Wash. Post's Robinson on O'Reilly: "[I]t was, at best, a casually racist remark"
During the September 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, discussing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's controversial September 19 remarks about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said of O'Reilly's comment: "[I]t was, at best, a casually racist remark." Robinson also said: "[W]hat really ticks me off is that when you say that, when you point that out, you know, immediately you get charged by O'Reilly and cohorts with, you know, you're the thought police, you're the thought Gestapo, you're the word Nazis, you're interfering with free speech, and somehow cutting off an honest debate about race. Well, tell me what in the year 2007 is debatable about whether or not black people can use a knife and fork. I don't think that's debatable at this point."
In addition, Robinson stated that O'Reilly "is a professional communicator who speaks to a couple of million people every night. You would think, you know, he's aware of what's coming out of his mouth and how it sounds." Robinson described O'Reilly's claim that CNN had "now entered the dark side" as "really tone-deaf" and added, "[I]f you're going to have an honest debate about race, maybe you ought to educate yourself a little bit and think about it a little bit before you start mouthing off."
From the September 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: So much for the exculpatory context. Let's turn now to Eugene Robinson, associate editor and columnist at The Washington Post, also a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. Gene, good evening.
ROBINSON: Hi, Keith, and let me warn you upfront, I'm -- even though I'm black, I'm going to speak standard English tonight. So I don't want you to be surprised or shocked, and I'm actually going to think for myself too, which -- I know you'll be stunned. But -- I mean, this is -- this is incredible, but this is O'Reilly, this is the guy.
OLBERMANN: And it's textbook prejudice. I mean, he expected something because of the color of people's skin. Doesn't matter if he was pleasantly surprised or had his prejudice reinforced. Is this the most insidious part of this that he doesn't know that that is racism, by definition?
ROBINSON: Well, you know I'm not going to go inside of Bill O'Reilly's head -- you know, is he racist, what does he know? You know, all I know is that it was, at best, a casually racist remark. But you know, what really ticks me off is that when you say that, when you point that out, you know, immediately you get charged by O'Reilly and cohorts with, you know, you're the thought police, you're the thought Gestapo, you're the word Nazis, you're interfering with free speech, and somehow cutting off an honest debate about race. Well, tell me what in the year 2007 is debatable about whether or not black people can use a knife and fork. I don't think that's debatable at this point.
OLBERMANN: Well, as for the attack part, he also defended NBC and the Today show in the broadcast this evening and attacked CBS and ABC. So this is all a very fluid situation from his point of view. Any port in the storm, apparently. Let me play devil's advocate on one part of this. I keep thinking of Al Campanis, the baseball general manager who 20 years ago on Jackie Robinson day said that black baseball figures did not have, in his terms, the neccessities to be team managers or executives, and he helpfully pointed out, just as they could not swim. Campanis grew up in this xenophobic immigrant community in New York, and he grew way past it. He was Jackie Robinson's first double play partner in the minor leagues, his first friend. He went into management, he hired the first black talent scouts and minor league coaches in the '50s. He was an advocate, but he had hit a wall that he didn't realize was there. I mean, are there similarities between him and the kind of O'Reilly prejudice where you may not mean something racist but you're doing it anyway?
ROBINSON: Well, I think, you know, one key thing you just said was 20 years ago --
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
ROBINSON: -- this was 1987. Look, Al Campanis, you could have sympathy for. He was in many ways a very sympathetic figure.Yeah, he hit a wall, but he genuinely didn't know it was there. He had grown up in a time where that sort of, you know, casual racism was accepted, you know, in polite society, and he was a baseball guy.
Bill O'Reilly is a professional communicator who speaks to a couple of million people every night. You would think, you know, he's aware of what's coming out of his mouth and how it sounds. And, again, it's the year 2007. You know, we should have been -- we should have gotten beyond this point, but apparently, in that thicket that is Bill O'Reilly's mind, we're still there somehow, trying to figure out, you know, black people: boy, they're starting to think for themselves now.
OLBERMANN: Yes. Would this have been tamped down with one of those phony "if anyone took offense, I apologize" apologies, or was this, like, a tipping point waiting to happen like the career of Don Imus?
ROBINSON: Well, you know, this isn't the first time that O'Reilly has, you know, has walked this line. But he's not a really apologetic guy --
OLBERMANN: No, right.
ROBINSON: -- that's not my impression, and I think that would not be true to who he is. So what would you expect him to do other than to kind of, you know, with his characteristic bluster tough it out and say everybody else is wrong, I'm right, and I'm the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy, which I guess you and I are participants at the moment. But there you have it.
OLBERMANN: Well, maybe not, because I'm with NBC, and we're on the good list today. But I've got to ask you this last thing: if you're trying to kill the messenger, is there something -- is it tone deaf, is it Freudian, or is it just unintentional comic relief when O'Reilly says of the critics, particularly the one at CNN who accused him of racism, that they have "now entered the dark side"? I mean, what the hell is that?
ROBINSON: That's really tone-deaf. And that was the headline on the website item as well. You know, again, you know, at the very least, really, really clueless. And if you're going to have an honest debate about race, maybe you ought to educate yourself a little bit and think about it a little bit before you start mouthing off.
OLBERMANN: Eugene Robinson, columnist and associate editor with The Washington Post. Even under these circumstances, always a pleasure, sir. Thank you.
ROBINSON: You too, Keith.
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
I really love Eugene Robinson. He's the type of pundit/journalist Juan Williams WISHES he can be!
The funny thing is that Robinson made there comments on the Olberman's show despite the fact that KO himself has been accused of racist comments re: Roscoe Parrish's "finest chicken and waffles" moment.
Uh-huh. And what do you make of that?
As I understand it, you're talking about an incident in which Olbermann, in his capacity as a sportscaster, referred to Roscoe Parrish as "Roscoe's House of Chicken 'n Waffles" -- which is a fairly well-known L.A. restaurant. John Gibson has apparently been suggesting that this is Olbermann's "Imus moment." This only suggests to me that Gibson has no idea why Imus' remarks were offensive.
MM is taking yet another day to harp on this? We got it.
There's no other explanation except MM is trying to drive O'Reilly off the air.
Did everyone notice that Juan Williams' remark, that this entire episode is "rank dishonesty," is being completely ignored in media coverage of this? And Williams actually participated in the original discussion on the radio.
This is textbook liberal media bias.
Shoes, what are you talking about? I would imagine that Williams has made several remarks in different venues about his interview with O'Reilly, so I don't know to which specific comments you're referring. But in this post, Media Matters DID include Williams' subsequent appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. (This is the appearance in which he called media coverage of O'Reilly's comments "rank dishonesty.")
So, again, what are you talking about?
"So, again, what are you talking about?"
Read my post again. I'm saying that the media, when covering this bogus story, is completely ignoring Juan Williams' remark, despite the fact that he was part of the discussion in which O'Reilly's comment took place. (For example, Paul Farhi's article in today's WaPo. Farhi, BTW, wrote an infamous (and inaccurate) hit piece on O'Reilly back in 2000.)
This is textbook lioberal media bias.
Please defend O'Reilly's remarks then. Why do you think he was surprised to see the restaurant like that?
If this is "trademark liberal bias" why was Rosie O'Donnell covered for months?
If there is such "liberal bias" in the media, point me to the station with more liberal shows than conservative. Point me to a major network where the executives give more to the Dems than the Republicans. Point me to a network that has been misrepresenting things to blatently smear and please provide examples.
Puh-leeze. The liberal bias in the media is simply undeniable. It is deep and pervasive, and solid facts, surveys, and studies back it up.
"Media Bias Basics"
On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.
So a group dedicated to marginalizing a segment of society is your proof? A group with admitted biases and the dedication to prove them come heck or high water? How funny. You are defending O'Reilly who along with Juan Williams and all the other hacks are claiming the left is trying to marginalize them, and your proof is a group dedicated to marginalizing liberals from the media. Oh, the irony!
Your source is the Media Research Center?
Who are you trying to fool here? I'm not sure there is a poster on this site who doesn't know that the MRC is full of crap.
You should apologize for insulting our intelligence
Wanna hear the funniest part?
The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.
I'm gonna pull an O'Reilly now and say they are taking us out of context.
I think that's a typo on their website.
It should be "molehill of circumstantial evidence".
Thomas Edsall was with the Washington Post for 25 years. Here he is in a radio interview last year.
In the same interview:
See? Even media veterans admit that the biases of the media are "overwhelmingly to the left"!
The media is controlled by editors and publishers who are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans.
Just because reporters are Democrats does not mean that their reporting is biased.
See? Even media veterans admit that the biases of the media are "overwhelmingly to the left"!
Well, I have to disagree with Edsall on the media having a liberal bias.
And the ratio of Democrats to republicans is meaningless if those Democrats are not presenting a liberal viewpoint. A lot of those Democrats in the media continuously use republican framing and republican talking points on issues.
So, what do you make of the Today show's new analysts Bill Donahue and their political guy Bill Kristol? Ann Coulter got a full show on Hardball. Name one liberal pundit who has had that privilege.
What about the neo-con who was recently fired from ABC? Did you hear much about his firing?
http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/09/special-repor-1.html
What about NBC's CEO giving money to Bush?
You still have not defended O'Reilly's statements, why?
"What about NBC's CEO giving money to Bush?"
What about it? Maybe you're unfamiliar of how news companies operate. A CEO does not edit, influence, or report the news. Editors and reporters do.
What about the new commentators? More "liberal bias?"
Think Rush's quote about soldiers will receive even a 10th of the coverage of Moveon.org?
If you can use quotes from a media guy to prove the media is biased, can I use a quote from the owner of Sylvia's to prove that O'Reilly said some insensitive things?
that is quite naive, especially in today's media merging world. If you want influence as an owner you just put a crony in charge. I suspect though, that you are just posting here to cause trouble when you might feel more comfortable with the cultic circle jerk you could get at FrontPage Magazine say. They won't question the liberal bias there.
Just because YOU have been brainwashed to believe it in no way means it has any real connection to reality
You have been asked several times to explain just how what was said should be taken as a compliment, yet you dance around the issue like a riverdance leprachaun. I guess it's standard reich wing practice to try to deflect when you can't prove your point.
Nice try.
So, can't answer the question, eh? Point proven.
I read your post. At your insistence, I read it again. And I'm still going to take issue with your specific charge:
"Did everyone notice that Juan Williams' remark, that this entire episode is "rank dishonesty," is being completely ignored in media coverage of this? And Williams actually participated in the original discussion on the radio."
Clearly Williams' remark was not completely ignored. You're simply wrong. Williams' defense of O'Reilly is receiving coverage here, on Fox, and on CNN. Perhaps you construe "the media" as not inclusive of the internet and two cable news networks...?
I think you are completely wrong that MM is trying to drive BO off the air. MM wants these pseudointellects like BO to continue there rants so they can continue to expose them so people that want to be educated with the truth can learn. I think MM realizes if BO goes there will just be another to replace him. I hope you are not the kind of individual who believes that if your company loses you that would not survive?
I have to disagree with you on this one. I assume and always have assumed that MM's goal is to see less conservatives on the air. I state this as a result of their support for laws that mandate the content of political radio broadcasts etc.
MM needs a victory in this area, because thus far they have shown themselves to be ineffectual. If O'reilly were to be forced off of mainstream media then MM would have a place in politically correct history.
Though, if they continue pushing trumped up charges like this, they are never going to succeed.
Wrong again, as usual.
MMFA is not trying to force O'Reilly off the air at all. Nope. Not once did I see where they said, "We want him off the air, and we want less conservatives off the air." Methinks you might want to read the mission statement of this site, and this organization once again. Putting conservative misinformation out there, along with their stupid rhetoric, and their silly words, and asking people that if they disagree with what those bloviators are saying to write to their sponsors, and their employers, is not the same as wanting them off the air. That you don't see the distinction, is not surprising to me at all really. I also don't remember where on here MMFA has encouraged laws to drive out conservative media, or has backed these "laws" (I assume you're talking about the so called Fairness Doctrine, which once again has not been brought up by any democratic Congressperson at all, or has anyone on the left side of the aisle in Congress made an approach on re-establishing that law).
No, sadly, Bill O will get fired if his employers disagree with what he said, or if they think that he stepped over the line, or if his sponsors pull their money off of his show, which most likely won't happen sadly. We'll have to keep hearing from Bill O for years. And remember, if he does get fired, it's not MMFA's fault at all. No indeed. It will be Bill O's fault for saying really stupid, and in this case, highly racist things on the airwaves that the American public own.
You are right Magnolia, that is unless the people start taking lessons from the conservative rule book on getting things DONE.
Instead of targeting the Fox Networks and its higher ups/owners, MM should be listing all the advertisers of the offending "liars" and "mis-info spouters" and their contact information, so all the people that don't like what is being said can contact the MONEY and tell them they will not be buying any products advertised during the showing of those lying and prejudiced shows.
Hello----it works and is working for the cons. GET A CLUE, TAKE A LESSON....IT WORKS.
MD,
What MMFA seems to be doing is to attempt to hold people accountable for distortions, lies, and inane comments.
What is wrong with holding people, especially those with a huge audience, to account for what they have said?
At first I was against MMFA driving this into the ground, but I don't mind as long as it PO's some of you clueless deniers. It is pretty funny to see you repeat the same old drivel in your posts.
Get some new material. A Fox "news" employee defending another Fox "news" employee isn't really "news" now is it?
It sounds to me as if you are buying into the right wing spin of this coverage when you say that they might have been giving too much coverage to this topic.
What I've seen Media Matters do is cover both new examples of conservative information and also new examples of agreement in the media to the stories covering those examples of conservative misinformation. That's why they cover Keith Olberman for example.
They aren't trying to bury O'Reilly with this coverage. The coverage is burying O'Reilly, and Media Matters is covering the coverage. They cover the denials by FoxNews, O'Reilly, et al, and they cover the debunkings that agree too. When new examples become available, they cover them.
Yesterday on his show, O'Reilly tried to claim that there were many media outlets that supported his position. The sources he cited were lukewarm, at best. He also minimized the number and the impact of those media outlets who highlighted his hypocrisy, false denials and prejudice. Lastly, he quoted from an wholly unscientific AOL poll that he had been driving traffic to all day as though that was an indication of him being correct.
There are clearly many in America who don't understand the insidious nature of prejudice and how it still colors the viewpoints of many in America. Since that's the case, there are lots of AOL users who wouldn't understand the 'casual racism' of O'Reilly's comments.
You are right. This is dragging out because Bill won't stop talking about it. He has become unhinged and won't even admit he was ham-fisted in his remarks. So much for his so-called honest conversation about race.
is being completely ignored in media coverage of this? And Williams actually participated in the original discussion on the radio
Why oh why is Juan being ignored? Could it be because he works for the same station as Bill and therefore must agree in order to keep his job? Could is be that although Fox thinks him so Juan is not the spokes-negro for all black folks?
Right on......
His comment was about marketing aproach by a business that wasn't slanted as it might be in an Italian rest. etc ........
And that whites shouldn't be afraid because of negative stereotypes that he and Williams were talking about...!
Well let's hope BillO is on the air for a long time. He is after all, the gift that just keeps on giving...and giving...and giving.
If push comes to shove I think a law needs to passed preventing the removal of BillO.
Juan is NOT the final word on the matter. All you do is repeat that bilge over and over without adressing what Billy O actually SAID.
Genghiz,
Care to refute that one?
I like the 4 pictures of O'Dirtbag...
Especially that second one where he looks tired and washed up. It's about time to head out to pasture Billy, maybe do a little yachting, or open a pitchfork boutique at Kennebunkport.
Speaking of O'Reilly's ignorance, another thing that amazes me is the impression is that this was probably the first time O'Reilly had been to a black restaurant. How old is O'Reilly? About 58? Here he is pontificating repeatedly about black culture and he's never even eaten around black people...except perhaps Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice? Uhhh, Bill, it would help if you actually knew what you were talking about sometimes...like, you know, if you had some personal experience beyond what you see on television. What a joke...!
Irony, BilldO might go through the drive-thru at Popeyes when he's on the road, and look through the windows. Probably as a sort of "adventure".
What's pathetic is that this guy speaks as an authority on such topics...and his viewers/listeners just lap it up.
And from who's trough do you feed?
The trough of truth and knowledge of good and evil. Join us, there's plenty of room, the other half of America is feeding at Fox.
And thank you for the acknowledgement and confirmation.
I don't feed from a trough, but I have eaten at a few black restaurants so, fortunately, I don't need Bill O'Reilly's enlightenment in that regard. But, wow, what a journalist Bill is! Fifty-eight years old and he's finally rubbed elbows and broken bread with black people, AND concluded that black people are not only capable of acting normal but some of them may be able to think for themselves. What a scoop...! Maybe a Pulitzer is in order for Billo.
Seeing as O'Reilly claims to speak with authority about African-American culture, yet he's surprised that Sylvia's is a normal restaurant... doesn't that whole "Culture Warrior" shtick of O'Reilly's suddenly seem a whole lot more ominous now?
I ate at a redneck bbq joint in west texas once. Not quite a trough, but there sure were a lot of pigs there.
O'Reilly forgot to mention that no one was barefoot; no one was swinging from the chandeliers; and there was no wrestling of lions or other vicious beasts.
"You know, all I know is that it was, at best, a casually racist remark."
That is truly funny -- Zen and the Art of Racism.
Like being slapped with a velvet glove.
I'm no O'Reilly fan, but this a trumped-up charge. He was making an observation about the disconnect between the media-projected image of black culture (thuggish hip hop artists, etc.) and his own experiences of it. But don't worry, MM will get their scalp. One day, in a perfect future, all speech will be filtered through MM and be approved or rejected in real time. Then we won't have to go through these ugly, protracted, and inefficient smear campaigns.
Or...maybe we're already there and O'Reilly was just a bug in the system. Who knows? In any case, I think we can all agree that it will be better when we don't have to read, or hear, or think about anything that remotely upsets us.
So let me ask this: What was O'Really expecting to observe in Sylvias that - after seeing a normally run restaurant filled with respectful and courteous patrons - he still couldn't get over the experience days later?
Do you think he's finally over it now, or does the vision of blacks behaving civilized still haunt him?
And by the way, it's "prejudice", not "racism".
Nothing trumped up about this O'falafel was hoist on his own petard. When he so condescendingly wants to explain to us that, what a SHOCK, negative racial stereotypes werent true then proceeds to feed us a few of them its patronizing beyond belief. Suppose a liberal political talk show host had William F Buckley on and said the media portrayal of you conservatives isnt true. I have been talking to a few conservatives lately and you know you arent all a bunch of inbred neandrathal knuckledraggers. I didnt hear one of you talk about dating your sister and often you talked in complete sentences just like any other educated person. Are you telling me conservatives wouldnt be screaming so loud it would knock the Earth out of its ORBIT? Of course they would and they would have every reason to. THIS is the kind of bigotry O'Rielly showed
The problem with your analogy is that, while conservatives are not portrayed by the media in an overwhelmingly negative way, you can make a good argument that African-Americans are. O'Reilly was trying to say, in a terribly awkward way, that if you are a white person not regularly exposed to real black culture, you could be under the impression that it's all about bling, misogyny, violence and profanity, since that's how MTV depicts it. His larger point is that these high profile black rappers and corrupt sports stars, etc, are doing a disservice to the majority of blacks who are decent people, by creating a negative, stereotypical image of black culture that is terribly at odds with reality (what he reported from Sylvia's by way of example.)
He wasn't saying HE was shocked by the normalcy of the experience, he was saying that if all you had to go by was the media portrayal of black culture YOU WOULD be shocked. You can debate this point, but it isn't a racist or prejudicial point. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of getting this, because it requires: 1.) The ability to critically and stoically analyze an emotionally charged situation and, 2.) The ability to set aside your hatred for an enemy (Bill O) and use reason instead of anger to come to a conclusion. It's much easier (and safer!) to just call him a bigot and pass out the torches.
I doubt very seriously you can teach me anything about analysis. And YES he WAS talking about what HE thought. He said DIRECTLY "I CANT GET OVER" That Sylvias is like every other restaurant so maybe YOU should take your analyzing in for a check up. You are also flat out WRONG about the 'media' portraying blacks that way. Gansta Rap is NOT representative of media. You do NOT get the pervasive negative stereotypes O'Rielly portrayed from the MEDIA only from fringe elements within it. Only the already bigoted would have the stereotypical image of black patrons of a restaurant or of a black owne restaurant O'Rielly was talking about. And give up your attempts to mind read my motives. Here is a clue. YOU CANT READ MINDS. Billy O patronizingly informed us what any non bigot with the sense God gave a garden slug already knows and said DIRECTLY he couldnt get over Sylvias being like any other restaurant. NEXT time you want to lecture ME on analyzing something you OUGHT to try to do a decent analytical job of your own. THIS one didnt pass muster.
it was, at best, a casually racist remark
Oh, it was casually racist!
Well...that changes everything! Why didn't you say so? For a second there I was actually concerned.
Casually racist?
I'm sure glad we cleared that up.
Whew! That makes it so much better. If it had been anything but casually racist, we might have a problem on our hands. But since Bill O'Reilly is only casually racist, we'll give him a pass.
Go on home everyone; nothing to see here...
I'm not sure but I think you're misinterpreting Robinson's position. He's not defending O'Reilly. He saying the best case scenario is that O'Reilly comments were casually racist.
That should be "He's saying".
I think you may be right.
If that's the case, then I humbly withdraw my comment.
Sorry. It's really freakin' late.
Hi, Bill O'Reilly here with a new segment, our weekly O'Reilly Restaurant Review:
So, here we go. Okay, Sylvia's. Now for those of you who don't know, this is a black owned restaurant--but don't let that stop you from eating there. It's not your usual black restaurant. There was more on the menu than chicken necks and watermellon. And at least while we were there, I didn't see one crime being commited. People could be doing their drug deals in the back away from restaurant patrons, I don't know. But, if they are, it's a nice touch to keep that element away from the folks.
The staff, they were clean and friendly, and the food was good. Everything you would expect from a regular restaurant. Coudn't get over it, couldn't. No one was like... rapping, no yelling profanity, it was just a nice casual dining experience like you get in good neighborhoods. Just so suprising, I couldn't get over it. Couldn't wait to tell white folks all about it. I assume black folks already know about it.
Now, when you go down there, make sure you go with a black friend, so they know you're not there to cause trouble or anthing. Just safer that way. You know what I mean. See, this is what happens if you force the blacks off welfare, and make 'em work. Sooner or later a couple of them will succeed, and word gets around. Before you know it, they start thinking for themselves, and realize they can be productive members of society, just like most whites.
Next week, we'll review ElAzteco's and, we'll give you the lowdown on their food from south of the border. . . Hmmmm, I wonder if it was smuggled in by illegals? Just kidding!
I'm Bill O'Reilly reminding you the spin stops here 'cuz we're looking out for you.
Brilliant.
Finally, O'Really?'s comment in context...
Very nice.
Watch out for Bill O'Reilly's next book:
Negroes: So Like Us.
I don't have five minutes for O'R, but I think this controversy is crap. He made it clear he was trying to make white people who have racist attitudes toward Blacks understand that their concepts are inaccurate. He said that many people in the US would be surprised to find the cultural level of a Harlem restaurant to be as elevated as it can be. Certainly, not all are.
I have been all over the US during the 65 years I have been alive and, just as with restaurants in all other ethnic neighborhoods (particularly in Red Neck country), the civilization can be vapor thin. I have been in many restaurants in areas where one or another ethnicity was dominant and feared for my welfare, and that of other people, during the visit due to the aggressive and potentially violent behavior of denizens therein. Unfortunately, many of those places were in Black neighborhoods. To suggest that any person is racist who admits that there is danger and disgust associated with encountering a sizable proportion of the Black American population is just silly. It is equally silly to brand every admission of surprise at finding polite behavior toward Blacks on the part of Southern Whites to be racist. Both Whites and Blacks have earned reputations they need to recognize, and live down.
If you felt threatened going into the restaurant, why did you stay?
The difference between "casual" racism, and just plain old, every day, "racism"........
"To suggest that any person is racist who admits that there is danger and disgust associated with encountering a sizable proportion of the Black American population is just silly." Jim.Bishop
So, it' "silly" to suggest, that anyone who says there is danger and disgust associated with encountering a sizable portion of the Black American population, is a racist????
Silly me.......
And I almost forgot this example:
"I have been in many restaurants in areas where one or another ethnicity was dominant and feared for my welfare, and that of other people, during the visit due to the aggressive and potentially violent behavior of denizens therein. Unfortunately, many of those places were in Black neighborhoods." Jim Bishop
It's not that I don't believe you, but you went to "many" restaurants..."many" Black neighborhoods and dominant ethnic areas, AND in each case feared for your life and the life of others....from potentially violent and agressive behavior "of denizens therein"???????
At any point during your many visits to these life threatening, dominate ethnic areas, did you ever think that maybe you should find a difference place to eat? Sorry, but your story just doesn't ring true.
It's because it's not. He was more likely in a biker bar and had to project to cover up the real villians.
Yes, silly you.
It is clear that walking down the street in many places in the United States and meeting a group of African Americans is often dangerous, for anyone, Black or White. It is also dangerous for an African American to walk through many places in white neighborhoods. To deny that is...well...silly. Lots of White and Black people are disgusting when their behavior, level of education, and attitudes are considered. The call a person racist for saying so is also stupid, and wrong factually. I'll go with Chris Rock on the subject.
See that is where we disagree to me anyone who would casually admit that:
there is danger and disgust associated with encountering a sizable proportion of the Black American population
Is a racist. I think that is obvious. To pretend its dumb to say someone is racist for admitting they feel that way is silly. It is pretty much a textbook DEFINITION of racism. See most of us dont go to KKK meetings and find wearing hooded sheets disgusting. I urge you to visit us here in the 21st Century. It really isnt that bad a place
This is from a NY Times article:
"This is what white America doesn't know"
No, Bill, this is what YOUR AUDIENCEdoesn't know. Please don't confuse all of "white America" with that narrow-minded band of goobers who religiously listen to your every word.
Ok, MMFA, drop it already! The witch hunt is making you look like left-wing loonies (read: exposing who you REALLY are). Bill O'Reilly did NOT make a racist remark AT ALL.
Of course he did. We all heard it.
Ok, I'll play along.....WHAT exactly did he say that qualifies as RACIST?
Keep up the good work MMFA!don't be dissuaded by trolls and race anxious apologists.
Racism is in the eye of the beholder, and unfortunately a sizeable part of the population have cataracts.
O'Reilly's comments were insulting to us blacks but the majority of us ignore him since he is no different than other most latent racist. He's the norm not the exception any many of our eyes, particularly among the older generation who begrudgingly accepted civil rights initiatives.
Your post however doesn't warrant a response other than that. You seem to be offended that he was exposed as a ignoramus and now you want MMFA to cut and run.
I don't think so.
Oh, c'mon, name jacker. It's been posted at least a thousand times now what exactly was racist about what he said. I'd ask you to get over your denial, but some troll who purposely steals another person's moniker really doesn't have a conscience, do they?
Maybe you're right. All Billo was trying to do was to convey to his dumbass, cracker audience that black folks are just like white folks. And Billo had overwhelming proof: He went to a black restaurant and not one black person yelled "Hey, motherf*cker, gimme some iced tea!" To understand Billo one must regard him in the context of his narrow-minded audience. Billo better watch it though...having dinner in Harlem and defending blacks makes him sound more like a secular progressive than a real culture warrior. Oooops...wonder how many of his audience are wondering what the hell Billo's doing having dinner with Al Sharpton in the first place.
All Billo was trying to do was to convey to his dumbass, cracker audience that black folks are just like white folks.
Well, now we ALL now what YOU are. Now, please, tell me what BillO said that qualifies as a racist statement, please. Back up your claim.
I never used the term racist...I said Billo was trying to convey to his dumb, cracker audience the notion that blacks are okay beause they don't scream "Hey, motherf*cker..." in their restaurants and they get all dressed up to go hear Anita Baker sing. I also said that for someone who makes millions as a communicator Billo sure says some pretty stupid things and apparently has a limited frame of reference from which to purportedly speak authoratatively on cultural matters.
So, I'm confused, do you agree that he made NO racist comment?
I have heard Bill O'Reilly denounce hip=hop culture and imply that hip-hop culture is what defines black culture. Now, if Bill O'reilly was surprised to learn that blacks don't yell "Hey, motherf*cker...iced tea" at their restaurants or that blacks get dressed up to hear Anita Baker then I would say that he has been operating under some terribly flawed assumptions. You decide whether that constitutes racism. My point is that Bill O'Reilly is dumb to have expressed himself the way he did. However, as I pointed out, one must consider Billo's audience. Most intelligent "progressive" people in the year 2007 don't have to be told that black people are really just like white people. Apparently, though, Billo's audience didn't know that and had to be enlightened by their cultural expert. And, lastly, if Billo, at age 58, is just now going to a black restaurant and learning some of the things of which he spoke, he must not be the cultural authority he professes to be.
Sounds like he's just culturally ignorant. I'll buy that. But not racist.
We should be careful when we roll out the term "racist". Most of the time it doesn't apply. We should save it for those rare incidents of true racism. We're diluting the term when we misuse it.
And I seriously doubt that Billo's audience is a bunch of blithering idiots. It's been revealed through MANY surveys that people who listen to talk radio (right or left) are extremely intelligent, informed people.
"It's been revealed through MANY surveys that people who listen to talk radio (right or left) are extremely intelligent, informed people."
Oh, please... In these surveys if you can correctly identify the Vice-President and the Secretary of State you're considered "informed". And as for education, when I was at LSU David Duke was a student who gave racist tirades at Free Speech Alley. There are a lot of bigoted, narrow-minded, "educated" people out there...and I'd bet a lot of them fall into that rabid right wing 30% that watches FOX.
....or you could simply be wrong.
I may not always be right about everything but I've heard enough of Bill O'Reilly to know that he is nothing more than a self-promoting fraud. Judging from the fact that he has a large audience I can only conclude that his audience must not be very bright.
And, further, I have seen enough of FOX to know that FOX is not a legitimate source of news and information. FOX's sole purpose is to reinforce the extreme right wing beliefs of the Republican base...roughly 30% of the country. As long as the Republican Party can hold on to that 30% base, and keep them riled up enough to vote, then all it needs is another 21% to win elections. That is why FOX exists.
I won't disagree with you about O'reilly. He's pretty buffoonish (that's a new word that I just made up, copyright).
As to your opinion of FOX, fair enough. Although a conservative viewer would draw the same conclusion about CNN, don't you think?
I think that CNN sometimes suffers from what ALL news channels, and even network news shows, do...lapses of competence. On the other hand I have regularly seen brilliant, in-depth, extremely informative reports on CNN and MSNBC, which I have never seen on FOX. FOX is a propaganda machine disguised as a news network...sorry. Channel surf every night for a week and watch what important stories FOX does NOT cover, for example.
He's pretty buffoonish (that's a new word that I just made up, copyright).
FYI - Googling the word "buffoonish" yields 112,000 hits. Good luck with that copyright.
Funny! Plus you can't copyright a word.
Oh, too funny. I saw several research topics that says people who watch anything on the fox news network are more misinformed than the general population. Y'all are just plain dumb.
And I stand corrected, you didn't make that claim. 3 am, man. Give me a break.
Olbermann said it best:
And it's textbook prejudice. I mean, he expected something because of the color of people's skin. Doesn't matter if he was pleasantly surprised or had his prejudice reinforced. Is this the most insidious part of this that he doesn't know that that is racism, by definition?
And, apparently, neither do you.
Bush Lies, have YOU ever in your, pardon my french, lillywhite life ever been subject to racism?
Paint your face Black or speak with a Hispanic accent or put on a tee shirt that says "I'm gay and proud" and experience racism first hand. Otherwise your just background static.
So, let me get this straight. Unless I'm part of a minority or special interest group, I can't speak about racism? Then maybe you can educate me. Or can you? Have you ever experienced racism?
And you made reference to my "lillywhite" life. How very prejudicial of you........or is my webcam on?
BTW, how is a tee shirt that says "I'm gay and proud" going to help me experience racism?
It is pretty obvious from your naive point of view that you haven't experienced racism - and are likely white. It was an assumption to be sure, but it seems reasonable.
Gays experience discrimination like most minorities. It should be pretty obvious what Pearlene was alluding to even though she wasn't entirely precise in her word choice. Are you always this disingenuous?
Open, of course Bushie is being disingenuous. He could not answer the question so he dodged it or maybe he truly is ignorant to racism.
I truly appreciate Eugene Robinson. He is truly if one of the few REAL journalist around.
All day long on the Bill'O threads I have read posts from people who have defended Bill , explaining that we just did not understand what he meant or that black folks are just to dumb to realize a compliment when they hear one or as one brilliant poster stated we should be grateful that he allows black folks to live in his neighborhood and if we don't behave we will certainly be removed.
I'm 73 years old and for more years than I'd care to remember black folks have been treated as if we were some toxic poison by some in America. We have been shunned because of our color, made fun of because of our hair and looks, ridiculed for our speech and language. When we move into better neighborhoods, white folks move out. So we have learned as a race of people to get a better education, work harder for better jobs, take pride in all that we have achieved while teaching our children that the past will not own you and our future is ours to determine. Yet here we are in 2007 still listening to racists and ignorant statements made by people who have not achieved many of the accomplishments black folks have. Still having to explain why hanging a noose is not nor has it ever been a sign of greeting nor a prank along the line of flag burning. Still having to explain that we've been eating in restaurants with a tablecloth, china, knife and fork for quite a long time.
I feel sorry. Not for myself as an 73 year old African American woman. No I feel sorry for Bill and friends. To have to go through life that ignorant is a sad sad situation. I feel sorry for the kids in Jena and elsewhere who still believe that a piece of rope still gives them power. My deepest symphony goes to Juan Williams and others who don't have the ability nor the ba**s to stand up as individuals and speak freely even after so many have died to give them that right. This again is truly a sad day.
Can blacks blame the white man for 1/3 of black males under age 30 either on probation, parole, or in prison? Can blacks blame the white man for the skyrocketing numbers of homicides against black males by black males? Why are black kids underperforming in school? Why are 70% of black children born to single mothers? The facts are that blacks are the blame for much of this. The fortunate thing is that black people have the ability and power to solve these issues if they admit that they are part of the problem instead of taking the easy route of pointing the finger at a culturally ignorant white man. Why is that so hard to do?
Now, tell me, is that a racist diatribe?
Well that depends. IF you think those things are because of some inherent inferiority of black people yes its a racist rant. If you refuse to factor in the effect of POVERTY in those numbers then I would say you really arent even TRYING to understand what is really going on. What are the statistics for black single motherhood or homocides among affluent Blacks? Are they significantly higher or are those statistics SKEWED by the fact a larger statistic number of blacks live in poverty? In inner cities? Bald statistics really arent usually that helpful since they can say many things. They ARE helpful for racists who want support for what they want to believe.
I think all of those things are due to cultural influence. It's good to see that you are keen to the definition of racism. Not many people are that informed.
BTW, that rant was written by a black high school student from East St. Louis.
Cultural influence. That's cute. Back in the day it use to be "biological inferiority," now conservatives say "cultural influence" since that's more media-friendly and convert to hide ones racism. Typical Reaganite tactic. "Cultural influence" is the same buzzword Charles Murray used in his racist crypto-Nazis screed "The Bell Curve." Stephen Steinberg traced where this whole "cultural influence" talking point started from in his powerful article The Liberal Retreat From Race.
First, anyone who has read "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol can understand WHY kids in poor, failing school systems give up and drop out. When many fail to support inner-city schools that lack basic textbooks and punish schools for their own poverty through "No Child Left Behind," there's no wonder both teachers and students lose their motivation to learn and achieve.
Second, "cultural influences" reflects your lack of awareness of racial exclusion and privilege. The life choices you are afforded and made privy to are VASTLY different than those of a kid who grows up in a failing public school system that doesn't offer basic math/reading skills, much less the AP courses and college prep curriculum most of us in "white flight" suburbs could choose from. Not to mention the luxury that many from the suburbs enjoy: the opportunity to choose from private colleges where yearly tuition exceeds the average salary of an American parent. Students in poor schools don't have access to the college board exam prep classes and are particularly disadvantaged in math and science, which hurt their preparation to succeed in these career-track majors in college (not to mention in college admissions). Their teachers and school counselors (they may not have a "college counselor") suggest community colleges or trade schools, if they suggest any further schooling at all based on unfairly low expectations.
It's hard to succeed in college when your high school lacks the resources to prepare you for the rigor and advanced background assumed in college coursework. It's hard to catch up and it requires THAT much more work to even have a chance to compete. This isn't an excuse; it's a reality that's unfair to many bright students who don't receive the proper mentoring and support well-to-do students take for granted.
Until you have had experience in rising above "whatever," save the patronizing Pollyanna sentiments. The language of choice is an implicit moral condemnation -- there are lots of kids who CHOOSE to follow the right path who are continually underestimated, unrewarded, and eventually frustrated by the continual racism in this country that views African-Americans as intellectually and academically inferior.
most of US in "white flight" suburbs could choose from
I mean to say "most of those" because I'm certainly not from the suburbs.
I took the original "us" to mean "society", a nice nod toward us homelandians as an entity.
Excellent comment, by the way.
Preston, well said. I guess my HS English wasn't up to par for little bushie
Thanks Pearl and Neon. I appreciate the kind words. :)
BTW, that rant was written by a black high school student from East St. Louis
That rant was written by a high school student but I must give you some background. I did indeed graduate high school at age 25. You see I made a mistake, one that many young woman make. I had two children out of wedlock at age 18 & 21. Should I be ashamed? Hell No I love my children and according to right-wing pro-life folks I did the right thing (not that I needed their approval). I got married at age 24 to a wonderful man, had a child with him ( I also battled breast cancer and won). With 3 girls I did not want them to make the same mistakes I had made in my life so I went back to school and got my HS diploma. I wanted my 3 girls to understand that just because you make mistakes does not mean you cannot change. My youngest daughter who is 48 says her favorite picture of our family was taken when I got my diploma. Even though I ONLY got my high school diploma I put those 3 girls through college. Each one received a degree, Calf. State Dominguez Hills, St Olaf and UCLA. Guess having JUST that high school diploma wasn't so bad. I don't owe you an explanation for sh*t but I decided to give you something that you have not achieved, knowledge from life's experiences.
IMO, your posts reflect a man who has been brainwashed into thinking that all of life's problems for black people lie at their feet and you are partially right we do have some of the responsibility for some of the issues facing our race. But many of the struggles that have shaped black America lie at the feet of white America. You should really look back at the history of this country to gain the knowledge that you so obviously lack.
What an inspiring lifestory! Reminds me of my grandparents. They dropped out of high school and eloped in the 1940s, and went back to get their diplomas 30 years later.
Pearl, you're such an inspiration, sister! Thanks for sharing that. You're one remarkable woman and I hope you continue posting here, for we can all learn many things from your wisdom. :)
Isnt Pearl a jewel? I love her posts. Such heart and insight
She sure is. I hope when I get to be her age I can be HALF as smart as her.
If you think poverty is a result of cultural influence then you are dipping into the well of racist thinking. I dont care who wrote it. First if you think someone cannot harbor racist attitudes against blacks you are not understanding the dynamics that can cause JUST THAT. The character Uncle Tom was created to show exactly that dynamic. Second what was written was making a broad statement that made a decent point that to address carefully and intelligently needs to look into the many, MANY specific factors that were glossed over in that broad statement. Notice I didnt say what was written was inherently racist. It just wasnt the whole story
Those are good questions which should be discussed, but we refuse to discuss them. Let's not talk about slavery, but its legacy and aftermath. Let's talk about America in our life times and how the psycho-social impact institutional racism has had on the black community. Let's talk about unequal applications of justice and a new paradigm in the job market where "fit" with the team trumps job qualifications and education (see NYC advertising industry stats).
We'll never move past these issues while the GOP has significant sway. Too bad we just didn't allow the South to secede, our national IQ would have jumped about 100 points.
Can blacks blame the white man for 1/3 of black males under age 30 either on probation, parole, or in prison? Can blacks blame the white man for the skyrocketing numbers of homicides against black males by black males? Why are black kids underperforming in school? Why are 70% of black children born to single mothers?
Of course individual people need to be held accountable for their actions, however to suggest that BLACKS are responsible for these circumstances is ridiculous.
Whites are responsible for slavery. They're also responsible for the lingering problems engendered by the sharecropping in the south. Whites are also responsible for segregation that held those black children and adults back. Whites are also responsible for their flight from public schools in the south when schools had to be desegregated. Whites in power are also responsible for the insufficient taxes collected and dispersed to many Southern states so that they have the lowest contribution to programs that raise the level of education and welfare of the poorest in those states.
Blacks are not responsible for those problems. People in power in America are responsible. The majority in America unwilling to help the minorities in America is responsible.
Top that off with the issue that it's poverty, and not the color of their skin, that's the unifying factor in all those issues you list, and you have lost this argument.
The color of their skin does not mandate those problems. The lack of a family history of enough wealth and the lack of their individual wealth puts them behind the eight ball. Some are capable of overcoming those bad odds. To suggest that there is something inherently wrong with blacks because more of them don't overcome those odds is undeniably racist.
Awww, the poor lil' black gangbanger being victimized by white America. So sad. Society OWES lil' black gangbanger for forcing him to sling rocks on the street corner and murder his rival lil' black gangbangers. Lil' black gangbanger is so contrite for his crimes, he makes gangsta rap "music" that glorifies all of the criminal and anti-social behavior that white man has forced him to engage in. Meanwhile, Al and Jesse continue the "WE'VE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED!!" campaign, ensuring that they stay in business in perpetuity.
getreal4once,
Thanks for painting the perfect picture of an INGORANT White America
Of all the words to spell correctly when attacking someone, IGNORANT is probably at the top of the list. What is truly ignorant is the victim-hood ideology, which is championed by the left in this country. There is not a person of any race alive today, who was born in America,who has experienced slavery. To continue the constant drumbeat of "WE'VE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED" ensures the race pimps Al and Jesse lifetime employment, and that is why they stand out there with a bullhorn shouting in front of any camera they can find. For the rest of us, it ensures more racial strife. The victims of lil' black gangbanger are truly the disenfranchised.
Since all of us at one time spell words incorrectly your comment does not bother me at all. The fact that you point that out makes you appear petty and not really interested in engaging in an honest debate.
I have not heard of "victim-hood" ideology expressed by anyone I know. I have heard that phrase used on shows such as O’Reilly, Hannity and Rush. Of course I didn’t take that seriously considering the source.
For you to deny that slavery has played a vital part in Black America is truly stupid. Because there are no living slaves does no mean that America became the land of equal opportunity with the end of slavery. Do you think that the 60's have played no role in Black America? You do remember, that's when Black Americans fought along with many white Americans for the right to vote, for Black Americans that is, white Americans were already voting. Or we could go on to the 70's when many thought that busing was the answer to the problem of equal education for black children. It was thought that if white kids were bused to the inferior black school that would force school districts to improve all schools. So you see, slavery is not the only problem that black Americans have faced in this country.
The type of black America that you speak of is not the black America that I live in. Your phrases sound like they come directly from the mouths of Bill, Sean and Rush. You call Rev. Sharpton and Jackson race pimps. Why would you feel the need to mention them regarding black people. Who appointed them to speak for ALL black people? Black folks surly didn’t take vote. Who decided that black folks needed a leader? I certainly don’t need a leader, I am perfectly capable of thinking all on my own. The truth is some white Americans (Bill, Sean and Rush) appointed Rev. Sharpton and Jackson in the role of leaders.
It is you who paints a picture of black folks as gang-banging disenfranchised. Where did you get that imagine? Is that all you’ve seen and all of your knowledge of black people? You should expand your horizons to realise that gang-banging is a small part of black America exploited by the likes of Bill, Sean and Rush just like the Klan is a small part of white America.
First , I was responding to a question in Mapletooties post asking whether blacks can blame whites for black men being locked up, blacks murdering blacks, school dropout rates, black children born out of wedlock, etc. There was then an explanation that started, "Whites are responsible for slavery." That is the victim-hood mentality. There is not a white person alive today that is responsible for slavery. Whites are to be held responsible for events that happened in another lifetime according to you and maple.
Like all Myrmidons, you brush aside anyone with a different opinion as a brainwashed moron incapable of independent thought. What a lazy way to defend your argument. Pearlene, I doubt that you have ever been denied the right to vote. But to listen to Al and Jesse, you would think disenfranchisement is still alive and strong. The (white) government is to blame, of course. Blacks again being victimized by whites.
I, as a white man, do not feel one ounce of responsibility or guilt for events that began and ended long before I was born. Slavery is a sorry stain on our nations history. Blaming whites, who may or may not be descendants of slave owners, by blacks today, who were never slaves themselves, is futile and only perpetuates the misery. I'm sorry if my views don't fit into the leftist P.C. template, but blacks in 2007 cannot blame another race of people for their own shortcomings, as mapletooties does.
At first I was going to avoid you because I normally brush aside cold-hearted, smug, “blacks-need-to-get-their-sh*t-together-and-stop-blaming-whitey” posters such as yourself. Whenever I see words such as “victimhood” and “personal responsibility” it shows to me that you’re a neo-con robot. However, you’re starting to really annoy me, so I’m going to respond.
Racism will continue to exist because Internet racists like you, when confronted with overwhelming factual evidence and history, will continue to downplay racism as unimportant - and it is because you choose to downplay it that makes you more likely to practice it, since you simply do not care. Your lack of feeling and lack of human value towards other races is the very reason why you have chosen to be ignorant of history. It is only through learning about the roots of the racial paradigms that exist today will people ever gain the human sensitivity towards other races.
By knowing the roots of racism, people will actually begin to see the sufferings of other cultures and they will also know why historically oppressed/enslaved cultures are at a severe disadvantage today. And it is through that understanding of other cultures' sufferings caused by colonialism will people be able to gain the honesty and humanity to fight racism in today’s' world. Sadly, since you have chosen to be ignorant, you have become apathetic. And because of your apathy, you are consciously or subconsciously participating in the maintenance of hidden racism in today's society.
No matter how study, after study, AFTER study has shown racism today is a product of elitism - elitism maintained by a White-run system of control; a system that is traceable back to centuries of European Imperialism, as what the initial sources also address - people such as yourself reject any historical context and hold the antidotal notion that the problems facing blacks today are of their own doing. This is what many sociologists calls "blaming the victim."
You see, the people in this generation have been historically conditioned. white people, just like black people, and Asian people, and Native Americans, Latinos, etc., are really just victims of history itself. Many of us are not even consciously aware that we are conditioned, and we are not even consciously aware that we could be racist for that matter. The generation today is not to feel guilty of the past, but to be AWARE of it. You see, we had nothing to do with the past, but we must make sure that we NOT to become ignorant of it. If we become ignorant and self-righteous, then we become defensive and illogical. Choosing to be ignorant of the past will only lead to the path of racism and cold-heartedness towards other races. You are a perfect example of that.
Nice speech, professor. There still isn't anything either one of us can do to change what happened in the past.
There is not a person of any race alive today, who was born in America,who has experienced slavery.
The effects of slavery and segregation are alive and well in America. There are still a lot of racists out there and yours and O'Reilly comments prove it. These racist perceptions of Black people by Whites and other groups (including some Blacks) are not helping the situation. There is an internal struggle within the Black community and still we have to deal with the persistent nuisance of racism [in the year 2007]. Once racism is eliminated, it would be much easier for Black Americans to deal with any problems within their community.
To continue the constant drumbeat of "WE'VE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED" ensures the race pimps Al and Jesse lifetime employment
Racists and bigots give them power. If you stop the racism then they can't pimp themselves.
The victims of lil' black gangbanger are truly the disenfranchised.
Why didn't you say the victims of any criminal are truly the disenfranchised?
Sure because there are no such things as real victims in the world today. Black people werent denied good jobs for a century AFTER slavery. Good blue collar jobs that are so much easier to get if your father or uncle had them. They werent denied loans that would allow them to move out of inner cities. WAIT, yes they were. And THAT kind of institutional racism HAD consequences it will take a LOOOONG time to overcome. Today I have one of those good union jobs. Do you know how FEW blacks I work with? ALL of them young. Now this SHOULD eventually work its way out but to pretend it already has is just plain ignorant.
It must be terrible to be so full of fear.
Peace be with you.
So he talks about poverty and you go directly to gangbangers. An actual characiture of redneck stupidity. Thank you, it is good to be reminded Einstein was right when he said there are only two things that are infinite. The universe and human stupidity and I am not too sure about the universe.
My only response to you is that you are a little punk-ass coward. You don't respond until 3 other Myrmidons shark attack my posting. I'll bet the only union job you have is cleaning up under the supervisors' desks.
WWAAAAHHHH, you are SO stupid, that you need to get over such reactions to having us mop the floor with you. Face it you are a moron its easy. Its going to happen an awful lot. Your ignornace is awe inspiring. I responded as soon as I read the abject stupidity in your post. I am shocked anyone as stupid and braindead as you remembers to breathe. Its ok. We all get you are the epitome of vast ignorance. We all hope someday you graduate to being able to tie your shoes. My union job pays about a hundred grand a year, just because you are jealous that asking if they want fries with that is the best YOU can do shouldnt make you project that frustration on me. I doubt anyone here that has been around a while thinks I am afraid of anyone much less anyone as patently ignorant as YOU. I could get better debates from a goldfish more logic from a fortune cookie. Ya got nothin, your weak ass posts arent even interesting batting practice for me. I could wipe the floor with you with half of my brain tied behind my back. Isnt it time for you to go out and play with the other special children?
We have been shunned because of our color, made fun of because of our hair and looks, ridiculed for our speech and language. When we move into better neighborhoods, white folks move out. So we have learned as a race of people to get a better education, work harder for better jobs, take pride in all that we have achieved while teaching our children that the past will not own you and our future is ours to determine. Yet here we are in 2007 still listening to racists and ignorant statements made by people who have not achieved many of the accomplishments black folks have. Still having to explain why hanging a noose is not nor has it ever been a sign of greeting nor a prank along the line of flag burning. Still having to explain that we've been eating in restaurants with a tablecloth, china, knife and fork for quite a long time.
Where has I BLAMED the white man for anything? Where? Do you need reading glasses?
Well, Bush Lies, I can only answer your question in this way: Either blacks have proportionately more children out of wedlock and make up a greater proportion of those in poverty and in jail because of institutionalized racism, or it's genetic. I can't think of a third alternative. If you can, please let me know.
Failing that, apparently you go with Option B- blacks are genetically more inclined to be poor criminals who enjoy having sex out of wedlock. If that's your opinion, just say so. If it's not, then what was the point of your post?- because you must believe in institutionalized racism too. Which is it?
"Can blacks blame the white man for 1/3 of black males under age 30 either on probation, parole, or in prison"Disparities in arrests and sentencing are feeding statistics. This is evidence that there are still harmful assumptions about Blacks, no matter what it is somehow the same bad behavior by a Black male is somehow worse then the same behavior by a White male and warrants harsher punishmenthttp://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/racial_disparity_20050128http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/ http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/rd_reducingrdmanual.pdf http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?account=436ac9516921&q=sentencing+disparities
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/racial_disparity_20050128 http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/ http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/rd_reducingrdmanual.pdf http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?account=436ac9516921&q=sentencing+disparities
Having just clicked the MMFA link on the front page, "AUDIO/TRANSCRIPT: Listen to o'reilly's comments for yourself", and having listened to the audio for a second time now, a question came over me:
Why is this guy saying these things at all?
I mean, I'm not referring to whether or not his comments are considered racist, but I'm referring to what the heck is the guy talking about "black people" for anyway?
What was the point?
I want to cite for you, all of the references he made to "black people", in the order he made them, in what didn't seem to be more than just three minutes time:
"Black people"
"black American"
"black Americans"
"run by blacks"
"primarily black patronship"
"the blacks were well dressed"
"black Americans"
...and mind you, that doesn't include what must truly be three or four dozen references at least (seems like a hundred) to "they've" and "their" and "them" and "themselves" and "they're"...
...and that's just the first two paragraphs!
I'm not kidding, read it for yourself, and notice the extraordinary number of references to "they" and "them" and all the derivations thereof!
Truly, if I heard anybody start in talking, and make so many references to "black people" and "they" and "them", I'd wonder why they were talking like that; I'd wonder what is what they're supposed to be saying, and why they're saying it.
Well, he WAS discussing a racial topic, no? I'm just glad he doesn't use the tired "African-American" label. I used to use that term in college alot until I got this response once:
"I'm Jamaican, idiot!"
My bad, won't happen again.
I'm just glad he doesn't use the tired "African-American" label.
"African American" is no more tired than "Caucasian."
Actually, in anthropology, "Caucasian" is no longer used.
I have a friend who is truly African-american. Born and raised in South Africa, immigrated here. He's also white.
If we're going to use language to differentiate based on skin color, shouldn't we at least be accurate? I'm thinking the PeachishTans would get along much better with the Brownishes and BurnishedBeiges, as well as the SaffronPinkishes, the GrayishChocolates, and even the SunsetMochas.
Oh, we'd still hate the ToastedEcrus, but that's just because their ridiculous religion is so different...
Neon, I agree with you, but I guess the whole "African-American" term originates from W.E.B. Dubois's "double-consciousness" that he said blacks have due to our history and experience in this country being placed into a caste system. Here’s what he said: After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world – a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness – an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.
The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife – this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He would not Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face.- W. E. B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk. 1903. New York: Bantam, 1989. 3-4.
I think the term “African-American” has more to do in reinventing one’s blackness, and paying homage to one’s ancestors, rather than a technical modifier of an ethnicity. After all, before "African-American" blacks were Negro, colored, Afro-American to finally African-American, and the first two were given by those who weren't even black.
I'm always interested in hearing how people think of these terms. In the UK they don't bother with those terms at all (at least in my experince, which was 10 years ago). I worked in London for a semester, and I asked my black officemate about terminolgy and she actually laughed at the idea of calling herself an African-Britain. She didn't feel the need for any term but "black", tho she did say her mother prefered "colored" which she attributed to a generational difference.
Really, European-American should be the white term to parallel African-American, but you never really hear it. White folks tend to be more specific in their pre-American identity, Italian-American, Irish-American, etc. I think it is simliar to what you are saying, a way of connecting withyour heritage and holding onto it. One day in Italy really made me realize that I am far more American than Italian, so I really only use Italian-American when I am actually discussing some aspect of my family that is influenced by our Italian roots.
btw, anyone see that SNL skit with Tracy Morgan trying to bond with Charlize Theron, because she is "African-American" (from South Africa).
Are you people out of your minds?
The guy was commenting on White America's perception of Black culture.
He talked about the Anita Baker concert and the dinner he had with Al Sharpton at Sylvia's saying that it WASN'T anything like the daily dose of hip-hop garbage that dominates the airwaves.
If you don't think there's a jihad going on against O'Reilly right here at Media Matters, just take a look at the home page. Almost all of it is devoted to dozens of articles about this nonsense.
SBC Collections and Bush Lies: You are both saying that O'Reilly was not being racist. However, the key phrase in his comments were "I couldn't get over the fact" that going to Sylvia's was like going to any other restaurant. Let's face it, you only have trouble "getting over a fact" that is a surprising fact. Nobody, least of all O'Reilly, a professional talker, would use the phrase "I couldn't get over the fact" to point out something obvious. The inbred racism is displayed by the fact that he did not just say that the owners and patrons at Sylvia's were just like anyone else, he said he "couldn't get over" the fact that the owners and patrons at Sylvia's were just like anyone else. Can't you see the difference? If he said words to the effect of "look I go to black establishments all the time and there is no difference at all. Anyone who believes that there is is just wrong" then your attempt to defend him would be well-taken. But that is not what he said. He was telling his audience that he made a new discovery which he was still trying to "get over" and that was that blacks are just like other people, surprise, surprise.
Thank you Mark!
Bush Lies has been stirring up the dust, and you just cleared the air with your perfect comparison.....even trolls should be able to see the difference. Okay, maybe that's a reach.....but I thought it was great anyway.
Don't forget the other half of his comments, about how black people are "finally starting to think for themselves." There is no way to spin that and there is no context, that makes that comment anything but offensive.
Especially since Bill O'Reilly probably has nightmares that the white people who watch his show start thinking for themselves. Because that's the day his show goes off the air. And Limbaugh's. And Liddy's. And Hannity's. And Levin's. And Ingraham's. Etc, etc, etc.
SBC: "Are you people out of your minds?"
"You People"? Racist pigdog...
But to answer your question: Yes. We elected Bush TWICE, and Limbaugh is the number one radio program, followed closely by Hannity. Our most informative news program airs on Comedy Central. We pay $2 for a bottle of tap water, we buy a 27-passenger Ford Excavation and move to the suburbs to escape the city, then complain about $3 gas and the traffic as we commute to work back in the city. We consider Brittney Spears an artist, wrestling a sport, and evolution a myth...
Need I go on?
the daily dose of hip-hop garbage that dominates the airwaves.
What part DO YOU NOT GET? YOU percieve that hip-hop defines Black America. IT DOES NOT!
Man you people are SO weak. There is some agenda to get O'Rielly off the air that they apparantly forgot to mention. The entire conversation was a study in patronizing attitudes that were underscored by flat out racist pre-conceptions. The fact they came out in the context of things arent really like that is irrelevant. It actually adds another layer of condescension to the discussion. OF COURSE THEY ARENT. I was six in South Carolina and I didnt believe that THEN. So prentending there was NO racist content because he was saying it as a weak backhanded compliment makes no difference. Imagine I just told the group here that I was suprised that Conservatives can actually type on a computer and speak in complete sentences and write actual cogent arguments on a messsage board would the conservatives here take that as a compliment?
Bill is an embarrassment to News Corporation. This is not the first time he's put his foot in his mouth.
His tenure at Fox News is on a slippery rope. Bossman Murdoch will tire of this idiot's antics and release him from his contract. I hope so.
Changes continues at Fox News and hopefully the absence of Bill and Sean are part of it.
When Bill says he is "looking out for you" does he really mean, "I'm looking out, for...you."
DEM2020, good catch. Maybe Bushlies can find a rant by Bill where he refers to white people as "they," "them", "Caucasian-Americans"...don't think so. But I'll bet he can find a rant by Bill concerning, "them", "they", "Hispanic-Americans". It is too bad that Bill's audience and long time apologists won't finally realize that their "Protecter" is just a guy who is making money and has lost his ability to lead. Bill, you Irish- Caucasian-American, your more than 15 minutes are past.
bush lies, you're so full of it, you're eyes have turned brown. of course it was a racist comment, only an idiot, or a willfully ignorant person wouldn't pick that up on a first reading. or a second, third or fourth. so, which are you? myself, i'm going for idiot, based on your sick, sad and pathetic attempts to paint o'reilly's comments as something other than what they most obviously were.
gene robinson was being kind, by describing them as "at best, casually racist", attributing to o'reilly a level of obliviousness that results in him making comments that any aware person would know, instantly, are odious. however, one must entirely suspend disbelief, in order to accept that premise. like i said, mr. robinson was being kind.
interestingly though, as i thought about this, it occured to me that, as a rule, i don't give a lot of thought to who owns the restaurant where i'm dining. admittedly, i probably assume, based on previous experience, that most ethnic restaurants are owned/operated by people of that particular ethnicity. for purposes of this essay, i exclude taco bell & chipotle's, those could be run by robots, and no one would know the difference.
that said, i also don't marvel at the fact that a mexican restaurant would have tables, knives & forks, be clean and that the people would act in a civilized manner; i just sort of expect it. the same goes for other ethnic restaurants. i would be amazed if it were otherwise.
this is, apparently, where mr. o'reilly and i part company, with respect to our basic expectations of dining establishments.
This is off-topic, but I read the transcript and was completely distracted my Robinson saying "you know" sometimes 2-3 times per sentence! I'm guessing he's more of a print media guy, not a regular public speaker?
And remember - even casually racist remarks are racist remarks.
O'Reilly is at best casually kicking OLBERMANN'S ass in the rating's. That's the REAL problem!!!
If ethics and morality and openness and honesty are not important to you, then I guess that the fact that O'Reilly's ability to draw in lots of 50-80 year olds so that his ratings remain high would be the most important thing.
If that were the case, and Keith Olberman was only trying to get good ratings, you'd have a case. The evidence doesn't support that theory in the least, of course, but go with that if you have to.
Of course there's no way you can defend O'Reilly from the charges themselves, since it's clear he is prejudiced and not simply trying to display the lingering prejudices of the 50-80 year olds in his audience.
Ah no, that is what is known as IRRELEVANT. We understand your desperation to do something ANYTHING that screams LOOK OVER THERE.
Perhaps we need to change the name to homeland insecurity. Here's the real threat, and thanks to the bush whitehouse, nothing is being done about it. I guess you reichies finally got what you wanted, an ineffectual government incapable of ruling the country or policing it's internal infrastructure.
Does this website deal with anything OTHER THEN O'Reilly/FOX?
My god every topic is the same thing....
Boy, no kidding! How can these people read this stuff all the time? And the commenters - holy cow! They must be the most ignorant people on the planet to keep reading this stuff, and commenting on it. Total morons, all of them.
Good thing there's people like you and me to point these things out, eh?
If only Mr. Robinson hadn't used the verbal crutch "You know" fifteen times, including five times in the bold-faced section. As he claims for Mr. Reilly, he too "is a professional communicator .... You would think, you know, he's aware of what's coming out of his mouth and how it sounds." (my italics)