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.
kirk is a racist and is just one cog in the machine that keeps its boot firmly on America’s neck and promotes and encourages keeping the black community firmly held in rat party enslavement... he is part of the problem and for that reason Rush is correct... as he is 98.7% of the time... verified.
LLS
In a society that treats racism (This is such an undefined and ambiguous word as to have no real meaning), correctly ( Indeed the whole idea particularly when levied against whites has been worse than being a murderer or child molester- something is really wrong with this whole Orwellian concept), as a grave offense, it shouldn’t really matter. But apparently it does.(Of course it does because it has NEVER been about fairness but about destroying the West)
Wasn’t there some AA FL politician, pulled over by a policeman, who repeatedly called the white officer, ‘boy’ for no reason other than he could?
They are bulletproof and they know it.
They are devolving to using tactics used in their motherland, the ones that has seen entire villages decimated through neanderthal behaviors.
I have talked to black clients who hate and resent the ghetto mentality and white clients that embrace it, you can’t tell anything today from generalizations
The double standard. This has been obvious for a long time. There is no doubt over it. If you’re White, Christian, male, normalsexual, and conservative you have no recourse. Everything and anything you say or don’t say or do or don’t do is racist/sexist/homophobe/headchopperphobe/ and you can’t plead innocence.
Um....huh?
I’m not really offended by “white boy”. I know it’s meant to imply we don’t know what it’s like and have certain mentality, but I’m still not offended.
But then, I don’t have really thin skin, as apparently dark skin does.
Of course a black man knows how to fix the problem. It worked so well in Detroit. And Zimbabwe is a paradise after removing the elitist honkys from power.
Agree. I don’t know why this should be such a grave offense, especially when you gain your attitudes by life experiences.
I don’t like pit bulls. I am a breedist. But I gained it on my own experiences. So I guess I’m evil.
Hey Bobby - Why is the South Side so f’ed up compared to Highland Park, IL?
Kirk is the Republican in this scenario. You did know that, right?
Okay, Mr. Rush, I guess that would mean you do know something about it so what is your solution?
And if you have the solution, why haven't you implemented it?
After all, Chicago hasn't exactly been under the governing thumb of white boys like Mark Kirk these past few decades has it?
without knowing whether the epithet came from the white politician or the black politician.
Or without knowing the parties of each politician.
I have a friend I worked with. As a teen back in the early 1960s he was stopped by Chicago cops for some infraction.
He mouthed off, so they took him way out into the country, and back in a corn field they beat the coon dog s#!t out of him and left him there! He learned his lesson.
But then, he was white. So were the cops.
It is a simple fact that locking up all unemployed black males from the ages of 18-45 would drop the crime rate precipitously. It would also be unconstitutional. And unworkable. But facts are facts...young black males commit the overwhelming majority of violent and non-violent crimes in any metro area where they reside. Calling someone a racist for pointing out the ugly and unfortunate truth does not change the facts.
I think he meant to say Rush.
Some entrepreneur could make a fortune overnight, creating a simple electronic device, of a small box with a red button on it and a speaker on its side.
Inside it is a timer. The first time you push the button, it says a word. If you push the button again within a few seconds, it says the word louder, if you keep pushing it, it says the word louder and louder until it screams the word.
It says the “n” word.
On the surface it is in bad taste. But then think of the context for its use. Who is pushing that button. Is the person white or black? Young or old? Why are they pushing that button?
As a “pet rock” novelty, you have to wonder how many would be sold.
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.