Posted on 01/12/2010 2:51:03 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
I was content to ignore the controversy surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his apparently audacious 2008 evaluation of Senator Barrack Obama as a viable presidential candidate due to his “light skin” and lack of “Negro dialect.” Then I turned on the radio Monday morning and heard talk radio host Mike Gallagher having a nervous breakdown over George Will and other conservatives who have defended Reid’s remarks. While I recognize Gallagher as a well-meaning conservative voice, he is also my least favorite. Gallagher consistently engages in blindly partisan commentary so two-dimensional it has the effect (albeit ad hominem in nature) of discrediting his valid points.
I, like Obama, am a light-skinned black man with no discernible Negro dialect. So, if anybody should be offended by what Reid said. It should be me. I am not. Here is why:
He was right!
Is it racist to make the political observation that a candidate’s demographic and personal characteristics will have an effect on their viability? Commenter Nancy Morgan puts it bluntly, “Reid knows, as do most Americans, that if Obama’s skin was black as coal and he spoke ebonics (sic), there would be absolutely no chance he could be elected President.” Likewise, if he were a woman from Alaska with a rural dialect, there would be absolutely no chance he could be elected President. Even if these observations are indicative of racist or sexist attitudes, the person making the observation is not the source of the discrimination!
(Excerpt) Read more at fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com ...
Good point!
Reid’s insult was never aimed at Obama. It was the American people who should feel insulted.
What Reid was really trying to say is that he thinks every single one of us is a racist and our opinions don’t matter squat.
One word-—Macaca— cost George Allen an election.
Most didnt even know what the word meant until the media made up their definition of it.
Allen was destroyed, and yet Reid is patted on the back.
What Reid said is no big deal, He was just stating the fact, that Obama has nothing but light skin and speaks well, we all know that. That it is racist there is also no doubt, but Reid get’s a pass.
There is that gratuitous slam at Sarah Palin that negates any intelligent comment this person could make.
As for Gallagher, he seems in need of anger management.
Or maybe he’s trying to out rant Savage.
Gee, let’s cover-up this blunder. Let’s carry water for the racist democrat party. Let’s write moronic columns praising Harry ‘ The Hood’ Reid and ‘Sheets’ Byrd! I have no idea who Walter Hudson is, but I know he’s a lackey, a boot-lick!
I’m going to keep this on my clipboard to copy/paste all day... I think it’s worth being said:
From an etymological standpoint, negro is short for negroid. When whites are referenced, they’re often “caucasian,” a derivative of caucasoid. And the final racial delineator is mongoloid, referring to those of Asian descent.
The fact that negro was a marginally offensive term used up through the 1960s doesn’t make it patently racist. The roots of the word come from scientific roots, and I’m frankly pissed off that we prefer to call blacks “African Americans” instead of black or negro. Call me a caucasian, I don’t give a damn.
This is akin to the militant feminist movement wanting to change the spelling of women to wymyn because the word “man” or “men” is in the root. It’s part of the root of the word, dammit! Get over yourselves. These leftist movements want to redefine words that “a bunch of white men” coined millenia ago. Like our esteemed leader said, “they’re just words.”
Actually, I support Palin wholeheartedly. See, I have the capacity as a rational human being to both support someone and bring some discernment to bear regarding their political prospects. Conversely, I do not support Reid, yet am capable of bring some discernment to bear regarding his comment. That’s the difference between thoughtless partisanship and consistency.
You must have read two sentences and given up. See above.
Actually, no. You were part of the class of people that Reid was praising, because you are BETTER than the dark-skinned blacks who talk like negros.
It's the dark-skinned, negro-talking blacks who should be offended that Reid thought they were incapable of being President. And the white voters who Reid said were too racist to vote for a black guy who didn't just look like a white guy with a tan.
BTW, remember when some magazine got in big trouble because they printed a picture of Obama that made him "too dark"?
He probably read 4 paragraphs, the 4 that you thought were important enough to post.
If you had some other important information, you should have posted it as well. It’s not his fault if you don’t post your entire thought.
BTW, Trent Lott was a terrible example to use, even though he was used because he was also a Senate Leader.
The two examples that I think are much better are Bill Bennett’s remarks about aborting all the black babies to lower the crime rate, and Geraldine Ferrarro’s comments that Obama would be nothing if he wasn’t black.
Both of those were equally truthful as Reid’s comments, one was made by a democrat, and both were trashed by the media and by Obama.
And nobody could accuse Geraldine Ferrarro of not fighting for the rights of minorities, so that excuse doesn’t work for her example.
I do agree that we do ourselves no good calling for Reid’s resignation. We are the party that doesn’t attack people for telling the truth, or at least we used to be.
Why would Obama worry about the term Negro applied to him; Obama is a Mulatto.
The term “Negro” was never a slur. That was the approved term used to describe that group of people until about 1967 or 1968. Then, the preferred term becamse “black”, while “Negro” fell into disuse.
Then, about 1988, Jesse Jackson made a speech in which he said the preferred term should be “African-American”, and that term has been used interchangeably with “black” ever since.
At one time “colored” was commonly used and not considered a slur. Where do you think the “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” got its name? And what about the “United Negro College Fund”?
Language evolves. If you look up the word “gay” in a dictionary from 1960, it will not say anything about homosexuality.
Wait until Hispanics find out they can’t use “negro”. They are REALLY going to enjoy replacing it with “Americano africano”. That’s going to fit real nice on a black crayon.
You have summarized it exactly as I thought when I heard it. That is the problem with what Reid said that nobody seems to be looking deeper into. He is basically offending 2 sets of people...dark skin blacks like myself (originally from Jamaica) and non-black/white Americans as if they are racist illiterate citizens. This from the Democrat Senate leader?...please, I would not want to be represented by someone who thinks that way..but thats how White liberals think, they like to place ppl in categories...and they think they are doing a world of good when they do...ridiculous..
Ah yes. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t beleaguer folks with the heavy burden of clicking through to a full article. /eyeroll
Look, I’m not holding a gun to anybody’s head forcing them to read, approve, enjoy, etc. But if one is going to make the effort to comment, they owe it to themselves to read the entirety of what they’re commenting on. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Actually, no. You were part of the class of people that Reid was praising, because you are BETTER than the dark-skinned blacks who talk like negros.
It's the dark-skinned, negro-talking blacks who should be offended that Reid thought they were incapable of being President. And the white voters who Reid said were too racist to vote for a black guy who didn't just look like a white guy with a tan.
BTW, remember when some magazine got in big trouble because they printed a picture of Obama that made him "too dark"?
Really? You're telling me you're vicariously upset on behalf of the dark-skinned Ebonic-speaking masses? Really? You think ANY of them have serious aspirations toward the presidency which have now been stumped out by Harry Reid? Please, let's not gaze at the world through rose-colored glasses in order to make a partisan point. Are you seriously contending someone from "the hood" would be a viable presidential candidate?
No, I do not recall the magazine incident to which you reference.
Another thought, just take a look at the journalism field. Those blacks who have gone into television media, be they local or national, all speak with a non-regional dialect. The same is true, by the way, of ALL journalists, regardless of race. There is an expectation in certain fields of endeavor that one elevate their speech and presentation. Politics is one of those fields. Reid’s comment on dialect was nothing more than an acknowledgment of this reality.
The light-skinned comment was likewise an acknowledgment of a social reality. Listen, black women are the least likely demographic to get married. Black men marry white women over black women two to one. These are facts. What they imply is up for debate, but their truthfulness is not. Folks who make their living in politics or marketing are going to leverage such facts to craft effective campaigns. It’s not a value judgment. It’s not politically correct. It simply is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.