The weekend provided more examples of the ongoing lack of conversation about race in this country.
Michael Steele has been, by most accounts, an embarrassment to the Republican National Committee. The list of things he’s done wrong got longer with the release of a book he wrote, a book he never bothered to tell anyone about. Despite his gaffes, Steele is not being fired; his race is his shield.
Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, issued an apology regarding comments he made about Obama during the campaign. Reid reportedly referred to Obama as “light-skinned” and speaking with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Steele, thrilled to have the spotlight on someone else, is calling for Reid to resign. President Obama has accepted Reid’s apology, deeming the matter closed.
I believe we are missing a bigger point here, that point being we continue to put our heads in the sand when it comes to the issues of race. If Steele were white, I doubt that he would have even been elected chair, much less being able to hang on to it, given what he’s done. Yet he continues to serve. He is just as much of a race hustler as Rev. Al Sharpton, yet I don’t hear the Republicans referring to him as such.
And Reid is a throwback to an earlier era, when calling someone a Negro (or colored), was considered polite. To be honest, I don’t find his use of the term “Negro” offensive; it was his characterization of the Negro dialect that raised my hackles. I’m assuming he’s never watched Maury or any of the other afternoon shows where both blacks and whites use the same speech patterns.
Two wrongs never make a right, and in these cases, both men should lose their positions.
Racial equality demands that we treat everyone the same, regardless of skin color.
But until we have an open and honest conversation about race, the handling of these two and those to come will be uneven and unequal.
Electing a black president didn’t change that one iota.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
This is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Reid was right. If Obama had been BLACK, or spoken with a Negro accent, he would not have been elected. Go ask the Rev. Jackson or the Rev. Sharpton, both of whom have such an accent.
Really? Were you aware that Sharpton defended Reid?
No, but it makes sense. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The CONTROVERSY is stupid, not Reid’s statement. The Reverends can attest to the veracity of Reid’s statement, having encountered such prejudice (toward their accents) that Reid mentioned.
I only see Reid pointing out the political reality on the ground. As for using the term “Negro,” I did not know it was pejorative or patronizing. I thought it was just old-fashioned, and that Reid is old.
I appreciate your clarification.
To some extent Warren is correct. If Obama had acted in a manner that fit the stereotype of a problematical Black, he would not have been elected.
But that is not a matter of race; it is a matter of culture.
But doesn’t that point to the whole lack of conversation thing? Heck even Doug Wilder says that we need it.
It is impossible to have a conversation about race when the RACIST label is thrown about for any mention of race, as is happening to Reid now.
Disagree with you on Steele being a “race hustler.”
An opportunist? Without question.
But to call him a “race hustler” is to imply that he’s been able to leverage his race to gain something of importance. I don’t think the RNC chairmanship amounts to that; remember, there were two black guys running (and from what I remember, Steele wasn’t the first choice between them).
What Mr. Reid said was merely a personal observation. What Mr Lott said in an attempt to flatter Strom Thurmond, was in the same category.
We who have moved forward into the Twenty-first Century are tired of the time wasters who fill their dead air time with political correctness gotcha games.
Partisans from all sides need to dismiss these attempts to distract from legitimate discussions of the issues of our day as the tripe that they are.
Could not disagree more. Trent Lott was clearly pining for the good old days of segregation. That said, Harry Reid is an idiot.
JTB-Agree. This is just the latest tempest in a teapot.
And I for one, can’t imagine why the GOP would call for Reid to resign. His incompetence as Majority Leader is the gift that keeps on giving for them.
I think there’s unintended irony in Reid’s remarks, but also a measure of truth. The irony is that, not too long ago, upper-class Southern whites had non-rhotic English dialect that was altogether different to lower-class whites. (The former still exists (e.g., Tom Bliley and John Chichester), but is rarer in my generation and rarer still in generations more recent.) Shelby Foote, perhaps the quintessential example of the non-rhotic dialect I mean, attributed its existence to the fact that upper-class Southern white children were raised by black servants and acquired their speech patterns. (I’m not a phonologist, so I don’t know if Foote was right–but the fact that the non-rhotic dialect has declined among Southern whites as the reliance on black household labor by upper-class Southern whites has also declined suggests he may be. Then again, the overall standardization of American dialects through radio and tv might also explain it.) So the absence of a “Negro dialect” as a criterion for electability seems somewhat ironic considering that a Southern candidate without the non-rhotic dialect would likely have been considered a hick, rube, or poor white trash among the entrenched white elite less than a century ago.
Yet, Reid is also correct. I don’t think anyone can reasonably dispute that there’s a different between, say, Bill Cosby and Katt Williams–not just in content but in expression. Was Cosby “acting white” when he chose to express himself the way he did? Is Williams merely “representing” when he chooses to express himself as he does? How does one describe the Williams form of expression? In his case, it might be appropriately described as “urban,” because he has an urban background. But what about Steve Harvey or the late Bernie Mac? They also have distinct, ethnocentric inflections and word choices that were eschewed by Cosby and were also raised in urban areas, yet are completely different from Williams.
I think my overall question is, how are these appreciably different dialects or forms of expression received in the black community, or within different sections of it? I believe it is no surprise to frankly admit that a lot of white people, and not just Southerners, have a difficult time accepting the intellectual integrity of an argument presented in black urban street vernacular. Is that also true among blacks? Does it differ by age, class, education level, or region of origin? In other words, would black voters have reacted differently–better or worse–to President Obama if he had spoken to everyone like Katt Williams speaks to his audience?
Basically, I don’t see this as a racial issue, per se: a lot of white people have a difficult time accepting the intellectual integrity of an argument presented in what I’ll call a white working-class rural accent, too. And I know that Northerners and Westerners of most races tend to have difficulty accepting the intellectual integrity of an argument presented in a non-rhotic white Southern accent. I believe it comes don’t to our educational and intellectual prejudices: we (and maybe that “we” is limited to people like me in some unintended self-selection bias, but I think it’s a safe generality) prefer people engaging us in serious conversation to speak to us using words arranged in sentences the way we believe educated people should–not that people who choose not to are not educated, but they are rejecting (consciously or not) the education they’ve received. And that preference has nothing (directly anyway) to do with race, class, or anything else.
One caveat: none of this explains how George W. Bush got elected.
Interesting comment Jaded JD.. I think it is important to realize that in any social interaction, we are sizing people up. Right or wrong that is what we are doing. When something looks or sounds different, we make judgments, right or wrong. Both sides(blacks & whites) see the differences. Blacks who do not have dialects are accused of acting white. If you are black and have a dialect and want to hang on to your dialect, that is great, do so. But as you do, if you do not accept someone who does not have a dialect, then you are as closed minded as the other person.
…when I said you…I did not mean you personally, I meant you in the general sense.
Unfortunately there will always be some race issues. They are on both sides. I looked at an organization who claimed their goal was diversity and everyone was black. Looking at their message, it looked to me to the the opposite side of a racist coin. Everyone has got to stop buying the race card if we want to make progress. That does not mean we should not continue to seek out and destroy racism. But again, it needs to be done on both sides.
I find it quite ironic that the President, elected by the majority to guide our nation for four years, has been reduced to the discussion of ethnicity. All things are not just black or white. Hence, all things being equal, our President is equally black and white, but being reduced to shades of gray.
Ideological, I have reservations and differences with the President’s platform; however, I accept that he is at the helm and leads and points the course.
I rely on our governmental checks and balances to prevail and have faith the process will yield a satisfactory outcome.
The discussion of race minutia distracts from mitigating and solving high priority issues that challenge our nation.
Political spin that diverts attention and intentionally disrupts that process for the purposes of political leverage in upcoming elections is unconscionable.
The President is correct to dismiss the gaff and get about business, and Steele needs to concentrate on his primary function of fund raising and sit down.
What Reid said was… stupid
Steele trying to capitalize on it is…stupid and pointless
The big deal the media is making of it is…stupid and pointless
The only “non-stupid” thing about all of this are the last 3 lines of Vivian’s post.
Could not agree more about Steele. Any Republican who disagrees with your assessment is either ignorant or lying. No one will ever convince me that if a white male took those actions they would still be GOP chair. The financials are in shambles (I believe the RNC has 1/3 of the money it had to begin the year), the lies about the book (I believe he said he wrote the book b/f he became chair which is impossible as most of the book centers on events in 2009 after he was elected chair), and his all-around incompetence in managing donor relations. Make no mistake, the RNC and DNC are ALL about fundraising. That’s why they exist in this day and age. The reports about so many major GOP donors refusing to give to the RNC would cause any other Chair to lose the position.
More bright shiny objects so we don’t see what is going on in this country.
The corporate media has taken over.
Interesting post. Your analyis is unique.
I am an African American and I am most disturbed by how our President handled it. Folks, either racial insensitivity is acceptable or it isn’t…. regardless of whether delivered by a Republican or Democrat. The President can not have it both ways. He was quick to condemn the Cambridge police without the matter first being investigated. At that stage we didn’t know whether offensive words were said or actions taken. Now Obama is quick to defend Reid due to political convience. Oh, don’t forget that Biden got a “get of jail free card” too. COME ON! Our President is being disingenuous (shameful). We will never get beyond racism when even our President isn’t being honest. I am calling it how I see it. And no, I am not going to give President Obama a pass or “go easy on him” because of his race (similar to your conclusion that the GOP is going easy on Steele because of his race).
In the end, race is a political football that the Democrats have figured out how to use for political gain. Sadly, there are very few in that camp who actually care about eradicating racism (circa the civil rights era).