Posted on 06/02/2013 6:20:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
Today we start with a quiz. Two politicians, one black and one white, have a disagreement on an issue. One airs an opinion, and the other responds with a racial insult. What will happen next?
A) The politician who used the racial insult will be roundly and widely denounced and forced to resign from office.
B) Nothing.
The answer is: It depends. It's impossible to determine the correct answer without knowing whether the epithet came from the white politician or the black politician. In a society that treats racism, correctly, as a grave offense, it shouldn't really matter. But apparently it does.
If you don't believe me, consider the case of Illinois' U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, a black Democrat, and Sen. Mark Kirk, a white Republican. Kirk has been urging law enforcement agencies to destroy Chicago's biggest gang by arresting its members -- all 18,000 of them.
It's easy to spot possible flaws in this proposal. There is no jail in Chicago big enough to hold all those arrestees. There are not enough police in the city to carry out such a massive detention. There is no reliable membership list to make sure that only the guilty get picked up.
It would cost a lot of money -- Kirk wants the federal government to provide $30 million for the task. It would divert cops from just about everything else they normally do.
Some of these defects obviously occurred to Rush, who found no merit in the idea. "It's a sensational, headline-grabbing, empty, simplistic, unworkable approach," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. All fair points, made in perfectly acceptable language.
But Rush wasn't content to stop there. Kirk's proposal, he declared, is "an upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about."
After reconsidering, Rush issued a more temperate statement, expressing his sincere regret that Kirk's "current plan does not include the option to create jobs, provide affordable and safe housing, quality health care and improve schools in urban areas." But on the topic of the senator's pale complexion, Rush saw no need to amend or retract his words or apologize for them. (His spokesperson did not return my calls asking for comment.)
Nor did the Sun-Times treat the comment as scandalous. Kirk's spokesman ignored it in a mild statement, saying, "The senator will continue to work with Sen. Durbin, Mayor Emanuel, law enforcement and the entire congressional delegation to keep Illinois families safe."
But consider how things would have gone if it had been Kirk instead of Rush who made an insulting racial comment -- not even the N word, but something less offensive.
I won't attempt to come up with a hypothetical equivalent, since ethnic slurs are really not my strong suit. But it's fair to assume that if Kirk had used any sort of pejorative racial term to refer to Rush, he would have soon been renouncing it in a desperate attempt to save his political career.
It's true that Kirk grew up in comfortable circumstances, attended outstanding institutions of higher education and lives in a serene suburb where African-Americans are thin on the ground. So calling him a highborn dilettante unversed in urban problems is not outrageous, though it is irrelevant.
After all, I would guess that on the West Side of Chicago, there are black residents who wouldn't mind seeing thousands of gang members locked up. It would not be surprising to hear sentiments similar to Kirk's coming from black conservative political figures -- such as Herman Cain, a tea party favorite, or Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who has a near-perfect rating from the American Conservative Union. Rush didn't question Kirk's expertise when he voted to expand background checks for gun purchases, which Rush also supports.
For Rush to now dismiss Kirk because of his background is no more legitimate than it would be for Kirk to remind everyone that Rush was a leader of the violent Black Panthers and spent time behind bars on a weapons charge. Neither approach addresses the real problems of crime in Chicago.
The congressman has every right to decry the substantive shortcomings of Kirk's proposal. But those shortcomings would exist regardless of who made it. What he has no business doing -- what no one has any business doing -- is using patronizing language that disparages an entire race.
Rush wouldn't quietly endure insults like that directed at him. They are no more tolerable coming from him.
Sorry, but I disagree with you. I find the comment by Rush calling Senator Mark Kirk a white boy elitist very racist. You see it works both ways and both ways are wrong
Yeah just imagine...... That’s all I am going to say
The reason is simple: Whites, by and large, want racism in any and all forms to disappear from our National discourse, while Blacks want to feed the smouldering embers of that otherwise dying fire and fan it again into a raging conflagration, to justify their self-serving, denial-strewn desire for unrealistic things like "reparations" (giving taxpayers' money to Blacks because there once were Black slaves) and "a redsitribution of America's wealth" (taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who either can't or won't earn it).
The problem with this short and short-sighted wish list is that there is no probative justification for either. America gives all her citizens the same opportunities (except in the case of "Affirmative Action," which has tilted the scales of Social Justice in patently unfair favor of Blacks for several decades now, and has done so with no objectively observed positive result—we still have a miasma of racist Blacks whining and snivelling for ever more handouts from a society which has bent over backwards to accommodate their petulantly adolescent beggary and extortions.
The day is quickly coming when these ruptured discontents will crush themselves into oblivion under the unsustainable mass of their pecuniary intolerance and abusive demands.
America will (and has... for decades!) extend a helping hand to those who need assitance getting back up from a fall, but she will not be raped and robbed and sit still for it. The American Black can either crap or get off the pot on this one.
The free ride is over, and the racism being spewed by these amoral slobs is precisely the evil that they pretend to rail against. Enough is enough. Get a life, you bigots.
Or, better still, a job. If, that is, you can find one in Obama's New and Improved [sic] economy.
;-\
This is a common event in Obamastan. DOJ says that it may be a crime to insult a muslim. So, what is it when a muslim says KILL ALL NON BELIEVERS, JEWS ARE DESCENDED FROM PIGS, CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE? What about all of the Christians that are being murdered for their faith? What about all the Christian churches that are being burned? Jesus said DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. I think it’s about time we did to them what they do to us.
What did England do?
Deportation!
They claim africa as their continent of heritage. If they can't follow the laws and customs of America, they should be sent home.
The term “boy” can be used to insult someone if it is preceded by “white” but terming Barack Obama, someone few have wanted to say “no” to a “boy king” with little maturity is “racist”.
Orwellian/Stalinist is what it is.
Maybe I should call Barack a “white boy” king since half of his parentage (and much of his upbringing) was white.
A friendly greeting.
It's as friendly as they get coming from them.
That's not entirely true. It also depends on the political party. As we have seen with Senator Byrd, using a racial slur has no negative consequences whatsoever as long as you are a white DemocRat.
White men are routinely called the offensive term “white boy” by blacks with impunity, but just see what happens when a white man calls a black man “boy.” All hell breaks loose.
Kirk is the Republican in this scenario. You did know that, right?
...actually, I believe he thinks the Rush in the article is Limbaugh...
I can’t argue with you. Good point.
LLS
No... I misread it and now have egg on my face. Excuse me while I find a bar of soap.
;-)
Read my post above this one. I went Evelyn Woodhead while reading this article. Pardon me whilst I lick my wounds! ;-)
I think if Kirk used the second of the two words Rush used to describe him, he would have been run out of the Senate on a rail.
Heh. I see what you did there....
And I thought you were being witty.
Love that song. Brings back great memories of working at the theater, beyond its era.
Bobby Rush is right 98.7% of the time? Are you sober?
The fundamental irony here is that ex-Black Panther (Black Panthers used to recognize the 2nd Amendment as a basic human right kept from them by the KKK) Bobby Rush is now working to keep guns out of the hands of Chicago blacks. Such are the things of politics, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.