Ranking Dem makes racist remark

[Drbio]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A ranking Democrat in the House of Representative is apologizing for saying an African-American Senate candidate "slavishly" supported the Republican Party.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said he meant no offense when he made the remark about Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the GOP nominee for the seat being vacated by longtime Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Hoyer said, "I should not have used those words."
Hoyer was speaking to a largely black audience at a campaign event for Steele's Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Ben Cardin, when he made the comment.
Steele's spokesman, Doug Heye, called Hoyer's comments "insensitive and pretty stupid."
While Hoyer apologized for the comments, he continued to criticize Steele's support of the GOP.
"If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended," Hoyer said. "But Mr. Steele continuously tries to divert attention from the fact that he is an unwavering supporter of the Republican agenda and of President Bush and Vice President Cheney."
Hoyer's office also released a statement from Melvin Forbes, a black businessman who sponsored the campaign event, who said "there was absolutely no offense taken or noticed."
Heye disagreed, saying there are "a great deal of people upset about it."
Steele's campaign released statements from leaders of the National Black Church Initiative that condemned Hoyer's comments.
"This is nothing new for Steny Hoyer," said Heye.
He said that in 2002, Hoyer was quoted referring to Steele as a "token" candidate -- although Hoyer said at the time that he was quoted out of context.

[u2sarajevo]

Waiting for mavdog to explain it away.....

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Waiting for mavdog to explain it away.....

Pack a lunch and tell the boss you may not be in for a few days.

[Rhylan]

I don't think that's racist.

Slavishly is an adverb.

This wouldn't be news if it had been said about a white guy. If we're gonna be colorblind, then adverbs need to be available for equal use.

Word equality!

[u2sarajevo]

Rhylan.... Websters and answers.com both disagree with you....

[mcsluggo]

Oh please.

This is pathetic. Tell me, would any of you HONESTLY have batted a single eylash if you heard someone use the term "slavishly" in a conversation? Someone used a common term, that unfortunately had possible alternate meanings for the audience... similar to saying "buddy, you don't have a leg to stand on," and then looking up and seeing a paraplegic.

an unfortunate choice of words, and a gaffe, but not racist. And frankly, y'all come off as simpering weasels trying to play this card in this context... is it consistant with your usual views on PC? hmmmm.....

deliberately imitative; lacking originality: a slavish reproduction.
—Synonyms 2. groveling, sycophantic, fawning, cringing.

[MavKikiNYC]

I was once in a class where the teacher told a girl with scoliosis to "have a little backbone".

Racist?

[Flacolaco]

that's not offensive to me in the least bit. But I would never use any variation of that word in that setting.

We should be calling him stupid, not racist.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Oh please.

This is pathetic. Tell me, would any of you HONESTLY have batted a single eylash if you heard someone use the term "slavishly" in a conversation? Someone used a common term, that unfortunately had possible alternate meanings for the audience... similar to saying "buddy, you don't have a leg to stand on," and then looking up and seeing a paraplegic.

an unfortunate choice of words, and a gaffe, but not racist. And frankly, y'all come off as simpering weasels trying to play this card in this context... is it consistant with your usual views on PC? hmmmm.....

deliberately imitative; lacking originality: a slavish reproduction.
—Synonyms 2. groveling, sycophantic, fawning, cringing.

The neat thing here is that the class of people who would be offended by such a remark have spoken out against it as a racist remark. That's good enough for me. Plus, this guy has a history of similar ineptitude.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

I was once in a class where the teacher told a girl with scoliosis to "have a little backbone".

Racist?

a gaffe? yes.
idiotic? yes.

(I have no idea what the appropriate word for "prejudice against scoliosis" is... disabilitist? scoliophobe? straightist?.... so I guess "racist" is a good enough proxy)


Racist? no, just an idiotic gaffe.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Drbio

The neat thing here is that the class of people who would be offended by such a remark have spoken out against it as a racist remark. That's good enough for me. Plus, this guy has a history of similar ineptitude.

Hm, so since publicist of the politician he was speaking against says "a great deal of people upset about it." it is so?

I see.

I think your burden of proof requirement is a bit flexible, based on the agenda. No?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

that's not offensive to me in the least bit. But I would never use any variation of that word in that setting.

We should be calling him stupid, not racist.

agreed: stoopid.

[capitalcity]

It could be explained away if the remark hadn't been leveled against Michael Steele.

Ya know, the guy who's also been labeled an 'uncle tom', 'oreo', 'coconut', etc. by a number of democratic operatives.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Hm, so since publicist of the politician he was speaking against says "a great deal of people upset about it." it is so?

I see.

I think your burden of proof requirement is a bit flexible, based on the agenda. No?

There are plenty of folks in the offended class who are upset, but lets not let lazy get in the way of your drivel. Gosh....a lib discounting the concerns of others because it doesn't fit their agenda?

Shocker.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by capitalcity

It could be explained away if the remark hadn't been leveled against Michael Steele.

Ya know, the guy who's also been labeled an 'uncle tom', 'oreo', 'coconut', etc. by a number of democratic operatives.

Slaving away. Working slavishly. And so on. Very legitimate (and non-biased) terms.

But context is everything.

In a context where you have worked hard to paint a certain black candidate as the "house boy" so to speak of the Republican Party, using the term "slavishly" is absolutely offensive because in that context, it has to be viewed as a backhanded attempt to call him a pseudo-slave.

In some situations, it could be construed as a careless use of the wrong term. Here, in light of the audience (black) and the context (having tried the same tactic for years), it is being seen for what it was - deliberate racist pandering by political slime. And the slime got caught and now has to explain it away as some sort of accident.

I was born at night - but it wasnt last night.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

that's not offensive to me in the least bit. But I would never use any variation of that word in that setting.

We should be calling him stupid, not racist.

and insensitive. but not "racist" merely due to his word choice.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Slaving away. Working slavishly. And so on. Very legitimate (and non-biased) terms.

But context is everything.

In a context where you have worked hard to paint a certain black candidate as the "house boy" so to speak of the Republican Party, using the term "slavishly" is absolutely offensive because in that context, it has to be viewed as a backhanded attempt to call him a pseudo-slave.

In some situations, it could be construed as a careless use of the wrong term. Here, in light of the audience (black) and the context (having tried the same tactic for years), it is being seen for what it was - deliberate racist pandering by political slime. And the slime got caught and now has to explain it away as some sort of accident.

I was born at night - but it wasnt last night.

What if some athletes expressed a sense of offense at use of the term "beat", as in "The Cowboys beat the Texans." because "beat" was what slaveowners used to do to slaves, and even though they as players toil for a mere pittance in the employ of NFL owners, they object to lexical choice which evokes images of those unhappy times. Every so often you even hear players compare the NFL or the NBA to the plantation system, so the connection has already been established, and sportswriters, sportscasters and fans should be careful lest an infelicitous word choice offend over-sensitive ears.

Context matters. Sometimes.

The speaker used a common non-pejorative adverb in a negative but non-racist sense to describe a particular rival politician's behavior. If the speaker had carefully thought through his remarks, he might've made a different word choice. But to suggest that the remark itself was 'racist' doesn't hold water. People use that term every day without racial, let alone racist, connotation. It's a common word.

For better or worse, some conservatives, and in particular some conservative Republicans have decided to play the old word game and try to put opponents on the defensive. Maybe it's just because they fear coming out on the losing end of the upcoming election, but it sounds both desperate AND hypocritical.

[Pirate]

MavKiki ...In other cases, I would almost always be saying the same thing you are.

But in this case, where the speaker has already been trying to spew that sort of racial/slavery/uncle tom/house boy type connotation, and where he is specifically speaking to a black audience, I think you have to be skeptical that there was any innocence on his part. I think the term was chosen carefully, hoping to stir up some uneasy connections for the listeners.

And he got caught, pandering to the audience with a racist tack. The voters - the broader audience - will get to be the final judge of what the proper punishment should be.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Pirate

MavKiki ...In other cases, I would almost always be saying the same thing you are.

But in this case, where the speaker has already been trying to spew that sort of racial/slavery/uncle tom/house boy type connotation, and where he is specifically speaking to a black audience, I think you have to be skeptical that there was any innocence on his part. I think the term was chosen carefully, hoping to stir up some uneasy connections for the listeners.

And he got caught, pandering to the audience with a racist tack. The voters - the broader audience - will get to be the final judge of what the proper punishment should be.

Bingo.

[Mavdog]

Democrat apologizes for 'slavish' remark
From CNN's Ted Barrett
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A ranking Democrat in the House of Representative is apologizing for saying an African-American Senate candidate "slavishly" supported the Republican Party.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said he meant no offense when he made the remark about Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the GOP nominee for the seat being vacated by longtime Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes.

In a statement issued Tuesday, Hoyer said, "I should not have used those words."

Hoyer was speaking to a largely black audience at a campaign event for Steele's Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Ben Cardin, when he made the comment.

Steele's spokesman, Doug Heye, called Hoyer's comments "insensitive and pretty stupid."

While Hoyer apologized for the comments, he continued to criticize Steele's support of the GOP.

"If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended," Hoyer said. "But Mr. Steele continuously tries to divert attention from the fact that he is an unwavering supporter of the Republican agenda and of President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

Hoyer's office also released a statement from Melvin Forbes, a black businessman who sponsored the campaign event, who said "there was absolutely no offense taken or noticed."

Heye disagreed, saying there are "a great deal of people upset about it."

Steele's campaign released statements from leaders of the National Black Church Initiative that condemned Hoyer's comments.

"This is nothing new for Steny Hoyer," said Heye.

He said that in 2002, Hoyer was quoted referring to Steele as a "token" candidate -- although Hoyer said at the time that he was quoted out of context.

[MavKikiNYC]

Let's put it this way---macaca it ain't.

[Pirate]

I'm not buying the spinmeisters.

The excuse for the "macaca" comment was weak and lame.

The excuse for the "slavishly" comment was weak and lame.

Both speakers were trying to slip a slap at someone and got called on it. Neither is justifiable, and the claims of "innocence" dont spread any glory on those who offer up the excuses for the politicos who couldnt control their tongues.

[MavKikiNYC]

Allen and the N-Word.

White Lie

by Randall Kennedy
Post date 10.06.06 | Issue date 10.16.06
his past summer, I was asked to testify as an expert witness in the case of Nicholas Minucci, who was charged with having committed a hate crime. In Bensonhurst, New York--which is notorious for its anti-black sentiments--Minucci, who is white, had beaten a black man with an aluminum baseball bat. When Minucci initially approached this man (whom he suspected of being a car thief), he reportedly said "Whattup, nigga." Prosecutors portrayed that language as evidence of a racial motivation for the ensuing violence. The defense asked me to testify, because they felt my book, Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, would support their argument that "nigga"--or its older variant "nigger"--can have a wide variety of meanings. They argued that, in hip-hop speak, "nigger" can be part of a neutral or even friendly salutation and that Minucci had adopted the argot and gestures of hip hop through close interactions with black youngsters in high school.

I initially resisted the defense attorney's request. I was busy at the time and also knew that, especially as a black man, I would receive sharp attacks from those who would wrongly perceive me as actually siding with the defendant (as opposed to merely offering expert testimony regarding an abstract proposition). But I finally decided to say on the witness stand what I had already put into print--that the N-word and its usage are more complex than is sometimes initially appreciated. Although "nigger"--derived from "niger," the Latin word for black--has been understood as an intensely derogatory insult since at least the early nineteenth century, more recent usages, particularly those created by the black community, have expanded its meaning.

But, if the N-word is so complex, how do we evaluate the case of Senator George Allen, the most recent high-profile N-word offender? He has been accused of repeatedly referring to blacks as "niggers" during his college years in the 1970s. Given my interest in the history of "nigger," I was, of course, captivated by this recent illustration of that term's troubling presence in American culture. Allen does not deny that referring to blacks derogatorily as "niggers" would have been terribly wrong. He swears, though, that he did not and does not use such language. The Washington Post quotes Allen as saying, "That word was not a part of my vocabulary. ... It is not who I was, and it is not who I am. It is contrary to every fiber of my being."

I don't believe Allen's denial. His accusers, including Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, are credible. Moreover, his conduct fits all too well into a pattern that includes ostentatious disregard for the sensibilities of colored Americans--including his past embrace of Confederate insignia, his opposition to a Virginia holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., and his recent outburst (fortunately caught on videotape) in which he referred to a man of Indian descent as a "macaca"--a term he was clearly using for purposes of denigration. But, once we accept the fundamental fact that Allen did use the word, we have to move into the punishment phase of his case. This raises the question: Can a white politician, in twenty-first-century America, ever recover from having used the N-word in his past?

here is no doubt that the N-word is presumptively offensive. Writing in 1837, Hosea Easton remarked that "nigger" had become "an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race." Before and since, embedded in angry shouts and nasty jokes, "nigger" has provided gut-churning accompaniment to countless acts of racially motivated violence, intimidation, and humiliation. But, like any symbol, "nigger" can be put to various uses. More recently, it has been deployed to mock racism. This is what the black comedian and social activist Dick Gregory was up to when he titled the first (and best) of his memoirs Nigger: An Autobiography. The N-word is also often used as an ironic gesture of solidarity. Engaging in a form of rhetorical jujitsu, many young blacks have defiantly appropriated "nigger" for their own use, which animates the ongoing insistence of many champions of hip-hop culture that, properly used, there is nothing wrong with their N-word. "Nigga," the rap icon Tupac Shakur once proclaimed, is a perfectly acceptable term of self-identification that stands for "Never Ignorant, Gets Goals Accomplished."

Given hip hop's crossover appeal, it was only a matter of time before the issue arose as to whether whites (or other non-blacks) could also permissibly use non-racist versions of "nigger" or its variants. One response was to assert that, while blacks could use the term for purposes of in-group humor or camaraderie, "nigger" is completely verboten to whites. Propounding this position, Michael Eric Dyson maintains that "[n]igger has never been cool when spit from white lips." Another response was a renewed effort to stigmatize all usages of "nigger," regardless of speakers' racial identities. Hence, the Baltimore City Council passed a resolution urging all citizens to refrain from using the N-word for any reason, a position also embraced by the recently established website abolishthenword.com.

But justifiable disgust with racist usages of "nigger" has sometimes led people astray. Every year, controversies arise from efforts to exclude books from public school curricula just because they contain references to the term "nigger." All too often, in censoring books like Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, opponents of exclusion evince no interest whatsoever in recognizing important distinctions that differentiate racist from non-racist (or even anti-racist) deployments of the N-word. Then there was the infamous episode in which local government employees in Washington, D.C., clamored for the resignation of a high-ranking supervisor who used the term "niggardly," even after being informed that that word (which means stingy) is wholly unrelated to the notorious N-word.
t's a sign of progress that referring to blacks as "niggers" is now, almost everywhere, a form of political suicide. Recall that, until the '60s, politicians in some locales openly used "nigger" in its derogatory sense without fear of adverse political repercussions. We have traveled some distance from the time when, in Mississippi in 1964--during a successful gubernatorial campaign--Paul Johnson repeatedly joked that the acronym naacp stood for "Niggers, Apes, Alligators, Coons, and Possums." The publicity about Allen and the N-word has rightfully hurt him politically. His once-commanding lead over his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, has shrunk considerably, as has his standing as a potential presidential contender in 2008.

What makes Allen's past use of the N-word particularly reprehensible is that he lies about it. I'm sure that there are those who fear that contemporary disgust with racist usage of "nigger" is so intense that a politician in Allen's shoes cannot be honest without sacrificing entirely his political future--a sacrifice some might see as so disproportionate to the initial distant infraction as to justify the "white" lie of false denial. But the revelation that a politician used "nigger" at some point in his past should not doom him or her automatically and terminally to political perdition. People do change. People do make mistakes that they sincerely regret and from which they really do learn. Moreover, it is good policy to encourage honesty and reformation by holding open the prospect of redemption. Most fair-minded voters, regardless of racial identity, will accord respect to a candidate who comes clean about his use of the N-word, who apologizes for it, and who is also in a position to say that his public record offers strong evidence of a genuine repudiation of his previous bad acts.

This is exactly what George Allen has refused to do. He has not come clean about his bigoted vocabulary. He has thus prevented himself from apologizing for it. And his public record is not one that offers any sensible basis for believing that he takes seriously the moral and legal injunction to accord to all persons equal respect, regardless of race.

But perhaps he doesn't have to. After all, his defeat is by no means certain. Leading Republicans have withheld public repudiations of Allen, and conservative commentators have largely portrayed the junior senator from Virginia as merely a victim of "liberal" media. Allen's incumbency, with its winks, code words, and hollow denials, is a bitter reminder that the attitudes that inform and attend the primary historical meaning of "nigger" remain all too evident, even in the highest circles of the U.S. government.

Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Pirate

I'm not buying the spinmeisters.

The excuse for the "macaca" comment was weak and lame.

The excuse for the "slavishly" comment was weak and lame.

Both speakers were trying to slip a slap at someone and got called on it. Neither is justifiable, and the claims of "innocence" dont spread any glory on those who offer up the excuses for the politicos who couldnt control their tongues.

Pirate, there's a gulf of difference--semantically, pragmatically, rhetorically--in what Hoyer (who?) said and what Allen said. No way the two can be equated, and it really calls into question the motives of people who would try to equate the two, let alone those who would scream 'racist' at the Democrat and remain mute regarding the Republican.

[Pirate]

Changing the topic, or saying "well someone else messed up" doesnt persuade me that what was said by Hoyer was innocent or excusable. In fact, to the contrary, it kinda points out that it is substantive, motivating an attempt to divert attention.

I'll say it again.

I'm not buying the spinmeisters.

The excuse for the "macaca" comment was weak and lame.

The excuse for the "slavishly" comment was weak and lame.

Both speakers were trying to slip a slap at someone and got called on it. Neither is justifiable, and the claims of "innocence" dont spread any glory on those who offer up the excuses for the politicos who couldnt control their tongues.

I think its time for people to hold their own party as accountable as they hold the other. No tolerance. No excuses. Stop the spinning.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Changing the topic, or saying "well someone else messed up" doesnt persuade me that what was said by Hoyer was innocent or excusable. In fact, to the contrary, it kinda points out that it is substantive, motivating an attempt to divert attention.

...
I think its time for people to hold their own party as accountable as they hold the other. No tolerance. No excuses. Stop the spinning.

It's not a change of a topic, it's an examination of motive--the motives of those who falsely cry 'racism' at a perfectly legitimate (if ill-advised) use of a term like 'slavish' while ignoring the gross lexical misdeeds of candidates of a party they support.

Actually, I think the one explains the other--Republicans have had such a miserable campaign season that they are reduced to mimicking the stale tactics of Democrats.

As a linguist, I feel comfortable in asserting the former, while as a lifelong Republican, I lament the hypocrisy of the latter.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Pirate

I'm not buying the spinmeisters.

The excuse for the "macaca" comment was weak and lame.

The excuse for the "slavishly" comment was weak and lame.

Both speakers were trying to slip a slap at someone and got called on it. Neither is justifiable, and the claims of "innocence" dont spread any glory on those who offer up the excuses for the politicos who couldnt control their tongues.

I applaude your equal treatment, but kiki is right.

[creditXpert2003]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Changing the topic, or saying "well someone else messed up" doesnt persuade me that what was said by Hoyer was innocent or excusable. In fact, to the contrary, it kinda points out that it is substantive, motivating an attempt to divert attention.

I'll say it again.

I'm not buying the spinmeisters.

The excuse for the "macaca" comment was weak and lame.

The excuse for the "slavishly" comment was weak and lame.

Both speakers were trying to slip a slap at someone and got called on it. Neither is justifiable, and the claims of "innocence" dont spread any glory on those who offer up the excuses for the politicos who couldnt control their tongues.

I think its time for people to hold their own party as accountable as they hold the other. No tolerance. No excuses. Stop the spinning.

I agree with you for whats its worth....That comment was racist....If you will say this in front of a black crowd what do you say behind closed doors??????

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I agree with you for whats its worth....

I rest my case.

[creditXpert2003]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

I rest my case.

Of course your rest your case....By you defending those comments sounds alot like most followers that believe saying "Slavishly" while talking to a black audience is accepted..

Next you will defend slavery, and say it was just the thing to do at the time...

[Mavdog]

whoosh! right over his head.

[Murphy3]

Yeah, I don't see this is an absolute case of racism. Sure, it could have been a racist comment, but it all depends on his intentions when using the word. I don't know alot about his history nor do I really care. But, I wouldn't accuse someone of racism or of making a racist remark based upon the info provided. Yes, it's a word that should probably shouldn't be used much especially by someone in politics when referring to someone that happens to be African American. But, just because he had a lapse in judgement with his wording doesn't mean that it was a racist remark. He just should have used something else to get his point across.

He has to know that Republicans are going to jump on any little slip up even if it technically might have been an ok use of the word.

Personally, as a Republican, I don't have a huge problem with what he said. He just needs to realize that we live in a PC world in which every little thing will be scrutinized. Just ask Steve Lyons...