There was no racism intended in the “chocolate” remark, it was just intended to be a metaphor for a mixture. There’s nothing lamer than white people grabbing any excuse to be offended by any perceived remark which can be interpreted as somehow “anti-white.”
And before anybody says it, no, it’s not the same as if a white mayor had said he wanted a “vanilla city.” That would be racist. This was not, and the rest of the Nagin’s remarks make it clear that he had no such intention.
The God remarks were stupid, but so is every single fucking thing every other politician says about God. At least Nagin hasn’t started any wars because he thinks God told him to.
Thank you Mr. Nagin. I’m glad you came down here personally to correct the record. Now, why don’t you enlighten us on what the fuck “Uptown” was a metaphor for?
What is lamer is when dipshits try to justify a clearly racial remark only because a white man didn’t say it. I have never heard the term “chocolate” as referring to a mixture of people. I have always heard it as a reference to black people. You being deliberately obtuse if you think his “clarifying” remarks were anything other than covering his ass. Who wanted only whites, or a majority of whites to take over New Orleans? No one? Which people “Uptown or wherever” were saying they didn’t want a mixture?
Let me make it simple for you. He said he wanted a majority black New Orleans. He didn’t say he wanted some of every race. He clearly stated that he didn’t care what white people thought. So “chocolate” was clearly a metaphor for majority black despite what white people want to say about it.
Very hypocritical of you.
And I don’t remember Robertson, Graham, or any others that you have personally pitted for stupid remarks such as this and having a little addendum stating “at least they aren’t as bad as…”
Now why don’t you take your dissembling ass and go fuck yourself.
Yes, his metaphor and use of the word “chocolate” is not racist at all. But I think people are bothered by his comments that God wants New Orleans to be mostly black. If tomndebb (in his point #1) is correct about Nagin’s intentions, that’s great. But the makeup of the city is still probably going to be different. I remember reading months ago that the New Orleans will probably have a much larger Latin presence, for example. Why does God care about that? As I said, it’s shameless.
I have no idea what Nagin was like before Katrina, but I’d like to note that I said on September 2 that I thought he was losing it.
It’s not a metaphor, retard, it literally means “uptown.”
I know you desperately want it to be a racist remark. Nagin obviously had no such intent. The full context of his comments make that vlear. I’m sorry but you don’t get to be a victim today. Too bad for you.
He was responding to fears that New Orleans would become gentrified and no longer diverse.
No, that’s what you WISH he said so that you could play the role of a persecuted victim. Fuck you. You’re not a victim.
Nope. It’s quite cool and incisive of me is what it is.
That’s because I would be hard put to find anything to top them. Those guys celebrated 9/11 as vengence from God. It’s hard to find anything worse than that.
pquote]Now why don’t you take your dissembling ass and go fuck yourself.
[/QUOTE]
Oh no. I’ve been insulted by a moron. Whatever shall I do?
If Bush had said something in a similar vein, but then followed it up with a lame and barely plausible explanation for what he said DtC would skewer him alive.
But Nagin is a Democrat, and is against the Iraq war, so don’t expect an objective analysis.
I could care less if you’re a member of the American Nazi party. Your actions speak louder than your voter registration.
When I said “in the same vein” I was talking about dubious statements in general. Statements that are in and of themselves inherently stupid, offensive, or both, and that can only be “explained” with very faulty reasoning which most unbiased observers would quickly dismiss.
For example, on Aug. 1, 2005 Bush said he favored the teaching of intelligent design in schools. When he was more intensely questioned he replied, “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
That’s about how smart Nagin looks right now, yet Nagin gets nothing from you and I’m sure if you haven’t skewered Bush for the above statement it’s because you were not aware of it or you hadn’t had an opportunity.
Of course I skewered Bush for his statement. He was advocating violating the Constitution. His explanation didn’t help him any because it betrayed a completely erroneous belief that ID is some sort of legitimate competing theory to evolution. It was the equivalent of saying “flat earth theory” should be taught in order to expose children to other ideas about the shape of the earth.
Nagin said nothing comporable. He used a metaphor which was enthusiastically misconstrued by people who are eager to show how offended they are.
A metaphor? It’s a statement that says God wants New Orleans to have more Black people living there than White people.
You keep going back to the chocolate reference. I can accept that as a metaphor, even if it’s a bit of a streatch. But the quote above? No amount of stretching in the world is going to turn that into anything but what it says.
No, it wouldn’t be the same, because there is no history, no frame of reference for such a thing.
But see, you can parse it another way because of my above remarks. At this time, it is quite another thing. Similar, but not the same.
I agree with you here. No shortage of crackpots like Pat Robertson regardless of race. But my previous remarks still apply.
It really cannot be taken in the same way because of the history. In time - should these crackpots continue to hold sway in public opinions - it might be so. But not yet.
A time could come where all racists will be equal, but we have not reached that place yet. Do you really disagree with that?
You’re quoting a different sentence. I only said the “chocolate” part was a metaphor.
All it means is that he wants the city to retain the specific cultural identity it’s always had instead of having that identity destroyed by gentrification. I don’t think there’s anything racist about that that. I’m white. I’m not offended.
By the way, I didn’t mean to give Nagin a pass with what I posted. Stupid remarks from him, no question about it.
But they do not hold the same weight as racist remarks from a white person, only because of the history. Let’s face it, no white person is going to lose sleep worrying about possible acts of oppression or abuse inspired by what he said. That is the difference.
But people are talking about the whole speech, not just that one phrase.
I’m not offended either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not racist. By your logic, those calling for an end to Hispanic immigration are not racist because they just want to maintain the cultural identity that the US has always had instead of having it destroyed by Spanish speaking, taco eating Mexicans.
But what cultural identity has the US “always” had? Spanish speaking, taco eating people have been here since “always”, which in US time is the last couple hundred years.
Really, think about the history, and put the remarks in context with the history. It does make a difference.
