He’s right:
If Romney had used the phrases “light-skinned” and “Negro dialect” his religion and his religion’s history in this matter would have been noted high up in every story.
But Romney is a Republican. It’s only Republican Mormons who are evil.
Really, Reid and Pelosi are embarrassments. I’m glad that they’ve become the public face of the Dems in Congress. Long may they reign, until November. Hang in there, Harry.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Gee, the Black Congressional Caucus is totally down with the “light-skinned Negro” thing. Who would have thought?
[Evening update]
Here’s a handy flow chart to parse and analyze pseudo-offensive racial (and sexual, and gender) statements.
[Monday morning update]
Can someone please explain to me exactly what it was that was so offensive about what Harry Reid said? At least to Barack Obama? Because I’m not getting it. If he owes anyone an apology, it’s the American voters that he slandered and implied were racists. Forgiveness from the president is meaningless.
[Update a few minutes later]
I agree with Roger Simon. Reid isn’t a racist — he’s a hack. And a fool.
Of course there’s a double standard. They’re Democrats. For there to be no double standard, Democrats would have to show character and intellectual consistency, something they’re fundamentally incapable of doing.
This reminds me of Seinfeld:
“Don’t you see what Whatley is after? Total joke-telling immunity! He’s already got the big two religions covered. If he ever gets Polish citizenship, there’ll be no stopping him.”
In fact, all Reid did was state a (inconvenient?) truth.
Had Obama a consistent ‘negro dialect,’ would he have been elected? No.
Were he of a darker complexion would he have been elected? Maybe. But not being so, for better or worse, most assuredly did not *hurt* him.
The most interesting thing to me, is that this is far more of an issue among the African-American community, where one’s status *is* affected partly by how ‘black’ one sounds, behaves, of physically is, than outside of it, where the response will tend to be; ‘Wow, you don’t sound black…’ and then proceed to get on with their lives, whatever notions they already have, pretty much unchanged. This is dirty little secret’ of the black community, where all to often there is little or no peer support (and often outright ostracism) among young people for intellectual excellence, which normally brings with it a comfort with ‘standard’ English.
And yes, we do want our politicians to at least *sound* educated. What a shock.
But if a Republican (especially a president) had said the same things, would Democrats and Liberals (strongly overlapping, but *not* identical sets, as some might have us believe) have grabbed that with bulldog tenacity and not let go until someone’s head rolled? Damn right. Yes, it’s an outright double standard, not right, not fair.
And also, not racist. The assertion would have been no less correct…
The most outrageous part of the comment has nothing to do with how people would perceive a candidate Obama, but instead on how shallow, insensitive and racist skin-tone sensitive Reid feels the pool of potential Democrat voters must be to fulfill it.
Hum. Strike-through is valid in preview, but stripped for the actual post.
So the scandal is that this non-scandal would have been a big deal in the hypothetical case where a GOP Senator had said the same thing?
You don’t need counterfactuals to imagine how the media would treat a GOP Senator making a racially obtuse comment; here’s Lindsey Graham last month:
And despite the media’s supposed bias, this story did not get 1% of the attention that’s been lavished on the Reid comments.
Jim Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 9:54 am
And despite the media’s supposed bias, this story did not get 1% of the attention that’s been lavished on the Reid comments.
Jim, I’m not exactly sure why you find that controversial. It sounds like he is trying to highlight the plight of the African-American community in South Carolina because of unemployment.
The only way to understand that comment is to put it into some kind of context.
Would you be willing to provide a link to the full quote?
There is considerable outrage at the use of the word ‘Negro’ on the 2010 census. Yet, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and the Congressional Black Caucus all bite their lip knowing the majority leader of the Senate characterizes people as such. Yea, I’d call that a double standard.
It was funny watching Ann Coulter debating Al Sharpton on Geraldo. He looked like he wanted to bitch slap her when she said “Even despite Reid apologizing to all light skinned, medium skinned, and dark skinned black people he will still lose”.
It’s interesting to realise that the word Negro wasn’t always politically incorrect. I just had a quick look at the text of MLK’s famous “I have a dream” speech: the word “Negro” is used 15 times, the word “black” 4 times. The word “African-American” probably had not been invented yet.
In my own language, Dutch, something similar happens. Instead of “guest workers” we now speak of “labour migrants”, (some) foreigners are called “non-western allochthones” (I kid you not) and even the perfectly good word “Turk” is avoided by some people, who prefer to say “Turkish man” even though they would never say “German man”, “French man” etc.
Politically correct names for minorities have short half-lives.
Whoa! MLK a racist! Who knew?
“It’s interesting to realise that the word Negro wasn’t always politically incorrect.”
Indeed. It wasn’t that long ago when all concerned were pleased to have gotten past the noun ‘colored’ to that.
“Indeed. It wasn’t that long ago when all concerned were pleased to have gotten past the noun ‘colored’ to that.”
A particularly ironic comment considering what the “C” in NAACP stands for.
I have 12 percent unemployment in South Carolina. My state is on its knees. I have 31 percent African American population in South Carolina.
Er…Jim, I suspect Graham was referring to the much higher levels of unemployment among blacks. That is, he was saying that because blacks have a much higher level of unemployment, both in the present and historically, they — and by extension South Carolina, which has a large black population — need special consideration.
Isn’t that totally mainstream Democratic point of view, too?
There is considerable outrage at the use of the word ‘Negro’ on the 2010 census.
The term “colored” is dated and very un-PC. Should the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) change their name?
The term “negro” is dated and very un-PC (apparently unless you’re a Democrat senate majority leader, then it’s fine. Should the United Negro College Fund change its name? Or have they already changed it by only referring to the organization’s initials?
The term “black” is offensive to some because they don’t want to be described by the color of their skin (and yet many don’t hesitate to use the word “white” to describe others). Fine. Should the Congressional Black Caucus, Black Entertainment TV, etc., change their names?
Perhaps there’s a market for an iPhone app that would give you up-to-the-minute updates on what terms have become un-PC and what the correct replacement terms are.
The Soviet Union used to send out replacement articles for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia with instructions to cut out the offending article and paste the new one in its place when the party line changed. Maybe we could automate the process on Kindles and such.
kayawanee: Here’s more context for the Graham quote, and a link (with video):
I had to laugh at that sportscaster who was forced to use the phrase “African African-American” to describe a black athlete from Kenya.
I’ve always liked the response of Lt. Uhura in the Star Trek episode in which a resurrected Abraham Lincoln calls her a “charming Negress” and then says, oops, I am sorry if I gave offence by my language, but in my day…
Uhura is unfazed. She says something like We’re long past the time when saying ‘You’re black’ meant also ‘You’re inferior’ or ‘You’re bad.’ Now it’s just a simple statement of fact. And why would I be offended by a simple statement of fact?
I suppose that’s from a more hopeful time, before the Democrats managed to freeze race relations in their tracks for 20 years by promoting and heavily subsidizing a continued oppressor-victim narrative to serve their own political interests. Too bad.
I suspect Graham was referring to the much higher levels of unemployment among blacks
No, he’d already mentioned the unemployment rate in SC.
He seems to be suggesting that SC carries a higher burden of social spending relative to Nebraska simply because it has lots of African Americans. He could make his argument about SC’s budget woes in a race-neutral way (as he did with unemployment), by pointing out how high the poverty rate is in SC, how many people receive Medicaid, how many receive state social services, etc. But I suppose those arguments would have made his state look bad. So instead he chose to blame the prevalence of African Americans.
You would hardly know from his statement that most of the Medicaid recipients in SC are white. It would have been just as truthful for him to explain SC’s woes by saying “I have 65% percent white population in South Carolina”, but for some reason he did not say that. He chose to say that African Americans are a special burden on the SC state coffers, that they are a problem in and of themselves.
Bonus points: SC is the very state where Gov. Sanford wanted to turn down ARRA funds intended to help state budgets weather these economic conditions. Graham, of course, voted against those funds.
The Reid affair has now been a national story for days; Graham’s scapegoating of African Americans never became one. If you’re looking for a double standard, there it is.
freeze race relations in their tracks for 20 years
Do you really think race relations are no better today than 20 years ago?
Do you really think race relations are no better today than 20 years ago?
To be honest, no I don’t. The real gains were in the 50’s through the 70’s. Past that, I think we’ve actually backslid a bit through affirmative action and political correctness.
He seems to be suggesting that SC carries a higher burden of social spending relative to Nebraska simply because it has lots of African Americans
Which would be true and not racist. Any Democrat makes that point routinely in arguing why, for example, urban cities should be bailed out by the state or Feds. What’s your point?
So instead he chose to blame the prevalence of African Americans.
Excuse me…blame? Where does blame come into it, Jim? Where did he go on to say and those shiftless bastards ought to get out and get a job, but of course they won’t, so we have to take care of ’em…
He didn’t. The “blame” meme is entirely in your own head. Graham said zip about anyone’s morals or nature. At most, all we’ve got here is the very ordinary point, made, as I say, routinely by Democrats arguing for their special funding, affirmation action policies, yadda yadda, that a polity with an unusually high percentage of blacks has an unusually high demand on public programs.
Do you really think race relations are no better today than 20 years ago?
Overall? No. And I will say over the past 30 years I’ve lived in some of the strongest black/white divide (and nondivide) cities, such as Philadelphia, the South Side of Chicago, and Oakland. I’ve seen this stuff very much up close and personal.
But it’s more complex than that. The private relations — how black and white men react when they meet each other privately, at the supermarket, the bar, the sports stadium, on the jobsite — these things have gotten better. The public relations — how black and white people treat each other when issues of the law or public policy intrude: how blacks and white fare in the criminal justice system, in public contracts, in government appointments, elections, college and professional school admissions, in the media — these things have gotten decidedly worse, and almost entirely because of the self-serving culture of black self-victimization promoted by Democrats.
Forty years ago Martin Luther King’s dream was to have a society in which the color of his childrens’ skin mattered not at all. Now that dream has been replaced by a sad separate-but-equal mentality where on some subjects you need a black skin to say certain things, or have credibility when you do say them, and on other subjects you need a white one (or a female one, but that’s another, similarly tragic, story).
If I were an ambitious and talented young black man, I’d spit on the ground at the mention of Democrats. Democrats have been the worst thing to happen to black people, starting from the days when they lynched them in the South, because to a Democrat you’re always defined by the color of your skin. You may be an oppressor or a victim, but you’re never an individual, to be judged according to your actual actions.
Jim is engaging in that progressive form on semiotics where he gets to attach HIS meaning to Graham’s signifier so he can also attach HIS criticism of Graham to what he thinks Graham means, not what Graham means.
It’s too bad Reid didn’t use “articulate” too but another Democrat, the Vice President, beat him to it.
If they are, it’s no thanks to the Democrats.
The real gains were in the 50’s through the 70’s. Past that, I think we’ve actually backslid a bit through affirmative action and political correctness.
I suppose I should have been more specific. Do you think that whites treat non-whites no better today than they did in 1990?
Non-whites, and African-Americans in particular, are still subject to discrimination in hiring, the criminal justice system, and politics. But things definitely seem better than they were 20 years ago.
Any Democrat makes that point routinely in arguing why, for example, urban cities should be bailed out by the state or Feds.
First of all, I’d love to hear more about about cities that aren’t urban.
Second, I defy you to find Democrats routinely saying that a city should be bailed out simply because it has lots of African Americans.
The “blame” meme is entirely in your own head.
Come on. Graham was making the point that SC is suffering, and made it with three statements: that it has 12% unemployment, that it’s “on its knees”, and that it is 31% African-American. Using “we have lots of African Americans” as shorthand for “a way in which we in SC have it tough” is all about blame.
The context was not a discussion of race, or of the prevalence of poverty among different races. It was Graham who chose to make it about race, in a gratuitous, ugly way.
And yet, no media outcry.
“we have lots of African Americans” as shorthand for “a way in which we in SC have it tough” is all about blame.
Pfui. Nonsense, Jim. Might as well say that when SF mayors used to say their public health burden was higher than most cities because of the high number of AIDS cases, they were “blaming” the gays.
But when you start arguing “shorthand” or “code phrases” you’ve gone off the rails as far as I’m concerned. I assume people mean what they say, full stop. I don’t read “between the lines,” inasmuch as, without knowing the person, that’s an exercise in self-deception, at best.
“Non-whites, and African-Americans in particular, are still subject to discrimination in hiring, the criminal justice system, and politics. But things definitely seem better than they were 20 years ago.”
I call BS. Perhaps blacks don’t get hired because black culture is anti-education and this leads to fewer blacks actually being qualified for any except unskilled jobs. Perhaps more blacks are in jail because more of them are criminals.
I doubt that the situation in the UK is noticeably worse than in the USA – it’s probably better, at least with regard to black people born here. Our latest problem is with people who are a vanishingly small minority in the USA as a whole – Moslems, most of whom are of South Asian ethnicity. And they are even more unpleasant than American blacks in both attitude and deeds.
Come on. Graham was making the point that SC is suffering, and made it with three statements: that it has 12% unemployment, that it’s “on its knees”, and that it is 31% African-American. Using “we have lots of African Americans” as shorthand for “a way in which we in SC have it tough” is all about blame.
And I read his statement as meaning “and 31% of those people who are suffering are African-American,” which to me makes far more sense as a complaint and a call to action.
Other than a predilection to impugn the motives of Republicans, what reason do you have for interpreting his statement your way?
But when you start arguing “shorthand” or “code phrases” you’ve gone off the rails as far as I’m concerned.
When has Jim been on the rails?
But when you start arguing “shorthand” or “code phrases” you’ve gone off the rails as far as I’m concerned. I assume people mean what they say, full stop.
So you would not have a problem with a politician who said “We need more money for prisons, 31% of our population is African American”? Or “We need more remedial reading funds, 60% of our population is Republican”?
The context was not a discussion of race, or of the prevalence of poverty among different races. It was Graham who chose to make it about race, in a gratuitous, ugly way.
The humorous thing is that Jim’s argument is a classic example of the double standard. Both Graham and Reid’s statements are innocuous (Graham’s isn’t even remotely racist, as has been repeatedly noted), but Jim chooses to make a big deal out of Graham’s statement because Graham is a Republican.
I know the point probably was to argue that even Republican congresscritters can say factual things about other races without getting pilloried, but Jim failed precisely because he made the above argument. Graham is indeed being castigated by Jim for a non-racial statement while Reid is not for something similar. I find it deliciously ironic that the only person here claiming that there’s no such double standard, blatantly demonstrates it. Jim must be a Republican false flag operation.
So you would not have a problem with a politician who said “We need more money for prisons, 31% of our population is African American”?
That implies that blacks are criminals, something volitional. Unemployment is not crime.
Or “We need more remedial reading funds, 60% of our population is Republican”?
If would only be offensive if it had no basis in reality. Which it doesn’t. So it is.
And I’d be willing to bet that the literacy rate is much higher among Republican than Democrat voters.
“I’ve always liked the response of Lt. Uhura in the Star Trek episode in which a resurrected Abraham Lincoln calls her a ‘charming Negress’ and then says, oops, I am sorry if I gave offence by my language, but in my day…
Uhura is unfazed. She says something like We’re long past the time when saying ‘You’re black’ meant also ‘You’re inferior’ or ‘You’re bad.’ Now it’s just a simple statement of fact. And why would I be offended by a simple statement of fact?”
And then Lincoln replies, “Fine. You’re also one fine piece of ebony ass, too.”
Unemployment is not crime.
Actually, I would say unemployment is in fact a crime, organised, state-sponsored crime even. It is a crime committed by labour unions and their political allies against the unemployed.
I call BS. Perhaps blacks don’t get hired because black culture is anti-education
Fortunately we don’t need to rely on your BS detector, we can use the scientific method. Researchers do things like mail resumes for fictional job applicants that differ only in the “blackness” of their names. The “black” applicants are less likely to be called for an interview.
Similarly, studies of sentencing show that, controlled for every relevant factor except race, African American defendants get stiffer sentences, particularly if the victim is white.
But why use science when we have your opinion to go on?
Similarly, studies of sentencing show that, controlled for every relevant factor except race, African American defendants get stiffer sentences, particularly if the victim is white.
But why use science when we have your opinion to go on?
Even if this is given as true, how does a double standard improve things? Do you think having an obvious double standard makes black people better off or worse off?
“Studies show” is not the scientific method “Jim”, as much as your script writers would like it to be. Your script is really in need of some work.
Fortunately we don’t need to rely on your BS detector, we can use the scientific method. Researchers do things like mail resumes for fictional job applicants that differ only in the “blackness” of their names. The “black” applicants are less likely to be called for an interview.
The irony here is that discrimination law probably makes this particular problem worse. Even just interviewing minority candidates is a pretty risky proposition. Culling the blatantly ethnic names probably improves an employer’s risks with respect to discrimination law.
Karl – Maybe, also, a black name gives a message – something like “this applicant is going to be a trouble-making asshole who does as little work as possible and screams ‘discrimination’ when you pull him up on it”?
Much the same as an applicant in the UK with an obviously Pakistani name, who is quite likely to demand halal food in the canteen and want 15 minutes off 5 times per day to bow and scrape in the direction of a certain rock in Saudi Arabia. And probably make a number of unwanted approaches to female members of staff, too, if male.
Graham is indeed being castigated by Jim for a non-racial statement
The Reid thing was front-page news for days; Graham’s comment was only noted on a few blogs. The media double standard here is benefiting the GOP.
“Studies show” is not the scientific method “Jim”
So, Curt, how would you design a study to measure racial bias in hiring? Or should we just take your word that there is no such thing?
Even just interviewing minority candidates is a pretty risky proposition.
Wow.
So the way to get companies to treat blacks fairly is to make it absolutely clear that there will be no penalty if they treat them unfairly? I think we’ve gone through the looking glass.
That implies that blacks are criminals, something volitional. Unemployment is not crime.
So, Rand, is Medicaid eligibility — i.e. poverty — volitional?
Researchers do things like mail resumes for fictional job applicants that differ only in the “blackness” of their names. The “black” applicants are less likely to be called for an interview.
Gosh, really? Christ on a pogo stick, Jim. Next you’ll be telling me that if the birthdate on the application shows you’re over 50, you’re also less likely to be called for an interview. Or if you went to a college that the interviewer despises (because he wanted to go and wasn’t admitted). Or if your photo shows that your fat, or ugly. Or if you’re a woman and you have the same first name as the interviewer’s ex-wife. Or if you’re a woman period and you’re applying to be a car salesman. Or if you’re a man and you’re applying to be a nurse or kindergarten teacher. Or if you have a Jewish name, a Polish name, a Hispanic name, and on and on.
Here’s a little thought experiment, Jim. Can you even imagine a human being, reading an employment application, that would make absolutely no instinctive judgments, based on the vital statistics of the person before him? Zero, none, zip? Be a perfectly calm and cool computer program, that looks at the data on the page, full stop? If you can, then either you know some Vulcans or you’re a lot younger than you look, or you’re deluded.
The fact is, we’re human, and so is everybody else. We do a lot of instinctual judging. Quite a lot of it — perhaps most — is good and useful. We size up a man’s honesty by how he looks us in the eye, how he shakes our hand. We estimate the probability of him keeping his promises by the way he states them, by how he otherwise appears boastful, whiny, or quietly competent. We decide how well we’ll get along based on subtle markers of similar culture, ethnic background, and taste like accent, facial features, haircut, perfume, T-shirt logos and earrings in the ear or nose or bellybutton. For the most part, these judgments are quite accurate, and let us manage our interpersonal relations smoothly and without surprise.
And occasionally we make misjudgments. We read a book by its cover, and come later to regret it. The guy we thought was an airhead turns out to be very smart, just not great with extemporaneous speech. The woman we thought was cold turns out to be very hot indeed, just reserved. The child we thought inattentive turns out to be brilliant and bored. Conversely, the child we thought brilliant turns out to be merely very good at aping. And so on. Life is full of surprises to our judgment, as well as confirmations. (Maybe it’s worth pointing out that no conscious, intellectualized algorithm for predicting behaviour does much better. If you want to know whether a man is honest or not, reliable or not, you’re just about as well advised to trust your instincts as to ask what college he went to, what political party he supports, or whether he makes a lot of money or not.)
But the point is, Jim, we are all subject to these snap instinctive judgments by others, based, yes, on stereotype and caricature. We all, every one of us, has experienced “discrimination” in the sense of being prejudged according to our race, age, sex, name, cultural background, weight, marital status, yadda yadda. None of us is ever free from having to prove our worth in the face of unreasonable skepticism sometimes.
What you need to ask is: is there a far more pervasive and serious discrimination against black applicants for bank-teller jobs than, say, there is discrimination against divorced fathers applying to be kindergarten teachers, or fat women applying to be secretaries, and so forth. If white men are less likely to interviiew black applicants, is the tendency far stronger than the tendency of black men to be less likely to interview white applicants? The tendency of men to be less likely to interview women? And so on. In short, are you exposing the mere obvious fact that we’re all human? Or do you have some really serious and pervasive organized prejudice going on?
See, once upon a time, the (laudable) goals of racial equality was to reach a state not where we were all inhuman robots, but where prejudice in the white mind against blacks was no greater and more socially approved than the prejeducie in black minds against white, or of Frenchmen of a certain age against German, and so on. What you modern crazies have done is substitute the insane goal of trying to turn us all into automatons who can successfully suppress every tribal instinct we have.
This has two results. First, it keeps the goalposts ever receding, so we can never roll up and throw away the racial grievance industry. Jobs for Democrats 4 Ever, yeah! Secondly, since people actually can’t supress their instincts and feelings, you teach people to lie smoothly and convincingly in public. You make the public discourse far more cynical and deceptive. Good job Democrats!
So, Rand, is Medicaid eligibility — i.e. poverty — volitional?
Why do you ask?
In fact, it is, to some large degree. There are choices one can make to stay in poverty, or get out.
As a South Carolinian and constituent of Sen Graham (with whom I agree with only, maybe, 50% of the time) I find “Jim”, as usual, to be talking out of his a$$.
how would you design a study to measure racial bias in hiring? Or should we just take your word that there is no such thing?
I don’t think he said that there isn’t such a thing. And in fact we know that there is. It’s called “affirmative action,” and required by the government.
If white men are less likely to interviiew black applicants, is the tendency far stronger than the tendency of black men to be less likely to interview white applicants?
That’s the wrong standard; the real test is whether a black applicant in the U.S. has the same chance of getting an interview as an equally qualified white applicant, given that white hiring managers greatly outnumber their non-white peers. The research says we aren’t there yet. And until we are, blacks will be at a systematic disadvantage in our society.
That disadvantage is, unlike Reid’s comments, a real scandal.
It’s called “affirmative action,” and required by the government.
Very cute. But most hiring is not subject to affirmative action, and it isn’t clear that affirmative action comes close to making up for anti-black discrimination.