Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Funny, because when Trent Lott and Imus said something racially stupid, no one talked about how it was said, or the context in which it was said. All anybody talked about was specifically what was said.
Democrats, it seems, can say racist things and use "context" as a shield from ramifications. Conservatives don't seem to be given that courtesy.
|
I don't know that Trent Lott's endorsement that segregation would have served the country better is exactly the same thing. What are you asking that I read from that? It's a fairly racist thing to say, but he's from Mississippi with all its historically racial peculiarities. And referring to any woman as ho does not need context, its just disrespectful - black rapper or white talk show radio host.
Harry Reid certainly said something "racially stupid" and demeaning. And he apologized, just like Imus and Lott. But it does not change that the most successful national black politicians, are those that have command over their "blackness". They can turn it off, and then turn it on. Obama has a pretty good handle over this. In colonial New Orleans, light skinned blacks were practically treated as a separate class from the thousands of black Africans arriving on auction blocks. Light skinned blacks, on the plantation house, during those days, were the buffer between masters and black field hand masses. It was in the master's security interest to have a light skinned black who could cross that line into the field and, if not carry out the master's will, inform him of the goings on. There are reams of literature on this subject. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the historical appeal of the "light-skinned negro."
And Harry Reid, in all his chump splendor, recognizes this, even if it is through his own datedly racist veil. Personally, I'd like to see him go.