Why Rice's race is fair game

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Why Rice's race is fair game

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Listening to what has gone on in the press lately with Rice being labeled an "Aunt Jemima" and Powel an "Uncle Tom" has gotten me steamed.

Why is it that when a black is Democrat, some assume they are legit, and when they are Republicans, they are Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, front office niggers, etc., etc.?

It seems that certain syndicated cartoonists and a certain radio DJ are upset with Republicans. They are in possession of the wrong blacks, we are led to believe.

Why is it that blacks are assumed to be a homogenous group? Dare I call that... Prejudice?? Racism??

There, I said it. Go ahead - hang me out to dry. Meanwhile when you are in the right, you really don't need to listen to the crap.

This dated editorial from the WSJ says it all...
Image

Cartoon Calumny
Why is Condoleezza Rice's race fair game for Administration critics?

Friday, October 22, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's no secret that Jeff Danziger is a syndicated cartoonist who leans left of center. But who knew that he also considers himself an arbiter of black authenticity?

One of Mr. Danziger's recent illustrations features National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as a semi-literate mammy. Ms. Rice--a Russia scholar, former provost of Stanford University and concert pianist--is drawn barefoot and wearing a housedress. Mr. Danziger forgot to put a handkerchief on her head, but the size of her lips has been exaggerated sufficiently to make up for that oversight. She's sitting in a rocking chair and nursing an aluminum tube as though it were an infant. The caption reads: "I KNOWS ALL ABOUT ALUMINUM TUBES! (Correction) I DON'T KNOW NUTHIN' ABOUT ALUMINUM TUBES . . ."

Mr. Danziger, a proud member of the media's "Bush Lied!" brigade, is making a point about the administration's supposed manipulation of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The caption is an apparent reference to Prissy, the house slave in "Gone With the Wind" who uttered something similar about babies.

A substantive debate about the president's handling of the war is something reasonable people welcome, especially in an election year. But it's impossible to see where the national security adviser's race or sex fits in to a debate about what Saddam Hussein planned to do with his aluminum tubes.

Prompted by a deluge of complaints about the caricature, Mr. Danziger sent out a form letter defending himself. He says that the cartoon isn't racist because the idea "was suggested to me by a friend who is African-American"--as if blacks are incapable of being racist. He then goes on to dismiss Ms. Rice as "a political operative, out of her depth." This is a man who doesn't know when to stop digging.

The cartoon has since been removed from both Mr. Danziger's Web site and that of the New York Times Syndicate, which distributes it. But racist or not, the illustration is certainly revealing. For liberals, Condi Rice's real crime is bucking Democratic orthodoxy and working for a conservative president. This makes her fair game for race-based attacks even when the issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with race. She is a black woman who, in Mr. Danziger's view, has wandered off the liberal plantation. And this is his way of putting Ms. Rice and other black conservatives in their place.
- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

And just when you think these idiots are beginning to see how stupid they sound...some blogger defends the nonsense.

Madison DJ Calls Condi Aunt Jemima

I can't possibly make this stuff up. It is just too surreal.

Should there be a death penalty for terminal stupidity?

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

benzocaine
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Location: St. Thomas

Post by benzocaine »

It's sad that race would even be considered pertinent anymore. I'd like to believe that a person could actually be black.. and conservative. People like Condi and Colin are the best thing that could happen to the average Black american IMHO. With them in high level jobs under a republican president forces democrats to not take them for granted and they will pander more for their votes.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

The blogger doesn't just "defend," what was said and the sad use of racial labels. Here's what the blogger actually wrote about race labels:

"But leave the racial sensitive labels out of it."

That's pretty clear. The part that seems to have been upsetting was:

""As for Rice, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion," he said, adding that he feels her history as national security adviser showed a lack of competence." --I agree with his last sentiment very much."

I'm not sure what's racist about that. One can believe that skin color should be irrelevant, that blacks can form whatever ideas they want about politics just like everyone else, and be conservative, and be totally supportive--AND believe that the Republican party tries to create an illusion of inclusion.

Wasn't this firmly established by the marked difference in the colors onstage and in the audience at recent RNC conventions? They went out of their way to have just about every minority speaker they could. The colors they choose to represent them were very diifferent from those on the convention floor. And what about that Republican Black Leadership group that was mentioned on this forum not long ago? Of a dozen or so members, only two were black, if memory serves, and one of those was a name being used without permission!

There is also a conservative push--a GOOD one--to emphasize a better kind of diversity than that of just melatonin concentration. It's quite true that a racially diverse college setting is of no real value if everyone thinks the same anyway. A black kid from northern virginia isn't going to teach a white kid from northern virginia very much at college--certainly not as much as a kid from Pakistan, Zimbabwe, or, for that matter, France. The idea is that ideas matter, more than colors. Seems reasonable.

Then it REALLY doesn't make the republican party diverse if their heroes are Alan Keyes, or Clarence Thomas, or if members who DO differ on key issues (Powell's and Rice's support of affirmative action comes to mind, or even the Veep's opinion of a federal anti-marriage amendment) have their opinions distorted, swept under the carpet, or presented as diverse opinions that have no bearing on resulting policy.

I'm not saying either party have a healthy view of race, and like the blogger, I believe references to racial stereotypes are strictly off limits. (If you feel up to it, and you want proof, then go back to the Cav Daily and the University Journal (the UVA papers) and see if you can find the letters to the editors and occasional essays I wrote about EVERY racist piece of "opinion" I saw them offer up, which was a lot). But let's not get too upset about a newsradio guy and a single cartoon. They're losers who probably chose one party, and I assure you there are at least two losers who chose the other. The public positions of the PARTIES would be of more concern to me....
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Ian

All of those comments by you and the bloggers (explicitly racist or not) just go to show one thing - you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. Why should anyone care? What bloody business is it of anyone if GW wants diversity at the head of government? Why shouldn't a group seek opinions and representation from outside whatever main circle others wish to cast them in?

Please come up with half a dozen names as qualified as Condi Rice for Secretary of State.

Condi is a very longterm friend of GW. Her qualifications are without reproach, and her mind is as sharp as any that the squealing opposition could come up with. And THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. The bloggers can't stand it when it appears someone has stolen "their" thunder.

I find it highly objectionable that any political party would feel they have a corner on any majority or minority. Last I checked, votes were earned one person at a time.

- Bill
Doug Erickson
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:46 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Doug Erickson »

...the Republican party tries to create an illusion of inclusion
Translation: Democratic minority leadership is genuine; Republican minority leadership is a sham.

Give me a break.

As Bill pointed out, this is a no-win for Bush. If he appoints a white male as Secretary of State, his opponents will shriek. If he appoints a woman, a minority, or a minority woman, that's just for show...unless it were a liberal woman, minority, or minority woman.

Clinton appointed his Cabinet That Looks Like America(tm) to wide acclaim for his minority inclusion. His Cabinet was racially, not politically, diverse, but at the time, racial diversity was enough.

All of a sudden though, when Bush was elected, ethnic diversity was no longer good enough. Now his opponents are clamoring for ideological diversity as well--as if any sitting President sprinkles his Cabinet with political opponents. The double standard is striking.

You almost start to get the feeling that, despite the rhetoric of wanting to end racism, some of those on the left intentionally keep the race issue alive because it's a convenient club with which to beat Republicans. That may be approaching a conspiracy theory, and probably isn't true, but one does wonder sometimes.

-Doug
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Bill, I never said Condi wasn't qualified, or wondered if she was chosen because of her race. Frankly, I'm interested in other aspects of politics.

As far as whose business it is whether Bush wants diversity, it's everyone's business if that's what they value, of course. Heck, people care about a lot less important things when it comes to candidates--whether they used botox, or scream awkwardly during speeches. Seems reasonable for race to matter to some.

"I find it highly objectionable that any political party would feel they have a corner on any majority or minority. Last I checked, votes were earned one person at a time."

That's what I believe too. Individuals are individuals. I don't fault any person for betraying their assigned group if they vote outside that groups norms. Even regarding the 25% of gay people that voted for Bush this cycle, there are other issues that matter. However, there is a feeling, which I don't think is entirely fabricated, that the Republicans aren't as in touch with black issues as the Democrats. You can ask the black people who largely vote democratic about the details.

"Translation: Democratic minority leadership is genuine; Republican minority leadership is a sham."

Not quite... The democratic party is more diverse. That's fact. When the Republicans make an effort to get every minority on stage, that's attempting to create an illusion of inclusion. The speakers were much more diverse than the delegates and the prty, and that's that. This does NOT mean the Repubs don't genuinely want their minorities there; perhaps illusion of diversity would be a better term. But when Sean Hannity is one of the most prominent members of the RNC's black leadership committee, something's afoot.

Bush is not damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It was the REPUBLICAN AND CONSERVATIVE BASE who came up with the idea that diversity should be ideologic. I was just reminding the right of their former suggestions. We should also separate Bush and the party. He's done a great job with diverse appointments, ones that suit his political bent, and he's done a great job with the party image in this area (IMO). That does not mean people can't legitimately have a problem with the party.

"Some of those on the left intentionally keep the race issue alive because it's a convenient club with which to beat Republicans."

I wonder the same stuff when it comes to Coulter and Limbaugh and O'Reilly; they get a lot of mileage our of race themselves. That's why I wrote an column in the U-J (again, you're referred to my college editorial work) about the sickness of arguing divisively about race from both left or right. After the papers ran a spate of racially divisive articles from both corners, I suggested they were so caught up with how unfair they thought things were and how segregated they hadn't noticed they were both making things worse. In the C-D, one article made a fuss that white students were to blame for there being few interracial friendships at UVA because blacks were more likely to have white friends than vice versa. I showed that this was an asinine argument because numerically speaking, in a color blind society, the majority will naturally have mostly majority-color friends. Lastly, my stint in college leadership was devoted to the idea that such differences were irrelevant... we were devoted to making them uninteresting enough people would forget about them.

I DON'T wonder when it comes to manufactured, timed, divisive campaigns to turn average LGB americans into threats to civilization in order to retain power. THAT was too transparent to really be a conspiracy.
--Ian
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”