Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

I don't necessarily equate Reid's comments with those of Lott. Lott's comments about the good 'ol days of segregation, even spoken in jest, were beyond the pale and Lott deserved his condemnation. Reid's comments were much more reminiscent of Don Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment. Sharpton and others (including Dodd, Obama, H. Clinton) were completely up in arms at the time demanding Imus' head which eventually was conceded to them by NBC.

As for this comment, it may or may not speak to a latent racism on the part of Reid. What this incident demonstrates without question however, is the blatant hypocrisy of Sharpton, Obama and other Reid apologists.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

Your recollection of Lott's words isn't quite accurate - all he said (on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party) was that if Thurmond had been elected president back when he ran ".. many problems might have been avoided...." He NEVER mentioned segregation. Besides, I think Mississipi was the last state to ratify the 13th amendment - they didn't get around to it until 1995 or so, but they're slow generally - and anyway that remark could have been referring to anything at all, like wars etc. I emphatically agree with you on the crass hypocrisy of the "black leaders" starting with Sharpton.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

... I emphatically agree with you on the crass hypocrisy of the "black leaders" starting with Sharpton.

Hypocritical... true, but very amusing to watch the spectacle of inflated apologies followed by earnest affirmation that the "words were indeed offensive"; and even more earnest assurances that Harry has been forgiven, and , besides unlike those Republican bastards he really didn't mean it.

Such phoney pomposity deserves recognition.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

It is not the offhand comments or individual remarks taken out of context that are bothersome. It is the ideology of White Christian dominance.

Where is there an ideology of White Christian dominance? Why not focus on the southern part of this hemisphere and notice that the wealthy tend to be of Spanish descent from Spain, and are also White? And, that is caused by the same factors, I believe, as the supposedly White Christian dominance in the U.S.

Since the White Christians developed the U.S. to its current level, why call it dominance? Just call it success! Yes, White Christians have been successful. And, if one prefers to think of it as a competition, White Christians have won over the non-White Christians in several spheres according to the statistics: education, monetary wealth, land ownership, etc. However, if one looks to the popular culture of the masses, non-white Christians are now at the forefront (music, sports, clothing style, etc.). So, the competition has different winners, based on which sphere in society the competition reflects.

However, any non-White, Christian or otherwise, can get an education and prosper in the U.S. That is more than one can say about many other countries in this hemisphere, or world at large.

Let us not be ingrates for the lovely country White Christian men and women have given all of us to live in!

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

High Seas, the rank prevaricator wrote: Your recollection of Lott's words isn't quite accurate -

Waaaaay more accurate than your words. Why would you think that anyone would trust a renowned prevaricator like you?

He didn't say, as you maintain, ".. many problems might have been avoided....".

And he didn't temper it with a 'might'; he stated, "wouldn't ..."

Surely, someone as well versed in language knows the difference between might and would.

He said,

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Try looking up the definitions of many and all, you ole fount of language wisdom. Or ask Gob1. He's always a good one to go to for the unvarnished truth.

Lott knew exactly what he was talking about when he referred to all these problems, just as you do and did when you wrote these lies.

Quote:

In 1948, Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina ran for President on a Dixiecrat ticket. Their campaign was motivated by racist opposition to a federal anti-lynching law and other talk of reform.

Thurmond used to roar at the top of his lungs:

"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our swimming pools and our churches."

His election platform read:

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

http://rwor.org/a/v24/1171-1180/1180/lott.htm

Quote:

In November 1980, at a Mississippi political rally, after Thurmond had made a fiery speech backing Ronald Reagan, then-congressman Lott told the crowd: "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." In 1992, Lott told a meeting of the Klan-like racist organization, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC): "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." He is quoted at several places in his career saying that the figure he "feels closest to" in American history is Jefferson Davis--the Confederate leader who led the slaveowners in war. It even came out that when Lott was a college student back in the 1960s, he led a fight to keep Black students out of his Sigma Nu fraternity.

http://rwor.org/a/v24/1171-1180/1180/lott.htm

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Such phoney pomposity deserves recognition.

Indeed it does, Gob1, and I salute you. You excel at phoney pomposity.

0 Replies

I like Melissa's take on it:

Melissa Harris-Lacewell: "Lott was longing for a bygone era when structural barriers and entrenched inequality were the norm. Reid was enthusiastic that the same barriers were lessening and that America was ready, albeit with caveats, for a new racial reality."

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

if al sharpton were to shuffle off this mortal coil tomorrow i'd not shed a tear, with any luck he'd take jesse jackson with him

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

It sure is nice to see Republicans sticking up for the president at last. Even if the affair is between Reid and Obama, and the two have long settled it. As Martha Steward might put it: a tempest in a cuisine art.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

So, without malicious intent, how could it be racist?

So, are you saying that as long as there is no intent to be racist, then its ok to make racist comments?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Mysteryman,

I am saying that racism is more than gotcha politics.

1. Trent Lott talks wistfully about Strom Thurman's racist campaign-- saying the country would have been better had the candidate who was running as a Segregationist candidate had won.

2. Harry Reid talks rather inartfully about his support for an African-American candidate.

Come on-- Is it really that hard to see the difference here?

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

No matter how much you try and excuse it, racism is racism.
No matter who says it or what the context is.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

No matter how much you try and excuse it, racism is racism.
No matter who says it or what the context is.

Mysteryman,

Racism is the belief that one race is, or should be, dominant over other races.

Segregation was centered on this belief.

Harry Reid's (however stupid) comment in support of the first African-American candidate to be elected had nothing to do with racial dominance or superiority.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

yes it did, he basically said, what i joked about at the beginning of this thread

if obama looked and spoke like fiddy cent, he'd have been axed to leave the building

no one should be so blinded by there love for a political party that they can't see what's in front of their eyes, there are assholes in both parties

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Trent Lott was speaking to a dying Styrom Thurman at his (last) birthday celebration and making vague, non specific flattering remarks to the old man. Reid was offering a candid (and factual) statement of support for then candidate Obama.

Neither statement can be interpreted as conclusively racist, either in itself or in the context in which it was offered. Both episodes evoke the nonsensical evasions and circumloqutions required by contemporary political correctitude. The reactions of self-appointed "spokesmen" for a large percentage of our population, such as the esteemed Al Sharpton are self-serving and hypocritical in the extreme - in both cases.

The supposed racism and the lack of it in the two statements is all in the prejudgements of the critics. Their cyncal hypocrisy is astounding, but sadly no longer surprising.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Trent Lott was speaking to a dying Styrom Thurman at his (last) birthday celebration and making vague, non specific flattering remarks to the old man. Reid was offering a candid (and factual) statement of support for then candidate Obama.

Neither statement can be interpreted as conclusively racist, either in itself or in the context in which it was offered. Both episodes evoke the nonsensical evasions and circumloqutions required by contemporary political correctitude. The reactions of self-appointed "spokesmen" for a large percentage of our population, such as the esteemed Al Sharpton are self-serving and hypocritical in the extreme - in both cases.

Talking Points Memo reminds us of an excellent point re: Trent Lott:

Quote:

Talk to President Bush

In all the nonsense today about Trent Lott's forced resignation over the Strom Thurmond comments, one thing is getting missed. Whatever you think of Lott's comments, he didn't reason because of anything Democrats said. He resigned because President Bush and Karl Rove wanted him out and forced him out. He was never their preferred guy. And they used the opportunity of the brouhaha to force his exit.

--Josh Marshall

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Racism is the belief that one race is, or should be, dominant over other races.

You are painting yourself into a corner here.
Using your own words, then I can refuse to rent to someone, tell them its because of their race, and it wont be called racist as long as I dont express the view that my race is dominant.

0 Replies

I echo the comments made concerning the hypocrisy evidenced by Reid apologists.

Their flimsy rationale seems to be this:

We know all Republicans are racists and so when one of them makes these comments, they clearly are racist in nature.

We know all Democrats, and Harry Reid in particular, are not racists and therefore such comments may be stupid or even political realism, but they are certainly not racist.

Isn't this sort of thinking precisely what underlies actual racism?

Can't a plausible argument be made that when someone who professes to understand the difficulties minorities face, and demands sensitivity to their unique situation makes these sort of comments it is worse than when a blatant racist does?

Take a look at all of Reid's comments after the Lott incident and you will be hard pressed to argue that he did not, then, make a good case for why he should resign now.

Harry Reid is an elitist. It's amazing that someone like him considers himself superior to others, but he certainly does. I'm not sure he is separately a racist, because he has the same disdain for negroes as he does for any of the proletariat for which he professes to care.

He and so many other progressives have this outrageous notion that they know what is best for the great unwashed, and more outrageously, that they should be recognized as morally superior because they spend their precious time taking care of the underclass and telling them what is best for them.

This story is only of import in that it highlights hypocrisy among a group that claim the sin is the greatest of man (well maybe the second worst after insensitive intolerance), and boy does it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Their flimsy rationale seems to be this:

We know all Republicans are racists and so when one of them makes these comments, they clearly are racist in nature.

We know all Democrats, and Harry Reid in particular, are not racists and therefore such comments may be stupid or even political realism, but they are certainly not racist.

Isn't this sort of thinking precisely what underlies actual racism?

Your flimsy assumptions do you credit, Finn, in a Finnian sense.

Quote:

At his daily press briefing on Monday, Mr. Gibbs argued that the two situations are markedly different. “I don’t understand exactly how one draws the analogy to a former majority leader expressing his support for the defeat of Harry Truman in 1948 so that Strom Thurmond would be president running on a states' rights ticket. I don’t see how that is analogous to what Senator Reid said.”

Warming to the topic, Gibbs added, “I understand what people have to say on TV or to get themselves on TV. I would suggest they spend about 20 seconds reading a little history and figuring out that to draw that analogy strains any intellectual enterprise or any real reality in all this.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0111/Harry-Reid-is-no-Trent-Lott-White-House-says

Do you think you can spare 20 seconds, Finn?

0 Replies

negros are scary, negros with a dialect are really scary, I think it was Obama himself that said in South Carolina he was black enough to get the black democrat vote. man I'm so glad I'm as white as drivin snow.

2 Replies

Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know