does the term “racist” indeed normally mean “somebody who would use other people’s feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power”? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used this way; and while I certainly recognize that words can have multiple standard meanings, I’m skeptical that the second meaning Prof. Althouse suggests is indeed standard.The reason why I put it that way is not because I saw that as a standard meaning. It is intended to express what I think is exactly what Reid was doing. The clause begins with "if." Seen that way, I'm saying: If what Reid did is racist, Reid is a racist.
Now, it's a separate question whether racism should be defined like that. Perhaps a narrow definition of "racist" is desirable. The word is so inflammatory, you might want to reserve it for those who think people of a particular race are inferior and deserve to be treated differently. But maybe our understanding of the word should be refined so that it covers those who use race in other ways that we disapprove of. My post was intended to offer the suggestion that we ought to disapprove of what Reid did with race and for that reason we ought to adopt it as the definition of racist.
Volokh says that if my proffered use of "racist" isn't "standard"...
... then it seems to me a bad idea to try to redefine “racist” this way, because of the substantial possibility that (1) listeners will misunderstand...I disagree. I want to challenge people to think about what is "racist," not save the word for the meanings that have already been established. Let's use it in ways that are useful. And let's talk about and develop the meaning of this powerful word, not just try to make life easy for listeners.
... and (2) will misunderstand in a way that is unfair to Sen. Reid, because it might lead listeners to think that Reid is actually being called a definition-one racist (a normal meaning of “racist”), since that’s a more standard definition.I'm not willing to dumb down the conversation like this. I said quite clearly that Reid wasn't a Type 1 racist. I think there is something else he was doing that was bad, and I'm using a proposed redefinition of the word to inspire critical thought about how bad it is.
Posts
313 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 313 of 313Ritmo: You're the racist scum, FenFuck. And STFU is not an argument. You're too dumb to have one, remember? Oh yeah, that's what you hate to be reminded of. Racism enabler.
Oh lookie, the little racist scum has a sore spot. You should have stuck to parroting your talking points, libtard propaganda troll.
How long have you loathed your plantation slaves, Democrat?
And where's the alleged spin, shit for brains? Did I state one thing that was factually or logically incorrect? Of course I didn't. So keep insulting (I can do that, too BTW). You know you're pissed off because you're trying to defend the dumbest thing that anyone could attempt to defend.
Whether Rush Limbaugh is a racist or just doesn't mind enabling racism is moot. The point is he's obviously fixated by issues of race because to not be would be politically inconvenient for him - regardless of his professed pretensions toward a fictional, color-blind society.
Are we a religion-blind society, too?
Gender-blind?
But only with race does the right-wing base like to pretend that these distinctions aren't noticed by people. Why? It's the only prejudice that they or their minions can't openly tout and get away with. And their resentment over that fact is searing and obvious.
You guys (and I mean FEN and anyone who wants to join him) have revealed yourselves dumber than pond scum. We know your game. So does everyone else. Including Michael Steele -- which is why that idiot pounces on Reid so defensively. No black person is dumb enough to buy it. It's for GOP (the party of whites) consumption only. Only your guys would even think to entertain his propaganda.
You guys slimed Rush over similar context re McNabb. Blacklisted him from buying an NFL team because of it, Now, all of sudden, its "different".
NFL owners are all liberals? Haha. No martyrs big or small, real or imagined can ever be enough for conservatives.
A bunch of whites* (who probably rarely encounter a black person in daily life
Yes Ritmo you are correct we crackers never see black people at all except for the maid who fetches our coffee. Of course we save the landscape work for the wetbacks since none of us know how to work a lawnmower. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go to my squash match.
/sarcasm off
Honestly, I am amazed that you can surpass heights I never imagined possible for someone to be an asshole.
Ahhh... plantation slaves! Right! My first-generation American Republican-voting grandfather must have owned many of those, I suppose.
But now that I've revealed what counts in your mind as my relevant past to you, why don't you come out with your family's details, propaganda troll? Come on, out with it! Let's have the FEN family political and ethnic history.
What the fuck does "Fen" even stand for? At some point, I should just start generating a list of acronyms. Furious, Easily stupefied Nutjob?
Come on. Come up with an argument. At least try to.
Dumbass. It's your own partisan interests that are at stake here. Not mine. (Not that I really have any. I'm just anti-idiot, which, by default, puts me on the wrong side of the pseudo-arguments feverishly pursued by the many pretend-conservatives/populists here).
Honestly, I am amazed that you can surpass heights I never imagined possible for someone to be an asshole.
If by "asshole" you mean "someone with a brain who isn't afraid to stomp the living daylights out of any idiotic and craven utterings attempting to pass for sane thought", then I most heartily plead guilty.
On what planet is politeness a substitute for saying something sane? Or rather, in what psychiatric ward is... oh, ok. I see your point.
Classes are out. Thread's over.
Ritmo: No black person is dumb enough to buy it. It's for GOP (the party of whites) consumption only. Only your guys would even think to entertain his propaganda.
Laughing at you speaking for "no black person". Did you check on their shackles before you spoke for them, Bossman? Just to be sure? Because I think a few may have esacaped the Democrat Plantation.
You guys are STILL slave owners, just using different methods these days.
The point is he's [Rush]obviously fixated by issues of race because to not be would be politically inconvenient
blah blah more hatemongering from the racist libtard troll. And you're not even making sense. Blather away hypocrite.
Jesus, Ritmo, I was finally siding with you, for once, and you had to go and blow it.
For a guy who swings the language so well, man, you can be a real dumbshit.
If by "asshole" you mean "someone with a brain
Someone with a brain doesn't make a blanket assumption that anyone on this blog rarely encounters black people. This is the US not Norway you stupid moron.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick you are pathetic and here I thought hdhouse was the dumbest person on the planet.
"Laughing at you speaking for "no black person". Did you check on their shackles before you spoke for them, Bossman?"
No. Just the internets, any polls and past history. And Ta Nehisi Coates. Which black people did you ask? Well, there's Crack Emcee, and he's just covering his ears, crying, "please stop! Make it all go away!" Which leads me to believe that even he at least knows how dumb and ridiculous this is making you guys look.
But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Which black people did you query for their opinion about this? Oh, that's right. None. Again, you probably don't know any but don't let that get in the way of your delusions to the effect you are not a hatemongerer, not a slaveowner, (or whatever), and not a condescending paternalistic asshole or enabler of racism. No. You are certainly not any of those. You just like to speak for people who you don't even know. And probably don't even care to know. But I'm the asshole, the racist, the whatever. Ok.
Looks like you've beat me hands down in the blathering away game. So why don't you go suck your thumb and slither away like the embarrassed, retarded hyper partisan nutjob that you are?
Sukietawdry wrote:
I realize it's not a word much in use these days in the US (except perhaps by those associated with the UNCF), but when did it become a pejorative (or not-quite pejorative)?
I think it's due to our overly-PC world, where we seek to find racism even in non-racist terms.
It reminds me of the word "Jew". I was once talking to a Dutch person who referred to Ajax, the fabled Amsterdam club, as a "Jew club". I am not a PC person, but I do have an extra-sensitivity towards anything anti-semitic. To my ear, "Jew club" sounds impossibly anti-semitic in English. If you just add -ish to Jew, not so much.
I explained this situation to the Dutch person, who seemed to understand and said he would try not to call it a Jew club in English anymore.
But I could see that he thought I was being overly PC.
Cheers,
Victoria
Hey Ritmo, maybe you can get more talking points from the Congressional Black Caucus of Uncle Toms. That'll fly.
And whats it like having Al Sharpton as your house-nigger? Aren't you the least bit ashamed by it all?
Also....I want to know just what is a "Negro dialect" and who speaks it?
DBQ, as I said yesterday, Reid meant what my black pals say is "ghetto" -- or what is more politely (?) termed, "ebonics".
Someone with a brain doesn't make a blanket assumption that anyone on this blog rarely encounters black people. This is the US not Norway you stupid moron.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick you are pathetic and here I thought hdhouse was the dumbest person on the planet.
Someone with a brain and real-life encounters with people who have different experiences than he does, might have a theory of mind, though. And that, when it comes to this non-issue, makes all the difference.
A theory of mind, I remind you, is this:
Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.
Pretty basic concept, integral to any sane understanding of human psychology, and not very controversial. So what's getting in the way of anyone here applying something so easy to understand to what Reid had said?
As the wiki article says, autistic people (and perhaps those with the related Asperberger's) might not be that adept with it. So DBQ gets a pass. But what's the conservatives' excuse? Nationalism? Paternalism? What, exactly?
Fen, the embittered and retarded spokesperson for white resentment, said:
And whats it like having Al Sharpton as your house-nigger? Aren't you the least bit ashamed by it all?
Not sure what you mean by this. Is it supposed to resemble what you feel toward Michael Steele?
What on earth is wrong with acknowledging, privately, that "black" attributes make a candidate less electable on the national level?
I suppose nothing if its ok (for both liberals and conservatives) to openly acknowledge that the vast majority of blacks, well, have black attributes and aren't very electable. In other words, it sounds like Reid is telling us that as long as you don't look too black and sound too black you too can become President of the US. Honestly I can't see that being a winning formula for the black vote but I guess the pandering and votes for largese goes a long way.
Trophy wives know what they are too but are content as long as the money keeps coming in.
Balfegor wrote:
It's kind of bizarre, particularly for someone like Woods, who really does seem to have thought about himself and his background in an enlightened post-racial way (unlike, say, Obama. Or, for that matter, me).
It would be kind of interesting then to extrapolate from your comment.
Would white Americans, who Senator Reid allegedly thinks are swayed in Barack Obama's favour as being "light-skinned" (read, it makes him whiter and more acceptable in their minds, ACCORDING to Reid)...
...have elected him if he had had the same kind of rumours of being a skirt-chaser attached to him?
How about if those rumours that he has a hoochie-mama stashed in the Bahamas were true? Given Reid's idea, would white America suddenly view Barack Obama as "blacker" because he cheated?
I think that this from John Torbett via Instapundit.com may be a better analogy:
While people seem intent on comparing Reid’s statement to Trent Lott’s, I think a better analogy would be Rush Limbaugh’s comment about the press several years ago. When Rush stated that the press had built up Donovan McNabb as a great quarterback because they wanted to see a black quarterback succeed, he was obviously commenting on the political correctness endemic to the main stream media. Limbaugh explained that McNabb was an average quarterback who had benefitted in previous years from the Eagles’ dominating defense (which was no longer dominant). Yet, liberals claimed that it was a racist statement against McNabb. As recently as last fall Democrats were mis-characterizing that statement in order to undermine Limbaugh’s bid to buy the St. Louis Rams. Now, Democrats can appreciate that Reid was merely expressing his perception of the American people’s tolerance for a black political leader and the characteristics that he believes a black man must have in order to appeal to the American electorate. It seems that they can see nuance when the offender is a Democrat, but they scream racism when it is a conservative.
A theory of mind, I remind you, is this:
Ritmo, honestly I don't really care about that since it doesn't have one thing to do with your idiotic comment that white people here rarely encounter black people in everyday life. I didn't really read anything you said afterward since that comment alone was so mind boggeling stupid.
Arturius wrote:
In other words, it sounds like Reid is telling us that as long as you don't look too black and sound too black you too can become President of the US. Honestly I can't see that being a winning formula for the black vote but I guess the pandering and votes for largese goes a long way.
For me, the most tragic outcome of "Negrogate" is that we see black pundits coming out to defend Reid by saying, "But what he said is the truth -- blacks are more electable if they are light, and don't talk like gangsta rappers".
Sure, as DBQ said, that cuts both ways. Whites would have a hard time getting elected to national office if they acted all "trailer trash".
But I just don't agree with Reid, as far as light-skinned is concerned. BUT NOT AT ALL, NOT ONE BIT. I find it very disgusting and disturbing that he said that, not the Negro part.
And I really found the Crack Emcee's comments and attitude on this thread heart-wrenching. I felt sad that he had to say what he did, because I think it hurts him on some primordial level to acknowledge that blacks will always be viewed differently from whites, on a basic human level.
And yes, I'll never know what that feels like.
It was intended for private consumption.
Oh, well, that changes everything!
Reid didn't say it publicly because (unlike Trent Lott) he is not openly endorsing racist attitudes, Arturius, and there is no evidence to suggest that he ever did. Hence, he could actually have a problem with the society, the culture, for thinking in a way that he will acknowledge segments among them do. Which differentiates him from conservative mythologists who write their own self-serving script, patting themselves on the back and saying that racism never plays a role in anything in American society or American politics. It just doesn't. Rush Limbaugh said so! Except when it comes to LIBERALS. How convenient. But conservatives can never be racists or colluding with racists or racist attitudes just because they're conservative.
It would be funny if it weren't so unbelievable and trite.
But as I said, no thought among the cons. Just articles of faith. Keep praying to Limbaugh, or Hannity, or whoever. Lord knows Michael Steele ain't going to save the party! (But neither will the former... shhhhh... don't tell them).
Try thinking for a change, guys. You're not doing yourselves any good.
Is it a face lift for Harry? Or Botox?
Ritmo, honestly I don't really care about that since it doesn't have one thing to do with your idiotic comment that white people here rarely encounter black people in everyday life. I didn't really read anything you said afterward since that comment alone was so mind boggeling stupid.
It's mind-boggling stupid to entertain the possibility that you asked any of these many, many too numerous-to-count black people what they thought of the whole kerfuffle and that it somehow, secretly, helped inform your thoughts on the matter. But maybe you don't care. Maybe it's ok to just know someone in a superficial sense and not care to ask what they think about something controversial. Not sure how that's respectful treatment, the opposite of racism or condescension or whatever, but perhaps you could tell me.
You tell me, Hoosier.
You know, I once had a person described to me as having "diarrhea of the mouth." Then I met that person, and understood the metaphor immediately.
You, sir, have diarrhea of the keyboard. I wondered how this thread had exploded into 225 comments (and climbing) but then I saw your garish icon and realized what had happened.
, Reid meant what my black pals say is "ghetto" -- or what is more politely (?) termed, "ebonics".
That's sort of what I thought he meant. However, ghetto speak is something that is cultural and economically derived and not necessarily specific to any particular race. Same thing with the Hispanic gang speak in California. You don't have to be Mexican or Guatemalan to participate.
It is debatable as to whether 'ebonics' is an actual dialect. I tend to think it is: as a derivation of English, early English and a mix of African languages using some grammatical rules from both to create a blend. Just like Gullah or Creole are distinct and unique dialects.
The dialects of remote rural Appalachia, before the introduction of much radio or television were also quite unique and related to early English/Elizabethian speech patterns. An historical and geographical remnant, if you will. Ebonics can also be thought of that way, with the exception that it is a purposeful remnant that would in the normal course of cultural evolution been mostly absorbed. It is the purposeful isolation of inner city/ghetto culture that keeps it in play. This is really a shame since it prevents what would be a natural blending of cultures and peoples. **
To put Ebonics or Creole in a racial context however is somewhat racist since the dialects are a blend of many cultures and races. But, that is the perception of liberals, especially, and others who hold racist views, that all Blacks speak must the same. I imagine they are quite shocked when someone like Tiger Woods doesn't use a "Negro" dialect or if Victoria from Florida speaks with a British accent instead of a Southern drawl. The disconnect between preconceived ideas/bias and reality are disconcerting. Some people can't take it and their heads explode.
** Linguistic Anthropology lecture over.
Nice try, Mike (and BTW, if I have diarrhea of the mouth or keyboard, do you have constipation of the brain? Just a thought).
The comment thread started at 10 or so this morning and was up to 189 comment by the time I even bothered to step up to the plate to offer the only effective counter-narrative (and incidentally, the only sane and defensible one). Does it ever occur to you that I can respond effectively (and at length) because the attacks are so incessant and ingrained, yet shallow and wrong?
Of course it doesn't. But keep up the insults. Keep up the ad hominem. Keep not understanding why Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh are turning your party into a rump movement. Doesn't bother me a bit.
But I do appreciate the opportunity to beat you at your own game, Mike. I really do. The choice wasn't mine but I'll enjoy it for as long as you want to go that route.
It's mind-boggling stupid to entertain the possibility that you asked any of these many, many too numerous-to-count black people what they thought of the whole kerfuffle
Then that's what you should have said, not that we rarely encounter black people in everyday life. As Crack said, someone who 'writes so well' sure can say some stupid shit.
But maybe you don't care.
Actually Ritmo I don't care. Reid merely confirmed for me what I believed about liberals for the last 20 years; that they view those darker skinned blacks who speak negro as less then capable of success unless caring and sympathetic people like Reid, Pelosi et al, step in to save the day with 'social justice' legislation.
Hey if black voters don't see anything wrong with Reid's comments then fine with me. I could care less. Says a lot more about their own self respect then what I think.
I have more to reply to you after dinner, DBQ, should you be willing to read it (it's been a while since we had a plus 200 pg thread on Althouse), but I do want to reply about this:
I imagine they are quite shocked when someone like Tiger Woods doesn't use a "Negro" dialect or if Victoria from Florida speaks with a British accent instead of a Southern drawl.
My accent is now American. Even I can hear the accent shift. Curiously, and now I know why Selznick chose Viv Leigh for Mitchell's iconic heroine, I sound "Southern"-ish. Without the lilt, if you will.
Reid merely confirmed for me what I believed about liberals for the last 20 years; that they view those darker skinned blacks who speak negro as less then capable of success unless caring and sympathetic people like Reid, Pelosi et al, step in to save the day with 'social justice' legislation.
But Reid said no such thing. He was speaking about electability. And why is that wrong? Why should anyone presumes that it goes against the conservative script? That it's a liberal's errand? Why couldn't Alan Keyes get out the vote in Illinois? Why don't conservatives run a female candidate who looks like a hippie, funky-colored hair and/or ring in her nose or whatnot, but touts conservative talking points? Or someone who originates from a different country, speaks with a heavy accent, but goes down the line for the Republicans' party platform? You know, I'm sure that such people exist. And yet, you would never run them.
It's your party that's obsessed with appearances, with "assimilation", with fitting into the perception of what looks most natural and fitting to the dominant (ethnic) culture, and yet, you want to shift blame for these tendencies onto the left?!!! Unbelievable.
But then again, why should I even try to have this conversation with you? From the comment to which I just responded, you are still insisting on not addressing the point of electability (something for which Reid is not personally responsible) and shift back on to policy and a supposed lack of black self-respect. Ok. You did your job - as a pundit. But as a concerned partisan, shouldn't you care to effectively address what is the whole point behind this latest pseudo-outrage? One would think so. Does it occur to you that at least some people you'd want to reach would see that you're just changing the subject?
In the context of the electorate, it was elitist. But not surprising. After all, Reid says Washington tourists are stinky.
"No. Just the internets, any polls and past history. And Ta Nehisi Coates. Which black people did you ask? Well, there's Crack Emcee, and he's just covering his ears, crying, Which leads me to believe that even he at least knows how dumb and ridiculous this is making you guys look."
Ritmo,
I'm at work now. My two bosses (who I love) are white and latino. The guy next to my cubical (who I love) is pilipino - and our assistant (who I love) is white.
When a black person comes in and will only work with me, because they think I share their racial assumptions, I clock them (mentally) as a racist and do my best to deal with their bullshit talk without revealing my own feelings - my job is to get me and my guys paid - and if that means listening to racist blather for a while, I do, and then me and my co-workers (sometimes) laugh at them afterwards. If they come in and want to work with me because it's more comfortable, culturally, that's fine - I like spitting shit at work because it makes it more fun - but I ain't hearing no bullshit about my white friends without someone paying a price ($) for it. I just don't have time for it, man.
I feel the same way here. This is a dumb conversation. It's not that "I can't take it", but that it's below us. You kinda walked in saying the same thing and then fell into it, head-over-heels, yourself. Dude, it's a dumb obsession - like biting your toenails - let it go.
I'm at work - I gotta go - but I want to say this because it's important to me:
This blog has been very, very good for my (troubled) mind. I like you guys. But if you insist on bringing the craziness of this crazy world here, too, it won't be what I need anymore. We need to be done with this. Like NewAge, it's to be dissed, shunned, or avoided as much as possible. If you can't handle that, YOU'RE THE RACIST. You suffer from the same affliction that caused all these problems for us - not me, but "us". I've got enough problems to deal with. I don't need this, too. I need somewhere I can talk to smart people about intelligent things. This ain't it.
I gotta go. Make it better, you guys.
"I really found the Crack Emcee's comments and attitude on this thread heart-wrenching. I felt sad that he had to say what he did, because I think it hurts him on some primordial level to acknowledge that blacks will always be viewed differently from whites, on a basic human level.
And yes, I'll never know what that feels like."
Thanks, man, and you're right: I got no place to go from this. And, yea, you know what it feels like. It may not be a constant (it's not even a constant for me, but a regular annoying occurrance) but, as DBQ said, we all have to deal with some element of it. We're more the same than anyone cares to think:
Just let it go.
Personally, I'm not capable of biting my toenails - but agree that it's mostly a dumb conversation. But as long as it's a partisan one, I'm going to have to point out that Michael Steele and Ann Althouse made it one. The "controversy" (and hence, the impulse to talk at length about it -- 189 comments before I said a single about it thing hours later!!!) comes in when it's made political.
I claim no responsibility for that. But to the extent that stupid partisanship fuels a dumb conversation (for cheap political gain, Crack), sure, I'll dump on the partisans for that. Can't blame me now, can you?
Sure I can.
But Reid said no such thing. He was speaking about electability.
Fine. So the message is for future black candidates is not be too dark and don't speak negro. Gotcha.
1) Why couldn't Alan Keyes get out the vote in Illinois?
2) Why don't conservatives run a female candidate who looks like a hippie, funky-colored hair and/or ring in her nose or whatnot, but touts conservative talking points?
3) Or someone who originates from a different country, speaks with a heavy accent, but goes down the line for the Republicans' party platform? You know, I'm sure that such people exist. And yet, you would never run them.
As for #1, I don't know why Keyes lost. I'm not from Illinois. Maybe they don't like carpetbaggers unlike NY.
#2, Cause we judge folks by appearance? I just wouldn't take a pink haired hippy dippy nose ring conservative seriously.
#3 Who said? Heck I'd like to see Powell or Rice run but then despite their light skin tone and non-negro speaking voice, they were denounced as house slaves by your side.
and yet, you want to shift blame for these tendencies onto the left?!!! Unbelievable.
Um...what? Reid and Biden make statements to that amount to 'finally a black man that doesn't look or sound like a brotha! and you have the balls to make that statement? Unbelievable indeed.
you are still insisting on not addressing the point of electability (something for which Reid is not personally responsible) and shift back on to policy and a supposed lack of black self-respect.
Ritmo have you ever heard of black people being accused of 'acting white'? Cause they don't talk negro, or don't wear their pants around thier knees, or strive to do good in school? Gee Ritmo I suppose you just pretended that Uncle Tom slurs against blacks who didn't toe the victim line was just all made up.
That's the point you are either ignorant of or just being willfully obtuse. Yes its about electability. Lets take it a step down to the mortal world and lets try that phrase in the corporate world.
"CEO Doe said that we finally found a viable candidate in Tyrone Washington because he has light skin and doesn't talk negro unless he wants to."
See? Electability, hireability. Not much differencet here is there. Well the one difference is CEO Doe would be tarred and feathered for making such a statement.
But as you said, I don't know why I'm having this conversation either.
Ritmo, you're equating race with religion and gender, two things that really do differentiate us in practice?
Sure I can.
Now, you're not worth taking seriously. This is just a blind assertion and if you want to equate my taking to task partisans for taking their own ring-leader's bait with their taking of the bait in the first place, then that makes the conversation even dumber. Sorry.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, Freeman. Race is a made-up concept, but insofar as it aligns with culture, no, that's not made-up. Culture differentiates people. It doesn't have to. But it does. Nothing inherently wrong with that, nor with acknowledging it. If the cons want to add anthropology to the list of disciplines that they think are so illegitimate that only professors would believe them, that's fine. But as with my preference for believing molecular biology, I won't be joining them.
Of course, I have no problem with multiculturalism. But perhaps that's because I've made the leap that cons have yet to make: Differentiating cultural relativism from moral relativism.
Below a certain age, people really do seem to be generally colorblind.
Of course, Freeman. That comment by Ritmo is just the stupid way a lot of left leaners see issues. They see all our differences as points of conflict, battle lines and causes. Sometimes they are more and sometimes they are less, but they are not all the same unless the mind involved requires that simplicity.
RB A bunch of whites* (who probably rarely encounter a black person in daily life, let alone took stock of [or cared] how they were struck by Reid's comment)
And you know this how?
Culture differentiates people.
Yes, I agree. Not race. No race fully aligned with a particular culture. So the lines that really divide are cultural, not racial.
Should be an "is" there between "race" and "fully".
Read the (7:39 PM) response, bagoh20, before pretending to speak for me. If it helps, you can even move your lips along to the words.
Ahhh... what a difference the word "fully" makes. Very broad wiggle-room afforded by that word now, isn't there?
This also just in... television not aligned "fully" with sight, but also with sound.
I'm not trying to be condescending, but I think your response is kind of a way to split hairs - to acknowledge what I'm saying while trying to imply that the extent of the relationship makes a difference. Maybe it does, but not to the overall validity of the argument. To another argument perhaps, but probably not this one.
Ritmo, I'm not splitting hairs. It's important. If you have an actual dividing line, why would you try to paste a false non-dividing line over it?
Do you know a lot of people of other races? If so, it seems like you'd know this. It's culture, not race, that divides.
Sorry, I just realized I missed the last part of your remark:
So the lines that really divide are cultural, not racial.
Agreed. But the fact is that in America we use the latter concept as a shorthand for the former. You don't have to, I don't have to, and no one here has to. But none of us have the right or the ability on our own to re-define a concept as it is broadly held to, even if for the sake of a better argument, or progress, or whatever.
Sorry Ritmo, the problem with being a blabber mouth is that people already know where you stand. There is nothing left to learn about you that you have not made clear. The occasional backpedal does not change your direction.
In college, ever hang out with the hard sciences crowd? You'll find every race, every religion, and a common culture.
But the fact is that in America we use the latter concept as a shorthand for the former.
Well, whatever. There are all manner of things that other people may do that I think are silly and ignore.
Saying that culture = race is just stupid. I'm not going to pretend it's true.
No backpedaling. You may think you know where I "stand" according to a shallow political game, but not according to to anything else. Freeman and I are having the relevant conversation. It picked up where you left off. Sorry if you feel left behind, though. Maybe next time we'll leave some breadcrumbs, or leftovers.
People who believe race = culture, just haven't seen enough of either.
She looked at me! She did, she did! I think she likes me!
Saying that culture = race is just stupid. I'm not going to pretend it's true.
And I never said it was.
Ever hear of a Venn diagram? Actually, I shouldn't say that. You list mathematics as one of your interests. Of course you have.
If you concluded that I meant they were interchangeable in both directions, that's not what I had in mind. Some associations include others, but it doesn't necessarily work the other way around. The difference is between "equal to" and "inclusive of".
Apparently you don't relegate your shallowness just to political games, bag'o.
Now you're just being condescending to Freeman and her contribution. If you can't take what a woman has to say seriously without putting some kind of stupid sexual spin on it, then maybe there's more you want to look into beyond just your ignorance on race and culture. And perhaps anything else that I might be missing.
Harry Reid is not a racist. He is a moron. Only Joe Biden is dumber. They are the only two people who make Mortimer Snerd look like a member of Mensa.
Should Reid resign? If he were an honorable person he would. But we know there is no honor in him. He is a disgusting, despicable, and deplorable person.
Frankly, I am happy with Harry Reid keeping his leadership post. There is a decent chance that his replacement would be Chuck Schumer, who is a lot smarter, and much slimier. Much better, in my view, a majority leader who keeps making verbal gaffes than one who doesn't. Neither Reid nor Pelosi do anything to burnish the public face of the Democratic party.
As someone pointed out, if Mitt Romney had said what Harry Reid had said, his Mormon religion would have been brought up, since until a decade or so ago, Black men apparently were excluded from their clergy. And that is part of why I find credible the claim above that Reid supposedly said a lot worse things about African-Americans in private back in Nevada, esp. years ago before he came to national prominence - though I suspect he said much worse about first generation Hispanics. It would fit well with the small town Mormonism that he grew up with. (Lest anyone of the LDS persuasion jump in here - I believe that that church has come a long way over the last 20 years in this regard, and I don't see this racism with my younger Mormon friends).
The day has not come where Freeman needs your help defending herself. Especially from me.
Once you go ahead with your plan to sacrifice your testicles to save us from terrorism, Bag'O, that might be the point at which I'll find your waxing flirtatiously worthy of reading. Not before.
The Democrats are lucky that they are not subject to the same rules that they have imposed on private businesses. If a business had senior executives spouting racist statements (like Senators Biden, Reid, Bird and others), engaging in sexual affairs with subordinates (like President Clinton, Sen. Edwards, etc.), negotiating contracts for their personal benefit to the detriment of their employer (like Sen. Nelson), lying about where money was being spent (like they did with the Medicare money and Social Security money), and generally overspending, cooking the books and deceiving customers and business partners (like the empty promise to televise the healthcare debate), the business would be bankrupt and under indictment for accounting fraud, tax fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, racial discrimination and allowing a sexually hostile work environment. That is the definition of hypocrisy: imposing standards and obligations on other people that you are unable to comply with, that you have no intention of complying with, and which do not even apply to you because you make the rules. The Republicans are just as bad, but for the most part it was not their idea to impose these standards on private businesses.
Did anyone point out earlier that Tiger Woods isn't black? Or, should I write "black?"
Used to be once upon a time in the bad old days, that if one was demonstrated (by whatever level of evidence used at the time) to have any "black blood" they were "black." (Or colored or Negro or Afro whatever the term du jour was.)
Tiger Woods is half Asian (one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Thai), one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.
The ignorance diplayed by those judging him by his choice of women is startling in this post racial age.
Seems like a certain part of American culture misses the nuances of post racial America.
Race is a made-up concept, but insofar as it aligns with culture, no, that's not made-up. Culture differentiates people.
Anthropologically speaking race is not a concept. Given a skeleton, most anthropologists can determine within general parameters not only the sex, age and race of the subject, but often the living conditions.
Race has nothing to with skin color. It is an inexact physiological condition that is really becoming obsolete. Obsolete because race was a phenomenon caused by isolation of groups over long periods of time. Today....we travel and interbreed all over the place so eventually, race will become a concept of the past.
Of course, we as human species will find other reasons to try to divide ourselves into tribal groups.
LOL. VW: spelvaca. A very literate cow.
There is a good chance there is audio of Harry Reid saying the quote.
We need to get the authors to release the audio.
Bunny's right, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a made-up concept is a meaningless concept. Race is, and always was, an artificial concept. But artificial things are still real. The dwelling I live in, the car I drive, all artificial. And yet, all real. Same with social conventions. And that is why I refuse to buy the silly conservative talking point that equates ignoring something with depriving it of existence.
Many, many things exist regardless of whether you pay them any heed. In fact, the cons have busying themselves for years by saying terrorism is a bigger problem than liberals want to acknowledge. So no, ignoring something doesn't necessarily make it go away and cons understand that, even if they are infinitely arbitrary in how they choose to acknowledge that truism.
Ritmo, if you could perhaps stop thinking about my testicles, then I could stop thinking about you thinking about them. We would both be happy.
A bit of a crack in the Democratic front around Reid: Senator Russ Feingold tells WISN that he hasn't decided yet whether Harry Reid should resign over insensitive comments.
"I'm thinking about that," Feingold said in response to a question about ousting Reid. "I have not decided whether these comments merit that or not."
Feingold unsure on Reid's future
Oh, Reid is leaving, one way or another, even if I have to drive him back to Searchlight myself.
Ritmo, if you could perhaps stop thinking about my testicles, then I could stop thinking about you thinking about them. We would both be happy.
If you would both refrain from discussing bagoh20's testicles, anyone's testicles and thinking about testicles in general, we would all be very happy.
You're nuts if you think that we want to even think about your nuts.
I'm in Nevada monthly, and Reid is not liked and it has nothing to do with this statement. It's all the ones that came before. Telling the world that our military had lost the war in Iraq while our people were in the heat of fighting it is not forgivable.
It's really not your testicles I'm thinking of, Bag'O, so much as it's your willingness to undergo self-mutilation in the supposed service of a (lost, but) greater cause. I think that principle seems to apply more broadly with you given the way you've thrown yourself onto the rocks over which the maelstrom here has washed.
But really, I'm sorry if the graphic nature of your sacrifice bothers you - as it doesn't bother me in the least. I understand the message behind what you mean by your intended castration and have no problems interpreting it as such. Trust me, your balls do no one any favors once they've been detached from your body and donated for the greater good. It's about the cause. I get it. Really, I do.
Now kindly go away and please find a more productive way to enjoy the rest of your evening. Eunuchs optional.
DBQ, I agree. But it did accomplish the desired effect.
I spoke too soon.
I would ask Bag'O precisely what "effect" he desires, but I'm rather afraid to and would prefer to look back on what was intelligently discussed, enjoy the rest of my evening off-line (and perhaps even in the company of another or others who never had testicles, let alone those with a detachable variety), and go to bed.
I will take you advice Ritmo and leave for now. You're scaring all three of us.
It was intended for private consumption.
Oh, well, that changes everything!
Speaking in public forces you to consider the effect of your word choices on the public in general, while in the flow of private conversation inartful phrasing is common. An essentially inoffensive idea (per Governor Patterson), offensively phrased without intending to give offense.
The real comparison is not regretting in public that a segregationist did not become President back when civil rights activists were getting beaten by cops, nor going on network TV to complain that the liberal media practiced reverse racism.
perhaps even in the company of another or others who never had testicles
Perhaps?
Are you unsure if they have ever had testicles? (not that there is anything wrong with that..to quote Trooper)
Are we talking the Crying Game?
Perhaps you should ask first?
Scaredy cat!
Don't tell me you're afraid of your own balls, Bag'O. Remember, you could always walk up to the local Homeland Security office with them in your hand, having been forcibly detached, and suggest that they could catch a terrorist with them.
That way you get to dispose of both your scary balls and perhaps even a scary terrorist at the same time.
I'm sorry. I should stop. I've been too heavily influenced by Trooper York.
(Although in all honesty, my corruption in no way required any assistance from him).
Oh, I only meant "perhaps" in the sense of any company or no company at all. I wasn't questioning the gender. I don't usually hang out late with the guys on weeknights.
Oh. TERRIFIC. On arriving home from the restaurant, what does my mother say excitedly to me but (in her Germanic syntax):
"A Senator said negro about Obama! See, Americans still use it!"
My efforts at making her stop so she doesn't end up with a fat lip one day, just took a big hit.
Thanks a bunch, Harry!
There is a good chance there is audio of Harry Reid saying the quote.
That's very astute, Lem. I was thinking yesterday the same thing, since that could account for Reid's immediate apology following Ambinder's post. Because otherwise, he could've fobbed it off as hearsay.
If only your mother understood that America wasn't as small a country as jolly old England.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34802153#34802153
Y'all is singular, all y'all, when used, is plural.
No, it isn't.
Y'all is plural.
All y'all is a joke.
America wasn't as small a country as jolly old England.
The UK has the same surface area as the state of Oregon. Plotted to the same scale, a map of the UK including adjacent waters would fit nicely on a map of Michigan.
"A Senator said negro about Obama! See, Americans still use it!"
I don't endorse this..... my husband's now deceased grandmother from Arkansas always used the (to her) gentile ladylike term....Darkey, Darkies or Coloured.
She would have fainted before calling anyone Black.
Such are the times of our lives.
Maybe your mother should just call everyone Bob. Safe and disconcerting.
So if you're a black politician in the Democrats, Harry Reid considers it a plus point on your resume if your skin's not too black. Truly a party of enlightened racial tolerance!
If you're a black politician you can have a Harvard education, and Harry Reid will still praise you for not having a 'Negro dialect' as if he expects educated black people to talk like they're from the ghetto or something. You know how those negros talk.
Stop paying attention to Harry Reid! We need to get back to the important national dialogue about how racist those teabaggers and republicans are!
Somewhere in my brain there is a reference to the point that Reid himself disclosed the conversation? Can that be an accurate neural blip?
How 'bout that Scott Brown?!!
And what's with having to wait another 15 years so WE'VE GOT TO PASS THIS [CRAPPY THING] NOW!!11!! stuff from Gergan?
These people live in a parallel universe.
Hi! My name is MC! I cannot differentiate between what Harry Reid thinks and what the voters he refers to thinks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English
Gwen Ifill... RACIST!!!
Repuglicans are seriously like the stupidest people in the world.
Wikipedia is RACIST!!!
Identifying a dialect makes you a RACIST!!!
You just think it's racist because you don't like the way people point out how your speech changes when you're sucking on someone's teabags!!!
Michael Steele is transparently ridiculous. The Republicans wanted Lott out and just used his nostalgia for segregation as an excuse.
Republicans are congenitally incapable of grasping the point of anything. Praising segregation while calling the identification of a Black Vernacular English dialect an act of racism!!!
They're bringing down the intelligence quotient of the nation.
Oh Ritmo, you troll.
You can explain to aspiring black politicians why it's A-OK for racist fuckwits like Reid feel like it's their buisness to discuss whether a black man's skin is sufficiently light for Reid to feel happy with their candicy, or otherwise.
Have you even thought about the implications of Reid's comments? So Reid thinks it's good that Obama is a light skinned 'negro'? Does that mean if Obama's skin was darker, Reid would not have been as happy with Obama? What the fuck it that?
I don't care whether you are trying to be the president of the United States or trying to get a janitorial position, nobody has any fucking buisness discussing what color your skin is as if it might count against you if it's too dark. That's racist bullshit. I call that out.
"All y'all is a joke."
Beth, you've done it again.
Bravo!
Thanks, Crack.
"racist fuckwit"? Oh, I see. Nice. Beg the question, why don't you. Devise a conclusion and then, the facts and premises be damned!
George Will disagrees with you. For all intents and purposes, even Pat Buchanan disagrees. Watch the ABC weekend show. Why does it take them to point out to that fuckwit, Liz Cheney, that talking about race does not make one a racist?
You seriously disagree?
I think people who believe that talking about race makes one a racist are just scared at what they'll reveal about themselves if the discussion turns to race.
Work on your own insensitivities.
For the fiftieth time (although I'm sure you still won't get it), Reid can talk in private about how Obama would generate less racist reactions than a candidate with darker skin, or with a prominent BVE accent. These acknowledgments would not be an endorsement of those phenomena. Watch the Ifill interview. She cites the well-documented research that shows white voters prefer lighter-skinned blacks to those with darker skin. And vice versa. That's unfortunate, and it might or might not have made a difference, but it's not something Reid is responsible for. What the fuck is wrong with Republicans that they don't get that? Do they, in their infinite zeal for authoritarianism, believe that Reid can substitute for the entire electorate? That Reid can cancel the attitudes of all voters and decide that his more enlightened opinion on race makes theirs non-existent? I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you guys that you don't distinguish between Reid and some racist voters? Did he even court the vote of these people? Make statements signalling to them in public that he believes they're the "real Americans", like Sarah fucking Palin did? Like Clinton intimated? No. He did nothing of the sort. And you know it (unless you're living under a rock), and George Will knows it, and John McWhorter and every relevant black commentator knows it, and Barack Obama knows it, and you can't fucking stand it because all you care about is the politics and couldn't give a shit about racism because you think that to acknowledge it is to endorse it. That doesn't make you an anti-racist. It makes you an idiot.
Oh, so when powerful white democrats discuss whether a man's skin is light enough, it's all the electorates fault. When powerful white democrats talk about a Havard educated man like they patronisingly aren't expecting him to be 'articulate' because he's black, I guess that must be the voter's fault too?
Isn't it funny how even when the electorate votes for a black president, it's still all the voters fault that powerful white democrats say racist shit?
I guess I'm just a backwards right-winger when I think politicians should be nominated on principle and on merit and people should stay the fuck away from discussing the suitability of their skin color.
Not like those enlightened, idealistic liberals who are so racially progressive that they are apparently comfortable with pandering to racists by worrying about whether the colour of their candidate's skin is light enough to be suitable to people who discriminate on skin color. Yeah, that's progressive, all right.
The real question in my mind is, is when are blacks going to stop being tools for this party?
I'm not inclined to classify what Reid said, nor the context in which he said it, to be racist. In fact, I think there's some truth to his statement, and that's simply a reflection on the mindset of the people.
Still, I am enjoying the continual gaffes from the democrats. It will seal their fate in the upcoming election this year I think, and that can only be a good thing for America.
You guys slimed Rush over similar context re McNabb.
You'd have to be some sort of dolt to put "similar" in there. And indeed you are.
The silliest thing of all in this entire debacle is watching the Republicans shed their crocodile tears over Harry Reid's "racial insensitivity". They're comparing it to the Democrat's reaction to Trent Lott's unfortunate comments back in 2002 at Strom Thurmond's one-hundredth birthday party. Lott, referring to old Strom's run for the White House in 1948 as a "Dixiecrat" candidate, said that America would today be a better place had the country elected him over Harry S Truman. Trent seemed to forget that the only position Thurmon ran on in '48 was as a staunch segregationist. Lott was forced to step down as Majority Leader - not because of his moronic statement - but because he had already lost favor with the Bush White House.
For the Republicans to now claim a newly-found racial sensitivity is quite amusing to say the least. If that is the case, why the hell did they choose the dumbest black guy they could possibly find to chair the RNC? Racial sensitivity? Please.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
What the Cappleman!
Not like those enlightened, idealistic liberals who are so racially progressive that they are apparently comfortable with pandering to racists by worrying about whether the colour [sic] of their candidate's skin is light enough to be suitable to people who discriminate on skin color. Yeah, that's progressive, all right.
Negro, please.
You're right, Volokh is wrong. As I point out on my blog, your definition of "racist" would directly apply to any politician who used voter's racism to advance his political agenda, an action we've called racist for at least the last 30 years.
It was a private comment, not a press conference. He was trying to describe a phenomenon, not make news.
He's a latent racist, in that his antiquated choice of words betray an antiquated notion of race. But he was not trying to "amass political power". I don't think this article makes any sense.
Methadras,
"The real question in my mind is, is when are blacks going to stop being tools for this party?"
When conservatives get behind a black man they can relate to - the anti-Michael Steele, if you will.
I never have a problem bringing my black friends around,...
Racism doesn't need spontaneous mutations via anyone's theoretical "if ... then" treatment, nor does it need splitting into "Type A" & "Type B" - the only relevant frame of reference needed is whether the racial group in question takes offence at someone's words or actions, or is demonstrably being discriminated against based on their racial heritage.
It sounds to me like Reid was making his comments based on the existing racism in the American electorate, not denigrating Obama - & "comical" posters of Obama as a witch-doctor with a bone through his nose or postcards depicting watermelons growing on the White House lawn would seem to prove his point beyond a shadow of a doubt ... & I would take Obama's opinion on Reid's remarks over that of someone like Steele, who was not their subject & has much to gain by feigning outrage & horror over them, right at the time when he's on the verge of being asked to resign.
I want to challenge people to think about what is "racist," not save the word for the meanings that have already been established. Let's use it in ways that are useful.
Useful to whom, exactly?
No - let's use it in ways that are accurate instead. The meanings "that have already been established" are plenty useful enough as it is. Redefining words at one's whim does not "inspire critical thought" - it strangles it.
For a couple of tenured profs, you and Volkh are both a couple of dolts.
He should've realized you were employing the Jim Rome theory of lexicography, i.e., satiric "definitions," and you should've just said that instead of getting all defensive, abstract and cerebral.
The Crack Emcee said...
Methadras,
"The real question in my mind is, is when are blacks going to stop being tools for this party?"
When conservatives get behind a black man they can relate to - the anti-Michael Steele, if you will.
I never have a problem bringing my black friends around,...
I don't think conservatives have a problem getting behind anyone of substance who is a conservative. Frankly, conservatives do not care about color, they care more about meritorious achievements. At least I do. Frankly, I don't care about color. Never have. I don't even see color the same way people do anyway. But what I do see is 50 years or so of blacks being led down a rosy path for the promise of their votes to keep the Democratic party viable as a means of giving them what they want at the price of their identity and now you have a successive level of generations that are nothing more than government slaves. But you already know this.
To answer your question, if a black man is a viable conservative that can uphold conservative principals in a meaningful and in a non-kook way, then conservatives may have someone to look forward too. So far, I don't see anyone on that horizon. If you do, then let me know.
Naw, honestly, I don't either.
*Sigh*
Post a Comment