nancynall.com » Who, us? Racist?

Who, us? Racist?

I love it when news­pa­per edi­tors lec­ture, espe­cially when they can’t punctuate:

Humor can be a dan­ger­ous thing as the line between funny and offen­sive can be a mov­ing tar­get as was cer­tainly the case in this pres­i­den­tial cam­paign. In Sunday’s col­umn Mr. Lewis pushed past that line, but only, I hon­estly and fully believe, in the pur­suit of humor.

OK, your call: Did this push past the line between funny and offensive?

“Well we’re movin’ on up,
To Wash­ing­ton, D.C.
To a deee-luxe pimp pad,
Painted whi­i­i­ite.
Yeah we’re movin’ on up,
To the White House.
I’ll be jet­ting with P. Diddy cross the sky.

To be sure, the edi­tor of the Murfrees­boro Post (“giv­ing a voice to Tennessee’s most dynamic city”) notes that author Stephen Lewis, iden­ti­fied as a colum­nist, “is not a jour­nal­ist but a cit­i­zen of the com­mu­nity who writes a weekly col­umn, again in his case a humor column.”

When you’re in a hole? Stop digging.

Oh, well. You can read the rest of it at the link above. Rush Lim­baugh used to use “The Jef­fer­sons” theme for his reg­u­lar Carol Mose­ley Braun updates, so I guess it’s not with­out precedent.

The NYT reminds us that in the most recent elec­tion, most of Ten­nessee went even red­der than it did in 2004. Enjoy cul­tural exile, Murfrees­boro. And learn to use the comma.

I said yes­ter­day I wanted to turn my thoughts to art in this post-election period. Well, OK. Here are the con­di­tions insisted upon by a cer­tain celebrity mother, on the occa­sion of her sons’ visit to their father on the other side of the Atlantic:

mom's rules

If I were run­ning a news­pa­per I would strive for con­tent like this every day.

Speak­ing of com­mas and punc­tu­a­tion and writ­ing, I made a Wor­dle the other day. A Wor­dle is a word cloud; it ana­lyzes text and makes a graphic rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the words used, with the size of each word deter­mined by its fre­quency in the text. Here’s one for Obama’s accep­tance speech on elec­tion night, to give you an idea what they look like; I’m not going to bother screen-capturing a Java Applet thingie when you can make one your­self. Of course I used the text from the index page you’re look­ing at, and there in the mid­dle was a big fat hulk­ing JUST. Oy. It’s a word I use too much, a potato-chip word, one that I’m always stuff­ing into the cracks in my sen­tences. Just because I like it so much. But it’s wrong to use it so much. So I’m start­ing a cam­paign called Kill the Just, for my own writ­ing alone.

Make your own Wor­dle, and find out what your dar­lings are. Then kill them.

I have work to do, and not enough time to do it. So have a good day, and I’ll be back later.

35 responses to
“Who, us? Racist?”

  1. Suzi said on November 11th, 2008 at 9:51 am

    *And make sure the boys watch Mummie’s Like a Vir­gin video every day before nap­pies.
    I think we can look for­ward to read­ing Madonna Dear­est in a few years.

  2. Julie Robinson said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Humor col­umn? I nom­i­nate Madonna.

  3. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am

    I tried exactly that exper­i­ment, Nancy, and the word “Lick­ing” showed up huge and in the mid­dle of the cloud.

    What to do, what to do …

    (Actu­ally, ellipses are my ail­ment, ortho­graph­i­cally. And i need to eschew obtuse verbiage.)

  4. Jason T. said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Let’s not just pick on Ten­nessee. Sev­eral coun­ties in West­ern Penn­syl­va­nia also went red­der in this election.

    Hmm, in 2004, the Democ­rats ran a lib­eral north­ern sen­a­tor, and this year, the Democ­rats ran a lib­eral mid­west­ern sen­a­tor, but we shifted sharply toward the Repub­li­can can­di­date. I won­der what was dif­fer­ent this year?

    Ooh — maybe we’ve got a bias against Illi­nois, but we love them rich Mass­a­chu­setts lib­er­als! That must be it!

    Oh, and you know who was out of touch? John Murtha!

  5. jcburns said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am

    But what amazes me is that Mer­cer County, PA, home of Greenville, PA, (which is the NW Penn­syl­va­nia town where my Grand­fa­ther owned Burns Auto Parts by the way)…went for McCain by two votes. Two. That’s amaz­ing, considering.

    Yeah, that streak of increas­ing red­ness (on the NYT ‘vot­ing shift’ map) from east Okla­homa, across Arkansas, Across almost through all of Ten­nessee, and up the App­palachi­ans from there…I don’t get that THEY don’t get how screwed they were by Repub­li­can policies.

    So be it.

  6. coozledad said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am

    The humor piece reminds me of some­thing some astute per­son (whose name I’ve washed out of my head with drink) wrote about Bush: His base admired him for his ani­mal cun­ning and unre­flec­tive nature above all else.
    Taste­less jokes are only funny if they remind you how big an ass­hole you are. This guy isn’t sell­ing irony. He’s reaf­firm­ing the grotesque value sys­tem of the dead enders.
    To para­phrase Johnny Mer­cer, there are bus­loads of peo­ple who could eat alpha­bet soup and shit bet­ter jokes than Stephen Lewis.

  7. Jolene said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Just lis­tened to Gov. Strick­land speak­ing about the DHL lay­offs in Wilm­ing­ton, OH and the “dis­lo­ca­tion” that work­ers there will suf­fer. Seven thou­sand lay­offs in a town of 12,000. Ay yi yi!

  8. mark said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Oh yeah. That “humor” clearly crossed the line to offensive.

    I like par­ody, edgy humor and even par­ti­san humor. But I can think of noth­ing in Obama’s acts, words, rhetoric, his­tory, etc. that would sug­est the use of the ref­er­ence made for any pur­pose other than an attempt at ridicule on the basis of race.

    I’m not famil­iar with what Rush said about Braun and, thank­fully, I haven’t fol­lowed Ms. Braun’s career in a long while. I sup­pose there are peo­ple who, by virtue of acts, rhetoric or mis­deed, might be par­o­died in this fash­ion. Obama isn’t one of them.

  9. James said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am

    One thing I noticed is that the states that went for McCain/Palin seemed to match up with those lists of states per­form­ing poor­est on stan­dard­ized tests…

    Mis­sis­sippi, Ten­nessee, Geor­gia, Louisiana, Arkansas…

    Not to be elit­ist, but… could it be that the dumb peo­ple voted for them?

  10. Gasman said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am

    I’ve long since crossed my per­sonal Rubi­con when it comes to tol­er­at­ing “humor” that is noth­ing more than big­oted tripe. You know the type, “Oh come on. Admit it. Xxxxxx jokes are just plain funny.” The last two months of the Repub­li­can mob was an embar­rass­ing spec­ta­cle of igno­rance. It continues.

    The only way to counter such pro­found intol­er­ance is to call it as such loudly and very pub­licly. If they can’t be com­pelled to feel even ves­ti­gial empa­thy, maybe they can be shamed into silence.

  11. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on November 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    In Flan­ders Fields

    In Flan­ders Fields the pop­pies blow
    Between the crosses row on row,
    That mark our place; and in the sky
    The larks, still bravely singing, fly
    Scarce heard amid the guns below.

    We are the Dead. Short days ago
    We lived, felt dawn, saw sun­set glow,
    Loved and were loved, and now we lie
    In Flan­ders fields.

    Take up our quar­rel with the foe:
    To you from fail­ing hands we throw
    The torch; be yours to hold it high.
    If ye break faith with us who die
    We shall not sleep, though pop­pies grow
    In Flan­ders fields.

    Lieu­tenant Colonel John McCrae (1872 – 1918)
    (He’s one of yours, White­beard! I’d for­got­ten that.)

  12. Jolene said on November 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    As a mat­ter of fact, James, that’s pretty much what hap­pened. Here, again*, is that para­graph from David Brooks re polit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions from edu­cated professionals:

    The Repub­li­cans have alien­ated whole pro­fes­sions. Lawyers now donate to the Demo­c­ra­tic Party over the Repub­li­can Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doc­tors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech exec­u­tives, it’s 5-to-1. With invest­ment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took tal­ent for Repub­li­cans to lose the bank­ing community.

    Also, Barack won among college-educated voters.

    *I’ve linked to this op-ed a tire­some num­ber of times, but those num­bers seem wor­thy of sub­stan­tial atten­tion. Brooks is, in fact, the only com­men­ta­tor that I’ve seen talk­ing about this issue in a seri­ous way, and it seems to me that it ought to be impor­tant to all the peo­ple who are talk­ing about what the Repub­li­can party must do to rebuild. I know there are more mail car­ri­ers than there are high-tech exec­u­tives, but it’s hard to see how you can be a mod­ern party w/ ideas about how to gov­ern soci­ety if you can’t attract the peo­ple who are, in fact, con­tem­po­rary lead­ers in fields that are impor­tant to the econ­omy and the soci­ety more generally.

  13. nancy said on November 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am

    That is quite the para­phrase, C’dad. I’m steal­ing it for my own.

  14. mark said on November 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am

    Hmmm, in these dif­fi­cult times it seems there might still be an oppor­tu­nity to make money in the coun­ter­feit Kab­balah water busi­ness. Par­tic­u­larly if maketed in con­tain­ers con­tain­ing no man made fibers, like mac­ro­bi­otic dried gourds raised in Kab­balah blessed dirt.

    Oh what an eth­i­cal dilemma.

  15. Rana said on November 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am

    The prob­lem with the “humor” excuse (and it’s almost always an excuse — peo­ple who are gen­uinely appalled to learn that what they wrote or said was racist typ­i­cally react with hor­ror and apolo­gies, not excuses) is that it rests on the assump­tion that racism must per­force be intentional.

    Racism does not have to be intentional.

    Racism is not sim­ply indi­vid­ual prej­u­dice or dis­like or even hatred — racism is that prej­u­dice backed up by social, polit­i­cal and legal insti­tu­tions. Fifty years ago if a white per­son said some­thing neg­a­tive about black peo­ple as a group, they might at most have faced per­sonal cen­sure. If a black per­son did the same about whites, they faced being beat up or denied a loan or hous­ing. A hun­dred years ago, they prob­a­bly would have been lynched; a 150 years ago, beaten or lynched or sold.

    Racism is the man­i­fes­ta­tion of those struc­tural inequal­i­ties and soci­etal sup­port for the abuse of black peo­ple as a group and as indi­vid­u­als. That that sup­port and those inequal­i­ties have dimin­ished in the last decades does not mean that they have ceased to exist — and even if they van­ished overnight, that his­tory would still entail a weight for black Amer­i­cans that white Amer­i­cans do not have to carry.

    To sum up — even if your inten­tions are as pure as could be wished, if you do or say some­thing that invokes all those long years of oppres­sion, some­thing which is or was tac­itly sup­ported by a soci­ety that saw black peo­ple as lesser beings and wrote that per­cep­tion into law — what you say or do is racist.

    How you react when called on it is what defines YOU, how­ever. If your reac­tion is unhap­pi­ness or shock or shame, and a men­tal note to never do it again, you are not a racist; you are a per­son who lives with the bur­den of a racist his­tory and a racist soci­ety that is try­ing to do better.

    If your reac­tion is defen­sive­ness or excuses, on the other hand, and your dis­may comes more from being scolded than being morally wrong — I would con­sider you _A_ racist, a per­son who would express those views and take those actions freely and proudly if soci­ety let you get away with it.

    Being occa­sion­ally racist in this soci­ety is inevitable if you are white; being a racist is not.

    (In other words, I think those peo­ple offer­ing the weak excuse of “humor” are racists.)

    Step­ping off my soap­box, now.…

  16. Jolene said on November 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Dick Cheney is speak­ing at a Veteran’s Day cer­e­mony at Arling­ton. He does not look well, and his voice doesn’t sound strong either. His face looks some­what gaunt too.

  17. Kirk said on November 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Sounds as though he needs a new battery.

  18. mark said on November 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    OK jolene–

    You have linked to that arti­cle a few times, so I’ll rise to the bait and offer a few comments.

    First, I think Brooks is refer­ring to dol­lar con­tri­bu­tion ratios, not a head count. His arti­cle isn’t par­tic­u­larly clear, but I con­firmed from other sources that the 4 to 1 ratio for lawyers is the democratic-republican dol­lar ratio. I can’t say that it doesn’t rep­re­sent a head­count ratio as well, but if it does that would make lawyers a mono­lithic vot­ing block sec­ond only to blacks.

    With lawyers, the big bucks have over­whelm­ingly gone to the demo­c­ra­tic party for decades. This is almost solely due to ATLA (Assoc. of Trial Lawyers of Amer­ica). This is the con­tin­gency fee, plain­tiffs’ lawyer group and, as I recall, one of if not the biggest lobbying/campaign finance donat­ing groups in the country.

    ATLA has a very direct finan­cial inter­est in pro­mot­ing can­di­dates who keep lit­i­ga­tion strong and oppose restric­tions on attor­ney fee awards. The repub­li­can party has been the party of tort reform. I don’t fault ATLA and its mem­bers for vot­ing and donat­ing twith their pock­et­books, but their dona­tions are way, way dis­pro­por­tion­ate to their num­bers. The aver­age Jane lawyer, doing wills and trusts, crim­i­nal law, busi­ness law, etc. doesn’t have nearly the finan­cial stake in elections.

    Doc­tors, I don’t know. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that they are increas­ingly attracted to demo­c­ra­tic health care pro­pos­als, par­tic­u­larly since none of those pro­pos­als in the last decade have included caps on doc­tor fees or incomes, or pro­pos­als to expand the num­ber of doc­tors. I’m sure the aver­age doc­tor would like to see every­body get all of the med­ical treat­ment they might require, regard­less of cost. I’m equally sure the aver­age doc­tor woulld like the expanded income from every per­son get­tin all that treat­ment. A lot of lawyers would be in favor of every­body going to a lawyer when­ever it might be ben­e­fi­cial and the gov­ern­ment pay­ing the bill.

    Tech exec­u­tives. I don’t even know how that is defined so I can’t comment.

    Invest­ment bankers. Do any of them live any­where other than NY or NJ? Are these the same guys who helped destroy the lend­ing mar­kets and are cur­rently get­ting hun­dreds of bil­lions in bailouts, beg­ging for more, and plan­ning big year end bonuses at meet­ings being held in posh resorts? I’d pre­fer if this par­tic­u­lar seg­ment of the “best and bright­est” were kept out of the polit­i­cal process com­pletely. They have left a big enough mark already.

  19. brian stouder said on November 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Rana — agreed. I’d extend it fur­ther and say we are all racist, inas­much as we all have fears of the unknown. Once, leav­ing Chicago, I needed gaso­line and thought the prices were too high, and pro­ceeded southeastward.…and saw no gaso­line at all! Exit­ing the express­way, I dis­cov­ered what the “sky­way” heed­lessly goes over. East Chicago looked like the end of the world, and I was some­what fear­ful. We pulled into the first gas sta­tion I saw (and I’d have paid $10.00/gallon at that point), and sev­eral folks were just milling around as we com­pleted our trans­ac­tion and went on our way. The thought occurs that a black fam­ily stop­ping for gas in some God-foresaken lit­tle Appalachian town would have just the same appre­hen­sive­ness, and with bet­ter rea­son (all things considered)

    Jolene — that Brooks col­umn is indeed good stuff.

    Kirk — Made me laugh out loud! Maybe we should just ‘jump’ him!

  20. Gasman said on November 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Rana,
    You’ve given an elo­quent account of racism, how­ever, I do not think that being white means you are bound to be occa­sion­ally racist. You can do so unin­ten­tion­ally, but you are not pre­des­tined to do so. Adults are free to shake off those fet­ters of intol­er­ance, even if our upbring­ing and our soci­ety makes it easy to suc­cumb to prejudice.

    Jolene,
    When I saw Cheney’s endorse­ment of McCain a week ago last Sat­ur­day, I thought he looked like he already had one foot in the grave and he was prepar­ing for that next step. I’m will­ing to bet that he doesn’t sur­vive 2009. I can’t imag­ine that the imme­di­ate future will be enjoy­able for him as the facts begin to emerge as to his calumny in this admin­is­tra­tion. His already sub­ter­ranean approval rat­ings will inevitably sink even lower. Even a cold blooded rep­tile like Cheney must have some con­cern for his place in his­tory. Being loathed can­not help his health.

  21. Rana said on November 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Once, leav­ing Chicago, I needed gaso­line and thought the prices were too high, and pro­ceeded southeastward….and saw no gaso­line at all! Exit­ing the express­way, I dis­cov­ered what the “sky­way” heed­lessly goes over. East Chicago looked like the end of the world, and I was some­what fearful.

    This brought back mem­o­ries of one fam­ily road trip when I was doing the map-reading and sug­gested going through the South Side of Chicago to reach the on-ramp. The sky­way does indeed never touch ground — and both my par­ents kept check­ing the locks on the rental Explorer’s doors.

    You’ve given an elo­quent account of racism, how­ever, I do not think that being white means you are bound to be occa­sion­ally racist. You can do so unin­ten­tion­ally, but you are not pre­des­tined to do so.

    Well, okay, I don’t think it’s an absolute, iron-clad guar­an­tee — but I fig­ure that the odds are over­whelm­ingly good that, at some point in the 70+ years each of us gets on aver­age, we’ll say or do some­thing racist — not because we are bad peo­ple but because our soci­ety has racism embed­ded in it and it gets passed on. “Cot­ton pickin’” is racist, but I didn’t know that until a few months ago. Ditto “call­ing a spade a spade.” Ditto feel­ing uncom­fort­able in the pres­ence of a black per­son because they are black — and that includes the “I’m going to smile at that black child so that she knows that not all white peo­ple hate her” thought that passes through your mind that doesn’t pass through when you see a white child.

    It’s per­va­sive, and at this point, for most of us (who are white at least), sub­tle. But it’s there, and it’s unlikely that any of us, white or black, is going to go seven decades with­out step­ping in it at least once.

    The point is to avoid step­ping in the same part of the shit heap more than once, and to avoid adding to it.

  22. nancy said on November 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Eh. “Call a spade a spade” pre­dates the racial slur by sev­eral cen­turies, and as for cotton-pickin’ min­utes, I’d say they’ve been so far removed from what­ever vaguely racist ori­gins they have, the ques­tion is moot.

    See, this sort of lan­guage polic­ing dri­ves me nuts, because it impedes hon­esty in favor of the sort of hair-splitting cau­tion that does no one any good. For exam­ple: A few years ago my alma mater started a sum­mer pro­gram designed to boost minor­ity pres­ence in news­rooms. What they did was take bright, moti­vated minor­ity col­lege grads and put them through a crash course in report­ing and edit­ing, basi­cally dis­till­ing j-school to three months. Inevitably, this came to be called “jour­nal­ism boot camp,” until some very sen­si­tive soul found a book some­where that listed “boot” as an antique racial slur, and every­one was instructed to stop using this ter­ri­bly insen­si­tive term. I’m well-read and think I’ve heard every racial slur under the sun, but that one escaped me.

    My point: You have to con­sider intent. If the Diver­sity Club had a meet­ing and decided to serve cheese and crack­ers, I don’t think any­one would insist they call it cheese and crisp breads. At some point we have to relax.

    That said, I thought your major point was sound. We all are guilty of prej­u­dice from time to time. It’s the human condition.

  23. Gasman said on November 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Rana & Nancy,
    Agreed; we are all tribal. It can be all too easy to act in an unthink­ing man­ner regard­ing those tribal impulses. Nancy, you saved me from hav­ing to make the spade cor­rec­tion. I never did think that par­tic­u­lar old saw had any racial con­nec­tion. We would lose huge swaths of our vocab­u­lary if we had to expunge any word that was ever used in the ser­vice of bigotry.

    The same is true for visual sym­bols. Take the swastika, for exam­ple. It was a sym­bol of native Amer­i­can peo­ples for cen­turies before Hitler and his goons swiped it for their nefar­i­ous uses.

    As to “cot­ton pickin’ ” I have a deep respect for any­one who has actu­ally per­formed that hell­ish task. I hap­pened upon a field of cot­ton years ago when I was a tem­po­rary Texan. The outer hull of the boll is so damn hard and sharp that it would be impos­si­ble to not suf­fer severe wounds pick­ing that crop by hand. I now under­stand the pho­tos of the gnarled and scarred hands field hand slaves. No won­der the pus­si­fied white over­lords didn’t want to do that work.

  24. brian stouder said on November 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    You have to con­sider intent. If the Diver­sity Club had a meet­ing and decided to serve cheese and crack­ers, I don’t think any­one would insist they call it cheese and crisp breads.

    True enough. And if a guest speaker was going to give a talk to the Diver­sity Club titled “How to avoid being gyped at the bookstore” — one would hope that the title was pur­posely provoca­tive, and not unthink­ingly prejudiced.

    (And ditto if the guest speaker recounted how he skill­fully jewed down the price on a par­tic­u­lar text book)

    PS —  speak­ing of guest speak­ers, David Bal­dacci is going to give a talk Fri­day at IPFW (the lat­est in the Omin­bus Series of lec­tures). I’ve no idea whether he’ll be inter­est­ing, but with a name like that, the idea of attend­ing is one I can­not refuse

  25. Dexter said on November 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  26. Rana said on November 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Fair point, Nancy. fwiw, I do think that intent is impor­tant — that’s why I make a dis­tinc­tion between being “racist” (influ­enced by race-based prej­u­dice, usu­ally cul­tural and insti­tu­tional, often unknow­ingly) and being “a racist” (being aware of that prej­u­dice and not want­ing to do any­thing about it).

    I’m not very fond of “lan­guage policing” — but, at the same time, I think it’s a use­ful exer­cise when not taken to ridicu­lous extremes. It helps to raise aware­ness of the way that sub­tle, small things con­tribute to a larger over­all trend, and the ways that we can unknow­ingly rein­force atti­tudes and beliefs that we’d oth­er­wise condemn.

    In other words, for me this is less about play­ing gotcha games with oth­ers, and more about self-awareness and learn­ing sen­si­tiv­ity to context.

  27. Michael said on November 11th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    I have enjoyed the com­ments, but would any­one like to recap prior instances of this.

    I remem­ber, John Bloom at the hold Dal­las Times Her­ald and his work in “We are the Weird”. I thought John was a great colum­nist, and a nice enough guy the few times we met, but he was out the door within days of that “satire”

    Some­one more savvy than I will have to find a link to the orig­i­nal, or maybe it has been wiped clean off the world wide interwebs.

  28. Dexter said on November 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Being some­one who has hung around many big cities , walk­ing along the avenues and boule­vards, I have occa­sion­ally run into a celebrity…but this takes the cake:
    http://​www​.freep​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​0​8​1​1​1​0​/​C​O​L​1​0​/​8​1​1​1​0​0​3​7​9​/​?imw=Y

  29. Stephanie said on November 11th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    Love the wor­dle. Did it with a bunch of my stories.

    “Like” seems to be my Kill word.

  30. Gasman said on November 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    I think that it is ulti­mately unfair to hold peo­ple from pre­vi­ous eras to mod­ern stan­dards con­cern­ing racial issues and atti­tudes. Our view back­wards through his­tory is clouded by the many recent changes which have occurred and this per­spec­tive tends to warp our per­spec­tive of indi­vid­u­als within the con­text of their own time.

    Abra­ham Lin­coln made state­ments about blacks, which in today’s soci­ety would seem hope­lessly big­oted and racist. Lin­coln, how­ever, was one of the most pro­gres­sive voices on the national stage when it came to the sub­ject of race and how likely — or unlikely — it was for blacks and whites to live as fel­low coun­try­men and equals in a post slav­ery U.S.

    Remem­ber the exam­ple of Al Cam­pa­nis, who was fired from his job as gen­eral man­ager of the Los Ange­les Dodgers after his racially insen­si­tive remarks on ABC’s “Night­line” April 6, 1987. I watched it live and I knew the moment that I heard those words come out of his mouth that his career in base­ball was over. How­ever, I also knew that from his per­spec­tive, Cam­pa­nis’ remarks were not indica­tive of any hatred toward black play­ers, merely an insen­si­tiv­ity that was instilled in him as part of his upbring­ing dur­ing a far less enlight­ened time. He was a team­mate of Jackie Robinson’s on the Dodgers and was prob­a­bly closer to Robin­son than most of his other white team­mates. There is every indi­ca­tion that he was one of the more accept­ing and pro­gres­sive white play­ers of his era.

    My con­cern with the recent erup­tions of racism in response to Pres­i­dent Elect Obama is that they have come from not from peo­ple who make these utter­ances out of racial insen­si­tiv­ity, but those who do so largely from a posi­tion of obdu­rate intol­er­ance and hatred.

  31. joodyb said on November 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    nn, can i have a post in your new Kill the Just cab­i­net?
    it is one of my pet peeves. “in just 3 days” indi­cates the writer thinks 3 days isn’t a very long time, as opposed to say­ing “in 3 days” — why not let the reader decide? “that is just ridicu­lous” is dif­fer­ent form “that is ridicu­lous” how? i rarely find jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the use of just. it is more of a Cheeto in that way.

    i have to come down on the side of not read­ing my racist ances­try into the phrase “cotton-pickin.” such affec­ta­tions are regional, on top of every­thing else, and even if i heard my mom say it, i wouldn’t have had the his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive to hear it as a slur and at the age of 4 – 5 would have repeated it. col­lo­qui­alisms are neutered over time; it goes to schooled and pre­cise (adult) speech. what does that descrip­tor con­jure? as a lit­tle kid, i thought of Q-tips. though grandpa might have known full well what his dad meant by it.

  32. Jolene said on November 12th, 2008 at 2:21 am

    A belated response, mark: I can’t prove it, but I’m pretty sure Brooks was talk­ing about num­bers of peo­ple, not amount of con­tri­bu­tions. It’s OK to dis­miss these con­trib­u­tors as act­ing on the basis of self-interest (and I acknowl­edge that the ATLA is deep in the Demo­c­ra­tic tank), but isn’t that gen­er­ally why peo­ple vote? Also, there’s the point re more college-educated peo­ple vot­ing for Obama.

    I don’t want to argue about this a lot more. My gen­eral point was that the Repub­li­can party is bleed­ing vot­ers in pretty much every con­ceiv­able way (They’re los­ing the most edu­cated vot­ers, they are less appeal­ing to women, and they are less appeal­ing to His­pan­ics, the fastest-growing eth­nic group in the U.S.) and that some­one at a high level of the party should be think­ing about whether another cap­i­tal gains tax cut is really going to reverse these trends.

  33. moe99 said on November 12th, 2008 at 2:34 am

    I“m on a pri­vate list serv with a bunch of lawyers from around the nation; we formed it when Steven Brill’s Coun­sel Con­nect went the way of the inter tubes and folded in 1999. Not one of us on the Pol­i­tics thread voted for McCain this time out. Every­one to a mem­ber voted for Obama and this includes at least 10% long term Repub­li­cans. They just could not take the men­dac­ity any longer.

  34. alex said on November 12th, 2008 at 7:41 am

    Jeff TMMO, the NYT chick pea salad was fan­tas­tic. I gave it a tad more gin­ger and skipped the cilantro because we had none, but it was so good I’m about to have some for breakfast.

    Any­one catch the PBS Front­line on Lee Atwa­ter last night? Let’s hope this elec­tion tolls the death of his legacy.

  35. Jolene said on November 12th, 2008 at 8:03 am

    I saw it, Alex. It was a great film, and I had the same thought. Thank God for the end of that. Peo­ple who missed it can find it online at the PBS site. Very much worth watching.