What's Been Missed In The Harry Reid 'Negro' Comment

The American Thinker Blog ^ | January 11, 2010 | Carl Paulus

[Scanian]

This past weekend it was revealed that Harry Reid in 2008 referred to then-Senator Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." The reaction to these revelations came as expected: Republicans called for Reid to resign from his leadership position, while Democrats circled the wagons around the Senate Majority Leader. Despite their criticisms, Republicans have missed the full meaning of Reid's statement in 2008 as well as his recent clarification.

While the immediate acceptance of Reid's apology from those who censured Rush Limbaugh's attempt to buy an NFL franchise is striking, the last part of Reid's comment and his subsequent statement from over the weekend give away his original motive. In his comments the Senate Majority Leader explicitly acknowledged that using race is a valuable instrument in the Democratic political playbook. When Reid noted that President Obama had "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" he recognized the ability to fluctuate racial accents as a political asset. In his apology he only regretted "using such a poor choice of words" not the meaning of the statement itself. In the defense of the Nevada senator, other liberals have only reinforced Reid's admission.

[csmusaret]

Obama accepted Reid’s apology? Why shouldn’t he; he wasn’t the one Reid insulted; I am. Me and millions of voters like me who Dingy implied would never vote for a dark skinned black man. He is calling the American electorate racist, and I haven’t heard an apology for that yet from Reid or any other Democrat.

[Mike Darancette]

Bttt

[mad_as_he$$]

Winner!

[rarestia]

Right, but homo sapiens are what we are. Every human being alive is a homo sapien, so designated us as such would be silly unless another order of homos evolve.

Think of it like this: if a police report is filed, they say, “a caucasian male” stole the car, etc. That could be a white man, a Mexican, a Puerto Rican, a Columbian, a Canadian, etc. However, when it’s a black person, it’s “a black male” stole the car. Why isn’t it a “negro male?” Isn’t saying black instead of negroid more politically correct? Why don’t they say “a Mexican male” stole the car? Because it’s not so easy to delineate nationality, but race is easy to discern based on skin color.

[Jane Long]

Exactly. Reid, in essence, said someone blacker and WITH a Negro dialect would not be acceptable. Where is the outrage?