I’m failing to see the place where the analogy breaks down. To a believer, God and good and right are as fundamentally inseparable as ‘north’ and the North Pole.
C’mon, “race hustler” is not at all a neutral term, and O’Reilly’s tirade about the dissolution of family, unsupervised children, lack of skills, inability to read or speak, and “tattoos on their necks” makes it clear he has something else in mind.
Furthermore, Ryan himself has acknowledged that his words were “inarticulate”, and he himself agreed to meet with the CBC to discuss the matter. To most folks, that would mean he recognizes the unintentional consequences of his language, and concedes that the CBC may have had a point in labelling them racist. If I were him then I’d probably just move on–what politician wants to keep pointing out an error in judgement, even if it is unintentional. But he hasn’t, and once again when Ryan gets into the conservative media bubble he lets the mask slip.
I’m willing to let him slide for demurring about Rep. Lee’s motives. Though he could have answered O’Reilly by saying “because she misunderstood what I was trying to say, and the words I used have, in the past, been used by racists. But after our talk I feel we can work together in the House to improve the lot of the poor, etc.” I accept his political situation; it’s always better not to speculate publically on a rival politician’s motives, leave that for the press. But O’Reilly’s tirade was just over the top, and Ryan just chuckled along.
I’m not nearly as sanguine as you are on this point. None of those criticisms are racial. Most especially, I have seen more tattoos on the necks of white guys than black guys. I don’t remotely associated the critique with a racial animus.
You seem to rely on this sort of “Nudge, nudge, wink wink, we all know what he meant.” But we all don’t.
Race hustler is someone who uses accusation of racism – regardless of their truth - to inflame an issue and advance a (usually political) cause. It’s not neutral; neither is it racist. There ARE race hustlers.
Of course there are, otherwise, the accusation would be absurd, you don’t suggest someone buggers unicorns. They exist, so what? Does that give him license to sit quietly and allow such a suggestion to be attached to whomsoever Oh, Really? deems appropriate? No, not just No! Hell, no!
Lee called Ryan a racist. Why is it inappropriate that Ryan let O’Reilly call Lee a race hustler?
Oh, would you like to abandon your previous line of argument about the existence of “race hustlers” and adroitly segue into “liberal hypocrisy”? Probably wise, its still a stupid argument, but its an improvement.
And was Oh, Really?'s slur specific to Ms. Lee? Did he make that clear that he was referring only to her, and not other representatives who positively and forthrightly address issues of racism?
And even if that were so…even if Mr. Ryan felt justified in keeping quiet while Wild Bill slanders Ms Lee because she had slandered him…does that make it better? Is “tit for tat” your standard for correct behavior? If O’Reilly slandered someone who had never mentioned Ryan, only then was Ryan obliged to do the right thing, and speak up?
I’d say it’s inappropriate because what Ryan said can be reasonably interpreted as something racist.
Well, OK, race hustlers. Exist? Certainly, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson leap to mind.
Jesse I think started out right, but was gradually seduced and corrupted by attention, his integrity chipped away by press conferences and the temptation to believe that you are saying something important simply because people are listening to you. The first time someone sent a limo to his hotel to pick him up, he was doomed. Human, all too human, and so it goes.
I’ve still not forgiven Al Sharpton for his disgraceful performance in the Tawana Bradley debacle. Nonetheless, I have to keep the thought that he might have been entirely sincere, and of late, I have heard him make some very intelligent comments. But the grudge runs deep. Perhaps a better person is more forgiving, I am not that person.
Malcolm X doesn’t fit at all, but he was worse than a cynical hustler in terms of impact, he was a believer, a fanatic. But his journey from race hatred to an acceptance of common humanity I find inspiring, and its truly a pity that he did not live longer.
Does Rep. Lee fit any of these molds? Not even close.
And I, in turn, contend that it’s not reasonable – that interpreting what he said as racist is bending too far backwards in favor of the charge of racism.
Then I suppose reasonable people can disagree on this, which gives weight to the idea that Lee is not a “race hustler”.
Checkmate! 
Wrong again; Lee did not call Ryan a racist:
Now you might want to say that she didn’t use the exact words, but we all know what she’s implying. Funny how that shoe fits on the other foot, isn’t it.
Let me add something else: I don’t believe Ryan is a racist in the sense that he has a secret hatred of black people. Conservatives always want to limit the term to mean only that–witness Ryan’s “I don’t have a racist bone in my body”, a defense that seems to be somewhat commonplace among conservative speakers. But IMO perpetuating an ugly stereotype and using it to win political support–even if it was inadvertent–is also a racist act. That, IMO, is why O’Reilly went to the silly “race hustler” attack; to blunt the notion that a racist act can mean something other than overt, intentional animus.
O’Reilly sounds like a guy who doesn’t understand why he isn’t allowed to use the n-word too, seeing as black people are allowed to use it (and yes, anyone over 30 who wonders that reveals a racist attitude, even if it is unintentional). And Ryan, again, just sat there. I don’t think he believes his words were in any way wrong, and is just going thru the motions to appease a mainstream media that still considers him “serious”.
No, no – fair point. I was wrong: Lee did not call Ryan a racist.
However, Lee did accuse Ryan of advancing a thinly veiled racist attack. And I do not agree that is what he did; his was not a racist attack, veiled or otherwise. I do not agree that “inner city,” or “culture,” means “black.”
So my larger point remains undisturbed. Her claim otherwise makes Lee a race hustler; this in turn means Ryan had no particular obligation to demur when O’Reilly said as much.
Culture? Well it depends.
“Inner city”?
“Ghetto (which was not used in this instance)?”
Those are well known euphemisms. With respect Bricker, you might be missing something here. Unsurprisingly, I found a reference at Wikipedia:
In the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, the term is often a euphemism applied to the lower-income residential districts in the city centre and nearby areas. In the United States, the term has the additional connotation of impoverished black and/or Hispanic neighborhoods. Sociologists in these countries sometimes turn this euphemism into a formal designation, applying the term inner city to such residential areas rather than to geographically more central commercial districts. Inner city - Wikipedia
I haven’t looked this up in Urban Dictionary, but I assume I would get a similar take.
And the dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inner+city?s=t
inner city
noun
an older part of a city, densely populated and usually deteriorating, inhabited mainly by poor, often minority, groups.
At Slauson and Overhill in southwest central Los Angeles there is–was? a restaurant called the Wich Stand (That’s the actual spelling). A bar attached to it was once called the Broom Room; when I reached adulthood and went back that way once, it had been renamed Inner City Lounge. So at least in Los Angeles the tern is not a pejorative.
You would indeed(great site to get lost in, btw):
.
To “disagree” that it is a term of racial reference is either to display ignorance or to refuse to acknowledge wrongness.
Oh, ghetto isn’t always pejorative either. Neither is black for that matter. I’m saying and the dictionary is saying that “Inner City” is racially tinged. Bricker is a fine wordsmith, but I’m not certain that English is his first language. Native speakers know that “Inner City” in the US has distinct racial overtones, more so than “Central business district”.
Paul Ryan is a native speaker of English. He said: [T]he best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity in the inner cities, is to help people get out of poverty in the inner cities, is to help teach people good discipline, good character. In his prepared speech, Ryan framed the issue not as fighting poverty, but as getting poverty out of the inner city (you know, “Those people”) without spending federal money. So he jabbered a little about culture and alluded to a popular conservative pseudo-scientist, one who was fond of publishing his studies with great media fanfare and no peer review.
ETA: At any rate we now know the conservative definition of “Race hustler”: it is defined as somebody with their eyes open.
Character? Then he should PRACTICE what he preaches, but for that he’d have to HAVE character.
Welcome, visitor from an alternate universe! We each have much to learn from how things played out in the other’s timeline.
But as far as our timeline is concerned, may I ask: where the Sam Hill have you been for the past fifty years? Because this shit has been going down in right-wing rhetoric since the days when I was a young conservative and totally bought into it, which was 45-50 years ago.
These two things have been wrapped together in that rhetoric for at least two generations. It’s not even remotely subtle enough to be considered a dog whistle. Pretending that it’s not what it is, is absurd.
Didn’t say it wasn’t, just said it wasn’t necessarily! Sure, some people hear the words “inner city problems” and think of drugs, crime, and lazy layabouts cashing welfare checks. Some!
But others think of traffic congestion, limited parking spaces, and spotty garbage removal service! And who is most likely to think that way than a man who, by his own estimation, doesn’t have a racist bone in his body? All it really does in define a part of the city that is inner, that is, “centrally located”. But nobody thinks “centrally located” is racist!
As always, I am grateful to friend Bricker for his skills with precise semantic parsing! What a terrible loss for the academic community for semiotics and deconstructive criticism when he opted to read the law.
If the term is “often” a racial reference, does that mean it always is?
Suppose I wished to speak about impoverished areas of the urban variety, without concern for what skin color the humans living there primarily had. What term could I use?