(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Here’s an example of the brave Democrat. Harriet Christian of New York City, who broke through the dissent stiflers and said what a lot of Americans are thinking.
Partial transcript:
The Democrats are throwing the election away. For what? An inadequate black male?
. . .
I’m not going to shut my mouth any more. I can be called “white,” but you can’t be called “black.” That’s not my America. It’s equality for all of us.
. . .
I was a second class citizen before. Now I’m nothing. Why? Because they want to do what they want to do. I came here for the vote of every American, and our Democratic Party has thrown us down the tubes.
. . .
And they think we won’t turn and vote for McCain. Well I got news for all of you. McCain will be the next President of the United States.
If you liked this post, you'll love these:
June 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
I find it disturbing that you are condoning the comments of that fanatical racist.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I find it commendable that you are posting the comments of this woman.
Nothing that she stated was “racist” just as her reference to Obama as a “male” doesn’t make her a sexist. She did not state that Obama was inadequate because he was black. She stated that (1) he is inadequate and that (2) he is black. Two separate adjectives describing one noun. She gives her explanation immediately. She can be called “white” and yet to reference someone as “black” is supposed to be taboo? An insult?
Anyone who argues that simply calling a black man black is racist is an idiot and has the true heart of a racist. Open your eyes. The black man is black. If someone thinks that “black” is an insult, where in the world does that idea come from? Are they not the true racists, by attributing inferiority to the color of a man’s skin?
A white man is a white man. A black man is a black man. They are both men, and the words “black” and “white” refer to the color of their skin. Period. If anyone has the audacity to imply that “black” is an insult, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The core of hate is not found in the individual who calls a black man black. It is found in the heart of the man who implies that “black” is an insult. Therein lies the heart of the real racist, the true colors of most liberals.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Thayere, “inadequate,” used in the above sentence construction, is modifying “black,” not “man.” It is most definitely a racist statement. Whether or not she intended for it to be is beside the point.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Jean,
First, you show a lack of a grade school level knowledge of the English language. “Inadequate” absolutely cannot be modifying “black” because adjectives do not modify adjectives. They modify nouns. You can look this up in any grammar book if you think I’m lying to you. In order for the word to be modifying “black” (which is an adjective), it would need to be an adverb, which would be “inadequately.” Is he “inadequately black?” What in the world would that even mean?
Secondly, grammatically, the text has been written “inadequate black man.” If you really want to argue grammar, there should be a comma between the two adjectives. Still, she did not write the text. She spoke the words, and commas are not spoken. We judge by the context, which is clearly calling for full equality, viewing people as people, not viewing any form of distinction between “black” and “white.”
Lastly, you ought to define your terms. What constitutes a “racist” comment? If you are claiming that the words “inadequate” and “black” simply being used in the same sentence constitute racism, you need to check your definition of racism. A dictionary might be a good investment. One should be available anywhere you can find one of those elementary grammar books.
There is no evidence to say that her comments were “most definitely” racist. If you believe there is, please present it.
~Thayere
June 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Jean, I love ya. I love having you as a regular reader. I think Thayere nailed it, though.
The lady was saying that Obama is “inadequate” and “black,” not that he is “inadequate” because he is “black.” Moreover, it’s clear that she believes many people are not criticizing Obama because he is black and that she thinks that is wrong because she views candidates on the merits and not the superficial (skin color). She’s right about that.
I know you know this already and are having a hard time admitting it to yourself, but I figure I might as well go ahead and explain it out here for a second.
When people criticize Obama, people go into the kneejerk reaction that the criticizer is a racist. That is asinine. You shouldn’t do it. Can you imagine 4 years of that? Obama proposing ridiculous Socialist policies and everyone who fights it being labeled racist? How much more insane and Stalinesque and Nazi-ish can it get?
This lady isn’t racist. I’m not racist. Michelle Malkin isn’t racist. Thayere isn’t racist.
The most racist group of people in the entire situation is the so-called “Democratic” Party, which views people on the superficial things like skin color. If you are doing that, or are refraining from criticizing Obama because he is black, then you are racist, too.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Oh, you want to school me about coordinated adjectives? FAIL!
June 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
“When people criticize Obama, people go into the kneejerk reaction that the criticizer is a racist.”
Not really. Only when they criticize him with ridiculous racist dogwhistles.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
“Schooling” you on coordinated adjectives was an attempt to find some semblance of a logical reason for your claim that “inadequate” is modifying “black.” What I want to do is show that there isn’t even a hint of a rational thought behind your judgment of racism.
Someone telling me that I am wrong is absolutely wonderful… if I am. When someone presents a logical, thought out, rational argument to contradict what I have said, I respect them.
When someone says “you’re wrong” and doesn’t have a reason, I do not respect them.
I don’t care if you know what coordinated adjectives are, and I wouldn’t think less of someone for not placing the comma there. You could very well have a deeper mastery of the English language than I. Still, someone not knowing the parts of speech, and proceeding to make a claim about them? That I will care about.
It’s not you directly that I’m frustrated with; it’s the fact that you have failed to present an actual, logical argument as to why you are right… but have proceeded to make judgments based on your flawed conclusion. It’s one thing to be wrong. We all are, on many occasions. It’s another entirely to make the decision to judge based upon that faulty foundation, which is what you are doing.
I’m not interested in mindless and illogical banter or personal bickering, and you are not interested in a logical presentation of the facts to determine a proper conclusion of the situation, so communication isn’t really possible.
Your only response was a statement to prove that you can recognize coordinated adjectives (oh, and also that I fail). If you really want to prove that I fail, support your claim. Show the holes in mine. Take pride in what you believe to be true.
All I would really ask you to do is to ask yourself what evidence you have for declaring that “inadequate” is modifying “black” and is a racist statement. Just for your own sake, ask it and see if you can really find an answer, without any circular reasoning.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Thayere,
If Obama’s race wasn’t an “issue” with the woman in the video, and wasn’t intended as being pejorative, then why mention it at all. After all, if the inadequateness isn’t dependent on blackness (according to this woman), and if his inadequateness was what really the origin of her ire, then she’d have ranted about THAT, without regard of his race.
Love the “illogical” canard, though. I get that a lot from conservatives, what, with the lack of penis and all.
Now go skipping along, pretending Michelle Malkin is the bastion of racial tolerance and equality (hey, she’s Filipino and all!) as well as feminism, and that race isn’t an issue when person after person makes race an issue when their true colors are shown, and I’ll look forward to gloating in about 5 months.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:30 am
Both Jeff and I have mentioned why race was presented. “I can be called white, but you can’t be called black. That’s not my America. It’s equality for everyone.” That’s it. Right there. She wants people to be viewed as individuals, not as part of a social or racial group.
Your entire argument is that “I’m right, and it was racist, because there are no other explanations” when the explanation was already presented. Twice.
The only “issue” the woman has with race is the fact that people are still looking at it, still viewing the color of the skin and not the individual for who he is.
She is not randomly adding a comment on race, with no context. The context is specifically stated in her quote regarding “equality for everyone.”
I’m not saying that race isn’t an issue in the United States, or elsewhere in the world. What I am saying is that people need to be viewed as individuals, independent of the color of their skin. I know you would agree with this. I do not understand why you cannot see that as this lady’s argument.
If she had, indeed, thrown out a mention of Obama’s race without any context, then there is a definite possibility that she is being racist. Your reasoning there is correct. If she isn’t being racist, then why mention race at all? She does have another reason, though, and I don’t understand why you ignore it. If you find it to be an unacceptable explanation, then why?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Jean,
Your assumption that people often call you “illogical” because of your lack of a certain organ has merit. However, I think that assuming this responsible missing organ is a penis betrays much about your own prejudices.
You might note that women are often cited on this website as voices of reason (i.e. Michelle Malkin). Even more telling are the comments by Thayere here, which afford a level of respect to you, and by their lofty and civil tone convey an expectation of mutual intelligence and rationality that are clearly undeserved. Apparently, Mr Thayere failed to connect with you on a level that you can truly understand. I will attempt to do so below:
Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo, we don’t care if Obama’s black or white, only whether he gets it right!
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Suppose I said to someone, “I can’t believe that you would disagree with Jean’s comments, and agree with the comments of the inadequate, brown-shoe-wearing Thayere!”
Most people would conclude that, not only do I dislike Thayere, but the fact that he wears brown shoes has something to do with why I dislike him. In other contexts, of course, pointing out that someone wore brown shoes would not necessarily indicate a value judgment of any sort. In this context, however, it seems only reasonable to conclude that it does.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
No it doesn’t and you know it.
The lady was saying that Obama ran because he is black. She said that if he were white people would have recognized that he is far too inexperienced to run for president. He’s black, though, and he is therefore exempt from criticism in the eyes of the Democratic Party, which is the largest and most racist group of people currently in existence.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
If that was your only statement, someone might make that assumption, but it’s still an assumption. Regardless, you’re completely leaving out the context of her statements on “equality for everyone” when she stated “I can be called white, but you can’t be called black.” Her context is exactly as Jeff has presented it.
Let’s go ahead and try some other examples.
Santa Claus wears a stupid, red suit. Does this mean red is stupid?
The rabid, albino squirrel - Is rabid referring to albino?
The loud, green tractor - Is the tractor loud because it is green?
Clifford the big, red dog - is Clifford being red part of the reason he is big?
You can’t strip a comment from its context, ignore the rules of language, place it in a stand-alone situation, change the phrase to have words with different connotations, and proceed to make a statement of proof from what you think “most people would conclude” from your independent statement.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I’m looking at the context. My conclusion remains unchanged. I think you’re ignoring the context by trying to make analogies with statements that have completely dissimilar contexts. The closest you get is the “stupid, red suit” - because it expresses a negative, emotional reaction - but that still leaves out the preceding, preparatory statement. If someone said, “Santa has terrible fashion sense! He wears a stupid, red suit!” I would indeed conclude the person had a problem with the fact that the suit was red…
…but that’s probably about as far as this argument over semantics is going to get, so I’m out.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
To get away from semantics, let me take up Jeff’s point. The guy is terribly inexperienced to be running for President. He is much less experienced than GWB was 8 years ago and that’s all I heard back then - and please don’t tell me that being a Senator for 4 years is the same as being a governor for five. I will argue that one if you want, but for now I will assume we can agree. Anyway, Obama is VERY inexperieced. And if he were white, I submit that he would be getting a lot more questions about experience level - just as GWB did 8 years ago.
Now, if it were my guy, I might be inclined to argue that his experiences BECAUSE of his race might make him better prepared to be president. A case might be made that he’s overcome much more, had to contend with more, has had to win people over more, etc. However, I see no one out there even making this case, so I haven’t even thought about whether that argument even makes sense.
The point is, why has he not had to pass the experience test? Could it be some form of de facto Affirmative Action (or as GWB would say, “the soft bigotry of low expectations”)? From the outside, it looks like this guy is getting a free pass on some things. If race is not the answer, then tell us why?