So basically, if you disagree with the agenda of an organization, that’s sufficient evidence to impute the motives for anything a politician does or says.
I guess Shodan does have a point.
and if you look at the rest of the quote…
Find me any evidence of racism against African Americans in his record, there was plenty in Lott’s. This isn’t the NAACP not liking Lott while holding a deep love for Busto.
MemoryLeak, perhaps you can find something to plug that hole?
If you do, you might remember that I’ve talked throughout this thread about the importance of considering each “gaffe” in context. The NAACP’s imprimatur doesn’t excuse Bustamante; it does, however, act as one piece of evidence amongst many suggesting that Bustamante may not really be anti-black.
Similarly, the NAACP’s lack of forgiveness toward Lott doesn’t indict him; rather, it acts as one piece of evidence amongst many suggesting that Lott may really be anti-black.
Once more: nobody has suggested a reasonable motive on Bustamante’s part for making a racial slur at a dinner celebrating African American achievements. The closest anyone has come to doing so is to suggest that it was a Freudian slip indicating that Bustamante is secretly a racist.
However, such a charge demands corroboration. If he’s secretly an anti-black racist, surely at some point in his career he’s acted in a manner that the NAACP et al would consider hostile?
The lack of any such corroboration, in favor of innuendo, misdirection, and ad hominem attacks against his defenders, is mighty telling.
Daniel
PS yosemitebabe, I don’t know that a Republican would necessarily be held more accountable per se. Rather, I think that a person who has consistently undertaken political actions that are opposed by mainstream black organizations (e.g., the NAACP) is less likely to receive the benefit of the doubt. If Republicans in general are likelier to piss off the NAACP, why, that’s not my fault.
Oh – Telcontar, thanks for the interesting info on ironic processes of mental control! It’s something I knew existed, but didn’t know what it was called, or how it worked. Very informative!
Daniel
**
Well, some number of apologies did suffice. He’s still got his day-job (as I believe he should); and not only that, he’s chairman of a very important committee.
Again, I repeat: Newsmax tried to resucitate a two-year-old story that focused on a state-level politician and had already run its course. That is different than a “breaking” story involving a very prominent national-level politician—so prominent, in fact, that he was the Senate leader of a national political party.
But in both cases, the stories ran out of steam at some point.
Anyway, I commend you for trying Shodan, but I don’t think you make a compelling case.
It doesn’t make any sense. How does examining the context of the incident shed any light on the lives of either man?
I think the context actually argues against your point. If Lott used the line in a policy speech or position paper I could buy the shitstorm. He threw it out during a going away party for an old man.
This says everything:
Disagree with the agenda of <insert name of mainstream organization representing an ethnic, religious, racial, special interest, etc, etc, group> is evidence that you’re anti-<insert name of mainstream organization representing an ethnic, religious, racial, special interest, etc, etc, group>.
Memoryleak, let’s take this one baby step at a time.
What does NAACP stand for?
-The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
What does that mean?
-They try to improve conditions for African Americans in the US by influencing public policies.
Who are their primary supporters?
-African Americans
Are there larger organizations representing African Americans?
-No (at least, I do not know of any)
Does this suggest that they, in general, do a good job of representing the interests of African Americans?
-Yes
Does this mean that people who attempt to direct public policy in directions hostile to those directions advocated by the NAACP are likely to be acting in a manner hostile toward the interests of African Americans?
-Yes
Show me where my logic breaks down.
Or just answer the basic question: what evidence APART from a verbal slip-up do you have that Bustamante is hostile toward black people?
Again and again, people advancing this smear campaign fail to answer that most basic question. Racism is revealed through a pattern of behavior, most especially through actions. Lott had a pattern of actions that strongly suggested racism so explicit that his own party called him on it. Bustamante has no such pattern.
Daniel
This is the second time you’ve made this point so I guess you really mean it.
I believe someone can formulate a policy that is 180° from a policy advocated by an organization without being anti-whoever the organization claims to represent.
The press anoints organizations (NAACP, NOW, Sierra Club, Greenpeace,…) as the arbiter of policy questions. Failure to buy into that organization’s approach results in bestowal of the Order of Anti.
I don’t believe Bustamante is a rascist. Nor do I believe Lott is a rascist.
I believe the press hammered on the Lott story (i.e., if someone had a press release or statement, that was good enough for another round of stories) because Lott must be anti-black since he advocated different policies than those deemed appropriate by the organizations the press uses as arbiters.
The press does this subconsciously. Goldberg made this point many times in Bias (would have been a much better book had it not been filled with so much “Dan’s being mean to me”).
Also, I don’t take being large as evidence that an organization does a good job.
No it doesn’t; supporters anoint the organization. The NAACP isn’t the largest organization of its kind because NBC et al made it so; it’s the largest organization of its kind because it has been most consistently successful at advancing the interests of its interest group – specifically, African Americans.
Look. If someone makes a potentially anti-Jewish statement, and the ADL comes out and says, “We investigated it, and we believe there was no anti-semitism intended,” I’m inclined to believe them. If someone makes a statement that sounds like it’s advocating gun control, and the NRA says, “We consider that person to be a friend of the Second Amendment,” I’m inclined to believe them. If someone makes a comment that might come across as homophobic, but GLAAD calls them good folk, I’m not gonna accuse that person of being a gaybasher.
It’s pretty weird that some people continue to insist that Bustamante is a racist based on one slip of the tongue, when there’s no other evidence suggesting he’s a racist, and the NAAfreakinCP, experts in studying anti-black racism, deny he’s a racist.
However, given that you don’t claim Bustamante’s a racist, I’m not really addressing this to you. I do believe Lott is a racist, and I believe examining the context (i.e., the political lives of the two men) show why I consider the cases different. However, if Lott’s racism is the only point of difference between us, I don’t want to hijack the thread further in that direction; for now, it’s enough that you agree that Bustamante isn’t anti-black.
Daniel
I have not heard a tape of Bustamante making the speech, but I would like to, for the simple reason that Bustamante has a moderate Spanish accent, and I could believe that the word word “Negro” could come out as “nigger”. That doesn’t seem to have been brought up here yet.
Of course, he COULD have been thinking “nigger”, along the lines of Jesse Jackson’s “Hymietown” remark in the 80s.
But I believe he acknowledged that he did say it, so I don’t think it’s as simple as people having heard it wrong. I don’t doubt that he said it; I just don’t believe it’s what he meant to say.
Actually, he acknowledges he definitely said the word:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7279330p-8224105c.html