Radio host John DePetro: White people go to Harlem for "either" drugs or prostitutes
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, discussing Bill O'Reilly's recent controversial comments about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, Rhode Island radio host John DePetro stated: "It was a discussion on race and we're talking about Harlem. And by and large -- I lived in New York for years -- white people don't go to Harlem." He continued: "If Dan Abrams and John DePetro, Bill O'Reilly, some white guys are sitting around a table, and Dan Abrams said, 'Yeah, I was up in Harlem last night.' We would think you were either, a) looking for drugs, or, b) looking for a prostitute."
On the September 27 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, while discussing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's recent controversial comments about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, host Dan Abrams asked his guest John DePetro, a Rhode Island radio talk-show host: "John, look, you've been on the show and defended Bill O'Reilly before. Don't you wish that he would just be quiet and put this behind him?" After claiming that O'Reilly was "taken out of context," DePetro asserted: "It was a discussion on race and we're talking about Harlem. And by and large -- I lived in New York for years -- white people don't go to Harlem." He continued: "If Dan Abrams and John DePetro, Bill O'Reilly, some white guys are sitting around a table, and Dan Abrams said, 'Yeah, I was up in Harlem last night.' We would think you were either, a) looking for drugs, or, b) looking for a prostitute." Abrams responded by asserting: "That is so idiotic, John," to which DePetro replied: "It is not idiotic," later adding: "It's a primarily black restaurant. It is still a primarily black area."
Later in the segment, after asserting that O'Reilly is "accusing the liberal media of having created this controversy wholesale as if somebody put him up to saying the things that he said about Sylvia," Air America host Rachel Maddow said: "But I have to say, Dan, I'm a little distracted. I wouldn't mind going back to hear more from John about how the only reason white people would go to Harlem is for prostitutes and drugs. I'm fascinated by that." DePetro responded by asserting: "Here's the Air America host who hates Bill O'Reilly, who would love to take him down, pretending that it wasn't taken out of context. ... People like you [are] trying to take him down and you can't deny that. You'd like to see him knocked off the air." Maddow then claimed, "I am indifferent to Bill O'Reilly. I don't watch his show. I don't particularly care," to which DePetro replied: "That's impossible." Republican strategist Joe Watkins then said: "Well, John, I just want to say that I hope and pray that white people go to Harlem, because it's a great place to live for Americans." DePetro responded: "They don't."
The segment concluded with Abrams returning to his earlier claim that O'Reilly "is playing out his own unfortunate statement for ratings" and asking DePetro: "Let me get back to the issue. Even, John DePetro, you would agree with me, that it's disingenuous of O'Reilly to claim that he's doing this because he wants to hold the corrupt media responsible to help your life -- meaning the individuals out there, the folks. He's doing it to help their lives. John, you would agree with me, that is totally disingenuous." De Petro replied: "I hate to admit it -- yes, I would agree with you, Dan Abrams."
From the September 27 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams:
ABRAMS: My take: I listened to his entire hour. He's saying that they are trying to get ratings? And he's doing the topic every night on his TV and radio shows? In fact, he devoted almost the entire hour of the show tonight to the issue. Why? For ratings.
Tonight, he had the gall to claim that media coverage of his comments is actually hurting African-Americans. Please.
It's true, O'Reilly was trying to decry racism when he made the comments. His intent was not bad, but, in this case, his effort to do the right thing exposed him, or at least exposed how ignorant he seems to think his audience is.
But most important now, he needs to stop blaming everyone else for his mess. He's now milking this story in an effort to play to those same people who he apparently believed would not know that you can go to an African-American restaurant and just have a nice meal. And he is playing out his own unfortunate statement for ratings.
Radio talk show host John DePetro joins us, as well as Air America host Rachel Maddow, and Republican strategist Joe Watkins.
All right, John, look, you've been on the show and defended Bill O'Reilly before. Don't you wish that he would just be quiet and put this behind him?
DePETRO: No, Dan, I think he's doing the right thing. Number one: He's firing up his base of listeners. Polls show his listeners really weren't offended. And I think it is taken out of context.
ABRAMS: No, I wouldn't think they would be, because basically what he was saying with those comments in the radio were, "My listeners apparently think that going to a black restaurant, people are going to be yelling, 'M-Fer, give me my iced tea.' "
DePETRO: Dan, it goes beyond that. It was a discussion on race and we're talking about Harlem. And by and large -- I lived in New York for years -- white people don't go to Harlem.
If Dan Abrams and John DePetro, Bill O'Reilly, some white guys are sitting around a table, and Dan Abrams said, "Yeah, I was up in Harlem last night." We would think you were either, a) looking for drugs, or, b) looking for a prostitute.
ABRAMS: You know what?
DePETRO: It was a discussion on race.
ABRAMS: That is so idiotic, John. That is --
DePETRO: It is not idiotic.
MADDOW: Wow. Wow.
ABRAMS: I mean, it's idiotic, first of all, because you don't know about the rebirth of Harlem recently, first of all. And, second of all, I mean, this is the problem.
DePETRO: How many white people were in the restaurant?
ABRAMS: I didn't -- I wasn't there. But let me --
DePETRO: It's a primarily black restaurant. It is still a primarily black area.
ABRAMS: All right, look. We have three white people and one black person on this, on this panel. And Joe Watkins --
WATKINS: That would be me.
ABRAMS: Joe Watkins was with us talking about politics before. Joe Watkins, I'm now going to ask you about this race issue. You have been somewhat protective and defensive of O'Reilly on this publicly. But I've got to ask you -
WATKINS: Yeah, I thought that Media Matters didn't do him right. I thought Media Matters [unintelligible].
ABRAMS: All right, forget about Media Matters for a minute. Shouldn't he just shut up about this?
WATKINS: Well, I have to respect his business acumen. I mean, this is a very, very smart man [unintelligible] business.
ABRAMS: He's playing it out for ratings, right?
WATKINS: He's doing very, very well in the ratings. I wish that I was smart enough to have ratings like that. Maybe I'd have my own show. But that's what you want in television. You want people to watch and as long as there's controversy, something to talk about, then that's one way to get people to watch.
ABRAMS: But he's making it sound, Joe, like he's doing -- let me let you listen to something he said on his radio program. This is number seven, where he's claiming why he's continuing to talk about this topic. Let's listen.
O'REILLY [audio clip]: And I'm sorry if I'm boring some of you. I know you'd rather talk about other items, but I can't get across to you how important this is, and how my campaign to hold the corrupt media responsible is going to help your life. Because no longer will these smear merchants be allowed to get away with it.
ABRAMS: He's doing it, Joe, because it's going to help your life. Right?
WATKINS: Does that mean I get my own show? So I can be smeared on a regular basis?
ABRAMS: I mean, come on. I mean, Rachel, that's the dishonesty here, because -- I mean, look, we've talked already about this issue of whether it was racist or not racist. I don't believe his intent was racist at all, but the bottom line is he's now accusing everyone else of doing it for ratings and he is now milking this for ratings.
MADDOW: Right. And also he's accusing the liberal media of having created this controversy wholesale as if somebody put him up to saying the things that he said about Sylvia.
But I have to say, Dan, I'm a little distracted. I wouldn't mind going back to hear more from John about how the only reason white people would go to Harlem is for prostitutes and drugs. I'm fascinated by that.
[crosstalk]
WATKINS: I know white people who go to Harlem.
DePETRO: Look who's talking. Miss Air America --
WATKINS: I hope and pray that that's not the way white people think about Harlem.
DePETRO: -- Miss Rachel Maddow --
WATKINS: Harlem's a great --
MADDOW: I think we should hear more about this.
ABRAMS: Wait, wait, wait. Hang on one second. Hang on. Hang on. Wait, wait. Wait.
DePETRO: -- with the condescending East Village --
ABRAMS: Let me -- wait, wait. Hang on. Let me let John -- let me let -- John --
DePETRO: Rachel, stop acting --
ABRAMS: John, I'm going to let you go and then I'm going hear from Joe. Go ahead, John.
DePETRO: Here's the Air America host who hates Bill O'Reilly, who would love to take him down, pretending that it wasn't taken out of context. Miss East Village -- there is no way -- stop acting.
You know what the discussion was on. It was on race, and there is a competitive nature to CNN and other liberal outlets -- forget CNN --
MADDOW: John --
DePETRO: -- people like you trying to take him down and you can't deny that. You'd like to see him knocked off the air.
MADDOW: John, I have to tell you, I -- the difference between love is not -- the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. I am indifferent to Bill O'Reilly. I don't watch his show. I don't particularly care. I do want to --
DePETRO: That's impossible.
MADDOW: -- hear more from you -- but -- from you all --
DePETRO: Air America has had --
MADDOW: -- no, come on.
DePETRO: -- a campaign against him.
ABRAMS: All right, but --
MADDOW: Listen, I don't --
DePETRO: You're Al Franken without glasses, so --
ABRAMS: All right, all right. I don't want to have a debate -- I don't want to have a debate about Rachel's ratings.
MADDOW: I want to know more about the hookers.
ABRAMS: Yeah. All right, but, Joe, you wanted to make a comment --
WATKINS: I did.
ABRAMS: -- about John's comments about Harlem.
DePETRO: I'm sure you do.
WATKINS: Well, John, I just want to say that I hope and pray that white people go to Harlem, because it's a great place to live for Americans -- Americans who happen to be black and other -- and I hope that the only reason --
DePETRO: They don't.
WATKINS: Yeah, John?
DePETRO: It's still predominantly a black area.
WATKINS: It's a wonderful -- but the --
DePETRO: In the restaurant -- Bill O'Reilly described it -- he was the only white person there. So, it's --
WATKINS: I know that he was. But -- but, it's a great place --
DePETRO: So, I took it as --
WATKINS: -- to live for Americans who happen to be African-American and other. And there are a lot of white people who live in Harlem as well. It's a great place to --
DePETRO: Well, but, maybe --
WATKINS: -- experience a great rebirth.
DePETRO: Maybe, the condescending liberal elite, like the Air America crowd, should think of moving there out of the East Village.
ABRAMS: Well, I think that's where --
MADDOW: John --
ABRAMS: -- Bill Clinton took his office, right?
MADDOW: John, it's like you're playing a character of yourself.
DePETRO: Yes, he did, and made a strong statement about it.
MADDOW: This is fair -- you are --
DePETRO: But he, Bill --
ABRAMS: All right, but let me --
MADDOW: You are God's gift to us understanding right-wing talk radio.
DePETRO: Bill O'Reilly is not out --
ABRAMS: Let me get back to the issue. Even, John DePetro, you would agree with me, that it's disingenuous of O'Reilly to claim that he's doing this because he wants to hold the corrupt media responsible to help your life -- meaning the individuals out there, the folks. He's doing it to help their lives. John, you would agree with me, that is totally disingenuous.
DePETRO: I hate to admit it -- yes, I would agree with you, Dan Abrams.
ABRAMS: That's all what I get. Totally disingenuous.
DePETRO: But I think he's doing the right thing by going after people that are attacking him and firing up his base and he continues his -- Dan, it's his campaign of I'm looking out for you.
ABRAMS: All right, that's fine. He can do what he wants. I'm just saying don't be disingenuous about what you're doing here. Don't claim this is about some sort of effort to protect the folks against the corrupt media. He's defending himself. He said something he shouldn't have said. He's defending himself. It's not the end of the world. He wasn't intending to be racist, but he shouldn't have said it. It was a dumb thing to say. Just say that. All right. I've got to wrap.
DePETRO: I think - Dan, I think some of the CNN crowd thought this was a Don Imus moment. And it's not.
ABRAMS: Maybe. Maybe. All right. John DePetro, Joe Watkins, Rachel Maddow, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.
DePETRO: Good to be with you, Dan.
WATKINS: Thanks, Dan.
MADDOW: Thanks, Dan.
ABRAMS: Up next, we get a unique look at the man considered the most dangerous inmate in California.
IF that is true it would make sense, since O'Reilly is a pervert.
I'm glad MMFA posted this. I just about fell off my chair when I heard it the other night, because it was so incredibly racist-- and this guest was trying to defend O'Reilly by using the same rhetoric! He was completely unapologetic. I was afraid it had gone under the radar.
I think what keeps getting revealed is that many on the right say racist things because they simply don't understand the issues involved. Colbert's spoof on O'Reilly has been money all along. "I just don't see race. They tell me you're black, but I wouldn't know." He pretty accurately predicted O'Reilly's, "Hey, there's no difference between black folks eating and white folks eating!"
The underlying reason for this pose O'Reilly epitomizes is to deny the existence of racism in modern America. It makes sense that the party that enjoys consistent support from those drawn in by race-baiting would have an interest in obscuring the existence of racism.
It may seem petty but their inability to understand what is going on with race issues today is yet another reason they would stand little chance of running a successful campaign against Barack Obama. I would never recommend nominating a candidate simply for that reason. But the fact that I consider him simply the best candidate makes me relish the possibilities of watching the right bungle their arguments against him. Along with his candor and dignity, it would be yet another benefit of his candidacy to shine a bright light on the festering racism in America and expose the party that harbors it with a wink and a nod.
Sundog, I thought I was the only one who noticed Colbert's brilliant take on how many conservatives view and handle race. Colbert feigns "colorblindness" because by doing gives him the opportunity to skip pointing out racism and exposing it for what it is. Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva wrote an incredible book about this entitled “Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States”. It pretty much systematically detailed how this phony "colorblindness" stems from Reaganism. It's a very good read, I wonder if Colbert read the book since he brilliantly satirizes this phenomenon with conservatives so well.
Why does race matter? This argument that seeking a color blind society is not an admirable goal is beyond me, i guess. I imagine it would come as a surprise to Dr. King.
I don't think Preston is saying a color blind society is not a goal. I believe Preston is saying (please correct me if I am wrong) that there are conservatives who pretend to be color blind and insist there is no racism in our country. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Until that day ethnicity will mater.
I don't believe that is the case. If so I am in total agreement with you H-MAN and Preston.
Yes, it is an admirable goal; however, too many on the right see it as having been acheived already, and that any attempt to bring it up is seen as demanding "special rights," or "reverse discrimination," or be seen as plain old "playing the race card," or "being a victim."
In other words, they deny the existence of racism.
I think even beyond that ethnic differences matter. What America guarantees is equality not necessarily sameness.
Here is one scenario. Forgive me the use of a stereotype in order to game the situation. You've got a white guy driving a pickup jamming his favorite rock and roll. The only reason you can't see his gun rack is because of the Confederate flag in the back window. This guy unfortunately is quite racist just like his father and grandfather. He feels there is something just inherently BETTER about himself than any black man on the planet because that's how he was raised.
The thing that jumps out at me is the music on his stereo. In a fundamental way, it's black music. His rock and roll is cousin to jazz, considered by many around the world to be the one original, truly American art form. And that music is descended from Gospel which was born of slave chants whose rhythms and forms came to America in the holds of slave ships. The rhythms in that pickup came to that guy all the way from Africa carried over centuries in the hearts of black men and women responding to the unthinkable oppression they faced. That guy is maybe bolstered by those sweet rhythms even, feels tough, thinking about how superior he is. This is HIS music. And he has no idea.
Culturally, that racist guy is part African. Those sounds are as familiar and as much a part of him as anything. It's an irony that can be seen as simply painful and even unjust or as a profound opportunity. Pretending we are color blind isn't going to ever help that guy realize the humanity he shares with other people.
There really could be a lot to celebrate about our differences as well as our similarities. But that requires honesty and bravery. I'm not sure those are characteristics I'd ascribe to Bill O'Reilly and his ilk. We need open hearts, not mass hallucination in the form of colorblindness.
Interesting. But what if there was no racism. Would we not in a sense be colorblind as it relates to color being a barrier to equality? Cultural identification aside, my understanding of a colorblind society is one in which a person is judged by the content of ones character and not the color their skin. That is a much different opinion than that of Bonilla which Preston graciously let us know about. Preston (no sarcasm intended).
ACHRISPAGE,
I agree with you. I would say that being colorblind would be not judging a person based on a person's color.
But that’s not all what Dr. King said, Chris. In many of Dr. King's writings he talked about black identity and individuality, black consciousness and culture, etc. He was very conscious of race. Dr. King was not colorblind but color-tolerant. Being colorblind mostly means “cultural assimilation” and becoming a true America, i.e. “white.” Being American always meant being “white.” And this what creates Internalized Racism and Externalized Racism.
See, Colonialism is responsible for the racial paradigm today and Internalized Racism (Covert/Overt Racism towards one's own race), and Externalized Racism (Covert/Overt Racism towards another race).
Internalized Racism is when some people become ashamed of their own race and at times, no longer want to identify with it. Internalized Racism USUALLY (not always) is most evident in Non-White people, from a statistical standpoint that is. Research confirms that people who have been the recipients of colonialism and oppression tend to subconsciously develop lower self-esteem about their own races while unknowingly perceiving the oppressors as superior. This mentality is categorized as an inferiority complex. As a result of the low-self esteem towards one's own race, many of those people tend to self-destruct unknowingly. Self-destruction comes in many different forms such as suicide, homicide, theft, drug addiction, cosmetic surgery (to look more white), changing accents (to sound more white), changing personalities (to act more white), associating less with one's race while associating exclusively to white people (to be more white), etc., etc.
Internalized Racism is the main reason why some Asian people, from a statistical standpoint, tend to color their hair blonde, and try to undergo Eye-Lid Surgery / Blepharosplasty and Nose Surgery / Rhinoplasty . Of course, these idiotic practices are not only limited to Asians, but also to Whites, Latinos, Blacks, and so on. Just look at Michael Jackson as an example of Internalized Racism. You see, hatred towards one's own race is a direct manifestation of Colonialism, because Colonialism established a subconscious status quo of "Whiteness" as the dominant culture. Anything that would stray away from the dominant culture would be perceived as "Exotic," "Different," or "Ethnic". Minority groups are then constantly subjected to an identity crisis which in turn, manifests into internalized forms of racism and self-sabotage. Here's a study by University of Dayton about how Internalized Racism effects Latinos.
Externalized Racism is when some people become condescending towards other races and at times, tend to unknowingly (or knowingly) indoctrinate other people into their own culture (Cultural Assimilation so to speak). There can be no doubt, for research has confirmed time and time again that the race who has been the oppressor of other races will tend to subconsciously develop higher self-esteem about their own race while unknowingly perceiving oppressed people as inferior. This mentality is categorized as a superiority complex. As a result of this subconscious superiority complex, those people tend to be apathetic of the sufferings of the oppressed. Their apathy causes them to either deny that Colonialism ever happened, easily forget that it happened, downplay slavery as a "moment in history" thus implying that it cannot produce emotional scars passed down from generations to the next, or worst of all, attack the image of the oppressed people by implying that it is in their nature to hang out in Ghettos, Gangs, commit crimes, do drugs, drop out in schools, and go to jail. This arrogance causes the general populace to convince themselves that Black people are "naturally violent" and "criminal," thus removing themselves of any responsibility of having anything to do with it. Until some people understand this irrefutable fact, they will never be able to effectively participate in the battle against racism. In fact, they will only subconsciously reinforce racism, because the root of the problem is continuing to be kept under wraps. And pretending to be colorblind is one way of not confronting racism head-on.
I think you are reaching there Preston. Although I will defer to your knowledge of societal issues of this nature, I was alive when Dr. King led the civil rights movement. It is firmly my belief that he indeed strived for a color blind society. I think we are disagreeing on what the term colorblind means here. during that time it was a description of skin color not making a difference in equality. Now that may have been perverted or interpreted in the present day as wanting people of color to leave their culture behind and become white, but that is not the definition I ascribe to. Mrs. King indicates that her husband in fact strived for a "colorblind" society. I guess the interpretation has changed over time. We owe that not only to the conservatives but to the psuedo-intellectual crowd who over analyze things till their true and original meanings are lost. Colorblind to me means exactly what Dr. King said when he gave the famous line at his speech in D.C.
I guess when I speak on “colorblind” I’m judging how it’s been used by many in the past, say, twenty years or so. I have read mostly all of Dr. King’s work and I can safely say that he was not the timid civil rights leader that people will have folks believe today. The Dr. King and Rosa Parks that kids learn in school during Black History Month is a complete one-dimensional version of these two heroic figures that gives neither of them justice. King, along with the entire Civil Rights Movement, was HATED by conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Barry Goldwater. Just like Jackson and Sharpton, King was accused of being a "race hustler" back in the day as well. King was a radical in every sense of the word, and a democratic socialist who learned from many, notably Jesus Christ, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx. To understand Dr. King one must go far beyond his “I Have A Dream” speech and read his other writings.
Dr. King was all for multiculturalism, and he stressed to black folks at the time to learn their history, take pride in their race, and hold on to their culture, while also accepting whites as equal brothers and sisters. I’m all for assimilation, but not when one is forced to discard his culture, history and identity—everything that gives one livelihood—to become “white.” That may work with white immigrants when they came over here during the 1920s, but blacks do not fit in that paradigm because it doesn’t represent our experience and history in this country. Like Sociologist Stephen Steinberg said, “In effect, blacks need to morph themselves into Jews -- or Italians, or Poles, or whatever other group represents ‘the old ethnic pattern.’ This is rather like trying to pound a rectangle into a slot shaped like a circle. To accomplish this, one has to mutilate race history and twist concepts to make blacks fit into a paradigm that does not represent their experience.” When I hear talk of “colorblind” it’s most often by those who attempt to get beyond race as if being black and white does not carry huge political and economic advantages and disadvantages. Or those who pretend that racism was a thing of a past, and whoever complain about racism now or either being too “sensitive” or using “race” as a way to be divisive.
Now, I don’t think you and I will agree on this because both of us come from a very different generation and outlook on this issue. I could post a few articles to back up my argument but I don’t think that will solve anything because you and I never agree on things when it comes to race. I’m a proud leftist; you’re a centrist Democratic. Therefore, we can agree to disagree; I just wanted to point out that Dr. King’s meaning of colorblindness does not mean that blacks somehow become white people only in black skin; he knew that was extremely impossible because our experience in this country is unique compared to the influx of European immigrants that came here during the Industrial Revolution.
While I am thoroughly enjoying the well versed discussion y'all are having, I had to rain on the parade. Apparently the right thinks slavery wasn't as bad as we've been told!
LOL! I get a laugh when hearing these ideas passed around by conservatives; just another way of showing me how they attempt to sweep racism under the rug and not deal with it. Anyway, thanks for sharing that. David Horowitz made a name of himself spewing that same theory, that blacks had a good during slavery, and their descendants should stop complaining because if it wasn't for those white slave masters "rescuing" those dark savages, blacks would have been in worse shape than they are now had they stayed in Africa.
I must be on a rain cloud today, you are gonna love what Buchannon says about minorities!
That reminds me of something I used to see as a child. White politicians only visiting black families at elections time, otherwise they stayed away.
Barack Obama is visiting me tomorrow. Will he still love us whities in Iowa after the election? Ha! I love it. I can't believe more people aren't getting psyched about the possibility of putting that guy in the White House. What part of highly intelligent, dignified, caring, and articulate as hell are we not into? Maybe people just think he doesn't have a shot? He has taken the lead here in Iowa over Clinton and Edwards and seems to be gaining steam.
So much of what we gripe about here on MM will go on and on if Hillary gets the nomination. If the Democrats have the stones to give it to Obama, the country is going to flip when they see the opportunity we have.
I'll tell him I'm picking on all of you if I get a chance to meet him tomorrow. We Iowans are really spoiled you know.
I'd like to think you are correct about what would happen if Obama is given the nomination, but I will point out that Christ himself could be nominated for the Democratic candidate, and the Right will lead a smear campaign against him. If the Democrats have the stones to nominate Obama (and he'll likely get my vote in the primaries, unless Ron Paul has a sliver of a chance on the Republican side), I hope he AND the DNC have the stones to stand up for themselves and for the rest of us when the GOP's machinery of filth gears up.
Snoop, you always hook us up with these great links! I enjoyed that one. I usually watch Meet The Press each Sunday but I somehow missed it. Damn, I wish I didn't! You can tell that Tavis Smiley has been waiting to sink his teeth into Buchanan for quite some time and he got the opportunity to do it on Sunday. I didn’t think Buchanan enjoyed Tavis cutting him down to size and taking him head on with his views on race. I normally not a fan of Tavis because his fawning of pseudo-intellectuals like Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. can get too nauseating for my taste, but I enjoyed that video immensely.
Buchanan hasn't changed one bit; he's still the same ol' bigot. One thing I will admit, however, is that the man is intelligent. That's one thing that separates him from Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, etc., is that despite his bigotry, he's a very gifted political analyst. I always viewed Buchanan as a cross between William F. Buckley Jr. and Archie Bunker.
Preston,
Again, it seems that we have a different perception on what the term "colorblind" means. I see your point on how the term is now used. It seems that the term or idea has been dichotomized. I have always held the perception that a colorblind society meant what Dr. King espoused. Your telling me that this term has been perverted by the far right as a rallying cry for assimilation without regard to ethnic identity. Let me say that I disagree with that. Quite honestly I have had to teach myself over the years, through experience, to treat others equally. For example, during my time n the military I was able to make several friends who happenned to be black. Honestly at that time, like most others, I saw them as "colored" folk. That was until they became my friends, two of which were the best persons who I have ever met and they died right in front of me. I learned much through those experiences and left with an understanding of how assinine itis to judge people by their color. I guess what I consider "colorblind" is leaning to treat people as equals and not lettng their race be a factor in how you see them as a person. I consider myself a minority as well, so I have a full understanding of the importance of retaining cultural heritage. That is an important aspect of individuality. I would like to think that my perception of a "colorblind" society mirrors that of Dr. King and not Ronald Reagan. I always enjoy talking to you about race because I simply learn something every time.
Chris,
I see what you mean now. I apologize if I read your take on colorblindness the wrong way. I’ve had so many debates about colorblindness with conservatives, even some liberals, and their take always meant that being colorblind means to not see race, and to not see race means that when one is a witness to racism, it’s impossible for one to point out because if one can’t see race, how can one ever be a crusader to fight against racism? Additionally, many use colorblindness as a way to buttress their attacks against Affirmative Action. They usually quote Dr. King’s “judge a person by their content of their character than the color of his skin” as a way to suggest that King would be against Affirmative Action if he was alive today because he preached about colorblindness. If anyone read his most powerful essay “A Testament of Hope,” he argued for a system to redress the caste system that segregated blacks from many job sectors and schools that were easily available to whites. Here I quote: “Justice for black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory. Nor will a few token changes quell all the tempestuous yearnings of millions of disadvantaged black people. White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changed in the structure of our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privilege cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo.”
Not to get redundant but I was raised in the South for the most part of my life, and I can honestly tell you that I’ve experienced racism in many forms. Keep in mind that I’m someone that’s in his mid 20s, and going to school during the Clinton era, I was treated by many kids as if I was stuck in the Eisenhower years: spit on, called n*gger, physically assaulted, etc. I even refused to tell my mother about what happened during those years because I felt by keeping silent and just dealing with it the troubles would go away; the last thing I wanted was to cause a firestorm in a small rural town because I was being picked on by a few kids, even when I was verbally assaulted with racial epithets. I don’t say all of this to make anyone have sympathy for me, or to use the neo-con’s favorite buzzword, play the “victim.” I say this because for many years I’ve experienced nothing but hatred from whites in the South and I had to deal with the deep acrimoniousness I held towards them for years. Experiencing that and then learning about the history of my ancestors in this country and all what they had to endure while still keeping their sanity, I carried an equal mix of disgust and confusion towards whites.Of course today I don’t hold such a stereotypic view of whites because of those isolated incidents. I can safely say one of the only reason why I hold neither disgust nor confusion towards whites now because I began to learn where all of this hatred towards minorities emanated from, and it has everything to do with the system that was enforced to give one more rights that are denied to others. No one is born to be racist; racism still exists today because people are not educated enough about history. Only by learning about the roots of modern day racism will people gain the human compassion to combat racism today. Through knowledge comes understanding, and through understanding comes wisdom -- wisdom which will make people aware of the psychological burdens which minorities subconsciously suffer from which are derivative to the subconscious racial arrogance many unconsciously practice. I think it’s possible to respect someone as your equal even when you recognize that they are different. I'm just not sure colorblindness in the conservative sense stresses or attempts to achieve this type of diversity and understanding.
Okay, for some reason the first part did not post in the right size. So I'll try it again:
I see what you mean now. I apologize if I read your take on colorblindness the wrong way. I’ve had so many debates about colorblindness with conservatives, even some liberals, and their take always meant that being colorblind means to not see race, and to not see race means that when one is a witness to racism, it’s impossible for one to point out because if one can’t see race, how can one ever be a crusader to fight against racism? Additionally, many use colorblindness as a way to buttress their attacks against Affirmative Action. They usually quote Dr. King’s “judge a person by their content of their character than the color of his skin” as a way to suggest that King would be against Affirmative Action if he was alive today because he preached about colorblindness. If anyone read his most powerful essay “A Testament of Hope,” he argued for a system to redress the caste system that segregated blacks from many job sectors and schools that were easily available to whites. Here I quote: “Justice for black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory. Nor will a few token changes quell all the tempestuous yearnings of millions of disadvantaged black people. White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changed in the structure of our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privilege cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo.”
Not to get redundant but I was raised in the South for the most part of my life, and I can honestly tell you that I’ve experienced racism in many forms. Keep in mind that I’m someone that’s in his mid 20s, and going to school during the Clinton era, I was treated by many kids as if I was stuck in the Eisenhower years: spit on, called n*gger, physically assaulted, etc. I even refused to tell my mother about what happened during those years because I felt by keeping silent and just dealing with it the troubles would go away; the last thing I wanted was to cause a firestorm in a small rural town because I was being picked on by a few kids, even when I was verbally assaulted with racial epithets. I don’t say all of this to make anyone have sympathy for me, or to use the neo-con’s favorite buzzword, play the “victim.” I say this because for many years I’ve experienced nothing but hatred from whites in the South and I had to deal with the deep acrimoniousness I held towards them for years. Experiencing that and then learning about the history of my ancestors in this country and all what they had to endure while still keeping their sanity, I carried an equal mix of disgust and confusion towards whites.
By the way I meant to add in my post that I enjoy talking to you as well. You speak from great experience, and you come from a generation where you witnessed many of the things I study about in my History class. I often enjoy your perspective on many issues.
I guess the old saying "there is no substitue for experience" holds true in many forms. I too have had many discussion about "colorblind" society. some time ago on here there was a rather interesting thread in which I supported the idea only to be chastized. Mymain issue during that discussion was with labels. I didn't think they were necessary and only added divisiveness and barriers to achieving a colorblind society as I interpretated it. Anyway, I will admit my ignorance here, I really didn't know of the dichotomy that now exists in the ideology of "colorblind society". Your explanation of how it is perceived by the right and progressives in your generation is rather appalling to me. I wonder when it was perverted in that way? Where did we go wrong? Was it in the eighties? I have long recognized the latent and outright racism of Ronald Reagan. I tend to think those eight years did more to negate the progress of the 60's than Nixon or either Bush put together. Anyway, thanks for understanding that my interpretation of the term is nowhere near the accepted version of today.
The goal of a colorblind society is noble and I support it fully. But we're not going to get there by turning a blind eye to the material disparities between demographic groups. I think the point that people are making here is that no one is helped by pretending that skin color is irrelevant in the present.
There are few things I want more than to see a day when I would have to explain to my grandchildren that in my youth there was something called race, as if it were a totally alien category. But that day is one we have to work for. Pretending that it has already arrived, as O'Reilly and company do, is a shameful excuse to do nothing in the face of real inequalities.
I get the impression he is quite the scholar. The reason his satire works so well is that underneath the great instincts is a world of knowledge.
Before Colbert made this phenomenon so hilariously clear, my wife and I used to talk about the way every racist thing we ever hear is preceeded by, "I'm no racist....but..." This perceived necessity to call your racism something else is apparently what the right takes for an absence of racism.
I'm all for celebrating how far we've come, it's good for us. But dishonesty in who we are isn't going to help us get to the next level as a society.
The problem with Obama isn't what the right would do. We'd lose the middle. They may say they'd vote for him but I doubt it. Enough would stay home to allow a Republican in at one of the worst times. He's the GOP's great White hope.
Eddy, I think the folks who have a problem voting for a candidate because he is black by and large are already voting for a Republican.
The few that the Democrats might lose to this quiet racism would be more than overcompensated by those who would be inspired by what would be the most dynamic, talented and promising candidate of our lifetimes.
Eddy. There's a big fat elephant in the room that posters refuse to address. Namely that the security risk should he be elected is tremendous. The liklihood that certain right wing interests will attempt to "take him out," is significant. The same applies to Senator Clinton. These crazy racist, mysogynists are serious and dangerous. As a black man, let me reassure that both social ills are alive and well and thriving in America.
If both Obama and Clinton are brave enough to run, I am brave enough to support either of them.
I, like many others, believed for a time that they couldn't win because of race or gender issues that permeate and infect our society.
But if they are brave enough to confront the evil and dangerous elements that exist in American culture, they certainly deserve our support.
I for one will support any liberal/progressive that can repair the damage done over the last 61/2 years.
We need to stop eating our own and being apologistic for the sexist, racist, biased and hypocritical influences that hold too much sway in modern America.
The White male power structure in the U.S. has declined over the past 40 years. It's time for the GOP to accept that fact and MOVE ON!
God, don't these people know when to quit? This should be made into a commercial and played over and over again during the campaign.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
All I have to say is if you find yourself rooting for DePetro, and your sympathies are that he somehow makes his statements reasonable, your a rascist.
If you find yourself thinking this way, stop and take a day to think of how you and your family would feel if society was slanted against you, and you were the minority!
The reality is that if you are a white person in America, you will have to consider this, and embrace our changes the way we have for over 200 years atleast. We have not been the great example of tolerance, but eventually we intergrated with every change, and benefited greatly!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Well, I agree with Rachel.
Wow. Wow.
Ditto.
Now I'm just hoping we can hear from our prominent righties about how MMFA has taken him out of context by way of shady editing.
John Depetro is doing this for attention. He is nothing but a self promoting bigot who thinks he can get a larger audience than Providence, RI by acting like this. He's been fired from a Boston radion station for his bigoted remarks against a lesbian and ran back to RI where the local conservatives welcomed him back with open arms. He's a shock jock who spends his time taking on children for their anti war views and mocking them mercilessly. A bully with a microphone. I actually heard him say proudly that he moved to East Greenwich because he didn't want diversity in his community. Howie Carr is his idol. He is a characature for sure. Notice how he did nothing but name call and mock. He basks in the attention he gets from these rare TV appearances. He's Ann Coulter's illigitimate baby.
He's been fired from a Boston radion station for his bigoted remarks against a lesbian
Bigoted?
What he did was refer to Green Party gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross as a "Fat Lesbian"
She is a Lesbian. She is Fat.
So the lesbian part wasn't a smear. And even the "fat" wasn't.
It wasn't the least bit bigoted. Just not especially nice. He should have said obese. Or thin-challenged ;-)
Oh, so when he called her a "fat lesbian" he was just speaking factually? He didn't mean it as an insult based on her appearance and sexual preference?
Insult? Well he could have said obese.
Bigoted? Nope.
SneakyPie said: He's been fired from a Boston radio station for his bigoted remarks against a lesbian.
He didn't make a bigoted remark.
She's fat. She's a lesbian.
Facts my boy.
That's ridiculous. He wasn't innocently pointing out her weight and sexual preference. He meant to insult her. And that's not the first time he'd been reprimanded for this. From the Boston Herald:
" Shock jock wannabe John DePetro has been yanked off the air for two days and ordered to apologize for calling embattled Big Dig chief Matt Amorello a “f#g” yesterday on his morning radio show."
And by the way, I'm not your boy. You can keep your condescending pet names to yourself.
Listen my little pearl,
I don't care if it was an insult..IT WASN'T BIGOTED!
That was sneakypies's claim.
little pearl...... I like that!
If he thinks that "lesbian" is an insult--and he clearly does--then that is bigoted. I can't believe that you're arguing that he was merely stating a fact.
And, just for the record, when I was a kid, I used to take the subway up to Harlem because there was a newsstand there that got comics early.
I loved how DePetro kept back peddling about his hooker and drugs comments. Just because a neighborhood is predominantly black does not mean the only reason to go there is for hookers and drugs. No wonder he is defending O'Reilly. I'd love to see someone here try to defend this idiotic comment.
This was WAY worst than anything O’Reilly said. In his attempt to defend O’Reilly, DePetro came off sounding more condescending, isolated, and unapologetically racist than O’Reilly! What I found depressing than DePetro’s comments was that Maddow, Abrams nor Watkins displayed any disgust and outrage over them. It was as if they gave DePetro this "Oh, just stop it, John! You're being so silly!" attitude when their manner should be the direction opposite!
I will not be surprised, however, to read ONE conservative poster coming here to defend DePetro’s comments. Either that or they’ll derail the conversation into something else that’s completely off topic.
when their manner should be the direction opposite!
Direct opposite, I meant to say.
Isn't your comment about "one poster" off topic?
;-)
Funny, you were the EXACT person I had in mind when I spoke of this "one conservative poster" who'll derail the conversation or defend these racist comments. You haven't done that yet; instead, you post in your usual sardonic, smart-alecky style. I'll sit back for now and watch how this thread plays out for now. ;)
Thanks for the compliment!
For what it's worth, I think this DePetro is an idiot.
For what it's worth, I think this DePetro is an idiot.
I do have to respect you for that, AA. At least, occasionally, you can call a spade a spade. :)
Hahaha.. That was funny! Thanks for the laugh.
I have listend to Rachel for a number of years when I got the chance (I really enjoyed the morning show she used to do with Chuck D). That said, I think Rachel was trying to bait the nutball into digging a deeper hole for himself. Sure she could have came out stronger to chatise him for his comments, but in either case it didn't work, but he did sound like another poor ignorant lost soul.
You're probably right. I do look up to Maddow because she is very intelligent gay rights activist and pundit who can debate with the best of them. I think she was trying to bait this idiot in, now looking over the video again, but Abrams kept interrupting the dispute and there was too much cross-talking to where she could have nailed his ass.
Ms. Madow didn't get much mic time. I think she was trying to encourage a deeper hole.
If this guy is not the most racist person that appeared on MSNBC last week, who is?
Well, they did have Michael Savage on their network years ago, but I dunno, this guy may come in a tie with even Weiner and his bigotry!
For those of you familiar with Oakland and Palo Alto, what he says is not that far off. People from all over the Bay Area knew there where two places to get Crack/Pot ect or prostituts. Happt Land in Oakland, or Palo Alto. Primarly Black. Sad, but True.
Palo Alto has cleaned up that problem by ripping down the ghetto and building a nice highrise and such. Oakland, still deals with the problem.
I'm not seeing your point. Are you saying that white people only go to Oakland for drugs and prostitutes? I know plenty of white people in the bay area that would say differently.
Not at all. Just that is happens. And it used to HAPPEN A LOT! Do you even remeber Happy Land?
I've never heard of Happy Land. What is it?
It was a place in Oakland where white/black/asian ect would go get drugs. Most all the dealers, where balck. Many of the buyers, White. No flaming please, I am just pointing out what I was exposed to back then. This was the early 90's.
"For those of you familiar with Oakland and Palo Alto, what he says is not that far off."
That's as racist as what DePetro said about Harlem. If you really think that the only reason to go to Oakland or Palo Alto is for drugs or prostitutes, then you're just as ignorant as DePetro.
DId I say that it was the ONLY reason. NO!!! So Shut the Hell up with the racist crap.
You said that if he had been talking about Oakland or Palo Alto, that DePetro wouldn't be that far off. How exactly are we supposed to take that statement? You're obviously agreeing with DePetro to some degree, are you not? And you chose Oakland and Palo Alto as examples analogous to Harlem. You even specified in your first post that it was a "primarily black" problem in those cities, so you clearly were sympathizing with DePetro's thoughts on Harlem. I suggest you stop with the racist crap.
You said that if he had been talking about Oakland or Palo Alto, that DePetro wouldn't be that far off. How exactly are we supposed to take that statement?
Not far off says it all. I did not say he was a 100%, or even 75% right. Just not that "Far Off".... Get over it.
You're obviously agreeing with DePetro to some No degree, are you not? I am simply pointing out examples of where I can relate to what he is saying.
And you chose Oakland and Palo Alto as examples analogous to Harlem. You even specified in your first post that it was a "primarily black" problem in those cities, so you clearly were sympathizing with DePetro's thoughts on Harlem.
Ahhh, those area in the cities are/where primarly black. Got a problem with that?
I suggest you stop with the racist crap.
I do have a few choice names for you. But I may come off racist.
But I may come off racist.
I think it's a little too late to worry about that now, isn't it?
I have been called it ON THIS BLOG so many times I am now munb to it. Thanks guys and gals, you have created a monster.
No we didnt. You cant blame us for your propensity to let your inner racist out for a little spin now and again. Own it. We arent calling you a racist for no reason.
Well, I must be a good racist then.
What in the hell is a good racist? Oxymoron huh? Or maybe it’s just another moronic statement.
When ever I draw a racist picture, I always put smiles on thier faces. :0)
"I do have a few choice names for you. But I may come off racist."
So you want to call me racist names now? Well, I gues that about says it all.
I do not even know what creed,color, of sexxual preference you have. How can I do that. I am not above calling people names. I am human.
For those of you familiar with Oakland and Palo Alto, what he says is not that far off.
How can he have any point since he admitted that in all the years he lived in New York he NEVER went to Harlem. What he did was pass off rumors that he heard from someone else. How could there be ANY truth to his statement?
People from all over the Bay Area knew there where two places to get Crack/Pot ect or prostituts. Happt Land in Oakland, or Palo Alto. Primarly Black. Sad, but True.
Palo Alto has cleaned up that problem by ripping down the ghetto and building a nice highrise and such. Oakland, still deals with the problem.
Palo Alto has ghettos but it also has Stanford University. Oakland has ghettos but it also has a downtown area that has beautiful new high rise condos, I know cause my grandson just bought one. Los Angeles has ghettos but it also has Beverly Hills and Malibu. There are many places to get you drug of choice. You can find prostitutes in Malibu, not standing on the street corner but selling their bodies just the same. You can find pot and cocaine in Malibu. Drugs and prostitutes are EVERYWHERE not just in ghettos.
Maybe DePetro should not speak about a subject he knows nothing about, less chance of his ignorance spreading.
I never said those things you speak of do not exist in Oak ect. My friends and I knew where to go get drugs back in the day. From a Black man in Oakland. That is just the fact jack.
Geeze, I never knew where to get drugs because I have never taken them. Just sayin'. Why would this POC know where drugs are, hmmmnnn?
Calling me names now... oh boo hoo it hurts soooooo bad. Unlike YOU, I can speak from experience. You have no leg to stand on with the subject matter, do you? Yes I have taken MANY drugs in the past. I was also very very liberal. Then I grew up. :0)
Uh, reading impaired. You said you know where to get drugs. I was talking about this De Petro guy. POC DePetro. Get it No Motor.
Well, I guess taking lots of drugs in your youth may make you crazy enough to become a Republican. Me, I didn't take drugs and am a liberal with brain cells. If you wanted to get insulted, maybe that's good enough? Tell me if you've had enough, sweetie. I can do more if you're really craving it.
Pretty clear this is a guy who has no idea what the word liberal means. I used to work the door at a bar during college. The thick necked frat boys would see my long hair and ask if the place was 'full of liberals.' Equating drugged up hedonism with liberalism has been a very successful tactic in the past 30 years. Unless people think. That kind of messes it up.
The liberal statement was a joke people. I am very liberal, and conservative in other ways. I as well bro, had a hell of a dew. Can you say, "Wanabe Rock Star"? I was always looked down upon for my ratted look.
I have no boundries honey, keep it a comin!
Incoherant ramblings. Of a motor with no rotor.
Or you WERE liberal then you got brainwashed. Perhaps the drugs ruined your brain so THEN you became a con. Or you decided you liked LYING so being a con was your natural political orientation
I do not lie Solon. I am way beyond that. I have no reason to impress anyone with lies. Good day mate.
Hey rotor overall you are usually a reasonable guy. I didnt mean you like to LIE, though it is a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote, that is my fault. What I meant is perhaps you liked being lied TO. And THAT is a reasonable response to what YOU wrote about liberals.
Racist BS. Are you telling me no one goes to Oakland to say watch the A's? There are no good restaurants? I am constantly amazed there seems to be no comments racist enough that other racists wont rush in to defend them
I NEVER SAID THEY DID NOT. COMPREHENSION MY FRIEND. Try it sometime.
I have it YOU should try it. This thread is in the context of the TOPIC which is DePetro saying no one goes to blah blah. YOU responded with not far off. So is your argument then that HARDLY anybody goes to Oakland except for drugs and prostitutes? Not that big a difference as far as I am concerned it was basically a conditional agreement with a racist statement
You're wandering over from I don't have a clue ville into trollsville.
Well, I came on to give a experience of mine similar to what butthead above was talking about. That lead to insults. So, why bother being serious with you folk. You are ultra-sensitive peeps and difficult to speak with. So, there it is Lynn. Good day.
It’s been interesting to watch how the conservative/Republicans put a new spin on an old problem, racism. We now have La Shawn Barber and Jessie Lee Patterson as some of the faces of Black conservative/Republicans to show that they are not a racists party, they too have blacks in their party who agree with their brand of politics. These Black conservative/Republicans can now say many of the things many white conservative/Republicans feel about black people. Their cover of course is “it’s coming from someone who is black so it can’t be a racists statement“. When Jessie Lee Patterson accuses the Katrina victims stranded in New Orleans of “being welfare-pampered, lazy and immoral” he is simply saying what many white conservative/Republicans were thinking but would not say. How dumb do some conservative/Republicans think black people are?
When I see where Juan “spokesnegro” Williams didn’t find Bill’s comments racists I must laugh. No matter what face you put on the cover it’s contents are still the same. This is still a Republican party who’s membership came from southern racist Democrats. This is still the Republican party made up of southern "Dixiecrats" who left the Democratic party when blacks starting joining.
I watched this show and was left speechless. Now I wonder which “spokesnegro” will appear to explain what DePetro actually meant to say. Will it be Armstrong Williams, La Shawn Barber or Jessie Lee Patterson.
How dumb do conservative/Republicans really think black people are.
When I see where Juan “spokesnegro” Williams didn’t find Bill’s comments racists I must laugh.
Oh-oh, Pearl, you better be careful with that. Negroes like you and I calling another black man a "Negro" in any form -- whether happy Negro, SpokesNegro, Pet Negro, etc. -- will be considered racist by many conservative posters here. ;)
Good post by the way.
I find your post interesting. Because you are black, you can use the term, Negro, to describe black people. (And that is fine with the rest of us as far as I've seen.)
Let me ask you if a white person used the term here to describe blacks, would they be considered by you to be employing racist language? Would you consider them a racist?
Why would using "Negro" be anymore "racist" than using "black"? Negro is nothing more, and nothing less, than the Spanish word for BLACK.
I was waiting for you to reply to my comment, AA, because I just knew that would bait you in. You never let me down!
Actually, there have been a few white posters here that have joked around with the term "Negro" and I don't find it racist in the least. The reason why is because I know there is no hateful intent behind it when they use it. For the most part I use it to refer to a regressive type of black man like Juan Williams who I find to be a Fox News lapdog. Furthermore, I'm not speaking for other black folks and suggesting how I feel about non-blacks using Negro is how others should feel. There are some who might disagree with me, just like there's many blacks who disagree with using the 'N' word with each other as a term of endearment. Personally, I'm speaking for myself that when put into context and used with wit, then no, I have no problem with it, nor do I find it racist when it’s used by whites.
Then again, I’m a Southern boy and “Negro” is still used a lot by older blacks. Even my mother use to say to me when I got in trouble, “Negro, if you don’t get your behind in gear you’re gonna have serious hell to pay!” The word to me is as interchangeable as “black” and “African-American” with many of my kin folks in the South.
Preston,
Thanks for your reply. Always happy to be baited.
You mentioned the reason the term "Negro" is not racist is: "...because I know there is no hateful intent behind it when they use it. For the most part I use it to refer to a regressive type of black man like Juan Williams who I find to be a Fox News lapdog."
Apparently you do not consider the terms "regressive type of black man" and "lapdog" to be hateful. I might agree with "lapdog" but your first comment seems to me to be attacking Mr. Williams because of his race. It is anything but endearing. It is easily construed as hateful.
Had a white person said what you wrote, wouldn't you agree they would immediately be labeled racist?
Frankly, Preston, you have me confused. Apparently you feel it is ok to denigrate blacks and ridicule them by using the term "-Negro" simply because both you and they are black. It is also okay for others as long as you perceive there to be no 'hate'. Add to this your previous comment in another thread where you exclaimed another black man was "a total disgrace in every sense of the word" and it looks to me that you feel it is okay to employ racist and/or defamatory language toward other blacks with whom you disagree. Am I wrong?
I am of the opinion that if a conservative here said anywhere near the same things you said, they would be forever assailed by the other progressives/liberals here as a racist. Since it seems that none of the progs/libs have a problem with your inflamatory speech, I find their outrage at someone like DePetro or BillO's comments to be only politically driven and ok if the disparaging remarks are made toward conservatives.
I'm confused as well. If it is a term that can be interchangeable with AA or black, why does Rush get a thread for using it in "Barak the magic Negro." MMFA seems to be implying that its a racial slur. Help me out, please. Is MMFA wrong, or is Rush wrong because he uses it to be derogatory?
"Barak the magic Negro."
It's insulting PERIOD!. Negro was not the issue, "magic negro" was. What the hell is a "magic negro" and why would Rush apply the term to Obama?
What I found dishonest was how Rush took that LA Times op-ed piece and twisted it to be a racist attack against Obama. Rush had one of his henchmen play Al Sharpton while singing the tune as if it was a 1920s minstrel show. Rush not only twisted the meaning of what David Ehrenstein was putting forth in his article, but he did so by demeaning black culture and speech. A black journalist David Ehrenstein wrote the original op-ed piece, but many have completely taking it out of context what Ehrenstein was arguing.
Perlene,
Go back and take a look at the archives. It will give you the background you need. Preston does a good job giving additional information in his posts.
Rush had one of his henchmen play Al Sharpton while singing the tune as if it was a 1920s minstrel show.
H-man I actually knew Rush was using the minstrel show while referring to Obama. I should have posted my <sarcasm> quote around what is a "magic negro" bs.
I don't know what a magic negro is in as much as I don't know what a pet negro is. Both sound like racial slurs to me. Is one better than the other? I'm not being dishonest, I just simply find that according to Preston, negro is ok, be it magic, pet or spokes. No disrespect intended.
I don't know what a magic negro is in as much as I don't know what a pet negro is. Both sound like racial slurs to me. Is one better than the other? I'm not being dishonest, I just simply find that according to Preston, negro is ok, be it magic, pet or spokes. No disrespect intended. Dave
When Rush used the term "magic negro" he played the old minstrel song from the 1920's. In the 1920's minstrel period, black people were characterized as culturally, personally and biologically inferior to whites. The 1920's presented countless representations of impoverished blacks with ink-black skin, large thick red lips and bulging eyeballs appearing almost everywhere in the public arena. "Magic Negro" was not a compliment to Obama is was a smear and the music was used to drive the point home.
I usually try to explain what I feel the term "Pet Negro" means by referring to the "house slave" vs the "field slave". The history of the "house slaves" was to do or say anything to please the master. His (house slave) desire was to stay in the house at all costs. He had no desire to work in the hot sun for hours as a field salve did, therefore his first loyalty was to his master. Juan William's loyalty is to his master, Fox News. He will do or say almost anything to keep his job with Fox. He is a "liberal<sarcasm>" "yes" man for conservatives to use when expressing their conservative views.
Actually no. What the term meant in the context of the article I read was the use of a character in a movie to be an otherworldly black man whose purpose was to SERVE white people like the character John Coffey in the Green Mile or Bagger Vance in the Legend of Bagger Vance. It is thus descriptive of an archtype and the term FITS this archtype down to its servility conotation.
It's insulting PERIOD!. Negro was not the issue, "magic negro" was. What the hell is a "magic negro" pearlene
So what are you saying you were insulted, but have no idea why.
Dave look at my post above. I knew what Rush was referring to just wanted to see if you could explain what he was referring to. I find it interesting when people who like Rush and Bill try to explain their remarks.
You will find why I was insulted when you read the post.
Apparently you do not consider the terms "regressive type of black man" and "lapdog" to be hateful. I might agree with "lapdog" but your first comment seems to me to be attacking Mr. Williams because of his race. It is anything but endearing. It is easily construed as hateful.
How in the world am I attacking “Mr.” Williams because of his race when I say that he’s a “regressive black man?” First of all, when I say “regressive” I’m judging him based on his politics and disingenuousness. Regressive have many meanings, and I use it for “Mr.” Williams to criticize how anti-progressive he is when he attempts to present himself as a “liberal.” Williams is a pseudo-liberal; he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing for Fox News, and the typical lapdog they hire as a “liberal commentator” to bash their own while scoring points with a conservative constituency to buy his or her books. That’s what I mean when I say “regressive;” he’s the antithesis to progressive. And him being a black man further makes the waters murky because his ideas about race aren’t that far from neo-conservatives and their victim-blaming. He's appointed as a black spokesman by Fox to do their dirty deed in decrying about "Hip Hop" and how lazy and dumb black youth is. Furthermore, how on earth can I as a black man even attempt to call another black man inferior due to their race when I’m of the same race?! Do you know how silly you’re sounding when you try to make this argument repeatedly? That would be like me calling myself inferior! You can take my comments about Williams as “hateful” or whatever, but to use Tommy’s favorite line: It’s my opinion.
Had a white person said what you wrote, wouldn't you agree they would immediately be labeled racist?
Actually, no, I wouldn’t. Stop assuming. The same as I wouldn’t say a white man is being racist for calling folks like Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom.
Frankly, Preston, you have me confused. Apparently you feel it is ok to denigrate blacks and ridicule them by using the term "-Negro" simply because both you and they are black. It is also okay for others as long as you perceive there to be no 'hate'. Add to this your previous comment in another thread where you exclaimed another black man was "a total disgrace in every sense of the word" and it looks to me that you feel it is okay to employ racist and/or defamatory language toward other blacks with whom you disagree. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are very wrong, not to mention delusional and glib. Not only did you miss me calling myself and Pearl “Negroes,” now you’re trying to build this argument that I’m employing racist and defamatory language towards other blacks. AA, I really try to give you the benefit of the doubt at times because you do act as if you’ve been recently dropped out of the sky one day and you’re trying to figure the world out somehow. However, you’re extremely glib when it comes to race matters. People here have called Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, etc., far worst than what I’ve called Armstrong Williams and Juan Williams; however, because these two are black and conservative, you leap at the opportunity to defend these folks because you feel because of their conservatism and blackness they’re getting an unfair shake by these “hateful” liberals. Get this through your head, AA: I dislike Armstrong Williams and Juan Williams because of their actions, their underhandedness, their opportunism, their wiliness to be lapdogs for conservatives so they can a little money out of the deal. I have no respect for those who try to take the moral high ground and present themselves as "leaders" to look up to when they're actions speak otherwise.
Preston, Fantastic Post!
May I also say being from Texas I too have said to my grandson “Negro, if you don’t get your behind in gear you’re gonna have serious hell to pay!”. Must be a southern thing ;-)
Oh, but, Pearl, to "colorblind" conservatives like AA, you're demeaning your grandson because of his race; you're being hateful and inflammatory! *rolls eyes*
But it's definitely more of a Southern thang to use Negro than if Northern parts of the state. In fact, I think it was yesterday when my cousin and I were watching this concert with Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles, and you know those two were ripping it up. My cousin leaned over to me and said, "Now they know better than to let some Negroes have a mic like they! They should know they're going to show their butt on stage!" The word is used often times within my family and friends.
As a northerner I can confirm that negro is used more often in the south than where I grew up. My brother and I are almost a decade apart in age and he spent the majority of his formative years in the south. He uses the word all the time. It's funny how regional word use is.
It is fun to degrade your own race, isn't it?
It is fun to degrade your own race, isn't it?
Oh I know! I mean folks do it all the time when they joke about how much of a hillbilly, redneck and "white trash" Britney Spears is in public. Why can't we Negroes join in on the fun and degrade our own, too!*rolls eyes*
Nice on there@
Each time you post you show exactly how clueless you really are.
Who are you again?
She is an actual substantial poster with history of profound insight in her posts. Kind of like the OPPOSITE OF YOU
I am a male, and she is female. That would make us opposites.
that's just one of the differences. Pearl is very insightful and articulate and you on the other hand.....
Preston, my husband, who is AA (he prefers black) and born in the 50's , jokes about the way he was born a negro (so stated on his birth cert.), grew up black (in the 60's and 70's and then became AA in the 80's and up.
Ha! That's funny. I was reading some film scholar who was explaining that the transformation from Negro, Colored, Afro-American to African-American has a lot of political and social meaning to it, because each of those label signifies a particular time in this country of the black struggle where many blacks reexamine their identity and place in America.
Let me ask you if a white person used the term here to describe blacks, would they be considered by you to be employing racist language? Would you consider them a racist?
AA, no. In fact the person I got the term "spokesnegro" from was HBL. I consider it a proper term for Juan. In previous posts regarding what Bill said many posters refer to Juan as their proof that what Bill said was not racists. That to me seems to reflect the feeling that Juan is some authority on the opinions of black folks. Basically saying if Juan wasn't offended and he's black, why are you, hence "spokesnegro".
Pearlene,
It looks to me like you and Preston are simply using a euphamism for the 'n' word when saying Williams is a "spokesnegro". It looks to me as racist as any comments I've seen.
I find it interesting that you and Preston do not see it and in fact are defending the use of it in this context.
It is only because both Williams (coincidental?) hold a view different than yours that you feel free to use the term. Had a white conservative used the term toward someone like Jackson, Obama, or Sharpton and I do believe you both (and many other here,) would be all over their case.
Anyway, it is an interesting discussion about what is acceptable and what is not as far as politically correct speech is concerned.
AA,
Why don't you go back and read the comments Preston wrote when Rush was using the term "Magic Negro" not once did Preston attack rush for using the term negro. So there is your example of where Preston was not all over anyone's case.
Maybe if you did one ounce of research, instead of trying to start flame wars, you would realize that you are barking up the wrong tree.
I don't know why you have such a problem with Preston but bring some facts to the conversation. Unless you are not trying to start an actual dialog.AA, what “N” word would you be referring to? Is it the word “negro” or something else? I’m not sure how I as a black woman can be racists to Juan Williams as a black man. Racism most widely accepted meaning is that members of one race feel superior or inferior to members of another race. Since Juan, Preston and myself are all black I not sure where the racism you speak of comes from.
I disagree with Williams and IMO he is Fox News "spokesnegro". He is a “yes” man for Fox, but that’s my opinion.
Had a white conservative used the term toward someone like Jackson, Obama, or Sharpton and I do believe you both (and many other here,) would be all over their case.
Snoopy used the word “colored” to describe black people in a post sometime ago. I personally don’t like to be referred to as “colored” however since I know for a fact that Snoopy did not mean it in a derogatory manner I had no problem with him using the term. Has you used the term “colored” to describe black people I would have had a problem. You do not strike me as a enlighten person when it comes to matter of race. The fact that you think Bill was trying to “explain to his white viewers that blacks were no different that whites” when he made his comments about Sylvia’s leaves me thinking that you have a long wait to go in issues regarding race. That's just MY opinion.
Well, I don't know about this argument that white guys only go up to Harlem to buy drugs or sex. The M-Fers also make the some MEAN ice tea up there.
Busted...!
I always go to Harlem for drugs and prostitutes. Rush Limbaugh's there all the time, too. ;>)
Irony, I'm on the west coast, and already have pretty good sources for drugs and prostitutes. What I really need are cheap, hard -to-trace handguns.Do you know of anyone in Harlem, and if so, do they ship UPS?
HBL, guns are not regulated many places in the south. I'm sure you can get some blackmarket firearms from some less than reputable firms. There are some markets flooded with them for that express purpose (so I hear, shhh).
Shoot, HBL, lemme know what you need...with or without serial numbers.
BTW, what about this jerk broadcasting that white people go to Harlem for drugs and prostitution? Now Harlem is gonna be crawling with Republicans. Thanks a lot, pal...
That conversation is impossible to follow. They're constantly switching back and forth on topics, and nobody is even saying anything of substance.
Welcome to the cable news cluster****.
Check your substantive discourse at the door.
This party is BYOB (Bring Your Own Bombast).
Did I forget anything?
Who is they, anyway? Aclimitation to the site is not to hard. This thread is actually pretty straight forward. Preston had some good posts, he wasn't alone in this category.
What you want is the previous thread, I think. If you see Tommy alot as a poster, you've struct the mutha-load, he's in a fine froth today. Enjoy, and try writng in first person.
I am beginning to think these media-people live extremely sheltered lives... I have always been upset at the crap they say about the south, and I realize now, they don't have a clue about anywhere else either.
Exactly! Billo acted like he was Ferdinand Magellan...as though he had discovered Harlem.
"...and the peaceful natives were docile and surprisingly well-behaved..."
Get this guy off the air.
Period.
This is a blatant misuse of the public airwaves, our airwaves.
Johnny,
I do believe BillO was using sarcasm to illustrate the point that there is no difference between the races. However it doesn't come across the same way when the transcript is read or taken out of context.
That being said, his whole 'talking points' on this subject is about 40 years too late.
I was posting about DePetro but in the whole O'Reilly mess I haven't once heard or read him saying he was being sarcastic and nobody is getting it. He would have to admit what he said could be offensive to some people in order to make that argument.
No, he's saying MMFA is out to get him, CNN is after ratings and the entire media is corrupt (except his employers of course).
Thank you for clarifying.
Billy O'falfel was NOT taken out of context. The patronizing racist attitudes are clear from him no matter how desperate you are to pretend otherwise
Maybe DePetro has an ulterior motive. Will this take any heat off O'Reilly?
As a resident of Rhode Island, I'm familiar with DePetro. He's your typical right-wing radio blowhard: a bully and dumb as a wooden post. This makes for great ratings as there are lots of people out there that are even meaner and stupider than he is and willing to listen every day.
Wow. This is way worse than what O'Reilly said. Do people still think this way?
De Petro was kicked off of WEEI in Boston for bad taste (no mean feat in itself!) for making fun of the physical appearance of the Green Party candidate Grace Ross. His radio show is so deadly dull that I was glad my dentists was drilling into my head to distract me when he was playing De Petro in his office. Why the no talents like De Petro's get chance after chance in radio,while real talents like Stephanie Miller can't get a station in liberal Boston is beyond my comprehension.
Jeez I can't get over it...the hookers in Harlem are just like the ones at the Mustang Ranch and they even validate your parking..
Who is this guy?
Let me make sure I understand: Bill O'Reilly spewed one of his trademark bigoted, racist remarks and got called on it, which triggered his celebrated 'they-all-want-to-kill-me" persecution complex.
What a surprise!
Who does he think he is, Rush?
100% of every person on the face of this planet is racist to some degree... yes even you! So stop with all this dribble already!
That is all I am trying to point out. These people on this blog, feel they are WAY above that. They must not be human or feel emotion. Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder.
Yes, you are the sole voice of reason. Get real. You obviously couldn't make your points and now want to blame others just like Bull O'Lielly does. Poor widdle ting.
I keep trying to explain to you ignorant wingnuts. Just because you are too stupid to even RECOGNIZE higher brain function and thus find logic as incomprehensible as Quantum mechanics written in ancient Sumerian Cuneiform, doesnt mean its a mental disorder just far above your limited capacity to understand.
No they arent. You should stop projecting YOUR deficiencies on everyone on the Planet
I for one am sick of the racist statements and the scapgoating slinged at blacks folk.