If The Mo’Kelly Report has been anything over the years, it has been both consistent and fair. For every story Mo’Kelly has written in derision of a John Mayer, Michael Richards or even Dog the Bounty Hunter, you will also find one equally critical of Gilbert Arenas/Plaxico Burress, the Duke Lacrosse accuser and Nas the rapper.
No one has ever received a pass on the issues of race here, irrespective of their race. When heaping praise and critique, there is no double-standard now and there won’t be in the future in this column.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Unfortunately, the reality is that we do not live in a post-racial society, despite the fact that Barack Obama lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. We do live in a post-legislated racism (i.e. post Jim Crow) society, but the issues of race persist.
Black farmers were recently awarded 1.25 billion (with a “b”) in a civil discrimination suit. That is not a figment of my imagination. The FBI is presently investigating the police beating of Pittsburgh teenage violinist Jordan Miles in January of this year. If that weren’t enough, the organization 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement called on NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate racial profiling after “stop and frisk” statistics went through the roof…reflecting the disproportionate detainment of Blacks and Latinos.
Post-racial society? Hardly.
But speaking of racial profiling, it’s the perfect entry point into the discussion of the newest member of the New York Jets, Antonio Cromartie…the troublesome Antonio Cromartie. Cromartie came to the Jets by way of a trade with the San Diego Chargers. Yes, that would be the same San Diego, home to the “Compton Cookout” controversy on the campus of UCSD. Yes, that would be the same “Compton Cookout” where “educated” college students took to ridiculing the worst of Black stereotypes in “celebration” of Black History Month.
I know what some are you thinging…”where is he going with this?”
Here’s where…
Antonio Cromartie signed a 5-year $12 million contract with the San Diego Chargers in 2006, 7.35 million of which was guaranteed.
Four years later, the New York Jets had to ADVANCE Cromartie $500,000 to enable him to address his “paternity issues.”
Yes, “paternity issues.”
Cromartie at age 25 has 7 children, by 6 different women across 5 states and is behind on child support by at least $25,000. All of the children are age 6 or younger. According to court records Cromartie has failed to appear in court on two different occasions regarding moving violations and his driver license status is in doubt. Specifically, he tried to get a California license in 2006 (to replace his Florida one) but could not pass the written portion then and has not since.
But wait, there’s more…
Cromartie has been named in “at least” five paternity suits in the past three years alone, meaning the official tally of how many kids are his is legally still in doubt and may rise considerably.
Yes, “at least” five. Could be six, could be eight, who knows? But “at least” five.
Antonio Cromartie is 25, broke and the embodiment of many of the worst that Black stereotypes have to offer.
The question today is whether we as African-Americans should be more upset at the racist stereotypes being “celebrated” at a college frat party or at the behavior of those like Antonio Cromartie which feed into them? This is not an either-or postulation, there’s room to be mightily offended by both.
Let’s remember, social capital is a finite resource and how we spend it on the issues of race invariably matters. There’s room to attack both of these issues simultaneously, but I take particular exception to individuals like Antonio Cromartie.
Some 12 million Cromartie dollars later, we have at least 7 more children of color with neither an emotionally available father nor the financial support system in which to raise them. That is shameful.
The “Compton Cookout” was hideously offensive to be sure…but this pains Mo’Kelly far worse.
Far, far worse.
Wide receiver and father Plaxico Burress…jail. Star guard and unwed father (2 children) Gilbert Arenas…on his way to jail. Rapper Lil Wayne, unwed father of 4 children (two born simultaneously to different women)…just finished tucking himself in…you got it, prison. Black male pathology is in full swing. It’s not funny and it’s not a figment of one’s imagination. It’s true and we should recognize it for what it is.
It is unacceptable, that’s what it is. There will be no “partridge in a pear tree jokes” today.
As sorry of an individual Antonio Cromartie must be to father 7 children with 6 women across 5 states, how sorry is our community to neither put a stop to individuals such as him or condemn the behavior with the same veracity we condemned the “Compton Cookout?”
Mo’Kelly doesn’t want to see African-Americans mocked on college campuses or having nooses dangled in derision. At the same time, Mo’Kelly especially doesn’t want to see the likes of Antonio Cromartie breathe life into the worst of those same Black male stereotypes.
I don’t want to hear any excuses and I definitely don’t want any “explanations” as to why Cromartie gets a pass (no football pun intended) and Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity doesn’t.
Neither should.
To have seven children (proven thus far) with 6 women across 5 states by age 25 isn’t funny, isn’t acceptable or explainable in any way. For all the protests and outrage (rightfully) directed at UC San Diego and Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, some should have been directed at Cromartie too. I mean, it’s the same damn city.
The troublesome Antonio Cromartie…
Both have measurable and deleterious effects and must be addressed if we as a society are ever to overcome the issue of race. We in the African-American community must approach the Antonio Cromarties of the world with the same righteous indignation we do a “Compton Cookout.” Otherwise, in the not-so-distant future we will have bankrupted our social capital account and impugned our moral authority once and for all.
RELATED: It’s Time to Be Honest about Duke
ESPN was Smart to Fire Paul Shirley
John Mayer’s ‘N*****’ Pass Revoked
Gun-Toting Athletes Affect All Black Males
Nas is a Comedian, Not an Intellectual
[Stay tuned…the new mrmokelly.com website is coming to you in 2010. Set your browsers now.]
52 responses to “The ‘Troublesome’ Antonio Cromartie”
First of all, Dan Rather is clearly a racist.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/201…
Second, what is your take on Tavis' payday loan show?
Jack…are you referring to something Tavis did on his TV show? If so, I've not seen it. I know he just did a segment on payday loans for his radio show but that doesn't air until this weekend so enlighten me so I can better answer you. I'll look into the Dan Rather bit now. Just getting in.
http://www.dealwithwhites.com
I definitely agree that the Af-Am community needs to address the negative stereotypes perpetrated by people in the community and by those in the media. The question is How? Actually, maybe the first question is Who? Who would be the mouthpiece for the Af-Am community?
I'm not even sure it's a specific person. For me just being vocal about what is unacceptable goes a long way. I believe many outside our community think that we inside of it are complicit with certain behavior…and maybe they're right if we're not vocal and clear about what is unacceptable.
It was his radio show, Mo. Sorry about that.
Eager to hear your thoughts on Dan Rather.
I'm really intrigued now. We recorded a payday lending piece but it hasn't aired yet. What did you hear and when?
In regards to Dan Rather…I'm in a word, disappointed. I'm disappointed because it's to me pretty inexcusable. To use your own argument, no I can't look into Rather's heart and make a determination whether he has malice towards African-Americans, but certain things are offensive irrespective of intended malice or not.
Watermelon is such an obscure fruit to use to make a point and to think it wasn't somehow connected (unintentionally or not) to race is a stretch for me. I'm sure Dan Rather has his issues as all of us do and if we peer deep inside our hearts there's probably plenty objectionable stuff there.
But no doubt, I was highly offended…highly. I can't help but be. I'm interested to see if he addresses this on any level.
I am in total aggreeance with you Mo.I don't normally comment, though I read your blog daily. I felt compelled to comment on this story because we do give a lot of the rich sports players and entertainment industry a pass when it comes to morals and values. This behavior is NOT acceptable and should not be condoned by anyone-regardless of race, color, but especially not the African American community! It's a shame-and it's a pity. these kids will be provided for(hopefully) but have no values of their own instilled in them. What about the women who are involved? They know in some cases that they are sleeping with wild men, but choose to do so anyway for financial gain or just stupidity. It's not cute to be a "baby momma" it's an insult. Mo, how do you feel about the women in the African american community not speaking up about these issues?
@onemom…I wish more women would speak up, but sometimes you have to speak out simply because it needs to be said and you can't wait on someone else. How can we talk about the disproportionate impact of Black children growing up without fathers, HIV or Black children growing up without financial support and not also talk about the Antonio Cromarties of the world?
Cromartie can't support his children now and he's at the height of his career. In ten years he will be out of the league and likely broke. And that's assuming no other children pop up along the way making horrible matters even worse.
You are so right! These athletes are babied and coddled and have NO recourse for their actions! They are taught by the way those around the, behave that only what you have in your pocket, or only that your skills matter. When the world is done using these "boys" thhey stay just that-boys! Very few hardly grow up (without something happening to them first) and behave like men. The women are the same way. If a girl is cute, she is told by her interaction with others that only her looks and body is what matters. When she is all used up by the boys and their friends, she is nothing, has nothing, and will be nothing unless the good Lord cleans her up. Kids these days HAVE to learn to sustain themselves. To pursue careers and ways of making money on the safe side to live off of, without filirting with death from diseases and such. The most horrifying part of this story is the many preganancies! All these women had UNPROTECTED sex with this clown! Too much out here that can kill you for all this to be going on!
Mo, I agree with your comments. This just speaks to how this young man has devalued his character and how little respect he has for his manhood. The AA community has taken a lockhold on the position of un-safe sex and out of wedlock children. I asked someone the other day if they were concerned about their child being illegitimate and she looked at me like…duh? Sad, really sad.
Mo, here's what I find interesting about Dan Rather. As we've discussed, neither of us can see into his heart, but I think your analysis of the comment is thoughtful.
So why does he get a pass from the media, given his relative level of notoriety?
Payday loans — heh. I'm in the business, so I know the guy Tavis spoke to. That should make for a pretty lively debate here…
I was wondering if there was a connection between you and Schlein. Yes, it was very lively, but a very fair discussion too. It hits this weekend. I'll keep you abreast and send you the file if you like. Small world in which we live.
As for Rather, it may be slow developing story. Some things don't go from zero to 60 in terms of news…sometimes it bubbles under and eventually makes its way to the top. That's why I'm laying out and waiting to see if he addresses it on any level. If he (or other media) never do, then I can (and will) lay into him. He at the minimum has to acknowledge the remark and the reasonable conclusions that people can have about its meaning. To not acknowledge it says even more…
And one other thing on Rather. It's not like he has a spotless reputation with friends lining up to protect him. That's definitely not the case.
Morris was highly offended that a white man said that a black man couldn't sell watermelons.
At what point does Morris at least ask if the problem is within himself?
I assume Jack's barb was tongue-in-cheek, and perhaps it points to the obscurity of the Matthews show that this has not caught fire.
On the other hand, maybe almost everybody else who saw it decided it was no big deal.
Was it clumsy? Yup. Raise your hand if you've never made a point clumsily.
Liar.
I'm more pissed off at Keith Olbermann than I could ever be at Morris, anyway. Morris basically says that we need to be more sensitive, and I agree. Olbermann says that ALL whites are racists, some are more overt than others and evidently therefore more honest.
He's a fat, stupid idiot and there's no two ways about that. How collossally stupid do you have to be to (a) sweep millions of humans into the same broad category; (b) make definitive statements about things you are not an expert in?
Talk about offensive, I am so frickin offended by what Olbermann said that I doubt I'll ever watch him again.
Unless of course he apologizes to my face.
Freakin' idiot.
Yes Walt, the use of "watermelons" is unnecessary and offensive. The use of "watermelons" has undeniable racial overtones and a historical connection. If it were a commonly used term irrespective of race, then my offense is probably misplaced. But it isn't. I'd feel the same if Rather said…
"Obama couldn't sell fried chicken."
"Obama couldn't sell grape soda."
"Obama couldn't sell chit'lins."
Mo, it's not as though I don't get it.
It's more about, what are you trying to call it?
And by the way, in the clip I saw, Rather comes across as at least half senile.
Two questions, Morris:
1. "grape soda"? Really? I never knew that.
2. What exactly are chitlins?
You're kidding on both I hope right? You've never heard of chitlins? And to answer your other question, I "call" it offensive. I'm not calling him racist, I'm calling IT…the remark offensive. There are varying degrees to offense, but watermelon remarks aren't cool, senile or not.
__________
UC San Diego knew about "grape soda."
SAN DIEGO — Officials at UC San Diego are condemning a ghetto-themed party organized by fraternity students to mock Black History Month.
A Facebook posting advertising Monday's 'Compton Cookout' invited people to a condominium complex off-campus.
The invitation urged all participants to wear chains, rapper-style urban clothing by makers such as FUBU and speak very loudly.
Female participants were encouraged to be "ghetto chicks" with gold teeth, cheap clothes and "short, nappy hair."
The invitation said the party would serve watermelon, chicken, malt liquor, cheap beer and a purple sugar-water concoction called "dat Purple Drank."
Morris,
"offensive" is a receptive term; you may be offended, someone else may not. "Patently offensive" could be used to described something that no sane person would fail to find offensive.
I suggest that this does not rise to that level.
And, honest injun, I am asking both questions for real.
And I would appreciate some schooling on both.
Watermelon is "patently offensive" to a majority of African-Americans. I don't subscribe that "patently offensive" requires "no sane person."
In the issues of race, Black people were called Nigger, boy, coon et al. and the only people who found it "patently offensive" were usually us. I doubt that Black people were the only sane people during the civil rights movement.
I don't know if you play basketball but I think of racial offenses in a similar way in which street basketball is played. In street basketball, the offense calls the fouls and the defense calls the violations. In other words the person "offended" gets to decide when he has been fouled. To carry the metaphor here, I don't think it's appropriate to gauge whether someone else is "rightfully" offended. It's not for me to say what should or should not patently offend a Jewish person along Jewish lines. And I'd like to think I'm sane. They get to call their own fouls (committed against them). They don't need me to agree or understand why they might be offended by an ill-timed bagel and lox reference or need me to agree as to what degree they should be offended. Who am I to say or arbitrate what is a reasonable level of offense when I'm not even Jewish?
________
Chit'lins which is short for chitterlings are pig intestines that for centuries have been an African-American delicacy, dating back to slavery where the slave quarters were only given the scraps or barely edible leftover parts of an animal to make due. Pigs feet, pig intestines, etc. I don't eat Chit'lins…and will vomit at the smell of them being cleaned, much less eaten.
Thanks for the lesson on chitlins.
And you made my point: the foul is in the eye of the fouled.
Except in this case the offense was at least once removed. You had to make an inference before you could call the foul.
And that's the part that's on you and each person for themselves to decide, so no, this cannot be considered patently offensive. It was, after all, an innocent comment, not made with any point other than the tough time Obama is having selling his insurance bill. Clumsy, over-the-hill, addled or whatever.
But we all have bigger fish to fry, agreed?
Agreed, always bigger fish to fry, but to use another analogy…I can walk and chew gum at the same time. There's room and time to address both.
And keep things in their proper perspective as well…
🙂
Maybe when some of "our" people stop equating manhood with sowing your seed everywhere and start teaching young girls to value their body and not use it as a tool to "come up" in the world, we may start to see a little change. Situations like this just become a repetitious cycle.
Haven't people heard of condoms?
It really is quite astounding that he could be so careless.
There are no shortage of women looking to get knocked up by an ATM…
I find the discussion intriguing on so many levels. Language itself can be so complicated when it involves text, subtext, context, and then toss in our own prejudices, biases, and perspectives on any given issue.
It's that constant running issue: if you're Jewish and you make a joke about Jews, it's okay. But if you aren't….
It is the nature of language that interests me foremost.
The other thing I am interested by is why certain stories get heat and others don't. I see Rather's statement as more offensive than Trent Lott's. I know you disagree, Mo, but whereas Lott's reference was (to me) interpreted completely inaccurately, Rather's leaves little room for interpretation.
To me.
Jack,
Watching Rather stutter and stammer while attempting to make his point, it seems incredible to me that anybody could conclude anything other than that "he's losing it…"
Sound bytes are not windows into the soul.
Anybody who believes they are is a dangerous fool.
And what I mean by that is this: There are myriad reasons why something comes out of somebody's mouth a certain way, and none of us possessed of enough information about the person or the comment to draw any firm conclusions about that person's feelings, beliefs and attitudes.
We are, as a society, far too quick to become certain that we know something that we simply cannot know.
And I have trouble taking seriously Jack's assurance that his only interest is in language and why some things generate more heat than others.
Jack already pushed Mo's button once on this and continues to keep pushing it.
Methinks that the true agenda lies somewhere in that realm.
Like I said, I wanted to wait and see whether Rather addresses this on any level. I still hold the opinion that "watermelons" is a curious choice of fruits and I would argue with Rather as to whether the racism connotation is older than he is and his use of "watermelons" terminology as a child.
…Because it is.
But I am pleased that he addressed it head on and did't back away from it.
He sure enough did.
Are you still "highly offended" or maybe, just maybe, that could have waited too?
🙂
To answer your question Walt, I think he's sincere in his explanation for the most part, but I don't necessarily buy all of it. These aren't mutually exclusive. I have dozens of friends who I've known for many, many years who probably don't have a racist bone in their body but who have said offensive/highly offensive things in my midst…most likely unintentionally or because he/she was uninformed.
I remember I was in my 20s and a White female friend who I've always loved and cared for was telling a story about her late grandmother and her memories of her. She relayed how her Grandmother would rock in her chair and sing "old Coon songs." And she would tell her grandmother, "Grandmommy sing another Coon song"…not even realizing the meaning of "Coon" and the person she was telling the story to or the connection.
Was I offended? Highly. Was she a racist? Of course not. She didn't even really understand the meaning of "Coon." Of course, I politely explained.
She sincerely and effusively apologized. I say all that to say, offense and sincere apologies aren't mutually exclusive.
Not that I'm calling you Quickdraw McGraw or anything…
🙂
Morris,
You sure do give complicated explanations!
🙂
Not that I mind complexity, of course, and that's really the bottom line here: these issues are complex, and jumping to conclusions is our worst enemy.
Whatever "post-racial" may have been intended to mean, to me it means a day when we can talk to each other without looking for "gotcha" moments.
What I do like is that this is a place where we can try to dissect and deconstruct these issues in an educational as well as respectful environment. Hopefully we can challenge each other and our preconceived notions while remaining civil in the process. And to your point…"post-racial" is still a long ways away.
Don't we both know that 🙂
This just in, and all you over-reactors kindly line up on the right to offer us your mea culpa:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/watermelons-washington-an_b_492890.html
Dan Rather:
Watermelons, Washington, and What We Call News Today
I must confess that until recently I had no idea what Twitter was. Even now, I’m not completely sure how it’s best used. When I want to post something, the younger, more tech-savvy people in my office help me out. But I do know this: if you searched Twitter for “Dan Rather” over the past few days, you probably could guess why I feel the need to write this column.
It started this past Sunday when I appeared on Chris Matthews’ syndicated talk show. I’ve known and respected Chris for many years and I enjoy doing his show. I take the train down from my home in New York to Washington D.C. and as I approach Union Station my thoughts often turn to the years I spent covering the Johnson and Nixon White Houses. It was a turbulent time for the country and a formative period for me as a reporter and a young father.
The Washington of that time was a far different place. In some ways it was better: less politically rancorous, more collegial. In many ways it, and the country it represented, was much worse. African Americans were still very much second-class citizens. Women held few positions of power. We smoked more, polluted our environment more, and accepted social mores that anyone who has seen Mad Men knows are embarrassingly outdated.
The news media was also different, so different in fact that I won’t even try to enumerate all the changes. Many who are far smarter and more perceptive than I have written volumes about it. As with the country itself, there were some elements of the press that were better then and some that are better now. There were many more newspapers and they were healthy, full of enterprising reporting. The networks were flush with cash that they spent on their news divisions, supporting large staffs of journalists and bureaus across the country and around the world. Most of the bureaus have closed and the staff has been laid off.
Meanwhile, new forms of journalism have emerged that were unimaginable when I lived in Washington. The online and cable world has allowed a freer exchange of ideas and more access to news. People can scour the New York Times (or the Times of India for that matter) in real time around the globe. If someone reads a fascinating article he or she can share it easily with friends. When news breaks, eyewitnesses have a forum for relaying their observations and insights.
All this is the backdrop for what I said on the Matthews show. I was talking about Obama and health care and I used the analogy of selling watermelons by the side of the road. It’s an expression that stretches to my boyhood roots in Southeast Texas, when country highways were lined with stands manned by sellers of all races. Now of course watermelons have become a stereotype for African Americans and so my analogy entered a charged environment. I’m sorry people took offense.
But anyone who knows me personally or knows my professional career would know that race was not on my mind. Reporting on the injustices of race was part of the reason I became a reporter. I grew up in segregated Texas on the same side of the tracks as the African American community. At the time, enlightened people called them Negros. Many people called them much worse. When I covered the Civil Rights movement, I saw sheer hatred in ways that still haunt and shock me. For doing my small part in reporting on the South in the 1960s, I was called a traitor to my roots and other names not fit for print. I was threatened with death by people who would have welcomed me to their church on Sunday on account of my white skin if they didn’t know what I was there to do. I do not take this issue lightly.
I can understand why someone who just happened upon my comments could take offense or want clarification. But what has caused this comment to “go viral” is the trumpeting of an online and cable echo chamber that claims the banner of news but trades in gossip, gotcha, and innuendo. Furthermore, even for those who brook no prejudice, when everything is condensed to 140 characters or a small YouTube clip, many people who got this “news” did so without any context, just a headline that popped up on their phone or inbox.
I know that there are many people who are reading this who have preconceived notions about me. I am sure that the comments section will be filled with a gamut of First Amendment expressions. That is our precious right as Americans. Politics has always been part sport, and if my choice of language falls into the bloody heavyweight bout that has become life in Washington today, so be it. Chris’ show is a fun, freewheeling political talk show and I enjoy coming to Washington to participate. Our republic has flourished because we as citizens can be provocative in our political discussions and challenge our leaders and our own assumptions. There is a time and place for this, but it can’t be allowed to dominate what we call news.
What saddens me is what this experience has made all too clear. Much of what we call news, isn’t. Much of what we Tweet, or post, or chat away at under the guise of news, are distractions.
While I appear on Matthews’ show from time to time, that is not my day job. Together with a dedicated and talented staff, and under the unbending support of Mark Cuban, I put out a weekly news program on HDNet called Dan Rather Reports. If you want to see what I consider to be news, check it out or download it on iTunes. We just did a report on the travails of Afghan women – not the hottest Twitter topic. We also profiled an army unit in Kandahar – our support for these brave young Americans is bipartisan. The show ended with the news of the death of a young soldier at a remote outpost along the Pakistan border. I met him on my last visit to the country at the end of last year. I wish his memory and brave actions were a trending topic on Twitter.
On our show we investigated a U.S. company mining in the Congo, trucking schools in Michigan, Iranian influence in western banks, and an epidemic of youth concussions in sports, among many others. These topics don’t lend themselves to a five minute segment on a cable talk show or a short blog post. But they shape the lives of real Americans and people around the world. Most of the topics we tackle don’t have a Republican angle or a Democratic angle. They can’t be put on the political scoreboard.
The optimist in me believes that we are not as polarized as the partisans on the left and right would want us to believe. They make money on division. I have gotten dozens of letters from viewers for my HDNet show saying that they thought I was a left-wing partisan hack until they sat down and watched our reports. This is not meant to be self-aggrandizing. It is just evidence that if we stopped worrying about political point-scoring and sat and listened to the issues that matter, we would be less distracted and more focused on the problems that we all face and must solve together.
Walt, as usual, you nailed it (and me) correctly.
Yes, I admit it, I was baiting Mo here. (Sorry, Bud).
I wanted to test his bias with regards to Left vs. Right.
I wanted to gauge his definition of racism, and see if it was "flexible".
I wanted to see how he does or does not judge people.
Rather has made the point that I've been making here — and Walt has echoed it.
We simply do not know what someone is thinking or is in their heart when they make a comment, and (you are wrong on this one, Walt) how we perceive language in context with our own biases and perspectives, determines our reaction to it.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media still gives Rather a pass for his explanation. But they didn't to Trent Lott. What does that suggest?
I would take exception to the fact that the Lott remarks and the Rather remarks are "equal." Yes, there should be more "discussion" of the Rather remarks but let's look at this in full. Rather is not a sitting senator/elected official. Elected officials are critiqued more for what they say publicly than people in the media. For example, there's a lot of "offensive" stuff that Keith Olbermann can and has said that an elected official can not. Same is true of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh et al. Whether or not a member of the media is deliberately trying to be provocative or not, it's a different standard.
Secondly, there's less room in my estimation for interpretation of Lott's remarks. Strom Thurmond and his segregationist views were quite clear and distinct. Thurmond wasn't a presidential candidate who just "happened" to support some Jim Crow policies, it was the LEADING platform of his campaign. Let's be clear. You can't separate Thurmond from that fact.
"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either. "
So the intimation is that if the segregationist won, (his primary platform)…"we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." There is nothing to misunderstand or misconstrue. The ONLY problem that has transcended generations and presidencies is/was race. Not economics, not war, nothing. There is nothing to misconstrue.
That said, it is an endorsement of segregation from an elected official. That's very different than a highly inappropriate remark along racial lines from a member of the media which happens daily (i.e. Limbaugh). A senator is an elected official who answers to a constituency. Mississippi is pretty Black. Was then and is now. Rather has no such constituency. Rather does not impact public policy or create legislation. Dan Rather "the racist" doesn't have a vote in the healthcare debate for instance. Dan Rather "the racist" will not be sitting on the Ways and Means or Armed Services committee. Big difference. You bet if my senator or local elected official makes the Rather remark, my response is going to be quite different than if Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann makes the same remark for those same reasons.
Jack, it suggests that we suspected Lott of lying to us and telling the truth to his original audience.
And what am I wrong about? Go back to Gates/Crowley for sustained examples of my insistence that the bias of the person who is screaming "Injustice!" is a vital piece of information when trying to unravel what "really happened", and I have never backed down from my assertion that Gates became unhinged not by what Crowley did, but by how the experience "felt" to him based on his own biases. I'm certain of it.
Isn't that what you're saying? I've been saying it for a long time.
Keith Olbermann is a fat stupid idiot.
And by the way, Keith, I would suggest that one primary reason that black folk aren't rushing to join the tea party movement is that "less government" is usually code for "dismantle social programs", which of course are there in the first place to right historical wrongs and to promote equal access to opportunity.
Somewhat opposed agendas.
And Walt, you make my point…there's plenty of offensive stuff out there, but members of the media are critiqued differently than elected officials and with good reason.
Morris,
Yes. All I have to do is turn that fat, stupid idiot off.
Which I did.
Mo, I don't disagree with your perspective as ONE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION of Lott's comment. But that's an interpretation based on your own set of biases. To me, Lott could have simply been saying, "If Strom had been elected President, none of the problems America has had since would have happened."
Interesting.
Walt, I completely agreed with your assessment of the Gates incident.
And what in the world in terms of "problems" could Lott have been referring? Please explain this. Give me another reasonable explanation as to what "problems" he could possibly have been referencing?
Morris,
This may be a stretch and it certainly would indicate enormous ignorance on Lott's part, but perhaps he meant that segregation was good for everybody?
I know it's a stretch and I know it's ignorant and dangerously wrong.
Exactly Walt…exactly. Yes, I agree…an ENORMOUS stretch.
The comments tell the tale.
More Black people are offended over what White people said about them than they are over the trifling actions of their own folk.
So what to do about the Cromarties and the Lil Waynes of the world? How you expect to get White folk to stop buying into stereotypes when fools like these willingly (and unknowingly) sell them for 2 pieces and a biscuit?