McLaughlin: Obama "fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo -- a black on the outside, a white on the inside"
SUMMARY: On The McLaughlin Group, John McLaughlin said: "Question: Does it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that someone like Obama, who fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo -- a black on the outside, a white on the inside -- that an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for?"
On the edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group that aired the weekend of July 11-13, while discussing recent comments made by the Rev. Jesse Jackson about Sen. Barack Obama, host John McLaughlin said: "Question: Does it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that someone like Obama, who fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo -- a black on the outside, a white on the inside -- that an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for?"
Responding to McLaughlin's question, panelist and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Peter Beinart said: "Who knows what Jesse Jackson is thinking? But that's a completely unfair depiction of Barack Obama." Later in the discussion, Michelle Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, said: "I want to go back to the point you made about whether or not Obama is an Oreo, because if Barack Obama is an Oreo, then every member of this generation of African-Americans is an Oreo, because we stand on the shoulders of the people who fought for our rights, and all of us say that you cannot blame 'the man' or white racism for everything that ails the black community."
From the July 11-13 edition of The McLaughlin Group:
McLAUGHLIN: OK, let's nail this thing down, and here's a sample of what Jackson apparently sees as Obama disparaging the black community.
OBAMA [video clip]: If we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers are also missing. Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL. Missing from too many lives and too many homes. They've abandoned their responsibilities. They're acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our family have suffered because of it. You and I know this is true everywhere, but nowhere is it more true than in the African-American community.
McLAUGHLIN: Question: Does it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that someone like Obama, who fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo -- a black on the outside, a white on the inside -- that an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for? Peter Beinart.
BEINART: Who knows what Jesse Jackson is thinking? But that's a completely unfair depiction of Barack Obama, who -- the genius of Barack Obama is that he moves seamlessly between the African-American world and the white world in a way that even Bill Clinton couldn't possibly match. And the tragedy of this experience is that you know who's spoken very eloquently for many, many years about personal responsibility in the black community? Jesse Jackson. He of all people should recognize, in fact, that what Barack Obama is saying is not contrary to the message of the civil rights movement, it is keeping with that message.
McLAUGHLIN: Now, let's nail it down a little bit more, for the sake of Jackson. The question is this: Jackson's point of contention is this -- this is the exit question. The point of contention is that instead of Obama solely lecturing African-Americans on parental duty, particularly fathers, he should also give equal attention to the large, and many believe prejudicial, incarceration rate for blacks, their lack of economic opportunities, and other public policy issues that limit choices for black males. Why doesn't Obama hit that as hard as he hits individual parental responsibility? That's what Jackson is complaining about.
BEINART: Barack Obama doesn't talk about jobs and health care? He talks about it all the time. If you wanted to talk about the fact there were too many people in prison, then you're asking him to do something that would lose him the election.
McLAUGHLIN: Oh. Oh. Oh.
BEINART: That is politically -- that no serious political strategist -- he's a man trying to win the presidency, John.
McLAUGHLIN: He's exactly what Jeremiah Wright says he is: He will do whatever is necessary to win.
BEINART: He's a practical politician --
ELEANOR CLIFT (Newsweek contributing editor): This is a generational shift. Jesse Jackson Jr. put out a statement basically saying, "Dad, time to leave the stage." There is a disconnect in terms of style and tactics from the older civil rights generation to the generation that Obama is from and that he's trying to attract.
McLAUGHLIN: Does Jackson have a legitimate point?
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): No, he doesn't.
McLAUGHLIN: Why?
BUCHANAN: I'll tell you why, John -- here's why. What Barack Obama is saying is a message that needs to be heard. It's the Bill Cosby message. It is, look, this is our responsibility, these are our families. The white society is not responsible for our kids dropping out of schools or using drugs or going on welfare. We are. What Jesse Jackson says is the white community's responsible and they've got to solve our problems.
McLAUGHLIN: Isn't this -- isn't this the oddity of the century where Barack Obama is a conservative and Jesse Jackson is a liberal? Isn't that an oddity?
BUCHANAN: Well, Jesse Jackson used to talk conservatively --
BERNARD: It is an oddity, but I want to go back to the point you made about whether or not Obama is an Oreo, because if Barack Obama is an Oreo, then every member of this generation of African-Americans is an Oreo, because we stand on the shoulders of the people who fought for our rights, and all of us say that you cannot blame "the man" or white racism for everything that ails the black community.
McLAUGHLIN: But what about changing public policy where it needs to be changed?
BUCHANAN: Public policy isn't the problem.
[crosstalk]
BERNARD: If I can finish my point. What Jesse Jackson came out and said when he gave his quote-unquote apology the next day was, Barack Obama should be demanding more government programs for African-Americans, and that's wrong.
CLIFT: As Jack White, a former Time magazine writer, says, that it's disorienting for the black community when "the man" might be the guy in the Oval Office. And so everybody is making some adjustments here. But Barack Obama is handling his role beautifully, and that is to relate to America as a broad population.
Jackson's comments were crude and immature, so he deserves the criticism he is getting. However, McLaughlin said something quite profound in the man's "defense".
McLAUGHLIN: Now, let's nail it down a little bit more, for the sake of Jackson. The question is this: Jackson's point of contention is this -- this is the exit question. The point of contention is that instead of Obama solely lecturing African-Americans on parental duty, particularly fathers, he should also give equal attention to the large, and many believe prejudicial, incarceration rate for blacks, their lack of economic opportunities, and other public policy issues that limit choices for black males. Why doesn't Obama hit that as hard as he hits individual parental responsibility? That's what Jackson is complaining about.
The fact that McLaughlin was able to articulate the bolded part--which I absolutely agree with--makes me not want to condemn him for the stupid statement he made prior to that.
Personal responsibility/self-help is a quality every single individual should strive for, but it does not completely erase the lingering affects of institutional racism that still affects generations of blacks.
That's an interesting point. I agree that it was, I daresay, bold on McLaughlin's part to address a few other realities of being black in America.
However, anyone who has paid attention to Obama knows that he's commented on all of those things at one time or another. It's disingenuous to take one speech (the "Father's Day speech") and claim that it's all Obama has had to say on the matter.
I for one am shocked and offended by the blatant racism of McLaughlin. Boy oh boy, if Rush or Michael Savage said this the peasants with pitchforks would be out in full force.
R.I.P. Tony Snow, you will be missed.
"I for one am shocked and offended by the blatant racism of McLaughlin."
I'm not, I always knew that McLaughlin was a racist. The only shock is that McLaughlin displayed his racism on television.
McLaughlin's not a racist. Obama IS an Oreo. He's also extremely more conservative than most people think.
Obama IS NOT! An Oreo is a cookie you a**hole!
While I see this is an emotional issue to you, thus feeling the need to use profanity to attempt to get your point across, I refuse to be weak and afraid to express my opinion. If Obama were the same way he wouldn't be such a poor candidate for president.
And why is it wrong to call Obama what he is. He accentuates his Blackness when appropriate, and downplays it when he feels it is not. I would think that a Black person might be rather embarassed about how ashamed Obama is of his skin color.
And why is it wrong to call Obama what he is.
Calling Obama an Oreo shows your ignorance and calling you an a** is justified.
"The U.S. of KKK A" is a whole heck of a lot more offensive to a heck of a lot more people than "oreo," but I didn't see a public outcry on MMFA for that offensive little phrase.
You guys are missing the point.
It's extremely perverse for a conservative to use the term 'oreo' when talking about a person of color. That term is reserved for liberals complaining about an ethnic being a sellout-- which does not describe Obama.
This isn't racism, so much as a dishonest co-opting of language, something the right does all the time now, for their own ends. McLaughlin could care less about African Americans, so he has no right using the term against one.
This isn't racism, so much as a dishonest co-opting of language, something the right does all the time now, for their own ends.
Exactly...
When our daughters were in school in the 80s black students who got good grades and participated in school academic functions were called Oreos by many of the black students. My daughters thought it was awful, and discussed it with me. The second time I heard this term was on Oprah Winfrey many years ago when she discussed how many blacks are labeled Oreos by other blacks (and whites) when they climb the financial, social, educational, ladder, etc. It has been too many years since I saw the show, but I think she discussed how this name has been applied to her own achievements.
I may be out of the loop but haven't heard liberals aply this to ethnic groups who are sellouts as you said; "That term is reserved for liberals complaining about an ethnic being a sellout-- which does not describe Obama."
Perhaps the term has also used for this purpose , but I wouldn't say this term is reserved for liberals as you said.
like, what do these folks know about an oreo-cookie? that term is used by black folks describing a person of color who is articulate, has social graces and loads of class.as opposed to being "ghetto-fabulous" or "soulful". perhaps we ought to put together a dictionary of terms used by us so as to better educate the dominant culture.
this entire situation will not go away so long as we wake up each day with a darker-tinge. the labels will be ceaseless. no pun intended but "it" must be built into their dna - these types of racial slurs and manifestations of such.
would you prefer that he used the term hydrox.
Since they stopped making Hydrox cookies a few years back, many people may not know what you're talking about. :-)
"You guys are missing the point.
It's extremely perverse for a conservative to use the term 'oreo' when talking about a person of color. That term is reserved for liberals complaining about an ethnic being a sellout-- which does not describe Obama. This isn't racism, so much as a dishonest co-opting of language, something the right does all the time now, for their own ends.
McLaughlin could care less about African Americans, so he has no right using the term against one."
Exactly the point. However, i have to correct the second sentence in the first paragraph you posted. White liberals are not the ones who call black conservatives sellouts, it's usually independent thinking black liberals/independent thinking black progressives who call black conservatives sellouts, or Uncle Toms/Aunt Jemimas, or Sambos.
Case in point: African-American independent progressive talk radio host Ambrose I. Lane Senior http://www.weourselves.org called black conservative Ward "Con Man" Connerly "...the colored man who opposes affirmative action, and Lane has the right to call Connerly that because Lane DOES care about African-Americans, and Connerly is a self-hating anti-black black conservative racist white supremacist who works against black people, AND Connerly also has and/or seeks out political alliances with the KKK and the Council of Conservative Citizens and other white supremacist groups.
I stand corrected. I'm behind the times. I remember the days when it was used to describe one of the "establishment," meaning one of the bad guys who was kissing the butt of the white guy. Its use seems to have expanded into just a general slur.
But for a conservative white guy to use it-- that's totally unacceptable. And who brought it up in the first place? There has been this implication that Jesse Jackson said it about Obama-- but when?
You can't discard a stupid or racist statement simply because someone follows it up with a thought that is articulate, and addresses an issue you agree with.
McLaughlin's statement is inexcusable. He is basically asking if Jackson is "frosted" because Obama isn't black enough.
".....that an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for?"
What we are watching is a changing of the guard of black leadership in America...and commentary on such is valid. However, speaking as a white man, it makes me uncomfortable to hear whites referencing "oreos" and such as too often these inherently inflammatory terms suggest an underlying racisim regardless whether racism was present or intended.
I disagree. Whereas discussions of race may sometimes be uncomfortable the gratuitous use of inflammatory words is what I am speaking of. McClaughlin could have made his point without using the derogatory term, "oreo".
I agree with you. I was commenting on Carn's comment that said: "The fact that McLaughlin was able to articulate the bolded part--which I absolutely agree with--makes me not want to condemn him for the stupid statement he made prior to that."
Whatever the comment....stupid, rude, crude, racist, sexist etc... it shouldn't be given a pass because the speaker follows up with something that some think is articulate, insightful, or agree with.
Did McLaughlin present a balanced argument? As Deeznuts pointed out; " However, anyone who has paid attention to Obama knows that he's commented on all of those things at one time or another. It's disingenuous to take one speech (the "Father's Day speech") and claim that it's all Obama has had to say on the matter."
Perhaps McLaughlin should have presented a balanced argument, instead of telling the viewers what he thinks Jackson is thinking.
......Responding to McLaughlin's question, panelist and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Peter Beinart said: "Who knows what Jesse Jackson is thinking? But that's a completely unfair depiction of Barack Obama.".......I see absolutely no racism or racist intent on his part and to be honest I'm not even sure why ithis item is here.
As a white guy myself, I don't think McGlaughlin should have used the term. He's injecting a derogatory racial characterization into the election that is both untrue and defamatory. It's a blatant attempt to 'type' Obama and hurt him-- at least that's how it will be used if it takes on a life of its own.
The fact that McLaughlin was able to articulate the bolded part--which I absolutely agree with--makes me not want to condemn him for the stupid statement he made prior to that.
Personal responsibility/self-help is a quality every single individual should strive for, but it does not completely erase the lingering affects of institutional racism that still affects generations of blacks. - Carn
No disrespect, but I do believe you are missing the larger point. Good parenting combats bad choices by African-Americans kids. Is there an imbalance in the legal system? Of course. Ask Sean Bell, who was murdered by police in New York for absolutely nothing. Or ask the criminal in Maryland, who killed a police officer by running over him, and subsequently received 'vigilante justice' while sitting in his cell. He never got his day in court. However, my father always told me, if you don't have anything illegal on your person, it's harder for 'them' to accuse you. Barack speaking on fathers being fathers, IS speaking on the many problems in the black community, because many of these are combated with one word, family. Young men especially will be led astray by the streets and it's hard for a mother to compete on her own. So when Barack speaks on fathers being fathers he is talking about the root problem that causes many other problems in the African American community.
So if Obama acts like an "oreo", then there's a rift within the ranks, and that's a problem. And otherwise, he'd probably be "too black" for the majority of white voters, and that's a problem. So what is a black man supposed to do to win the Presidency, exactly?
McLAUGHLIN: He's exactly what Jeremiah Wright says he is: He will do whatever is necessary to win.
Then we have this gem. If Obama gauges what sort of comment he can afford to make, then he's a shameless opportunist. And supposedly if he did make suicidal statements, he would be making "gaffes", have no political savvy, etc. How on earth do you get from the simplest political concept of "he can't say that..." to "he will do whatever is necessary to win"?
Apparently Obama is just wrong, no matter what he says.
I don't agree with your premise. I believe McLaughlin was asking whether or not it was a problem for Jackson that Obama was this way, not a problem in general.
What way?
That's the whole problem-- there's no issue here. It's being manufactured by the right-- who could care less- that somehow African Americans "have a problem" with Obama. But Jackson never said that.
His remarks are being magnified to the point that all the white racist commentators are projecting their own race problems onto Obama-- with Jackson being used as the excuse. It's a pretty incredible stretch-- like Lou Dobbs blaming "Mexican food" for the salmonella outbreak (he did last week...).
First of all McLaughlin needs to shut the hell up , because one so called " good point" doesn't offset his racist stereotype comment . He has nerve lecturing anybody about what they should say in the " black community " .
McLaughlin cares about blacks , like the Rockefellers care about poor people . NADA .
My guess is that the racists feel a need to prove once and for all that they will never change...
I imagine that there will be some talk this week, about the illustration that the Editors and Publisher of The New Yorker magazine chose to put on their cover.
It's an obvious and simple fact, that the illustration depicts and involves and casts some kind of opinion about, a man whom the American People are seriously considering as their next President. It's also a fact, that the illustration has a very negative (even slanderous) opinion behind it (I don't need to hear irrelevant and distractionary evasions, asking "what's so negative and slanderous about being depicted as an Arab or Muslim?": there's an American Flag burning in the fireplace... that is signal proof of the opinion of the illustrator).
People are going to say this week, that "hey, there have always been cartoons and caricatures of political candidates, and those cartoons have always expressed an opinion or commentary on whatever candidate or political issue it is, depicted in the cartoon"
True.
Examples of such cartoons and the opinions they might contain or express, would be one (use your imagination) that shows the candidate fat and with the features of a pig: with dollar bills bulging from every pocket: with dollar signs on his lapels and top-hat even: and the candidate might be depicted taking a bag of money from someone just as fat and piggish as he, a bag with a big dollar sign on it... and then just so there will be no doubt as to the opinion or commentary contained in the cartoon, the pig giving the bag of money to the candidate, will have the word "Lobbyist" spelled out, somewhere on or just above the caricature of them: the opinion of the cartoonist being "The Candidate Is Greedy, And Takes Money From Lobbyists And Others With Special Narrow Commercial Interests"
Likewise, were a cartoon to depict the candidate snoozing at his Seat in the Legislature, reclining with his hands behind his head and his feet up on his desk, and with "ZZZZ" over his head: and his name is being called on the Floor of the Legislature, for his Vote on the matter, but he's asleep: the opinion of the cartoonist being "The Candidate Is Lazy And Inattentive To The Business Of Government, And Pays No Attention Nor Even Cares About The Affairs Of The People, And Misses Many Roll Calls And Many Votes"
Now, I have just described for you two political cartoons, and voiced for you the political opinions that might be expressed by those cartoons, and I asked you to use your imagination.
I now ask you to not use your imagination in the least, but to use instead your knowledge of National Policy and of all things political in America... and I ask you to use your power of reason, and of deliberation, and for you to ask yourself:
"What political opinion or commentary is expressed in the New Yorker cartoon?"
"What matter of National Policy or of issue or of political opinion on anything political in America, is contained and commented upon, in the New Yorker cartoon?"
"What is the political opinion of the cartoonist for the New Yorker, being expressed in that cover and about Mr. and Mrs. Obama?"
These are not light and insignificant questions: were the cartoon to comment upon the candidate's Lobbyist ties or Voting Record, or of the candidate's opinion on any particular National Policy or political issue in America, then that's what we would discuss this week, when we discuss the New Yorker cartoon... but I ask you to ask yourself first, what is the opinion of Mr. Obama that is contained and expressed in that cartoon... I ask you to ask yourself that first:
"What political opinion or commentary is expressed in the New Yorker cartoon?"
I see no depiction of a Lobbyist, or of money and dollar signs, in the cartoon: I see no comment on Mr. Obama's Voting Record, or of his diligence to the job of being of a Legislator, in the cartoon: I see no National Policy opinion, or any comment on anything political in America, in the cartoon... I see an American Flag burning in the fireplace, and I wonder why the cartoonist drew that, and why the Editors and Publisher put that on the cover of The New Yorker magazine this week.
There is such a thing as political opinion and commentary in America, and there are things that are not political opinions in America: and there's a line between and a distinction of those two things... that line was crossed (and I hope you can make that distinction), when the cartoonist drew an American Flag burning in the fireplace, and when the Editors and Publisher of The New Yorker magazine put it on their cover this week.
You're right-- this is unacceptable. It traffics in racist stereotypes, for starters.
They can try to posit all the post-modern parody crap they want to, but the cover is racist. Their explanantion means that anyone can depict Blacks this way, because it's just a fun parody of someone else's thinking.
Is the New Yorker going to be running a cover of McCain dive bombing over Hanoi, or the Mrs. dressed like a harpie, slutty family-buster, which she was? That's the left's "image " of that dastardly, adulterous couple.
Of course not. But why not?
"What political opinion or commentary is expressed in the New Yorker cartoon?"
OK, admittedly I haven't read the article, but I took it as a satirical kind of mirror, that shows the rest of america how ridiculous their notions about the good Senator are. That may be naieve, and not the way it's meant, but that's how I interpret it. As brilliant satire, holding a mirror to america so that they can see how silly they are being and how different their notions are from reality.
Yeah - Kind of how All in the Family or Drawn Together or Sarah Silverman use racial sterotypes to make fun of the racists.
Hey, fellow liberals, let's not get like those right wingers who don't know how to tell a joke and the get their panties in a bunch when they hear one. We hae more wit than that. Let's use it.
That's pretty much how the artist saw this as well. To portray this as being racist or a hit piece on Obama is fundamentally flawed because that was not he intent of the artist.
When is the New Yorker going to give us the same type of cover with McCain as the liberal-nightmare subject?
Say, dive-bombing innocent Vietnamese, or squiring around an adulterous girlfriend in the late 70s?
That day will NEVER happen-- the "satire" only goes one-way these days, to the advantage of the right.
This cover was not some hit piece on Obama DEM. The artist was making a much broader statement. See here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html.
You wrote that whole littany without being informed. Wow!
The artist's intent is irrelevant. What matters is the effect the editorial decision to run it will have. Or their motive.....or its reception.
Will the New Yorker run a similar satirical cover lampooning the left's version of McCain's checkered life? Of course not. All hell would break loose. Obama himself would be forced to apologize!! (no jk)
Here is why a discussion on race can't happen in America.
McLaughlin is white. He brings up a valid point about Jesse Jackson considering Obama to be an "Oreo" and liberals cry "Racist!!".
Media Matters makes a headline - "White Man says the word Oreo". Of course it doesn't literally say that, but that is what Media Matters is saying.
It is pathetic that the left can do nothing but hide behind race cards and can't handle serious discussion of an issue.
So what makes someone an "oreo"? Acting "white", or what? If so, what characteristics define this behavior? Obviously if you're classifying positive attributes as "white", that is racist. If it's just a matter of criticizing the black community, then that's a no-win situation. Either you're an "oreo" or you're a panderer, a denier of reality, naive, cowardly, whatever.
Talking about race isn't legitimate if the terms aren't legitimate. Tell me how "oreo" is legitimate.
The derivation as I remember is that it comes from the black community mainly pointed to blacks who wanted to study hard to get ahead in the world.
When did Jesse Jackson ever call Obama an oreo? This seems to have taken on a life of its own.
It's a slur on Obama, and it didn't even happen, did it? So why is the right promulgating it? (needless question.... it's an attempt to get this phony idea out there.)
"When did Jesse Jackson ever call Obama an oreo? This seems to have taken on a life of its own."
The answer is he didn't. Leatherhelmet is LYING.
Black talk radio, including the black callers who criticized Jackson's comments, aren't saying this, because Jackson never said it in the first place.
Your racist commentary about blacks racially sterotyping other black people who want to study hard shows not only your own racism and hatred of black people, Leather, even if they study hard, but your own ignorance.
The dis-likes of anti-black Negro conservatives like Clarence "I Hate Black People" Thomas and Condoleeza "I Hate Black People" Rice are hated by black people and hated by black talk radio are NOT because they studied and/or worked hard, ALL blacks do that.
Thomas, Rice, etc., are hated and detested by blacks because of, in Thomas' case, Thomas has a deep-seeded hatred of the fact that he's a black man instead of a white man, that Thomas is also a hypocrite because he condmens affirmative action programs to benefit other blacks when he himself used and took advantage of affirmative action to get into college and law school to benefit HIMSELF ONLY, and the hypocrite racist Thomas played his right wing racist race card with his racist "hi-tech lynching" comment in 1991 that black columnists like George Curry and black talk radio hosts like Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com and Clifford Kelley http://www.wvon.com and Mark Thompson STILL condemn to this day, and because Thomas goes before racist white supremacist conservative groups during the summer to complain about how he is the "victim" of unfair attacks from the black news media, from black talk radio, and from black professional organizations.
Regarding Rice, Rice herself denounced MLK and other civil rights leaders as "...troublemakers who upset the good white people of the South" in a 2001 interview with the right wing conservative Washington Post, but the Post covered up Rice's answer and the question that preceded it to protect her, but Black Commentator.com http://www.blackcommentator.com has several articles in their archives condemning Rice because Rice is, in Black Commentator's opinion, a liar, a war-mongerette, and an imperialist pirate, based on her role in Bush's war lies, and they've also condemned Rice's denunciation of Dr. King.
Also, in 2003, Rice insulted and offended the members of the National Association of Black Journalists http://www.nabj.org at their annual convention in Dallas in 2003, as most of the black members were offended by the way that Rice visibly displayed her personal discomfort at being around other blacks, and the fact that she refused to relate with them or relate with any other African-Americans.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/19/jackson-accuses-obama-of-acting-white/
To Jesse it means Obama is not pursuing issues such as the Jenna Six among others. Obama distanced himself from his church and issues such as these Jesse has long considered Obama not black enough, hence an "oreo".
You might have something there, but I don't see what the other instances are. If he's talking about one (or even a few) specific occurances, then how does that fit the "stereotype" of an "oreo"? Jackson talking about a specific instance isn't the same as talking about generalized behavior.
It makes McLaughlin's question more valid, but I still don't see the validity of the phrasing.
Obama rode in on the coattails of a false racial meme, and then, upon "presumably" getting the nomination turned far right with the express purpose of courting right wing voters. So either Obama is a Black man running for president, or he's a man running for president who happens to be Black. It seems that his opinion of his candidacy depends on his audience -- act Black when the crowd calls for it, act White when it doesn't.
The Barack Obama of the primary is definitely more liberal than the one now. Now is "Oreo" the right term to use? McLaughlin's like what, 80 years old? How do you hold that against him? The fact is that Obama changes his style of talk depending on his audience, and he does have a tendency to talk down to all people, Black, White and Other --- he's esentially a smarter George Bush.
Obama rode in on the coattails of a false racial meme, and then, upon "presumably" getting the nomination turned far right with the express purpose of courting right wing voters. So either Obama is a Black man running for president, or he's a man running for president who happens to be Black.
Obama is a MAN running for president who happen to be BI-RACIAL! He has a African American father and a White mother. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
It seems that his opinion of his candidacy depends on his audience -- act Black when the crowd calls for it, act White when it doesn't.
The term “act Black” comes from ignorant white folks who have a stereotype of how black folks are suppose to act. As a 73 years old African American woman, how do you "act black"?
Barack Obama of the primary is definitely more liberal than the one now. Now is "Oreo" the right term to use? McLaughlin's like what, 80 years old? How do you hold that against him?
You hold ignorance against ANYONE no matter what their age. Ignorance is not something to ignore.
The fact is that Obama changes his style of talk depending on his audience, and he does have a tendency to talk down to all people, Black, White and Other --- he's esentially a smarter George Bush.
Obama is a Columbia/Harvard educated man who's extremely intelligent and that scares the sh*t out of you. He doesn't talk down to his audiences, he speaks to them as adults. And by the way, a 2 year old is smarter than Bush.
Obama doesn't talk "down" to his audience? Explain his "cling to guns and religion" comment.
Jesse is the one who says Obama "acts white". Why don't you ask Jesse what that means?
Obama doesn't talk "down" to his audience? Explain his "cling to guns and religion" comment.
When you're poor and all of the good paying jobs have gone overseas to India or China placing importance on whether gays marry is not in your best interest. Your religious beliefs are your own! STOP voting for a candidates that promises to "make laws like the bible says", go to church and STOP asking your government to become your minister. That's what I think Obama meant.
Jesse is the one who says Obama "acts white". Why don't you ask Jesse what that means?
ISIT2009YET said Obama "acts black" and THAT is who should answer the damn question. If YOU want to know what Jessie meant, YOU ask Jessie. I ask the poster who made the statement.
"So what makes someone an "oreo"? Acting "white", or what? If so, what characteristics define this behavior?"
Since you asked the question:
Some blacks are called "Oreos" or "House Negroes" or "Self-Hating Colored People" because they do the following:
1. Some blacks work on behalf of racist white people to discriminate against other blacks in the areas of employment, housing, consumer relations, etc., just to score favor with their racist white supervisers and/or the racist white masses.
2. Some blacks act as apologists for and/or defenders of the racist acts of racist whites just to appease these same racist whites who harbor a racist white supremacist "respect" for black people who are subservient to white racism and white supremacy.
3. Some blacks welcome the support of, and/or seek out the support of, racist whites and/or right wing racist white supremacist organizations. Black blogger David A. Love http://www.davidalove.blogspot.com reported that Ward "Con Man" Connerly has not only welcomed the support of the racist KKK in his white supremacy initiatives against affirmative action, Connerly has activley sought otu the support of other right wing racist white supremacist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens, the Aryan Nations, and the racist white supremacist militias.
1. Some blacks work on behalf of racist white people to discriminate against other blacks in the areas of employment, housing, consumer relations, etc., just to score favor with their racist white supervisers and/or the racist white masses.
Name one.
2. Some blacks act as apologists for and/or defenders of the racist acts of racist whites just to appease these same racist whites who harbor a racist white supremacist "respect" for black people who are subservient to white racism and white supremacy.
And Richard Nixon and LBJ conspired to have JFK assasinated too.
3. Some blacks welcome the support of, and/or seek out the support of, racist whites and/or right wing racist white supremacist organizations. Black blogger David A. Love http://www.davidalove.blogspot.com reported that Ward "Con Man" Connerly has not only welcomed the support of the racist KKK in his white supremacy initiatives against affirmative action, Connerly has activley sought otu the support of other right wing racist white supremacist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens, the Aryan Nations, and the racist white supremacist militias.
You use one isolated example here in an effort to validate your entire premise. I believe that there are black racists but certainly a black person who thinks whites are superior to blacks is an anomaly to say the least. Show me otherwise if you can.
In a way, "oreo" is worse than the n-word. This occurs to me because Leather specified it was a white man using the term. The n-word is being used by some in the black community as a term of endearment, in an effort to neutralize the impact of the word. So in that context the meaning of the word is completely different, there's no derogatory sense involved. But "oreo" always means "not black enough" whether the person using it is white or black. No matter who says it, there's an implication that some behavioral characteristics are connected to skin color. There's no neutralization to be done, no alternate interpretation to be made.
This dynamic makes the term especially useless in any discussion about race, regardless of the skin color of those involved.
When a white person uses the term, he is saying essentially that this person doesn't fit my negative stereotype of what a black person is, so therefore they aren't really black. The entire "oreo" concept stems from a moronic simplification of racial identity. Any white person who would use the term is only revealing their own ignorance and racial prejudices.
And I have to address this quote from earlier in the thread: "[A]ccording to McLaughlin, the term "oreo" did not originate in the white community."
And we're going to give him authority on the origin of a word that only an idiot would use?
"The n-word is being used by some in the black community as a term of endearment, in an effort to neutralize the impact of the word"
That's an interesting opinion but it seems more like an excuse to rationalize the use of a racial slur as being o.k. because of ones skin color. Obviously, that word is used in a deragatory manner by blacks towards each other as well. As far as using that word as a term of endearment...well that just says much about the intelligence of anyone who uses that word, considering its history. How have we arrived at the point where ones skin color can excuse the use of deragatory racist slurs? Term of endearment my arse.
Are black people using the term as derogatory based on race? If so, then that would be wrong, but I haven't seen that.
It has nothing to do with excusing anything, it's about changing the meaning and impact of the word. If the black community wants to make that effort, that's up to them. I don't care for the word at all, I don't use it under any circumstances or any pretense of meaning. That being said, IF it can be established over time as a comment about behavior (or as a term of endearment as some black people clearly use it), then I have no problem with that. It's a huge, blinking, neon-green "if", and it would take a very long time to establish that usage no matter what. But that's the basis for saying that "oreo" is worse, in a way. I think at some point that the n-word could lose its racist meaning due to black usage, while "oreo" is problematic even under those conditions.
Did you really think that I have any interest in furthering something racist?
Are black people using the term as derogatory based on race? If so, then that would be wrong, but I haven't seen that.
It has nothing to do with excusing anything, it's about changing the meaning and impact of the word. If the black community wants to make that effort, that's up to them. I don't care for the word at all, I don't use it under any circumstances or any pretense of meaning. That being said, IF it can be established over time as a comment about behavior (or as a term of endearment as some black people clearly use it), then I have no problem with that. It's a huge, blinking, neon-green "if", and it would take a very long time to establish that usage no matter what. But that's the basis for saying that "oreo" is worse, in a way. I think at some point that the n-word could lose its racist meaning due to black usage, while "oreo" is problematic even under those conditions.
Did you really think that I have any interest in furthering something racist?
First of all I have no clue whether you wish to further something racist. I could care less either way. My disagreement with you concerns your excusing a certain group of people from using a racial slur because you see it used sometimes as a "term of endearment." Its been my experience that the word is used in the black community more as a reference to "a person" or in a derogatory manner more than a term of endearment. Black people certainly use the word in a deragatory manner towards each other. The word is a racial slur, so I fail to see how it could be used as anything other than a racial slur, especially when used in a derogatory manner. Here is something you may find interesting:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX896BWP2EU
In any event, your attempt to show how "oreo" is somehow really worse doesn't pass the smell test for me sir. to me, there is a huge difference in, for example, a white person saying n!gg*r with malice and saying "oreo" with malice. Why? Well it's my opinion that the particular word holds a meaning rooted in the oppression of an entire race of people. Essentially it's a word to describe one person as less of a human because of their skin color. I just don't see how "oreo" is worse than that. Secondly, to me there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to use that word. Can the black community change the word over time to make it o.k. for a white person to say it as a term of endearment? I truly doubt that. The bottom line is that the word is being pimped out by record producers to the point where it is pop culture lexicon in the hip hop world, while those in the black community who use the word do nothing but degrade themselves.
"First of all I have no clue whether you wish to further something racist. I could care less either way. My disagreement with you concerns your excusing a certain group of people from using a racial slur because you see it used sometimes as a "term of endearment." Its been my experience that the word is used in the black community more as a reference to "a person" or in a derogatory manner more than a term of endearment. Black people certainly use the word in a deragatory manner towards each other. The word is a racial slur, so I fail to see how it could be used as anything other than a racial slur, especially when used in a derogatory manner. Here is something you may find interesting:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX896BWP2EU"
If it's used to describe behavior, then it's not all about race. How are black people using it as racist against themselves? Consider the term "cracker". That's specific to white people, but at the same time it's meant to apply to racists, so it doesn't say anything about all white people. I could use it as a derogatory term for a racist, without it being a "racial slur".
"In any event, your attempt to show how "oreo" is somehow really worse doesn't pass the smell test for me sir. to me, there is a huge difference in, for example, a white person saying n!gg*r with malice and saying "oreo" with malice. Why? Well it's my opinion that the particular word holds a meaning rooted in the oppression of an entire race of people. Essentially it's a word to describe one person as less of a human because of their skin color. I just don't see how "oreo" is worse than that."
I have no idea where you expect to find disagreement about racism of the n-word. I'm talking about changing the usage so that it's not racist. I said that "oreo" is worse in a way because it has the exact same connotations no matter who uses it, so there's little or no hope of blunting its effects at all. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.
"Secondly, to me there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to use that word. Can the black community change the word over time to make it o.k. for a white person to say it as a term of endearment? I truly doubt that. The bottom line is that the word is being pimped out by record producers to the point where it is pop culture lexicon in the hip hop world, while those in the black community who use the word do nothing but degrade themselves."
I'm not sure that a white person could legitimately use it as a term of endearment, I'm saying that's something going on within the black community. I can understand the effort to take the term away from bigots though, much as the gay community co-opted the term "queer" as their own.
If it's used to describe behavior, then it's not all about race. How are black people using it as racist against themselves? Consider the term "cracker". That's specific to white people, but at the same time it's meant to apply to racists, so it doesn't say anything about all white people. I could use it as a derogatory term for a racist, without it being a "racial slur".
We obviously differ on the usage. I tend to see "oreo" as a word used to describe a person who engages in such behavior rather than a word to describe a certain behavior. As for blacks using the N word against themselves . Here is what I wrote:"The word is a racial slur, so I fail to see how it could be used as anything other than a racial slur, especially when used in a derogatory manner." The word is what it is. You wrote earlier that:"Are black people using the term as derogatory based on race?" and my answer is yes. The word has a universal understanding and when used by any person black or white in a derogatory manner it is a racial slur. Also, because the word has a universal understanding, I don't buy that the meaning is changed because it is not said with malice. It is inappropriate in any manner and being used as a term of endearment does not change the universal understanding of the word itself. Certainly you don't beleive that black parents should encourage the use fo the word so it's meanign can eventually be changed within the black community?
I have no idea where you expect to find disagreement about racism of the n-word. I'm talking about changing the usage so that it's not racist. I said that "oreo" is worse in a way because it has the exact same connotations no matter who uses it, so there's little or no hope of blunting its effects at all. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.
It is your opinion that the word has the exact same connotations no matter who uses it. I for one see a difference in this area. For example, as a native American I know it is a very derogatory thing to accuse another Native America of wanting to be white. Having a member of your own race call you a sellout has more wieght than a white person calling you a sellout. I really don't know how to make that any clearer for you. Poeple of color tend to view this issue differently than you do (in my experience anyway).
I'm not sure that a white person could legitimately use it as a term of endearment, I'm saying that's something going on within the black community. I can understand the effort to take the term away from bigots though, much as the gay community co-opted the term "queer" as their own.
Sorry, no sale on that one. If the meanign of the word is changed then it is changed for everyone. You can't erase the derogatory meaning for just one portion of the population and expect it to be taboo for another. It think it is a fanciful belief that people in the black community are using the word as a term of endearment so that the meanign of the word will be changed for their population only. I would think that most self respecting African Americans would certainly prohibit their children from using that word. I believe they would do so because of the words meanign, history, etc. No amount of usage will change this.
"We obviously differ on the usage. I tend to see "oreo" as a word used to describe a person who engages in such behavior rather than a word to describe a certain behavior."
Can you rephrase that? The distinction is muddy.
"As for blacks using the N word against themselves . Here is what I wrote:"The word is a racial slur, so I fail to see how it could be used as anything other than a racial slur, especially when used in a derogatory manner." The word is what it is. You wrote earlier that:"Are black people using the term as derogatory based on race?" and my answer is yes. The word has a universal understanding and when used by any person black or white in a derogatory manner it is a racial slur. Also, because the word has a universal understanding, I don't buy that the meaning is changed because it is not said with malice. It is inappropriate in any manner and being used as a term of endearment does not change the universal understanding of the word itself. Certainly you don't beleive that black parents should encourage the use fo the word so it's meanign can eventually be changed within the black community?"
So black people are saying that black people are inferior when they use the word without malice? How? The word ceases to have a "universal understanding" the more that popular usage changes the meaning. This is the way language has always worked. I don't think it's something you would teach to children as much as something you simply allow to develop though culture.
"It is your opinion that the word has the exact same connotations no matter who uses it. I for one see a difference in this area. For example, as a native American I know it is a very derogatory thing to accuse another Native America of wanting to be white. Having a member of your own race call you a sellout has more wieght than a white person calling you a sellout. I really don't know how to make that any clearer for you. Poeple of color tend to view this issue differently than you do (in my experience anyway)."
Whether it's a black person or a white person using the term, it means "black on the outside, white on the inside". The word itself leaves no room for variation there. Taking more offense at one person saying it over another doesn't mean the connotation is different.
"Sorry, no sale on that one. If the meanign of the word is changed then it is changed for everyone. You can't erase the derogatory meaning for just one portion of the population and expect it to be taboo for another. It think it is a fanciful belief that people in the black community are using the word as a term of endearment so that the meanign of the word will be changed for their population only. I would think that most self respecting African Americans would certainly prohibit their children from using that word. I believe they would do so because of the words meanign, history, etc. No amount of usage will change this."
Usage certainly can change the accepted meaning. As for "fanciful belief", you've never seen black people use the term among friends? The purpose isn't to genuinely degrade anyone else there. And to say that a word can't be acceptable for one person to say but not for another ignores obvious circumstantial differences. If a white person calls me "honky", that's not to be taken seriously, because I'm pretty sure it's not a commentary on all white people. If it's a black person, that's a different story.
Can you rephrase that? The distinction is muddy.
Sorry but you need to distinguish how the word "oreo" is defined as a behavior rather than a person who engages in a particular behavior. That should clear it up.
So black people are saying that black people are inferior when they use the word without malice? How? The word ceases to have a "universal understanding" the more that popular usage changes the meaning. This is the way language has always worked. I don't think it's something you would teach to children as much as something you simply allow to develop though culture.
Really? Please define for me the meaning of the n-word when used by a black person towards another black person when used with malice and without malice. I would be interested to know what you think the definition is in those circumstances. Furthermore, I assume we can agree on the definition when used by a white person towards a black person with malice but how about the definition of the word when used by a white person towards a black person without malice. Seems to me that you have indicated that there are a myriad of definitions of the word depending on its usage but you have yet to define them specifically.
"Whether it's a black person or a white person using the term, it means "black on the outside, white on the inside". The word itself leaves no room for variation there. Taking more offense at one person saying it over another doesn't mean the connotation is different.
That is your perception which is based wholly on speculation. Since you have indicated here that the word means "black on the outside, white on the inside". I am curious as to whether you mean the word describes a person who fits the meaning or a behavior which fits the meaning. When someone from you own race calls you a sellout they do so from a persepctive which is more likely to be based on similiar experiences.
Usage certainly can change the accepted meaning. As for "fanciful belief", you've never seen black people use the term among friends? The purpose isn't to genuinely degrade anyone else there. And to say that a word can't be acceptable for one person to say but not for another ignores obvious circumstantial differences. If a white person calls me "honky", that's not to be taken seriously, because I'm pretty sure it's not a commentary on all white people. If it's a black person, that's a different story
If this is your argument, then I think you are bound to give a definition of the n-word when used by blacks towards other blacks. What does the word mean when said among friends? What does the word mean when said by one black person to describe another black person when uttered with malice? If you are saying usage can change the meaning then you need to specify the new meaning. You ca't just delcare cush to be true or even possible without defining the word.
"Sorry but you need to distinguish how the word "oreo" is defined as a behavior rather than a person who engages in a particular behavior. That should clear it up."
Where did I say "oreo" was a behavior? Of course it refers to a person who exhibits certain behavior. I have no idea what you think you're arguing here.
"Really? Please define for me the meaning of the n-word when used by a black person towards another black person when used with malice and without malice. I would be interested to know what you think the definition is in those circumstances. Furthermore, I assume we can agree on the definition when used by a white person towards a black person with malice but how about the definition of the word when used by a white person towards a black person without malice. Seems to me that you have indicated that there are a myriad of definitions of the word depending on its usage but you have yet to define them specifically."
I'm not black, but from what I've seen it's just used as a general term for a black person, without any intended denigration. Do some research, surf the web, ask around. The truth of the matter doesn't rest on my theorizing of such specifics, it's just not realistic to believe that all of the black people who use the term without malice are intending to assert black inferiority. The people I worked with who used the term among themselves were not expressing hatred towards their own skin color, and from everything I've seen and heard that was not a unique occurrence by any means. If it is used with malice, as you ask later on, then it reflects behavior. Look up Chris Rock's routine on the subject, it's well-known.
"That is your perception which is based wholly on speculation. Since you have indicated here that the word means "black on the outside, white on the inside". I am curious as to whether you mean the word describes a person who fits the meaning or a behavior which fits the meaning. When someone from you own race calls you a sellout they do so from a persepctive which is more likely to be based on similiar experiences."
If the word describes a person, isn't that description based on the person's behavior? Or are we talking about X-ray results? Can it apply to white people? Again, this distinction between "person" and "behavior" is very strange, since obviously there's no physical distinction to be made. And again, even if someone takes the term "oreo" more harshly from one person than another, the meaning is still the same either way.
Obviously, that word is used in a deragatory manner by blacks towards each other as well.
Chris it's not used as a derogatory term between blacks. The "N" word used by blacks is pronounced totally different than the "N" word used by whites. Black folks have used the word to take the sting out of the way whites used the word and in some black communities, black kids use it as a greeting like hello.
It may seem ignorant to you but having had white folks call me the "N" word before, I must tell you it's totally different from coming from someone black. That doesn't mean I want to be called the "N" word from someone black, I don't, it just doesn't sting.
So you are telling me that the word's universal meaning is somehow forgotten because the utterer has black skin? Tome that is a cop out to excuse the use of a racial slur within your own community. Do you allow your children to use that word?
Yeah I am. The original use of the "N" word was by whites to demean and belittle African Americans. When African Americans started to use the word back in the 60's is was pronounced totally different and not used in a belittling manner. It may seem a cop out to you but you've never live life as a African American.
I don't use it nor do my children but I DO understand those who use it.
Then please define for me the meaning of the n-word when used between blacks. If you or your children don't use the word I would like to know why if in fact you see nothing wrong with it.
I should say I don't have a big problem with those who use it since it's young folks who do. As for meaning, it has none when used by African Americans. It's slang used by young folks greeting one another, "Hey what's up N". The "N" means nothing. Whites have always used the word in a negative way when addressing black folks using the "N" word. When whites use the word they aren't greeting anyone they're conveying extreme hate based on race. It's meant to belittle and demean African Americans.
Chris, African Americans started using the "N" back in the 60's in a defiant way to let white folks know the word they used to belittle black folks no longer had the power it used to have. They wanted to show whites the "N" word didn't hurt black folks anymore. It's now used by young folks as a daily greeting like hello. Hip Hop has made it even more popular with young folks. Should it stop? Yes, and I believe in time it will.
Having black people applying pressure for you to not get a college education is obviously a hurdle for achieving societal equality.
Whether "racist" or not, I don't see how it's acceptable in any context.
Speaking as a black man with a college education myself, I can say that the blacks who called you an oreo simply for getting a college education are knuckleheads, pure and simple. Uneducated blacks are just a stupid and useless as uneducated whites. Also, educated whites and educated blacks who CHOOSE to follow ignorant lying fascist conservatives saying things they KNOW to be lies are WORSE than both.
But do NOT welcome right wing racist white supremacist conservatives like Leatherhelmet as your friends. Racists like Leather hate black people, whether they have and/or are seeking college and/or post graduate educations or not. BOTH Leather and McLaughlin are angry that Obama doesn't fit and/or won't conform to their racist white supremacist stereotypes of black people, so McLaughlin calls Obama an Oreo, and Leatherhelmet tries to sign Jackson's name to McLaughlin's racist insult.
Many blacks who call other blacks (mostly black conservatives) oreos or sellouts or Uncle Toms or Sambos aren't doing so because these blacks are educated, but because these blacks often have racial self-esteem problems, mainly, they hate the fact that they are black, and/or they hurt other blacks and/or work against black causes just to benefit their own selfish ends, and/or they seek out alliances with racist white people and racist white groups.
Black talk radio host Ambrose I. Lane Senior http://www.weourselves.org called Ward "Con Man" Connerly "...the colored man who opposes affirmative action" because of Connerly's personal hypocrisy, because of negative indictments of Connerly's personal character, and because Connerly has sought out and/or welcomed the support of the KKK and/or the Council of Conservative Citizens and other racist white supremacist groups.
SEE IT . . . I certainly don't WELCOME such comments from racists. First I have to accept your premise that McClaughlin is a racist. I've seen no such proof as I have with Imus and O'Reilly.
Secondly, let's be clear on our sh#t, and you know exactly what I'm talking about . . . self-hate within our own community, biases based on shade and hair type, the schism between the black lower, middle and upper economic classes.
OREO and Uncle Tom are internal insults specific to African Americans. Any person with modicum of intelligence can witness and speak to our family squables and biases and should.
I see your point but strongly disagree.
It is pathetic that the left can do nothing but hide behind race cards and can't handle serious discussion of an issue.
Bullfeathers...! What usually passes for race discussions among conservatives are coded racist messages assailing blacks. I'm not saying that is exactly what occured here...but it is nonetheless offensive IMO.
"It is pathetic that the left can do nothing but hide behind race cards and can't handle serious discussion of an issue."
It is dishonest, hypocritical, and racist for the right to attack the left for hiding behind race cards when the racist right plays them 24-7-365 on almost every issue they can think of.
Anti-black Negro conservative racist Clarence Thomas played the right's racist race card first in 1991 with his racist "hi-tech lynching" comment, and Thomas' comments were CONDEMNED on black talk radio and condemned by black columnists and still are, and 10 years later, Thomas played the race card again in a 2001 speech where he whined about how he's the "victim" of unfair attacks from black columnists, black media, black talk radio, and black professional organizations. The leading organization of black lawyers, The National Bar Association, OPPOSED Thomas' confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Anti-black Negro conservative racist Alan Keyes played the race card in 1996 during the 1996 Republican Presidential Primary, specifically in Georgia, when Keyes said he was excluded from a televised Republican Presidential Primary Debate in Georgia because he was black. All of a sudden the anti-black Negro conservative racist Alan Keyes, who railed against black playing the victim and playing the race card, himself played the same "victim" and played the same "race card". Black talk radio condemned Keyes for that, too.
There is another degree of the "oreo" philosophy. How about those Hostess cupcakes which are chocolate with a white cream filling? Ever notice that sometimes there is more white filling than others. In the "oreo" dimension, what does that says about the "Hostess" people? Call out the "how white" is this black person police. Who decides these things?
Does McLaughlin think it would be fair to say that he is way past his expiration date on his baloney wrapper and that he should be thrown out? His "oreo" comment was not necessary. He is a professional and could of made any point without a stupid statement like that.
I think you're greatly overestimating the level of "privilege" with which Obama grew up. His mother and grandparents really never went above the level of middle class and flirted with the lower levels of that classification. He didn't live in poverty, but the fact is most African Americans today also didn't. He did have first hand exposure to debilitating poverty in Indonesia, Kenya and Chicago so it's definitely something he has personal knowledge of. He also obviously has first hand experience of absentee fathers, having grown up with his absent.
You're far offbase in suggesting that Obama is removed from issues of the African American community.
This old African American woman agrees with Obama. THIS is a problem we can fix. Let’s leave institutional racism aside and discuss how many of our young men and women are having unprotected sex. What in GOD'S name are our children doing have unprotected sex in the year 2008? Forget for pregnancy for a moment, can you say AIDS? The number of AIDS cases in the African American community has skyrocketed because we don't practice safe sex. There is no excuse for not using protection! Heck they hand out condoms for free! This is an issue that needs to be addressed by our community.
There was a time when having children out of wedlock was a shameful, I know I had 2. Young African Americans girls having 1 or 2 kids and they haven't finished high school and young African American boys having a child with one girl and a couple more with another girl and taking care of none. Neither one has a freaking CLUE how hard they’ll have to work to take care of those children. That’s not talking down to black folks that’s dealing with a reality that we as African Americans must fight to change. We can fix this.
I don't mean to pick on anyone. Having had 2 children before I married I understand but these children have birth control available. They have the tools to make sure they don't get pregnant or die because they had sex. My daughter gave my grandson a condom when he was 13 not because she wanted him to have sex but because she wanted him safe and healthy. We need to teach our young girls that the health and safety of their bodies should ALWAYS come first. Get birth control so you won’t become a mother before you’re ready and please use condoms so you won’t die of AIDS. Young men should be taught the same.
Being Black and living in America is not easy, but we don't need to add to our struggles by being stupid, having babies without being ready to be parents and dying of a disease that we can protect ourselves from.
Jessie was wrong, that's not talking down, that's the truth.
McLaughlin's very conservative to be sure, but he's fairly intelligent, and I've never considered him one of the blind, kool-aid drinkers. He always makes good points in his discussioms, and unlike LImbaugh (etc...) you may come away disagreeing with him, but he will definitely make you THINK and CHALLENGE you in the debate.
That being said "OREO" was a pretty dumb thing for him to say. He had a VALID POINT overall, especially in light of Jackson's comments, and Obama's broad appeal to white voters. (Particularly in contrast to the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, etc...) It's worth talking about, but I think it says far more about Jackson (& co.) that about Obama.
At least it would... unfortunately "OREO" makes the whole thing say more about McLaughln than anyone else.
Look, my comment on this issue is something I would hope black folk might like to stir in thier lemonade today and that is the varying degrees of separation OUR race is experiencing concerning what we need in a black presidental candidate.
Jesse Jackson's comments, were not correct or warranted from a man of his experience. He should have known better but I don't fault him. I believe he has opened the door to a bigger issue which is, what does black America want a black presidential candidate to be, cuz it crosses a whole bunch of lines from what I can tell.
Just in the short time I've been inquiring with my circle of friends & family, I have heard these comments:
--he's elitest
--he hasn't lived thru the "black" experience.
--he is not one of us
--he doesn't have enough experience
--he's too white
--he's not black enough.
--I don't want him to run cuz he might be killed
--America isn't ready for a black man running this country
--he's Muslim
--Rev. Wright
--and so on & so on
What is this man gonna have to do to address these feelings & more??!!?? And now, Jesse comes down the pike with "he is talking down to the faith based black constituency." Forget the "I want to cut his n**s off" comment. Really.
I'm more concerned with the attitude that this man, Obama, is ALWAYS gonna have to answer his critics on just about every level on everyday that every decision he makes about every economic decision or every adminstration choice he makes or every baby he kisses will be assessed, scrutinized, subjected to every pundit's ideological take(or spin if you will) to the point of lunacy.....did Bush or Clinton or Reagan or any presidential hopeful ever have to be subjected to this? The answer of course is a flat out NO, but Obama is sure to receive this treatment at every juncture of his public career from here on in & it's not fair.
It's not fair that in Rev. Jackson's eyes that he "appearred " to talk down to the black faith based groups...in whose opinion did Obama do this?....or that in Rev. Jackson's opinion that he felt Obama should have been at the Jena six demonstration in the middle of a national campaign to win the democratic nomination....or that he is not wearing an American flagpin to show he is patriotic...or that he has not experienced the "black" experience....IN WHOSE EYES??? Correct me if I'm wrong but every morning when Barack looks in the mirror, what does one thinks he sees.....hello!!??, a BLACK MAN.
I would hope this debate will open someone's eyes or am I the only one in the room talking??
Its a part of the conversation. An important part and if your reading all of this, a wide range range of opinions surface here, which are interpeted in sane and insane ways. Part of the charm of the place.
That said, most of the sane posters look to see Obama take the oath of office in January with hopeful feelings. And look to coment on the media missinformation about him, that will not stop at that point.
I LOVE HOW THIS MORNING THERE WAS NO OUT CRY OR ANY STORY ON THE CABLE WEB SITE ACCEPT FOR ABC. NOW LET SOMEONE HAD DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT NEWYORKER COVER TO MCCAIN. THE RIGHT-WING CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, NBC, CBS AND ABC WOULD BE ALL OVER THIS STORY AND PUTTING IT DOWN BIG TIME.
Black talk radio host Clifford Kelley http://www.wvon.com correctly called both black conservatives Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas Sambos because both Keyes and Thomas have on seperate occasions expressed racist hatred and hostility against their own people, and/or because they are hypocrites, because both Keyes and Thomas played the right wing racist race cards just for their own selfish ends.
"The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com correctly attacked the anti-black Negro conservative racist Larry Elder by saying "If they ever put the definition of Uncle Tom in the dictonary, a picture of Larry Elder will sit right beside that definition."
BOTH Kelley and Madison, unlike the right wing racist white supremacist McLaughlin, have the right to use these terms because both Kelley and Madison work to help African-Americans.
I knew I stopped watching The McGarbage Report awlie back for a reason,I see that I was right to do so.
I know the brick I have by my chair would have been launched,had I seen this,TV screen still intact.
That was a weird thing to say. African-Americans also user the n-word sometimes. Does McLaughlin think that makes it OK for him to say on national TV. At least Jackson didn't know his mic was on when he made his remark.
So there appears to be a list of words that white people can't say. Is there a list of words black people can't say?
Damn you George Carlin, you died a couple weeks too soon. We need you.
I don't guess there is. The n-word has a entirely different definition when used by blacks although I get the felling that no one really knows what this definiiton is.
I doubt that McLaughlin is a "racist". He is clearly somewhere in between prejudiced and bigoted....as are the vast majority of all humans of whatever "race".
The fact is that Jackson screwed up a bit here. Not just for assuming that mike was off; but for holding those views in the first place.
Obama's critique was right, though I wish he had couched it in the broader context of men in general rather than simply to "black" men in particular.
The whole concept of racial "identity" is fundamentally flawed.
Race is itself a social construct far more than an objective reality. The fact that people kill each other over it is just one more sign of the unsanity of humanity.
If there are humans extant in 200 years the whole concept of "race" as we know it will be extinct.
i am an african-american female without the trappings of an elitist, however, i can strongly sense blatant racism when it shows its ugly head. aside, i faithfully view the Mclaughlin show every sunday for some years.
what could possibly be happening with john? it appear that he has lost touch with his journalistic objectivity and is excercising abject subjective leanings. shame, shame on john and others that are practicing this type of reporting. it is no longer acceptable behavior.
john and his cohorts ought to take a chill pill or take a long break..., if it were not for eleanor i would not continue to watch the show. she perhaps is the only member of the group who still has her head on straight.
somebody, please give john a leave from the panel and replace him with fresh-blood. i'm afraid he is becoming a dangerous figure in the media and enough has been regurgitated on the obama's political-plight.
i am incensed but like who cares.
I came here because I received an email message asking me to call McLaughlin and demand an apology. Not only will I not do that, I will state here: Shame on Media Matters for trying to stir up racial outrage where it is totally unjustified. I think Media Matters owes its readers and McLauchlin an apology! Nevertheless, he may issue one, to anyone who may have been offended. He is not O'Reilly, even though they talk somewhat similarly.
This issue is "political correctness" at its worst. White people are not allowed to discuss racial issues without tip-toeing on egg shells.
This is an opinion show (that's been going on since long before cable became overrun with opinion shows) and he stated an opinion. You may not agree with it. Two of the panelists took some issue with it, but they didn't say the comment was out of bounds. The whole thing was well within the bounds of civil, and not particularly passionate, debate. It did not come close to the level of Imus' "Nappy-haired hoes" comment which itself was a big tempest in a teapot.
Media Matters has plenty to watch regarding the Obama campaign, what with implications he is a closet Muslim and (therefore) terrorist sympathizer, middle name is Hussein, last name sounds like "Osama", he's a flip-flopper, etc. Please stick to your stated mission of addressing conservative misinformation.
If there is anything at all here Media Matters could address, it is that it's about politics, not about what Obama (or anyone else) would do as president. But, first, McLauchlin Group does address plenty of issues (at least they did when I used to watch them) and second, it is somewhat relevant to discuss Obama's take on racial relations (whether or not you agree with it) because it can affect policy decisions. Just not nearly as much as, say, his NYT editorial yesterday about his Iraq policy.
"This issue is 'political correctness' at its worst. White people are not allowed to discuss racial issues without tip-toeing on egg shells."
You know what? Black people are terrified that they'll be accused of "playing the race card" whenever they do anything but tip-toe on eggshells about racial discrimination.
McLaughlin asserted that Obama fits the mold of an 'Oreo'. He directly questioned his cultural authenticity on the basis of what? Blood quanta? Class? Education? Ethnicity? No matter how you slice it, McLaughlin asserted -- not asked about the proposition -- that Obama is not who he claims to be at the level of internal correspondence to external skin color. It's hard to find a better example of what constitutes a racist proposition.
This has nothing to do with the boogeyman of political correctness.