I wasn’t aware that McCain had taken Michael Steele along with him to the NAACP.
They won’t ever really learn, will they?
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2008/07/where-is-that-m.html
The NAACP is a political group with a constituency, and Steele is in that constituency. It’s no different than visiting a city and taking along a colleague who is from that city.
The modern-day lawn jockey refuses to die.
And Scratch, Steele is a proud member of a party that has tried its damnedest to harm and marginalize the NAACP’s constituency. So you can just take your schidt and shove it.
Once again, it’s a-ok to use racial slurs – just as long as the target is a black Republican.
I guess I don’t see the problem with this. McCain’s got the same rights to pander to a demographic as any other politician. If he can drop the African-American vote in favor of Obama from 75 to 72 percent, isn’t that a rational thing for him to do?
Point taken parthenon, but if Obama’s black support was ONLY 75% than he’s in HUGE trouble. Especially since Kerry got 90% IIRC.
OW: They won’t ever really learn, will they?
When will we all learn?
The NAACP is an inclusive organization, not exclusive. The support and finances of white Americans has always been a part of the NAACP’s history, present and will be a part of it’s future.
George W. Bush, John McCain, Michael Steele – are they not welcome to the NAACP? Hell yes. What new policy is this – talk to Iran but not our fellow citizens.
Is “convenient negro” a replacement for “wannabe” or “nig***”?. All of these not so cute naming calling will end up being exactly what Rev. Jesse is apoligizing for today – an embarrassment to all people (black, white and others). It’s soul searching time.
All these hard held racial slurs living in the heart will find their way to the mouth and into the air and continue to further pollute the political process and the air we breathe.
Obama inspires because he is on the high ground because he believes it and the high ground in his heart. He didn’t do a tit for tat on the New Yorker mag. cover because he is on the high ground were more of his followers should strive to be.
if Obama’s black support was ONLY 75% than he’s in HUGE trouble. Especially since Kerry got 90% IIRC.
I have a bad habit of underestimating these things… I wonder how the voting-for-ethnicity / voting-against-ethnicity balance swings all the way across the board, i.e. people from all walks that would have voted for the democrat but for his ethnicity vs. people who would not have voted at all (or not voted democratic) unless he’d been a minority.
Interesting question. I don’t know how energized the racists are to vote FOR McCain (especially considering his stand about immigration), I think they will stay home. So I’m hoping it won’t be a big swing. On the black side, they will vote for Obama, but the black community wasn’t voting for McCain either way.
I would like to think it would balance, but Democrats aren’t going to spend millions to keep white racists from voting whereas Republicans have a long history of disenfranchising minority Democrats. Any chance McCain has will depend on disenfranchising minorities in places like Virginia who are energized to vote.
Incidentally, I think the racism that will hurt Obama is going to be the subtle kind. It will be from voters who don’t consider themselves racist, but nonetheless have no experience with blacks in positions of authority (like mayors, supervisors, etc.). There are millions of voters like this. They will seize on dumb stuff like Rev. Wright to justify their witholding their vote from Obama, while not holding McCain to the same standard.
Parthenon,
There has not been an opportunity to for any ethnic group in American history to vote for a non-white or non-male major party presidential candidate. This is an unprecedented campaign or election, hopefully in the future there will be comparisons.
The ridiculousness of any argument about the voting record of African-Americans boggles my mind.
African-Americans have voted 100% for a white male president from the two major parties.
Now that there is a non-white presidential candidate are African-Americans supposed to vote against the candidate because of his race?
There are millions of voters like this.
Yep, and a lot of them normally vote for Democrats.
White Democrats.
I love Jay’s wishful thinking that Republicans don’t get the lion’s share of the racist vote.
Of course Republicans get most of the racist vote- they court it. Back to the main issue, I have no issue with McCain speaking to the NAACP. It’s more than Bush did after all. I wonder though why Steele needs to come along. It’s a cynical way of doing things. It says to me “See? I know black people”. You don’t need to bring a black person along to address black issues. You just need to, you know, address black issues.
Oliver, I never said that. But Democrats refuse to believe for any reason that they have racists in their own party. Millions that voted for Kerry and won’t vote for Obama. I’ve heard the talk personally. “I would have voted for Hillary, but I’m not voting for a nigger.” Kerry voters saying, “If Obama gets elected, they’re going to think they run the country.” I’ll give you three guesses as to who the ‘they’ represents and the first two don’t count. All that talk coming from people that LOATHE Republicans and conservatism.
Keep trying to ignore it, but the issue is there.
And why is referring to a black man as a “lawn jockey” ok so long as he is Republican? Can anybody explain that? Racial slurs acceptable just so long as they’re conservative or Republican. Gotta love it.
If the shoe fits……..
Ok.
So I guess I can just start using terms like nigger, coon, porch monkey, jungle bunny, spook, jigaboo, sambo, spade, and watermelon just so long as it’s directed at black conservatvies/Republicans.
So the next time Oliver says something about Michael Steele or Clarence Thomas, it’s ok for me say, “Hey look, that nigger Justice Thomas knows what he’s talking about.” it’s acceptable. After all, if the shoe fits….
Thanks.
Of course, I can only assume the same (double) standard stands for any ethic or religious group or gays. So if any discussion of the Log Cabin Republicans comes up, it’s no problem to call them ‘faggots’ since they’re Republican.
That’s good to know.
EL, excellent analysis. Rings true to me.
Juhar, we may be talking past each other. I wasn’t saying that African-Americans would vote against somebody because of his race (as you say, that they have voted in presidential elections thus far disproves that); I was saying that some whites are bound to vote against Sen. Obama, because, as EL points out, they may fully support the doctrine of equal rights and opportunity and still live in a podunk hick town (like, say, the one where I spent the first 19 years of my life) and seen perhaps half a dozen black people in their town, let alone in a position of elected authority.
But Democrats refuse to believe for any reason that they have racists in their own party.
As a Democrat, I do not. Neither party is monolithic, and it all depends upon one’s major issues; it’s perfectly possible for an old-school labor union organizer to harbor racist attitudes. In the same way it’s possible for Republicans to be pro-choice (and no, I’m not equating abortion opposition to racism…) if they are primarily fiscal conservatives. However it is a stretch, and a long one, to claim that the number of racists in the Democratic party is = or > than those in the GOP. That is not even to claim that the GOP’s platform is inherently racist, only that certain non-racist aspects of it are more easily reconcilable to a racist mentality.
And why is referring to a black man as a “lawn jockey” ok so long as he is Republican?
It isn’t, if you ask me. Randy is (IIRC) African-American and so society allows him to use that language. Rather than get too caught up in the syntax, though, I think Randy’s point was that the guy was going along as sort of a sidekick to lend credibility to a candidate whose positions and party don’t represent the constituency’s best interests. That point’s debatable, imo – Steele is welcome to endorse and campaign for whomever he wants, wherever he wants, even if it is a little heavy-handed (It’s hard to see it as ’see, I know black people,’ even if it might not be).
**It’s hard to not see it as ’see I know black people.’**
I need a friggin’ secretary…
Jay,
One person says “if the shoe fits” and in less than 15 minutes your response is …
So I guess I can just start using terms like nigger, coon, porch monkey, jungle bunny, spook, jigaboo, sambo, spade, and watermelon just so long as it’s directed at black conservatvies/Republicans.
Obviously this list wasn’t alphabetical. Was this listed by first names that came to your mind or slurs by your value rating or personal usage? Just wondering.
Jesse Jackson says n***** and you are the first white horse out of the box.
So McCain really thought he was going to impress the NAACP by bringing along a guy who has devoted his life to keeping African-Americans as second class citizens?
juhar,
It also seems that J’s acquaintances seem to have no problem using those words in his presence. I won’t venture a guess why. Though my experience has been if you put the welcome mat out, someone is going to wander in.
I am white and no one has used those words in my presence for years. Some of those slurs I had forgotten about in fact.
Juhar, actually those words disgust me. And unless people forget, this is what a lawn jockey looks like:
http://overworm.com/NothingToSeeHere/NTSH Images/LawnJockeySambo.jpg
A racial slur is a racial slur. Period. There shouldn’t be any accepted use, societal or otherwise and especially for political differences. That’s the point I was trying to make. And anybody who believes otherwise is a hypocrite, nothing more. I don’t care if you’re black, white, brown or purple.
It also seems that J’s acquaintances seem to have no problem using those words in his presence. I won’t venture a guess why. Though my experience has been if you put the welcome mat out, someone is going to wander in.
Well unfortunately, they’re the type of acquaintances that don’t go away: in-laws. My friends don’t use that kind of language. I was over the top purposely with that laundry list and I haven’t heard them use all of those slurs but it is the in-laws and their extended family members. All of them hard core Democrats and Republican haters with working middle class backgrounds and while they use that language in their homes, they were told in no uncertain terms that such language is not tolerated in my house.
That didn’t work. This should:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Lawn_jockey.jpg
Jesse Jackson says n***** and you are the first white horse out of the box.
Olbermann made the excellent point (or so it seemed to me) the other night that those comments should never have been made public in the first place, as they were off-air and Rev. Jackson thought he was un-miked. KO claimed that other networks wouldn’t have done so, though obviously I’m in no place to verify that one way or the other.
Not a defense of what the good reverend said, of course, but is anyone here familiar with tv journalism ethics? Breach, or no?
A racial slur is a racial slur. Period. There shouldn’t be any accepted use, societal or otherwise and especially for political differences. That’s the point I was trying to make. And anybody who believes otherwise is a hypocrite, nothing more. I don’t care if you’re black, white, brown or purple.
Our literalist friends often forget a simple axiom of language: context matters.
A white man using the word “nigger” has quite a different meaning from black a man using the same word.
Anyone here need an explanation on that?
“Not a defense of what the good reverend said, of course, but is anyone here familiar with tv journalism ethics? Breach, or no?”
I really don’t know. I remember reading a story about a journalist (can’t remember who) recalling his early days in Washington. As he was walking to work one day, a limousine pulled up to him and Harry Truman, who had just taken office, asked him if he needed a ride. He eagerly accepted. But he said it never occurred to him to take notes of their conversation because he knew it was off the record.
On the other hand, our local gossip columnist would always end her articles with, “If you don’t want to read about it in my column, don’t do it.”
Quaker, of course the folly in your comment is that I am not referring to black men using such slurs, but white people (rather white LIBERALS) that use such slurs to denigrate black conservatives. Obviously not as outrageous as some of the ones I mentioned, but things like “Stepin Fetchit”, ‘house negro’, ‘lawn jockeys’ (Unless of course, everybody that works at Esquire are black men), etc. Do you have an explanation for that?
But he said it never occurred to him to take notes of their conversation because he knew it was off the record.
Part of a well-documented evolution, from a press that protected FDR and JFK’s secrets to a press that screams ‘gotcha!’ every chance it gets.
A white man using the word “nigger” has quite a different meaning from black a man using the same word.
Hmm… I realize I’m stepping into a hornet’s nest here, but what the heck. Shouldn’t we be trying to make a clean break with this kind of thing? Doesn’t the fact of black people using it amongst themselves simply encourage white people to use it who perhaps don’t think about it in the same nuanced fashion as yourself?
Clearly, Jesse meant for his private conversation, which he whispered, to an old friend who would put his remarks into context because of their very long personal relationship.
However, his stupidity needed to be revealed. He was sitting in front of a microphone at Fox News. Then there is the hypocrisy. He is a minister and civil rights activist. He has preached against black entertainers, especially the young black rappers, using the “n” word.
I have never been against the abolishment of the “n” word. Half of America’s historical documents and literary writings and masterpieces would have to be altered to eliminate that word. How can the African American experience, slavery, the Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow Days, segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, intergration,Time magazine darkening OJ Simpson’s picture and almost every caricature of African Americans be explained. The complete history of the US cannot be explained without the word.
Parthenon: I realize I’m stepping into a hornet’s nest here, but what the heck. Shouldn’t we be trying to make a clean break with this kind of thing? Doesn’t the fact of black people using it amongst themselves simply encourage white people to use it who perhaps don’t think about it in the same nuanced fashion as yourself?
It’s territory with which I’m not overly familiar, but when black people refer to each other as “nigger” or some other similar term isn’t it being used in some denigrating way? Ironically, perhaps, but still in a way or context that there isn’t any compliment being made. It would seem to me that it is something that even black folks should want to curtail, if for no other reason than that suggested by Parthenon: it could encourage non-blacks to use it.
I recall reading an interview with Richard Pryor some years ago where he described visiting a village in Africa. His wife turned to him and asked “Do you see any niggers here?” and he realized that he did not. And since then he said he never used that word in his act or elsewhere again.
Quaker, of course the folly in your comment is that I am not referring to black men using such slurs, but white people (rather white LIBERALS) that use such slurs to denigrate black conservatives.
Uh, no.
Your first entry in this thread was in response to Randy Brown calling Mr. Steele a “lawn jockey.” I will leave it to Mr. Brown to convince you of his ethnicity.
Then you wrote:
A racial slur is a racial slur. Period. There shouldn’t be any accepted use, societal or otherwise and especially for political differences. That’s the point I was trying to make. And anybody who believes otherwise is a hypocrite, nothing more. I don’t care if you’re black, white, brown or purple.
It matters a great deal whether you are “black, white, brown, or purple.” One’s remarks about ethnicity are tempered by one’s own ethnicity.
So I guess I can just start using terms like nigger, coon, porch monkey, jungle bunny, spook, jigaboo, sambo, spade, and watermelon just so long as it’s directed at black conservatvies/Republicans.
Or if you’re in an Off-Broadway production of Hair.
…and Prezident of the United States of Love!
Once again, it’s a-ok to use racial slurs – just as long as the target is a black Republican.
Well, the fact that Oliver’s black also helps matters.
Quaker, of course the folly in your comment is that I am not referring to black men using such slurs, but white people (rather white LIBERALS) that use such slurs to denigrate black conservatives.
Wait…you think Oliver’s white? That picture of the black guy on the right isn’t just for show you know.
Oliver, I never said that.
Except when you did.
Your first entry in this thread was in response to Randy Brown calling Mr. Steele a “lawn jockey.” I will leave it to Mr. Brown to convince you of his ethnicity.
I had no idea he was black. So what? My statement was one made in general, because AGAIN, such language is not limited to blacks saying such things about other blacks.
You know that’s the case so stop getting cute, ok?
One’s remarks about ethnicity are tempered by one’s own ethnicity.
It may be tempered, but using such language amongst their own ethnic groups only makes it kind of stupid in my view to get offended when called such names at all. I’m Italian. It doesn’t bother me if a fellow Italians call me a “wop.” It would be pretty stupid to get upset if somebody else who wasn’t Italian did.
Except when you did.
And you’re a jackass.
It doesn’t bother me if a fellow Italians call me a “wop.” It would be pretty stupid to get upset if somebody else who wasn’t Italian did.
In this case, though, it’s only white people who are upset about how black people talk to each other.
Randy…
…Steele is a proud member of a party that has tried its damnedest to harm and marginalize the NAACP’s constituency.
Which constituency would that be? Maybe you’re thinking of that other group, the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People? Because if I’m not mistaken, there have been some convenient negroes who played important roles in the current conservative administration. I know you have that Firefox plugin that posts the reasons why they don’t matter, so go ahead and hit the button.
but is anyone here familiar with tv journalism ethics? Breach, or no?
Dude, we’re talking about Fox News here.
Fox News journalism ethics = two phrases that can never be used together.
There should be a plus sign in there somewhere.
Jay,
“Once again, it’s a-ok to use racial slurs – just as long as the target is a black Republican.”
You just don’t get it. It is okay for black folks to use what you call racial slurs when they are talking about another black person regardless of that person’s political affiliations. I’m sorry that you feel left out and can’t use racial slurs to describe black Democrats but that’s the way the prune wrinkles, man.
And you’re a jackass.
Rather be an intellectual elitist than a stupid prick.
It is okay for black folks to use what you call racial slurs when they are talking about another black person regardless of that person’s political affiliations.
Why? How is this not a shitty way to talk about people, no matter what? Isn’t it a logical fallacy to give too much credence to the source in all situations?
Count me among those that don’t ‘get it,’ I guess, whatever ‘it’ is. I’m not trying to be unnecessary obtuse here; as I believe I mentioned earlier I didn’t grow up around many minorities. So I’m open to the idea that I’m completely off-base.
PT…
I somewhat agree with the principle, but I think “…It is okay for black folks to use what you call racial slurs when they are talking about another black person…” is way too broad a statement, and I don’t agree with it at all. Maybe what you mean is that a black person calling another black person a “nigger” is not a sign of racism like it [usually] is when a white person uses that word. That doesn’t mean that “it is okay,” as you put it.
Hold up. What is going on? Are White people telling Black people–
“If you (Black people) continue using the word nigger then we (White people) will call you (Black people) niggers too.”
If that’s the case, I agree. As I posted earlier I am not for the abolishment of the word. I think it was ridiculous when African Americans tried to bury the word in a coffin. Black people saying they took the word back and made it something postive is ridiculous too because Black people don’t own the word. The word is free.
White people should feel free to express themselves and if they encounter Black people who they feel courageous, face to face, call them “niggers”.
Let them (Black people or niggers) know exactly how you (White people) feel. And explain to those Black people why you called them a niggers. This will definitely open up dialogue among the races. A word of caution – White Philadelphians – don’t do it until your city’s murder rate goes down.