by Jack Lee
I was inspired to write this because our liberal brothers and sisters seem to be constantly suffering from confusion between what is [political correctness] and what is actually something universally accepted as offensive… racism. I’m exactly not sure why they are so confused, but I suspect it comes from their own moral compass that frequently spins like a ceiling fan. Situational ethics will do that to you.
This is a touchy subject, so I want to treat it with great respect. How about we start by being perfectly clear about what racism is or is not, okay? I’m invoking Webster’s definition as my authority, but any dictionary is pretty much the same, feel free double check.
RACISM defined
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Ready? Then let’s go straight to Race IQ test and see how you score!
Q. If one protests over a policy that requires minorities be given a preference over equally qualified non-minority prospects to fill a ”diversity” quota, is that being a racist?
Answer: If you said yes, you probably take 2 hours to watch 60 Minutes. For all you knew that person questioning the policy could be from a minority. They may see this as undermining their achievement and they don’t want special treatment, it has nothing to do with racism, but that doesn’t stop way too many liberals from assuming it! Discrimination in this case is clearly on the side of the rejected candidate because of his or her race. and it’s precisely why the people of this country held that affirmative action was just another form of racism, and that made it illegal, immoral and unwelcome.
Q. If one says they don’t like the Muslim religion because they practice values that violate their respect for equal rights for women. Further, that Muslims frequently are called on to support state sponsored apostasy, a death sentence for changing one’s religon away from being a Muslim. And further still, this person doesn’t like the religion because of their continued background role in global terrorism. In this case is the person being a racist, or to use a liberal euphemism, …an Islamophobic?
Answer: If you said absolutely and without question…yes, then you’re inane and not in a good way.
Race has nothing to do with it. Muslims come in all races. We’re specifically focusing on a movement that is both religious and political in nature.
This is one person’s moral judgement based on the historical facts presented. Some people may not like Catholics because of their history, but that’s not racist either. Some people may not like Evangelicals, but it’s not racist. It’s just a personal values call. However, if a person didn’t like Walmart because they employ too many minorities, that would be racist and I hope we can all agree on that one because so far these have been easy…
Q. Is it racist to have a Hispanic or Black caucus in government?
Answer: If you said flatly no, then at the very least, you’re a shallow thinker, so much so that you probably have trouble finding yourself in the mirror.
The best answer is…it all depends on their sponsored issues.
Society tends to reject participation in a race based public organizations, but to be fair, lets withold judgement until we see the kind of legislation they promote. If their legislation favors one race over all others… the case for racism becomes much stronger! It could be argued that it’s contrary to the public good to have race based caucuses because of the distrust they create, but I digress.
Q. Is it racist to say, “Blacks and or Hispanics are statistically over-represented in violent arrests?”
Answer: If you said yes, you’re coming from the shallow end of the gene pool. The correct answer, it’s unknown.
There is insufficient data to make a call either way. There’s statistical data to support this as a true statement, but that’s not the relevant part. If the person stating this fact was using it in the context of social problem solving then it’s merely a statement of fact. But, because insufficient data exists we can’t call it one way or the other. However, there are people that like to assume they know what is in the hearts and minds of other people and they are quick to play the race card and way too casually. This is where we get into trouble and the division among us starts, because the [[[[liberals]]]] who think they’re championing civil rights are merely championing their own agenda.
Your turn…agree, or disagree? Your thoughts would be most welcome!
My answers would be “No, no, it depends, and no.” In other words, I mostly agree with you, but I also think you’re making a strawman argument. You don’t cite any liberals as saying that any of these statements are racist. Opposing affirmative action or criticizing the Muslim religion are not, in and of themselves, racist. But has racism played a part among the movements that have been most critical of affirmative action and Muslims? I think it would be naive to think it hasn’t.
Here’s a question: Is it racist to say that Arab-American Muslims should “take a magic carpet” after arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to ride on planes? Is it racist to then tell a 17-year-old Arab-American Muslim girl to “take a camel?” Most people would say yes–this is invoking a racial stereotype to put someone down for both their race and religion, not a reasonable argument about public safety.
Is it racist to call the mixed-race President an “Oreo,” a “halfrican-American,” or to claim that a new healthcare law which has nothing to do with race is secretly about “reparations?” Again, most people would say yes–the first two are degrading words for a mixed race person, and the third one assumes a racial motive where none exists.
And yet these and other statements have been defended with vigor on this site.
Criticizing black politicians or Muslims is not, in and of itself, racist, and liberals who say otherwise are clearly wrong. But most of the criticism I hear of Republicans have to do with actual, specific instances of racist rhetoric. With the Republican party now trying to reach out more to minorities, it’s important that your party start acknowledging its own responsibility in driving them away in the first place.
Chris I didn’t cite anyone saying it deliberately, trying to be considerate. However, I’ve been accused of such crap when absolutely no racism existed on my part. You can guess who said it.
You said, “Here’s a question: Is it racist to say that Arab-American Muslims should “take a magic carpet” after arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to ride on planes? Is it racist to then tell a 17-year-old Arab-American Muslim girl to “take a camel?” Most people would say yes–this is invoking a racial stereotype to put someone down for both their race and religion, not a reasonable argument about public safety.
Is it racist to call the mixed-race President an “Oreo,” a “halfrican-American,” or to claim that a new healthcare law which has nothing to do with race is secretly about “reparations?” Again, most people would say yes–the first two are degrading words for a mixed race person, and the third one assumes a racial motive where none exists.
And yet these and other statements have been defended with vigor on this site.”
Yes these things are racist and NO… Tina and I would not defend such things!!! I have no idea where you came up with such baloney.
Chris…we can find it very easily if someone here said it.
I just ran our search filter using “magic carpet” and only two comments popped up. This one and yours. No other comments contained those words. Then I ran “halfrican-American” and I got five hits from one commenter… it was you Chris! Nobody else used that term here, just you.
I can give you the dates you said it if you want them?
Lastly, the Oreo slur has been said many times by black people about Obama and about conservative blacks, I’ve heard that and worse, we all have i’m sure, but nobody here ever said such a thing! Boy…talk about a red herring, you sure know how fish.
This maybe going off point, in response to “But most of the criticism I hear of Republicans have to do with actual, specific instances of racist rhetoric. With the Republican party now trying to reach out more to minorities, it’s important that your party start acknowledging its own responsibility in driving them away in the first place.”
Most likely someone is listening to the wrong people critiquing republican values. When it comes to objective evaluation of a issue, along with a more honest approach in leadership about resolve, I’ll stick with a Conservative point of view. History documents it better, and should be the “standard” verse todays liberal media bias spin. Just dating back to Lincoln and the 14th amendment, and on to Ward Hunt kangaroo court of Susan B.Antony in the US vs. Susan B. Antony. these are milestones of importance in history where Republicans did more for the underprivileged than the Democratic party. If todays Conservatives are driving away voters by telling it like it should be is a problem, thats a problem I can be comfortable with, although the election results are less acceptable. Maybe liberal views of promise everything, but deliver only whats important to their re-election is acceptable to the modern vision of Governmental will take care of me handouts and carries their voters to the polls. However the Liberal ideology of unfulfilled promises to a diverse and in some areas illegal population is wrong, and defeats the public needs to the core. So most likely it’s the liberal party that needs to acknowledge that they will promise anything. Their revising of positions during election years to gather in the CURRENT minority voters is noteworthy. However the avoidance of acknowledging that strategy does keep them in business, doesn’t it!
Shouldn’t matter whether you’re black, white, green or striped.
Those that want to lump individuals into various categories forget that we all put our pants on the same way . . . . . .
Jack: “Yes these things are racist and NO… Tina and I would not defend such things!!! I have no idea where you came up with such baloney.”
Jack, I am glad that you agree with me that such statements are racist, and not worth defending. But clearly, your co-blogger Tina disagrees, as she HAS defended these comments numerous times on this site.
The racist remark “take a camel” was made by Ann Coulter. Tina first defended that remark here. She repeated many times that the remark was not in any way racist, although she never offered an explanation for why. She also said that the real bullies in the room were the college students who booed her (which happened only after the student questioning her mentioned Coulter’s previous “magic carpet” racist attack), and said that the 17-year-old girl who asked the question (which was sarcastic but articulate) was an “agitator.”
Interestingly, in the same discussion wherein Tina vehemently denied any racism from Ann Coulter, she inadvertently linked to a white supremacist who argues for nuclear war on his “racial enemies.” After pointing this out to Tina, she refused to admit that there was anything wrong with this, since the article she linked to did not openly advocate such extremist views, and was just a boilerplate conservative rant about how diversity is destroying American education (which offered no evidence that this was the case). This was neither the first or the last time one of you accidentally linked to a white supremacy site thinking it was simply a regular conservative site; might that have something to do with why conservatives are associated with racists these days?
Then we continued the unproductive discussion about the “take a camel” remarks here and here. In those discussions, Tina continued to insist that Coulter’s statements were not bigoted, and accused me of being a bigot, an indoctrinated bully, a tyrant, and part of the PC thought police. In the discussion on the Maher article, she also absurdly argued that “Ann’s remarks may not even have been intended as an insult,” because camels have no association with Arabs or Muslims, and that they only have “positive” connotations (which was extremely bizarre, because in that case Coulter’s joke wouldn’t have even made sense). According to her, I only saw the comments as racist because I see “everything through the PC lens of race.”
In that same discussion, she also defended ex-gay therapy, refused to acknowledge anything problematic about it, and said that gays are the real “bullies” in the culture wars, and portrayed bullying against Christians as a more serious problem than bullying against gays. That probably didn’t help the Republican brand, either.
The “halfrican-American” comments were made by Rush Limbaugh; whatever search results you found that showed I had made those comments, you didn’t read closely enough, because I was clearly quoting Rush and criticizing those words. Tina defended those statements, and other examples of Rush’s racist comments, here and here.
I am not sure why you couldn’t find these.
I agree with you that calling anyone a raciall loaded term such as “Oreo” is wrong, and I have stated many times here that black Republicans should never be treated this way.
I point all this out not to have you speak for Tina or anyone else in the Republican party. I point it out to show that the reason many people see the Republican party as having a racism problem, is that many high-profile Republicans frequently use racist language. And when they do, instead of acknowledging the problem and trying to fix it, many ordinary, decent Republicans choose to defend them and claim–with extraordinary amounts of effort!–that what they said was not, in fact, racist. This creates the impression that such racist language is accepted within the party. Instead of blaming Democrats for this perception of racism, it may be time to acknowledge that the perception is created BY Republicans, and that in ordet to reverse this perception, some Republicans may need to change their actual behavior.
Jack I did have an argument with Chris about Ann Coulter’s camel and carpet remarks. I don’t think Coulter is a racist. I would characterize her remarks as cynically rude. There is no question that her statements were meant to offend. It’s hard for me to hold it against her. She was in a hostile environment. She had been treated very rudely at every campus where she was invited to speak.
Conservatives are expected to take being treated like second class citizens without ever becoming exasperated. We must meet a different standard…a much higher standard. We have been consigned us to the back of the bus…we are the new group that it’s okay to hate.
I won’t give Chris the satisfaction of agreeing with
him about Ann Coulter or Rush because both are being used as examples in a false narrative. Neither of these two people have said anything that is any more offensive than any number of things said by prominent Democrats. Neither has been evaluated as human beings in full context. They are being targeted because they managed to acquire a sizable following and now pose a threat to the false narrative.
It needs to be said: J. Soden’s comment is an example of what I believe most Americans think…including Ann and Rush!
“Jack I did have an argument with Chris about Ann Coulter’s camel and carpet remarks”
In that context I agree with you. Okay, it was rude, but I don’t think she is a racist. I think some people are hypersenstive and need to get over themselves. I’ve been called pig, whitey, honky, redneck, cracker, bule’, haole’, etc. It just rolls off and then there are the white people jokes…whites laugh harder than anyone else about them. Guess I’m not that hung up on trying to find fault or start a fight over something that is fairly trivial.
Chris claims I defend racist comments. I disagree.
I did unknowingly link to a White Supremacists site. It seems that even a white supremacist can make a valid point from time to time. There’s that high standard again!
Interesting that Chris, and every Democrat we can name, thinks that Republicans must, “change their actual behavior” yet not a single one I can name has considered looking in the mirror. Chris has yet to acknowledge the profiling that the democrat party has engaged in to create the false narrative that Republicans, conservatives, and TP’ers are racist.
To my knowledge he has yet to say much about the many egregious instances of Democrats targeting of Tea party, Jewish, and certain journalists persons by the IRS…or the militant, hateful treatment they received.
Chris displays a lot of cheek pushing the racist false narrative in the current atmosphere of corruption and bigotry on display in the community organizer lead Democrat Party.
Tina, I did that too. No big, just a mistake. However, I found it funny that the words Chris used as examples of racism on this site were never words used by anyone except himself!!!!lol I’m not accusing Chris of being a racist of course, I’m just saying the racist words that offended him were only words repeated by him, never initiated by us.
Tina: “I don’t think Coulter is a racist.”
Jack: “Okay, it was rude, but I don’t think she is a racist.”
It’s interesting that both of you seem to be responding to an accusation that I have not actually made. I did not say that Ann Coulter was “a racist.” I said that she has said racist things.
We all understand the difference between those two things, right? It’s the same difference between accusing someone of “doing something bad,” and accusing someone of “being a bad person.” The first accusation, while never nice to hear, at least has the potential to be constructive. The second accusation is almost never constructive, because it’s an attack on someone as a person, a way to label them and mark them as Other, rather than a critique of behavior. I try to avoid calling someone “a racist” for the same reason I try to avoid calling someone “a bad person.” It simply isn’t helpful, and it’s bound to make someone defensive of their entire worth as a person, rather than prompt them to take a look at their behavior.
What makes this even harder, though, is how often people mistake the first claim for the second. Almost inevitably, whenever someone is accused of making a racist statement, people rush to the defense of the person and immediately state, “S/He isn’t a racist!” So even when people simply state “You said a racist thing,” what the person being critiqued (and their defenders) actually hear is “You are a racist.” There seems to be a very limited ability to tell these two claims apart. So instead of talking about the behavior of a person, we get derailed into a rather useless discussion of a person’s character–who they are on the “inside.” The defense “we don’t know what is in his/her mind and heart!” is often used, as though we should focus on what is in a person’s mind and heart instead of what actually comes out of their mouths. And, of course, there’s the infamous “I have tons of black friends,” as if that makes someone completely immune to holding pr espousing any problematic views about race.
Tina: “Conservatives are expected to take being treated like second class citizens without ever becoming exasperated…We have been consigned us to the back of the bus…”
It’s really interesting that you say this…do you not see that Coulter was *literally* advocating second-class citizenship for Muslims and Arabs, by saying that they should not travel by air like most normal citizens? As a reminder, here is an excerpt of the interview that she was asked about by the Muslim college student:
“Sharing a table at a New York bar with Coulter, watching the heads turn, you’re seized by the urge to test her. Is she for real? Is she making this stuff up, like a comedian doing a shtick? How far will she go? “What if the free market offered Muslim-free air travel?” I venture, by way of bait. Would that be a smart move? “This is my idea,” she says brightly, competitive as a child. “I’m way ahead of you. I think airlines ought to start advertising: ‘We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.’ ”
And how would Muslims travel? “They could use flying carpets,” she says, a grinning picture of charm. But worry not: lots of other swarthy ethnic groups would be subject to the Coulter plan for selective security. “You’d be searching a lot of Italians, Greeks and Jews.” Intensively frisking just 20% of travellers would make flying quicker for everyone, she says. “Have you seen these lines for getting through? Everyone suffers equally. Which presumably is the dream of the Guardian: modelled after their beloved Soviet Union.”
Here is a transcript of the exchange she had with the student:
“FATIMA AL-DHAHER: On September 14, 2001, you said that America should invade Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity. You also said that all the Muslims should boycott all the airlines. When asked what alternative modes of transportation were, you suggested flying carpet.
(CROWD LAUGHS AND CHEERS)
ANN COULTER: Hang on, she’s reading my lines. Go on.
AL-DHAHER: Question, first of all, as a seventeen-year-old student of this university, Muslim, should I be converted to Christianity? Second of all, since I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes do you suggest?
COULTER: First, you dropped a line from the first quote. It was “invade all countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” And, you know, by the way, this shows, I thought it was just, you know, American public schools that produced ignorant people. This is what America has done, after World War II, after the Korean War. After we won in World War II, the emperor went to MacArthur and said, “Okay, we’re ready to convert.” And MacArthur said, “Well, actually, we don’t convert people forcibly.” Also, as he’s described, he said he didn’t know whether to convert them to Protestantism or Catholicism. But he put out the call for Christian missionaries to come to Japan, and they poured in. And, you don’t convert people forcibly, but missionaries have been operating throughout Japan for years, and we certainly have religious freedom in Japan, and I would add we haven’t heard a peep out of them.
(CHEERS AND BOOS FROM CROWD)
After the Korean War, the exact same thing happened. A call was put out for Christian missionaries to go into South Korea. The Christian missionaries poured in, and this is one of the greatest success stories of Christianity. You’ll see in at least on a American university campuses…
CROWD: Answer the question. Answer the question.
COULTER: What mode of transportation? Take a camel.
HECKLER: Are you going to convert her now?
COULTER: No, there are some people I’d just as soon not convert. I’m kind of a mean Christian.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/28/media-badly-misrepresent-ann-coulters-take-camel-line#ixzz2VY8L6dWm
I suppose one could look at that and see a woman responding to an attack by a rude audience. However, her response was unquestionably racist, as it drew on racial stereotypes in order to put someone down because of their race (Arab-American, which she specified in the original interview) and religion (Muslim). And the initial comments that the student asked about engaged in similar stereotypes. I am not sure why you expect a group of college students to sit politely and say nothing when a speaker is demeaning an entire ethnic group. Booing is a completely legitimate way to show outrage, and it’s an appropriate response to racist statements. Furthermore, booing is not an excuse for making even more racist statements. No one excuses Michael Richards for his angry use of the N word after being heckled at a comedy club. Why is Coulter’s reaction simply “rude,” rather than racist?
Tina, there is absolutely no one publicly arguing that conservatives should not be allowed on planes. Using this incident to show that it is conservatives who are being treated as second-class citizens is absurd. Booing someone is not treating them as a second-class citizen. No one has a legal right to speak in front of an audience without criticism. You are mistaking vocal disagreement and outrage as some kind of oppression, while at the same time ignoring *actual* calls for *actual* oppression against others. You say conservatives are being “consigned to the back of the bus,” but it’s Coulter who is saying that Arabs Muslims shouldn’t be allowed the same access to transportation as everyone else!
“Neither of these two people have said anything that is any more offensive than any number of things said by prominent Democrats.”
Does it matter? Can’t you evaluate their actions as individuals without comparing them to others? How does the fact that “the other side does it to” make their behavior more acceptable? Do you realize you are engaging in moral relativism when you say things like this, even though you and other conservatives claim to hate moral relativism?
You know what I think would be helpful? If we had two separate articles, one about racism within the Democratic Party, and another about racism within the Republican Party. We could document instances of each and give suggestions on what each could do to improve. But these wouldn’t be spaces to compare them to one another or to say the other side is worse; that isn’t constructive, and it always becomes more about partisan point-scoring than about actually improving the world.
“Interesting that Chris, and every Democrat we can name, thinks that Republicans must, “change their actual behavior” yet not a single one I can name has considered looking in the mirror. Chris has yet to acknowledge the profiling that the democrat party has engaged in to create the false narrative that Republicans, conservatives, and TP’ers are racist.”
That’s simply not true. I have said multiple times that there have been unfair attacks on conservatives, and that it is wrong to characterize all as racist. You know that.
Jack: “Tina, I did that too. No big, just a mistake. However, I found it funny that the words Chris used as examples of racism on this site were never words used by anyone except himself!!!!lol I’m not accusing Chris of being a racist of course, I’m just saying the racist words that offended him were only words repeated by him, never initiated by us.”
Jack, you’re not making sense. The words I “used” were quotes from prominent conservatives. They were not brought up by others on this site, but they were defended. And I brought them up in order to show that the impression that Republicans are a racist party is drawn at least in large part by the statements of prominent Republicans, and the subsequent defenses by average conservatives. This conversation proves my point. If you’re not willing to acknowledge the problem within your own party, you’re going to keep losing voters.
“I’ve been called pig, whitey, honky, redneck, cracker, bule’, haole’, etc. It just rolls off and then there are the white people jokes…whites laugh harder than anyone else about them. Guess I’m not that hung up on trying to find fault or start a fight over something that is fairly trivial.”
Do you think it’s possible that you are more able to let racial slurs roll off your back, because they are so unlikely to affect your life in any meaningful way? I believe those terms are wrong and racist, but white people like us can laugh them off because they don’t actually hurt our chances at having a successful life. When a Muslim girl is told that she should take a camel or a magic carpet instead of a plane, that actually has an impact, because this kind of language is common and affects how people view and treat Arabs and Muslims.
Chris you’re using a lot of bait and switch tactics now, creating red herrings, trying to avoid the issues in which you were flatly wrong. You implied we use or defend racists statements and you brought up some things we allegedly defended or said and that was simply not the case. They were your words about somebody who has nothing to do with PS.
Bottom line is we’re not racist, you’re not racist…let’s move on.
It is very simple. To be casting scurrilous aspersions upon and entire race or religious persuasion because of the actions of a violent subset of that race or religion is racist and/or bigoted. Jack, you and Tina repeatedly do this, and it is very off-putting.
And then again, it’s not so simple. NPR has been running stories about how the Syria thing is evolving into a regional conflict: the islamists v. the secularists.
We, of course, would be rooting for the secularists, if it weren’t for the fact that they’re all a passel of savagely repressive and dictatorial shits.
It’s a problem.
Jack, I don’t understand what you’re talking about. The specific statements I brought up WERE defended by Tina, as she has acknowledged herself. And those are only a few examples. Racist statements by prominent Republicans are routinely defended here, presumably because it’s hard for some to admit when prominent figures on their end of the political spectrum have said or done something wrong. I’m not trying to use any “tactics” or avoiding any issues. I’m trying to give you some workable advice for how to get your party out of the funk it’s currently in. When you have to hold an “autopsy” after an election, something is clearly wrong, and you can’t blame all of the party’s failures on the other side–especially if you want to call yourselves the “party of personal responsibility.”
“Bottom line is we’re not racist, you’re not racist…let’s move on.”
No, that’s not the “bottom line”–did you read anything I wrote in my last comment? Whether either of us is “racist” as a person is irrelevant. The fact is that many prominent Republicans frequently say racist things, and many of their supporters refuse to acknowledge the problem. This ties in with Tina’s article about how hard it is for Republicans to reach out to youth and other traditionally left-leaning groups of voters. If you are at all concerned about the fact that you have lost five out of the last six popular votes in the presidential elections, you need to start thinking about what Republicans can do to fix the problem. Telling everyone that Democrats are the real racists (while using racially loaded and offensive terms such as “slaves of the Democratic plantation” to refer to black Democrats) is a strategy that your party has tried for years. I think it’s time to declare that a failure.
Chris sorry for not being as enthusiastic as you are on this subject. You’re pursuing this with all the vigor of a prosecutor and it looks like you have Tina under cross examination. Why?
However, this is too much for me. I can’t spend my life examining every nuance of every speech given by every person who calls themselves Republican. I leave that up the self appointed persecutors of our times, the mainstream media. They’re constantly on the lookout for any excuse to destroy a Republican.
Therefore, if your point was accurate….the headlines should be filled with “racist accusations/indictments” , but they’re not, it’s just the opposite! The mainstream media rarely finds anything of this nature to report. They would have an easier time finding racism by looking at the democrats, but that’s just my opinion.
If Tina has put something that offended you into a proper context that’s not necessarily being a defender. What it comes down to is “mens rea” and / or semantics and it’s all very boring.
I recall some guy who used the word niggardly to explain a financial event and he was fired over it, such is the world we have today.
Libby: “We, of course, would be rooting for the secularists, if it weren’t for the fact that they’re all a passel of savagely repressive and dictatorial shits.”
But doesn’t that describe the Islamists as well?
Nicely said Jack.
This little walk down memory lane reminds me that Chris’s favorite game seems to be hall monitor. Perhaps it’s our difference in age, or perhaps it’s the age we grew up in, either way the leftist need to monitor and bitch about remarks others make is boring…and tiresome. I used to think it was worth my time to engage Chris believing that we could come to some agreement but he has his PC definition and if you don’t fit into that box you are, in his opinion, in need of schooling. If you ask me it is the left that is intolerant, not to mention controlling.
Intolerant, controlling, bitchy, boring, … =liberal
Jack, you brought up the issues of race and racism in this article. I agreed with you that the Republican positions you brought up were not, in and of themselves, racist. But I also found it necessary to clarify WHY these positions are often interpreted as racist; because they are often accompanied by racist rhetoric, such as Ann Coulter’s “take a camel” remark, or Rush calling Obama a number of racial epithets.
I still find it nothing short of bizarre that, whenever I point out remarks such as these and ask why Republicans don’t seem to have a problem with them, *I* am labeled intolerant by the bloggers here. This sends the message that, to you, racist rhetoric that puts down people for their ethnicities is perfectly acceptable as long as it’s someone on your side doing it. But if someone accurately describes such language as racist, *they* are the *real* bigots. I don’t think this comes out of hatred for minorities. I do think it comes out of a total and complete disregard for minority concerns. The voters notice this, and vote accordingly.
You don’t have to “examine every nuance of every speech” to see this kind of language in the Republican party. Therse two figures, especially, use this kind of rhetoric all the time. It is extremely common. I am not playing “hall monitor” or putting anyone under “cross-examination” by pointing out this fact. In another recent article, Tina lamented the problems with the Republican “brand,” and how the party is losing the youth vote and many other groups. You’re not a big tent anymore. But instead of trying to do some honest self-reflection, you both seem to think it’s easier and more convenient to blame the Democrats for all of your party’s problems.
You want to help the Republican party overcome its image problem? You want to fight the impression that your party tolerates racism? I’m giving you usable, good advice on how to do that. You don’t have to listen to it. But if you don’t, your party is going to crumble under the weight of its own incompetence. I’m not the only person telling you this; several conservative figures have made the same diagnosis and recommended the same solutions, that you have to stop tolerating and defending racist rhetoric by extremists like Limbaugh and Coulter if you are going to be taken seriously.
There is no question that progressives have manufactured Republican/conservative racism. The tactic even found one fellow defending himself in court…where he lost in spectacular fashion. Check out the sorry tale featuring Gerry Herbert at PJ Media:
Yet another example of Democrat operatives targeting Americans and abusing the power given them to serve the people.
Intolerant, controlling, bitchy, boring, and sleazy!
Chris: “I do think it comes out of a total and complete disregard for minority concerns.”
The damning stain on the Republican Party regarding minorities isn’t the result of what you describe as “total and complete disregard for minority concerns”. The stain is a result of a relentless mission to paint all republicans as racist!
Amazingly, your party does not bear this stain even though by the standard you suggest it deserves no less. Your theory is blown apart by its own standard.
People say things that can be taken in offense. Republicans have certainly had to stand under a mountain of negative nasty degrading remarks directed toward them. Unfairly labeled a group of people racist is not just offensive it is morally reprehensible!
It’s time to start evaluating the parties on the merit and efficacy of their policies and ideas.
The Democrat Party has operated for many years on policies that divide Americans, create unhealthy dependency, construct huge expensive bureaucracies, institute pathways resulting in massive debt, dangerously gut the military, have ruined our educational system, and . Its a disgusting legacy wrapped in now, ruined the healthcare industry. they have done all of this behind a thin veneer of phony compassion and tolerance.
Republicans have failed to message effectively and they have failed to guard and protect the values and ideals that define America in terms of freedom and equality, opportunity and strength. They have foolishly assumed that the opposing party was worthy of cooperation and bipartisan negotiation. They have foolishly accepted the progressive way and cooperated in the creation of programs that run in opposition to their ideals. This major error in judgement has brought us to the precipice on which we now stand.
I don’t have the time or the energy to play this petty game about words. People get offended. All people experience this. Minorities do not have a special pity palace that makes their offenses special or more damaging. We are all Americans and the sooner we drop the special interest group division the better!
The precipice has given us an opportunity to return to brilliance of our founding. the question is do we have the courage and the commitment necessary to take advantage of the opportunity? God, I hope so.
I have already said that it is unfair to label all Republicans as racist, and that some false accusations have been made. I have also admitted that Democrats have a problem with racist rhetoric as well, such as the insults directed toward black conservatives. Hell, I even defended Rush’s use of the song “Barack the Magic Negro” here, after initially arguing that it was racist. What more do you want from me? I am trying to reach some sort of a compromise and mutual understanding here, but that’s impossible when one side isn’t willing to concede even the smallest, most obvious point.
If you can’t admit that your party bears any responsibility for the impressions people have that it is racist, if you won’t acknowledge any problematic behavior on the part of your party’s representatives regarding race, and if you have no recommendations for improvement other than “We need to educate people about how it’s the Democrats that are the real racists,” you are going to fail.
Chris, I fully admit that democrats bear 98% of the responsibility for labelling the Party of Lincoln as racist, they’ve made it their crusade, it’s how elections are stolen. You paint the other guy as some kind of biggot, next thing you know his poll numbers are dropping. This is part of the dems play book.
Ironically it was republicans that freed the slaves dems didn’t, they opposed it. Republicans gave women the vote, dems didn’t. Limbaugh isn’t the republican party, he is no more a spokesman for it than you are. Can we move on?
“problematic behavior”
Is satire problematic? Not for liberal progressives! SNL has a field day, often using republicans as props, to great resounding laughter and applause.
How about using “forbidden words” just to get a laugh? Liberal progressive democrat leaning comedians do it all the time to raucous laughter…they find themselves incredibly funny when they can make a Republican the butt of a sleazy joke. Blacks use the N-word liberally and not always in a kind way.
How about making absurd remarks? This is a favorite of our more progressive friends who count themselves as journalists…or talking heads.
What about returning an ungracious or rude welcome with an acerbic retort? Yep, yep, pretty sure both sides have done that!
And yet it is only the Republican Party that has this racist label!
How did it happen…why did it happen? What about this morally bankrupt method of political competition fails to capture even a modicum of intellectual curiosity in our young friend who is practically apoplectic in his determination to make others bend to his will on a point based on interpretation, context, individual experience, point of view, and even loyalty, or lack thereof, to a given party, commentator, or politician?
Move on? Oh let’s!
Tina, if Coulter is what passes for good satire on the right, then that certainly explains why the left has the market cornered on satire. Yes, liberals *do* dominate comedy, the arts, and the media; you seem to think that’s evidence that we’re cheating, and won’t consider that maybe we’re just better at it. 😉
Jack: “Limbaugh isn’t the republican party, he is no more a spokesman for it than you are.”
You’re right, I’ve had tons of Republican congressmen publicly apologize to me personally as well. There’s no difference.
A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as “playing the race card” but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond’s recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond’s statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.
Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the radical left wing, the truth becomes distorted not only about the Republicans but also the Democrats who make these accusations themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the “n-word,” on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders of the civil rights movement. In contrast, the main source of well deserved criticism for Byrd’s racist outburst came not from any of the so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (source). The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et al turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist, or, as was more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the record straight with the truth.
In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent left wing Democrats, it is necessary to expose the truth about the Democrat Party’s record on Civil Rights:
——————————————————————————–
I. Acts of Bigotry by Prominent Democrats and Leftists:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt’s internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America’s concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt’s order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that “no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time.” Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.
Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920’s and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience “I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel.” In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant . . . Chris let’s stop, ok?
Chris then you should have no reason to run around playing hall monitor. You have obviously found a home in the sleaze party.
Great job Tina and Jack.
We are all sick and tired of the lies. It’s time the truth is told loudly and clearly until everyone knows the democrats have been lying to gain the minorities’ votes and line their own pockets at the expense of other‘s freedom.
A message from K Carl Smith, founder of the Frederick Douglas Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZTkZgwH-Q&feature=player_embedded
Frederick Douglass Republicans:
I am a Republican, a black dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend
to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.
– Frederick Douglass (1817-1895)
Some people assume incorrectly that the expression, “Frederick Douglass
Republicans™,” refers to a minority sub-group of the GOP or that it is
the name of an organization, a foundation, or a club. Neither is the case.
It has nothing to do with racial separation.
The phrase “Frederick Douglass Republicans” is an all-inclusive political
platform based on the four Life-Empowering Values of Frederick Douglass:
(1) Respect for the CONSTITUTION, (2) Respect for LIFE, (3) Belief in
LIMITED GOVERNMENT, and (4) Belief in PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
As with the turn-of-phrases, “Tea Party Conservative” and “Reagan
Conservative,” “Frederick Douglass Republicans” is a political point of view and
a rallying call to defend liberty.
What began as a mantra has now developed into a nationwide political
movement—catching the attention of thousands of Americans—regardless of
their race.
Any person may become a Frederick Douglass Republican because it is not
about COLOR, it is about VALUES.
http://www.clermontteaparty.org/frederick-douglass-republicans.html
From Chris: “But doesn’t that describe the Islamists as well?”
It does, indeed. And this is one of the increasingly rare instances when I can be pro-Obama. Because there is no virtue in either side of the conflict, you can’t, with any integrity, back either side. You can only look out for your own interests … which seems to be the O-man’s position. And I can’t, in all pragmatism, fault him for it. He is an intellectual dude.
Where are the free tin foil hats?