Rev. Jackson to O'Reilly: "[T]o underestimate the civility of blacks was insulting to many people"
During the September 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, the Rev. Jesse Jackson asked host Bill O'Reilly what he was "trying to say" during the September 19 broadcast of his radio show when he made controversial remarks about his visit to Sylvia's, a restaurant in Harlem. O'Reilly replied: "The hour was on how ... many whites fear blacks. And fear drives racism, as you know. Fear drives it. And I said to my audience, 'Look, this is a restaurant like any other restaurant,' but a lot of whites are afraid to go there." Jackson then told O'Reilly: "What concerns me is that fear and ignorance, you know, lead to hatred and leads to violence, obviously. ... And so, to underestimate the civility of blacks was insulting to many people." O'Reilly countered: "Who underestimated the civility of blacks?"
Jackson later said during the program:
JACKSON: It's like if I were to go to a white restaurant -- basically white restaurant -- and say, "I came out, didn't see any nooses, no white people called me a defaming name,"* you'd say, "Of course not," because I would not in that sense underestimate their civility. That's what this kind of rhubarb is all about.
But what struck me more about this conversation about you and that statement was what was ignored that day. That's the same day -- the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Central desegregation in 1957.
[...]
JACKSON: Completely ignored. Here we are 50 years later with a radical re-segregation of our school system because of, in part, tax base -- property tax base funding. Here we are trapped in these inner cities, first-class schools -- first-class children, second-class schools.
President Clinton was there. The Little Rock 9 also alive, they were there -- completely ignored. The same day, a report came out that showed that blacks are expelled at a huge disproportionate rate to our population.
In New Jersey, blacks are expelled 60 times more than whites in the population, and in Texas, it's like 26. So issues of great substance -- the re-segregation challenge, the need to make an even playing field in education, the impact of the disproportionate rate that drives the jail system, which completely ignored our argument about -- your statement about civility of blacks in Harlem.
To me, that was even more insulting -- kind of institutional disregard for our situation.
When Jackson asserted, "I think the real point here is for us to get beyond the smashing and counter-smashing ... and best it," O'Reilly replied, "You can't unless you speak out against it." He continued, "Unless you condemn what Media Matters and CNN did -- you, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, as well, unless you guys came out and said -- and I think you have said this in the public. I read it -- 'O'Reilly didn't say anything racist at all. This is diverting attention from the real issue.' ... You've got to do that."
From the September 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now to the top story tonight: We are happy to have for the first time in 11 years on the air, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, everybody.
You know, I'm glad to see you.
JACKSON: Bill, what were you trying to say?
O'REILLY: In what? I'm saying the press is corrupt and they're exploiting black Americans.
JACKSON: In the Sylvia's statement, what we were you trying to say?
O'REILLY: The press is corrupt and they're exploiting black Americans.
JACKSON: No, when you said about -- you know, about the -- how civil the people were, what was your point?
O'REILLY: Oh, up in Sylvia's?
JACKSON: Yeah.
O'REILLY: Did you hear the tape, by the way? Did you hear the whole hour?
JACKSON: Yeah. What were you trying to say?
O'REILLY: But did you hear it?
JACKSON: Yeah.
O'REILLY: You heard the whole hour?
JACKSON: Not the whole hour, no.
O'REILLY: OK. OK -- because I have to tailor my explanation for what you heard. The hour was on how whites fear -- many whites fear blacks. And fear drives racism, as you know. Fear drives it.
And I said to my audience, "Look, this is a restaurant like any other restaurant," but a lot of whites are afraid to go there. When you walk in there, it's just like any other restaurant. OK?
It was framed in the sense that fear drives racism and there's nothing to be afraid of.
JACKSON: What concerns me is that fear and ignorance, you know, lead to hatred and leads to violence, obviously.
O'REILLY: Absolutely.
JACKSON: And so, to underestimate the civility of blacks was insulting to many people.
O'REILLY: Who underestimated the civility of blacks?
JACKSON: I'm -- in a sense, that's how it came off.
O'REILLY: No, it didn't.*
JACKSON: In a sense, that's how it came off. It's like if I were to go to a white restaurant -- basically white restaurant -- and say, "I came out, didn't see any nooses, no white people called me a defaming name,"* you'd say, "Of course not," because I would not in that sense underestimate their civility. That's what this kind of rhubarb is all about.
But what struck me more about this conversation about you and that statement was what was ignored that day. That's the same day -- the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Central desegregation in 1957.
O'REILLY: Right, 50th anniversary.
JACKSON: Completely ignored. Here we are 50 years later with a radical re-segregation of our school system because of, in part, tax base -- property tax base funding. Here we are trapped in these inner cities, first-class schools -- first-class children, second-class schools.
President Clinton was there. The Little Rock 9 also alive, they were there -- completely ignored. The same day, a report came out that showed that blacks are expelled at a huge disproportionate rate to our population.
In New Jersey, blacks are expelled 60 times more than whites in the population, and in Texas, it's like 26. So issues of great substance -- the re-segregation challenge, the need to make an even playing field in education, the impact of the disproportionate rate that drives the jail system, which completely ignored our argument about -- your statement about civility of blacks in Harlem.
To me, that was even more insulting -- kind of institutional disregard for our situation.
O'REILLY: Well, look, you're right in the sense that this brouhaha is ridiculous, and it was contrived by far-left people to try to diminish me and this network -- and CNN, as corrupt as CNN is, and you used to work there, seized upon it. And you're right about that this should have never been an issue, ever. But you're wrong about -- you're wrong about one thing.
JACKSON: Is there --
O'REILLY: You're wrong about one thing, and let me tell you why you're wrong.
JACKSON: OK.
O'REILLY: Many white Americans fear blacks. That's the truth. And that's why things don't get done faster than they should get done -- because many whites won't say what they feel to blacks, won't ask blacks questions, won't try to understand blacks because they're afraid to be demonized --
JACKSON: But, Bill --
O'REILLY: -- if they say something wrong.
JACKSON: But, Bill, blacks have more reason to fear whites than the other way around.
O'REILLY: Maybe so, but we are all Americans.
JACKSON: Yeah, because --
O'REILLY: We are all Americans.
JACKSON: -- whites have never been enslaved by blacks. Whites have never been locked out in Jim Crow laws. So, this is an unfounded fear of blacks.
O'REILLY: I agree. It's unfounded. And then I tried --
JACKSON: But -- but --
O'REILLY: I tried to allay that fear, and I got smashed unfairly for doing it. I'm on your side. I want the white Americans to understand that the mainstream black American is no different than they are.
But what you see and what my grandmother saw on television is blacks on the news being taken into custody, is rappers saying the F-word, is glorification in the rap industry of drug-taking and the violence against women. That is what white America sees.
JACKSON: What most of what white America sees comes through white-controlled TV lenses.
O'REILLY: Absolutely.
JACKSON: So we're projected as less intelligent than we are, less hard-working, less universal, less violent and less patriotic. So, we're kind of seen through these prejudiced lenses every day and of course, these stereotypes.
O'REILLY: You bet. And I tried to right that wrong, and I got smashed for doing it.
JACKSON: Well, I think the real point here is for us to get beyond the smashing and counter-smashing --
O'REILLY: You can't unless you speak out against it.
JACKSON: -- and best it.
O'REILLY: Unless you condemn what Media Matters and CNN did -- you, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, as well, unless you guys came out and said -- and I think you have said this in the public. I read it -- "O'Reilly didn't say anything racist at all. This is diverting attention from the real issue."
JACKSON: Well, I think --
O'REILLY: You've got to do that.
JACKSON: I think the issue about you and your view of civility in Harlem was far -- was not nearly as offensive as --
O'REILLY: It wasn't offensive at all.
JACKSON: -- as [former radio host Don] Imus' statement, referring to girls as black "nappy-headed" --
O'REILLY: Not even close.
JACKSON: -- or even Michael Richards. But more than that, the ignoring of Little Rock 9 50 years later and what that meant to our country and means to our country, ignoring of this gross expulsion rate, even the drug rate -- a Tribune reporter came out some weeks ago -- a story -- that 70 percent of all drug users in Illinois are white and 13 percent are black. But prison is 66 percent black and less than 10 percent white.
O'REILLY: 'Cause it's easier to catch them. They don't have lawyers. They -- you know. You know that poverty drives this and if you don't have enough money to pay a lawyer, you're going to get convicted. You know all of that.
JACKSON: Well, I guess, but most Americans don't know. They've assumed those in jailed are the most guilty, and those who are out are the most innocent, and that's why --
O'REILLY: Let's get to that [inaudible].
JACKSON: -- we have something against the focus --
O'REILLY: Reverend, let's get down to this, all right? Let's stop all this stuff. Here's what's driving the expulsion, the crime, and the poverty in the black community. You want to know what's driving it? No fathers in the home. Seventy percent of black babies are born out of wedlock in this country -- 70 percent, as opposed to 25 percent for whites. That's what's behind it, Reverend. That's what's behind all of these problems. And that's what has to be addressed.
JACKSON: I think in some sense, when you look at urban America, with jobs out --
O'REILLY: Nah, it's not about that. It's about discipline, and it's about raising children.
JACKSON: You have a point of view. May I share mine?
O'REILLY: Sure.
JACKSON: Jobs out, investment out, guns and drugs in. We do not grow drugs, nor manufacture them. To unleash semiautomatic weapons as legal again to enforce the drug trade. Taxes up, service down. First-class -- just second-class schools. There is a --
There's a phenomenon here that lends itself to marginalizing a whole body of American people. We must take that on seriously, because in some sense, it costs more to lock up than to lift up.
O'REILLY: Listen. I don't disagree with you, but unless you get to the root problem, the root problem of the disintegration of the family in the African-American community, all of these other things are not going to solve it.
JACKSON: Well, I --
O'REILLY: They're not going to solve it.
JACKSON: Well, I would at least argue if, in the major cities, seven of 10 young black males don't finish high school, in part driven by this excessive expulsion rate --
O'REILLY: If they had a dad in the home, they would finish.
JACKSON: No, I'm not sure that dads in the home address the issue of excessive expulsion rates --
O'REILLY: All right. Let's take a break and we'll talk about that.
JACKSON: -- and excessive sentencing that do not correspond with crime.
O'REILLY: OK. Let's come back. We'll take a look at Jena, Duke, and the expulsion rate, with Reverend Jackson in a moment.
And later, a CNN guest commentator calls Juan Williams a, quote, "happy negro." Juan will be here to reply to that, upcoming.
[...]
O'REILLY: Continuing now with the Reverend Jesse Jackson.
What do you think of Bill Cosby, who has a message similar to mine -- does it much better than I could ever do -- going around and saying, "Look, it is the family. It is traditional values, American values, that we African-Americans must embrace self-reliance." What do you think about that message?
JACKSON: Bill has the moral authority to say it and the penetration. He does not invite reaction, because of his history. The night that Bill was at the anniversary of the '54 Supreme Court decision, he said the price to be paid through Jim Crow and lynchings and jailings, and the role that Dorothy Height played, the role that A. Philip Randolf played and Thurgood Marshall -- he said, now for us to have been fighting to get in school 50 years ago and now dropping out, doing less than our best is a disappointment to me.
So, he began to argue the case, if you're behind, run faster. Bill speaks as a coach, not as one who has animus or a bone to pick -- and so, I make the case, for example, that we have a six-point plan.
One, parents that take your child to school: Meet your child's teachers; exchange home numbers; turn the TV off three hours a night; pick up your child's report card every nine weeks; and take your child to church, temple, or synagogue once a week. That is a message of bottom up.
O'REILLY: I love that.
JACKSON: On the other hand -- on the other hand, we must also fight for even funding, equal funding. Why do we do so well on the football field, the basketball court? Because the playing field is even. The rules are public and the goals are clear. And rules do matter.
But, for the most part, black men fighting to survive the system, black boys are catching hell, and so, Bill says it with -- Bill Catch [sic] says it 'cause he loves people. People accept it from Bill.
O'REILLY: OK. Now let's go down to Jena, Louisiana, and Duke, North Carolina. You were unfairly, I believe, criticized in the Duke case. All you did was say that you'd pay the college tuition for the accuser, whether she was guilty or not. You didn't go down and protest. You didn't do anything else.
JACKSON: And --
O'REILLY: When you saw --
JACKSON: And --
O'REILLY: When you saw --
JACKSON: Wait a minute.
O'REILLY: Wait, wait, wait.
JACKSON: That was the big media lie, because --
O'REILLY: Right.
JACKSON: -- I did not go. Al didn't want to go.
O'REILLY: So, now you know how I feel.
JACKSON: Well --
O'REILLY: Now you know who [sic] I feel. It was a big media lie. Now you know how I feel.
JACKSON: But now --
O'REILLY: But wait, wait, wait. When you heard that those three white students, whose families were wrecked, whose lives were wrecked for more than a year, were not guilty, what did you say?
JACKSON: We celebrated their relief. We said it was a good thing. The one -- one statement a young man made, he said: "Had our parents not had the money to fight the case" --
O'REILLY: They wouldn't have got off.
JACKSON: They wouldn't have gotten off. And so -- and while you can kind of buy justice --
O'REILLY: You can!
JACKSON: And those who can't buy it, can't get it. To clarify, again, when I heard about it and people from North Carolina, who I knew in school, called me, I called Senator [sic] Dan Blue [Democrat in the North Carolina House of Representatives] and some other minister friends, so did Reverend Sharpton, and said, "We want to see what the layout is" -- 'cause Blue said, "Let's go slow to find out what's going on."
And the young lady said that she was raped, apparently was not; said that she was engaging in these -- the naked dancing routine to send her kids to school, I said, "If you have to dance naked to send your kids to school, we'll send you to school. You don't have to dance naked anymore."
O'REILLY: Are you still going to send her to school?
JACKSON: Well, I don't know. I've never heard from her. I don't know what her interests are.
O'REILLY: Oh, you don't know anymore.
JACKSON: But my point is -- was, if in her poverty, she had to dance naked before men to go to school, we said we could send her without dancing naked.
O'REILLY: But if she's a drug addict and irresponsible, then you've got another situation.
JACKSON: But if she's a drug addict, she needs care.
O'REILLY: Right.
JACKSON: She needs to get well.
O'REILLY: But you can't force people to get well. That's the problem.
JACKSON: Well, you --
O'REILLY: Some people are going to be irresponsible no matter what you do and how much money the government kicks at them.
JACKSON: Well, that's true for certain people, but you should never give up on trying --
O'REILLY: Well, I agree.
JACKSON: -- to help the sick and to heal those who hurt.
If I was in charge of shooting the segment that contained this conversation, I would've shot myself instead of the footage.
You said a mouthful there.
With Jackson's incoherent mumbling and O'Reilly's incessant attempt to get Jackson to support his cause...yep...I agree.
When you write of Jackson's incoherent mumblings, I wonder to what precisely you are referring?
The fact that jackson incoherenly mumbles...what do you think it would be referring to?
Thanks for clearing that up.
I just don't think Jackson was mumbling incoherently in this interview. I was hoping for a specific example rather than a generalization.
this segment is about o'reilly. no, i'm not a big jesse fan, but the point here is that o'reilly is trying to claim that he was saying that white people should not be afraid of going to a black restaurant. that is not what he originally said. he said he couldn't get over the fact that sylvia's was like any other restaurant in new york. that remark had nothing to do with other people's perceptions. it was his own cluelessness on display.
Mefirst – His original remarks had nothing to do with his surprise how the restaurant was like any other in NY. It was part of a conversation regarding the hard time blacks have had in this country and how some can look past this and strive for something better. It further got into the negative image of Black America that is portrayed via Gangster Rap.
And mefirst - find the shift key.
o'reilly asked: "who underestimated the civility of blacks?". he did in his original comments. you can claim, as he does, that he was intending something else, but the fact is that he said he "couldn't get over the fact" that sylvia's was just like any other restaurant in new york. no "m-fer" coming from anyone. that's the point of the whole controversy, not any sugarcoating you're trying to do.
OReilly has jumped the shark and Jackson is a has been overrated bigot. Why isn't MM commenting on the ridiculous statement John Edwards recently made about the black communit? When asked what the President can to to make an impact on youth violence he responded "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”
If a Republican candidate said this MMFA would probably blast it across every page on the site... Imus loses his job for dropping a slang phrase, yet Edwards can imply that all young blacks will end up in prison if things don't change? W T F ?
Drug addicts? No dads at home? Implications about welfare and immorality? Can this man steroetype any harder? Bill, you're a stinking RACIST and no amount of bs you can try and spew will change this fact!
These are problems that statistically plague low-income households, particularly african-american. Just because Bill (OReilly and Cosby) said it doesn't make it untrue.
Statistics say one thing but they don't tell the whole story. I think that's the point RedKing was making. Parenting in this country is a problem in general; isolating poor black families as being uniquely poor parents with poor priorities seems cruel, unnecessary and untrue. Most of our "evidence" for "poor black parenting" is anecdotal, like Cosby's and O'Reilly's talk about buying gym shoes instead of textbooks. How common do you think that REALLY is? If there are poor choices people make that affect their families (things like being a dope addict), we should do our best to give them resources to overcome their problems and have a chance to succeed without being blamed for the "evils" we associate with some races more than others subconsciously, and often, consciously and overtly. And we shouldn't let our moral language about choice distract us from our ETHICAL call to change the structural injustices that make survival and those "good" choices extremely difficult for far too many for far too long. That's something that I've said a couple of times now that I don't think any of you are responsive to. I hope THAT element of racism in America moves you as much as your visceral reaction to seeing a "street thug" wearing "$500 sneakers" and "not speaking English."
Some people really don't get the psychology of oppression. Of course all young people should be encouraged to dream the biggest dreams they can, but so many of our young people are beaten down by the harsh realities they see around them in everyday life that their dreams don't ever see any encouragement. And I'm not sure it's the best gesture for adults who do have the freedom to make unfettered choices to lecture them about the failures of "their culture" and "their choices" when our society as a whole has made an awful lot of bad choices and has a lot of cultural prejudices we either deny or smugly refuse to deal with. Where's the talk of accountability then? Where's the "adult" notion of responsibility toward people who are oppressed by their ignorance or indifference?
No one would rationally choose to be poor and suffer. And to attribute that sort of self-hatred to others is borderline morally monstrous and possibly most accurately a projection of people's own hatreds. Keep in mind too that welfare has been almost completely dismantled in this country, for better or worse, and that the "culture of dependency" argument is so 1980s. Now, people know they can't rely on the government for significant aid to live by or readily available job training or quality schools and they make do with what they don't have. We've broken the "welfare state" model for almost a full decade and we've seen an increase in poverty, not a decrease. People don't find the minimum-wage service sector jobs livable for their families, and that's why there's been a marked increase in child poverty, hunger, and parental presence as a result of a less-than-serious commitment to creating good jobs with a decent wage for former welfare recipients.
Therefore, class is the problem, but it can't be ignored that the primary focus of economic discrimination in American society has always been racial. You can't talk about poverty without talking about race because blacks and Hispanic immigrants are the poorest and definitely subject to the last hired/first fired phenomenon. Black professionals are to be admired but the statistics overwhelmingly show that educated blacks in business rarely advance beyond mid-level management into the upper reaches of executives. So discrimination isn't just against poor blacks, but the discrimination of most concern is obviously against the poor. It just happens that race is the primary fault line upon which poverty resides in this country.
Preston, thoughtful post, but I'd like to make three points to what you've said:
1. To your point that "educated" blacks don't do as well on av. as "educated" whites, there isn't a fair population comparison, and also, I think education goes beyond what piece of paper you've earned. An african-american who was improperly socialized as a child can achieve a degree and not have the tools to make CEO in a work environment....and that's why I think affirmative action erroneously tries to fix a problem that has done its damage by the time college and a job comes around.
2. Mentalities and activities, such as "hustling", are direct results of dire socio-economic situations. The "hustler" has become sort of an icon in many minority circles, but just as you pointed out no one would rationally wish to be poor, no one would rationally wish to have to live life on the edge as a "hustler", basically gambling, cheating, and conniving your way to success. Again, if socio-economic conditions were better, "hustling" would become obsolete.
3. Hispanics are not in the same boat as african-americans. Honestly, while many blacks bristle at the "hey, if Asians came to be successful as a race/culture in America, why didn't/can't you?" and I think rightfully so, Hispanic's situation really is no different than the historical plight of Asian-Americans, and I think there's a solid argument that Asian-Americans, in the 1800's and again in WWII, had it worse-off.
hey, if Asians came to be successful as a race/culture in America, why didn't/can't you?" and I think rightfully so, Hispanic's situation really is no different than the historical plight of Asian-Americans, and I think there's a solid argument that Asian-Americans, in the 1800's and again in WWII, had it worse-off.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is completely unfair. You can't compare AAs to any other minority group in this country our history is completely unique. All immigrants faced some hardship and the sting of bigotry but a generation removed White immigrants were embraced, less so for immigrants of color, but there has never been a group that was legally and morally shut of the system as AAs. We have only been allowed to marginally participate in the American dream for about 35-40 years prior to that we were completly segregated and openly despised by mainstream society. Preston is correct you don't undersatnd the incidiousness knowing that your society does not value your humanity. The job of a parent is a difficult one but there is that added challenge with AA families we have to constantly work to build self esteem in our children and a positive self identity. That said I've seen great improvement in my years in the work force. And please stop this generalization about hustling. My father worked in a dairy factory and my mother worked at the post office Their siblings were steel workers, teachers, various civil servants. They were hard working class Americans that played by the rules, nobody was hustling
Did you even reeeaaad my post, you joke? You mistyped my quote....I said you CANNOT compare the plight of African-Americans to that of Hispanics. WTF?????
Damn I'm sorry!!! I'm a little cloudy eyed from allergies today, and this is the second time I've misread a quote. I'll quit now. And I'm not a dude I'm a duddette and the hustler mentality isn't as pervasive as post seems to imply. It's a tiny little dysfuntional segment on the margins of the mainstream AA community.
Whoa there Dexteritas - Lynn is one of the most intelligent, reasonable, thought-provoking posters on this site. Notice how she she owned up to misreading your post immdediately? Care to show the same class by apologizing for precipitously biting her head off??
And dude, don't deny the hustler mentality is out there. I didn't even particularize it to AA's.
1.I somewhat agree with you. Not about Affirmative Action, but about the poor educational school system, and how many low-income blacks, even when succeeding academically, still start off at the bottom in college because of not being prepared properly in high school. I speak personally on this issue because I came from a poor background and had to juggle both two jobs and studying through the night just to get into a decent college. However, I’m not sure I accept the notion that even those who get a degree in college, with the same grades as whites, lack the expertise to be CEOs in a work environment. The point I was making is that based on studies I’ve read, even those with the same college credentials are rarely made CEOs as conveniently as their white counterparts. This is what Affirmative Action tends to address, the caste system that systematically excludes blacks, even when they have equal qualifications. I’ve made the point elsewhere in other threads, but when a system is rigidly designed to give whites more benefits and privileges than blacks, then of course there needs to be a system in place to chip away at that unfair system—and that’s all what Affirmative Action do, chip away at the system. It's not a huge overhaul that excepts minorities while shuns whites, as some conservatives will have folks to believe.
2. I think we both agree with each other here. But I should add that the hustler and gangster iconography isn’t just canonized in minority circles; America has always celebrated this type of image, going back to Hollywood movies staring Edward G. Robinson, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney in the 30s and 40s, America has always romanticized the urban hustler and thug. I remember watching this World War II documentary and this Japanese scholar said that before America went into war with Japan, the only thing Japan knew about America was what they saw in our movies, which were mostly westerns and gangster films. Since that was the predominant image they saw of America, the Japanese population thought most Americans were involved in crime organizations and shoot each other. Thus, I think this celebration of the profane is pure Americana, plain and simple.
3. I agree with you here as well. I guess what I was trying to say is that “statically” (that’s the magic word of the day) blacks and Hispanics are imprisoned at higher rates than others, also having higher dropout rates in High School. Thus, the way our economy is set up at the moment, distribution of wealth does not trickle down to those who desperately need it the most, blacks and Hispanics. I think this is going to change in a few decades though since being Hispanic is not really a racial category, but it’s an ethnicity. And like other ethnic groups that immigrated over here, over time they will assimilate into whiteness and seek privileges that are denied to those who aren’t white. This is how our melting pot works, and how we contradistinguish with those who are the “other” and those who are “white.” I could be wrong since many Hispanics—some who are European decent—are still looked at as being non-white, and some refuse to discard their ethnic identity to become “white” like the Irish, Italians, Poles, Slavs, Germans, etc., did during the Industrial Revolution.
"To your point that 'educated' blacks don't do as well on av. as 'educated' whites, there isn't a fair population comparison, and also, I think education goes beyond what piece of paper you've earned. An african-american who was improperly socialized as a child can achieve a degree and not have the tools to make CEO in a work environment....and that's why I think affirmative action erroneously tries to fix a problem that has done its damage by the time college and a job comes around."
You could be right or it could be the Archie Bunker/ Bill O’Reilly mentality. Employers (most of whom are white) may have the same racist perception of Blacks as O’Reilly does and this may keep them from hiring a Black person.
And I reading something a couple of months ago that stated the unemployment rate of Blacks with college degrees was higher than Whites with high school diplomas.
That should be: "And I was reading..."
Affirmative Action has done more to foster racism in this country in the past 20-years than anything else. As I went to college I started noticing racist comments coming from my mother. Not on the KKK hate level but in regards to work ethic. Several years later my mother went to work for an African American lady and I thought “Oh boy, am I going to get an ear full when I visit.”
But it was the opposite. This was the best boss she worked for. Until she went to work for her husband, who is also African American.
Years later, I have become friends with the bosses and at a social event I overheard my mother make a comment while I was talking to the husband and it was clear he heard as well. I was horrified and started apologizing for my mother. He just laughed and explained something to me.
My mother started working for a school district that had affirmative action in the late ‘70’s. In order to be promoted she had to take a test (she was on clerical side). But the kicker was, her 95% was the same as an African American’s 70% and an Hispanics 55%. So often she was working for someone who was not capable of even doing their own job let alone the one my mother was getting paid less to do.
To make matters worse, many departments would have 3-4 people to do the job of one person.
He asked me: “How would you feel if over the past 15-years you were paid the same or less than others in your same job but they could not do the job. Now imagine that all these people not doing their jobs are black and Hispanic. You would end up resenting these people as well.”
Now mind you, there were plenty of white people not capable of doing these jobs as well but they did not get the promotion because, well, they weren’t qualified.
I am glad to say that it took only a brief conversation with my mother for her to see the difference between a person getting a promotion they are not qualified for and that persons race in general. But what has not changed is that a program that was designed to help has become another social program that is abused.
I think your own ignorance shines very sharply in your reply. To say that the welfare state has been dismantled in this country is misleading at best. The poorest people in this nation are by far and away better off than the poor in many nations, and the opportunities for people to pull themselves out of this poverty abound in this nation. There is no other nation in this world that offers the public assistance that this nation offers in the form of subsidised income and educational assistance. Programs such as WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, Headstart, Medicaid, Free Lunches, and Pell Grants just to name a very few. A person's ability to be successful in this nation is only limited by their desire to put in the effort necessary to be successful. These programs were not designed to remove a person's personal responsibility for their own livelihood, they were put in place to assist people out of their poverty, not to eliminate it. The problem in African-America today is not a problem of a lack of government involvement, it is a problem of parental involvement. Single parent families are by far the norm in these communities, and they have no role models other than the rappers they see on the boob tube, and sports figures like Michael Vick. Every role model they have presents an image of the only way to make it in America if you are Black is to either be a sports star or a rapper. The quick road to success. Movies portray youg black males involved in drugs, murder, and mayhem as "COOL", and further support these images that drugs and guns are the way to get what you want. There ARE good role models that support the model that hard work and perseverance is the way to be successful however when they try and share their views of what is wrong in Black America, they are chastised as "Uncle Tom's", or "Being White". Bill Cosby was a good example of what happens when you tell the truth. The problem with this country is that Black America doesn't want to hear the truth. They want to continue to live in thier beliefs that The White Man is holding him down. The Media fuels these flames with incidents like the "Duke Rape Case", "The Jena Six", and any other story they can find to support their stereotype of White America while all the while ignoring the blatant racism that exist within the Black community. Are there reacist whites? Absolutely. Are their racist blacks? Absolutely. But if you look hard enough you will see that the true racism that everyone is so afraid of exists in the very dregs of our society. It is the uneducated, ignorant, have nothings, whites and blacks included that continue to perpetuate these streotypes.
When is Black America going to stand up and see these so called "Black Leaders" such as Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson for what they are, not to mention the Democrat Party? It is in their vested interest to keep Black America in a state of hatred and finger pointing otherwise they lose their power. Black America is falling right into the hands of these people allowing them to speak on their behalf. Stand Up and speak for yourselves. Do your homework and get the facts before you start protesting. Do take what you hear from the Media as fact. You have nothing to lose but your poverty.
It's that old saw about lying statistics. The stats may show that low income blacks have more problems than low income whites, I don't know, but it still does not give Bill the right to stereotype an entire race, which is the foundation of this entire flap.
Based on this nations history, it would show statistically that whites have practiced more racism by far than any other race, even so, it is still not ok to sterotype white people as rascist and then act all surprised when you meet a white person who is not a racist.
Wow, talking about missing a very strong and good point. I guess Dr. Cosby is also a racist because Bill O took his talking points straight from Cosby.
But the Reverend and Bill both get to a telling point with different statistics. The children they are talking about are starting with huge disadvantages of the likes that most posting or writing for this site could never imagine. The outrage should be these statistics.
I will say that I agree that unless we change the family dynamic on a drastic scale no amount of Government aid is going to change anything.
This headline is why MMFA gets accused of agenda-driving a story instead of just putting the facts our fairly and clearly for the reader to decide. This was a lengthy two segment conversation between these two men with many interesting points discussed by both......yet MMFA chooses to put in it's headline the most critical statement made by Jackson to O'Reilly.
Why not just headline it as a conversation between them, or is this the "juiciest", most delicious tidbit that you want focused upon?
Because this isn't billoreilly.com, that's why.
Exactly. MMFA is not a news site. Makes me wonder does Tommy value his credibility anymore.
If you're saying that it's becoming a "let's get Bill" site, then I am not sure you appreciate credibility.
"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."
I'd say as far as Bill O'Reilly goes this is "mission accomplished."
And a follow up segment with Juan Williams...who supported O'Reilly's claim of non-racism and his own outrage at being called "a happy negro".
All in all...just another silly catfight between Brock and O'Reilly in the niches of cable news and bloggers...mostly important for water cooler talk and cocktail parties inside the beltway.
The lengths both entrenched sides are going to in order to bolster their take on this is staggering.
Bill spends the better part of his three hours on the air rounding up reinforcments, not to mention his on-air worshipers at Fox devoting their own shows to Uncle Bill......and then MMFA covering every player on their side, from every angle, in hopes of turning the screws tight enough for Bill to bust open in a fit of rage.
As entertainment goes, it's not bad just waiting to see the next round.
Tommy,
Kinda like watching two punch drunk fighters slugging it out. It can make for an entertaining fight...but does little to advance the sweet science.
Tommy, simple question.......Would you want to be labeled as a racist?
Simple answer. No.
If someone were trying to label you as a racist after you thought you were doing some good by having a conversation with an activist (Juan Williams), and you were trying to be helpful, wouldn't you want to defend yourself if someone was trying to label you, "racist"? This is a pretty big label, one that I would fight myself.
Juan Williams is not a civil rights activist he is a journalist. And Bill has proven the only thing worse then his criciticisms are his complements.
Smitty,
If I was called a racist and uttered a statement that some/a lot of people found insensitive, I would figure out why those people found the statement offensive. I would either try to clarify what I said or apologize.
The last thing I would do if I was confronted with my own words was say that I was being distorted. He needs to take responsibility for what he said. If he believes his words were distorted, he should play the distorted part, then play what he "really" said.
He should, if he wants this to die down, re-examine what he said instead of bringing people on his show who will just agree with him.
He doesn't have to issue a blanket apology, but he bring on someone who was offended and have a discussion and maybe try to understand why the other was offended if he really wants to get anywhere.
Fried,
I was just going to answer Smitty, but you said it better than I could. Thank you.
Tommy,
No problem, I certainly did not mean to put words in your mouth. I just thought he asked a very useful question and I thought I would give my two cents. I was not sure if it was a general question or not.
Fair enough, you make some good points, and by Tommy's response, it sounds like he agrees. Very valid points. In my opinion, I don't feel this was about racism at all. If so, why didn't MMFA go after the CNN guest who called Juan Williams a "happy negro"? I feel this was an opportunity for MMFA to take a controversial subject on which many have opinions, and make it seem as if BO was trying to degrade african americans. Instead of trying to understand that BO was having this conversation with Juan Williams to put racism further in our rearview mirror, and move forward as equals in this society. Thanks for your thoughts. You too Tommy.
If I had inadvertantly displayed to the entire world the racist preconceptions and attitudes O'falafel did. I would own up to it. I would say I didnt MEAN it to soud as it did but that I could SEE why anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex would SEE that it DID present a racist preconception and appologize profusely. Billy O DIDNT do that and THAT more than harboring his fantasies that people THINK black patrons would be saying MFer get me some ice tea or that I COULDNT get over a black restaurant was just like any other. If he REALLY thought he was doing any good in a discussion about race by AIRING that kind of patronizing attitude, that is the saddest part of the whole situation.
I think BO said this on air to indicate that this is how many white americans believe black owned and operated establishments truly are. I think he was saying that there is no difference between a restaurant owned and operated by blacks (and that is mainly patronized by black customers), and a restaurant owned and operated by whites (and that is mainly patronized by white customers). He wasn't making a stereotype that many whites don't already make. He was stating that this is how many whites think, therefore, put away that way of thinking because there is no difference.
Key distinctions: THOUGHT you were doing some good...TRYING to be helpful...
If Bill O'Reilly thinks he's doing good by pointing out that black people can run a restaurant without people screaming obscenities, then his expectations are so pitifully low that yes, in fact, he is very racist.
He might not be as racist as his grandmother or anyone else who is overtly hateful, but it's still racism. He needs to realize (but, of course, never will) that he was NOT doing good and was NOT being helpful, and that thinking such offensive statements were compliments shows just how pervasive his prejudices are.
I wouldnt then again, I dont display the sort of racist preconceptions O'falafel put on display. I have never seen tommy do so either. So the question is really irrelevant to Billy O
And a follow up segment with Juan Williams...who supported O'Reilly's claim of non-racism and his own outrage at being called "a happy negro".
It doesn't matter what Williams says or far that matter, what Jackson says. I've listened to the audio of what Bill O'Reilly said and his comments were clearly racist.
O'Reilly invited Rev. Jackson on for the sole purpose of defending his Sylvia's remarks. He expected to garner the Rev's support and "prove" that the remarks weren't offensive and that he (O'R) isn't racist. Rev. Jackson got to the point right off the bat, asking: "Bill, what were you trying to say [with your remarks about Sylvia's]?" O'Reilly sputters and spins and then the Reverend gives his opinion on O'Reilly's remarks (just not the one O'Reilly was expecting) -- "[T]o underestimate the civility of blacks was insulting to many people." So, Tommy, just how is MMFA's headline "agenda-driving [the] story." The "facts" were that O'Reilly sought out & got Rev. Jackson's opinion. MMFA "just put[] the facts out fairly and clearly" in the headline.
The statement best characterizes Jackson’s reason for being on the O’reilly show. In classic fashion O’reilly confirms he’s a racist and a bigot while trying to prove he is not by saying: “Nah, it's not about [jobs]. It's about discipline”. In O'reilly's view, the problems associated with black Americas have nothing to do with racially influenced economics, employment, education, or inequitable treatment in the justice system, it is simply that they, as a race, lack “discipline”. If you listen carefully to the whole transcript that generated this “controversy”, it is clear O’reilly is a racist and a bigot.
Neither one of these jokers has any credibility...any dummy can state the obvious. MMfA should concentrate on the few media personalities that still do.
Why didn't Jackson say "Then Bill, why did you say you were "surprised"?"
And why didn't Bill continue to press Jackson on the Duke case?
Jokers, all of 'em.
I think Jackson, like Sharpton the night before, was more interested in talking about the Jena 6 rather than O'Reilly's situation.
You guys are so biased it's ridiculous, BTW the Jena protests were very effective. Mychal Bell has been released on bail and will be tried as a juvenile which seems fair to me.
Please except my apology I mis-read your post. My bad!
You *must* comdemn what Media Matters and CNN did, Jesse Jackson...join with Juan Williams and Al Sharpton and complete my triumvirate of black friends...
PS - Please!
Now that was a discussion about race, Jackson's probable speech impediment aside (If you can't understand him read the transcript, it goes down well) he introduced some damn fine points. You can't have a serious discussion about race without discussing any of the points he brought up. I love how he kept directing the topics back to substantial matters, not that I don't disagree with the point of no fathers in the home that Bill raised. Black children need parents and community to reinforce their value and worth when the outside world is constantly giving them verbal and non-verbal cues that they are not. But it is my opinion that you can't tackle the problems that are affecting this segment of an AMERICAN community without tackling all the factors that are all important and are driving the problems we see. The problems that occur in the AA community isn’t a Black problem it’s an American problem.
Good post Lynn.
You can really tell the difference between Jackson's point of view which is being a minister/activist and O'Reilly's which is being a partisan hack.
Seriously, charging a 16 year old as an adult in murder cases is going to solve anything?
It would be funny to see how you would react if a 16 year old murdered someone in your family. I'm sure your liberal forgiveness would kick in and you would DEMAND he be tried as a child and be given no more than several months of probation.
Lynn,
I do appreciate when race is discussed anywhere honestly and from many different points of views and backrounds. I think it is very necessary and important.
And you are right, both men made good points. But I do think O'Reilly is right about one thing, that many white people do not want to discuss race for fear of saying something "wrong" that can be interpreted as racist. So instead, nothing gets discussed in the climate of political correctness...and the unfounded fear that many white people have towards blacks continues. That is sad, and very unfortunate.
Yet, I don't give whites a pass for this fear either, they are nobody's victim and to act like this keeps them from addressing race is just a cop out too, have some courage, be honest and upfront and if you ruffle feathers, so be it. Just be respectful and treat others with the dignity they deserve and don't hide behind ignorance. Listen to what someone is saying and understand their point of view is not always yours.
Racism is driven from fear and ignorance, that is very true. So is most bigotry. Tackling that fear is a good beginning.
Clap, clap!
Tackling fear?
A lot of the right wing owes their careers to building up that fear. You need to look no farther than Karl Rove and his politics of divisiveness.
As far as O'Reilly goes most of his answers to society's problems are simplistic and one dimensional as is his view of the so called culture war.
If your sole motivation is the political destruction of your opponent through any means necessary, then that is your own business and you are a lost cause, and any substantive discussion on much of anything is a waste of time.
I could care less about exiled Rove or hack partisans from either side. "takes one to know one"
I can't even figure out what this means.
Should I post sticks and stones back?
Tommy,
I recognized your waltz steps...even if your dance partner couldn't...as evidenced by his response...LOL
Thanks Wes, and we get accused of no nuance, only black and white......perhaps this is why nuance is so wasted on some?
You two make a cute couple.
Sure, then put your money where your mouth is and vote to keep us on Dancing with the Stars, the new season!
Hear hear, Tommy. I'm sure many whites do indeed feel intimidated in public discussions of race, but that's not a sufficient excuse... especially when it comes to criticizing someone for saying something offensive.
About ten years ago I met a guy who was trying to raise awareness among men on a college campus about date rape. I didn't get it at first -- shouldn't women, who are primarily the targets of sexual violence, be the ones to whom he was spreading the message? No, he explained. Men comprise the majority of perpetrators of sexual violence. Women can take every precaution under the sun and learn every self-defense technique in the world, but the problem will persist unless men make it their problem, too. In other words, he argued, we need to transform sexual violence from a women's problem to a men's problem as well. And I totally agree with him.
I would say that the same thing applies to discussions of race. For too long racism has been portrayed as a problem for minorities, and a problem against which minorities must fight. And certainly that's true, but whites need to step up and attack racism as well, regardless of whether or not they fear saying something that can be used against them. It is, in fact, possible (and quite common) for whites to participate in open and honest discussions about race without accusations of racism being thrown around. But I don't think O'Reilly understands how or why.
A very insightful post V. A very good post.
Great post tommy. Great points
Lynn,
From Juan Williams book, "Enough":
- Where is strong black leadership to speak hard truth to those looking for direction? Where are the black leaders who will make it plain and say it loud? Who will tell you that if you want to get a job you have to stay in school and spend more money on education than on disposable consumer goods? Where are the black leaders who are willing to stand tall and say that any black man who wants to be a success has to speak proper English? Isn't that obvious? It would be a bonus if anyone dared to say to teenagers hungering for authentic black identity that dressing like a convict, whose pants are hanging off his ass because the jail prison guards took away his belt, is not the way to rise up and be a success.
Wes,
I would say this applies to all youths from all races and ethnicities in our country. Adults and primarily parents need to step up to the plate like many generations before them - who would turn over in their grave if they witnessed the way some youths exhibit themselves in our society today.
When you have no discipline, no direction, no supervision and no parenting......you have a mess.
I agree. Sadly many parents in the baby boomer generation (my generation) want to be buddies with their children...instead of parents.
Yeah and what happens when you're educated, well employed and still can't get a cab on the streets of New York City and your college degree allows you to earn only 70% of what a comparably educated white person earns?
Turning failure back on the victims when it's clear the system is rigged is just another symptom of the problem.
Hey Tommy, as much as I thought every inch of this BilldO/Sylvia's thing had been covered, something just came to mind.Have you (or anyone else in L.A.) ever been to that bulletproof KFC, I think it's on Robertson, north of the 10? The one with the counter-to-ceiling bulletproof glass and the little cylinder that spins around for the money and food?
Maybe BilldO went there at some point, and formed his image of a "Black restaurant".
Haven't been there HBL, but unless they put those confines at The Ivy, well, then I just wouldn't know.......
;)
How far East do you go, Tommy? The Ivy? ;0)
Well, sometimes La Cienaga, occassionally Crescent Heights, once in awhile Fairfax, rarely La Brea, and only past Highland when going to Hancock Park - but THAT'S IT!
(can you how imagine how boring this is for most people besides you and me)
Sorry folks. :)
Tommy & HBL, it's not boring for me since I'm an ex Angelino, feels like home. I've never been to the KFC however I have dined at the Ivy in Santa Monica, great Mint Juleps by the way. The owner was a client of my daughter.
I thought Juan's book was a cheap shoot and I'm sure the fact that it advanced what is apparently a Fox agenda item particularly O'rielly's crusade to appoint a “Black Leader” of the Conservatives choosing for the AA community is the reason why Juan is now such a good O’rielly ally. It didn’t work when they attempted to make Blacks follow Booker T. Washington and it isn’t going to work now. Besides Wes this is an American problem and it's going to take leaders of all colors and political stripes that are truly vested in and committed to achieving positive outcomes and not in using the problem for political exploitation by either the left or the right. By the way who is the leader of the White community???
Juan Williams and O'Reilly are very seldom allies...as they are on this current dust up.
However, I agree completely with your statement that "this is an American problem and it's going to take leaders of all colors and political stripes" to address the problem.
No amount of looking back will correct any racial bias...improvements will only be made by looking forward...as Americans.
Wes,
There is still racial bias happening now that is having an affect currently. We have to address the current reality. But I think we're mostly on the same page.
You bet...I like your forward looking...all-american approach.
Wes, what makes Juan Williams the authority to speak of the problems within the "black community?" Citing him really doesn't debunk anything because his book is in a long line of hatchet-jobs that one can easily find by the likes of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, John McWhorters, etc. Victim-blaming will not reach nor motivate those that Juan Williams pretends to be adovcating and looking out for. It just shows that he's completely out of touch with black youth as Cosby.
Besides, I prefer REAL scholars like the late James Baldwin, Oliver Cromwell Cox, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, W.E.B. Dubois, Toni Morrison, Adolph Reed, Jr., Robin D.G. Kelley, etc., than a Fox News lapdog whose sole purpose in writing a book is to build a conservative constituency who'll make him a prominent "black leader."
What makes Juan Williams an authority...nothing.
What makes your list of authorities any more credible than Williams...nothing.
I'm disappointed that you can find nothing worthwhile in the writings of Sowell, Williams, etc...simply dismissing them as hatchet men.
I'll have respect for your opinion if you are willing to cede the exclusive territory of the moral high ground.
If Juan Williams is an authority on "nothing" what's he doing on nationwide tv?
This is nothing more than Fox's attempt to build Williams up as a black leader the same way they try to pass off Tammy Bruce as a Democrat/feminist.
Are you KIDDING? What makes Ralp Ellison, author of the Invisible Man perhaps the seminal novel about living as a black man in America WEB Dubois, famed socialogist and founding member of the NAACP and NOBEL PRIZE winner for literature Toni Morrison experts? Are ya daft man?
So Juan Williams is not an "authority" to you. Then I'm sure you would easily dismiss Bill Cosby. How about Larry Elders? If you want a REAL authority try Shelby Steele.
LOL! Shelby Steele is actually worse than Juan Williams. I have about eight books of Sowell's; I use to be a huge fan of his back when I was a self-hating, closet-case, evangelical black conservative. I know all about Larry Elder, John McWhorters, Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly, etc., and they offer nothing new to the table; it's the same self-help/personal responsibility conservatism that Booker T. Washington was peddling over a hundred years ago, suggesting to blacks that they should stop protesting so much about Civil Rights and accept white supremacy as a given. Booker suggested we black folk should PROVE to whites that we’re worthy for their acceptance. If you read Washington then you have read all black conservatives, for their arguments are the same as his back then. Only this time they mix a bit of Milton Friedman's free-market ideology, and Ayn Rand’s greed and hatred of the poor, into their self-help rhetoric.
By the time I matured and learned more about the world, I've became more progressive, and when I discovered the likes of James Baldwin and W.E.B. Dubois, then all the arguments that Washingtonian conservatism made convinced me how opportunistic many of them were. I began to see things realistically, not in my former Horatio Alger tinted-glasses. So please don’t suggest these puppets to me as if I’m unaware of them; they’re just as much puppets and hucksters of the capitalistic system as Fiddy Cent and Twista. In fact, I think both third-rate rappers and black conservatives have a lot more in common than what separates them.
Preston,
This may be too broad a question, but what do you feel is the best and most productive method for black people to combat racism in our society today? What is the best route for a young black man or woman to confront it? In your opinion?
Whew, Tommy, that’s a hard question to answer, but I’ll take a crack at it.I think as Americans, especially black and white, we don’t know a lot about each other. Yeah, we go around and say how much of a melting-pot we are, and we’re one of the most diverse countries in the world—which is true, to a certain degree. However, we’re still afraid and angry at each other. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act may have forced whites and blacks to integrated together, but we’re still segregated emotionally from each other on so many levels that it’s sad. That's why the problem of race is so vexing in America: there's so much anger and fear under the surface and so much that we can't get at through mere words and even the most earnest discussion. Personally, as a young black man who have battled, and continue to battle, many things in my life—homophobia, poverty, racism, etc.— the best way I faced all of those things was to learn why people racist against me; why many of my Christian brothers and sisters discriminate and stick their noses up at me because I’m a homosexual; why has four generations of my family suffered through poverty, even when they worked, they worked AND they worked, and things still weren’t on an equal playing field? I ask myself all these things because as a black man in a country that is so stubborn to self-analyze itself to see its faults while only highlighting its virtues, I can’t afford to be ignorant about the things that effect me. No matter how many fights and disagreements Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois had with each, they both stressed for blacks of all economic backgrounds to educate themselves, and learn things that is outside their boundaries, because education is the ONLY way to defeat and overthrow racism. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were both proponents of self-help and personal responsibility, but they knew that no matter how much self-sufficiency one holds, if one doesn’t address and challenge the caste system that continues to doom so many blacks in poverty since the Reconstruction, than all the self-help in the world will never redress a system that Yale sociologist Douglas S. Massey calls “Categorically Unequal.”
As my partner told me when I first met him, by knowing the roots of racism, he actually began to see the sufferings of other cultures and why historically oppressed/enslaved cultures are at a severe psychological disadvantage today. And it is through that understanding of other culture’s sufferings, with its roots in colonialism, is when people be able to gain the honesty and humanity to fight racism in today’s' world. But as my hero, sociologist Stephen Steinberg said years ago: “Part of the reason that racism is so difficult to combat is that people deny the obvious. Racists do so, well, for obvious reasons. Whites in general are loath to confront racism because it calls into question their faith in American democracy and the goodness of the American people. Blacks, too, often prefer to look the other way because they feel diminished or tainted by race talk, and because, especially these days, they are made to feel that they must shed the image of “victim... Evasion and denial run across the political spectrum as well. Conservatives engage in denial because acknowledging racism leads to remedial social policies to which they are ideologically opposed. Liberals engage in denial because race talk stokes their guilt, and challenges their sanctimonious claims of racial innocence.”
When a country is so divided racially and ideologically, I just don't see how we'll ever solve the problem and clean the stains of what Slavery and Jim Crow left on this country.
Preston, you know YOU'RE MY HERO. Often times I try to articulate an opinion and convey my feelings on a subject and when I re-read my post it doesn't effectively communicate what I was attempting to share. You'll come along and write something and I'll go OMG that was how I wanted to say that, that is what I meant. I love good writing and you're damn fine writer. Are you a writer??
Thanks for that, Lynn. I admire you a lot as well. You and Pearl are two of my favorite posters here and I learn a lot when reading your posts. I do have to admit my response to Tommy had many grammatically errors, and I wish there was an edit button where I can correct some of them. No, I’m not a writer; I don’t think I’m talented enough to be one. But thank you for your kind words; you build up my confidence to post here more often!
I notice that Hood_Williams posted a long diatribe against Affirmative Action. If I wasn’t so sleepy from staying up most of the night studying, I would respond back to him. I love debating with angry right-wingers like him because their rants are always amusing.
larry elder??? oh you mean the talk show host that got into law school thanks to an affirmative action program, who is now against affirmative action.
the man has made a career as being a black man who makes whites comfortable with their racism.
and lets not note his conversion from being a libertarian to becoming a republican on the eve of garnering a nationally syndicated radio show
he has absolutely no credibility
Can we then say O'Reilly is a would-be adulterer when talking about him?
We would have to open the sealed court records of the Andrea Mackris case to see exactly how far O'Reilly got with her and how much he paid to hush everything up.
We report. You decide.
Oh yes....now I remember....the producer who quit O'Reilly and Fox went to CNN THEN called O'Reilly and came back to Fox for more harassment ......yes, I remember.....
And that's the reason O'Reilly paid her off?
And that's the reason O'Reilly paid her off?
The O'Reilly who's been described as "notoriously cheap"?
That makes sense I guess.
And made TAPES of that harassment? I have read transcripts of them and they are SICK. Billy O didnt talk to her like someone he wanted to be his girlfriend he talked to her like someone he had chained in the basement? Do you ever do anything but spew rightwing propaganda parrot talking points?
So we should immediately discredit and forget about the good work that Jackson has done.
The Karl Rove tactic: If you can't defeat the message, defeat the messenger.
Although we already know the answer, Why hasn't anyone asked Bill O the simple question. What suprised him about the civility of the black patrons at Sylvia's. Thats what he said right? That he was "suprised"?
I don't understand why not one of his defenders acknowledge the remarks that have caused this blow up. They have been blacked out on FOX. I would love for Juan or Sharpton to ask Bill specifically why he was "shocked" by the civility on display at Sylvia's? Also, Bill, you complain that there is no difference between black and white America and you lament how shameful it is whites do not realize this. Why then, have you mostly focused on these fringe cultures in the black community and does your body of work on the Factor perpetuate the fear of these whites you say are scared of blacks? I know that whomever O'Reilly brings on his show will defer to his interpretation of the remarks but the fact of the matter is, regardless of context, O'Reilly sounded like an out of touch elite that he constantly says is runining America. People like O'Reilly have already ruined America, and I am not talking about his racial views, I am talking about his agenda of division, whether by race, religion, gender, or politics.
Exactly what I was trying to point out above. Somebody needs to ask Bill why he was shocked or what it was that he expected when going to a Harlem establishment.
Exactly what I was trying to point out above. Somebody needs to ask Bill why he was shocked or what it was that he expected when going to a Harlem establishment. He has been portraying this as some sort of hit job by the "media". I'd love to hear his answer to that simple question.
I think that my good friends on the left do not really understand that Bill O is NOT a conservative. And when Bill has Sharpton, Jackson, et al, on his program it's usually entertaining and informative.
And it certainly proves that whatever he is, he is certainly not a racist.
I would argue that isnt true. NOT because of the remarks. I have said before we all have a context to our lives and have unexamined pervasive attitudes that were formed BY that context. I would not see someone as a racist for simply harboring the sort of racist attitudes O'Rielly exhibited. How he REACTED when they were pointed out is another thing. He defended having them as if all of America felt this way and he JUST discoverd they were not true, was doing us all a favor by telling us things any reasonable person knew LONG ago. THAT makes him look racist. It could be however just a stubborness to pretend he is ALWAYS right, that isnt how it looks. The DEFENSE of those remarks look racist to me
AS A JOURNALIST and an American I take no pleasure in the embarrassment of Jesse Jackson. But I do believe in karma, and the fact that Jackson is now getting his may be the ruling of the universe. For years, Jackson has been dividing Americans. Sometimes with good cause, other times employing pure exploitation. With the revelations that he fathered a child with his mistress and paid her big money to keep quiet, Jackson has lost his moral imperative. And he may be losing much more.
Bill O really
MMFA goofs again!
Of course, Reverend Jackson actually said seeing NO NOOSES. If he HAD seen nooses, there would have been no "civility".
Does anybody at MMFA bother to proofread? Oh, but if BOR says something that can possibly be taken the wrong way--LOOK OUT!
From the MMFA post:
JACKSON: It's like if I were to go to a white restaurant -- basically white restaurant -- and so, I came out and seeing the nooses, no white people called me a defaming name, you'd say, "Of course not,"
THE REVERENDS CHICKEN
What O'Reilly said is racist. He contended that he could not get over the fact that everything was ship shape in a black owned establishment...he then continued to state that black people were beginning to think for themselves. SO WTF DID BOR mean by those two statements? Why did he not anticipate a black owned establishment would be just like any other place? What led him to believe people of a race different from his own were less capable of thinking for themselves early in life?
That neither Reverend bothered to listen to the full audio and read the damn transcript BOTHERS me. They did not act the same with Imus. I believe they copped out on this one, consistecny is lacking, and I think either they are too Buddy Buddy or afraid to tackle Fox. They are enablers to BOR right now, he's using them to deflate this issue and in turn helping the MSM cast the blogosphere in a bad light.
Shame on them all
Would mediamatters please show the express double standard Bill O'reilly has shown this week. In an interview three days ago he said that the 16 year old white boys who hung the noose on the jena high tree could not understand the "gravity" of their action, and thus Bill didn't know how, or if, they should be charged at all. Then, while talking with Jesse Jackson, he implies that he would be alright with the black kids, who are 16, being charged as adults. Then, to further show that he grants the white youths more leeway, he then goes into an irrelevant tirade about 16 year olds who kill people, and how they can graps the gravity and thus should be charged as adults.
The far left is one of the major reasons that many of our young people are in prison. They are afraid to tackle gangster rap and many of the bad effects that it has caused. I stumbled onto O'Reilly when he was discussing gangster rap and he was the only one to address this, while liberals like Media Matters attacks him, Media Matters does not focus on the damage that gangster rap has done to the minority communities like mine. Media Matters is the typical white liberals who are those who defend gangster rap and act like it does not exist because most of the far left are really racists.
Does anyone else find it HIGHLY hypocritical that Bill O'Reilly is asking Jackson AND Sharpton to vouch for him and say he isn't racist, when in the speech that started this mess, he said, "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the SHARPTONS and the JACKSONS and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture." [emphasis mine]
So, he bashes their influence in the black community, and then suddenly as soon as he thinks it will help him he tries to enlist their influence in the black community?!?!?! What hypocrisy!!
Not only that, but why didn't Sharpton and Jackson really grill him on that one? Had they not heard that part of the clip? WHY NOT? If you're going to go on national television, and you know the first thing O'Reilly is going to ask you is, "Did you listen to the whole thing?" it's clearly worth an hour of your time to be able to say, "Yes, I did listen to the whole thing and I don't think that excuses what you said at all."
When O'Reilly talks about white people's fear of black people, he's actually admitting his own fear. After all, O'Reilly knows what his show is about - selling respectability to other racists. Give the man credit for knowing he's running a scam. He might have feared that eating in a Harlem restaurant would be too much of a provocation. Who knows what might have happened? Somebody might have come up to him and confronted him.
Good thing Bwana O'Reilly had a trusted native guide. Back in the safety and comfort of his own studio, he resumes his spiel, The problem with blacks is that they haven't got any discipline, ya know what I mean, Jesse?
During this exchange Mr. O'Rielly excercised great restraint; how clever of him however, to allow Benard Goldberg to do the dirty work. If Mr. O'Rielly's true intent was to build a bridge and open the lines of communication with Jesse Jackson, then why allow the back door character assasination by Mr. Goldberg. Clearly Bill was attempting to keep his hands clean and distance himself from any criticisms of Jesse Jackson.
Jesse Jackson surprised me. He was casual dismissed the entire issue. Jackson brushed aside the racist implications of O'Reilly's remarks as if they were trivial, overblown and not worthy of discussion. Jackson quickly switched focus to other topics on his agenda, Al Sharpton appeared in the No Spin Zone the previous day and pretended to know nothing about the controversy. He told Bill he would listen to the audio at some point in the unforeseeable future before rendering an opinion, Thanks for nothing, Reverend Al. So Bill O'Reilly gets a ghetto pass from the two most prominent race hustlers in America. I don't know how Billo Reilly pulled it off but he escaped unscathed. Bravo, Bill.