Is the Romney/Ryan campaign trying to "niggerize" Obama?
 

A black reporter on MSNBC used the word "Niggerize" to describe the incessant characterization of the President as "angry & divisive." This brought the expected howls of outrage from the right. The reporter gave a qualified apology in response to the Romney/Ryan ticket's demand for a retraction and an apology. He regreted the choice of the word niggerize but not for his contention that the Romney campaign is using coded race hate speech.
I agree with this contention in case you were wondering. The use of the descriptive angry plays into that common narrative that blacks are angry and to be feared. Flame away.

Meh. If the right is trying to do it then the message hasn't hit the mainstream. I certainly have never detected Romney playing a race card. I think he is above that with his Michigan roots.

It might be that political drum beaters on the right are trying to play a crazy nigger song but even if they are it will only be good music to the radical right. The Republican party already has their vote so no gain there.

The black reporter might have lost swing voters by appearing paranoid.

I think it was more that reporter's own sensitivity to racial issues (or the desire to make a splash) than it was Romney playing the angry, uppity Negro card. That said, it's a bit humorous/ironic to watch the GOP candidate decry gutter politics.

Would you think his religious roots would trump his geographic roots?

I wrote about six replies and realized that I don't understand the question. Please clarify.

Mormons believed that blacks of African decent were cursed by God and given black skin so whites would know who not to "mix" with. Some say that early Mormons believe black were black and cursed because they are the products of white men having intercourse with animals.

It's also well documented that the church would not let black men in the priesthood right up until '78. I better add to this that for a Mormon man the priesthood is everything. It is nothing akin to what one who is not familiar with Mormonism would think of when they hear the word "priesthood". It has nothing to do with leading the services like one would envision a catholic priest doing. Mormon males start into the priesthood at the age of 12. There are several levels of priesthood. As you get older and are active and paying your tithe you get more and more secrets of the priesthood.........

Having not seen the interview or remember hearing anything from the 2RR's I would place a race label on. But can't say that about their supporters though.



Barney

My exposure to Mormon thought is limited to Heather Armstrong's blog at Dooce.com. Given that, I believe that being raised in the Mormon faith does not equate to liking it or buying into all of the tenets.

With Romney's experience in governance I also believe that he has been exposed to different angles of the intersection of faith and lawmaking and has learned to round off most hard edges that might exist in Mormon extremes. A simple reading of Martin Luther King, Jr's letter from a Birmingham jail would be enough to do most of the heavy grinding. I would like to think he has read it.

It would be interesting to ask whether he has read the letter and his take on its wisdom.

Here is the letter for curious readers:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles...irmingham.html

Mitt and Ryan have been contending and complaining all this week about how Obama is being "angry, hateful, divisive and a robber" in their every speech. Mitt even called for the President to take it back to Chicago.WTF?

The "angry black man" epithet is commonly used as a dismissive and/or crass attempt at marginalization. Blacks see it as coded hate speech or as this reporter succinctly put it, "niggerization."

I don't see the "angry" label being applicable to the President at all, so what else is left? It isn't my imagination running away with me.;)

Rex is making a good point about Mitt being a Mormon, it doesn't sit well at all with the right wing evangelical base of the Republican Party and a black man in the White House also does not sit well with that faction. I believe Mitt is very worried that the evangelicals are going to sit this one out and is pandering to their baser instincts.

Maybe it's all of those angry Dixiecrats that joined the Repubs after LBJ signed the Equal Rights act?

I'm sure he has considering he watched his father march hand in hand with M.L.K. :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm one of them "jack-Mormons" you speak of ;)

jack-Mor-whu? :confused:

Someone raised in the church but no longer pracrticing

I'll just keep it to the gold encrusted churches with "saints" buried in the basement from now on ;)

:D

Hey Rex, Do ya think Romney's will strip out the oval office of all the offending carpet and furniture if he's elected?:D BTW It was I who made the joke way back about jack mormons infesting California back in them thar gold rush days...;) No offense.

I'll have to dig up some evidence but even Alan Keyes -- whom I have long admired as an orator -- played this card against Obama when they were running against each other...

Romney has really not done anything racially divisive from what I have seen....although when someone made an idiotic comment about trying Obama for treason he did not stand up to that person like McCain did in a similar sort of incident in 2008. The ones that hate Obama on the far right (the birther crowd) are not going to vote for him anyway so I sure Romney knows better than to stir up that nest. Although I cannot fathom why he chose Ryan over Rubio, a much better choice. Romney has not expanded his reach to moderates or minorities at all....America is only 62% white now, and a large part of that group is either Democrat or independent. Boring white guys may be a thing of the past.

I got this story from the The Young Turks on CurrentTV today. Normally I would never use or repeat the 'N' word but in this case the MSNBC reporter who is black did characterize Romney and Ryan as trying to "niggerize" President Obama this week by their use of the terms, "angry, hateful and divisive". Mitt also suggested that the President "take it back to Chicago." Whatever that means? A professor from Brown University concurred with these allegations that this is coded hate speech. They do have a point in my opinion. Obama is angry or hateful? That is pure bullshit from where I sit. The man has bent over backwards to avoid giving credence to such crazy talk. It does smack of racism and it's straight from the horses mouth. (Romney and Paul). I am not branding all Republicans as racist. There are some in the Democratic party too. Maybe these idjits will tone down their rhetoric after this and keep on the topic of policy instead of fanning the flames of the racist element in American society. One can only hope.

I don't like that word, and I'm sorry I opened this thread.:(

It's a tough word, but it's part of the game that the big boys play when trying to persuade voters.

The theory of "black rage" came about as a novel legal theory for a subset of insanity defense. It goes back to 1993 when a black man shot several people on a train.

Republican strategists might have been reminded of that theory with the recent rash of shootings and trying to goad Obama, or any black dem, to lose their cool by subtly reminding them of the incident.

Some blacks in the jurisprudence community advocated against black rage theory on the grounds that it wouldn't work and instead hurt the image of blacks. Their theory is couched in the concern that if defense counsel uses the phrase black rage all the jurors will hear is crazy nigger. It's a valid concern.

Here is more on the shooting, the novel defense, and concerns.
http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/v...ebate-53517793

Here's the wiki entry on the shooting. Interesting read. I remember the shooting but it was before I attended law school and didn't understand the legal theory of insanity defense. I thought the defense lawyers were just trying to get their client off the hook.

After reading the background in wiki I can see where the black rage defense might have had merit. The shooter immigrated to America when he was a little older and after losing both his parents. Apparently he was appalled with the degree of racism in the states and cracked.

Sad story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_F...ss_murderer%29

Try reading, dispassionately, what I posted Jay. You'll find I don't and never have used the "N" word. It's about a black reporter using it as an apt, albeit controversial descriptive term about your two favorite candidates attempts to marginalize a sitting president by labeling him as angry, hateful and divisive. I've already said all of this so I have to assume that you only read the title and responded. No worrys, man. I'll expand on the subject further.

A lot of Americans believe that racism is a dead issue and that the country has moved on to a utopian colorblind society. Nothing could be farther from the truth in my opinion and observations. It's strange how some folk look at my blue/gray eyes, shortish blond/gray hair and lily white skin and assume that I might share their bigoted ideas. Shit Jay, I could be a poster child for the Aryan Brotherhood. It has become much less frequent I must say but it still happens even out here in the promised land of liberalism-California. It doesn't even take any prompting to see casual bigotry raise it's ugly visage. Sad but true and probably even more prevalent in rural America than here on the so-called left coast.

The previously mentioned professor from Brown University said that one side benefit of this latest kerfuffle is that we as a country might discuss racism more openly and raise social awareness about the casualness of white racism in contemporary society. It's pretty common for whites to wonder openly why black men and women appear so angry but try to imagine how it feels for blacks and others who are different from the standard WASP image when they are treated so differently by cops and employers.

America has made strides forward but we need to be much more sensitive in our daily lives and interactions with each other.
You may think that Romney and Ryan's repeated assertions this past week that the President is "angry" are nothing worth raising a eyebrow about but to blacks in particular these words are just standard code to put them down.

Some have said that Romney already has the WASP vote so why would he do it. I think that it's a little more complicated than that. This is a very close race and neither side can afford to have any of their supporters stay away from the voting booth in November. So the way I see it is he's trying to solidify his support and guarantee voter turn out by lowering himself into this pandering to the small white supremacist block of voters in the republican base.

Romney isn't the most palatable candidate to his base due to his brand of Christianity. It may not bother you but there are a lot of people in the Republican base who have odd ideas about Mormons, unjustifiably so. Which is another difference that society would do well to get over and grow up about.

The purpose of this thread is to examine casual racism, not to increase divisiveness and/or brand anyone as a racist. Thanks for your indulgence, my friend.

Regardless of skin color, Obama is a leftist so************************t pig, anyway ya look at it.
If he gets re-elected, this nation will become the European States of Former America. Y'all will need to bend over and kiss your free ass goodbye


Sent from Meowy

No matter his skin color, Obama has governed like that extinct creature, the moderate Republican.

Regards,

D-Ray

Fixed it for ya

Have you ever been to Europe? This crap gets old very fast, especially as I have lectured in the Netherlands, Denmark, and England - we should be so free. Instead of having to kiss the ass of some pig of a CEO.:rolleyes:

Compared to the people in the countries I mentioned Americans are overworked and underpaid.

Now there's an intelligent opinion, did you come up with that on your own or do you just get it from listening to Rush Limbaugh?

With all due respect (none;)), you're an impressionable doofus.

Remember the story about him eating dog? Well, it was really cat and he said it was delicious.

John

Agreed! Does our kitty friend even work?

I understand, that word just hits a nerve with me (some childhood shit that I never dealt with).;) Strange, but my black friends use it way more than my white friends. My standard greeting to my black buds is; "What's up my tanned brother". So far that hasn't offended any of them. I just think that if we keep race in the news all the time, we are never going to be equal. Equal means equal, black, white, yellow, or brown. Programs like affirmative action (though well intended) breed even more hate.

I believe that the only way to deal with something that is so corrrosive and deep seated is to drag it out into the light of day and examine it. That way seems to be the only way to really get this ugly shit behind us and to move on to that colorblind utopia we all deserve to live in. What can I say Jay, I'm one of those mushy headed sentimental idealists. The pragmaticist in me would settle for at least some dialogue. Afirmative action isn't the bugaboo it's made out to be.

Only among whites.

I don't believe there is a "colorblind utopia" waiting out there for us. Society will always have a percentage of those who hate others of color, those who bend over backward to show they don't hate those of color, and those who are indifferent, regardless of color.

On a more practical front the truth might be that people, on average, simply like to hang around with similar people. That is the position of some paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanon. While they get tagged as racists their position comes from a more solid ground, namely that government forcing of people to interact is doomed to fail. An easy way to relate to the position is thinking of assigned seating at a wedding. While people tolerate each other during dinner the groups tend to rearrange as the night goes on. People simply clump with others that they relate to. There is nothing wrong with that.

IMO where the paleoconservative movement falls short is self-policing. If it actually holds the moral high ground that it claims then it should do a better job of cleansing itself of racism.

It can only come from within and only be spread by example.

If you're talking about busing I have to disagree. The practice isn't coercion in itself, it affords children both black and white the opportunity to see each other as human beings and to form friendships they otherwise would miss out on. Nobody forces friendship on anyone. I don't know of any government coercion that requires anyone to live with anyone else.

I was typing up the same thing in regards to the workplace but you summed it up well.

Thanks Rex. If you had seen the first ,second and third rough drafts we would have to be wearing nomex here.;)

Understood.

Please consider that there are other ways to nudge people into mixing than the federal or state government forcing them together.

For example I think musicians and music venues have done more lasting good than federal legislative mandates. Same with artists such as poets and actors. While those people are not paid politicians they have palpable effects on our body politic. Look at Ted Nugent on the right for an example from the other side (for the record he loves black musicians and credits them for helping him get his greasy rock and roll middle fingers. Detroiters know that but it is a story he apparently doesn't tell down south for whatever reason. Still note that he doesn't attack blacks. He attacks slothfulness and the Detroit UAW used to be plagued with that.)

A different way to get people together is through laws that require us to ignore skin color in business and employment dealings. Those laws are free while nudging people to work together. The weak points in those laws come from both sides. On the white side are people that come up with ways to perpetually put black business to the bottom of the pile. On the black side are people that milk the system with frivolous lawsuits. Again, while government can be a tolerable crutch with citizens that are well behaved it is not an ultimate solution. An ultimate solution must come from within our hearts.

For the record I grew up as an Army brat. Of course the Army was highly integrated and when I grew up I was color blind. All of us kids, black, white, asian, did not see color. What we saw was good and bad such as who cheated at marbles. I wish every kid could have that kind of experience but it simply isn't practical. Us taxpayers can't afford to stick every budding American family onto an American island in a foreign land for the simple sake that their kids learn to play together. Neither would every budding American family want to go.

I think it was you that posted the answer has to come from within. I agree with that. The problem is taking action. The people that take action tend to get shot at or beheaded and that can be scary. When I was single I did volunteer work in the worst part of Detroit -- a part that is so bad even blacks are stunned when I tell them where I worked. But I admit it was scary and don't do it now that I am married with a child. It's not worth it. The problem is bigger than me but I feel OK that I did my part which is more than most. If everyone did a little our society could kick racism to the curb in one generation. I am confident of that. The problem is that everyone likes different music an no one, not the churches, not the politicians, not the audience can agree on one thing on the the same day.

We grow too soon old and too late smart.

You should talk to some of my black conservative friends and get their take.