NY Post headline on Richardson's presidential plans: "N.M. Gov Throws Sombrero Into Ring."
January 22, 2007 12:16 pm ET
A January 22 Associated Press article reporting on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's (D) decision to form an exploratory committee to run for president in 2008 appeared in the New York Post under the headline: "N.M. Gov Throws Sombrero Into Ring." By contrast, the AP ran the following "N.M. governor enters White House race."
Richardson, whose mother was Mexican, is seeking to become the nation's first Hispanic president.
As Media Matters for America recently noted, a January 17 Manchester, New Hampshire, Union Leader editorial commenting on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) decision to form a presidential exploratory committee carried the headline: "If Obama runs: Will he get affirmative action."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Set an egg timer....Tommy should be here any moment to claim "What's the point?" or "this is silly!" or "the headline is correct", etc., etc.,
Wow, you're right!
That was very, very funny Harley. I enjoyed that.
So what? Since when is a harmless catchy little play on words some sort of an ethnic slam? In this ridiculous world of political correctness, I guess it is.
Exactly. I wonder if Richardson himself would have any problem with this? i doubt it. But the readers here sure do.
Liberal as I am, not this reader.
Honestly, this particular statement may actually help him because it points out his mexican background. I'm a fan of political correctness in that it should foster respect, not eliminate words or sayings from our vocabulary just for the sake of "just in case" it offends someone somewhere. I can see how when the right typically mouths off the disrespectful way they do that the simple effort of them opening their yaps draws a knee jerk reaction now, but I just didn't see it in this one.
This is not oversensitivity or "political correctness" to note the fact that a media organization employs a stereotype/charicature in order to note that a serious politician has announced his earnest candidacy for the most powerful office in the world. Your knee-jerk attempt to trivialize a conscious and deliberate decision to play to people's eurocentric perceptions is even more ridiculous. You regularly claim that people on these boards make too much of race, and yet here a media outlet deliberately uses an image designed to create a particular image of someone as "racially" categorized, and now MMFA is being silly. Get your argument straight.
Can you imagine a paper using a similar line to announce that a Jewish candiate has decided to "throw his yarmulke his ring" or a similar phrase used for any other ethnic/religious group? If the story is partly that Richardson is Latino, then say that in the headline: "Richardson seeks to become first Latino president" or something. It's not like they announced that Hillary was throwing her bra into the ring. Why? Because people finally are aware that such phrasing represents a sexist, patriarchal, marginalizing way of addressing a woman. A few decades ago, some might have done so. That's progress.
Is the fact that Richardson is Latino relevant to the story. Sure. Is engaging in stereotypes to initiate thought and consideration of the man and his candidacy? No. I honestly can't believe you're making this argument. IIf anything is ridiculous here, it's the Post for deciding that this is how to cover a presidential candidacy.
On a personal note, I'm Mexican-American. Yor dimissal of the topic feels typically Eurocentric, seeing the world through the lense that, in the end, my or anyone else's attention to such matters as this is just me being oversensitive and not learning how to live as a minority within a largely white society that sees me as different and eligible for the "harmless" ridicule of "jokes" like the Post headline.
Now, you can choose to consider my arguments and actually respond, or you can continue to dismiss anyone with my analysis as simply "PC" or "over-sensitive." If you choose to engage, I appreciate your effort. If you choose to dismiss it all, I'd point out that you are simply continuing your pattern instead of considering a new perspective.
You have the perfect right to be offended by this headline if it indeed does offend you. There is nothing eurocentric about my dismissing as it overplayed, and irrelevant. If a headline or some other reference were attributed to a candidate who shares my ethnicity in this regard, I would absolutely not be offended. But you are. Our sensibilities are different.
Tommy...I'm going to have to call you out- yet again...You consistently state that people 'have the right to be offended...', which, by the way, makes no sense because people are offended on a PERSONAL level that has nothing to do with 'rights'...And, my young friend, if you cannot SEE the inherent prejudice in a NEWSPAPER HEADLINE that plays upon racial and ethnic characiatures sterotypes about a person who wants to LEAD THE COUNTRY, then you are either blind, ignorant or a callous bigot, or some combination of all three...A REAL newspaper would frame his decision to run/explore for presidency as a man, or Latino, or someone of Mexican hereitage, etc. The fact that they decided to use SOMBREO means they are trying to conjure up IMAGES and PREJUDGED IDEAS about someone with whom the symbolic sombreo has connotations attached to it- and not neccessarily in a good way...Let's put it this way...when you think of a person wearing a sombreo, what do you imagine....I imagine a sleepy peasant who is lazy- I get this picture in my head because of all the CARTOONS I saw as a kid where the little mouse was running around. I have never been to Mexico or seen a REAL person wearing a sombreo, but the fact that I have seen cartoons for many years depicting sombreo wearers as shiftless leads me to PICTURE this when the word sombreo is used...sort of like Pavlov's dogs and image imprintation used by advertisers...
If your answer to combat this horrible insensitivity and shameless racial sterotyping insult, in your view, is to call me ignorant, blind and a callous bigot, or some combination of all three.......and at the same time talk about being offended, well, it speaks for itself.
Mr L: Sombrero is the Spanish word for hat. It is not the Spanish word for "hats worn by lazy people". Your image of what the word sombrero depicts is yours, not everyones.
I agree. Not the image it conjured up for me either. In fact this one went over my head at first because I thought it was a reference to New Mexico not Richards ethnicity...I can be a little slow at times /-: But my image of the sombrero is positive not negative...My brother has a beautiful one hanging on his wall that he got when he ws in New Mexico. I guess it just depends on people's frame of references.
Mine is positive as well...
As is mine.
I heard Richardson say he's proud of his Mexican heritage. Good for him.
I think it is great that the Dems have so many people running from such different ethnic and racial backgrounds. We'll find out that it doesn't matter if they are black, white, hispanic, or gender. Identifying them as such will soon pass and we'll get to their views, voting records and platforms.
"...I imagine a sleepy peasant who is lazy..."
It sounds like YOU are the one who's prejudiced. You might want to see someone about that, Mr. L
I'm not prejudiced...my point is by seeing that as an image (in cartoons) I associated sombreros with lazy- I, of course, do not think people WEARING them are lazy, because I am a wise, critical thinker, bit imprinted images DO affect peoples' perceptions...
OK, Mr. L. Ban cartoons. Wouldn't want people to use "critical thinking" now would we?
I am a litle torn on this one, I considered the headline on first read rather harmless because I didn't think sombrero was derogatory. Reading some of the posts I am not so sure anymore how harmless the headline was. I am also not of his ethinicity so I may not be intouch with what is considered offensive. Tommy, you saif that you wouldn't find anything wrong about comments about your ethinicity but what about the color of your skin which is similar. Unless I was reading you wrong yesteday you found Holly's comments referring to white men's genitalial offensive. I actually agreed with you...and I am female. I thought about the men in my family and was insulted by how derogatory she was toward men who happen to have white skin. So I think when the shoe is on the other foot it is easier to see what is offensive. Just my two cents.
Lost, To clarify - I was commenting on Holly's sexist view of men in the posts from last Friday. I was not personally offended, rather I was commenting on the unfairness of it.
Sorry Tommy. I must have misread...or mabe I was projecting my own view into your posts...I found it offensive. Thanks for the clarification, no harm meant.
I mentioned that it showed Holly to be sexist.
But then again, nobody's perfect.
I mentioned that it showed Holly to be sexist.
-----
That doesn't make it true, that makes it your opinion. And judging from your history, your opinions are frequently devoid of reality.
Hi Lost,
Haven’t been around for a while huh? I find the headline a bit insensitive, although it may have not been intended. Now I think sombreros are beautiful, but often the ethnic traditions of the non-majority ethnic group can be trivialized to the point that they become a form of ridicule. It's like how African Americans in the past were depicted as always eating fried chicken or watermelon or worse stealing chickens and watermelons. Now I personally like both, my parents are from the south, most Blacks have Southern roots. Fried chicken and watermelon among other traditional southern foods are consumed by African Americans and it’s nothing shameful about that. But because of these past stereotypes the combination of Blacks, watermelon, and fried chicken conjures up of images of old stereotypes. This is what this sombrero comment does in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with the sombrero but can you just think of the many ads of old showing the lazy Mexican in his huge sombrero. There was even a cartoon character whose name escapes me now, but he sort of moved in slow motion and was always ducking work; and how he kept his huge sombrero on with out being lost in was quite a fete. There are about five thousand candidates that have declared their intent to run for president so why wasn't the sombrero comment used to describe the other candidate's declarations. Did the post intend to be insensitive? Maybe they thought they were being clever, but I bet there are probably few Hispanics employed at the post to provide editorial input. Remeber when Time or Newsweek I can't remember which decided to darken the mug shot of OJ Simpson because they thotugh it would make him look more menacing. Obviously the Whites that made that editorial decision thought that dark skinned Blacks were more scary to Whites. Do you realize how insulting that is to a law abiding dark skinned Black person? I think if an AA (light skinned or dark skinned) had been available to comment that maybe that decision would have been squashed.
Lost,
To reiterate my point. I'll use the pink penis posts as an example. I must admit I missed Holly's post, but a few days ago a poster made a pink penis joke that I found hilarious. It was in response to Micahel Savage saying that minorities were stealing the White Man's birthright. I'll paraphrase what the poster said. He said Oh are micorities stealing pink penisis now. Now maybe it was funny to me because I don't have a pink penis. I though it was pretty harmless., But like I said I didn't read Holly's pink penis post, but I have read enough of Holly's post to know that Holly is too much of a humanists (she has great respect for all of humanity) to be sexist.
Hi Lynn, yeah it has been some time since I posted...don't have as much time to respond and I always felt it was rude to post and run...I try to read even when I am not posting. I respect your opinion and I agree that the sombrero comment could be perceived in a negative light. As I said I didn't see it that way at first but after reading some of the posts I can see how some may. Just to clarify I never called Holly sexist...don't know enough about her to make those types of judgments. I do enjoy many of her posts and she has a great writing voice. That being said I stand by what I said...her comments were offensive. They were very derogatory to white men. I know some think it is ok to bash white people but I am not one of them so I simply call it as I see it...and I saw her comments as offensive.
Hello Logic, I hope your not Lost.
As memory serves, She was replying to some very offensive Comments. In that situation, it did not offend me as much as it did you. You of course have a rightful opinion of your own. I respect your opinion.
I can just feel Holly’s presence. She’ll be back I’m sure to explain.
Hi Sam. I have read many of your posts and enjoy your comments...you are brutally honest and self-aware. I realize that Holly's comments were made on a thread responding to some offensive comments made. I probably wouldn't have seen a problem if her comments were directed at those individuals but instead from my reading her comments were generalized statements about white men in general...that is what I found offensive. I don't think Holly needs to explain...she was challenged on the earlier thread and explained her position...I just don't agree. We may lean in the same liberal direction but as liberals we aren't always going to agree. I am sure there are times people find my views and comments offensive. The more important thing is I respect Holly's input and many of the other posters here even when we don't agree. Of course there are some that I can't really drum up one iota of respect for too (-;
Thanks Logic...
For your comment and for the critique of my posts.
See Ya Later ...... Sam I Am
and . . . you chose not to truly engage. How about actually addressing my analysis intead of just dismsissing it all being about my being personally offended? While that is true, I would have had the same analysis if this was about someone who does not share my ethnicity. You've chosen the easy way out by again dismissing this as simply a "personal" matter instead of being able to actually address my arguments.
If you chooose to respond with some version of this simply boiling down to me being too sensitive or PC, I have to call you on being completely dismissive to someone honestly trying to engage in a point you frequently make here - that people arre too sensitive on issues of race and ethnicity. I disagree with you most of the time you assert that. Instead of dismissing your attitude and position, I'm trying to actually discuss that very idea with you. If all you can do is claim it's all personal, I'd ask you to examine why you are so quick to make such a judgement about this particular topic. What makes it unworthy of consideration?
And if it is so, why do you consistently appear on similar threads to just announce they are silly? In the past, you have reponded to me that if I believe that your arguments/ideas are so ridiculous, then I should not bother to engage with you. You seem, to me, to be contradicting yourself by consistently needing to tell others that something is ridiculous and then spending post after post discussing the ridiculousness of said item instead of ignoring it and moving on to something you actually deem relevant. Can you address this apparent contradiction? And if you choose not to, why should the rest of us ever take your posts seriously?
I have no idea what you want me engage you with that I haven't already stated very clearly. If you want me to agree with you, I don't. If you want to respect your point of view, I do. If you want to make this innocuous headline about something more than it is, in my opinion, then you are reaching for something that I cannot engage you in because I don't see it, I'm sorry.
Bottom line, you find it offensive - I do not.
What to engage with? How about responding to some specific points:
From my first post:
"You regularly claim that people on these boards make too much of race, and yet here a media outlet deliberately uses an image designed to create a particular image of someone as "racially" categorized, and now MMFA is being silly. Get your argument straight. "
A response clarifying your inability to claimthe Post is being ridiculous by highlighting Richardson's ethnicity would be nice.
"Can you imagine a paper using a similar line to announce that a Jewish candiate has decided to "throw his yarmulke his ring" or a similar phrase used for any other ethnic/religious group? . . . It's not like they announced that Hillary was throwing her bra into the ring. Why? Because people finally are aware that such phrasing represents a sexist, patriarchal, marginalizing way of addressing a woman."
No response to this analogy?
"Is engaging in stereotypes to initiate thought and consideration of the man and his candidacy [relevant]? No. I honestly can't believe you're making this argument. IIf anything is ridiculous here, it's the Post for deciding that this is how to cover a presidential candidacy."
Nothing here?
From my second post:
"I'd ask you to examine why you are so quick to make such a judgement about this particular topic. What makes it unworthy of consideration?"
A response, please, with something more than just "It's all PC blah blah blah." Why is it simply unworthy of discussion?
"And if it is so, why do you consistently appear on similar threads to just announce they are silly? . . . . You seem, to me, to be contradicting yourself by consistently needing to tell others that something is ridiculous and then spending post after post discussing the ridiculousness of said item instead of ignoring it and moving on to something you actually deem relevant. Can you address this apparent contradiction? And if you choose not to, why should the rest of us ever take your posts seriously?"
If nothing else, how about an answer, any answer to this? This is your most blatant dodge to an honest question based on your own past arguments.
However, I expect you will simply repeat your attempt to dismiss all of what I've written as just my own personal feelings that you therefore do not need to respond to, because you disagree. True debate is the ability to present argumets and counter-arguments. Your arguments so far have been simply to dismiss my posts as amatter of personal offense. I was hoping you could debate.You seem to just want to continue distracting and dismissing.
If so, congratulations. Mission accomplished. Hope you are happy with yourself. If not, try answering some of the above.
Despite the flippant nature of your remarks, and for that reason alone they don't deserve an answer from me.......I will respond.
Your first comment makes no sense. Yes, many introduce a racial component where none exists. This piece, in my opinion, is a harmless cute little turn of a phrase. I have explained why ad nauseum.
Your attempt at the Jewish analogy is irrelevant to this topic. If it happens, and in what context, then I will respond.
Nowhere did I say that engaging stereotypes initiates thought and consideration of a man's candicacy?
As for my response on this or any other item being silly or unworthy of a topic here, that goes directly to the heard of the thread, as I have said before.
Despite the flippant nature of your remarks, and for that reason alone they don't deserve an answer from me
-----
That's your typical response when someone deflates your claptrap.
Mr L & Tom...
They can’t help it. They were all born and raised the way I was. I grew up with hundreds of white conservatives in Texas and California. I grew up a racist with them. The only way they would get a hint would be for them to be brown or be black or yellow and be forced to wear that Sombrero in front of all their teasing freinds. After a month of rude awakenings and abusive insults they might begin to be more sensitive to our fellow Hispanic American Citizens.
No, on second thought, I doubt if they would care. Most of the racist I know are pretty set in their ways. Some of the posts here remind me of many of my friends. I’ve witnessed it all.
For Example:
My friends would say to their victims ... “Hey Pancho where’s you Sombrero? Where your Burro?” They would throw similar insults at the African Americans. I never felt good about it and finally said so. They didn’t care about anyones feelings. They never cared about PC or manners, or respect, or anything. These poster bring back those memories in a very real way.
My experience over 60 years has taught me that this headline is very insulting to my Hispanic friends. If a poster here doesn’t have my experiences then I can just try to explain them the best I can. And I hope it helps someone to stop hurting others.
You’ll find some posters here who think they know it all. They are impressive of some topics but this time they are just very wrong.
Responding to the Hillary analogy: The phrase "Throwing your hat in the ring" is a common phrase to use when entering the fray of a competition. The Post substituting the word "sombrero" for the word "hat" does not change the fundemental meaning of the phrase since both words mean the same thing in different languages. However, since a bra is not a hat, I don't see where it would make sense to substitute the word "bra" for the word "hat". In fact, it would be flat-out ridiculous to do so. I hope this clears things up.
Fine. Your reasoning makes sense as to why that particular phrasing would be simply stupid. However, I'm sure there could be some analogous turn of phrase to play on some stereotype about women, if you truly thought that would make an amusing headline, as the Post decided to do here.
Doesn't make the possible analogy of other ethnic/religious groups any less of a ridiculous appeal to stereotypes.
"However, since a bra is not a hat, I don't see where it would make sense to substitute the word "bra" for the word "hat".
Unless Bill was running again.
Besides, Hillary burned hers a long time ago.
"Is the fact that Richardson is Latino relevant to the story[?]"
Only to a racist.
Oh, give me a brreak. It is relevant in the same way that Obama being African-Ameican and Clinton being a woman is relevant - they are members of minority and/or traditionally supressed groups seeking the presidency in a country that for most of its hostory has had racist and sexist laws or attitudes. Any of them becoming president or even serious presidential candidates represents true change in public perception of he country and tthe presidency. Conservatives who seek to cast being conscious of race as racism are seekning to ignore a history that has been racist and sexist. Those attitudes do not simply disappear overnight or even in a few generations. When the counry elects a woman or ethnic minority to the presiddency, it will be historically significant. The only way to confront and change oppressive atitudes is to acknowledge, address and confront them. By dismissing the very idea that consciousness is relevant, conservatives (and a number of "liberals") seek to simply assert the "color-blindness" that may be the ideal but is notthe reality. You don't make something happen just by asserting that it is so.
"Conservatives who seek to cast being conscious of race as racism are seekning to ignore a history that has been racist and sexist."
Uh, no we just realize this is not 1950 anymore. Leftists love to perpetuate the myth that racism is alive and well in America. It's what makes you tick. America has moved on and we're not looking back. Have fun in the dust.
Cons realize it's not 1950 anymore? Since when?
lame, lame, lame.
Of course it isn't 1950 any more. Race, gender, class conflicts exist today. If you choose not to see them, that's your blindness, not mine. These conflicts are more subtle, and in many ways more insidious than they were in 1950. Just because LEGAL racism doesn't exist anymore does not mean that racism has been eliminated form society. Have fun in your naive dream world that somehow ignores the complex social relationships that actually make up our country.
"Race, gender, class conflicts exist today."
Oh my God!!! There's a "race" behind that rock! Look out!!! That "gender" is about to get you!!! Duck and Cover!!! That person makes more than you!!! Squelch that!!!
You know what? I used to think there were "monsters" under my bed, too. Then I grew up.
This would only make sense if either
Why are you pretending that you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? Go sit at the little table and stop bothering the grownups.
Then You Grew UP?
No BED you obviously have grown down. Please grow up! Racism, Genderism, and Classism is alive and well, Thank You.
No, Sam. Thank YOU and all the other Lefties who perpetuate the myth. What on earth would Jackson, Sharpton, Gandy, etc. do if everyone turned on the light and realized that there really AREN'T monsters under the bed? Get a real job? Hardly. Nobody would hire them.
Your Wrong Again Bed...
Hey, at least your consistent! I”m not the name you called me, “Lefty”.
I’m an Independent. Today, I’m independent of you. Your defense of this Racial Headline is wrong. How are you able to be so uncaring towards our Hispanic Citizens?
Is it because you are the racist that I used to be?
Yes, racism is dead. You're right. No racism here.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/23/BAGU1NN7CG1.DTL
The amount of denial and BS you're spouting here is just inane and insane. Of course, maybe this all just somebody's delusion. Hell, it's in the SF Chronicle, so it's probably just some stuck-in-1950 lefty's story to keep the myth of racism alive, right?
Lame.
Go to Bed, now!
Okay, here we go again. Ah what BS are you trying to pull here? Lets go through a list of the republicans who were caught speaking at "racial groups" or recieve their funding and statistics from foundations that have long histories (and current records of) of racism. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=487
Heritage Foundation: guess bout the name
NARTH: now famious for the "research" paper that said "slavery was a good thing, not as difficult as we are led to believe, slaves only worked 3-4 hours and spent the rest of the day socializing wiht friends."
Family Research Council, Tony Perkins: spoke at the Council for Conservative Citizens meeting, also know as the uptown KKK
The list goes on and on, a good source is the Southern Poverty Law Center's web site. They dish all sorts of dirt on both parties. The conservatives who have attacked them are usually those listed on their site.
You know what McCain? The embers of racism have been cooling for so long. Why are you on your hands and knees trying to fan them again?
Simply ignoring the fact that so many conservatives hang out with racists, does not make the issue go away.
That would be like saying, "stop bycotting the buses, if you just forget that the front of the bus exists its not so bad to sit in the back."
Are you mentally challenged? So racism was abolished in 1950? What galaxy do you live in. I was born in 1958 and thank God because of the AAs that preceded me including the right's much vilified Jesse Jackson I have never experience the pain of LEGALIZED segregation. I went where ever my heart and finances could take me. That doesn't mean that I was always greeted warmly and early on in my career I often found myself in an all white environment (usually a professional meeting-conference) where Whites seemed mystified that I was present. I would show up at appointments and have people peering over my shoulder looking for a White face from my company and boy how they turned red when they realized the representative from my company was little brown me. I got used to being the only, but I must say that over the past 25 years or so I have seen great improvement in that area. I don’t get those what are you doing here looks anymore, and I don’t get someone peering over my shoulder anymore. Have things improved, greatly. Is racism gone absolutely not. Every Black man I know, father, brother, husband, friends husbands, nephew, have been pulled over by the police for unspecified (unwarranted) reasons. Hailing cabs can be an insurmountable task for a Black man. Most Black men view these things as unavoidable annoyances that they just have to deal with. My daughter's ex-boyfriend is a police officer. While grocery shopping one day in his street clothes he got in a dispute with a security guard at a grocery store in his mostly White neighborhood because he wouldn’t check a back-pack that contained his service revolver. He said none of the other customers were asked to check their back packs and the neighborhood was near a local university where back-packs where common items. To make a long story short, the police were called. While trying to explain his side of the story to the White officers they told him to shut up and body slammed him to the floor. When they found out he was an officer on the same force of course they apologized profusely. My daughter's ex wanted to file a formal complaint but was advised not to because he was in line for a promotion to a supervisory desk position and his complaint might jeopardize that. So stop being re-tarded.
Lynn,
You really ought to read the posts of others before going off on a rant. Did anyone say racism ended in 1950? No? I didn't think so. It's obvious you have a chip on your shoulder: "White" this, "Black" that, etc. I can't help you with your chip. That's up to you.
By the way, for someone who fancies herself a "wordsmith", isn't "So stop being retarded" just a little beneath you?
GTT,
I don't fancy meself anything but a poster on a blog that interest me, I'm not even that great of a writer. You are correct the re-tard comment was a cheap shot and I apologize for that. But GTT try as you may you can't dismiss me as the angry Black with a chip on her shoulder. There is none there, but my experiences are my experiences and you can't tell me that I didn't and don't experience what I experience because you don't want that to be the reality.
America is a great country, but it isn't perfect. We are governed by human beings and we as humans are inantely flawed. But America is my home and I love it, which is why I actively strive to make sure that we are always striving to live up to the ideals in the constituiton. GTT pretending that we're perfect or that a problem doesn't exist will not irradicate the problem. To do so is to passively contribute to the problem. I also must say that the tone of your posts here seems to me to indicate that you may be the one with the shoulder chip. But in closing I won't pretend that I don't exerience what I experience because it makes you feel bad.
Oh, please.
Evidently, the Post editors thought his ethnicity was important, or they wouldn't have bothered to invoke the "sombrero" image in referring to Richardson. THAT, if anything, is the racism, not someone else pointing out that the image is racist.
I can't believe you find a sombrero offensive.
Wow. Just Wow.
And this coming after the headlines, "Obama throws Dashiki into ring" and "Clinton throws Girdle into ring".
And they wonder why minorities refuse to join their side.
"Clinton throws Girdle into ring".
Oh no no no!!!! I think most woman would be insulted that you'd even insinuate that they wear a girdle... How about Clinton throws Bra into ring? ;-)
The sombrero thing? Yeah in this day and age of political correctness it's probably a no no, but I'd be curious IF Hispanics are insulted by it? Can anyone imagine the outcry IF the NY Post had written *Liebermann throws his Yarmulka into the ring* :-O
Or...Hillary throws lamp into ring...
Lamp?
I think, maybe I'm wrong, it's because didn't Hillary supposedly throw a lamp at Bill once?
Ohhhh. Yeah, probably more than once.
I love lamp.
Ask Bill about the lamp. He has the scars to show for it.
Right Bed!
And Bush threw his Chicken Hawk Vietnam War Record into the Ring. When the call went out George was “The Decider.” He decided to stay safely at home, while people like myself and the John Kerry served our country proudly.
I hate this day and age of political correctness. When will enough be enough? Is there a point of "Enouigh is Enough"?
A friends son got in trouble in school for using the term, "Hobo",as it relateed to those who made it a habit of hopping freight trains. His teacher said "No no, they where Homeless People"... His paper was rejected.
Come on, what a joke.....
Yeah, this so-called "political correctness" thing is so much more of a problem than racism in this country.
I would rather live in a country filled with "touchy, whiny, PC" people than racist, rude, insensitive assholes. There, I said it.
I would rather live in a country where people's sensitivities to offenses went less to pundits and media people's attention grabbing comments, and more to politicians and their reckless spending of our money and their lack of committment to their principles, convictions, promises and leadership.
Val,
Of course I think we'd all rather live in a world where everyone respected one another BUT the truth is we have a segment of the population, whom I like to refer to as the PC Police going overboard. EvilLib's example was perfect of how silly this PC stuff can get... here you have a kid being told he isn't able to use the word Hobo [Homeless person being the PC term I guess]. I mean sometimes it does get a tad ridiculous!
Well Jeter,
One thing you need to realize about Evillib, take away about half the story and half the emotion and you may be near the truth of the issue. i.e. I don't believe a word he says.
He comes onto a board to start fights and thats it. (and don't attack me for being PC, see my posts to Tommy). In fact I like Tommy, he at least has something to say about the issue 80% of the time. Evillib does not.
However you may feel, my example above is true.
Well Evil and Jeter,
Much love to you both, but I think if you had lost your job and home and were sitting out on the curb with your family and somone walked by and said man look at that family of Hobos, you would probably appreciate the PCers better.
But Lynn, and rest. What you do not seem to get is that my example was about Hobos. That is what they where called. Have you ever seen a Hobo Nickel? Ebay it some time, there is history there. Come on people, I am not calling the Homeless on the streets of S.F Hobos. But lets not forget about the Hobos from the early 1900's. They where a part of history. The Teacher was wrong with her P.C.
If you lost your job and your home, why, pray tell, would you be sitting "out on the curb" and not going for interviews? Jeez.
Where would I bathe and brush my teeth. When the homeless even look like they are about to enter the building where I work, the security guards run them off. Maybe they were there looking for work huh?
Jeter, one can always find anyone on any side of an argument saying something ridiculous. I'm just saying racism is a way bigger problem than people being persnickety about words - again, I think this is a largely exaggerated issue anyway.
And I don't know the context of Evil's kid's comment, but it seems like if you are writing a paper for school - unless you are talking about a cartoon character, the term is "homeless." I live in a neighborhood with a lot of homeless vets, and if I had a kid referring to any of them as "hoboes," I'd correct the kid.
These are human beings.
Somebody should tell Great Britain then because they have a National Hobo Convention. It's an actual term.
The paper was to be on the "Homeless" that rode the railway in search of work in the old day. I.E. Hobos.
I hate this day and age of political correctness.
-----
Translation: Why can't I be a bigot out in the open any more without being called on my boorishness?
"Brownback to Toss White Hood in the Ring"
HT: CB
"Brownback to Toss White Hood in the Ring"
I love that! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.
Is/was Brownback a member of the KKK? Oh, that's right, it was (is?) Robert Byrd.
"Is/was Brownback a member of the KKK? Oh, that's right, it was (is?) Robert Byrd."
Oh that old chestnut again. Byrd apologized for what he did in his youth. And unless you believe that an error taints you forever he has been forgiven for it.
We joke about Brownback, because of his current views. Like those regarding illegal immigrents, the LGBT community and his.....what do you call it "a good christian, sends anyone they don't like to death camps" mentality.
Romney Throws Magical Underwear into the Ring
How about the one everyone missed from 2000:
"Bush throws dunce cap into ring"
Or;
"McCain can't decide which hat to throw in the ring!"
Nice Save TommyI was going to jump on you until I read your McCain comment. Nicely done.
The reason why there is a problem with this, is because the NY Post (not much better than a tabloid really these days) is trying to incite the race card by mentioning a sombrero, you know, a Mexican hat. I'm willing to bet no such headlines as others have mentioned here would follow McCain and other potential republican candidates.
And what exactly are they trying to insinuate, beyond Richardson's ethnicity, by playing the "race card"?
Its an effort to create an issue. A couple of things could happen at this point.
1. Outcry over language used, followed by an apology, end with increased readership.
2. Outcry, followed by critizism of PC culture, followed by lowered readership, followed by apology
I had thought the NY Post was a tabloid and a celeb gossip rag. Is this supposed to be a reputable newspaper?
Exactly. Unless Richardson was literally wearing a sombrero at the time, putting that term in is inappropriate.
It would be just a inappropriate to see an irrelevant Italian reference or term in a Rudy Giuliani headline.
But that would never happen because A. Guliani is a Republican, and B. white bigots don't have a problem with Italians, or Irish, or Catholics anymore. Their current bigotry is concerned with Hispanics (because they represent "illegals") and Muslims and Arabs.
Of course repubs would never use anything like that to describe their canidates. Its the new double standard in the US.
You can say or attack democratic canidates or use stupid plays on words and use insulting solgans. But when you talk about a repuby, you had better do so with humility and reverance.
Because if you don't the conservatives will attack you for being biased and unfair. It almost makes me want to say, "here's your lollipop, now please stop crying. Do you need your mommy to kiss it and make it all better?"
Not from this conservative. PC has gone over the edge in this country and those that get all bent over something like this just fuel this insanity.......when we as a country have much more pressing matters.
Well Tommy,
Yes and no, I agree on some things with you about some forms of political correctness. I also believe that we as a culture need to accept that the world has changed, i.e. (notice a lot of the people screaming about our PC culture, are old white men who probably used the n word a lot in the past.) To sum up:
1: The world has changed, anti-PC people need to grow up and understand that its now considered "bad form" or "rude" etc. to many groups of people when you say things without thinking.
2. PC people need to understand that some people are ignorant, not in a bad way, they just need to be better educated. A court case is not needed if the kid serving you at a resturant calls you black, instead of african american
But back on topic: Like you said they want ot create tha firestorm. the colum and the title are their attempt to create that fire. Or maybe through a little gas on an existing issue.
The problem that I see with all the PC sensitivity is that way too many assumptions are assigned to the intent of what was said - with no proof or evidence at all. A harmless off the cuff comment, funny or not, is automatically viewed through the eyes of bigotry or hatred when there is no examination or objectivity given towards it's intent whatsoever. And that is the unfairness of it, in my opinion.
A posible answer, if you want one to why comments are automatically viewed as racist/bigot.
I think it has a lot to do with trust. Groups have long memories, longer than an individual's. After years of comments that were actually jokes, but were very racist or bigoted, the group sees the comment and compares it to the history of comments made. Does that make sense to you?
And although like I said above, PC culture does go overboard so times. There is still an issue of individual respect. We lie in a culture that teaches the importance of the individual over the group. Thats just how it is, I'm not assigning blame. When a comment is made, its an personal attack. Although people say your attacking my people, what they really should say is, "your attacking me."
Example: I'm a gay, german, jewish. scottish, american. That is a construct of myself as a being. When you make a comment or joke about, say germans, what you are doing is attacking that construct. You are saying that the german part of me, something with which if it did not exist, I would not exist, is of less value.
Do you see? (BTW thanks sociology 101).
But Tommy, if people find something offensive, than it's not really harmless, regardless of the intent. And the reality is, off-the-cuff comments say more about a person than his/her thought-out, scripted comments. But this was a printed headline, thus it was calculated and vetted by the editing staff, which makes it even more disturbing. The fact is, that headline is disrespectfully marginalizing a candidate as a cartoon stereotype based on his ethnicity.
Then just ban sombreros or incarcerate anyone who makes a comment about one for god's sake! I'm sure the ACLU can find a "plaintiff".
Bed, the attack dog...
Is here because you made a great, and valid point. Bed did not offer a counter-point. And Tom’s defense of the Racial Headline is very telling indeed. Sometimes he comes around but not, I don’t think, on this one. He’s already circled the wagons.
Governor Bill Richardson may become our next President or Vice President. Richardson has his Nine-Banded Armadillo Skin and his Short Memory on to combat this disrespectful headline.
His thick skin will serve him well. I could be speaking too soon. We’ll see if he takes the bait or not. Only time will tell.
Bed, the attack dog...
Is here because you made a great, and valid point. Bed did not offer a counter-point. And Tom’s defense of the Racial Headline is very telling indeed. Sometimes he comes around but not, I don’t think, on this one. He’s already circled the wagons.
Governor Bill Richardson may become our next President or Vice President. Richardson has his Nine-Banded Armadillo Skin and his Short Memory on to combat this disrespectful headline.
His thick skin will serve him well. I could be speaking too soon. We’ll see if he takes the bait or not. Only time will tell.
I don't really believe there is such a thing as "political correctness." I remember when the term was being used as a sort of self-deprecating joke by some on the Left. Now, the idea of being "non-PC" is made out to be some sort of statement of daring independence from the status quo, rather than just plain rudeness and insensitivity.
With the proliferation negative political and cultural attitudes about Mexicans in America today, to associate a major Latino political figure with the "Frito Bandido" sombrero is disrespectful at the very least. I don't think it's a major issue, but a negative response to this calculated rudeness is appropriate.
True. The current political climate has a lot of overheated, highly emotional rhetoric about "illegal immigrants," most of whom are Mexican. I think in other years "sombrero" wouldn't mean anything, but in these times it will make some people uncomfortable with Richardson to know his ancestry. Don't know if that was the Post's intent.
So, what you are saying is unless you are PC, you are scum? How sad, how sad. I have to go around day to day worried about what some may hear that may offend them. I am not a rude person, but refuse to walk on egg shells.
Who are you talking to evillib?
Are you talking to me? Or someone else?
Actually no need to clarify, I have read many of your posts before. You seem to only enjoy making people get angery at you. That must be a sad existance.
Yes I was.
By the way, please stop placing words in my mouth moron. Maybe read what people have written before you go into your "I hate liberals" attack modes.
Altough in my past posts I questioned PC culture, because of you I am now a firm believer in it. In the hopes that maybe the politically correct culture will make you go away.
Good catch, Media Matters!Right-wingers are always whining about affirmative action, complaining that ethnicity shouldn't matter. But then they'll rush out to defend and minimize this "sombrero" comment as no big deal.
Exactly. And if he's elected, he can start the "Mexican Caucus". You know, like the "Black Caucus"...
But he's not Mexican. Also, wrong branch of government.
LOL! Nice catch...
Is the commenter suggsting there is something wrong with a "black caucus?" Just wondering.
I'm not "suggesting" that there's something wrong with the "black" caucus. I'm stating it plainly. Any group that separates and defines itself by "race" is by definition racist. Is that clear enough?
It is clearly wrong, and it is clear that you have no idea what racism is. The new "conventional" definition of racism is that simply mentioning race is racism. Under this understanding of racism, presumably if we just ignore it, the legacy of five centuries of white racism in this country will just disappear.
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over others. While there are definitely non-white racists who believe their race is superior to all others, they are very few in number, and in no way equivalent to white racists in their influence on society.
I am of the opinion that we tend to the beam in our own eye before pointing out the mote in someone else's - more plainly, that whites have a lot to deal with before we go around accusing others of racism.
"whites have a lot to deal with before we go around accusing others of racism."
Stop projecting your guilt on those of us who aren't racists like you.
I'm sorry, was your response literally "I am rubber, you are glue?" That's all you have to contribute to the dialogue?
------"Any group that separates and defines itself by "race" is by definition racist."------ I think maybe a slight case can be made that blacks have not historically been given -what would you say?- a fair deal in this country. Not to mention that blacks were the victims of the most horrid racism from whites imaginable. To infer that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist, when their mission is to enable blacks to have something approaching equality--which they still haven't achieved-- and not to subjugate or marginalize other races, really takes the sort of gall only a Coulter-lovin' right-winger can possess.
"Not to mention that blacks were the victims of the most horrid racism from whites imaginable."
"were", "WERE", WERE!!!!!!!!!Can you please wake up and realize that slavery doesn't exist in America? Check out Darfur sometime.
He wasn't saying that slavery exists today in America. Please try and read with comprehension rather than simply reacting. The legacy of slavery in America is very complex, and it affects whites as well as blacks.
It is simplistic and dismissive to act like if we would just "get over it," that racism would simply cease to exist.
"The legacy of slavery in America is very complex..."
Oh, I get it. I should have known someone of my limited intelligence would need "Valentinian" to instruct me in the fine points of slavery. After all, there are "blacks" and "hispanics" who, according to Valentinian, can't make it in America without help from people like him. Yes, Massa Val...
I'm sorry, I missed the trenchant socio-historical analysis implicit in "can you please wake up and realize that slavery doesn't exist in America."
Please enlighten me as to the nuances of your political wisdom. After all, I need to "wake up..." and who better than you to enlighten me?
And...there already is a Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
I didn't know there was a "hispanic" caucus but I'm not surprised. Can't Americans see that we're balkanizing ourselves by "race"? How sad.
Actually Goto, the caucus is a division within a political party. They act some what like a lobbist does for a company. But within a political party and one party only.
Like trying to make sure your party does something to inprove the conditions of your group. Or elect canidates from your enthic or racial group.
These groups have a long history in this country. Think of it as a form of non-official parlimentary system. Except we don't say, vote for the black party (like the Troy Party in England, or the Labor Party or the etc. etc.), we say vote for the Democratic Party or the Republican party.
"Like trying to make sure your party does something to inprove the conditions of your group. Or elect canidates from your enthic or racial group."
You're making my point. You are categorizing people by ethnicity or race as though "blacks" are different from "hispanics" or "whites" or any other G-- D----- "category" you choose to make up. How about we divide ourselves further by hair color? Or weight? The wholesale division of America by those on the Left frankly makes me sick.
IRONY ALERT:
The wholesale division of America by those on the Left frankly makes me sick. - toobed
TOO FUNNY!!"The wholesale division of America by <insert division here> frankly makes me sick"
What hippocracy!
Now if you had said "The wholesale division of America by anyone frankly makes me sick" you would have avoided being divisive yourself.
Good point, RMJ. I got carried away. The whole "black", "white", "brown" thing just drives me up a wall.
Criticism well deserved. I sounded as bad as John Edwards running around saying "There are two Americas" and then saying "republicans are dividing America". Sorry about that.
"I sounded as bad as John Edwards running around saying "There are two Americas" and then saying 'republicans are dividing America'."
-----
The difference is, Edwards knows what he is talking about. You don't.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100
Edwards knows what he's talking about...It's called his hair! How pathetic.
If you want, we can go down to Watts, or East L.A., or the Bronx, and you can explain to the folks down there how the problems of blacks and Hispanics in this country are no different than the problems of, say, redheads, or people with hazel eyes.
Seriously, why don't you just bang your head against the keyboard and post what results - it will make as much sense as what you just posted.
It's race hustlers like you and Rust Bucket that perpetuate racism.
Go to bed. You're living in a goddamn dream, anyway...
That's right. Those poor, poor "blacks" and "hispanics" in America who are so inferior to Valentinian that they just can't make it in this country. How does it feel to be so much better than "blacks" and "hispanics", Valentinian?
Or more clearly Gotobed
Two caucuses within the Republican party. One believes taxes should be lowered and the government is too big.
The other caucus thinks that government should be used to "fix" the social issues they deem important. Even if that means increasing hte size of government.
Both are Republican, and both are Caucuses (although, republicans are less likely to use that word, since they did not invent to word themselves).
Val to Toob:
"Seriously, why don't you just bang your head against the keyboard and post what results - it will make as much sense as what you just posted." ...by valentinian
=====
Ok THAT cracked me up...Funniest thing I've read here today.
Val you are a riot.
Gotobed
I agree with one of the posts above, is your only arguement "I'm rubber and your glue?"
Did you read anything I posted? At all? Caucuses have existed and have in one form or another been a part of this country from the begining (BTW: how dare you attack this country and its traditions that I love so dearly?).
Okay imagine you are a member of a small group of people. A political party says "sure come join us, we will support your needs." Are you going to say okay everyone lets go join this party, and have everyone follow you? No you form a caucus to explain and get people united together on issues (sort of like a 'party'?).
The larger group is only interested in what power you can bring to the table (that's life). If you have no caucus and 2 people show up, the party will say "thanks but not thanks, not enough votes." But if you have a caucus and can get people motivated to show up, well you see how it works.
I did see your post but I got bogged down with Valentinian and his racist superiority complex.
Of course there's nothing wrong with caucuses unless they're based on race. I'm just so sick of the hyphenated America. Can't we all just be AMERICANS for God's sake?
Ah ha! you are so funny!
"no problems with caucuses unless they are based on race."
Please reread what I wrote. And stop attacking a time honored american institution.
These caucuses exist and have existed for a long time. They serve a number of purposes, which I guess you don't understand at all. They exist in both parties (both issue and race).
We in America don't like parlimentary law, except when it fixes holes in our own system (see: Roberts Rules of Order). So instead of adopting that system of government we developed our own. And you see the progression (actually I argued this in another post and I don't feel like posting it again).
"I did see your post but I got bogged down with Valentinian and his racist superiority complex."
-----
You're actually bogged down in your own projection. You may have seen the post, but you obviously couldn't understand it.
Do you honestly believe that the Left came up with racial categories all by itself? Slavery, Jim Crow, criminalization of mixed marriages? Didn't all this "Balkanizing" start some time before all the PC tyranny?
Oh, never mind, they're not HYPHENATED.
"Didn't all this "Balkanizing" start some time before all the PC tyranny?"
Uh, yeah....DECADES AGO AND IT'S HISTORY NOW!!! It's 2007. Wake up and stop looking in the rear view mirror.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Good point. Thanks for clearing that up. Really, you can go now.
But Val, that can't be because of racism because racism hasn't existed since 1950. Obviously it's something else. Perhaps Toobed will fill us in on what the real reason is.
He already told me, it's my fault. Sorry you missed that.
Nothing to see here, folks? No kidding Val. Would you mind explaining the chart? It seems to be missing a few parameters. DUH...
Ah, so all the racism in the past is now beneath your notice, despite its obvious relationship to racial problems now? You're the one who said that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist because...it exists? Because it's just unconscionable that African-Americans might want their Congressional representation organized and led by...other African-Americans? What a load.
History is important, Tubehead. If you knew much about it--or, to borrow your metaphor, if you looked at something besides your OWN mirror--you'd have to rethink your views. Racism in America didn't end with the Emancipation Proclamation or the Civil Rights Act.
Give up, ToBed can't be reached or taught anything (see the whole, "this is what a caucus is" series of posts.)
I mean, because those black guys who were driving down the street in Battle Creek, Michigan, must have beat themselves up on the police cameras. Maybe they used stunt doubles for the cops?
(BTW: regarding the above post, 2 black men driving in BC, MI were pulled over for a traffic violation. The arresting officers after handcuffing one of the men continued to beat him, all while in front of their police cruiser.) I'm try to put up the link, But I think you need to subscribe to that paper.
Mercy. Was this recent?
Yeah it was very recent. Can't link it though, you have to buy the article, but here is the description from the article search.
December 20,On Tuesday night, Battle Creek officials addressed the issue of race in the alleged weekend beating of a black man by two white Battle Creek Police Department officers. Speaking at the city commission meeting, Battle Creek Police Chief David Headings called the incident "extremely disturbing,"
You know what folks? I just remembered an article I read last week in the Long Beach (CA) Press Telegram. It seems that last October, three women of the "wrong color" visited a Halloween haunted house in Long Beach for a fun time out. They were singled out for being "white" and being in the wrong neighborhood. They were punched to the ground, kicked and stomped on for several minutes. One had her face smashed in with a skateboard and as of last week, still can't see out of one of her eyes. While the beating was going on, according to witnesses, the approximately 20 assailants yelled things like "F...ing white bitches", etc. One witness who had the guts to testify against these animals is under police protection because of constant death threats.
I finally agree with you guys. Racism is alive and well in America.
I finally agree with you guys. Racism is alive and well in America. - toobed
Why did it take a black-on-white crime to convince you?
>>"Exactly. And if he's elected, he can start the "Mexican Caucus". You know, like the "Black Caucus"...If Richardson himself said "sombrero", or announces what you call a "Mexican Caucus", it's his funeral. But Richardson didn't say "sombrero", the NY Post did. The Post and its defenders perpetuate stereotypes in this country, and do not try to end them.
Oh for gosh's sakes
Lighten up-I thought the headline was hilarious...kind of like one I saw years ago when a Chinese ship unloaded illegals off shore and the Examiner screamed "Mystery Ship Drops Aliens at Presidio". I still have that headline.
Please-we have more to haggle over besides a quite funny headline writer. It's funny-the brunt of the joke was New Mexico, not some ethnic slam. People please, take a breath.
Then you wouldn't care if they Photoshopped Richardson in a big moustache actually throwing a sombrero while riding a donkey into a bull ring whilst swigging a Corona and listening to "La Cucaracha". I mean, why not go all the way with the sterotypes? If the sombrero's funny to you, then surely all the rest would be hilarious.
I think it would be great if there would be a moratorium on telling people of color to "lighten up." You may not experience racism (I have no idea what the background of the commenter is, despite the fact that many whites echo such remarks). However, this doesn't mean that millions do not.
Neither you nor Dave in Chicago know A G-----M thing about me or my views or my background or where I stand or what I've done in my life to eliminate, fight against, argue against, march against, protest against, or write against discrimination, hatred, or prejudice. I somehow knew when I posted that I would get attacked. At least you admitted you don't know my background. Maybe if you did, neither of you would have been so harsh.
I stand by my statement-I think the headline was funny, and I considered the source of the headline.
You said "sombrero into the ring" was hilarious. The headline perpetuates a not very flattering stereotype. The kind of ethnic stereotype that many of us strive to eliminate. Laughing at inane, sophomoric quips like the NY Post's only encourages more of the same.
"Neither you nor Dave in Chicago know A G-----M thing about me or my views or my background or where I stand or what I've done in my life to eliminate, fight against, argue against, march against, protest against, or write against discrimination, hatred, or prejudice."
-----
Walk it, don't talk it. Words are cheap, or, in your case, worthless. Your post showed all that needed to be said, and it spoke eloquently against what you posted above.
Lighten up, Valentinian. You're way too tense.
Your comment to me is ridiculous. The point is, none of the scenario you posted happened, so how can you even presume to know how I would react to a caricature as ridiculous as you posit.
My comment was not ridiculous. I don't "know" how you'd respond. I can only extrapolate, based on the knee-slapping hilarity you found in "sombrero". You certainly are NOT advocating for "less of the same" stereotyped, ethnic humor. In fact, it would appear you'd want more.
"Knee slapping hilarity?"
"I thought it was funny" is not "I rolled on the floor laughing" or "I slapped my knees in buckle over humor."
The point is, Dave in Chicago, that you presumed to extrapolate anything from what I said and you do not know who I am. So you are engaging in the exact same kind of behaviour you find so offensive in perpetrating stereotypes.
First of all, you didn't say it was "funny". You said "sombrero" was "hilarious" (extremely amusing).Secondly, it's obvious no one here knows who anyone here is. If you don't want anybody to extrapolate your laughter over a stereotype, then maybe you should qualify it. When does an ethnic joke cross the line for you? Is sombrero ok, but not "La Cucaracha" and a big moustache? And if not, why not?? If "sombrero" is so "hilarious" (your word), then I'm very curious as to why more of the same be just as funny if not more so for you.
Okay simple. Because I have lines like everyone else in the world and this one headline did not cross mine. If it was a headline like you suggested earlier, of course I would find it offensive. In addition, I happen to be a person who on occasion gets paid for doing stand up comedy, so coming from that perspective I also thought it was funny--I felt it was a clever play on words not meant to offend anyone. Although I agree that people should be called on racism, I didn't see that here one bit. I cannot believe some editor sitting at the NYP had some racist agenda and therefore put in that headline. If I'm wrong, then the joke is on me I guess. But I am personally offended by your jumping to the conclusion that I am a racist because I found some headline humurous without reading into that headline some racist, malicious intent. I am not a racist and you have assumed since we started this dialogue that 1)I am 2) I must find all stereotyping humurous 3)that my line of offensiveness doesn't exist.
I think maybe you should avoid posting on such emotionally charged topics if you are uncomfortable with being challenged. All Dave did was ask you whether you had a line. I don't see anyone accusing you of racism or anything like it, you've just been getting some tough questioning.
Now, I don't really think you posted "take a breath, people" without thinking you were going to provoke a response. So what is your game, really?
So, can you explain what the joke on New Mexico is supposed to be, if it's not about the ethnicity of many of its residents?
I'm sorry, but no I won't because it's a ridiculous question. Is not "sombrero" Spanish for "hat"? Now, if some group of Hispanics who live in New Mexico says "this is offensive and I don't think it was funny" then I will say "okay well I apologize for lauging" but since I don't know how many Hispanics live there, nor do I know how many of that number found it offensive, than I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. You know humor is subjective to the listener, and it's not like I sit around all day and listen to neo-nazi comedy albums and laugh my a--- off.
So, if I read your evasion correctly, there is NO difference between a joke about New Mexico and a joke about the ethnicity of its inhabitants. At least, no difference you're prepared to identify and defend. Didn't think so.
You can assume anything you want about me. Wanna have coffee some time? So you can get to know me. Walk a mile in my shoes kind of thing. Don't call me evasive or anything else okay? I'm evading nothing. Are you now speaking for everyone in the whole g-----m world? I think the headline was funny, I'm truly sorry that people including you find it offensive, I'm Polish and if a headline read "Clintonski is throwing her bubushka into the ring" I think that was funny too. I am truly offended and hurt that so many people in this thread have jumped to any conclusions about me and my attitudes about different races. I think you self righteous prigs ought to go look in the mirror.
I'm so done with this thread.
Look, YOU'RE the one who originally said that the headline was a joke about New Mexico, and not an ethnic slur. I asked quite sincerely what you thought the distinction was, and you called the question "ridiculous." You were and are being evasive. Can't you keep track of your own friggin' arguments? If you can't, then you SHOULD be done with this thread, and with this site.
What's funny to me is that the original post was "lighten up," followed by a series of responses escalating in prickliness to "I am so done with this site."
One can only imagine how this occasional professional stand-up comic deals with hecklers...
Whatever
I slice 'em up like a pinata.
You should try beating 'em like a Thanksgiving turkey.
Mix 'em like a metaphor!
BRUCE1ACE ...
TRIES To Snatches Victory out of the Jaws of Defeat. He lost big time and all he had left to say was....
WHATEVER!
Who?
In case you come back, I thought you made some excellent points. And remember that some on here need to win arguments like it's oxygen. They crave it, and will twist your words around and spit them back at you like you own them when they aren't your words anymore. It's no big deal, just accept it and understand that when that happens, you've won.
Sorry, Bruce, but that's rubbish. No one twisted his words. He was asked to explain them more fully, but he wouldn't, or couldn't, and he responded with insults.
Not that what you describe NEVER happens on this site, of course, but it's not applicable here. I hope GreatCountry appreciates the supportive gesture, though.
I didn't notice anything specific in this case. It was just a little friendly advice for future reference.
Fair enough, Bruce. You might wish him a thicker skin, too. Cuz he'll need it--both as a standup comic and as a poster here.
Too true.
It is, as a wise man once observed, a "snake pit" around here. Or a "swamp pit" or some kind of pit.
BRUCE1ACE ...
As it has been said, Snatches Victory out of the Jaws of Defeat. He lost big time and all he had left to say was....
WHATEVER!
Come on people, this is the frickin' NEW YORK POST we're talking about. They like snazzy headlines and sombrero just replaces "hat" in this since he's of Hispanic descent, which WILL be something that will be noted.
Big deal.
For once I agree with Tommy. A little colorful turn of the phrase is a non-issue. So what if it acknowledges Richardson's heritage? There are far worse headlines I could dream up:After jumping the fence and evading border security, Richardson throws his sombrero in to ring then takes a nice siesta
I'm sure Michael Richards could come up with something worse, but I tried.
FRITO BANDITO THROW SERAPE INTO RING. OLE!
WOWIt's amazing how fast this thread is growing!! Apparently we all have an opinion. LOL Well, I'm hispanic and grew up in New Mexico. And I probably have a bit of a chip on my shoulder, so I doubt that he'll get much traction in the race. But I think the chip is more about region than race. Ya'all wouldn't believe how many times people ask me if I need to have a VISA!!
Clearly Mr. Richardson is the most qualified cantidate out there, but it's been my experience that few pols from that little impoverished state have ever found themselves on the national radar.
But I digress.
Mr. Richardson has taken pains to avoid being viewed as running on his ethnicity and I'm happy that the NYP in their blundering way has reminded us that he is hispanic. It's much better for them to do that then for him to.
I think the whole pc thing is way overblown. Ignoring his qualifications and not highlighting his accomplishments are the real problems.
"Ya'all wouldn't believe how many times people ask me if I need to have a VISA!!"
-----
Maybe a MasterCard would be as good?
I thought it might be interesting to look at MM's link--at the actual NY Post story to which the headline is attached. Here it is, in its entirety: (I'd guess the print version is longer...)
"Gov. Bill Richardson took the first step yesterday toward an expected White House run in 2008 as he seeks to become the first Hispanic president.
"Richardson said he believes the U.S. is ready for either a female, black or Hispanic chief executive.
"But I wouldn't run as a Hispanic candidate. I would run as an American, proud to be Hispanic, proud of my heritage," he said in an interview."
And that's it. Interesting that despite Richardson's statement that he won't run as a "Hispanic" candidate, the Post's headline chooses to underline his ethnicity anyway. Implying, perhaps, that he'll be a "Hispanic" candidate no matter what he says.
I think it is an unavoidable part of Mr. Richardson. Similar to say, JFK's Catholicism during his campaign.
What is great is that the country will see that being of Mexican heritage, or black, or a woman does not matter.
That's a laudable sentiment, AA. And I'm sure you're right; eventually the Post will get around to Richardson's positions on the issues, once they're through symbolizing him with a sombrero.
And I'm not looking to fight you right now.
But I just wanted to point out that JFK's Catholism was mentioned for the fact that many believed that this country would never elect a "papist" to the highest office. There have been many books about it actually and its mentioned in just about an biolgraphy of JFK made.
Good call. JFK's Catholicism was posed initially as a serious liability. Not to be a mind-reader, but I feel safe in saying that the Post doesn't think Richardson's ethnicity will be an asset--at least not to its readership.
"If the sombrero's funny to you, then surely all the rest would be hilarious."-assumes I'm racist and is an ad hominem attack
"Laughing at inane, sophomoric quips like the NY Post's only encourages more of the same."-insulting implying that I too must be inane and sophomoric
"Walk it, don't talk it. Words are cheap, or, in your case, worthless. Your post showed all that needed to be said, and it spoke eloquently against what you posted above" I was radicalized by my brother who was a student at Kent State and on campus 5-4-70. Have voted for Dennis Kucinich in every election he's ever been in since 1974, the year I could vote. Economically supported and worked on the campaign of Jesse Jackson for president. Founding member and only male member of the Women's Law Caucus at the law school from which I graduated. Wrote an opinion for an appeals Court where said opinion was adopted in its entirety by the Ohio Supreme Court which threw out an ordinance that discrimiated against a mixed-race couple in a suburb of Cleveland. Member, National Lawyer's Guild. Volunteer-Legal Aid Society Cleveland Attorneys Seeking Equity, 1984 through present. Volunteer-Volunteer Lawyers for The Arts. I could go on.
"You certainly are NOT advocating for "less of the same" stereotyped, ethnic humor. In fact, it would appear you'd want more"-assumes facts that are not true, ad hominem attack
"And if not, why not?? If "sombrero" is so "hilarious" (your word), then I'm very curious as to why more of the same be just as funny if not more so for you."- ad hominem attack
"I think maybe you should avoid posting on such emotionally charged topics if you are uncomfortable with being challenged. All Dave did was ask you whether you had a line." I answered the question in another post, ad hominem attack
"So what is your game, really?" insulting, pretentious, ad hominem attack
§ " So, if I read your evasion correctly, there is NO difference between a joke about New Mexico and a joke about the ethnicity of its inhabitants. At least, no difference you're prepared to identify and defend. Didn't think so. " ad hominem attack"One can only imagine how this occasional professional stand-up comic deals with hecklers..." presumptuos, ad hominem attack, and an insult to my talent which you don't know anything about
I am not sure that ad hominem means what you think it means.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
Yes, I agree, that is what the Latin term means. Ad hominem in rhetoric, as I understand it, means to make a personal attack as a way of invalidating a logical premise. I don't see the exchanges above as exemplary of that, by the defenition I gave - you came in with a very dismissive attitude towards other people's positions and you were being confronted on that attitude.
All the confrontation were carefully couched in "do you think that X" or "it seems that you are saying X" type of constructions. Yes, elbows were thrown, but I think you set the tone yourself from the outset.
Again, I think you would do well to seriously consider how and whether you want to weigh in on hot-button issues if you don't like getting attacked in blog comments. I have no reason to disbelieve your CV, but I have no reason to believe it either, and don't care either way. However, if I were you I would ask myself if I would say what I said in exactly the same way if I were in a public setting with people of color present.
Racism is pervasive in our culture, and all the more difficult to root out because nowadays it is expressed in subtle ways. I feel there is an extra onus on us in the anti-racist commuity to be more vigilant than others in how we express ourselves.
This is the first post I am seeing in this whole thread that appears to be an argument not an insult. As I said, comedy is subjective. I agree with you 100% that we must be vigilant. I had no idea, and I've been registered on this site for almost a year, my comment would energize the discussion it did. I have no agenda or game. Even though you continue to insult me by saying "well maybe I believe you CV and maybe I don't." but I want to put that aside, and I understand anyone's skepticism because hey, who knows what I'm making up (I'm not). There was a person here in a later post that said they were Mexican and insulted by the headline. Well, know what? If that is the case, I am sorry for his sake I found humor in it. I did not set the tone for this thread, Dave in Chicago did. Go back and look at his post immediately following my statement. Having a thick skin has nothing to do with this, believe me mine is thick. However, I was not about to sit here and be insulted and called a racist and all that other crap, and have "Easytorefutewingnuts" whose posts I happen to like by the way, tell me I have done nothing in my whole life for any cause. And as far as my comedy is concerned, believe it or not I have won chategory awards in an all Ohio urban comedy festival, and in a greater Cleveland urban comedy festival. So I believe that shows some at least understanding of someone else's point of view, huh? All I'm asking is that you and some others in this thread be a bit more civil in your discourse and don't go off on me like you did-how am I supposed to respond? I don't mind being insulted, it's all part of the fun of this. But when I get called a dispassionate racist I take umbridge at that.
As to the poster who mentioned Carlos Mencia, I agree. The guys a hack, an alleged joke thief (don't wanna get sued), and he's not even Mexican.
When you are commenting on post about racism, and you start yourcomment with "Oh for gosh's sakes" and end it with "People please, take a breath," you are leaving yourself open to charges of being racist, or of at least being insensitive to racism.
No one knows your history. No one can see your body language or hear your tone of voice. Your screen name could either be ironic or it could be by-jingo, with-us-or-agin'-us. Yes, we do rush to judgment in comments, but it's kind of the nature of the beast.
By and large I tone my posts down these days, but occasionally (like today), I get my Italian up. I used to come on a lot stronger, and I didn't like the results.
I sometimes speak too before thinking. I guess what happened was my intention was misread from the beginning. That happens with the spoken word. I hate to give away the source of my screen name but it isn't jingoistic, believe me. It's a quote from my favorite comedic actor from a movie of his I happen to love. It's meant as sarcasm.
I pass the hat in peace.
Don't you mean the sombrero? LOL
Rimshot!
In comedy that's a "damn I wish I would have wrote that" response. Nice.
"I did not set the tone for this thread, Dave in Chicago did. Go back and look at his post immediately following my statement...I was not about to sit here and be insulted and called a racist..."
You've got a helluva lot of gall.
In your first post, BEFORE I responded, You said to everyone, "lighten up". You said "sombrero" was "hilarious". You said it was "funny". You asserted "it's not an ethic slam".
Basically, you rejected the entire existence of this Media Matters post, and for good measure called the slur "hilarious" and dismissed and mocked everyone's concerns about it.
So it was, in fact, YOU who set a provocative tone. Then you get perturbed when somebody has the sheer audacity to CONFRONT you about your opinion and QUESTION your sense of humor.
Excuse the hell out of me.
I extrapolated upon your "hilarious" comment, and asked "why not go all the way with stereotypes?". If one was funny to you, then why wouldn't even MORE stereotyping "jokes" be even funnier?
And another thing: I never said , OR implied you were "racist". To throw that accusation out here without any basis in fact says a lot about you.
Next time you visit a progressive web site and lob a grenade, try not to act shocked, SHOCKED! when you get challenged.
If you DON'T want challenges, maybe you should visit freerepublic.com.
I didn’t think it was meant to be an ethnic slam, frankly. But since some people believe that it is, well then I respect that.
My post was way way way higher in the responses than the place where it was when you first saw it, which took it a bit out of context, so to speak. I have to remember that response to particular posts move other ones down the chain.
This is your first response to me out of the gate.. “Then you wouldn't care if they Photoshopped Richardson in a big moustache actually throwing a sombrero while riding a donkey into a bull ring whilst swigging a Corona and listening to "La Cucaracha". I mean, why not go all the way with the sterotypes? If the sombrero's funny to you, then surely all the rest would be hilarious."
So that’s not making ANY assumptions about me, is it DUDE? Can you think of any more stereotypes to throw in there? Like “his donkey pulling a stolen car while his girlfriend stabbed anyone who got in the way?” You might as well go all the way as well.
“Basically, you rejected the entire existence of this Media Matters post, and for good measure called the slur "hilarious" and dismissed and mocked everyone's concerns about it.”
Oh please, I did no such thing and you know it. You ASSUMED that's what I was doing. Once I got one word out of my typewriter, I was defending myself. I do NOT make intellectually bankrupt argument such as you claim, nor do I dismiss anyone when I’m trying to have a discussion with them. You ought to check out some of my other posts.
“Then you get perturbed when somebody has the sheer audacity to CONFRONT you about your opinion and QUESTION your sense of humor.” Know what-had you said that out of the gate, instead of saying what you did, maybe the discussion would not have deteriorated as quickly as it did.
“Next time you visit a progressive web site and lob a grenade, try not to act shocked, SHOCKED! when you get challenged. "
Well, I seem to remember a post from you within the last month or so about how you were new here. I’ve been here longer so there. Nya Nya. I did not intentionally lob a grenade, I stated my opinion. But if I did lob a grenade, you pulled the pin."I feel there is an extra onus on us in the anti-racist commuity to be more vigilant than others in how we express ourselves."
That's rich, Valentinian. So now it's "anti-racist" to say that 'blacks" and "hispanics" can't make it in America? You're upside down, Val.
Toob, if you're going to bait me, you're going to have to come up with something better than the "soft bigotry of low expectations" canard.
GTT,
You're part of the problem that perpetuates racism and bigotry because you belong to a segment of conservatives that think as long as you pretend that a problem doesn't exist that it will go away. That's what Bush did with Iraq. For five years he said everything was on course, and we are on the road to victory. You people have got to face reality and take problems head on. Racism and bigotry still exists , and unfortnately there are still Americans that directly contribute to the problem and a sizable segment of Americans who indirectly contribute to it because they pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Both are equally responsible for perpetuating it. Here's a couple of examples of institutional racism that still exists and these examples aren't from from 1950.
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2006/09/07/0609060540.php
http://www.americamagazine.org/editorial.cfm?articleTypeID=3&textID=4875&issueID=578
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/national/27sentencing.html?ex=1259298000&en=fe5289b4d6eea27c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/national/27sentencing.html?ex=1259298000&en=fe5289b4d6eea27c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/HealthDisparities.pdf
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95300.asp
I know this is bit to consume at one time, and it's likely you won't even bother. In spite of these problems Blacks and Hispanics can make a decent life in the US and be successful, but lets not pretend that there is an even playing field because there isn't. We have come a long way from 1950, but their is still a ways to go.
Lynn,
I've finally come around to your way of thinking but not from your links. I guess I didn't want to admit it but you're right; racism is very much alive and well in America (at least in Long Beach, CA). See my earlier post.
GTT
I read your link and it is heartbreaking. Racism is an ugly hurtful thing and it can generate this kind of ugly violence. I'll be glad when we all evolve to a level where we can be offended by any type of bigotry regardless of who the perpetrators are. That's where I am and maybe one day you will catch up.
Evolve or devolve, Lynn? Aren't you the one that came up with the children's book glorifying the art of farting? Or was that Holly? I get you two mixed up.
GTT,
I don't know anything about the fart book of which you speak. BTW it's easy to distinguish between Holly and I, I'm the angry Black Chick and she's the White Feminist remember, that should help someone like you who thinks in right wing stereotypes. Colorblind my ass you’re a complete fool and you're way too silly for me to converse with any longer. Good bye troll.So you're the "angry Black chick" and I'm the one who's NOT color-blind? You're a very sad person. I truly hope you will be color-blind one day.
Hi Lynn...
This Comment by TOOBED Represents the Lowest and Most Despicable Representation of Conservatism that I have ever witnessed on this WebSite. Lower even than Whale Poop, and you can’t go lower.
I’m always looking for the brighter side of things though. The Positive Side of TOOBAD....UH......TOOBED is such, that I’m glad he’s here spreading his trash.
I’m serious! TOOBad’s party is self-destructing as we speak! Bush has the Lowest Rating in History for a State of The Union Speech. America has just rejected his war, his Senate and his Congress. TOOBad is all beat up on.
Then TOOBad comes marching in here like a desperado, to save his Cherished Republican Party from this “Far-Left Swamp Pit.” He not only failed, but he has with each comment, damaged his own party.
Take Care .. Lynn
Hi Sam,
You know I really do feel sorry for this guy/gal. Talk about delousional, he-she is living in an alternate reality. Hell I wish it were so. Imagine a world with no racism and bigotry, must be beautiful in his world.
All this should not come as a surprise . . . consider the source: it was a headline on the New York ComPost, the tabloid-sized print equivalent of Faux sNooze, owned by the same mogul, Rupert Murdoch . . .
I am proud of my Mexican heritage and I am offended. However, in a world where white people AND people of Mexican descent find collective joy in the retarded utterings of people like Carlos Mencia (he of the so-called "mind"), Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, et al., I am not surprised. Offended, but not surprised. I don't expect much of an objective treatment from this society's what I'm trying to say.
oh, oh. You shouldn't have used the word retarded.
Got everybody worked up over this and by Wednesday, it will be totally forgotten by the majority.
unfortunately for the "pc" crowd, the right to be "un-offended" is no where to be found in the constitution.
Try reading it sometime:
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ok,
So if the headline read "Richardson throws his maracas in the race"
is that racist or sexist or both?
>>"Well, I seem to remember a post from you within the last month or so about how you were new here. I’ve been here longer so there. Nya Nya."<<
I've been here since the first day of the site's inception. You're confused about who is who, apparently.
>>"nor do I dismiss anyone when I’m trying to have a discussion with them."<<
You dismissed us all, as well as Media Matters. To you, there was no problem with the "sombrero". In fact, it was "hilarious". Then you get a case of the vapors when you're challenged about it. I guess in your mind we're supposed to ask you, very politely, to tell us and Media Matters why we're all wrong in thinking it was an ethnic slur. And we should be sure not to "insult" you. Even though laughing hysterically at "sombrero" is considered by many to be an insult. No--the important thing is that YOU are not insulted. Right.
I posed a legitimate question, by the way: if "sombrero" is so amusing to you, then wouldn't even MORE stereotyped "humor" be even MORE amusing?I It's not an "accusation", it's a query, it's a challenge.
Lobbing a grenade is exactly what you did. It happens here all the time. Right-wingers post dismissive, provocative messages and then act surprised that people stand up to them. What did you expect? Act civil and you'll get a civil response. Order people to "lighten up" and you'll get the same sort of discourse in return. Again, if you want like-minded views from people who think "sombrero in the ring" is "hilarious", you'll find them at any number of right-wing sites. Not so much here.
macaca, anyone?
Seems to me one relevant question here is: "Would the Media make the same headline for a Republican candidate." In other words, are the puns not only stereotyping the man, but associating the candidate with immigration and so called "liberal" immigration policies.
It's a way of associating a candidate with policies he may or may not support, without, stating it directly.
The Obama headline is probably a clearer example of what may be going on here, and why it is important to point it out.
Are these papers conservative in nature? BTW. That's not a rhetorical quesiton... I really have no idea.
I am very liberal and I really don't have a problem with this headline - it was a "cutesy" play on words to grab your attention (which it did) and I don't think it was offensive.
Hi Nancy...
I grew up with hundreds of white conservatives in Texas and California. I grew up a racist with them. The only way they would Understand the Hurt of this Headline would be for them to be brown or be black or yellow and be forced to wear that Sombrero in front of all their teasing friends. After a rude awakenings and abusive insults they might begin to be more sensitive to our Fellow Hispanic American Citizens.
For Example:
My friends would say to their victims ... “Hey Pancho where’s your Sombrero?” “Where’s your Burro?” They would throw similar insults at the African Americans. I never felt good about it and finally said so. They didn’t care about anyones feelings. They never cared about PC or Manners, or Respect, or Anything.
My experience over 60 years has taught me that this Sombrero Headline is very insulting to our Hispanic Citizens. If you, Nancy are unaware of such facts, then I can just try to explain them the best I can. And I hopefully, it helps you to stop thinking it’s OK to hurting other Americans.
You’ll find some posters here who think they know it all. They are impressive on some topics but this time they are just very, very, insensitive, uncareing and wrong.
Your support of this Bad example of a “Cutesy” Headline Style as You Said, will just help to keep it in Style and used more often. If that’s your objective, then Hey .... Keep it coming! Freedom of Speech, Right?