While I know that people disagree with Condoleeza Rice, what's with the relentless racial bigotry coming from the left?
By any standard, it is racial bigotry to insult or stereotype people because of their race, and calling Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice an "Uncle Tom" and an "Aunt Jemima" respectively is nothing less than racial bigotry.
It's also inaccurate as hell. Would an "Aunt Jemima" believe in armed self defense of black people against white bigots?
Rice has said memories of Birmingham's racial turmoil shaped some of her core values.
During the bombings of the summer of 1963, her father and other neighborhood men guarded the streets at night to keep white vigilantes at bay. Rice said her staunch defense of gun rights comes from those days. She has argued that if the guns her father and neighbors carried had been registered, they could have been confiscated by the authorities, leaving the black community defenseless. (Via InstaPundit.)
While I realize that not much can be done to stop racial bigotry when it takes the form of verbal abuse, I am wondering why there's so much silence about this [in the MSM, at least] when other talk radio hosts have gotten in far more trouble for far less. Usually, they're at least made to apologize. Far from apologizing, the guy who hurled the latest insult (who's white, by the way) flatly refuses to apologize to Rice:
MILWAUKEE -- A Wisconsin talk show host said he's willing to apologize for a comment he made about Condoleezza Rice, but not to her.
On his radio show Thursday, John Sylvester of WTDY in Madison called Rice an "Aunt Jemima'' and said she isn't competent to be secretary of state. He said he used the term to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.
Rice has served as President Bush's national security adviser and was named this week to replace the departing Colin Powell as secretary of state. Sylvester also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom.''
The mayor of Madison called the remarks "racially insensitive.'' Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said the statements are regrettable.
Sylvester was undeterred. He said he'll give away pancake mix and syrup today and "apologize to Aunt Jemima.''
I listened to an interview with Sylvester (which can be streamed here), in which he attempts to put the remark "in context." He justifies the remark by calling Dr. Rice "an incompetent boob, an absolute disgrace to her profession" and declares that "she is a subservient black woman!" Clarence Thomas's price of admission to the Supreme Court, Sylvester claims, was to be a "subservient right wing hack." (The problem with such an analysis is that no price can be put on "admission" to the Supreme Court; once appointed, they're in for life and can only be removed for serious misconduct of the impeachable offenses variety.)
I think what ticks off guys like Sylvester is not the subservience of Condoleeza Rice, but her independence and toughness. Any woman who grew up believing in guns for self-defense, who made it on her own as she did, is not subservient.
Whether one disagrees with political conservatism or not, equating subservience with conservatism is a major error in logic. The fact that blacks (but not whites) who dissent from the left are called "subservient" makes me think the motivation is racism as opposed to a simple abuse of logic.
I'm sure that if Condoleeza Rice ran for president and won, the same people would still be saying she's "subservient" and an "Aunt Jemima." Dr. Rice saw worse treatment by racists in the South, and I think she can stand up to this nonsense too.
posted by Eric on 11.19.04 at 10:56 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1736
Comments
The signal clue as to whether or not this act constitutes intentional racism is the "comparative test";that is, does this talk show host (or any other Rice critic) routinely degrade other disliked popular figures with analagous insults?
Do they pick other politicians they don't like and caricature their physical features, especially those associated with ethnicity?
Do they, in analagous situations, draw on racial or ethnic stereotypes in order to lampoon and ridicule?
If one routinely employs these methods one might be poorly educated, or without imagination, or inelegant and crude, or just not smart enough to be clever without being vile.
That's the best case scenario. The second case -- when this type of attack is selective (and the person expressing these ideas just cannot contain their inner hate and racism) -- is proof positive of racism.
So, at the very least, this disc jockey should be made to adduce other commentaries regarding other political or popular figures about which he has made similar comments.
If he can't -- then he's fired.
If he can -- then we'll just start a boycott of his debase program.
I don't know why that didn't all post, but I was saying that I wonder how we'll be treated when Republicans finally appoint gay people to prominent positions. I mean, eventually they'll get to that point where they realize we're not bad people.
Two excellent posts on this, both this one by Eric Scheie and the one by Michael Demmons. Thank you.
He is right. As soon as a man's man is appointed by a Republican President to a top position, he will instantly be subjected by the Left to all the "fag" and "fairy" stereotypes we're so used to from the Enemy on the Right. No doubt, he will be portrayed as fellating the President. I shudder to think what they'll do to a Lesbian.
Collectivists cannot conceive of an independent man or woman, an independent mind. To them, if you are not following their Party Line, then you must be following the line of the other party. It is metaphysically inconceivable to them that anyone could think for himself or herself.
And this is especially so for anyone who is a member of any of the groups they perceive as by nature "oppressed" and "weak" and therefore in need of their "help" (Negroes, women, homosexuals, Jews, workers, etc.). If you are, e.g., a Lesbian Negress, and you take a position opposite to that of their party (e.g., on abortion or affirmative action), then you _must_ be a hireling of the Evil Dead White European Male Capitalist Imperialist Zionist Conspiracy. There is no other conceivable explanation for such perverted, deviant behavior!
Ayn Rand posited that the most primative collectivist stance is the one of "race." The American Left is not only steeped in primative collectivism, but in the 70's siezed on the mantra of "the personal is the political" thereby solidifying the dogma that to be an "authentic" member of any particular Leftist-approved ethnic/racial/cultural group the member had to hold specific and approved political beliefs. As the mantra grew out of the gender-feminism of the 70's such "authentication" rhetoric is rarely masked by feminists. Gloria Steinheim was asked what she thought of Jean Kirkpatrick being named the first woman ambassador to the UN...Gloria's reply "Who said she was a woman?"
And since, for Leftists, non-leftist ideology is illegitimate, no "authentic" minority person or woman can ever legitimately hold or agree with the hated-ideology.
So, for a Leftist... exposing "race traitors" is of course not racism.
Reminds me of Nazis talking about "white Jews" and "white niggers" and "Jewish physics" (i.e., Einstein) vs. "Aryan physics".
A thought occured to me: The collectivist Left in America, with its increasing emphasis on "race" and "gender" rather than "class", is becoming more and more Nazi-like. The collectivist Right in America, becoming less and less racist but more and more anti-homosexual, and believing that homosexuals and other "deviants" should be "cured", is becoming more and more Communist-like.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
The signal clue as to whether or not this act constitutes intentional racism is the "comparative test";that is, does this talk show host (or any other Rice critic) routinely degrade other disliked popular figures with analagous insults?
Do they pick other politicians they don't like and caricature their physical features, especially those associated with ethnicity?
Do they, in analagous situations, draw on racial or ethnic stereotypes in order to lampoon and ridicule?
If one routinely employs these methods one might be poorly educated, or without imagination, or inelegant and crude, or just not smart enough to be clever without being vile.
That's the best case scenario. The second case -- when this type of attack is selective (and the person expressing these ideas just cannot contain their inner hate and racism) -- is proof positive of racism.
So, at the very least, this disc jockey should be made to adduce other commentaries regarding other political or popular figures about which he has made similar comments.
If he can't -- then he's fired.
If he can -- then we'll just start a boycott of his debase program.