One of the up sides to Obama is the enthusiasm he has generated amongst people who were not previously “political”. For a democracy, that is a very, very good thing. Downside: amatuers making decisions. If they had thought about it and had the sophistication, they probably could have found a way.
What I might have done was simply explain the situation, that a clearly identifiable Muslim presence in the photo might harm the candidate. Not that it would, but might. And leave it to them. We won’t stop you, that would be wrong. But we will advise that this could have consequences that injure the candidate that you are here to support.
Wonder if there are any Dick Tuck (or worse, Donald Segretti)-like operatives in the G.O.P. who might think it fun to dress up a bunch of guys in stereotypical Muslim garb and have them appear at an Obama rally waving signs that say “Wahhabists For Obama”. :dubious:
It’s a racist joke because the implication is that the loss of whiteness of the Presidency is something to be concerned about. Like many political messages, it uses a lame joke as a pretext to express a particular viewpoint, and that viewpoint is “the White House is for white people”.
To those who don’t find it racist, would you wear the pin?
Well I agree that the actions of the vendor at the Texas Convention should not be extropolated to the Party, and I think the Texas Republicans’ response was satisfactory. I’m also glad that the vendor only sold four buttons and that they apparently did not get a very warm response from most of the other Convention goers. At this point, I think those running the Convention just should have done a better job of screening the merchandise, and should be more vigilant about monitering waht’s being sold on the floor. I’ll take their word for it that this button got by them without their approval. I suspect that both parties will learn from this and start vettng merchandise more closely.
No. It’s in very poor taste (and isn’t funny, anyway, so what’s the point?). I wouldn’t call someone who did a racist, though; I’d call them an idiot.
You’re asserting an implication that isn’t necessarily in evidence.
Put another way, if the button read, “if a black man becomes President, will we call the White House the Poor House,” that would be a racist joke. As it is (or was), though, it’s a racial joke, but not a racist joke, as I mentioned above. There’s no derogatory sentiment to it.
Well, obviously to a great degree I can’t argue with that statement, much as I would like to. But I can point out the Republican party is no more a monolithic whole than the Democratic party is – quite a great deal less than the Democratic party is, actually – and the “moral majority” hijacking you’re referring to is deeply resented by some of us, who also resent our faction’s impotency in the face of it. So yeah, we hope it’s changing; we always hope it’s changing.
I dunno. I think McCain has to walk a fine line in not pissing of the conservative wing of his party while also not losing the moderate wing of his party, many of whom will cross party lines to vote for Obama if McCain swings too far right. (As I myself will without turning a hair if I feel that’s warranted.) So I’m far less concerned with his endorsements than I am with his choice for VP and his platform and rhetoric. I like the guy based on his history, but history alone will not be enough to support him going forward.
ETA: I would also say that I want the same concrete information about Obama. Personally, I’d like to hear a lot less mushy talk about “change” and a lot more on policy specifics.
(If I were a Republican and eligible to vote) I would see it this way: if Hagee had just come along and said, “I endorse John McCain,” it would obviously be a big slap in the face to much of the Republican base if McCain refused the endorsement. I’m enough of a realist to know that as much as McCain (probably) personally dislikes the man (and/or his views) he can’t do that and hope to win. You could draw a parallel there with Obama - personally, I wish he’d just say, “no, I’m not a Muslim, but if I was, so fucking what?”, but he can’t do that either.
McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement, though, which is what bothers me. To me, that says that he’s prepared to sacrifice his principles, rather than just push them under the carpet until after the election.
Claiming “moderates” are heirs to “liberals” is basically an admission of the fact. People who, had they been born in an earlier generation, would have been liberal Republicans are largely now Democrats. Likewise, people who would have been conservative Democrats and largely now Republicans.
law and order
urban crime
youth crime
death penalty
welfare queen
states’ rights
personal responsibility
tough on crime
three strikes
neighborhood schools (i.e., when it means “no busing”)
school vouchers
illegal immigrants
border security
voter fraud
heritage
family values
– All these shibboleths are among many that are at least partially directed at sending the message “We know you hate and fear blacks and other minorities and we’re with you on that.”
I would disagree with you on that last one; “family values” now means “no gay rights”, and, depending on context, “making sure Christianity remains tops in America”.
Even the most strident Republican (politician) isn’t going anywhere near anti-miscegenation issues these days.
I’m not sure what “fact” you think I’m admitting. You seem to be observing some party drift based on which party more closely matches the voter’s beliefs and needs; I’m not sure precisely what the underlying assertion is, since it seems to me pretty obvious that Reps who drift liberal eventually leave the party for the Dems, and Dems who drift conservative eventually leave the party for the GOP. So what?
None of these are inherently racist.
Any phrase can be used in a “wink wink nudge nudge” sort of way. For example, I think we all know that “school lunches” and “right to choose” are just Democratic code for socialism and immorality, right? You see what you want to see.
Worse, the linking of many of these concepts with racism is itself a pernicious tactic. Illegal immigration is a serious problem. States rights are a philosophical concept that some of us think is very important. People have strong feelings on both sides of the death penalty debate. You lard these issues down with the freight of racism even if none exists – because of course racism is there, it’s just in code – and you inhibit people’s ability to either discuss them rationally or to honestly state their views, for fear that by even talking about the issues, they open themselves up to accusations of racism. And how do you defend yourself from such an insidious and unstated accusation? “We’re not talking about race.” “Of course you are; you’re just talking in code.”
Well, it sounded to me that you considered the button to be racist because of the pre-existing baggage of white/black, not because of anything directly written on the button. Hence, this baggage will be present in any joke that even mentions the black race.
Is it theoretically possible, in your opinion, that a joke could be written that mentions that a person is black, and not have connotation you mention when you wrote the following:
and hence not be a racist joke? Or do you consider that to be impossible, because the connotation you mention is too ingrained in our language?
Yes, there are many race-related jokes that do not draw on that connotation.
Lots of words/terms have connotations in certan contexts but not in others. White and black and light and dark are used all the time in ways that have nothing to do with some of their historical connotations. I mean, if someone made a photocopy for you and you asked them to re-do it and make it lighter–no value judgement there, just an effort to make the document more readable.
But that button clearly drew on the positive/negative connotations of white/darker than white.
Surely you can at least admit it’s possible that not everybody sees the same implications you do? There is nothing in the button that to me implies concern, only an attempted bit of humor about what to call the White House. Does that make me racist? No doubt you at least consider me clueless, or perhaps insensitive. Isn’t it possible that the person who made that pin was simply clueless and/or insensitive?
No, because I don’t find it funny. If there was another button, that also mentioned race in a way that I did not consider racist, yet was funny, maybe. I might consider this thread though, and realize that lots of people see racism where I do not, and not wear it because of that.
I think it is theoretically possible, if highly unlikely, that a person who is not a racist could say or do something that others will hear or take as racist. Maybe you’ve time travelled from 1972 and still think it’s okay to call someone a Negro. But this is not an example of “empty head, white heart”; motivation is not dispositive. It is IMO impossible to look at a button that asks what we would call the White House in the event a black president was elected, and not conclude that it is a racist button. I find it seriously difficult to see any other possible implication. Of course it is an allusion to Obama’s race; the button makes no sense in any other context. Without the subtext of race, the button is nonsensical, akin to one reading “If Obama is elected, will we still call it the Library of Congress?” People read things like that and since they don’t make sense on their face, we search for a subtext that makes them make sense. The obvious subtext – not even all that sub – is race. The fact that a direct line is not drawn from “white house” to “black man” does not make the inference any less obvious.
I can see how you can quibble over whether the thing is hateful, but it seems pretty obvious that it’s racist. The very question “If Obama is President will we still call it the White House?” suggests that having a black president will be such a drastic development that we’ll have to consider changing the name of the White House. And the setting in which this question is asked (pro-Republican, heavily conservative environment) is a clue that this drastic development would not be seen favorably. So if you’re of the opinion that any racist joke has to involve a racial group being put down, I’m not understanding why this statement doesn’t meet that criteria.
“If Clinton is President, will we call it the Pink House?” This would be a sexist joke for the same reasons that the Obama one is racist. This, even though there’s nothing inherently wrong with the color pink. Imagine how such a joke would fly at a Republican convention.
By your own words, you see the racism as something that is suggested, and not explicit. Just consider that what you see suggested is not necessarily what everybody sees suggested, and may not be what the writer purposely suggested.
Oh, I think I now clearly see all the suggestions and connotations people are seeing in the button that makes them consider it racist. Thanks to all for explaining them.
Not every reference to race is racism. But a reference to race that “humorously” wonders if we as a society should consider changing the name of the First Residence based on the race of the President is pretty obviously racist. What else could it possibly be?
I don’t generally add “also this is only my opinion and I could totally be wrong” to all my statements, because I don’t assume adults need to hear that to understand that a speaker is not excluding all other possibilities. Do you at least admit that it’s possible my interpretation is valid? You haven’t explicitly said so and that seems to be the level of discourse now…
Anyway, doesn’t the fact that the button was sold by and to people who very much oppose Obama give credence to the suggestion that the pin’s underlying message is not “and wouldn’t it be awesome if he won”?
Is that your concern? Are you often afraid that people will think you are a racist? I find it odd that you would turn the focus of the discussion from whether the pin’s message is racist into one of whether you personally are racist if you don’t think it is racist. That sort of demonstrates a preoccupation with the fear of being accused of racism behind your defense of the pin.
I honestly haven’t thought about what your position says about you personally until this post. Having now done so, I don’t think either of those traits are automatically implied by your position, no.
What does “insensitive” mean here? Or “clueless”, for that matter? If the message has no negative meaning, then what is there to be insensitive or clueless about?