Civil Rights Groups Decry Beck's Questioning of Obama's Name
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, February 5, 2010 |
CONTACT Jess Levin (202) 772-8162 |
Coalition to Fox News host: "America is not a country that defines citizenship or patriotism based on color, or creed, or name"
Washington, DC - Today, Media Matters for America joined six civil rights organizations in decrying Glenn Beck's comments on President Obama's name. Beck said "You don't take the name Barack to identify with America," but to identify with "your heritage," "your father in Kenya, who is a radical."
The coalition of organizations, which includes America's Voice, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), Center for New Community, Color of Change, NCLR (National Council of La Raza), Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, and Media Matters, released the following statement:
Glenn Beck's comments reveal the depth of his failure to grasp the true nature of America and of the American people. Ours is a nation of immigrants. Ours is a nation of proud individuals who celebrate their heritage as surely as they love the country in which they live. Ours is a nation that draws strength from its diversity, rather than rejecting it. And America is not a country that defines citizenship or patriotism based on color, or creed, or name.
In 2004, Senator Barack Obama explained that when growing up, he possessed "the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too." And he was right. It does. Mr. Beck's inability to accept this fundamental quality of our nation -- or at the very least his willingness to pander to those who reject it -- should trouble us all. He owes an apology to the people of this great country.
The coalition includes:
America's Voice
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)
Center for New Community
Color of Change
NCLR (National Council of La Raza)
Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition
Media Matters for America
BACKGROUND
As Media Matters noted, Beck said on his radio show yesterday:
BECK: He chose to use his name, Barack, for a reason. To identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Really? Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion.
###
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. For more information, visit www.mediamatters.org.
RSS Feeds
Obama was simply trying to stop HIDING his difference-ness by using Barry. He didn't "take" that name - it was ALWAYS his name! It's not something he should be attacked about, since he had no control over the birth name his parents gave him. He chose to go back to his given name when he transferred to Columbia University. And it's unfair to attack ANYONE for things they have no control over, like their ethnic origin or their birth name! Attack people for their behavior, but not for their first name.
And Obama is 100% "American", just as much as Glenn Beck is. We should NOT discriminate against people who were born in the USA to an American citizen and a non-American citizen. Obama's an American citizen, and has been all of his life.
And that's irony my friends.
It looks like you don't understand La Raza, or the word "racism", for that matter.
Explain how La Raza is "racist", please.
Old: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Modern: racial prejudice or discrimination
Let's take that modern definition a step further. Discrimination, by definition is simply "making a distinction". Therefore the modern definition of racism can be defined as making a racial distinction. That's how sites like MMFA can claim Glenn Beck is a racist and technically be correct. Does Glenn Beck believe that him being a white man gives him an "inherent superiority" to a black man? No, of course not. Has Glenn Beck ever made any distinctions based on race? Yes, as most of us have.
Using this same definition - this modern version - very few people or groups aren't racist. That's the problem with using the new definition over the old one. La Raza, then, is inherently racist. They make the racial distinction to help members of the Hispanic community. The NAACP is inherently racist as they are making the racial distinction to advance colored people.
Is La Raza, the NAACP, or Glenn Beck truly racist in the actual sense of the word? No, of course not. Neither of those groups or people think one's race is the primary factor in determining one's value. I'm merely applying the same standard that most liberals apply to conservatives when determining who is and isn't a racist.
While applying Darwin's theory of evolution to racism is quaint you once again prove that you don't understand racism any more than you understand evolution. Genes evolve, cells evolve, science proves that. But basic traits like love, hate, physical emotions - they don't "evolve", they are learned, practiced, and controlled. Racism didn't ever evolve. Y'all are just trying to change the definition in the same manner that you try to rewrite history to make yourselves look infallible.
Let me ask you this: do you really, honestly believe that Glenn Beck thinks he's better than minorities because he is white?
In the meantime, MMFA has done a wonderful job of providing all the evidence necessary to prove that beck is a race rater who thinks acting like he's superior to minorities in order to garner ratings for fox justifies his throwing honor out the window in search of the almighty dollar. You can ask all the "questions" about our intentions all you like, no one buys your act anymore. I want an answer from you - justify beck's race baiting racism. Can you?
I would if I could but I don't think I can see past my previous 15 posts. Even if I could it would take me awhile to find it anyways. Teach me how to see ALL my previous posts and I'll prove you wrong.
Really? If you can't do something as simple as using the scroll bar on the right side of the screen to see what you posted in this thread then I'm afraid any attempt at providing knowledge would be lost on you...
Someone on this site did use that modern definition of racism by the way.
Oh and: do you really, honestly believe that Glenn Beck thinks he's better than minorities because he is white?
site:mediamatters.org "MagCynic"
while i will not concede that "..Glen Beck thinks.." i will assert that indeed he is delusional enough to believe his "whiteness" makes him better than "minorities"(once again with a caveat concerning whether or not not being white makes one a minority..statistically or ethnically..
Mag, I don't know exactly which conversation you are talking about, but mmfa comments are searchable on google. You can check out these links or tweak the search to find what you are looking for. The first part "site:mediamatters.org" narrows the results to only return ones from mmfa. The "|" character means "or" and will return hits on one of the selected words. Hope this helps. Google link.
Well then, Beck is making the racial distinction that people named Barack have no business being president. People named Barack should reject their name and heritage, otherwise they are not with us but against us. They should not be accepted.
When La Raza promotes the idea that certain categories of people in this society are illegitimate, you might have a point. Until then, you are just blowing smoke. Who does La Raza think does not belong here? Who do they want to exclude from this society?
Just because La Raza organize as a group does not mean they are out to exclude people. Have you tried to join them and been rejected? The NAACP was founded by Black and White people. I have never heard that they would reject support from or systematically exclude White people.
Beck is saying that certain people with certain backgrounds are less than welcome. They don't belong to "real America". You would be upset if someone told you your heritage was less than American.
Here's the quote: "You don't take the name Barack to identify with America..."
I'll ask again: Is not identifying with America un-American? I don't identify with America regarding its history of slavery in the past. I simply can't identify with it. Does that make me un-American?
Let's try this again:
Do you think the President of the United States doesn't "identify" with America simply because his name is Barack?
Of course not.
Once again: Is not identifying with America un-American?
If you answer yes then you have a different outlook on what being an American is than I do. If you answer no then MMFA IS putting words in Beck's mouth and you agree that that's not what he meant.
Of course not.
But Beck DOES. He JUST SAID that Barack's own name, and his name alone, says that he doesn't "identify" with the country that he happens to be President of. You don't find that wildly inappropriate, and an insult to everyone with a name that isn't, say, "Steve" or "John"? What gives Beck or anyone the right to say that someone is somehow less of an American simply because of their name?
I don't know what your big semantic thing is with "identify" and "un", why you think that that's your big gotcha in this argument, but even if they are different words, the implication is the same, isn't it?
It's a simple yes or no question that determines the whole meaning of what Beck is saying. Nobody on this site is able to answer it for some reason. My hunch is because it reveals MMFA's mistake in stating that Beck said it was un-American to have a name like Barack.
I want my President to have the best interests of my country in his heart- not Kenya, or whatever his crazy, foreign sounding name implies.
So, yes.
Now please tell us your big gotcha.
Once again: Is not identifying with America un-American?
Perhaps I should elaborate? One day long ago I visited the country of my ancestors. After the trip I felt an overwhelming sense of pride in my heritage so I decided to change my name to something of that country. I chose - at least with my name - to identify with my home country. Why does that make me un-American?
Beck says he DOESN'T IDENTIFY with this country. Period. And he says it's because his name is Barack. Period.
You're being deliberately obtuse at this point, or at least, God, I hope so.
Well he's just referring to Obama's name. Why does that have to mean identifying with America in general? You're inferring that that's what he meant.
I don't know. Ask MMFA that. There the ones that apparently believe that.
He never said that.
I want my President to have the best interests of my country in his heart- not Kenya, or whatever his crazy, foreign sounding name implies.
So, yes.
Now please tell us your big gotcha.
His whole premise was nonsense and is indefensible!!!He is just playing more divisive racial/ethnic games...Boomer Esaiason doesn't use Norman,Tiger Woods doesn't use Eldrick..so what.???
As you can see, I believe what MMFA means by un-American and what you mean by it are two different things. I also think you have gotten yourself twisted about quite a bit when simply reversing the order of the nouns in that sentence changes whether you think it is true or not.
You also need to remember the question at hand is not whether any of US think Barack in un-American. The question is does Glenn Beck think so. Near as I can tell, he pretty much stated that using the original definition of un-American to mean "not American" he would say yes to that question.
Whether he would say yes using the newer nuance of un-American as the word was influenced by the House un_American Activities Committee, that is a little less cut dried, but given his propensity to see conspiracy around every corner, I wouldn't put it past him.
MagCynic: The only way there could be controversy is if they implied that Beck was calling Obama un-American (as in going against America).
So Beck isn't questioning Obama's loyalty based on his name and heritage? So Beck isn't warning us of the progressive menace threatning the land?
Beck's hate for many of this country's citizens and leaders would seem to imply that he does not identify with a good chunk of America, actually.
I don't necessarily think Fox is racist, but I do think they are un-American. Beck is both racist and un-American. But then, Beck is also xenophobic. At least his public persona is xenophobic. We can't really know if his private beliefs are the same as his public ones.
And eb is absolutely correct. Beck is blaming Obama for using the name that he was given by his family and pointing out that it is culturally different AND, most importantly, doing so in order to demean Obama. That is the classic definition of racism. Demeaning someone because of his race. And of xenophobia - demeaning everyone who is culturally different from you How anyone can defend this position and claim it is not racist is amazing.
Who gave you the right to dictate the meaning of the answer before the debate ever started?
Some things in this life are black and white you know? Not everything has to have shades of gray.
Here's the question again: Is not identifying with America un-American?
Yes or no. And again, there's no special meaning to any of the words; just the common definitions of them.
ER... Not identifying with America is difficult when being American can mean having the name Barack and having a Kenyan father and a mother whose family's heritage in the USA goes back hundreds of years. ASK YOURSELF, why does Beck's obsession with our president include the issue of his name? Is it relevent because anything that can erode the legitamacy of our president is fair game?
Now if he said the constitution was stupid or if he hated the American people, that would be not identifying with America. Notice that Fox and Beck wants you to believe these assumptions as well. Anything that sticks...
I am new to this, but I have to say that of all the conservative posts I have read on MMFA so far, yours sound the most genuine and thoughtful.
I will attempt to answer your question:
You and I don't believe that not identifying with America (well, part of it at most) is un-American. In fact, I think what you are trying to say, like many voices on the left, is that being disenchanted with parts of America is what allows this country to go forward and change for the better (hopefully), which is pretty pro-American.
The question in my mind is how Glen Beck would answer your question. Isn't that more appropriate in this discussion? I will attempt to give some reasons why I think he believes differently from us about this, based on what he said: "You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical?"
Glen argues that the president chose his name in order to not identify with America, maybe the America he doesn't like, which you and I think is fine. But Glen proposes that he chose his name, most likely to identify with his heritage and his radical father, implying that the president has latent radical ideologies. I believe that Mr. Beck does not consider these types of radical ideologies as American in spirit. Hence, he would probably answer that "yes, not identifying with America by using a name that implies radical tendencies is un-American in my opinion."
Btw, thanks for bringing friction into this discussion by asking some pointed questions. Without these questions, there is often no incentive to form a nuanced response from a gut feeling reaction.
English is an interesting language, words can have more than one meaning, they can have nuance.
Beck is un-American for even saying: "You don't take the name Barack to identify with America."
You are correct. Beck is a racist. He's also a filthy, corporate punk.
trying to advocate for glen beck shows a complete lack of understanding/comprehension of where you happen to be..and a disconnect with reality..perhaps a nice cup of green tea would be in order..
Which America are you talking about? I didn't know there was only one!
I defend the right of the Devil himself (as I do Beck) to speak freely. But those who think they are the Devil (or, as in Beck's and Hitler's case, "patriotic Messiahs") who wish to shout their hate-filled delusions to the world, or pander to those equally dysfunctional for support and fame, are seldom given more pulpit than the 1st Amendment guarantees, i.e., a street corner and a soapbox.
Even Limbaugh's and the Faux News cadre's standard fare of ad hominem hyperbola and denigrating insult, do not sink to the level of Beck's recent racist and xenophobic comments quoted here.
In a Nation founded on principles of humility, equality and respect for our equal creation before God, this journalistic miscreant insults the very rights his Country affords him. He defames them further with jingoistic claims to flag and patriotism as his justification, professing "true" interpretation as to the writings and thinkings of our Founding Fathers.
"Common Sense"?
Thomas Paine would roll in his grave (as would ALL our Founders) to hear his words, much less hear them at the volume and influence given them by self-servers whose ideologies know little of civic respect, or decency of public debate.
In truth, the real shame goes to them; Rupert Murdoch and Beck's remaining advertisers, who are either complicit in Beck's shameless excesses, or who ignore the disservice it does their Country in favor of gain they think it affords them.
We should all again make Becks advertisers know that they would best serve their Country (and their pocket books) by returning Glenn Beck to the street corner he deserves!
Among the billions and billions of things Glenn Beck is ignorant of is this: when a person decides to take a name, they do this in order to not use a name that was "given" to them, usually by one or both parents.
Glenn <whistle, finger-snap, finger-snap> now concentrate; this is called an alias.
Barack's mother and father gave him his name, the one he now uses.
Now Glenn <whistle, finger-snap, finger-snap>, is this clear?
Glenn?
What did Beck say that was so offensive?
"He chose his name for a reason."
Well he certainly didn't randomly reassign his name based on a spur of the moment whim. Must be True.
"To identify, not with America......."
Well thats obvious, Barak is hardly in the top 100 names given to male children in America. Not only that but he said himself that he took to using the name to relate to his African heritage. Here is a Newsweek article written during the 2008 campaign about his name change that explains the change very well.
"Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion."
Duh. He was in college when he made the change, to suggest that he wasn't looking for meaning is fairly ridiculous. He was in college....have any of you hippie's been there? For a lot of kids college is a time of great self-discovery.
So again i ask, what is wrong with what Beck said.
Even more i'd like to know what he said that was racist? there are a fistful of post calling Beck racist, but I'm pretty positive I don't see any racist comments.
Really Liberals need to find something more to stand behind than these silly little racist arguements. Its as if since Bush left the presidency Democrats are doing wild circles like a decapitated chicken without direction or purpose. They couldn't even pass healthcare with a super majority. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
GET IT TOGETHER YOU ARE EMBARASSING YOURSELVES!
Did brainless Glennda Beck think President Obama should change his name to "John Smith" or "John Jones"?
The idea that there are different races within the species Homo sapiens is utterly spurious and nugatory. There is only one race of humans. This is not an opinion but a well established scientific fact.
Officially sanctioned racism is a spawn of kapitalism and was originally adopted to justify slavery for profit.
“Racism is a product of capitalism. It grew out of early capitalism’s use of slaves for the plantations of the New World, it was consolidated in order to justify western and white domination of the rest of the world and it flourishes today as a means of dividing the working class between white and Muslim or black, and native and immigrants or asylum seekers.” (emphasis added)
http://libcom.org/history/800bc-today-a-very-brief-history-of-racism
Racism is kept alive today as a wedge issue and used by supremacists to ensure continuing conflict within our human family.
Divide and conquer is one of the most basic tenets of oppression and subjugation of populations. Such tactics assist those seeking total dominance of the species and the planet by keeping the attentions of the masses focused on inconsequential differences. While we are all engaged in needless conflict over race, religion, nationality and other ideologies, which were invented and have been maintained expressly for that purpose, a small group of psychopathic parasites, can you say banking cartel?, go relentlessly about the business of turning Earth into a third world planet.
"There is only one race - the human race"-Mahatma Gandhi
People like MagCynic are commonly referred to as "Trolls". Some are much more sophisticated in their efforts at disseminating discord than others. MagCynic seems to prefer the "intellectual" approach as opposed to the more common "intimidator" or "righteous patriot" persona. Judging by the amount of response he/she has elicited, the amount of time wasted on senseless argument, the tactic has been quite successful.
First rule of meaningful online discussion; don't feed the trolls.