No one is saying he is. The point is that his statement was about the racial climate in America and not a racist statement about Obama. There is a not so subtle difference.

I completely agree. I was kind of startled that they thought there was really a comparison between the two incidents.

i loooove me some free cheese! i mean, i'm supposed to work to support my 7 kids?! :rolleyes:

Only after you pull your pants up.

I agree with this completely, and it seems odd to me that anyone even tries to make the case that the situations are similar.

You think the assumption is that people's political memories are so short that they won't remember what Lott actually said?

I think that there is a frequently a political/media double standard is assessing people's (D vs.R) motives when they say/do something racially questionable (but not as overt as Lott's), but Reid's comment isn't the one to try to exploit for this point.

And hadn't discussion of Biden's basically saying the same thing during the campaign already exhausted all the points that can be made about the content of the comment minus the specific use of the word "Negro" in Negro Dialect.

Random Question: for a while, people talked about "Ebonics," sometimes when they legitimately meant African American Vernacular English which at one point was referred to a Black English or Black Vernacular English. Was there a time when people referred to BVE or AAVE as "Negro Dialect"? Was Reid just lapsing into the terminology in vogue when he was in college for the very specific thing he meant: Obama's use of consistent use of Standard English in contrast with AAVE? Someone using "Negro" in 2009 IS weird and might be suspect, depending on the speaker, and I wonder why Reid used it.

Yes.

Maybe. He may also have been trying to explain the mindset of bigoted voters by using the language they would use. Republicans are crowing about a third possibility, that he's an ignoramus or a racist who thought it was OK to call black people Negroes in 2008. If that were the case, though, he would surely have revealed it before then. People who are that ignorant stick their feet in their mouths all the time, not once in 40 years.
________
Aromed Vaporizer Reviews

And you've made our point. No matter what party you are, no one will stand up for you as a out and out racist.

Opposing healthcare may be racist if you are opposing it because you don't want to use taxpayer money to help black people. I don't really care who Reid accuses of being racist. That is NOT what we have been discussing. As for what party Strom Thurmond ran under for president, it was a REPUBLICAN (ie Lott) who waxed poetically about the fact that he lost. In actuality, he ran as a Dixiecrat, anyway. Harry Truman was the Democratic candidate. Check your facts. Thank you.

I don't think the first explanation is that plausible because "Negro Dialect" would be very unlikely to be the term used by bigoted voters today. I'm not saying that they would use something more racist, just that I don't think most Americans use "Negro" period today. And when the term would have been popular and acceptable, a bigoted voter would have used something worse.

I think the Republicans trying to equate this with Trent Lott, etc, are way overplaying this, but I don't have complete confidence that every ignorant thing said by influential Democrats in the last 40 years has been widely reported.

And Reid isn't from a state where race would have loomed particularly large the way it does in the south for it to have come up that much. Sure, race comes up in DC too, but how frequently has Harry Reid had to comment in any kind of unscripted way?

I certainly am not trying to claim he's a bigot or way out of the loop, just that I'm not sure a complete pass makes sense either, based on the assumption that he would have tipped his hand before.

It was a weird choice of words.

Party lines means nothing.

Is this really the null hypothesis?

This is demonstrably false, either way, and a terrible basis for conclusion.

Haha. Leave it up to KSigRC to break it down like that.

How ironic...:rolleyes:

I guess the Census Bureau thought it was OK too.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6814629.html

What a strange world we live in. It would be nice if people could just agree to what is offensive and what's not, and then help us all keep up with the changes. :)

I'm sure everyone who watches the news knows about this.

That does not mean that it is "OK."



:)

People can just get their heads out of their asses and think before they speak more often than not. I don't know about you all but I know when I'm about to say something that is potentially offensive and I know when I've just said something that I shouldn't have said/that can be interpreted a certain way. And I'm not talking about offending members of certain GLOs, sports fans, and other things so socially insignificant and inconsequential.

We should understand that things can and will be misinterpreted and taken out of context. So we need to be careful. And if people are offended by what we say but we feel no need to void everything we said for the sake of being too PC--just say something like: "I don't apologize for the point I was making--I apologize for the poor wording. Let me express my point more appropriate and more adequately."

That's my point though, in the case of the census bureau, they researched what words to use, checked with their advisory counsel, and based on the respondents from the last census used the word Negro in order to reach out to the people who identified themselves that way. Yet, by trying to accomodate those people's self identifications, they stepped in it and insulted others.

It seems like there is no way to win. They were not trying to be offensive, in fact, they were trying to be sensitive, yet they are being raked over the coals for their insensitivity.

Like the thread a while back about "differently abled" or "handicapped" or whatever the proper term is now, it is constantly changing, and even though a person or organization is just trying to make a point or say something, they can be accused of insensitivity even when that was not their intention at all.

I wish people would A) be let in on what is appropriate and what is not, so to not offend, and B) that those offended would be less sensitive and over reactive to those who intended no slight. Sensitivity and just plain sense can go both ways.

Why would census information change the plain meaning ("He doesn't speak like a Negro") and whether it is 'offensive'?

Seriously, what is/isn't offensive is not some great context-based conspiracy to mess with white folks. Inane or stupid comments exist free of context. Those that are contextually stupid are not hard to parse on their own, either. I promise.

Hear, Hear!! Dr. Phil

Wonderfully stated.

When all is said and done both Reid and Lott should have known better then to say what they did. I don't believe what either said should result or have resulted in their having to step down from their position. However, the fact that Lott was forced to by the Dems and Reid is given a pass by essentially the same people is what rankles me. Blatant hypocrisy!

I guess since it takes one to know one we should just listen to the Republicans then and trust that Reid is a racist....right?

Your use of sophistry is telling. Sounds to me your like minded political hacks are the ones making all these inflamatory statements. Clean up your own house before you say someone elses is dirty.

Nah...just think it's pretty funny how revisionist your ilk tries to be.

Not to mention, these are the same kind of sweeping generalizations you are making. Lott and Reid's comments are not in the same ballpark...hell, they're not in the same universe when it comes to inappropriateness.

Yeah, you're right - one is definitely a more pernicious and dangerous form of continuing racial prejudice, one that subjugates entire groups via labels and uses culture as a weapon to wield in retaining authority and pushing abasement.

Just not the one you think.

The academically inclined people who work for the Census Bureau knew better than to include "Negro" just because a relative (population) minority of people choose (for whatever reasons) to identify themselves that way. In fact, I don't trust that they truly researched that and were unresourceful enough to not know that they have to go beyond what some people SAY to find the foundation of what they really MEAN.

I need people and agencies to wear their "smart hats" more often. Some will have to find it and dust it off. But, wear it.

But getting to be the person/group who determines what's offensive and "punish" others for it involves power, and I think people enjoy power.

It's not that I don't think what you're asking for is desirable; I do. And I actually think that in most functional groups or institutions, it's exactly what happens.

But when it comes to big political and social moments, there's far too much currency in passing judgment and controlling language.

But what they said was fundamentally different. Lott suggested that a notable figure who opposed integration was correct to do so, and Reid seems to have used the word "Negro" while explaining why he thought white voters would find Obama appealing and nonthreatening.

As frequent readers of this forum might have noticed, I frequently come unglued about the issue of media double standards for Republicans, and even I'm not on your team here.

Reid's comments are probably worth talking about in their own right and do reveal something about his thinking, but not the same thing that Lott's did.

We are having a meeting next week...memos will go out to the proper officials from the Black representatives as soon as we confirm our vote on what we want to be called this century ;)

While you wait, please enjoy this classic

:D Hambone hambone, have ya heard?!?!

Maybe so, but is Steele going to step down too? And BTW, if you couldn't see that my post was tongue and cheek, you are as dumb as your posts sound.

Maybe she brought up the point about Trent Lott was BECAUSE that was among the 1st comparisons that came up in the news media.

She may have been the 1st to bring it up on GC BUT it was all over the news outlets the last few days.


YOU need to go back and read...better yet go do some googling and see what you find.

BTW Max...how ya' boy enjoying retirement???

You're saying Trent Lott was an unknown politician?

wow.

Do YOU think NEGRO is appropriate?

everyone on this site has at some point in time said something that can be interpreted or misinterpreted as offensive to someone of another race behind closed doors.

I think you already know my answer.

BUT since you obviously want to play 'slow'...no Negro is not appropriate.

You're not opening any can of worms...you just want to feel self important because you raised such a 'provacative' question to see if the rest of us will debate it.

Dude...get over yourself.

Let's hear your answer to your own question.

anyone up for some Martin Luther Coon hi jinx?

*snicker*

Are you saying "you people" on this site?

LOL.

i'm saying everyone on this site.

I brought it up because it was the first argument made by Steele as to why Reid should step down. If I have to explain that to you, you haven't been keeping up with the whole controversy. In the end, whether or not Reid steps down is irrelevant. He will answer to his constituents which last time I checked do not include you or me.

Here's Greenberg's response: http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/201...clarification/

^^^ Duh!!!

You know he has nothing else better to do than to try and start half assed arguments on GC.

I wonder if he realizes how tired his wanna be rabble rousing racist schtik is now.

Yeah, the only reason I'm responding is because I'm bored. There's nothing on TV, and my husband is actively trying to annoy me!