Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.

And finally (and then I have to get to work) this one sums it all up pretty well I think:

Quote:

Some white liberals want diversity only if they get credit

06:15 PM CST on Thursday, November 25, 2004
By RUBEN NAVARRETTE / The Dallas Morning News

A Latino attorney general? A black woman as secretary of state?

Who would have imagined it 50 years ago - or even, more recently, say, during the Clinton administration? Give President Bush credit for breaking barriers that his Democratic predecessor never got around to breaking.

Just don't try telling that to white liberals who are thrilled with the idea of minorities doing well - as long as they can claim credit. If they can't, or if the minorities happen to be conservative, things can get messy.

The American people are about to get a sense of just how messy now that Mr. Bush has nominated Alberto Gonzales to head the Justice Department and Condoleezza Rice to run the State Department.

Senate Democrats don't have the votes to thwart the nominations, but that won't stop them from trying to bloody the nominees before they take office. Witness what happened 13 years ago during the confirmation process for Clarence Thomas, who went from Pin Point, Ga., to Yale Law School to a seat on the Supreme Court - but not before being subjected to what Mr. Thomas called a "high-tech lynching" for challenging liberal orthodoxy on affirmative action, abortion and other issues close to the hearts of Democratic constituencies.

As Democrats sink their teeth into the Gonzales and Rice nominations, note the condescension. Liberals can - in one breath - convey both the high opinion they have of themselves and the low opinion they have of everyone else.

I've had a taste. During a stint as a columnist at a newspaper in Arizona, I criticized a Democratic U.S. attorney for ducking a civil rights case involving Latinos. I got lots of angry phone calls and e-mails. One note that stands out: A reader asked where I'd be "without affirmative action secured for (me) by the Democratic Party."

And now Mr. Gonzales and Dr. Rice might get a taste of their own. It's nothing personal. It's about credit, and who gets it. If Mr. Bush, with these appointments, scores points with minorities, Democrats will have to face these constituencies and this question: "What have you done for me lately?"

Liberals know that, which is why they're under pressure. And people under pressure tend to say and do really dumb things. Like the left-leaning reader who e-mailed me to criticize Mr. Gonzales and couldn't resist trying to stick a big sombrero on the Harvard Law School graduate. The reader wrote: "Execution of the mentally defective? Fine with Alberto. Health and safety? You don't need no stinkin' laws ensuring a safe workplace. ... He may end up killing more Mexicans than hypertension."

Nice. I especially like the "stinkin' " line - borrowed from the 1948 film, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, in which a very Mexican-looking fellow famously boasts: "Badges? ... I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!" Now, I have to wonder: Would the reader have chosen the same words to attack someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower? Somehow, I doubt it.

Others, like syndicated columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall, have tried to paint Mr. Gonzales as Attila the Hun with a law degree, an advocate of torture, someone inspired by Nazis, "one of the most twisted minds the American legal system has ever produced" - and, most incredible of all, someone to the right of John Ashcroft.

Then there's the liberal radio talk-show host in Wisconsin who claims Dr. Rice isn't qualified to be secretary of state. In fact, says John Sylvester of WTDY-AM in Madison, she's better suited to having her image plastered on a bottle of maple syrup. Mr. Sylvester, who is white, called her an "Aunt Jemima" and also referred to Colin Powell as an "Uncle Tom." Mr. Sylvester said later that he was only trying to make a point about how Dr. Rice, Mr. Powell and other blacks have only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

You mean, as opposed to the respect that they getting from people like Mr. Sylvester, who tried to fend off criticism by insisting that he has a long history of supporting civil rights? It shows.

Then there was the liberal syndicated cartoonist Jeff Danziger, who depicted Dr. Rice Mammy-style, barefoot in a rocking chair and holding a baby's bottle. She is cradling an aluminum tube - a reference to her comments leading up to the war in Iraq that high-strength aluminum tubes seized en route to Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." In the cartoon, Dr. Rice says: "I don't know nuthin' about aluminum tubes."

When that sort of garbage comes from the right, we call it racism. What should we call it when it comes from the left?

Ruben Navarrette is an editorial columnist for The Dallas Morning News. His e-mail address is [email protected].
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/112604dnediruben.53786.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

When somebody says all Republicans and/or Conservatives are selfish idiots and/or racist, is that person referring to me personally? When somebody says a policy or practice is stupid or racist and I don't see it that way or I even support the policy, should I interpret that to mean that I am being called racist?

Well I don't see it that way, for if we cannot challenge principles, policies, practices etc. lest we offend those who hold or support them, we might as well close up shop here on A2K as we won't be able to discuss anything at all.

Hon, I dont know if you missed it, but Lash specifically called dlowan and nimh as people who here were "encouraging racism". So I dont know exactly what your point is here. I dont think being offended by that has anything to do with "PC" or "un-PC".

Foxfyre wrote:

In other words, it is PC to treat her the same as Cheney or Rumsfield or Powell would be treated.

Exactly! ;-)

0 Replies

Maybe it's a cultural difference but I do not see that "encouraging racism" extrapolates into "being racist". I would initially consider such as simply making an observation of good intentions creating unintended bad consequences. If I say that your favoring national healthcare just furthers socialist creep and diminishes personal freedoms and choice, do you see that as me calling you a socialist? (That's assuming that you would consider that a derogatory term of course.)

I bristle when I state my opinion on something and am told that the evidence just isn't there or I am required to post some written evidence of my opinion which may be so current that nothing is yet in print. Do I automatically interpret that to be that I'm being called a liar? No. I interpret it that I am being called misinformed or blind or some other uncomplimentary characterization. We can't really have these discussions, however, if we can't make such observations.

Oh well. I said before and I still believe that Lash was not accusing either Dlowan or Nimh of being racist when she laid out her argument in defense of the shabby treatment of Condi Rice.

And, present company excepted, I still believe many on the left, especially in the media, are being passively racist in their criticisms of her for reasons already stated.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe it's a cultural difference but I do not see that "encouraging racism" extrapolates into "being racist".

It doesn't. Did I say it did? Did I ever accuse her of calling me a racist? Can you READ? Fox, I've gotten so tired of defending stuff I didnt say. You make one argument based on something I didn't say, I point out what I actually did say, you respond by instead making an argument about something else I didnt say. Its like fighting bloody eels.

She didnt say I was a racist, she said I was "encouraging racism" and thats still offensive. If I tell you that you are "encouraging fascism" I'm sure you are offended as well, especially if the accusation is wildly off on anything you actually posted here. And thats just you as someone who has no specific emotional tie to the subject of anti-fascism. Fighting racism is my work, man. Its what I've done full-time for several years now. It was the one overriding thing in how I was raised. My mom set up her own office for women from ethnic minorities. My dad spends his life on the cause of fair trade. I took part in my first anti-racist demonstration when I was too small still to hold a placard. If there is any one specific political subject whatsoever that comes close to my identity its racism/discrimination/xenophobia. And this woman says I'm "encouraging racism" on the basis of what? Scrat diddle ******* doo! I've already demolished every appearance of logic behind the accusation, in a long post that you dont bother to reference.

Lash won't agree and she doesn't need to explain herself anymore, I'd rather not, even (insult to injury and all that): she thinks what she thinks, whatever. But it was an outrageous accusation that I take very personally, especially because it was so poorly, if at all, reasoned. You just said yourself that if you were called "an idiot or racist or whatever, then yeah", you would "take that personally and personally resent it" and would be "petty enough that it takes you awhile to regain respect or affection for anybody who says it". Well, here we are, thats me. What any of that has to do with PC or un-PC is beyond me.

0 Replies

Well I'm going to give up on the point., Nimh. I don't think you're reading what I'm saying either so we'll just have to misunderstand each other I guess. I am personally offended when I am called a racist. I am not personally offended when I am told that my attitude or comment encourages racism though I may object to the conclusion that it does. I see a difference between the two so far as the type of offensiveness that is displayed. You obviously do not.

And again if the definition of PC is that which is perceived to be sexist or racist or some other '...ist" it all does apply at some level.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So far as criticizing her ideology, policies, behavior, or proposals, all is fair game so long as she is treated no differently than any person would be treated. I think to defer criticism by virtue of her being a woman or black would in itself be sexist or racist.

0 Replies

"Fighting bloody eels" is worth saving, too. :-)

0 Replies

"Maybe it's a cultural difference but I do not see that "encouraging racism" extrapolates into "being racist"" Said Fox.

Lol! You're right. Apparently, - according to Lash, it extrapolates into being worse than racist:

"I think making excuses for racism is a dangerous form of racism. Possibly more dangerous than the lunkheads that come out and say the crap."

Let's not COMPLETELY re-write the facts about what Lash said, Fox.

She can say what she likes, within the TOS, but I and Nimh may, I think, reserve the right to be pretty disgusted by such comments.

0 Replies

I accept that this is the way you saw it Dlowan. I do not accept that as the way Lash meant it. Do you disagree that making excuses for racism is as bad or worse than racism itself? I don't believe she was personally directing that at you or Nimh. I think she was passionately expressing a conviction. I think we should all be allowed to do that.

0 Replies

Fox - I am flying out of here in an hour or so. And, frankly, I don't care what Lash thinks. I won't be staying and arguing anything, your words just caught my attention. I think there is nothing to be added to Nimh's and my arguments about the meagre "matter" of this thread - made many pages ago. I think Nimh has also made the definitive comments about Lash's insults. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing left to say here - and that is what I will be saying. I enjoy arguing, and sometimes pretty harshly, cos I am passionate, too, but there are places I think it silly to go.

You are also begging the actual question of whether Nimh and I WERE encouraging racism, you see. Did you realise that? You, having skipped the meat of the matter, now go on to ask the equivalent of the "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

I have not actually argued, here, that Lash ought not to be allowed to do what she did. I consider that kind of arguing distasteful, and I DO think it was clearly a personal attack - but such is life.

0 Replies

Okay Dlowan. You know I love you and Nimh and appreciate you both. I think all of us, even me though I'm damn near perfect of course, are capable of phrasing things that have a completely unintentional affect on others. Probably that's even why I piss so many people off here. I really don't mean to. I want to be loved as much as the next person. And I'll no doubt keep right on doing it.

0 Replies

A few thoughts in perusing the fallout here:

1) Fox-- I feel sort of responsible for you feeling as though you had to defend my statements-- of course, I didn't expect it, but I did value it greatly.

2) When I said this-- "I think making excuses for racism is a dangerous form of racism. Possibly more dangerous than the lunkheads that come out and say the crap"-- I meant it. The same has been said of those who quietly listen to anti-Jew rhetoric or jokes, and remain silent, or laugh in tacit agreement. It applies to all people and all minority groups, who are maligned. Previously, most people here have agreed. Suddenly, at least one poster not only signals strong disagreement, but they they tacitly admit this comment applies to them. (Or seem to by not just saying it doesn't.)

Why didn't dlowan simply say she doesn't make excuses for it? I wondered why she didn't just do that.

3) When I said this-- "Do I think either of them go about harboring ill thoughts and feelings of superiority toward other people due to skin color and such? No. Do I think they embolden and service racism by keeping silent in the face of this crap? I certainly do"-- I had in mind dlowan's comment that the cartoons, racist and otherwise, were funny. I had in mind nimh's post which ignored the racial attacks against Rice, and wrote a tit-for-tat response about Jesse Jackson--which I took to mean that if Republicans didn't like Jackson--we should accept that the attack on Rice was the GOP's just desserts. I was really surprised by this. I tried to show the difference in not liking Jackson, and an all out attack on Rice per her race, by saying "You would have a point if Jesse Jackson was ever portrayed as Little Black Sambo"--which was ignored.

4) I took care to say this-- "What we established is I didn't say they were racists"-- more than once.

It was quite a tightrope walk--because I feel that in almost all circumstances, you cannot know the mind of the one making statements. So, my statements were as general as I could muster, in hopes of eliciting a clarification.

5) That dlowan sees this as a personal attack is stretching far too thin-- "I think making excuses for racism is a dangerous form of racism. Possibly more dangerous than the lunkheads that come out and say the crap."

It is clearly a very general statement. One with which I'd think she'd agree.

6) It seems to me all this sidebar indignation is a dodge of the central issue. Why would anyone feel indignation to comments that don't apply to them? Why would nimh continue with the focus on my statements, when he obviously agreed once he saw the pictures a la PDiddie?

Since the comment about tacit approval of racism was made, nimh has come in with several long, play by play analysis of the discussion. He acts as though I had no right to make such statements because of the exact location of the first mention of the Aunt Jemima pictures. By the time he'd seen them, he agreed with me that they were across the line. If he had done that earlier, his name would not have appeared in what we may now describe as the Apocalyptic Hey You Guys Are Surprisingly On The Wrong Side Of This Issue post. But, he was late in seeing them, and had already been fingered as a possible suspect--and begun his indignant responses.

Timing. It really is everything.

Thanks again, Fox.

0 Replies

Yes- this is what happens when you don't read responses.

Try again, Lash.
You MIGHT see what I meant when I said ONE cartoon was funny.

I would happily have explained what I was ACTUALLY saying, but you never asked - you simply launched into accusations.

Thing is, once that happens, all reason is gone. NIMH has the patience and passion to explain, I sometimes do not.

Fox - lol! We fight all the time - but seldom really fuss.

Now - if I could just straighten out your politics!!!!!Lol!!!!!

0 Replies

I have to agree with Lash that sometimes, given time differences, dial-up versus high speed, sometimes hot topics on A2K become quite bizzare to read.

Now, I've actually read the responses, and also agree with dlowan. I say, let's just spread the love.

If you ask me, the motivation from so-called 'liberals' for using racist images in political cartoons is nothing more than trying to make a statement about conservatives. That's politics.

I'm sure the cartoonists think they are all terribly ironic, and forget that some of them are not all that talented.

As per the issue of Republicans appointing minorities to important positions, and the suggestion that this is something the Democrats never did, I couldn't care less. It's still politics, not honesty about how people actually feel about each other.

0 Replies

All Fox-baiting and Lash-bashing aside, I'm glad to see women, African-Americans, and Latinos getting such high exposure in the Bush administration.

Hell, we may even have a gay man taking over the top RNC job:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/mehlman.jpg

I have a feeling, though, that Bush is practicing a little affirmative action strictly in an effort to woo minority voters. It's fair to wonder if Bush is favoring minority candidates for these first few high profile jobs simply as a publicity-seeking gambit. That would be rather hypocritical, to say the least, coming from a party and a president that has done its damnedest to dismantle affirmative action.

What's mildly amusing is to watch Republicans embrace their minority nominees, trumpeting their enlightenment in public like a new flavor of Ben & Jerry's that's sure to wow consumers. The problem is that the Republicans are offering a flavor that Democrats served up decades ago. It's not so wow or cool or novel any more to appoint a Latino, an African-American or a woman to a high administration position. And the fact that the Republicans think so, and congratulate themselves so loudly about it, is only more evidence of how much they don't get it. Simply appointing a black woman to be Secretary of State, or a Latino to be Attorney General, does not prove that you "get" the issues that matter most to that community.

And for the Republicans to think it does is tokenism of the worst kind.

0 Replies

Don't worry PDiddie. In only 49 1/2 months a brand new Republican president will be sworn in, that plus a solid 62 seat majority in the Senate plus the 5 Justices that W will appoint to the SC will make all the difference in the world.

Just hang in there, help is on the way.

0 Replies

Can we count on you to start a thread declaring the astounding diversity of the Republican Party when one of those Justice-designates comes out of the closet at his (or her) Senate confirmation?

I won't be worrying, but I'm sure you'll still be wondering...

0 Replies

I was reading an article from a small town paper in Alabama this afternoon where the topic was flying a confederate flag at a local cemetery, anyway, the situation was justified because a local member of NAACP had said that he thinks that the confederate flag has historical value. I am guessing that the NAACP member with this opinion must indeed represent the thinking of all minorities ( and of course majorities) of the south.

0 Replies

Yeah, I read that, too.

The man quoted was Leroy "Sugarbone" Thomas (who, as it happens, is the second cousin of USSC Justice Clarence "who-put-a-pubic-hair-on-my-Coke" Thomas) and his comments appeared in his hometown newspaper, the Pin Point, AL Almost Daily Post.

Sorry, no link.

0 Replies

"I have a feeling, though, that Bush is practicing a little affirmative action"

Not at all. No need to practice AA when a minority is deemed the most qualified person of the President's party for the job...which should be the sole criterion.

Having said that, I am confident that Bush, being the demonstrably capable politician he is, given a choice of candidates equally qualified, will opt for the minority candidate for political purposes.

That's just smart politics and explains his gains with blacks and hispanics in the recent election.

0 Replies

Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know