B.E.T.'s Comments on President Reagan
 

Well, while flipping though the channels I happened to catch a moment of BET tonight. They were running their news and they felt the need to imply that President Reagan was a racist. I love it! - He's not even buried yet and the producers of the show feel the need to say that.
I'm positive had it been President Clinton who had recently passed (not that I want that to happen) and news anchors had brought up the sex scandal(s) there would be a national uproar, about the lack of respect for the recently dead President.
Comments....................???

All jokes aside you don't think that when Clinton passes on that they won't mention the sex scandal? They have been discussing all aspects of Reagan, both good and bad, since he died. Just as some folks will see Cinton as the worse president ever with horrific morals OTHERS will see various parts of Reagan's tenure as less than ideal. I've actually been amazed at the things mainstream news has NOT discussed since the man died. Without seeing the WHOLE program or providing a transcript of it, I think it's unfair at best to blast BET or ask others to do it based on your perceptions.

BET
 

Go to www.bet.com - click on the news link - it's under Reagan's legacy. The typed version is less synical than the broadcast.

However, I wasn't trying to insite a boycott against b.e.t. or get O'Reilly involved (man is he annoying). I posted the info on the amount of the news show that b.e.t. aired, that I saw.

I'd also like to note that Reagan was instrumental in the careers of Colin Powell and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as well as many other black leaders. I would love to see some solid evidence about Reagan's so-called racism, as I don't believe that for a second. Reagan was a good man who was most certainly not a racist. I think this is coming from left-wing media who want to downplay the importance and contributions of Reagan because he was a conservative Republican, and I think it was a heartless thing to say while his family and the nation is mourning.

Being Black and in office does NOT make you a Black leader. Condi and Colin do not SPEAK for most African Americans. They represent themselves as individuals who HAPPEN to be Black. And I'm sorry apointing people to office doesn't necessarily make you a champion of any minority group. Picking the most qualified individual who happened to be a minority just makes good sense. This is not an attack on Reagan or anyone else it's just reality in the sense that at the moment there are no prominent Blacks that I would identify as LEADERS. I also would like to add that while I feel his family's pain all of the nation is not in mourning. There are large segments of the country that are just trying to survive right now and while they regret the passing of an indvidual they aren't thinking of ways to pay tribute to Reagan.

Let the church say AMEN!

*back to my paper*

So, if you wouldn't mind.. please do tell.. who would you call "black leaders"?

I don't know. For anyone to proclaim them as a "leader" of people of their race is a little presumptuous. Perhaps calling them a purveyor and spokesperson for a certain group of people with a certain point of view -- or even a "leader" of a certain movement (because to be part of the movement implies acceptance of the movement's goals). But it just doesn't sit right with me to have someone called a white, black or purple leader.

I don't think President Reagan was ever referred to as a "white" leader.

:D I love it! You are so right! I never hear of Reagan or any other white person being called a "white leader" but you def. hear about so-and-so being a "black leader" or a "leader of the black community." Why does is have to be about color???

If I'm not mistaken, Pike mentioned the term "black leader" first. I refute the myth of the "black leader" all of the time. Seriously, maybe you don't realize it as you're not black, but we have self-appointed leaders that the mainstream media accepts as our own, and because of statements like the 4th reply in the post, the myth is propagated. There have been excellent leaders who just happen to be black. They could lead ALL of us, not just 12% of the population.

Colin and Condoleeza DO NOT speak to my reality. They are not my leaders. Why should I care what administration appointed them? Should I be grateful that Reagan selected them?

Great points.

I read the article (here is the link for those interested) and didn't see where they called or implied that he was racist. It publicized his voting record and stance on issues that affected African Americans. And if it wasn't favorable, well then it just wasn't. That's not disrespect, that's the truth.

http://www.bet.com/package/0,,p552,00.html

As was posted earlier, I'm sure when Bill Clinton passes, he will go through the same scrutiny.

Reagan was far from racist. During his high school football-playing days, there were a number of incidents when his team was traveling to places where his black teammates were not allowed to eat or stay with the rest of the team. He and his teammates stuck together, offering to sleep on the bus or in once instance traveling back to Reagan's own family home where the team (black, white, etc.) would stay. These incidents of racism had a profound effect on him for the rest of his life, and he made sure that everyone had an equal opportunity. Plus, don't forget that Reagan was the president who signed the Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday act into law. Hardly the act of a racist.

I could never understand why people say that minority leaders have to represent minority issues. I thought that it was good enough just to get an ethnic minority or a woman (of any race) representing you in politics. I mean, should a pro-life female politician be seen as negative just because she doesn't believe in abortion? Or what about hispanic or Asian politicians who are not pro-ethnic languages but for the improving of access to English language classes for immigrants (left wing support groups seem to be for ethnic language labels and signs in the respective communities)? Are these peoplegood representatives/role models for their respective communities or are they not?

Al Sharpton.

Nobody is ever referred to as a "white leader" because most leaders are white in our country -- it's redundant, like saying "child prodigy" or "close proximity." If I were a member of a minority group that has experienced oppression, you're darn right I'd like to have leaders from my race who I feel understand my needs and issues. I'm not black so I can't speak to who would be considered a "black leader" but I really don't think that Rice, Powell or Clarence Thomas would be included.

Re: B.E.T.'s Comments on President Reagan
 

People are talked about when they are alive.

People are talked about when they are dead.

Elected officials, politicians, celebrities, religious leaders, (whether or not they are well liked/received/respected) are NOT EXEMPT.

I'm quite sure that the above listed, along with the late Ronald Reagan, knows/knew that not everyone agrees/agreed with how he/she handle things.

As far as Condi is concerned, I thought SHE was responsible for her career. I guess good ole Mr. President helped her to get that doctorate and her interest in foreign affairs. :confused:

Really? I've been watching the various aspects of his legacy on the various cable news shows. I must have missed it when they revealed this information. CNN's Anderson Report accounted his relationship with minorities. This is what the show revealed...

...of 365 judges he appointed during his tenure only 7 were minorities. Then, the ONLY Black person he appointed to his cabinet was the Secretary of HUD. :confused:

As someone already MENTIONED I was replying to Pike's comments. But since you asked there have always been designations when it came to prominent Blacks (ie Malcolm X and MLK Jr. or Medgar Evars) who were thusly labeled Black LEADERS. You don't have to make a distinction with any group and personally the media's appointments of late have been sorely lacking. There are NO BLACK LEADERS right now. We have people who would like to lead the race but they have their own agenda and that is not consistent with most of Black America (just like Colin and Condi).

How big was the pool of blacks to choose from? Were the cabinets before that full of blacks?

-Rudey

You have got to be joking.

Actually that is the point. Just because they are minority and in office doesn't mean they represent OTHER minorities. They represent themselves and those that SHARE their views. Condi, Colon, Al, Jesse don't represent the reality for Black America. As as a result they wouldn't be considered leaders for THOSE people. But actually why would you be happy just because a woman was in office if she didn't do anything to support women's causes? Just saying we are there isn't something to just jump for joy about. Especially if they are actively working to undo any gains women or minorities have made.

I agree with this. I don't understand why you cannot consider them a "black leader" just because they do not share your views. Are they not black and do they not lead? I know you mentioned Malcom X, etc and I see what you mean there about "black leaders" but I think it is unfair to Powell, Rice, etc that most of their own race will not even claim them because of their views.

Edited to change do to do not. Sorry!

Do you claim all elected officials that happen to be of your racial background? If so, bully for you but I only support individuals OF ANY RACIAL BACKGROUND that are fighting for the same causes I am. It doesn't make sense to support anyone just because they look like you.

EDITED TO ADD: Do I respect what Colin and Condi have achieved? Yes, I think they are working very hard against some difficult circumstances in this adminstration. Does that mean I support them as leades of a race whose ideals and values they personal and political choices do not align with? Heck no and I shouldn't be expected to. No one was running around saying the country had to support Clinton when he was going through his trials and tribulations, as a matter of fact most of the individuals I know were ready to string the man up for "tampering with the moral fiber of the country." I have yet to figure out why folks assume minorities should just do a dance of joy when any old minority is elevated to status in this country.

Question 1: The report did not give that information. There are many AA and other minority judges out there. The question is was their ideology like that of the President? or did he care not to appoint them even if they shared the same ideology? If the latter is the case, why not? was it not popular at the time? :confused:

Question 2: You tell me. I'm speaking about Reagan and the all of the 'black" leaders and their careers he's supposedly responsible for (that someone mentioned in this thread).

It wasn't until Clinton's tenure that MORE minorities were appointed to cabinet-level positions.

Obiviously, his lack of inclusiveness is apparent. If it were not apparent, this discussion and many discussions like this would not take place as his legacy is being reviewed and discussed.

It's not like they're denying that Colin & Condi, et al, are black . . . they're simply saying that C&C don't represent them. If there's a woman politician who is pro-life, I certainly don't deny that she's female . . . but I also don't think that she represents my views in any way.

It's usually whites in the media who say someone is a "black leader." It kind of reminds me of when Kurt Cobain was christened "the spokesman for his generation" by baby boomers when the generation he was actually in (that includes me) was, for the most part, extremely offended by such an assertion.

Just call a spade a spade...it was what it was!
 

What we have to remember is that he was true to his convictions. If he chose to handle things the way he did... IT'S OKAY!

IT'S OKAY that he was against the MLK holiday (documented). I am against the report that someone wants his face on Mt. Rushmore. So?
IT'S OKAY that he only appointed one black person to his cabinet.
IT'S OKAY that he had his ideology and beliefs.
IT'S OKAY that he and his kids had problems, but later reconciled.

I am OKAY with what he did or did not do. I did not like some of the things he did. During his tenure I was what 8-16. I didn't understand much, but I was not totally ignorant to what was going on...

Everyone, IT'S OKAY. Just recognized that he was who he was ( to you).

IT'S OKAY! :D

I have great respect for both Powell and Rice. Blacks are just as entitled to have different political views as any other group.

Can I get a show of hands of those that actually remember his presidency and not what you studied in school. I think I'm older than a lot of people on this board and when he took office I was in elementary school.

I do not call anyone a white leader so I can't relate to what is being said about black leaders. I understand that you would not support someone just because they are the same race as you, but I don't understand why so many black people say there are not enough blacks in leadership roles but then the blacks who are leaders don't really seem to count because of their views. If we had a black president who was a staunch Republican and did not support the so-called black issues would your race not be glad that a black person was finally elected to such a high honor? Maybe you wouldn't be because you say that racial background doesn't matter but I think that people who just want blacks to have more leadership in this country should be happy with that regardless of their views. I HATE Hillary but if she was elected Pres I would at least think it was a positive step for women.

I was in elementary school at the time as well. Do I remember him getting shot? Not so much. Do I remember the whole trickle down economics mess or war on drugs or Iran-Contra scandal? Yep sure do which is why, I respect his death and some of the things he did while in office, but I won't be lobbying to get our money changed, his face put on Mt. Rushmore or anything else.

That's what I'm talking about.

I saw one little guy saying Reagan was a "great man". I was like... You were not even BORN or possibly thought of while he was President. What he should have said was, "my mom/dad thought he was a great man."

LOL

As with Nixon (Pres. when I was born) and those before, I get my frame of reference from my parents/ relatives.

Being happy about an HONOR does not constitute support. If a Black Republican was elected great, it shows the country is moving into that melting pot we keep spouting off about. Does it mean I wouldn't be working to actively get his butt out of office if I thought he was doing harm to my community? Nope, I'd be lobbying against him from day one. Just to have someone there is of no use to any group, minority or women, if they have no desire to enact change for the betterment of everyone INCLUDING the group they represent. If a woman was running for an office and she didn't represent my political ideology there's no way I'd vote for her unless her oponent was a complete idiot. And while there may be folks that just want someone in office that represents that group, most of the group would PREFER that those folks were trying to do something positive.

What the heck? I guess since some of us are young, we can't determine that Reagan was a good leader! That argument is crap! None of us were alive when George Washington was alive, yet most of still think he was a good man and a good leader! It's called studying and being well-informed about the people, not living at the same time as them.

As for my "black leader" comments, maybe I should have said "Leaders who are black."

Question, if Dr. Rice and Sec. Powell were liberal democrats, do you think they would be considered "black leaders?"

1) If you're going to insinuate something about a man, at least look for the information. For a person to be a judge, it's quite a long process starting with...law school. So do you really think there were that many black people that had gone to law school back then, became lawyers, became judges, and on and on? And do you know which black judges he didn't appoint given that they shared the same ideology?

2) You seem to have a great measurement system. Reagan had 1 minority in his cabinet and Clinton had more. Since you made an inference to his character based on him appointing 1 black person to his cabinet, YOU should tell me how many blacks were in previous cabinets and how many in succeeding ones. Just so you know President Bush has more minorities on his cabinet than any other president. This doesn't make him seem as though he cares about blacks and it shouldn't. In fact having blacks on your cabinet does not say anything to whether you are or aren't racist.

-Rudey

Re: Just call a spade a spade...it was what it was!
 

He appointed one black person? So what. Put that in context. Bush appointed more. I guess using that logic Bush has helped out the black community tremendously.

He has his ideology and beliefs and the weather outside is hot. What the hell does that mean?

He and his kids had problems? So what. What does that have to do with anything?

-Rudey

What are black causes?

You seem to imply that these folks don't support black causes and I was just wondering which causes all black people supported or needed?

IT'S OKAY!
 

IT'S OKAY! :D
IT'S OKAY!
IT'S OKAY!
IT'S OKAY!

:D :D :D

Tell the media to stop discussing his legacy which includes his family relations (while in the white house)! I don't need to innsinuate anything. I'm repeating what was reported.

Again, IT'S OKAY!

:D

See, how so called personal attacks begin on here? IT'S OKAY!
Can we begin the ban? I'm offended! GET JOHN! He (Rudey) thinks I make no sense! :rolleyes: IT'S OKAY!
:D
IT'S OKAY! IT'S OKAY! IT'S OKAY! :D

I don't care what their political affiliations are or who considers them a leader. I AM A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT. It doesn't matter to me.:D

There is no cause that ALL Blacks need supported. However there are a few: better educational opportunities in public schools, funding for higher education, making sure predominantly minority areas are not overrun by drugs and violence which are more salient for most minorities. The current administration's policies are not making any strides in those areas so if you are in the CURRENT administration you are not supporting those causes.

Re: IT'S OKAY!
 

What are you talking about?? Why don't we discuss Reagan's family relations in comparison to say...family relations within the black community? Is that an appropriate benchmark?

-Rudey