Harry's "Washington Gaffe"
Every so often, I wake up knowing exactly the column I'm going to write. Only to find out, upon browsing around, that someone else has written it for me. Today was one of those days.
Harry Reid's situation seemed to me to be a perfect opportunity for him to follow in Chris Dodd's footsteps, and announce that -- after healthcare reform legislation is successfully put on Barack Obama's desk to sign -- Harry Reid would be stepping down as Senate Majority Leader, and giving someone else a shot at it. My reasoning had very little to do with the recently-revealed gaffe from Reid.
But, as I said, someone else had already said exactly what I was going to say, so I will direct you to Dylan Loewe's excellent article today up on Huffington Post, and you can read it for yourself. Lowe made exactly the points I was going to make, used exactly the reasoning I would have, and did it in probably about one-third the space I would have taken. So I have to take my hat off to him, and say "Well done!" And encourage everyone else to read his article.
So please don't read the rest of this article as a defense of Harry Reid, for sheer political reasons. Reid has a few political options now, none of which have much to do with what he said to a reporter during the 2008 presidential campaign: he can stick it out, hoping for an upset victory which would allow him to remain Majority Leader; he can step down from the leadership position, campaign as just another senator in the midterms; or he can announce he will not be running this year, and give another Democrat a shot at his Senate seat. My preference would actually be for that last one, but my political instincts tell me that he'll run and not step down from his leadership spot, choosing instead to "tough it out," and hoping that he can spend enough during the campaign to convince Silver State voters to send him back to Washington.
Instead I would like to deconstruct what Harry actually reportedly said that caused the furor in the first place. Because, with the exception of one poorly-chosen word, it seems to me to fit the classic definition of a "Washington gaffe" -- accidentally speaking a bald truth, and having to immediately apologize for such unseemliness.
Let's separate the two, and take a look at the poorly-chosen word first, and then take an overall look at his statements with a bit of badly-needed context. First, the full quote from the new tell-all political book which raised the controversy in order to sell more books (which is why I refuse to name them here, the authors having had enough publicity already, it seems to me):
He [Harry Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.
The word "Negro" fairly jumps off the page there (or, more accurately for my readers, "off the screen") when casually reading that sentence. That is because it is the year 2010.
Time is an important part of this discussion. Because, over time, terminology which was originally intended to be "polite" and "genteel" and "proper" usually migrates (in the mouths of racists) into becoming a negative term or slur, which is then slowly abandoned as a "polite" term, in favor of a more-politically-correct term (which will also then follow the same cycle). The speed at which this happens differs, depending on the usage and depending on the minority group being spoken of. In fifty years, I can easily see an American politician castigated for using the newly-offensive term "African-American," for instance. The wheel turns, in other words. Or perhaps, "the wheel turns towards other words."
A good example is the fact that nowhere in America could a sports team decide to name itself "The Blackskins"... and yet, Washington, D.C.'s football team is quite comfortable still using such terminology when it refers to Native Americans (who don't have nearly the political power of other groups).
Even in our so-called modern and enlightened age, Native Americans are routinely referred to in terminology which harkens back to about where African-Americans were in the 1950s. For the most part, we don't even bat an eyelid when it happens, either.
The head of the Republican Party, for example, just used the term "Honest Injun!" in a broadcast interview last week, which didn't stop him from calling for Harry Reid to resign his leadership post this past weekend. The phrase "off the reservation" is routinely used in American politics, and again, nobody bats an eyelid when it happens.
The terminology for those of African ancestry here in America has changed over the years. Negro was originally the "polite" term to use, post-Civil-War, rather than the racially-charged term which preceded it (and which is deemed so offensive today that editorial standards dictate only referring to it with the euphemism: "the N-word"). Up until perhaps World War II, the term "Negro" was embraced by the group to which it referred. In the early 1930s, it was even officially capitalized in both the media and by the federal government, as a result of pressure from the black community.
The word-of-choice soon changed, though, and the following words (as well as others, this should not be seen as a complete list) went through their own time of being favored: colored, black (or, sometimes: Black), Afro-American, African American (sometimes: African-American), and person of color. Today, any person not part of the group being referred to (from, for instance, a white guy such as myself) very carefully chooses what term to use. "African American" is the most common, followed by "black," especially as a modifier (the "black vote" or "black presidential candidate" for instance).
But even "African American" has its problems. I know a teacher in the D.C. suburbs who routinely (due to the embassies located in the area) is confronted by students who demand which racial box they should check. "I'm not an American!" they protest, being from the Caribbean or from Africa itself. "Why don't I have a box?" Well, because we mixed up geography in our "correct" racial terminology, sorry about that.
So Harry Reid appeared out of date, and out of touch, by saying "Negro dialect." But the episode wasn't without irony. When the first reports surfaced over the weekend, Reid's quote was paired with denunciations from various members of the N.A.A.C.P. -- without ever pointing out that they themselves are using a term just as old-fashioned, and just as offensive to some within their group's very name! "Colored" is what the "C" stands for, and yet nobody bothered to point out just how out of date that particular word is nowadays.
Times change, and sometimes a "brand" becomes so ingrained that it never changes, even while the language around it does.
Let's go back and try Reid's statement again, with this one word updated, and see what the rest of the fuss was all about:
He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no black dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.
The rest of Reid's problem stems from two other phrases in the quote: "light-skinned," and "dialect." Neither, it should be pointed out, is a "slur." Both are actual facts, which people on all sides would agree with, if stated outside of political speech: Barack Obama, being half-white, is indeed lighter-skinned than some other African-Americans; and there is indeed a "dialect" which is associated with African-Americans.
Going further, Reid isn't really saying anything shocking here, because he is being honest (see above: "Washington gaffe"). Remember, this comes in the context of Reid being proud he backed Obama very early on, and praising Barack Obama's electability factor. Reid said that he considered Obama's chances with the American electorate at large to be better because he had lighter skin than some African-Americans. And that Obama did not use black dialect, unless he chose to -- and that, again, his chances of being elected were greater as a result.
These might be controversial subjects, but it is pretty hard to argue that Reid is, sadly, right about both. Obama being half-white, and Obama being raised to speak in (if anything) a Kansas accent probably did help convince a certain segment of white voters that Obama was "safe enough" to vote for. As I said, this reflects quite a number of ugly realities in America on the subject of race, but seen as purely election-season handicapping of politics, it's hard to argue that Reid was wrong on either count.
In other words, it might indeed be offensive that a lighter-skinned African-American who spoke without a black accent has a better chance of winning the presidency in America today. But is it really offensive to point this out? Isn't the truly offensive thing that Harry's probably right? Even if he was inarticulate in how he chose to put it?
But that's where the problem really lies. Because the quandary any white person faces when even bringing up the subject of race is that there are simply too many pitfalls and landmines strewn about the linguistic landscape to even know how to begin the conversation. Which leads, in many cases, to abandoning such efforts before they are even begun -- "it's safer not to even talk about it" becomes the smart choice.
And that is a shame, because if the conversation itself -- the dialog and the concepts involved, and not just the language used -- becomes so fraught with the possibility of offending someone, then the conversation simply will not happen at all.
Which, sadly, appears to be the lesson all politicians are taking away from the entire episode. Meaning such things will continue to be said, but not in public.
Now, I'm not really defending Harry Reid here, or what he said. That's up to Harry to do. But I do have to say that Republican leader Michael Steele doth protest a wee bit too much on the issue. Here is Steele, from a few months back, on a radio call-in show:
CALLER: It's just like the L.A. Times said last year, or two years ago -- he [Obama] is "the magic Negro."
STEELE: Yeah he is -- [laughter]. You read that too, huh?
Funny how Steele didn't immediately denounce the caller, or have some fit of pique about it later, isn't it? Which, together with his recent "Honest Injun!" comment, shows what a flaming hypocrite he truly is, as he attempts to make as much political hay out of this as is humanly possible.
But none of this, Steele's hypocrisy included, changes the political reality Reid now faces. He was down in the polls, and that was before this story broke. Now, Nevada is only about 8% African-American (or "Black," as the census lists the group), meaning that it's less of a factor than in states where that percentage is higher. At the same time, when you're down so far in the polls, any bad news can be enough to put re-election out of grasp. Which is why I agree with the notion that Harry would do his own party a lot of good by turning the reins over to some other Democrat in the Senate, if not deciding to retire altogether. But then (to be scrupulously honest), I thought that last Thursday, too, before the Reid gaffe story broke.
But as for Harry's scandalous comments (and with apologies in advance to William Shakespeare), methinks those loudly protesting are making much ado about very little indeed. Because "Negro" is simply not that derogatory a term, unless uttered with clearly derogatory intent or context. I keep wondering if someone will chime in on the debate from the wonderful organization whose sole purpose is to fund higher education for African-Americans. You know -- the one with the slogan: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." Because it might put the controversy in a little different perspective to have a spokesman join in the debate from the United Negro College Fund.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Whenever I see 'gaffe' in the subject line I get a little anxious. I don't, for the life of me, know what brings that on but, it is what it is. I don't mind telling you that I drew a distinct sigh of relief when I finished reading.
Now, is it safe to read Dylan Lowew's 'excellent article' ... 'cause I'm not going anywhere near there until I know it's safe. :)
The rest of Reid's problem stems from two other phrases in the quote: "light-skinned," and "dialect." Neither, it should be pointed out, is a "slur."
I disagree.. The key component of a "slur" is stereo-typing.
Why is it a "slur" to say that a golfer's banquet is going to have to serve watermelon and fried chicken because of Tiger Woods, but it is NOT a slur to state that there is a black "dialect"??
Because each implies a stereotype that may or may not be accurate...
I got branded a racist on HuffPo when I used the phrase, "calling a spade a spade" in the context of a terrorism discussing.
Hay, ya'all CREATED this Politically Correct mess.. Of course, by "ya'all" I mean the Left..
But you are correct.. The GOP attacks on Reid over this are just so much political BS..
Just as the Dem attacks on Trent Lott when he made his gaffe were so much political BS..
It's becoming clearer and clearer that Politics is all BS, all the time..
An Honest Politician. An oxymoron if ever there was one..
Michale....
But as for Harry's scandalous comments (and with apologies in advance to William Shakespeare), methinks those loudly protesting are making much ado about very little indeed.
Just as Democrats made much ado about very little when it comes to Trent Lott..
Because "Negro" is simply not that derogatory a term, unless uttered with clearly derogatory intent or context.
And yet, black people went thru the roof when it was discovered that the US CENSUS had put "NEGRO" as one of it's race selections.
Which simply shows that all the PC nonsense is utter crap.
The Left has gotten everyone so riled up, deathly scared that any utterance might offend someBODY, someWHERE, that we can no longer have rational discussions about ANY subject.
All thanx to the US's Left Wing..
Thanks a bunch... :^/
Michale.....
But even "African American" has its problems. I know a teacher in the D.C. suburbs who routinely (due to the embassies located in the area) is confronted by students who demand which racial box they should check. "I'm not an American!" they protest, being from the Caribbean or from Africa itself. "Why don't I have a box?" Well, because we mixed up geography in our "correct" racial terminology, sorry about that.
Good point.. Another way to look at it is, according to the PC-nuts, Charlize Theron (in addition to being one hot babe) is also an "African American".. So is, if I recall correctly, Therese Heinz-Kerry.
I know I am preaching to the choir here with regards to all the PC crap that goes on in the world of politics.
That's probably the ONE issue that we ALL can agree on... :D
Michale.....
Since HuffPo still seems to be terrified of a person who can logically, yet passionately defend a contrary viewpoint and, since there was a perspective posted on HuffPo that just CRIES out for rebuttal, I am forced to post said rebuttal here..
Hopefully, Mr Bowman has the wherewithall to actively seek out a REAL discussion/debate on the issues rather than the Stalinistic style of "debate" that is favored on HuffPo...
Towhit..
Gerald Bowman
With regard to the bizarre and, in my opinion bigoted, opinions of white individuals about the term African-American, give it a rest. Hyphen-Americans are everywhere: Italian-American, Irish-American, you name it it has a hyphenated designation, including white-American.
Ahhhh but, as our illustrious host alluded to, those designations denote a GEOGRAPHICAL (or, more accurately, a nationalistic) point of reference, rather than a racial point of reference.
As I point out above and, as CW pointed out in the HuffPo response, a white American who has ancestors that originated in South Africa is as much an "African-American" as a black American is. At least by the definition demanded by some black Americans. Charlize Theron is more of an "African-American" than the vast majority of black Americans in this country. So is Therese Heinz-Kerry. Although I much prefer Ms Theron to gaze at. :D
Is this not true, my preference for star gazing notwithstanding?
But the common trait for all native blacks in the US is the fact that we are descended from Africans.
What a load of felgercarb!
Using that reasoning, everyone in the US, every US citizen, is an "African American" as we ALL can point to a common ancestry in Africa if we go back far enough.
Using that reasoning, how many Americans should demand to be called Mesopotamian-Americans??
Why not go back further??
I picture Picard and Q standing on an out-cropping of rock, witnessing the birth of humankind in a pond ripe with amino acids..
So, does that mean I can demand to be referred to as a PondScum-American?? And force an entire country to accede to my demand??
Do you see the problem when an ethnic or racial group demands to impose a term that is factually inaccurate and illogical in it's use?
Let me ask you one simple question.
Why do you, as a black person, feel you must combine your race with your nationality?
What is wrong with simply being known as an American?
Michale.....
When in doubt, put out your own definition and say it loudly. Hope to confuse enough people, and, in the confusion, hope that people will be drawn to you if you sound certain enough.
This seems to be the primary axiom of 21st-century conservatives. It really is brilliant from a propaganda standpoint.
But hilarious to hear who is crying racism and hypocrisy. Where were these same folk when Rush Limbaugh was making really racist comments?
Like "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back" to an African-American caller.
Like "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
The difference between Rush's comments and Reid's is that in Rush's comments he treats African-Americans as inferior, as criminals, or as savages.
True racism implies superiority, that one race is better than another, that one race should rule over another.
I don't see this in Reid's remark. They seem anachronistic. Out of touch, perhaps. Or dated. Hahahahah ... Chris I just looked back at your article and found I'm using the same words you were. Dangit. Now I'll have to admit you wrote the article I wanted to!
Reid is not putting down African-Americans, he is commenting on what it takes to get elected in America. Rush, on the other hand as an example, puts down African-Americans.
Not to say that Reid's comments were the brightest, but not racist. It certainly doesn't merit the huge outcry from the right.
What is sad, however, is that the mainstream media is not doing any of this analysis. They simply repeat the cries of racism. They don't talk about what it means to be racist or ask anyone who is an expert on the topic. They simply echo the comments.
The flaw when assessing Reid's comments is in what it means to be racist. The conservative definition is saying something un-PC. This is not what it means to be racist. Dave Chappelle says un-PC things all the time and they are not interpreted as racist.
This is the trick conservatives play. Change the definition. Say it loudly and with certainty. Throw in some examples to cause confusion - compare the situation to a truly racist remark w/o really comparing it. And then hope that people follow whatever "jump to conclusion" you throw out there.
*sigh*
Maybe I've been reading too much about Bertrand Russell, but it still amazes me how this simple trick seems to work over and over again.
At the heart of this is a definition of racism that I never hear in the mainstream media. And you would think, when discussing such an issue, that they would talk some about what makes a comment racist and what doesn't.
An un-PC comment is not the same thing as a racist comment.
-David
p.s. And Chris, I find it sad if you're saying that resigning is the political reality for those who are demonized most by the nutjobs. (More likely, though, I am taking your argument too far.)
When in doubt, put out your own definition and say it loudly. Hope to confuse enough people, and, in the confusion, hope that people will be drawn to you if you sound certain enough.
Sounds like how the term "African American" was born... :D
But hilarious to hear who is crying racism and hypocrisy. Where were these same folk when Rush Limbaugh was making really racist comments?
You invalidate your point with the word "really".. Who made Democrats to judges of what is and isn't racism?
Why is it that Democrats think everything out of their mouths is sacrosanct and everything out of the Right's mouth is racism?
The Left makes as many boneheaded, racist bigoted and hypocritical statements as the Right. The simple fact that the Left is silent when their own is the offending party shows that, as I have always said, the Left is no better than the Right.
What is sad, however, is that the mainstream media is not doing any of this analysis. They simply repeat the cries of racism. They don't talk about what it means to be racist or ask anyone who is an expert on the topic. They simply echo the comments.
And yet it is NOT sad when the media does this to the Right??
Why is that??
The difference between Rush's comments and Reid's is that in Rush's comments he treats African-Americans as inferior, as criminals, or as savages.
DO you have cites for those accusations? Or are you going with what liberals have done in the past and say, "I heard someone say that Rush said that"??
I don't see this in Reid's remark. They seem anachronistic. Out of touch, perhaps. Or dated. Hahahahah ...
Of course you don't. Because you don't WANT to see it. You WANT to believe a certain way and therefore that becomes your reality.
But THE reality is much different.
An un-PC comment is not the same thing as a racist comment.
Tell that to the Left..
I don't think they got that memo...
Michale.....
Let's keep this focused to a simple topic rather than going off on Right vs. Left. Let's focus on Harry Reid's statement.
Do you think his comment is racist? And, if so. Why?
I'm not talking about Left vs. Right and probably shouldn't have used Limbaugh as an example. He's too polarizing. I was just looking for examples that fit the definition and knew he'd said some racist things in the past.
Here is another example attributed to Harry J. Anslinger, 1st Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics: "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
I have no idea what affiliation Mr. Anslinger was. This is simply used as an example of a racist comment.
So back to Reid. I'm taking the definition of racism and applying it to Harry Reid's statement. He doesn't say anything that suggests superiority or inferiority. So it doesn't fit the definition of a racist remark.
Now applying the definition of "not too bright" to Reid's comments? There I see a match :).
-David
Let's keep this focused to a simple topic rather than going off on Right vs. Left. Let's focus on Harry Reid's statement.
Reid's statement was boneheaded and moronic. Typical of Reid
But the statement is not my issue.
The reaction from Democrats is the issue as far as I am concerned. It is complete and utter hypocrisy. One of MANY examples of late coming from the Democratic Party.
THAT is the issue I am referring to.
Reid's statement is no more or no less racist than many of the statements that come from the Right. Statements that the Left howl and scream about and cry RACIST!!
We are in complete agreement regarding Reid's statement. As shown by the Sotomayer issue, we seem to differ as what constitutes a racist remark. If I recall correctly, you thought that her statement wasn't racist when, in fact, it was.
But, as I indicate, it's the hypocrisy of the reaction of Democrat leaders that is my issue.
Not the statement itself.
However, I do completely and unequivocally agree with your statement that an Un-PC remark is not necessarily a racist remark. But once again, I must point out that, apparently, the Left had not gotten that memo. Because, by and large, the Left screams RACIST at any remark coming out of the Right that is directed to or regarding a black person. See "Jimmy Carter" if you need more convincing..
Michale.....
Ok. So what's all the fuss about if it's not a racist comment?
There's no hypocrisy from the left since Reid's comment isn't racist.
Seems like Michael Steele is looking to make a much bigger issue out of this then it really is. Really.
-David
The "fuss" is that Democrats are whining and crying because of the level of noise coming from the GOP when the Democrats made as much, if not more noise, over remarks from the GOP that were just as racist (or non-racist) as Reid's remarks were.
The afore mentioned Sotomayer comments is another example of the hypocrisy of the Left vis a vis racist comments.
Yes, Michael Steel (he spells his name funny :D) is making a bigger issue out of this than it really is.
Just as Democrats made a bigger issue out of Lott's statements than it really was. Just as Democrats made a bigger issue out of Rush's non-existent racial statements.
The racist (or non racist) comments are not the issue.
The issue is the hypocrisy..
Michale.....
Let me put my position a different way.
My assessment of whether or not a statement is racist is SOLELY, COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY based on the statement itself.
For the vast majority of those on the LEFT (and, to be fair, those on the RIGHT as well) the assessment of whether or not a statement is racist is based partially, sometimes COMPLETELY, on WHO said it.
And therein lies the hypocrisy.
It's the same issue with the Sotomayer statements. I never claimed that Sotomayer was a racist. I merely stated that the statements Sotomayer made were, in fact, racist statements.
You ask me if Reid's statement was racist. I don't think it was, but that is simply my own personal opinion. I can see how someone can take them as racist. The niece of Dr Martin Luther King has, I am sure, more than a passing acquaintance with racism and racist comments. She says that Reid's statements were racist. I still don't think they were but I would bow to King's niece's expertise and give her opinions more weight than my own.
But, as I said (over and over and OVER again :D) my issue isn't the racist/non-racist statements. My issue is how Democrats scream racist at the drop of a hat to anything coming out of the GOP, yet whine and cry and beach and moan when the GOP does the same thing to Democrats.
Michale.....
But if you REALLY want to talk about racist statements, you can bet that Bubba is on his knees thanking the all mighty gods that Reid stuck his foot in his mouth once again.
If Reid hadn't pulled his boner, you can bet the talk of the town would have been Clinton and his, "a few years ago, this guy {Obama} would have been getting us our coffee" statement...
I am sure you would agree with me that THAT is a bald-faced and obvious racist statement..
Yet the LEFT is strangely quiet about Bubba's statement..
Why do you think that is??
Iddn't it funny how whenever the conversation starts with racist statements, we always end up back to the hypocrisy of the Left...
Michale.....
Ya know, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that there is a racist connotation to Reid's remarks.
Consider this statement..
He might be able to win the election if he weren't such a dark-skinned negro.
Now, wouldn't any reasonable person (or someone from the Left :D ) consider that to be a racist statement?
I would think that it WOULD be a racist statement.
So, if saying someone CAN'T win an election because they are a dark-skinned negro, why is it NOT a racist statement to say that someone COULD win an election because they are a light-skinned negro?
It seems to me that what Reid did was establish a criteria based on race.
The very definition of racism.
Michale.....
Michale, you're really reaching. Really.
I give you points for trying but your argument is tough to sell. Reid is saying race plays a role in elections - in a very crude and insensitive fashion.
If anything, this is a comment that our electorate is racist because light-skinned African-Americans may be statistically more likely to win elections.
Why would Reid have been wowed by Barack's oratorical gifts and excited at the idea of a black President if he were racist?
I just hope the next distraction is more interesting. Something more entertaining.
Like "death panels" or some more tea partying. Or maybe jobs and the economy. Nah ... that would never fly on right wing radio.
-David
You make good points David, I'll give you that.
But your argument still doesn't rebut the main point of my last comment.
If saying that a person CAN'T win an election because of the complexion of his negro skin is racist, then by default, saying a person CAN win an election because of the complexion of his negro skin is also racist.
Let me ask you this..
He might be able to win the election if he weren't such a dark-skinned negro.
Is that a racist statement?
If your answer is yes, then you HAVE to agree that the converse of that statement is also racist.
If your answer is no, then we obviously do not agree on the definition of what constitutes a racist statement.
Why would Reid have been wowed by Barack's oratorical gifts and excited at the idea of a black President if he were racist?
You are trying the Sotomayer Obfuscation.
I am not claiming that Reid is a racist.
I am claiming that it's likely that Reid made a racist comment.
Those are two totally distinct and separate issues.
A person can make a racist comment and still not be a racist.
It's like saying that, since a robin is red and a robin is a bird then all birds must be red.
It's an illogical leap from evidence to conclusion.
I just hope the next distraction is more interesting. Something more entertaining.
Considering what is happening up in MA, the next "distraction" may likely be fatal for the Democratic Party. :D
Or maybe jobs and the economy. Nah ... that would never fly on right wing radio.
The economy and jobs have certainly been ignored by the Obama Administration.
Michale.....
Logically, my friend, you are incorrect. If a statement is true, it is not necessarily the case that it's converse is true.
That is P -> Q does not imply Q -> P.
Here's an example. If Sally is a squirrel then Sally is a mammal. This is true. However, the converse, if Sally is a mammal, then Sally is a squirrel can not be proven true. There is not enough information. Sally could be an elephant or a human for example. You simply don't know.
So your comment that if a statement is true, then you HAVE to agree that the converse is true is not logical :)
But I will definitely agree that racist comments don't necessarily imply that a person is a racist.
-Dave
p.s. Even if your logic were correct, it still seems more likely that your statement about winning elections is more a commentary on the electorate and the views they hold than on any ability of African-Americans. It's not saying that African-Americans don't belong in the race, that they wouldn't make good elected officials, that whites need to govern. What it's saying is that because of the time we live in, it is more difficult to get elected because many people still judge based on skin color.
Logically, my friend, you are incorrect. If a statement is true, it is not necessarily the case that it's converse is true.
That is P -> Q does not imply Q -> P.
Now ya've gone and done it! You pushed my logical button! :D
You are correct as far as you go.
However, your examples list absolutes. There can be no dispute regarding the designations of "squirrel" and "mammal" as those designations have set definitions that are easily provable and not in dispute.
With regards to my example. It consists of an action whereby someone can or cannot do something based on, in this case, a racial criteria.
So, you are correct. The CONVERSE is not what makes it a racial statement.
*Any statement that establishes a criteria based on race* is what makes a statement racist.
Example:
Denzel Washington is incapable of being a college professor because he is black.
That is a racist statement.
Denzel Washington is perfectly capable of being a college professor because he is black.
While the second statement is a converse of the first statement, it's the establishment of a criteria based on race that is the determining factor.
So, mea culpa. I was wrong. Converse is not the defining characteristic. :D
But let's apply this lesson to Reid's statement.
Let's alter the prose to say the same thing, just in an opposite way.
Harry Reid was disappointed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was not ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "dark-skinned" African American "with an obvious Negro dialect, unless he didn't want to have one," as he later put it privately.
I think we all can agree that it is a racist statement.
Therefore, logic would certainly indicate that Reid's original statement was also a racist statement.
But I will definitely agree that racist comments don't necessarily imply that a person is a racist.
Common ground.. Such a wonderful thing :D
Even if your logic were correct, it still seems more likely that your statement about winning elections is more a commentary on the electorate and the views they hold than on any ability of African-Americans. It's not saying that African-Americans don't belong in the race, that they wouldn't make good elected officials, that whites need to govern. What it's saying is that because of the time we live in, it is more difficult to get elected because many people still judge based on skin color.
That's the same reasoning that Rush Limbaugh used when discussing the Donovan McNabb alleged "racist" comment.
And I agree with you. Reid's comment CAN be construed as more of an indictment on the American electorate, rather than a racial jab at Obama.
So, there is logic to support your (and Rush Limbaugh's) position. :D
However, there is one teensy weensy detail.
Let's change the statement a little bit again.
He [Dick Cheney] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he later put it privately.
What do you think the Democrat's reaction to THAT would have been??
Don't bother, I think we BOTH know the answer to that, eh? :D
I rest my case...
Michale......
If you have to change a quote to make it racist, do you really believe it's racist?
Once again ... you are working way too hard. The rest of the world has already moved on as it's really not that big of an issue.
As for bringing Rush into this, please let's stick to the topic at hand. Were Reid's comments racist? No. Were his comments dumb? Yes.
Please get in the last word as we all know you have to comment last and let's move on to something more entertaining.
David
No, it's not that big of an issue. But the same sort of thing will be an issue down the road, I can guarantee you.
Anytime a criteria is established or stated that is based on race it is, by definition, a racist statement.
As for bringing Rush into this, please let's stick to the topic at hand.
I am constrained to point out that it was not I who brought Rush into the conversation. He's yer date, not mine... :D
Please get in the last word as we all know you have to comment last
Of course. I have a reputation to uphold, after all.. :D
and let's move on to something more entertaining.
Wanna talk about the new Star Trek film coming in Dec 2010? :D
Michale.....