Exactly. The unfairness that Lott was subjected to, has led to this attack on Reid as a method of payback.
It’s kind of amusing that there are those on this board that just refuse to acknowledge that.
Speaking of…
YOU STILL DON’T GET IT!!! The only reason that what Reid said is not considered offensive, is because he is of the political Left. Had Mitch McConnell uttered the same phrase, there would have been great rending of garments and gnashing of teeth on the Left.
Just like Don Imus’ “nappy-headed Hos” comment. He wasn’t trying to be racist, he was trying to be funny, a la Chris Rock. Because he is white, it was an opportunity for professional race-hucksters to flex their muscle. Had he been black, well, then it would have been funny. GET IT??
I find it remarkable that people are seriously arguing that Reid’s and Lott’s (and now Imus’s!) statements are alike. It pretty much demonstrates the tone deafness that riddles the Republican Party. (Not that I think party leaders think there’s any equivalence.)
Of course, if it knocks Reid out of leadership, I won’t cry a single tear.
You’re the one who doesn’t get it, bra. Reid didn’t say anything offensive, period. Don Imus did. Trent Lott did. Reid did not. It’s just that simple. Saying (unwittingly or not) that you wish a segregationsit Presient had been elected is offensive. Calling a college women’s baskeball team who has done nothing to deserve ridicule “nappy headed hos” is offensive. Saying Obama doesn’t talk black is not. It’s just that simple.
Neither Lott nor Imus was victimized by Demorcats, by the way. Lott as forced out by his own party. Imus was fired because he lost all his sponsors. It’s called capitalism.
Everyone recognizes that this is political payback. The problem is the statements and the sentiments Reid and Lott expressed are not similar in any way.
When it comes to making jokes about race, Chris Rock has an advantage on Imus: Rock is funny. Imus’ problem was that he not only used some racially charged language, he picked on a target most people agreed didn’t deserve it (a successful women’s basketball team) and what he and his people said was unfnny.
This is a perfect example of the shallow, single issue and run with it thinking that is the head of the current Right. I am trying to understand this way of thinking. It seems to be, “I, and the people whom I identify with politically have been called out in the past for overt or subconscious racist remarks. I now expect a shitstorm every time we mention certain buzz words. Therefore, every time these buzz words are mentioned, it is racism. And when a shitstorm does not occur when someone mentions one of these buzz words, it is a double standard.”
It is like there is not one ounce of thought or self reflection. Instead of thinking, “Gee, maybe these people have a point when they point out over and over again that what I am saying might be racist,” it seems to be, “Here they are complaining again. I’ll just avoid certain words so they stop complaining.” There is no contemplation that context is paramount. To them a word is a word.
People are refusing to acknowledge this because it is absurd. The attack on Reid is nothing more than another attack in the have a new political attack every day no matter if we have to twist words or completely make something up strategy. The Republicans are acting like children and the “No you are!” strategy is blindingly obvious.
For the record, while I think Lott’s comments could be interpreted as racist, I felt the controversy was much ado about nothing. It was unfair to attack him so vociferously.
How in the world can you think a phrase is per se offensive and then in the NEXT PARAGRAPH explain how context and intent is important in interpreting a phrase? How about you apply your reasoning in the second paragraph to the first? Reid was talking about how the electorate would be more comfortable with a fair skinned black man who speaks a language they have in common. Is that wrong? Why don’t you give him the benefit of the doubt you give Don Imus?
The odd thing about that is that Lott mentioned no buzzwords. He didn’t call anyone a Negro, a nigger, or yell “segregation forever!” and as far as I know he didn’t say anything that could be taken as a coded reference to race. He just came out and said the country would be better off if Thurmond had been elected on a pro-segregation ticket in 1948.
That’s your opinion, not a given fact. Remember during the OJ Simpson trial when one of the witnesses said that he heard voices that sounded black? Johnny Cochran’s reply was:
It’s an invalid comparison, since Cohran was only talking about the sound of a voice, not a dialect.
Also, anybody can talk with a “black” dialect, that’s immaterial to whether Obama does, or to that that he was arguably more widely acceptable to white voters because he doesn’t.
Johnny Cochran was attempting to demonstrate that the witness could not have identified his client from his voice, so his statements there might not be wholly objective, you know.
It’s also ridiculous to cite Cochran as an authority on racism in the first place. There’s no reason to think he even believed what he was saying. He was trying to get his client acquitted in a criminal trial by creating doubts about the testimony of a witness.
It’s not about Democrats and Republicans, it’s about whether or not saying someone “talks black” is racist or not and I’m afraid it’s not your call. You can hand wave it away all that you want but that doesn’t make it so.
So what makes Cochran an authority on that subject? He made one statement about it when he was highly motivated to do so. If everyone had accepted his viewpoint, that would be one thing, but I don’t think a lot of people did. And I remember the issue being discussed at the time.
Are you denying that many African-Americans speak a dialect of English that is closer to each other than the predominant dialect of English spoken in their immediate surroundings?
I don’t know. How does one become “an authority” on racism? Does the fact that he didn’t have the honorific of Reverand in front of his name mean that he can’t be an authority? I remember the exchange very well, it was not simply Cochran’s typical courtroom theatrics. It was an issue on which he apparently felt very strongly.
I don’t know. I do know that as a middle-aged white man, I cannot arbitrarily decide that the phrase “Negro dialect” is not racist and expect that others will take my word as gospel.