Lash wrote:It was never about liking her. Being publicly hated or put down due to personality deficits, or for how she does her job is universal--and not racial in the least. The indignation is directed at demeaning her using her race--as if it is a negative in and of itself.
But you are reversing your own position here, Lash. Remember the start of this thread? Read back
your first post here. The one we responded to.
See? What you were bemoaning back then was not that Rice was the victim of racial
slurs - that whole issue didn't even come up yet. Instead, your argument was one of a different scale. You lamented a "New Racism" not because of any racial slurs (none of which you mentioned until a cursory mention of "Aunt Jemima" (which I didn't understand) on page 4, some dozen Lash posts later).
Instead, it sufficed that Rice, "such an effective, strong, woman", had "garnered no more support, no accolades from women and blacks". That was your evidence of a "New Racism". That there was "a distinct discrimination among women and blacks in whom they will ballyhoo"; that "if any other woman in this country had soared to the heights Condi has reached, it would be Mardi Gras 24/7", but now, it
wasn't. That Clarence Thomas does not "have statues and streets named after him already", just because he's not liberal. (Don't quite get that last one - is it only liberals who name streets? Are there no conservative town administrations? Anyway.)
In short, your initial premise was that the evidence of "racism" laid in the fact that these black conservatives were
not lauded or celebrated. Not that "the achievements of women and blacks who are conservative" were dirtied by racial insult, but merely that they are "ignored". You said as much, several times:
"My beef is that these two groups [women and blacks] are always inviting members of their demographic, who have been successful in the public arena to speak at their events --and throw them events--issue awards and such." That didn't happen with Rice, ergo, "the silence is quite noticable and distasteful", ergo ... it's because of "blatant racism", an accusation you threw out a couple of posts later, still before ever referring once to any alleged racial slur - on the basis only of the lack of
positive reinforcement for Rice and Thomas.
In that, there is tremendous irony. A strident fighter against political correctness like you, demanding that persons whose views and actions are hateful to us, be appplauded and cheered on by us
anyway, simply because of their colour - and if we don't, we must be racist. If we don't "celebrate" - your word! - these persons whose politics are hateful to us, it must simply mean that we don't "much cotton to "uppity" blacks", in the words of Larry that you so enthusiastically welcomed ("you said it better than I could"). It must be because we wanna "keep 'em in their place".
And you wonder why people got defensive or sarcastic at you?
The whole proposition was simply bankrupt. If we don't cheer at the prospect of Rice's appointment, it's because we think
she's no good. That simple. And that was the gist of my subsequent responses.
I did, however, in fact add that I personally
would applaud Rice at least for her personal accomplishments - for how far she had made it, as a black woman. See, I
am politically correct when it comes to things like positive reinforcement of discriminated groups. When you argue that just that "they are BLACK. They are SUCCESSFUL", thats reason enough for holding them up as a role model, I actually agree. In as far as their actual politics are not concerned, I mean. As I explicited, in fact, in
my third post:
nimh wrote:I think Rice and Powell could (and probably should) be held up as role models in terms of personal achievement, at least - thats whats done with other blacks who made it big, after all. So up to that point I agree with Lash.
That left, however, the question of why American liberals, in this post-election low, would
not do so. Note again - I looked it up - we're at
page 9 by then and the whole focus of the discussion was still exclusively on why liberals won't "celebrate" Rice for her achievement. Nothing about racial slurs yet whatsoever, apart from the one aside Aunt Jemima reference that I didn't get. There was the one slight inference by Fox about subtle word choice differences ("When you infer that very qualified and credentialed minorities 'aren't up to the job' when white people are simply 'unqualfied', that's racist."), which I promptly
applauded in what had been my second reply:
Quote:Well, what Fox signals does happen - with men/women, with whites/blacks [..] Subtle but "meaningful" word choices like that do indeed occur and can signal subliminal messages about race, gender etc.
Of course, conservatives usually tend to laugh in my face when I assert such a thing, but if in this case Condoleezza Rice turns out to be the victim of it, I'm glad that they'll suddenly discern it too (though I'm sad to see it happening, of course, if it is indeed happening).
But
was it happening? All that you, Lash, had proposed as evidence so far had been that Rice (or Thomas) did not get the
positive reinforcement one would expect from black groups. All that you had brought was that progressive people "censure and ostracize [blacks and women] when they don't fall in line" - i.e. when they're not liberals. Never mind that the same progressive people will also censure and ostracize white male conservatives - just look at how Rumsfeld or Cheney is described, or Bush himself for that matter. But no, if they censure
black conservatives like that, then they must be "racists". Huh?
What you would need here to prove your point is that Rice was attacked in a way that Rumsfeld or Cheney never was. You had done nothing of the sort. Just the complaint of lack of positive reinforcement (accolading and ballyhooing).
And
that's where my Jesse Jackson reference came in. It was in response to the only argument you had made thus far, namely that liberals/Democrats/NOW/NAACP should "celebrate" Rice - or expose their "blatant racism" if they did not.
nimh wrote:I think the reason [they do not] is obviously enough one of political distaste, though, and I dont see how it needs to be a question of racism, instead. I mean, be honest: did conservative organisations praise Jesse Jackson as a role model of at least personal achievement, even if accompanied with the sidenote that they thought his ideas were all wrong? No, of course they didn't. Jesse Jackson reprsented politics they found so despicable that most of them could not find themselves able of even praising him or holding him up for his personal achievements (being the first black politician to run an influential presidential primary campaign, etc).
The political polarisation has gone far enough to make it unpalatable for either side to acknowledge even just an accomplishment in terms of ambition or willpower of folks from the other side, outshadowed as any of that is felt to be by the evil their politics are seen to be.
At this point in time, most liberals in the US would probably rather bite their tongue off than say something nice about any prominent Bush Cabinet member, on whatever count. Call it bitterness, but racism? I just dont see it
Here, alas, is where your circular argument went amock. In your world, if Dems didn't "celebrate" Rice, it must have been because of her race. And thus, if I argue that it could be something else - say, that she's a hated Republican - then I become someone who "encourages racism". What baloney.
But, on it went for another page or two. I kept writing that I respected Rice's personal accomplishments but thought she was a bad politician and that, considering most blacks (and of course liberals) think so too, I wouldnt expect anyone cheering in the street about her appointment. Meanwhile Lash proceeded to assert that "The liberal papers are spewing this insuling tripe about" Rice & co. (even though someone just referred to the complimentary elements in the NYT and WaPo appraisals of her appointment) and that the Uncle Tom slurs were "all over the web", not to mention on talk radio. None was linked, none was quoted, none was named, but still the talk of how racist "the Dems" are proliferated on.
Hey, I dunno, I dont listen to talk radio, wouldnt be able to if I'd wanted to. But to keep on accusing "the liberals" of racism without ever providing one example sure puts up my gander. But, no fear - here Lash was - she'd found a local,
libertarian radio host who had called Rice an Aunt Jemima. The guy was immediately rebuffed stridently by
both the Wisconsin liberal senator
and the progressive Madison mayor - both quoted in the very article she brought here, in fact - but no matter, Lash had her proof, and the double rejection didn't stop her from subsequently insisting that "[Feingold] is the only Democrat I've heard so far who has spoken up about it."
Facts dont matter anymore. The NYT, WaPo, Democratic Senators, mayors - all are irrelevant when it comes to characterising what "the Democrats" or "the liberals" are like - after all, Lash has heard about a liberTARIAN talk show host making an Uncle Tom reference and heard "hundreds" of Democrats "snickering [..] on the airwaves". What more evidence would we possibly need? If in face of such an overwhelming argument any of us is as bold to still
point out the discrepancy in it, well, then the case becomes as clear as crystal: nimh and dlowan "embolden and service racism by keeping silent in the face of this crap".
I'm so tired of this ****. Of "the entrenched enmity and tendency to no longer see the "enemy" as anything but a sort of humungous, undifferentiated, mob - defined by the worst public utterances of its most extreme fringes" (thanks dlowan). Yuck.
But, whatever. No thanks to Lash, but thanks to PDiddie and his malicious cartoons, I now finally know what the **** Lash was talking about. And yeah, sure, whatever, some of those Internet gags are clearly racist. I dont think the Doonesbury one was (see above). But at least two of PDiddie's were. And I condemn them. 'K? Now, how exactly do they prove that "the Democrats" are racist - even just, like, on average, or typically?
Lash wrote:It is surreal to be having this conversation. I'm having a very hard time letting it soak in that you don't agree.
Perhaps you need to get straight first what I'm not agreeing with. That helps, usually.
one "youngish haitian woman"s opinions sum up all liberals opinions because why? Mobray is conservative, you are aware Mobray is conservative, according to the source you are citing, right, you are aware of that???
