Here I am, arguing with Andrew Lazarus that the modern GOP really isn’t all that racist, when I read the news and get some cold water tossed in my face.
GOP Congressman from Kentucky, Geoff Davis, refers to Obama as “that boy”. Now my first reaction was, well that’s a little bit understandable, Obama’s young, this guy is probably one of those crusty old pols from the South in his 60’s or whatever, I’m not gonna over-react.
Then I go to Wikipedia. The stupid SOB was born in 1958. Obama was born in 1961. What a tool.
So yes, Andrew, there are racists in the GOP, even in the 21st century.
I don’t know that this proves the guy is a racist (the term ‘boy’ remains a pretty common term in the south, interchangeable with ‘guy’) but without question the insensitivity it displays should not be ignored. There are conventions people use in their daily lives that may be culturally appropriate (by which i mean referring to any random race as ‘boy’, certainly not to blacks specifically) that simply cannot be used in the public arena in this day and age. Some words are just loaded and hurtful and manners if nothing else insist they should be avoided.
I dont think Davis should get off the hook for his stupid comment, but i dont know that this automatically puts him in the Klan either. Being named Geoff Davis probably won’t help his case at any rate.
I don’t know, Davis was born in Canada, went to school in Pittsburgh and attended West Point.
I’m from the Midwest, and I’m still taken aback by my first encounter with the derogative connation of “boy” when I attended University in the South. A white classmate was reaching for his folder, put his hand on an African-American classmate’s shoulder, and said “Excuse me, boy” as gentle as can be. The whole class was in an uproar, taking sides and I didn’t have a clue what was wrong. The racial connotation had to be explained to me. This kind of stuff scares the crap out of me. I wouldn’t refer to a peer as “boy,” (nor dude or d*ckhead or whatever else school peers called each other). Obama deserves to be referred to by the title of Senator. But if we are going to parse the hidden intentions of words to this degree; we are not going to have a national dialogue on race.
Doesn’t it depend on what the meaning of is is oh I mean boy means? A little over reaction I think in a country that supposedly has “free speech.” White men have been insulted degraded and basically feminized for decades as this whole dialog illustrates so where’s the outrage h’m? Racism is alive and well in America. Just visit Wright’s church. His reward- a fine house on the hill. Does any of this make any sense to you? Quite frankly BHO does have looks much younger than his years IMHO. So being called a boy actualy is a compliment. Ask any woman if her looks matter. Oh we were talking about men oops.
I was going to make the point that Mark Buehner did: in the South, “boy” is not necessarily indicative of race (as in, “that boy just ain’t right”). But all that said, social context indicates when that’s an appropriate usage and when it’s not, and race is a part of that social context. It stinks that we have to be so sensitive about such minor things, but there we are anyway.
If it is acceptable for a spiritual mentor to refer to Condoleeza Rice as “Condoskeezaâ€, Clarence Thomas as “Clarence Colon†and to refer to the United States as the†US of KKK-Aâ€, why is referring to Obama as “boy†unacceptable?
Sure, there are racists in the GOP, and there are also racists in the Democratic party… namely, the Obamas.
Oh I’m sorry, are we not supposed to apply the newly lowered standard to the OTHER side of the racial divide? Silly me. I must have misplaced the memo.
FWIW, I always call my younger brother “the boy”, and we’re both white guys born and raised in the South. I hope Obama gets elected so I can begin to heal the racial divide between me and my siblings.
Oh boy! If that’s all it takes, anyone can play!
Agree with #6–you’ll find racists everywhere, in varying degrees, as it’s simple human nature to exclude and include as a way of defining the self. What’s inexcusable is to make excuses for racism because of one’s self-claimed “victimhood” status.
George Allen, former Senator from Virginia, was born and raised in suburban California. His taste in Confederate flags, cowboy boots, and nooses was acquired.
S. R. Sidarth had lived in Virginia his entire life. Nevertheless, we must understand that besides the odious “macaca” remark (I’m waiting for GK to explain why Sidarth deserved that), Allen also told him “Welcome to the real world of Virginia.” Curious.
Any moment someone (guess who?) will suggest that statements like “Boy” have nothing to do with the GOP’s single-digit performance with African Americans, who instead vote for Democrats because Democrats will coddle all those black criminals who prey on the black community.
Also curious that we hear how the Dems get less than 50 percent of the white male vote. You would almost think there was something specially privileged about that cohort, that its votes counted extra, that a party that depended on non-white votes was somehow tainted. Hmmmm.
Arnfon, you could talk to your doctor about that problem you refer to as feminization. There’s a lot they can do now.
Although I appreciate being mentioned in the main post, I think AL and I were pretty much in agreement on this issue last week, too. I just want AL to reflect on the lame rationalizations of so many of his commenters, that he (like Lieberman) might look at what company he keeps.
Andrew, I’ve gotta tell you that I’m very happy with the company I keep; I certainly think the commenters here compare extraordinarily well to, say, Kevin Drum’s or Matthew Yglesias’ or MyDD’s or TalkLeft’s. Personally, I’d like to have a closer connection to folks like MountainRunner and Kings of War and Bruce Schneier, but that’s a strategic problem Joe and I need to address.
Yeah, I get it that most of them are right of me on the traditional spectrum. But part of my ‘schtick’ is looking for a new political measuring tape, because I think the old one is pretty frayed.
A.L.
AJL:
And Biden said Obama was “clean” and Bill said his candidacy was a “fairy tale.” At some point, I think we’re dumbing down the issue of race to one of semantics. And in an election, people on the left and the right who don’t want Obama are going to be looking for words which diminish his experience, emphasize his youth or charisma (in that way that implies all flash and no substance).
I won’t defend Allen, but I will point out that he was highly favored to be the Republican Presidential candidate prior to that incident.
OTOH, a party that advocates a state’s rights and laissez-fair approach to issues of race, does need to take extra efforts to demonstrate that it is not simply indifferent to racism.
_Connecticut calling_
bq. “…that he (like Lieberman) might look at what company he keeps.”
That would be “winners”, no?
bq. You would almost think there was something specially privileged about that cohort [the white male vote]
Not a “privileged” cohort, rather an electoral bellwether. Since FDR, black voters have overwhelmingly voted for the Democrat presidential candidate. White male voters have voted for the winner.
bq. Andrew, I’ve gotta tell you that I’m very happy with the company I keep; I certainly think the commenters here compare extraordinarily well to, say, Kevin Drum’s or Matthew Yglesias’ or MyDD’s or TalkLeft’s.
I’d suggest that might have something to do with the fact that this site is both significantly smaller and somewhat moderated, compared to the ones you mention. It’s also worth pointing out that, although Drum’s commenters may use language that wouldn’t be permitted here, neither site has a clear advantage in outright unreasoning hatred towards their political enemies.
bq. Yeah, I get it that most of them are right of me on the traditional spectrum. But part of my ‘schtick’ is looking for a new political measuring tape, because I think the old one is pretty frayed.
The fact that they’re to the right of you is beside the point; the fact that most of them instinctively bend over backwards to defend Davis’ comment is what’s at issue. That said, I believe you that you’re looking for a new political measuring tape – one that’ll let you keep calling yourself a liberal, even as you’re embraced by what’s left of GWB’s political crew, and one that’ll let you get worked up about Andrew’s comments, while turning a blind eye towards far less fair comments by “the company you keep.” I actually think Solipsism, Inc. makes the tape you’re looking for, AL – one that lets you define whatever measurement is most convenient for you at the time.
Chris, how tolerated do you think your doppelganger would be at Kevin’s site or at MyDD? Hell, they can’t even deal with Obama supporters at DD; I think their heads would explode at the thought of a McCain supporter participating in their little claque.
Well, since I believe in redistributive policies and the use of the power of the state to restrain the power of the wealthy – what would you call me if not liberal? I break with mainstream liberals on the issue of The War, and more deeply on the issue of the capture of the instruments of the state – which I think legitimately ought to be used to benefit all and to tip the scales to the least powerful – to enrich themselves (Michelle Obama’s $300K job at UofC is a classic example of this, BTW…)
A.L.
AL, I’ll agree that the comments at Drum and Atrios are useless nonsense. I never click on them any more. They aren’t really commentary.
On the other hand, there’s Brad DeLong and even sometimes Daily Kos for something sensible, and without the appeals to faux-masculinity or crackpot race ideas that can be found on this small comment thread alone.
I was raised in the Northeast, of a Southwestern mother and Northern father. I got a job in the oil field, mostly in Latin America, but also in Texas and Oklahoma. When talking with my mother, I once referred to an adult northeastern neighbor as a “good old boy.†I meant it in the same way that my Okie uncle used it: someone who does not spend his time reading books, but still a very decent person. I intended it as a compliment. I had worked with a lot of good old boys in the oil field. While I read more books than they did, they were good to work with and during the off work time on the rigs, to chew the fat with.
My mother got up in arms, saying that the person I referred to wasn’t a racist, that I shouldn’t have called him a good old boy. I replied to my mother that while in the 1960s the term “good old boy†was used at times to refer to KKK members, I meant it without any racist connotation.
My Okie uncle also addressed me and my brother with,“Hey boy,†even when we were well into our adulthood. My brother and I took no offense from being addressed that way. BTW, my Okie uncle lived and worked in Texas for 15 years, and never got a Texas driver’s license nor did he ever register his cars in Texas. Okie pride!
So yes, the term “boy†is used a lot of times in the South and Southwest without negative connotation. To avoid miscommunication, it is perhaps better to avoid the term if not among intimates. As the experience with my mother shows, even among intimates it might create problems.
PS– the University of Chicago is a private institution.
I agree that the Obama candidacy and Obama himself are going to disrupt a certain liberal condescension on race. Cue Geraldine Ferraro. Unpleasant as that attitude is, especially when (like Ferraro) it results in serious foot-in-mouth, at least it isn’t the direct legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. April is Confederate History Month, you know.
Did he have to drop out because of what he said or because he lost his Senate re-election? I wonder what would have happened to his 2008 plans if he had held on to beat Webb.
Andrew – what’s her job?
And if you’re holding Kos up as an example, our views of ‘useful discussion’ are pretty radically different…
A.L.
I don’t know – I still think it was a slip of the tongue, really.
Growing up in the south, I don’t know how many times, growing up, I’ve heard about some teens and young adults who were having some developmental problems, say something like, “that boy ain’t right in the head”, and said about white guys.
Same thing, when a group of my buds were hanging out, and our resident wild man does something outrageous, we used to say “boy, you are crazy!” – again referring to the white guy.
Of course, Obama is NOT in his teens/early 20’s. But I’ve slipped into that type of vernacular when I’m hanging out with the guys, being stupid,, laughing, and giving each other crap.
Still, Davis was clearly NOT in his group of friends, and Obama is clearly NOT some young guy who is being wild.
Where I grew up, 70 year-old men referred to one another as “boys”. As in “Step on it, boys, that tornado is gaining on us.” It was short for “cowboy”, just as the English “mate” is a descendant of “shipmate” – without implying a taste for sodomy.
No doubt the word has an unpleasant connotation, especially in the south, when applied to a black man. The etymology here goes back to “houseboy” or servant, or slave. But southern white men also refer to one another as “boy” – see Hank Williams, Jr., “Leave Them Boys Alone”.
The usual use of such terms is communitarian – they imply acceptance, not exclusion. So a man from a traditional stone-cutting community would be proud to be called “cutter” even if he’s never been near a stone quarry in his life.
We can’t go back to “ladies and gentlemen”. The feminists won’t have it. They made us stop the “Mr., Mrs., Miss” business, too. We could use “carb” for “carbon-based organism”, which could not exclude anyone, but then the diet freaks would object.
Maybe we should just stop talking to each other, and adopt some kind of semaphore communication.
Must-read article on racism and Michele Robinson Obama’s first-year roommate.
Look, I’m from the west intially, but I’m now in the south (not deep south, but N.Carolina is certainly below the mason-dixon line). I haven’t heard the term ‘boy’ used in the 8 months I’ve lived here.
Gringo, you’ve explained ‘good ole boys’ as people you’re proud of. Do you really use the term ‘boy’ favorably to people that you strongly dislike (or do not respect)? Probably not, and Davis is certainly not using ‘boy’ out of endearment.
Wether or not race is intended (I’m perfectly willing to accept that it wasn’t), he was certainly using the term ‘boy’ insultingly, as in “not capable”.
When you start to insult your opposition, sooner or later you end up with a mis-intended statement. And those statements can destroy your career. And the way media is currently running, their looking for any whiff of controversy to pull in viewers.
According to the racism police David Howard is a racist because he used the word “niggardly;†Obama delegate Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski is a racist because she referred to her neighbor’s children as “monkeys;†and Keith Sampson is a racist for reading the scholarly work Notre Dame vs. the Klan.
If this is what qualifies as racism in the 21st century, the United States doesn’t have much to worry about concerning racism.
Wow. You know there is a desperate grasping at straws going on when _Daily Kos_ is being invoked as a source for sensibility, even with the “sometimes” stuck in as a weasly escape clause.
Where is the “faux-masculinity or crackpot race ideas” referred to on this thread? I see a couple of posters saying Davis doesn’t deserve the full-blown RACIST label for his remarks, and a couple of Southerners explaining a cultural aspect. Last I checked our enlightened Northern elites were falling all over themselves to embrace different cultures under the banner of multi-culturalism; or does this only apply to foreign cultures, once we’ve bludgeoned and homogenized our own American culture away from guns, God, anti-illegal immigration sentiment, etc?
The point is, SOMETIMES, “boy” is like “dude”. Just another way to refer to “that guy”.
Unfortunately, again, those times should not refer to an acquaintance who is running for President, and is also black.
But there is a possibility it’s a slip of the tongue, and not racist.
I personally hate the automatic assumption that using certain language WITHOUT A DOUBT means you are – whatever – sexist, racist, classist, snobbish, elitist, lack of respect-ish, liberalish, etc, etc, etc…we see this on the right, trying to tar and feather Obama as elitist because he said this, trying to tar supporters of Obama who criticize Clinton as automatically sexist, and then tagging Republicans as automatically racist.
Not that there isn’t racism, elitism, or sexism. But it seems to me that is more a matter of how people are treated, and they act, and gleaning meanings from a slip of the tongue. Unless of course, there is no other possible explanation, like the macacca incident.
But again, I hate the automatic tagging and smearing, because of a misspeak – I curse way too godd**n much to listen to language minders, so my sympathies do go out to those who are sometimes, uhm, “inappropriate”.
The Democratic party has just as many racists. The difference is that they are condescending and paternalistic rather than hostile and overtly demeaning. Nobody–blacks, whites, Republicans, Democrats, old, young–has a monopoly on racism. In any case, “racist” has become the contemporary equivalent of “communist” in the early 1950s. It’s unserious finger pointing designed not to further debate, but to stop it. You don’t agree with your opponent, especially about a controversial topic like affirmative action, point your finger and yell “RACIST!” Both sides do it (remember “soft bigotry of low expectations”) because it’s quick and easy and doesn’t take much gray matter. AJL was pointing to a) a few extremists who really _are_ racist but who do not define the Republican party and b) policies he disagrees with or people who would rather examine race realistically than spoout liberal pieties and redefining them as–gasp!–RACIST! As I said, both sides do it, but it is much more characteristic of the left. In neither case is it particularly productive.
I said this once before, so I’ll say it again:
I grade my student papers on use of language (in the sciences, that’s fundamental). Using slang gets you in trouble, because it has multiple meanings, most of them not intended. That “unintended meaning” still hurts your grade. Good intentions don’t cut it.
Same is true with what you say. If you compliment someone (but harsh or east to misinterpret language), you run this risk of pissing somebody off. Intentional or no, it still looks bad.
…but use harsh or easy to misinterpret language…
Hell I grew up in Texas in the sixties and we called black folks n#ggers so I don’t see what’s wrong with a Canadian born living in Kentucky calling a black man boy.
Yeah.. that’s the ticket!
Alchemist, students _should_ be slapped for inadvertent language slips because schools are meant to help them _avoid_ such mistakes “in the real world”. But what is the grading scale in that alleged real world, that they should continue to lose points? Did Davis’ slip lose him enough points that not only did his original message get lost (Obama doesn’t have enough experience to be the guy nearest to the Big Red Button), but he also gets hit with the damning label of racist?
AL seems to think so per his post here, and a couple of commenters think it’s not so automatic. I agree that language is critical in shaping your message–I have had more than one career saved by my habitual attention to word choices–but who gets to wield the mighty red pen and set the curve on this ethereal language scale?
I do want to agree that, with some exceptions, the commenting here is of superior quality compared to other blogs.
And over at Yglesias’ Chris Ford wins the worst commenter of the month award for his claim that not only is calling a black man over forty a boy not racist, but only a Jew would think it was!
bq. Chris, how tolerated do you think your doppelganger would be at Kevin’s site or at MyDD? Hell, they can’t even deal with Obama supporters at DD; I think their heads would explode at the thought of a McCain supporter participating in their little claque.
I never go to MyDD, so I couldn’t say. (I’ll also point out that – from what I can tell – MyDD is a strongly partisan site, and as such would probably be a better comparison to Red State than to WoC.) And, although it’s been a while since I’ve read the WM comments, I’ve seen plenty of snarky, right-leaning commenters be either ignored or snarked back at – they certainly weren’t lynched, whatever else you may believe.
That said, AL, it’s interesting to me that you’re still directing most of your ire towards me and AJL, and not towards the commenters who’re basically reinforcing AJL’s points about the GOP and race, and directly contradicting you. What are your priorities here – talking about race, or defending your own personal political identity?
Which brings us to this:
bq. Well, since I believe in redistributive policies and the use of the power of the state to restrain the power of the wealthy – what would you call me if not liberal? I break with mainstream liberals on the issue of The War, and more deeply on the issue of the capture of the instruments of the state – which I think legitimately ought to be used to benefit all and to tip the scales to the least powerful – to enrich themselves (Michelle Obama’s $300K job at UofC is a classic example of this, BTW…)
Again, I’d say it’s a question of _priorities_, AL. You agree with mainstream liberals on more than a few issues, I’m sure – but when it comes to voting and writing, those issues get pushed back in favor of the war. For example, I’m sure you, like most liberals, find torture abhorrent. The difference between you and most liberals is that while they’ll get upset about Cheney signing off on torture, you’re willing to stay silent on the issue, or take Chief Wiggles’ word that _of course_ the administration wouldn’t do such a thing.
Likewise, I’m pretty sure that 99% of the conservative commenters on this site aren’t racist in any serious way, and don’t like or want to encourage racism. But they don’t feel strongly enough about it to actually condemn it when it pops up in a statement from Davis, not when their higher priority of defending the GOP is pushing them the other way.
So yeah, me, personally, I’ve certainly got doubts about your “liberal” credentials. Call yourself whatever you like, though – I’ll just point out the holes in that armor.
And as for Michelle Obama, do tell – I’m interested to see how far this rabbit hole goes. She was Associate Dean of Student Services at UofC – as AJL has pointed out, a private institution – and her job was to coordinate student volunteerism. Yes, she was extremely well compensated for this job – as Associate Deans at major universities tend to be, even in public schools – but it doesn’t mean she didn’t do her job well, or that she would have done it better if she was less-well compensated, does it?
Or flip the question back on itself: even if we assume Democrats have not “captured the instruments of the state” to ” tip the scales to the least powerful”, according to your standards, surely they’ve done an _infinitely_ better job of it than the Republicans, who’ve gone out of their way in the past seven years to sacrifice the public good and enrich their corporate friends by killing important regulation and regulatory offices… such as, say, airline safety inspection?
_The fact that they’re to the right of you is beside the point; the fact that most of them instinctively bend over backwards to defend Davis’ comment is what’s at issue._
As I see it, Davis apologized to Obama for his “poor choice of words.” That was appropriate.
Is there any more to gather from this incident? I certainly do not think the use of the word “boy” is so universally acknowledged and condemned that its use could only be racist. The gist of the remark was that Obama was naive and not ready for the big leagues. Obama is being disparaged for youth and inexperience.
Nor do I think this comment disproves that “the modern GOP really isn’t all that racist.”
Mildly, who knows who gets to wield the mighty pen? That’s the problem. If you say something that sounds incorrect, people may interpret it incorrectly. That’s life. The “grading curve” in this case depends on how bad the misstatement sounds.
Good Lordy above!!!
Why that man is…is…almost as bigoted as DEMOCRAT Senator Barack Obama’s spiritual mentors!!!
A.L. you’re a Democrat,before you get on your high horse,you have to steal one.
Let’s see:
the Wellesteone funeral
Minnesota bridge tragedy
Katrina,goes without saying
Naked appeals to racial paranoia and resentment.
A sorry and sleazy record of exploitation and opportunism behind a cloud of self-rightous sanctimony.
“past seven years to sacrifice the public good and enrich their corporate friends”
I would say a Dem budget that included tax breaks for the party’s fat cat Hollywood donors pretty much neutralizes that issue.
The Liberal,Big Business,Country Club,Rockefeller wing has been running things and you see the result.
I strongly suggest you re-read Walzer’s article,you know the one about the possiblity of a “decent Left”?
There,a few tats for your tit.
I find I tend to agree with almost everyone in the thread to some extent.
Yes, the term ‘boy’ is generally not a racist comment, and given the free use of it as a term of endearment or fellowship in the South, it could concievably slip off the tongue of anyone before they thought about it (especially a Southern import unused to the social nuances of the language).
However, none of that indicates that in this case it wasn’t at least a mildly racist comment.
And even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t prove that there aren’t racists in the GOP. There are.
However, there are racists in the Democratic party as well. I’ve met a few. I’ve only met 2-3 actual KKK members in my life, and they voted Democrat. Likewise, the worst racist I ever met was also a Democratic party member, supported abortion for eugenics reasons, etc. Similarly, David Duke was a democrat (and somewhat tangentally so is generally non-racist but still very hateful Fred Phelps). And historically, the KKK is the militant wing of the Democratic party and most and perhaps all of the racist POTUS we’ve had were Dems (certainly all of the openly hateful ones).
However, to argue that white racists made up a major consituancy of either party or its current leadership would be a considerable stretch. I would however argue that the Democrats are far more wedded to racial identity politics (racism-lite, if you will) than the GOP is.
I’m a little confused at this. If such a tax break was proposed and passed by democrats you’d have a point. But I haven’t seen that legislation even proposed much less passed, and I’d be interested in seeing how such hypothetical legislation would be worded to give breaks to Hollywood donors.
Now tax unfairness, for example allowing hedge fund managers to pay capital gains tax instead of income tax on their earned income really does exist.
Additionally, oil is currently around $113 a barrel, but we still have tax incentives such as the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).
These arent’ hypothetical tax incentives, they’re quite real.
Don’t forget the agricultatural subsidies. Think they are taking that back with food at record highs? Heh, funny.
Our tax policy is obscene. There should be NO subsidies and no write offs for anyone for any reason. I dont care if you’re a blind native american veteran building the Dick Durban memorial hospital for children that can’t read good. Then perhaps congress would be a bit more concerned with both spending and taxing.
Davebo,
Great point on the REAL tax breaks in the budget. Especially in the oil area, if there were near enough tax incentives and breaks in the dollar and percentage amount for renewable energy sources, as coal, gas, oil, I wonder how much faster the shift to renewables would be?
It seems to me that Barack better get used to it. Hilary has been called a witch ,a bitch, a pimp and every ugly word you can think of by Obama supporters.Even a monster by one of his advisers.So where were you all when she was told to iron my shirt ? Sorry no sympathy here. Keep out of the kitchen you baby men who cannot take the heat.
I think that we could easily have bipartisan agreement on the fact that the tax code is ridiculous. Or at least, you’d think so but some how that agreement never seems to filter up to the level of party leadership
I think I see the pattern here, and it is best described as “uncharitably assuming the worst of your opponents”. From Chris in #33:
bq. Likewise, I’m pretty sure that 99% of the conservative commenters on this site aren’t racist in any serious way, and don’t like or want to encourage racism. But they don’t feel strongly enough about it to actually condemn it when it pops up in a statement from Davis, not when their higher priority of defending the GOP is pushing them the other way.
The first assumption is that Davis is a closet racist, but we’ve discussed that in the thread already. No, the real rub is the belief that everyone offering an alternate read is some GOP shill who would rather excuse racism than criticize party.
Gee, what other reason could there _possibly_ be for being annoyed at automatically applying labels? You reject out of hand that anyone defending Davis–and to be clear, when arguing against the label they are defending the man and not his choice of words–could possibly be doing it out of a desire for better national discourse, or a rejection of automatic identity politics, or even just out of skepticism that you can draw conclusions about one half of our two-party system by a single word uttered by a politician few of us previously heard about at the national level.
I can’t speak for others, but *I* am not a Republican or a Democrat, just a Southerner who got annoyed by the knee-jerk labelling by AL. Why do you assume my motives are insincere? What right do you have to claim that I am so morally degraded that I would turn a blind eye to _your_ definition of racisim in order to defend a party I’m not a member of?
Do you care to address the objections to AL’s and AJL’s label, or are _you_ content to turn a blind eye to reasonable argument when your higher priority of bashing the GOP is pushing you the other way?
Oh. Oh, now that was a slam!
bq. The first assumption is that Davis is a closet racist, but we’ve discussed that in the thread already. No, the real rub is the belief that everyone offering an alternate read is some GOP shill who would rather excuse racism than criticize party.
MC, I’m a born New Orleanean, with family that goes back in that city 6 generations. Even as a white guy, I know damn well what it means when a white guy addresses a black guy as “boy” – and no, it doesn’t mean the same thing as when a white guy addresses another white guy as “boy”, as they tend to do in, say, Texas, where I’m currently located. The very fact that Davis almost immediately apologized for the remark pretty well indicates that he knows he crossed the line, and doesn’t speak well for those on this thread who take the “well, “boy” doesn’t really _have_ to mean that, and anyway, Democrats are the _real_ racists!”
bq. I can’t speak for others, but I am not a Republican or a Democrat, just a Southerner who got annoyed by the knee-jerk labelling by AL. Why do you assume my motives are insincere? What right do you have to claim that I am so morally degraded that I would turn a blind eye to your definition of racisim in order to defend a party I’m not a member of?
Actually, I never said your motives are insincere, just that shutting down racism is not your paramount priority. If you’re not a Republican, fine – I’ve known plenty of “proud Southerners” who’d likewise bend over backwards to defend their supposed heritage, such as the Confederate battle flag, while completely turning a blind eye towards its racist connotations. I honestly don’t give a crap about your motives, MC – I’m mainly concerned about actions, and I won’t apologize for calling those actions out.
bq. Do you care to address the objections to AL’s and AJL’s label, or are you content to turn a blind eye to reasonable argument when your higher priority of bashing the GOP is pushing you the other way?
I believe I have, insofar as those “objections” _need_ addressing to anyone with any knowledge of racial language in the South.
Proof positive that the GOP has racists. Not like the Dhimmiecrats with people like Jessie, Al or Wright. Good to see that issues of substance are being examined. How about an examination of whether flying the Confederate flag makes you a racist or if you listen to Amos and Andy you have racist tendencies?
Stop giving cover to the minimalists of the world. Reading what Davis said shows he was discussing experience. “Boy” was a measure of Obama’s experience.
Now, unlike most of Obama’s suppoosed gaffs (I think he was caught saying what Davis believes, then had to clean up for the voters), I did not have to explain what he meant. His words reflect what he meant.
Just maybe we need to have mass remedial English comprehension classes.
AJL-
I really, really did not have much to add to this conversation until I saw this from you:
bq. I just want AL to reflect on the lame rationalizations of so many of his commenters…
Is that the adult equivalent of “Neener, Neener!” or what? Glad to see you elevating the discourse as usual here, son.
BTW, the GoP guy is an idiot. Don’t know how much of a racist he is, I have not seen his record. But this whole tempest-in-a-teapot goes to show that no one is exempt these days.
[knock,knock] (Hey, Misha, anyone home?)
I’m outta here for a while.
Correction to paragraph two.
Stop giving cover to the minimalists of the world. Reading what Davis said shows he was discussing experience. “Boy” was a measure of Obama’s experience.
Now, unlike most of Obama’s suppoosed gaffs (I think he was caught saying what [remove Davis] he believes, then had to clean up for the voters), I did not have to explain what Davis meant. His words reflect what he meant.
Just maybe we need to have mass remedial English comprehension classes (And for me checking my writing before posting).
Celebrim,
Just a minor correction, David Duke ran as a Republican for Governor of Louisiana.
I wanted to vote against him in the Republican primary, so that’s how I registered. He’s the reason Louisiana got another term from our favorite crook, Edwin Edwards.
For all I know he was a Democrat before or after that election, but in that one he was a Republican.
Chris,
“The very fact that Davis almost immediately apologized for the remark pretty well indicates that he knows he crossed the line, and doesn’t speak well for those on this thread who take the “well, “boy” doesn’t really have to mean that, and anyway, Democrats are the real racists!”
Don’t know if that is directed at me as well – I pretty much agree that, at a minimum, Davis crossed the line. It just doesn’t mean that he is necessarily a racist, at least in my opinion.
It doesn’t mean he ISN’T either of course, he may well be.
Certainly, addressing a respected colleague in those terms – VERY inappropriate.
But absolutely, without a doubt, he meant it as an unequivocally racist statement?
That’s all I’m questioning.
Chris: _I’m a born New Orleanean, with family that goes back in that city 6 generations. Even as a white guy, I know damn well what it means when a white guy addresses a black guy as “boy”_
The fallacy here is what I know, everyone should know. For my part, this damned Yankee learned about what it means to address an African-American as “boy” in your fair city, but not until my 20s. Race relations ain’t the same between New Orleans and Natchitoches, let alone between farther quarters. A little discussion around the workplace today indicates this is news to a number of Midwesterners. Maybe we’re all naive. But my main disagreement is with this:
_The very fact that Davis almost immediately apologized for the remark pretty well indicates that he knows he crossed the line . . ._
That’s not right. As soon as someone told him the offense that was taken; he should apologize. He shouldn’t hunker down with “If anyone was offended by my innocent remark . . ..” He did the right thing. If someone wants to point a pattern from this guy (nowhere ever heard of before), I might reconsider.
BTW/ I also learned that “this”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonass is not a racist slur. The world’s full of odd facts.
IMHO From his statement, there is no way to determine if Davis is a racist or not. A jerk yes even a a–hole. Like Imus.
Rascism is about what you do to others, not whether you are verbally disrespectful to them. I know plenty of people who treat garbage collectors like dirt…..or waiters or valet parkers or whomever. Are they better people than some politician who said “boy”?
I was in LA for the 80’s. I heard hundreds of real nasty nasty remarks – things that made people sob. That is wrong, but not rascist.
The real acts of rascism (3) were all done by liberals. Nice people. Liberals who never made verbal blunders or snide remarks (except about republicans). One example – I brought four actors in for a small role of a chauffeur. Three were black, one was white. Chit-chat..best perf was by one of the black actors. We hired the white guy. Their reason: it would be demeaning to hire a black guy for a chauffeur. I lost my temper and said “That was rascist”. Room exploded. “You just took x dollars out of his bank account. If he walks in the room, he wants to do the role. Why don’t you let him decide whether or not it’s demeaning.” or rather that is what I should have said – (what I did say was far coarser, and I failed to change their minds – perhaps becasue I got their backs up instead of stating my point quietly and clearly..).
Denying someone a job on the basis of the color of his skin is racism.
Calling someone a boy is insensitive IF INTENDED TO DEMEAN. But it is no more nor less hurtful and no more or less insensitive than any nasty, demeaning remark whether it is about someone’s pimply face or big hips or big mouth or failed love affairs or your parents or pets or whatever.
But it is not rascism.
JMO.
I lived in the south for 15 years. A white man calling a white man boy, can, in many cases, be complimentary. A white man calling a black man boy is decidedly not complimentary and is not taken as such by blacks. this is widely understood by everybody.
The word is charged by the south´s history of race relations. It carries conotations that cannot be shrugged off.
I will be generous to the congressman and say he is at best ignorant of the history, culture and traditions of the people he represents.
bq. Don’t know if that is directed at me as well – I pretty much agree that, at a minimum, Davis crossed the line. It just doesn’t mean that he is necessarily a racist, at least in my opinion.
HR, fair enough, I can’t look within the guy’s soul and measure his intent, and I don’t know enough about his history or record to offer up much of an opinion on his general actions.
That said, the remark itself certainly came off as racist, especially in the context of the South. (Yes, PD, there are differences between New Orleans and Natchitoches – but the meaning of “boy” in that context is not one of them.) And my earlier point – that the appearance of racism was frequently met on this blog this explanations that the _real_ problem was on the other side, not with what Davis said or did – stands.
It might be a racist comment, it might not, who cares?
Racism IS OK, as long as Blacks are behind it. That’s the message of Rev. God Damn America, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Lee (“the Jews are exploiting Black Musicians!”), Spike Lee (ditto), and Barack Obama. Who has excused Black racism time and time again.
To answer Andrew J. Lazarus, Blacks play a foolish electoral game (in some respects). Maximum concessions can be wrung, electorally, by swinging from Party to Party. This is the game that blue collar whites generally play. When you do that, you can extract (up to a point) maximum concessions.
However, Blacks are stuck in a dead end as much as Dr. King noted, Segregationist Whites were (see: Trent Lott, Jessie Helms, that old guy Dixiecrat). The Dixiecrats (recall Jackie Robinson was a Republican, as late as the 1950’s civil rights leaders thought favorably of Nixon) mired the South in a dead end economically. Even Nathan Bedford Forrest of loathesome memory found his KKK to be a burden on his business ventures. It was no accident that Jim Crow’s demise coincided with Sun Belt economic boom (along with business fleeing to good/better government).
Blacks want things that make swing voting impossible. Among them soft-on-Black Crime policies, Affirmative Action, “reparations” and an endless apology from whites, most of whom have little or no family connection to slavery or segregation. These deep policy desires are simply incompatible with any electoral coalition that demands a White majority.
At any rate, Racism is a dead issue at this point. It’s “OK” to call the entire state of PA a bunch of racist hicks, and believe that “whitey” created AIDS to kill the Black Man(tm). But a racist comment (or not, I don’t know or care at this point) by a white guy (Imus, this guy) ignites a firestorm.
It’s not the KKK that’s killing black kids in their own neighborhoods. It’s not the Klan that’s responsible for kids dreading “where you from” or a Chris Rock routine on how he’s relieved that guys he encounters at the ATM are white not black.
Bottom line, Dems are mostly Blacks and rich white yuppies who both hate middle/working class whites. Reps are the middle/working class whites.
Racism? Who cares? Only moralizing rich guys and Millionaire Racist Black Preachers in Mansions screaming about AmeriKKKa.
Calling the GOP a racist party, insisting that the GOP is a racist party, arguing that the GOP is a racist party…
…is merely the last gasp of an increasingly desperate campaign for a candidate who’s either clueless or a poor prevaricater (let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and call him clueless), and who is (I’ll be kind here, too) of unknown qualifications.
(That’s not to say that tossing up that Hail Mary—which no doubt passes for sophisticated commentary—won’t be successful; but it ought to help knowing where it’s coming from.)
Armed Liberal:
If that means anything, it means that the Republican Party is “all that racist”. That’s a vast conclusion to draw from piffling data.
Barack Obama, the alleged victim of this alleged racist act is himself an extreme racist, and that’s not speculation, that’s a summary of his decades of willing personal and family attendance at what amount to regular race hate indoctrination sessions, and his tens of thousands of dollars donated in support of the same white-hating racist vitriol.
If it’s what Barack Obama does that defines him, and not assumptions about how nice he must be underneath, then he’s a racist bigot eager to pass on his bigotry to the next generation.
We don’t have to guess whether there are racists in the Democratic Party, or how influential they might be. Not with Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee of the party.
To smear the Republican Party as racist for one unimportant politician’s harmless word, while continuing to back a patron of institutionalized race hate for President of the United States of America invites disrespect for the double standard being applied. Frame that standard how you will, draw the line that separates racism from acceptability with gerrymander-like craft, it will still be ridiculous.
As long as the upholders of the old racial correctness regime can keep the initiative, fiercely smearing one side of politics for the pettiest of faults, judgment can be deferred. But that’s all they’ve got: keeping up the scare. Sooner or later, judgment must come.
Just to be clear: I don’t dislike Barack Obama because he’s a racist. I dislike him because he supports abortion and infanticide, and I fear the kinds of people he would (and likely will) appoint to the Supreme Court.
His racism is just a negative bonus.
But it’s there, and that fact ought to embarrass those of his supporters who are willing to burn the critics of their champion with the brand of racism.
And if they’re not embarrassed enough to stop, the inconsistency of the standards they apply should be pointed out, repeatedly if need be.
If someone has already brought this up, apologies.
Before you get too far into righteous dugeon, you might want to consider “ruralisms” as a factor here. Not saying it wasn’t racist, but as a subset of dialects, ruralisms are prevalent across the nation. One such ruralism is to call young and inexperienced male types “boy” (though I think I did hear it used on a female once). If a true ruralism, the speaker uses it primarily on those younger (even by a matter of weeks) than them. As a ruralism, boy is not to be feared. Been used on me as a matter of fact…
Problem here is there is no context for judgement, so the default tendency (especially among urban types and those raised on Hollywood Southern/backwoods bigot stereotypes) is to go for racism. I’m not prepared to go that far on the single use, but will settle for idiot as any politician in this day and age should have known to avoid the word/phrase in this context. You can even add an f-word modifier to that and still be a bit shy of my full opinion of the user.
The true ruralism to fear, btw, is “Young Fellow/Feller/etc. Upon seeing it called out in the book “MASH Goes to Maine” I realized that Richard Hooker was right: I had never heard it used unless the person being addressed was in a very, very bad way (one foot in the grave, one on a banana peel). I dread the day I hear it used on me more than I can say, for that is the day I know things are very, very bad.
So, while there is racism aplenty to be found, Republican, Democrat, or other, there is insufficient data to declare this racism. Stupid, idiotic, self-defeating, giving aid to the opposition, yes. Racism? Maybe, even possibly, but truly unknown.
LW
I can’t help wondering if this isn’t a case of ageism, as opposed to racism. I was very surprised to read that Obama was born in 61, because he looks so much younger.
In many walks of life it is a blessing to have such a youthful appearance, but in an aspiring leader it is pure poison. He should have sought office as a state governor before making a bid for the presidency. He needs to build up some solid experience, and a track record for good governance and sound judgement.
David Blue in #58,
Obama’s association with Wright is no more evidence that he is a racist than McCain’s association with Hagee makes him anti-gay and pro-armageddon.
And where exactly have you heard that Obama supports “infanticide”? This must be a pure lie. If anything, supporting the war in Iraq which has brought about the death of many (countless) Iraqi children by US ordnance makes McCain more guilty of this than Obama to be certain.
So please provide some support for this slander or retract it.
Monty’s read is what I assumed as well, that “boy” was a crack at Obama’s inexperience. Before AL looked it up I had assumed Obama was in his late thirties (I suppose he does an _excellent_ job projecting youth and vigor, if nothing else). And if you bothered to actually read Davis’ remarks, inexperience is _exactly_ what he was referring to:
bq. “I fear the two Democrats, one in particular, is incredibly naive… I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
Chris will no doubt chime in with his zero tolerance policy for words tinged with any racial connotations whatsoever. But this seems to be a perfect example of what #59 called a “ruralism”, it certainly meshes with the normal way I’ve always heard it used in the Deep South, and I’ll submit my own personal experiences in Georgia and Florida as a counterpoint to Chris’ experience in New Orleans.
IMO doing the “sorry if anyone took my innocent remarks the wrong way” line would have been precisely appropriate here. Davis did the right thing in apologizing for “poor choice of words” because that’s exactly what it appeared to be in context: a poor choice of words used to express a non-racial sentiment. That is why it is so offensive, inane, and/or *dishonest* for AL, AJL, and Chris to throw the epithet of “racist” first at Davis, then at an entire political party.
And Chris: the real problem *is* on the other side, but that problem is not racism. It’s a neverending attitude of victimhood, sometimes manifested as hypersensitivity to racial connotations, which it is entirely appropriate for us to keep pointing out. Sometimes victimhood turns You claim that this criticism shows that “shutting down racism is not your paramount priority” is yet another symptom of the problem, and as an argument it amounts to a non sequitir in this context.
Fix in my last paragraph: remove “Sometimes victimhood turns”, a remnant of a sentence rewrite.
I guess the $5 question is whether Davis would have used the word “boy” if Obama were white? I think, yes. The whole speech is about Obama’s youth and inexperience. He’s saying Obama is a young punk.
I find the regionalisms and ruralisms interesting, but Davis represents suburban Cincinnati. There were few slaves in this area. A lot of Germans settled there. And its arguably Midwestern.
PD,
That is a valid interpretation, I think. Still inappropriate, but that could well have been what happened.
bq. IMO doing the “sorry if anyone took my innocent remarks the wrong way” line would have been precisely appropriate here. Davis did the right thing in apologizing for “poor choice of words” because that’s exactly what it appeared to be in context: a poor choice of words used to express a non-racial sentiment. That is why it is so offensive, inane, and/or dishonest for AL, AJL, and Chris to throw the epithet of “racist” first at Davis, then at an entire political party.
Oh no, MC is calling me “dishonest“! I weep and wail, gnash my teeth and rend my garments! The shame!
MC, I never called the GOP racist – that was Armed Liberal. I merely said that there were plenty of people ready to jump in with knee-jerk defenses of Davis, rather than admit that Davis crossed the line. And, while I take HR’s point that the meaning _might_ not have been racist, the derogatory meaning _is_ common enough throughout the _entire_ South to set off major alarm bells. (Yes, I am calling BS on your “Florida and Georgia” stuff – I’ve spent enough time in those states, and with people from those states, to know that the white-on-black interpretation is markedly different from the white-on-white interpretation. This isn’t a “zero-tolerance” policy, it’s reacting to a word, and a context, that has a substantive history in the South.)
bq. And Chris: the real problem is on the other side, but that problem is not racism. It’s a neverending attitude of victimhood, sometimes manifested as hypersensitivity to racial connotations, which it is entirely appropriate for us to keep pointing out. Sometimes victimhood turns You claim that this criticism shows that “shutting down racism is not your paramount priority” is yet another symptom of the problem, and as an argument it amounts to a non sequitir in this context.
MC, you don’t know a damn thing about my approach to race relations, aside that I have a real problem with white guys calling black guys “boy”. There _are_ real incidents of hypersensitivity to racial connotations – the reaction to David Howard’s use of the word “niggardly” a decade back being a prime example – but this incident is not one of them. So, no, my argument was not a non-sequitur in the context of this thread, and certainly not in the context of my specific point about Armed Liberal.
And, ironically enough, for all the claims of victimhood I’m seeing here, most of them seem to be coming from the right side of the aisle, about how gosh darn repressed y’all are when it comes to the use of language, and not from Barack Obama, who shows every sign of being the next President of the USA – the ultimate non-victim.
Funny, that.
#61 from Sepp:
Here’s an important question: what is racism? Is is a practice, or an essence?
If it’s a practice, Barack Obama is a twenty year veteran racist, easy. Though for reasons of consistency I’m not eager to condemn him for having an odd religion and sticking loyalty to it, the racist character of his church is a fact.
By this standard, Mel Gibson is not antisemitic, except in harmless if disgusting ways, and only when he’s been drinking. Mel seems to have a bunch of demons banging around inside a box within him, but he keeps that box locked. He’s ashamed of his bad side and he doesn’t do antisemitic things.
In general though, people don’t treat racism as a practice, and the things that people are condemned for are hardly ever serious acts. Instead, racism is taken as being the essence of a person, and some clue is taken as revealing it. Any trivial act or inadvertent word can be taken as revealing racism, and then it’s as though a statue of evil, with a thin and fragile covering of paint, had been scratched. The pleasant surface counts for nothing. All that’s within is damned, and the whole moral standing of the individual is annihilated. Moral punishment, shaming and shunning, is systematically far in excess of any offense.
In the general case, un-privileged whites are taken as statues of evil with a thin coating of political correctness that must never be scratched. The protective coating can be strengthened, at least temporarily, by Black patronage and by activities such as denouncing other whites for purported racism. Blacks on the other hand enjoy an inner innocence that can be significantly blemished on the exterior, but the contextualization never ends, as with the Rev. Wright.
This is a witch-hunting approach to the damnable evil of ascribed racism. There are people who make a living by sniffing out the evil and pointing the finger of accusation. (Jesse Jackson, shakedown artist, for one.)
It makes quite a difference which definition of racism you use.
I’ve made it clear I’m using the concept of racism as a practice, rather than racism as an inner essence, so Obama is gone a million. There is no guessing about his inner state, rather there is an observation about his actions over decades.
And of course McCain’s association with Hagee was wrong. I don’t defend that.
And what about the charge of “infanticide”, David?
bq. the racist character of his church is a fact.
To whom? I don’t see it.
Oh joy, time for a good old-fashioned fisking.
bq. MC, I never called the GOP racist – that was Armed Liberal.
Fair enough. AL was who I had in mind when referring to the party label; I blame the inappropriate use of the word “and” when referring to all three of you together. It should have been “or”, and I apologize if the connotations of my conjunctions offended you.
bq. (Yes, I am calling BS on your “Florida and Georgia” stuff – I’ve spent enough time in those states, and with people from those states, to know that the white-on-black interpretation is markedly different from the white-on-white interpretation.
Aha, the appeal to superior personal authority emerges. Before I cut up the FL driver’s license in my wallet, can I point out you are once again _automatically_ _assuming_ the racial use? The “white-on-white interpretation” of the word boy may be a distinction necessary in Texas, or in the phrase “good ol’ boy”, but as pointed out in “#59”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/race_tells.php#c59 there is a common cultural use of the word that has _nothing_ to do with race.
I am quite aware of the racially charged version of “boy” as a slur used against blacks, and I’ve witnessed it being applied here in the South several times. But _you_ seem to be unaware, willfully or otherwise, that there is a legitimate non-racial use of the same word. And given the context of Davis’ remarks, it is quite clear which usage he was thinking of.
Flexibility in a major world language? Shocking, I know! What _will_ those wacky linguists think up next.
bq. This isn’t a “zero-tolerance” policy, it’s reacting to a word, and a context, that has a substantive history in the South.
And here I call outright BS. Throwing the book at someone for the perceived appearance of breaking a taboo is the very _definition_ of zero tolerance. It’s the same knee-jerk reaction that gets kids suspended for “making a gun with their fingers and pointing it at classmates during recess” at schools with a zero tolerance gun policy. Your repeated refusal to actually look at context before marking the incident down as racism, whether as offense or as an act to accuse others of excusing, exhibits the same manner of thinking.
If Davis had thrown out a spurious “that boy” when talking about Obama in reference to, say, campaign financing, you might have a point. But he didn’t–he was talking about naivety and inexperience in the face of crisis.
bq. MC, you don’t know a damn thing about my approach to race relations, aside that I have a real problem with white guys calling black guys “boy”.
And it is exactly that fact which allows me to infer that, given your unwillingness to moderate your angst in the face of context, you are apt to entertain the politics of victimhood. I admit I cannot _prove_ it absent any further data about your positions. But considering you don’t know a damn thing about my experiences in the South, yet you presume to call BS on my claims (corroborated by other posters) that there is a similarly widespread alternative usage of “boy”, I don’t feel so bad about the little gap in my inductive case.
#61 from Sepp:
You’re right to demand evidence or a retraction on this, because to say that somebody supports abortion and infanticide is to say something awful about them.
But I don’t want to derail this thread. I didn’t mean to change the topic of discussion. I was just saying that my real objection to Obama is this, and not that he faithfully adheres to a weird church.
This is the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: (link).
Here’s corroboration of Barack Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act as state senator. (link)
Here are his stated reasons: (link)
It’s not just the votes, it’s the committee action (or inaction): (link)
Case closed, and back to the topic of the thread, I hope.
Nice try, David, but if you read the comments by Obama given at the time of the IL vote, you will see that he had some legitimate concerns about the legality of the bill and whether it was defining the issue clearly enough to pass judicial review.
To say that this kind of opposition is equivalent to “supporting infanticide” is dishonest to say the least, but certainly not out of character from someone who is clearly 1) a Male who has never had to personally experience pregnancy, and/or 2) a Pro-Lifer who, like many so inclined, believes fundamentally that their cause is so paramount and their position so righteous that any tactics are permissible to achieve their Righteous Moral End, even lying or misrepresentation.
Why don’t you try keeping your faith to yourself and let others live their lives as they see fit rather than as you believe they should.
Case opened and closed.
Sepp:
Not meaning to speak for Mr Blue, but “letting others live their lives as they see fit” does have a barn-door-sized hole in it. I know (I have had to deal with) people for whom living their lives as they see fit would include stealing my car at gunpoint and shooting me in the head as they drove off.
Are you really sure “letting others live their lives as they see fit” is the only way to view the issue of which lumps of cells are people and which are not? Because, from where I sit, those carjackers I mentioned are only treating me like a lump of cells that aren’t really a person. Same thing?
bq. Oh joy, time for a good old-fashioned fisking.
If your fisking starts off with an apology, I’m not impressed. That said, thanks for the apology.
bq. Aha, the appeal to superior personal authority emerges. Before I cut up the FL driver’s license in my wallet, can I point out you are once again automatically assuming the racial use? The “white-on-white interpretation” of the word boy may be a distinction necessary in Texas, or in the phrase “good ol’ boy”, but as pointed out in #59 there is a common cultural use of the word that has nothing to do with race.
MC, I’d be more concerned about “appealing to superior personal authority”, except you _immediately agree with the point I was making_:
bq. I am quite aware of the racially charged version of “boy” as a slur used against blacks, and I’ve witnessed it being applied here in the South several times. But you seem to be unaware, willfully or otherwise, that there is a legitimate non-racial use of the same word. And given the context of Davis’ remarks, it is quite clear which usage he was thinking of.
No, MC, I’ve referenced the fact that “boy” _can_ mean something different when a white guy says it to another white guy in post #45 – well before the post #59 you bring up. But for all your talk of context, you keep overlooking the fact that the respective races of the people involved is _part_ of the context. When Davis said what he said about Obama, from a societal and historical perspective, it _meant something different_ than if he’d said the same thing about, say, Joe Biden.
bq. Flexibility in a major world language? Shocking, I know! What will those wacky linguists think up next.
MC, just because a word has an interpretation that can minimize offense doesn’t mean that interpretation is automatically the relevant one. Just because the n-word can be used between black people without offense being taken doesn’t mean that whenever a white person uses it, they get the benefit of the doubt.
bq. And here I call outright BS. Throwing the book at someone for the perceived appearance of breaking a taboo is the very definition of zero tolerance. It’s the same knee-jerk reaction that gets kids suspended for “making a gun with their fingers and pointing it at classmates during recess” at schools with a zero tolerance gun policy. Your repeated refusal to actually look at context before marking the incident down as racism, whether as offense or as an act to accuse others of excusing, exhibits the same manner of thinking.
MC, we’re running into unwarranted assumptions yet again on your part – ironic, after all the crap you’re throwing at me. I never “threw the book” at Davis. I haven’t called for him to resign, or investigated, or put before the PC Police tribunal, or whatever other fever dream of liberal vengeance you’re imagining. In fact, as Davis did quickly apologize, I find his actions in the aftermath of this thing somewhat commendable. My point has always been about some of the commenters on _this thread_, and how resistant they’ve been to the idea that anything at all wrong occurred.
bq. If Davis had thrown out a spurious “that boy” when talking about Obama in reference to, say, campaign financing, you might have a point. But he didn’t–he was talking about naivety and inexperience in the face of crisis.
MC, have you ever stopped to consider that your preferred interpretation just doesn’t make much sense? The white-on-white version of “boy”, as I’ve heard it used, has always been somewhat friendly, or even affectionate. Even when saying “that boy ain’t right”, it’s more along the lines of a good-natured “can you believe that guy?” I’ve just about never heard it used derisively between whites. Even when observing the antics of a bumbling high-school fast food worker, the folks I know who’d use “boy” would say something like “moron” or “jackass” in a critique instead – they certainly wouldn’t use “boy” to refer to a _forty-something professional_, no matter how much they disagreed with him.
bq. And it is exactly that fact which allows me to infer that, given your unwillingness to moderate your angst in the face of context, you are apt to entertain the politics of victimhood. I admit I cannot prove it absent any further data about your positions. But considering you don’t know a damn thing about my experiences in the South, yet you presume to call BS on my claims (corroborated by other posters) that there is a similarly widespread alternative usage of “boy”, I don’t feel so bad about the little gap in my inductive case.
MC, _you yourself_ admitted I was right about the way “boy” was used, and you keep saying things about me that _just ain’t true_, like the fact that I don’t know – or won’t admit – that “boy” has a different meaning when used between whites. You’ve clearly got a bug up your ass about “the politics of victimhood” that I really don’t want to get involved in – suffice to say, Obama wasn’t a victim here, and, oddly enough, neither was Davis. The only person I see laying claim to the mantle of victimhood here, oddly enough, is you, with your complaints that white guys are being painted as racist for using words with historically racist connotations.
Which is pretty dumb, when you think about it.
NM:
One difference between the two cases is that you presumably have a functioning brain and nervous system and most of the “lumps of cells” referred to have not. Pro-lifers tend to go to the extreme of saying that a 3-day embryo, or even a fertilised egg, is a person already – hence the opposition to “morning after pills”.
There are quite a lot of people who think that it is reasonable to allow the abortion of a 10-week embryo, which doesn’t even faintly resemble a human and in any case would never be viable. They are not the murderers that “pro-lifers” say they are. And abortion of even a much later foetus than that might be reasonable, in some circumstances.
An example of the latter point is the Irish woman (the Irish government, under orders from the Catholic Church, has an extreme pro-life position) who had to break the law, and risk jail time, for going to the UK for an abortion on a 20-week foetus. You might say that’s fair as she’s an Irish citizen and ought to obey Irish law, and I agree, except for one thing – the foetus had NO BRAIN.
Yep, that’s right – the Irish government was going to make this young woman go through the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, to bring forth something lacking the most defining characteristic of human beings (except possibly prolifers) and which was going to die within minutes or maybe seconds of “birth” in any case.
That’s the sort of nonsense extreme that religion leads to.