Sen. Harry Reid, The President & A Discussion of Race

A humorously serious look at life’s trials & tribulations,
American politics, religion, and other social madnesses by Beth Isbell.

Moderator: roxybeast

Post Reply
User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Sen. Harry Reid, The President & A Discussion of Race

Post by roxybeast » January 12th, 2010, 4:56 am

<center>Sen. Harry Reid, The President & A Discussion of Race
Discussion Moderated by Beth Isbell, Jan. 12, 2010</center>
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid was interviewed by the authors of the new political expose book "Game Change." Authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann say that in their interview Reid described candidate Obama as a "'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one,' " whom many voters would embrace. Reid has since apologized to Obama, and the President has accepted his apology saying "I know what's in his heart."

So earlier today, I had a frank discussion with several friends, - white, black, liberal & conservative. Admittedly, the discussion is predominated by comments of the liberal whites, but perhaps that makes it even more interesting when they discuss these issues and yet fail to recognize that their views could in any way be influenced by or bear characteristics of socialized or institutional racism.

I began the discussion with a simple question ...

"OK, as an anti-discrimination advocate, I'm curious, do y'all think Sen. Harry Reid's comments about President Obama are racist or not? Why? Why Not? ... & What effect might it have?"

CS (White Female): As far as I'm concerned, he was stating facts. Of course, I've heard "evil, hate-filled, bigoted" conservatives simply state similar facts, and be raked over the coals for it. Perspective is a funny thing.·

Moderator: As a civil rights person, I do find it curious that prejudiced white folks used to abhor mixed race marriages, but now they seem more willing to accept the children of such relationships than they are to accept someone who is totally of another race ... weird. OK, so I'll step back & let y'all talk, cause I am curious about your opinions on this (and as you all know, I actually have spent most of my professional career fighting against all forms of discrimination)

LL (Black Male): He could have been more elegant about it but no. I don't think Reid is a racist. He should not quit. And those comparing Reid to Lott need to justify that comparison.

Reid was already in trouble back in NV though. It remains to be seen if all the noise about his poor choice of words is going to make a difference back home.

CS: Of course, some prejudice black folks weren't two fond of mixed marriages and/or the children resulting from them.

As for the Reid thing, while he's not a favorite person of mine, I can't see hate or malice in what he said. Obama IS a lighter-skinned black man. He DOES have a more generic form of speech.·

KD (White Female): I've really only heard the quote and not much about the circumstances or to whom the statement was made. But the first thing that came to my mind was that it sounded more like a commentary on the American voter than a slur against Obama.

CS: Well, those qualities most definitely made him more accessible to a broader range of the population.

BT (White Female): I agree that his statements were accurate. It seems the only inelegant word was "negro." It is clear to me that the people against health care reform are trying like hell to defeat him, thereby defeating health care reform.

Mod: KD - it was a comment Reid made to the authors of that new book Game Change in the context of explaining why he came out in support of Obama so early on in his Presidential campaign ... or at least that's what they said on Face the Nation yesterday

KD: And still, then, doesn't it sound like a commentary on the American voter? Rhetoric aside, this is still a very racist country and perhaps he was saying that he liked this candidate and felt that, given the qualifications he made, it was indeed possible that the time had come that America could elect a black president?

Mod: I do think higher education makes one sound more educated ... well, at least when it works as it should

RM (White Male): Very poor way to make a point....he could have picked his words more wisely.

CS: I agree with that, Beth. It shouldn't be a matter of sounding white or sounding black. I know plenty of white folks who sound less-than-educated when they speak; don't know what you'd call that, but I'm sure it'd be offensive to someone.

Mod: IDK KD - if it is a commentary, it's still a sad one ... we should not have to "qualify" or "temper" anyone's race, or try to explain it in a "way we believe is more palatable to the general electorate" in order for them to be elected to office if they're qualified

KD: Oh, I agree with you on that one, Beth. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but perhaps honest. Which, of course, is not always the best political move one could make.·

DS (White Male): No, I think it was somewhat a generational remark about election politics. No one would have given Obama a chance in Nevada four years ago. Reid is one of the reasons he won. And Reid has done a remarkable job of handling the difficult parts of Obama's legislative needs. Reid's poll numbers have not been strong in Nevada, but every Republican that might have beaten him has Ensigned out of the race. I am always amazed at seeing Eskimo Joe's shirts at diversity training workshops.

CS: In politics (as in many other things) appearance is very, very important, like it or not.

ML (White Male): I agree with George Will (no Harry Reid fan he!!!) that there is not a smidgen of "racisim" in his statement. He was stating a fact, pure and simple, at least as he sees it. Of all of the things that anyone might have against Sen. Reid, this is an idiotic point to get stupid about.

CL (White Female): I don't think the comment was racist. I think Reid was reflecting the realities of an inherently racist system. In our current polarized, ridiculous political environment, almost anything that anyone utters is taken out of context and used (mostly by the likes of Fox news and its denizens) to further polarize us.

Mod: CS & KD - is that really still true? I really don't think that anyone who actually voted for Obama still thinks that way ... so I don't think that you can say that it's an honest assessment of the American voter, at least the portion of the electorate who needed to support him to get him elected ... and I don't really see what skin color has to do with appearance ...

Mod: ML I saw that too ... but if Obama were running against a darker skinned man, wouldn't that comment be the essence of racism? I've seen exactly that kind of evidence successfully used in discrimination cases - promoting the lighter skinned person over the darker skinned person because it was seen as more palatable to the higher ups in the company ... it's like saying we're going to favor whites & part- whites, over folks who have no white in them at all ...·

LG (White Female): OK, let's devolve and then evolve. The analysis of what he said was accurate and his perception (which is a shared perception by many of diverse racial groups, sub groups etc.), the terms he used were racist and coming from his age and background; unsurprising. What does surprise me are the terms all the pundits and newspapers and TV folks are using to describe racism and this particular gaffe: "The dems/repubs are "Off the Reservation" or "Circling the Wagons" or "You don't want to bring up that 'briar patch'"??????(waves to Spike Lee)...I am an original American who is a reflective, self-monitoring racist..if a white kid in an expensive car cuts me off I think "Drug Dealer/Daddys Car. If a black kid cuts me off in traffic I think "Drug Dealer/Daddys Car".....upon reflective self monitoring; I realize that neither of them may be on drugs, just bad drivers LOL....that my first reaction was based upon the environment, background, experience and current level of prejudice and just plain WRONG. What affect will Harry have???? Hopefully, it will start a real revolution of education, thought and discussion of what racism is and all ISM's and how we ALL need to not sweep this under the rug or let it remain as a newscaster just NOW said...."A Mexican Standoff between the two parties"....c'mon folks...talk, question EVERYTHING, keep talkin....it IS important....Evolution is achieved through awareness not inhumanity

KD: Yes, Beth, I do think it's still true. I think that the fact that he is lighter skinned made it more palatable for a certain percentage of the population in the South. This country has an inherited racist mentality, much as we try to deny it. As we have a largely patriarchal society, much as we try to say it's not so. If we were truly as progressive and staunch about equality of humans we'd have elected a woman as president before any other country but we haven't done it yet. It's still big news when a black person or a woman is elected governor of a state, for God's sake. There is a large population that believes as you and I do, that the qualifications of the person are the only things that matter when it comes to leadership, but there is an equally large population that, admit it or not, still think white men are the most qualified, always, period.·

Mod: LG, did he mean ill will or say it with malice, I think I agree with LL that he didn't, ... yes, education is important & that's a great reason to talk about this now ... but I just have a hard time buying that the comment was necessary, or in agreeing with you KD, because I just don't think that anyone who still looks at the world that way was likely to or did actually vote for Obama - I think the better way to say it would have been that persons who think that way are no longer such a significant part of the electorate that they have the ability to impede his election ... which is a terrific thing, but not exactly what Reid meant or said ...

Mod: yep, KD - go women go!!! But you're right there are still a lot of white men that think white men are better ... but it's getting to be less & less all the time .... and I think the men are better than women prejudice extends across all racial lines, go figure!

CL: I think it's not Obama's relatively lighter shade of tan that made a difference, but rather that he does not come across as stereotypically black in a cultural sense. He is an Ivy League-educated man who was primarily raised by his Caucasian grandparents. When I heard Reid's comment, my response was "Huh, I said the same thing when he started running."
·
Mod: I understand your point CL, but it does make me cringe ... I think "stereotypically black" is something white folks think, not something black folks think ... although I have heard black folks criticize someone for being too white ... IDK, to me it still suggests problems in our society as to the way we view race ...

Mod: Do you guys think that criticizing someone for being too black or too white or these "stereotypes" actually have far more to do with lack of eduction than race?

Mod: And I'm still curious what my Republican/GOP or conservative friends think about this situation & whether Reid should be fired/why? ... I do actually have some FB friends that do lean to the right - I don't see that as a reason not to be their friend! :)

LG: KD - "a slur on the American Voter" Right on target!!!! and Beth though I do not think he said with malicious intent at all, I agree with LL and you on that... it was a gaffe and highly indicative of his environment, background, age, level of prejudice. What rings alarm bells with me are attempts by the media to shut down any discussion of ISM's by using even more racist slurs inadvertently, or purposefully; to mislead the electorate and use this as a weapon of mass distraction.

CL: Beth, plenty of black folks criticized Obama for not being "black enough." In the beginning of the primary season, the majority of African American voters were pretty solidly in the Clinton camp. IMO, Reid's comments were the tip of the iceberg that is racism in America. The election of the first African American president shook the foundations of that racism but in no way erased it.

Also, while I recognize the relationship between lack of education and reliance upon racist stereotypes, I also believe that certain things are so deeply enmeshed in the culture that no amount of education can change them. The folks who hold those notions just have to die and leave the world to younger people who haven't been poisoned by that particular venom.

CM (White Female): Of course, they were racist, but were they any more or less racist than anyone else. Really, how many people who love and voted for Obama do you think at one time or another said something similar. Yes, a black man can be president in the US, but could a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharapton black man be president in the US? That's basically what the guy was saying.

Mod: Fortunately I think you're right CL to the extent that these are becoming non-issues to many younger persons - less & less with each generation :), ... and I think the black community was loyal to the Clintons at first because Pres. Bill actually did a lot to help them, and I'm not so sure that Obama has done nearly as much to date, although I'm hoping he soon does. I do think it's interesting that any black person would claim Obama is not black enough ... not sure why or what that says about the issue or how to take that ... and LG, yes maybe a reflection of the era in which he was raised, ... i don't know what an "ISM" is or means, but I do find the kinds of things Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh say claiming Obama is a reverse racist highly inflammatory, deplorable & cause to be fired. It certainly is still a minefield to discuss race at all, but that may be a good thing, and hopefully one day soon there won't be any reason to do so at all other than to celebrate and pay respect to good aspects of the cultural heritage and traditions of our ancestors.·

RM (White Male): I've come to the conclusion through my own experiences in life that the best way to tell what's in a persons heart is to watch their actions more than hear their words. There was a man in my family once, that if you heard the things that came out of his mouth, you might swear he was the biggest racist on planet Earth. One day he had to drive his sick wife to the emergency room. She was stable, and not really in pain, but she had other health problems that could be complicated by her illness and it was the weekend so her regular doctor was unavailable. Upon admittance, they sat down in the waiting room with everyone else who was ahead of them in line. This included a young black boy who had broken his arm badly and was screaming in pain the entire time he was there. When the e.r. staff called on the man's wife before the young black boy who was ahead of them, the old man (who had probably said the n word a million times in his lifetime) blew a gasket and demanded very angrily that they treat the child first, yelling at them, "CAN'T YOU SEE HE'S IN MORE PAIN THAN ANYBODY HERE? YOU WILL SEE HIM FIRST!!" For all the racist words I heard growing up around this old man...that day...when the shit was hitting the fan so to speak, I believe his actions spoke more clearly of what was in his heart than any words that ever came out of his mouth. A real racist probably would've gotten his wife treated first and just left that kid there to scream in pain...and not cared. I think it's a burden to progress (injecting a whole lot more love and tolerance into this world) when we shine the biggest spotlights we can find on someone's mere words, yet often leave their actions lurking behind in the shadows.

CM: Oh, btw, Beth, thank you for being the friend of one of us right leaners. I think it's pretty cool having a left leaning friend as well. LOL

Mod: CM, I think the good Rev. Al, & even Jesse, to some extent, can be inflammatory or perhaps too "in your face" about injustice as they define it, maybe even seeing it where it does not really exist (although sometimes I think they see it where it does exist, but folks not involved just don't want to hear or like the way they describe it) - which turns some non-bigoted folks off & does make them less popular at times ... and I do think it does show that patterns of speech still make a difference to a lot of even liberal whites ... I don't think that is nearly as big a concern within their own communities, and may even be reason for celebration. ... I hope that more & more white folks begin to realize that such speech patterns are not necessarily a sign of poor education - that the content of the thought expressed or message is far more important ... I certainly don't think making a black person talk like a white person in order to advance should be seen as a necessary or as a good thing ... I do think higher education improves this.

Mod: CM (big smile) ... and RM, thank you so much for sharing that story, I agree - sometimes folks on all sides of this fence too easily forget that lesson.

BT (White Female): Well said, KD!

LG: oh sorry it's that ole 1984 doublespeak texting thang..what I meant by ISM....racism, sexism, even nationalism can get dicey...bigotism....all the ones that bug me....but that is what I meant by the ISM's....yer sposed to read our minds!!! LOL

LG: Oh and thanks for all the fish
·
ES (White Female): Part of the reason I partied as hard as I did after the presidential election is that I honestly did not believe that a non-white man could win the election. Much as we want to think the American public has gotten over seeing race as a way of judging people, I think most people have not. Be honest: if you were walking and there was a group of 5 or 6 black teenagers laughing and talking loud, would you feel threatened? Would you feel any more or less threatened if the group was white? That's the sad commentary.

JT (White Male): Certainly in bad taste, but not criminal.

________________________________________________


So, what's your point of view? Feel free to post a reply! :)

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » January 13th, 2010, 10:12 pm

<center>Code Black: Of course Obama talks differently to different groups. So do most politicians.
By Christopher Beam

Slate, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010</center>

Harry Reid's comment that Barack Obama could get elected because he was a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," may not have been artfully put. But subtract the poor choice of words—Negro sounds more fuddy-duddy than racist—and the statement, reported in the book Game Change, is fairly uncontroversial. Not only is it undeniable that Obama's skin tone and way of speaking had something to do with his election. Reid was praising Obama for one of the oldest political skills there is: the ability to adjust one's speech, and one's mannerisms, to different audiences.

Obama's knack for tweaking how he talks—or code-switching, in linguistics terminology—was on display during the campaign and after. At fundraisers in New York, he'd put on his professorial lilt. In front of mostly black audiences in South Carolina, he'd warn them against believing rumors that he was a Muslim. "They try to bamboozle you, hoodwink you," he said, in a deliberate homage to Malcolm X. On the Ellen show, he won the week by doing a harmless dance that drove the mostly white audience crazy. After a particularly rough debate in North Carolina, he referenced Jay-Z by brushing dirt off his shoulders and got a standing ovation. In an interview with Steve Kroft, he talked about college football and getting a dog. In an interview with MTV's Sway, he complimented his interviewer—"You look tight"—and emphasized his policy position that "brothers should pull up their pants."

Obama's code-switching isn't limited to style. The substance of what he says changes, too. In front of a Wall Street audience in September 2009, he politely but firmly cautioned against dangerous credit-default swaps. On 60 Minutes three months later, he excoriated "fat cat bankers"—something he probably wouldn't have said to their faces. The practice famously got him into trouble during the campaign when he told an audience at a San Francisco fundraiser that in small-town Pennsylvania, some people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." No doubt he would have phrased the sentiment differently in small-town Pennsylvania.

Code-switching—or code-mixing, or style-shifting—is as universally derided as it is universal. In day-to-day life, it's seen as somehow deceitful—a betrayal of one's true self. In politics, it's considered the worst kind of pandering. Hillary Clinton was mocked when she affected a drawl for black audiences. John Edwards got smacked by William F. Buckley for putting on "a carefully maintained Southern accent." "Poor-mouthing," as one Edwards fan put it to me on the campaign trail.
But these kinds of adjustments are as endemic to politics as campaign slogans—and a lot more telling. "The gut reaction is it's a form of dishonesty, but a lot of people would say it's being a good politician," says Carol Swain, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who studies race relations. Code-switching occurs anytime a politician is trying to represent more than one group of people. In other words: pretty much always. As a senator, LBJ brought out the full drawl when he went home to Texas, versus his speeches on the national stage. Huey Long mastered the switch between his Louisiana dialect and a Washington patois.

Anyone who wants to represent a state or a country composed of different ethnic groups needs to find ways to relate to each of them. In New Mexico, that might mean learning some rudimentary Spanish. In South Carolina, it's droppin' your G's. In Wisconsin, it's knowing your cheddar varietals. Some call it pandering. Others call it campaigning.
Not only is code-switching standard in U.S. politics, it's necessary. The last president who spoke in a flat, patrician, newscaster style was George H.W. Bush. Every president since then has spoken a mixture. Bill Clinton could turn on the Southern twang. George W. Bush could, too, with an evangelical flavor. Those who can't, suffer. John McCain, says John McWhorter, a linguist at the Manhattan Institute, lost in part because of the way he talks—stiff, nasal, unfolksy.

Future candidates will learn the hard way. "Mitt Romney will not go anywhere because he cannot be verbally warm," McWhorter says. "If Republicans have a great white hope—of any race—they have to be able to not sound like a Republican."

Within reason, of course. Change your accent too much, and you sound like a fake. When Barack Obama tells a cashier at Ben's Chili Bowl, "Nah, we straight," it doesn't sound put on—even thought it may be. When Michael Steele says he's going to "come to table with things that will surprise everyone—off the hook," he sounds nearly as out-of-touch as Harry Reid. And Reid, when he made his controversial comments, was engaging in his own kind of code-switching. It's hard to imagine him saying the same things in front of Obama himself—or any African-American—rather than two middle-aged white reporters.

As much as American politicians code-switch, however, they don't do it nearly as much as politicians in other countries. What in the United States is implicit—oh, Hillary's doing her cowgirl thang again—is explicit in countries like Canada, where politicians literally have to speak two different languages. Two of Canada's greatest politicians, Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau, were able to speak English as native English speakers and French as native French speakers—huge assets in a country where speakers of one language judge outsider politicians harshly. Likewise, politicians in Taiwan often employ the country's various languages—Mandarin, Taiwanese, Japanese—to make a political point. In a crowd with many different ethnicities, for example, a politician might switch among languages in order to symbolically smooth tensions.

American code-switching is relatively subtle. And Obama, ironically, is one of its more subtle practitioners. As Zadie Smith pointed out in her essay on Obama and language, his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention demonstrated his ability to pivot nimbly between cultures, sometimes in a single sentence: " 'We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.' Awesome God comes to you straight from the pews of a Georgia church; poking around feels more at home at a kitchen table in South Bend, Indiana." If Harry Reid noticed it then, he held his tongue.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2241114/

Post Reply

Return to “The Pregnant Pope”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests