 |
| From l-r: Grace Colbert, Whitney Avalon, and Charles Malik Whitfield |
Most of the reactions to the commercial have been positive, with people echoing thoughts similar to mine. However, the ad has predictably brought out the bigotry in some people. According to an article on the website Adweek, the comments section of the You Tube clip posted by Cheerios was littered with references to Nazis (wtf?!) and racial genocide (again, wtf?!). The backlash has caused Cheerios to disable the comments on the clip. On Cheerios' Facebook page, commenters stated they found the ad "disgusting" and that it made them "want to vomit". Although Cheerios has closed the comments section on the clip they posted, you can still "like" or "dislike" it. If a count of "likes" and "dislikes" is any indication, love is trouncing hate. As of this writing, the You Tube clip posted by Cheerios had 19,302 likes as opposed to only 1,323 dislikes.
The Cheerios' ad is the latest in a developing trend in which interracial relationships are being portrayed in advertising. Although the Cheerios' spot is obviously not the first U.S. commercial to feature an interracial couple, it's the first one I can recall which features a black-white interracial couple AND their child. In addition to the links below which feature interracial couples in commercials, I've also noticed in-store ads at my local Target which reflect this change in society.
Apple iPhone
Bank of America ad touting cash back deals
Philadelphia Cream Cheese
The Cheerios commercial and others like it are reflecting the growing trend of interracial marriages in the U.S. With the rise in interracial marriages, it makes sense for companies to create ads which represent this expanding demographic. Sorry bigots, get used to it!
There was a time when seeing minorities on TV was practically an event. I've heard stories of how black people would alert their neighbors/relatives and huddle around the TV when someone like the Supremes would appear on The Ed Sullivan Show. Now, it's not a huge deal. I look forward to the day when interracial couples in advertising becomes just as commonplace.
63 comments:
Comments via Facebook:
Dave: The only part I find offensive is that they say Cheerios are good for your heart. Other than that...great commercial.
Brian: This shouldn't be an issue in 2013...
Jen: It's a totally sweet commercial.
Jessica: I have an issue with Cheerios, but like that they are running this ad. Sad that it got any negative feedback, what year are we living in?!
More comments via Facebook:
Andrea: Ridiculous that there'd be any negative feedback - we're in the 21st century, for goodness' sake! I see so many families that look like this, including our next-door neighbors, who have only enhanced our lives.
Dave: Kind of amazing considering that interracial couples have been on TV since Lucy and Desi...or if that's not quite diverse enough for you, Tom and Helen on the Jeffersons.
Angie: Thanks Malc! Great post! I will never understand why people have a problem with how other people, who they don't know, live their lives. We get even more looks when the four of us are out in public now, and I worry about kids teasing Isaac and Sam in the future. But, our families and friends who love us know that we belong together and that's all that matters. I'm not really into politics, but I found it interesting within the past year how congress (aka mostly republicans) were so against gay marriage and the right to work law passing. For the majority of these people, neither of these issues probably affected them, yet they had such strong opinions about them.
I was blasted by Liberals for my comments on the commercial! Verbally attacked, called a bigot because I said the commercial looked amateurish...I love a well written and acted commercial, especially one that makes me laugh, this one did nothing for me and it had NOTHING to do with the bi racial family. People can go way overboard to be politically correct!!
I had to come back. Wow. I think this is the same "race-bait first, ask questions later... if at all" Anon from Leticia's which makes the unfounded accusations against you. I am in agreement with the intelligent posters and commenters here. Not the refugee from Romper Room.
Sue: I recall reading your FB critique of the commercial and liberal's responses to it. Although my opinion of the commercial's quality differs from yours, your critique had nothing to do with the racial makeup of the actors. The people who slammed you were out of line.
dmarks: I thought you might be back. You could be right about the identity of "Anon".
Anon: What took you so long. Don't worry about the number of people who comment here. As long as there are anonymous ass clowns like you, I'll be just fine.
"...Bonfon..."
I've misspelled your name a few times by mistake, and abbreviated your first name in a way you found offensive, but I can't recall ever using this one.
Mal-Come?
Oh what wit arises from someone who lives in his mom's basement! You had me in stitches, Anon. I bet it took you at least two weeks to come up with "Mal-Come" Either that or you remembered it from 5th grade playground taunts. Which from the level of your usual comments, might have been last year for you. Or the last 4 years.
Either way, well done! I look forward to sometime in July when you will have figured out how to effectively quell any of Malcolm's arguments by using an incredibly clever insulting variation of his last name. You are the debate champ, no doubt about it!
ok... I found your challenge on Maddow buried in the trollfest that Leticia's blog has sometimes become (yeah, William Stout can't take criticism, can he?). I quickly found 10 examples of Rachel Maddow lies in my search.
It is not quite fair for you to use Glenn Beck in counter-examples: Fox News sacked him. Just like I won't hold Olbermann against MSNBC... they fired him when he went nuts.
dmarks: Since you found examples of Rachel's so-called lies, please put them into post form, email them to me and I will get them up on my blog ASAP.
"It is not quite fair for you to use Glenn Beck in counter-examples: Fox News sacked him."
Although I hadn't planned on bringing him up as a rebuttal to your Maddow post, I will if the situation calls for it. Although he is no longer on the network, what he said as a Fox host doesn't just vanish. The same goes for if you wanted to write a post about the history of liberal bias at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann would be fair game.
"Just like I won't hold Olbermann against MSNBC... they fired him when he went nuts."
Your comments about why Olbermann and MSNBC parted ways is pure speculation. To the best of my knowledge, neither side has made public the reasons for his departure.
As for Leticia's blog, I totally agree. Her recent post about the Obama family trip is a prime example. Although I haven't commented on the post, my name has been derided numerous times in the comments section. I have a feeling it's the same person using different aliases. I'll never be able to prove it though because the person would never have the guts to admit it (assuming it's true).
By the way, I enjoyed your response to Anon. Well done.
I could do it (even if I could find your email address, which is lost thanks to Google's execrable forcing "Google Plus" into everything.
But does either of us have any doubt that it will be like the card game of war, with us disagreeing on every single point, back and forth, tit for tat?
Far more telling about the alikeness of Fox and MSNBC (one someone steps back and look at it from the center, and away from an "in the trenches" partisan point of view) is the Pew trust which I linked to elsewhere.
This link portrays MSNBC in a particularly bad light in this regard.
But this is the one that shows that both MSNBC and Fox are completely in bed for their respective parties, way beyond anyone else.
"The study also reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations."
I used to defend Fox News as something special. Hanging around much more objective sites and sources cured me of that. That is how I came to accept the fact that what Fox News does is little better, if at all, than what MSNBC does. Even accepting that they are just alike, I respect the right of diversity of opinion in the media, and would never ask anyone to turn away from either.
If you want a bumper sticker more in line with reality, get one that says "MSNBC and Fox: Bringing you the party line".
dmarks: For future reference, you can find my email address at the top of my blog. You may be right about how things will turn out if you do a guest post so if you want to call it off, I understand.
I did notice an increase in opinion with MSNBC's programming lineup over the past year. However, when I was watching these shows regularly, what I saw was opinions based on facts. Also, some of the Fox programs labeled as "straight news" have their fair share of opinion-based reporting too.
When it comes to party cheerleading, there are some similarities between MSNBC and Fox. I was particularly disappointed when David Axelrod (former advisor to President Obama) was hired by MSNBC. To be fair, I haven't seen enough of his work to judge how he's doing. I've already discussed in detail how Fox and MSNBC differ so there's no point repeating myself.
Although I am wary of the media as a whole (including MSNBC), I still feel that Fox is worse. Because Fox probably won't change its style, it's not likely I will change my opinion of them.
By the way, I'll stick with my bumper sticker thank you very much. :-)
The Pew Trusts have also discussed how Fox and MSNBC differ, Malcolm, and it is a merely matter of degree. And according to them, MSNBC is worse (but that is not part of my argument; which is that they are alike).
Which one gets bashed on a bumper sticker depends on your political/party leanings. Speaking of bashing, just be careful if William Stout ever pulls up behind you. As he is proud to settle discussions with violence, he might ram you. Then there will be two over-inflated bags of air in his front seat instead of the usual one behind the wheel.
Crazy Ass Cracker
If this BIMBO is the best thing the state has then they are TOAST!!!!!
Malcolm: I still can't find any email for you. Wanted to bring to your attention the following disgusting blog post:
http://912member.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-politically-correct-firing-of-paula.html?showComment=1372545083586&m=1
With conservatives circling the wagons supporting Paula Deen and liberals supporting AA policies, there is not much place for someone who opposes all racism... all of it... to go.
Radical Redneck: Huh???!!!
dmarks: Wow, you and William Stout really don't like each other do you?! :-) I was reading the thread on Leticia's blog where you two had a dust up.
"I still can't find any email for you."
That's my fault. My email address is only visible to me when I'm logged in to my blog. At any rate, it's ultfan@gmail.com.
I knew I recognized the blog address in the URL you included. It turns out that it's the blog of Just Another Conservative Girl. I haven't commented there in a couple of years. She got mad and told me she'd never respond to my comments again because of a blog post in which I gently poked fun at Teresa:
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2010/11/conservatives-post-funniest-things.html
I responded by calling her a hypocrite because on a weekly basis she used to lampoon people on the left. Not that I minded the lampooning; just calling out her hypocrisy for overreacting when she did the same thing.
I may comment on her post and see if she's willing to let bygones be bygones.
Malcolm: Anyone who threatens to resort to violence because he is losing an argument is the lowest of the low... Stout is the only person in my memory who is psychotic enough to be so unhinged as to go that far.
Also, as for the N-word and Paula Deen, I don't let the nasty hate-rapper Common off the hook for bashing black people with it either. While Obama's scandal of honoring this man is not a scandal on a league with Iran-Contra, the S&L debacle, or Benghazi, it is not too far off to call it one.
I've never used this word, ever. Except in typing like this, where I am quoting and criticizing others for using it, and in this case I almost always avoid actually typing it.
If I ever started to call black people this word because I was mad at life (like Deen) or in order to get tons of money from white rap fans who think it is cool to get away with using this word, it would be fair to say I have no character at all.
dmarks: Although I don't approve of what Stout said, I wouldn't go so far to call him psychotic or unhinged.
Also, if you'd like to comment on the so-called "nasty hate rapper" Common, you can do so here:
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2011/05/fox-news-once-again-exhibits-common.html
Perhaps that is too much... to say. Just someone who wants to use his fists, too much...
I didn't even notice that the couple was mixed race until the controversy erupted (the mom and dad never share any screen time). I think it's pretty disturbing that people would object.
BTW, dmarks, Keith Olbermann didn't go nuts, MSNBC president Phil Griffin went nuts. First he says "Keith Olbermann is at the core of MSNBC's current success", then he says they are "at war".
Common used the N-word to bash Black people? This is something I don't believe. I looked around Google and only found this. I found nothing at all that concerned "bashing", which would be extremely odd, seeing as Common is African-American.
Also, the "mom's basement" slander (when you have absolutely no way of knowing) is lame. At first I thought you were talking about me, which was weird because I hadn't commented.
Is it OK, to defend a Fat Stupid Lying Disrespectful Wise Ass Idiot, who can't even read or write and who calls whites " Crazy Ass Crackers" and justifies it by saying it’s part of her culture. But just goes ahead and ruins the life of a women who has been around for 40 years and used a racial slur 30 years ago.
" Crazy Ass Crackers" and justifies it by saying it’s part of her culture. I think this whole thing has been an witch hunt from day one.... The media has been in a lather to hang someone ever since Obama came into office. Racism not only still exists but it has increased...and when the American public wouldn't jump on the Obama band wagon to satisfy him, and they made Paula Deen their next, target.
Did you people actually believe that Obama sleep through EVERY Racist Sermon that The Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave?
Mr. Bacon, your version of the events you speak of don't comport with the truth (as I see it, at least). Rachel Jeantel said she couldn't read cursive. There is nothing to suggest she can't read or write AT ALL. I read she speaks 3 languages. Sounds to me like she must be pretty smart. Also, the word "cracker" is a word used by an oppressed people to describe their oppressors, while the N-word is one used by oppressors to denigrate those they are oppressing. BIG difference.
As for Paula Deen, it is her history of allowing racist comments by employees in her place of business (why she's being sued), and not her use of the N-word 30 years ago that people are objecting to (the reasonable ones, at least).
I'm not aware of any racist sermons from Jeremiah Wright. You'll have to give some specific examples to back up your claim Darth, otherwise I say there were no racist sermons for Barack Obama to have slept through.
God give me strength
Cracker is a word racists used to describe those they hate, just as the N word is. It has nothing to do with oppression, and everything to do with being a small-minded evil person. That Common bashes people using any such words only shows he is stupid, not that he isn't racist.
The truth has nothing to do with certain grudge wars people try to cook up. While WD is completely wrong about Common, he is completely correct about Paula Deen.
Thank you dmarks, these people make up their own definitions to suit themselves
Darth: And does this mean you agree with me about Southern cooKKKing expert Paula Deen?
I am not a racist, and don't treat anyone of any race different from any other. Therefore, I am fine telling anyone of any race not to use vicious hateful racist words. As I am not a racist, I don't give members of any race a free pass. Thus, I will criticize black racists as well as white: their skin color does not matter to me.
" like his belief that Toure (a Black man) bashed Herman Cain (another Black man) for being Black."
This is a fact. Toure made an issue of Cain being a typical Black sexual predator. He appealed to a stereotype that exist in his mind and few others, as part of a scorched earth tactic to destroy a then-popular candidate. As I am not a racist and don't give free passes to bigots based on skin color, I refuse to let go of principle and lie about him.
"Anyway, does dmarks think Common hates Black people?"
Missed this question. It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of what Common has given evidence of.
The only example of "nonsense logic" is present in W.Sander's contortions to excuse and support racist hate speech.
I still will defend Paula Deen, in this case. If our own president can sit in. Racist church for 20 years how can you criticize a TV chef for saying something 30 years ago?????
Darth: We will agree to disagree. Deen showed a complete lack of character when she let out her inner Klansman. The long intervening years do not change what a sicko she was: there is simply no excuse for that, ever.
At least I am consistent, unlike the fried chicken guy here. I oppose ALL racism, while he emphatically goes around claiming that racist hate speech like "cracker" and the N-word. He has admitted that he gives people a free pass on racism if they are the correct color... which is not only stupid and inconsistent, it is definitely racist itself.
And yes, I agree with you, Darth, that it it was pretty bad that our current President sat in a pew at that Trinity "church" as a hatemonger screamed nonsense at him from a pulpit for 20 years. As I said, I consistently oppose all racism.
This is such a sweet commercial and so reflective of what our society should be, people loving and caring for and about one another! I love it! As for Paula Deen, I believe she is taking a lot of flack for comments made in private; however people in the public eye are under scrutiny and have to be extremely careful.
The Jeremiah Wright "controversy" is total baloney. There was no "hatemongering". If dmarks truly objects then please let us know exactly what you think was objectionable. dmarks probably can't.
As for me being the "fried chicken guy", dmarks frequently takes exception to what he calls juvenile humor. Like referring to what the Fox channel does as Nooz. He says it makes me look bad. So how about him making a idiotic joke of my last name? Many people have the last name "Sanders" and aren't connected to the fried chicken in any way.
In regards to cracker and the N-word, I already explained this. It has to do with oppressors and the people they have and continue to oppress. I say ignoring this fact (what dmarks is doing) is racist.
Dennis Marks: I refuse to let go of principle and lie about him.
But this is EXACTLY what you are doing! Cain was (and probably still is) a sexual predator. The stereotype exists and Cain was providing an example people could point to. Not good for the African American community. That is what Toure was criticizing Cain for.
I have to wonder why Dennis ignores this fact? So he can bash a Liberal (Toure)? Because he's cool with men who use their power to coerce women into having sex with them? Maybe that is why he argues so passionately in defense of Cain?
Dennis: It is not a matter of what I think. It is a matter of what Common has given evidence of.
I say it is a matter of what Dennis has given no evidence of. There has been no "hate speech" from Common. I can't "support" something that isn't happening.
Dennis Marks: [Toure used a] scorched earth tactic to destroy a then-popular candidate..."
Missed this question. Cain never had a chance. Not qualified. Also Black. The Republicans would never have run a Black man for president. They would have lost the racist White vote, something they seriously could not/can not afford.
Also, pointing out that Cain is a sexual predator is information people needed. That isn't "scorched earth". That is getting the facts out so people can make an informed decision. Perhaps Dennis relished the prospect of voting for a misogynist sexual predator and was disappointed this information wasn't kept secret?
"In regards to cracker and the N-word, I already explained this."
No, you didn't. You lied
"It has to do with oppressors and the people they have and continue to oppress."
You are in a racist fashion smearing all people of a certain race. That is prejudiced, racist, sloppy, and completely non-factual. Fact is, you have no case at all on "oppressors" and are using it to justify racism.
The fact? You are fabricating stuff about "oppressors" in order to justify and defend racist hate speech.
"I say ignoring this fact (what dmarks is doing) is racist."
I condemn racism, so the racist calls me racist. Time to grow up and let go of the racial hatred.
"But this is EXACTLY what you are doing! Cain was (and probably still is) a sexual predator."
Toure made an issue of his skin color. That is how he was racist.
" The stereotype exists and Cain was providing an example people could point to"
The stereotype exists because people like Toure promote it.
"So he can bash a Liberal (Toure)?"
I criticize any racist bigot. Liberal or conservative.
" Maybe that is why he argues so passionately in defense of Cain?"
You bet I do. I argue passionately in defense of Cain's right to be a black person, even if some racists hate it.
"Missed this question. Cain never had a chance."
He did. He was very popular until his sexual scandal.
"Not qualified. Also Black."
THERE WE UAVE IT! DERVISH IS BASHING CAIN FOR BEING BLACK!
"The Republicans would never have run a Black man for president."
There is no evidence for this.
"They would have lost the racist White vote, something they seriously could not/can not afford."
They can easily afford to do without a tiny percent of the population.
And, assuming you are white, you are in this voting group. Because, above, you said Cain should not run because he was black.
Yet another liberal who dons the white robe and goes all KKK on the man.
"Also, pointing out that Cain is a sexual predator is information people needed."
Of course. But bashing him for being black is not excused, ever. Not from Toure, not from you.
"prospect of voting for a misogynist sexual predator and was disappointed this information wasn't kept secret?"
I had a chance to vote for one as a major party ticket in 1996 and 1992. You did too. I bet you voted for the mysogynist sexual predator, didn't you?
As for me, I went to the largest Cain campaign rally of his campaign. Full of non-racist conservatives. They liked the guy. Not present were the numerous leftists who didn't want him to run because he was black.
Dennis is unaware of the United States history of enslaving Black people? Really? Wow. That is amazing. I suggest he do some research on the topic.
I'm sure I have some racial biases, as everyone does, but I do not consider myself a racist. Given the comments of Dennis, I'd say he has many more racial biases than he would admit (even to himself). Toure is not a "racist bigot". It is an utterly ridiculous accusation. Laughable and deserving only of ridicule.
And I never bashed Cain for being Black. His race made no difference to me. I only point out he was not acceptable to Republican voters for that reason. Admitted racists may be a tiny percent of the population, but White people who wouldn't vote for a Black man (or woman) for president exist in larger numbers. They are not a "tiny" percent. They make up a sizable block of the Republican constituency.
I did not relish the idea of voting for Clinton due to his problem with women (Willey and Jones) accusing him of sexual misconduct. Cain is a sexual predator. I think we can be pretty sure of that. With Clinton I believe there is some doubt regarding his accusers' truthfulness. In any case, I didn't vote for him in the primary. I didn't vote in the primary at all (Clinton was the first time I voted). Unlike Dennis I didn't go to a rally for a sexual predator (not That I'm convinced that label can be applied to Clinton).
As for Leftists who didn't want Cain to run because he was black, I seriously doubt they were that numerous. Certainly they were far far less numerous than Right-wingers who didn't want him to run for the same reason. That is probably why you saw none.
Wow, a lot to catch up on here!
Dervish: It's sad (but not surprising) that people would object to this commercial. One thing I wish the commercial had done is feature all three characters in the same scene. However, the daughter pouring Cheerios on her father's heart was a nice touch.
Pam: It's unfair for people to criticize Paula Deen simply for saying the N-word several years ago. What's more troubling were the plans for a "true Southern plantation-style theme" wedding for her brother with black male servers and the recent allegations of racial and sexual discrimination. Ms. Deen also didn't help her case when she spoke to the New York Times recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0svowr0QYQY
As for Anon, he/they will never reveal themselves. It would take courage and integrity to do that.
dmarks: As soon as I read Dervish's recent comment about Herman Cain, I knew you would accuse him of bashing Cain for being black. You were so excited you misspelled the word "have"!
Herman Cain was the ideal candidate for some of you on the right. In addition to liking his ideas, he also served another purpose. By supporting him, white conservatives could say, "See, I'm not racist". The sad irony is that the racists in the GOP base will never vote for a black candidate. Are there racist Democrats who would never vote for a black person? Hells yeah! However, I think the racists in your base outnumber ours. The fact of the matter is, the first African-American POTUS is a Democrat. I don't think there has been a lot of backslapping by the left over this fact. Just imagine if the first Af-Am POTUS was a Republican, you righties would never let us hear the end of it.
To whom are you referring by mentioning the numerous leftists who didn't want him to run because he was black? Do you have any real evidence to back this up? I wanted Cain to get the nod. Until election night, I wasn't completely sure President Obama would get a 2nd term. My thinking was that Cain winning the GOP nom would make President Obama's road to victory much easier. Of course, we know now I didn't have anything to worry about. :-)
As for Common, don't make me grow old waiting for you to respond to my latest comment in that thread. :-)
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2011/05/fox-news-once-again-exhibits-common.html
By the way, you used the phrase "I am not racist" 3 times in one comment above. You're trying to hard man, calm down.
Dennis Marks: ...assuming you are white, you are in this voting group. Because, above, you said Cain should not run because he was black.
I never said Cain should not have run because he is Black. Also, I am White, but I am not a part of that voting group. I voted for Barack Obama twice. Now, I am sure Dennis knew (or could confidently guess) that I voted for Obama, but that does not stop him from fibbing about me not voting for someone because they are Black. Instead he accuses me of donning KKK robes.
Bigotry is extremely frustrating, but even more so when it comes to something so trivial. A mixed family? Oh, the horror! Only every person on the planet is a genetic mix. Sheesh.
But when it comes to YouTube comments, that's like an entirely different universe; it's in no way a microcosm of real life. At least I hope it's not. If it were, we'd all be in the shit.
I've seen some of the nastiest comments imaginable on inspirational videos. Scum-of-the-earth sex talk on workout videos. More n-bombs than a Tarantino movie every time a black person flashes across the screen. It's just a troll-heavy place. Basically, it's the insult that fits. Stereotype x infinity.
I don't believe a lot of the YouTube morons really have a problem with anything they're seeing. It's just the perfect venue for trolls starved for attention.
"Oh, that's nice to see" doesn't put the attention back on the commenter, whereas "Dirty napppy niglet" plays into the me-me-me cesspool that is YT.
For the trolls, I can't give anything but a LMAO. For people who do have an issue with it, grow up and get over yourself. And for the people dancing around like this is some huge moment, a mini lol is in order. Dafuq is so significant about it? Or am I missing a history of racism at Cheerios? My bad if I am.
WD: the only perceived difference between Clinton's accusers and Cain's is the party of the candidate. This is why you defend and deny the sexual harassment of one of them. I lack this blind partisan bias, and condemn both.
Malcolm: there is no evidence for the "serves another purpose" claim about Cain. Seems you too are making such hay from his skin color. And the only reason I said "I am not a racist" is to contrast myself from WD and his repeated racism as evidence in his revelling in defending the N-word and cracker, and then in bashing Cain. I guess I am the only one here who consistenly has a problem with racist hate words, and who evaluated entirely Cain on his merits (or lack thereof) and not his skin color.
I disagree also on Deen. There is no excuse for her to bash black people as the N-word. Not ever. And the time she did it was 20 years after the Cicil Rights era, to put it in perspective. I do agree though that the modern plantation problem is much worse, though.
Also, the history of enslaving topic is irrelevant. I am well aware of this history. Unlike WD, I am also aware that it ended in the 1860s and there are not white slaveowners anymore. Not even Paula Deen is one.
Malcolm, in regards to those who did not want Cain to run because he is black... anecdotally, I have run into several who liberals who bashed this candidate for his skin color during the campaign. I found no conservatives who did this. As I am not a racist (yes, Malcolm, I say it again... in the presence of two liberals who defened calling black people the N-word) I also notice and don't deny the fact that this is reversed for President Obama.
And nice uninformed opinion, WD, when you specifically said that the N-word is not hate speech. But at least we now know that you never went to any Bill Clinton rallies.. from what you said about sexual predators.
There is a difference between Clinton's accusers and Cain's other than the party of who they accused. Cain had more and his were more believable. That said, I thought Clinton was finished when the accusations came out. I was surprised when he went on to win the nomination.
So I voted for him. What choice did I have? I certainly wasn't going to vote for his Republican opponent or throw my vote away by voting for a 3rd party candidate who had no chance of winning.
Anyway, I think there is some reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of Clinton's accusers. The voters obviously didn't believe the accusations (or didn't care). I believed Cain's accusers completely while I have doubts about Clinton's. Is this due to my partisan bias? In part, perhaps. I won't lie and claim to be neutral in this regard... unlike dmarks (whose claims of neutrality and "measuring from the center" are laughable).
Racism did not end. We are not living in a post racial society. Our history of enslaving Black people is not "irrelevant". With this comment dmarks exposes himself to be utterly clueless regarding the impact of slavery on African American as a group (an impact that continues to this day). This is why dmarks also opposes Affirmative Action. In his mind racism no longer exists. Or he likes to PRETEND it does not exist (he will certainly deny this, but his prior comments say otherwise). It is this denial of the existence of racism that is a form of racism itself... in my strong opinion.
I did not say the N-word isn't hate speech. It is hate speech when used in hatred by a White person against a Black person. The concept of CONTEXT is obviously lost on dmarks.
As for Deen, I find dmarks overcompensating in how he condemns her to be suspect. I care little about her use of the N-word 30 years ago. It is her continued tolerance of racial insensitivity (in her business) that concerns me far more. If she had changed and expressed genuine regret for her use of the word I'd say forgive her. But the lawsuit she is currently defending herself against says (to me) that her mindset is still the same as when she first used that word.
Josh: Although I watch a sizable amount of politically-based clips on You Tube, I never comment on them. It's just not worth the trouble for me. I agree that a lot of the venom is spewed by people who crave attention. Most of them probably wouldn't have the nerve to make those types of comments in public.
dmarks: My "sense of purpose" comment is simply a theory of mine. Assuming it were true, none of Cain's white supporters would expose themselves by admitting this.
In regards to how you view words which can have racist connotations, you're taking it to the extreme. Since it's pointless to continue going back and forth about whether or not it's ever OK to use the N-word or cracker, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Your claim of running into several liberals who bashed Herman Cain for being black is dubious to say the least. Just as you distorted the comments made by Dervish and me about Herman Cain, you're probably doing the same thing with the alleged "several" liberals you've encountered. Just because we feel racist whites wouldn't vote for Cain because he's black doesn't mean we're bashing him for his race. That makes no sense. Also, if you want to deny there is a group of GOP voters who harbor racial animosity against blacks, that's your choice.
By the way, the clock continues to tick as I wait for your response in the "Fox Exhibits Common Nonsense" thread.
Dervish: Hats off to you. Although it may be futile, you've at least tried to explain your stances to dmarks.
Malcolm said: "marks: My "sense of purpose" comment is simply a theory of mine. Assuming it were true, none of Cain's white supporters would expose themselves by admitting this. "
Your "theory" is a back-door way of bashing Cain for being black. For judging him on his skin color, not his merits. But you are not alone: I saw plenty on the Right do the same sort of thing when they bashed Obama for being Black and daring to run for President. It stinks on that side too.
Both Obama AND Cain don't deserve this sort of bashing.
" Since it's pointless to continue going back and forth about whether or not it's ever OK to use the N-word or cracker, we'll have to agree to disagree."
I think that racism is never acceptable, and yes, I know you disagree.
"Your claim of running into several liberals who bashed Herman Cain for being black is dubious to say the least."
I even ran into a new one here: the Dervish guy. Of course, Toure is a famous example. The rest I've found on minor blogs.
"Just as you distorted the comments made by Dervish and me about Herman Cain"
I distorted nothing.
"Just because we feel racist whites wouldn't vote for Cain because he's black doesn't mean we're bashing him for his race."
Recommending that he should not have run as Dervish and the others takes this feeling and turns it into political racism. And yes, as I said, this happens on the Right too about Obama.
"That makes no sense."
Racist bigotry never makes sense.
"Also, if you want to deny there is a group of GOP voters who harbor racial animosity against blacks, that's your choice."
They exist, just as Democrats who are this way exist. But to bash Obama and Cain just to make these bigots happy "never makes sense".
6Now to address the Dervish:
"There is a difference between Clinton's accusers and Cain's other than the party of who they accused."
No, there is none. Other than party.
"Cain had more and his were more believable."
One of Clinton's was "believable" enough to make it to the legal system. And he admitted his guilt in it by settling out of court.
"Anyway, I think there is some reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of Clinton's accusers."
Which is exactly the same as the Cain situation, if someone looks at it without the blind partisanship.
"I believed Cain's accusers completely while I have doubts about Clinton's.
And the sole reason for this is the (D) after the name of one and the (R) after the name of the other.
"...unlike dmarks (whose claims of neutrality and "measuring from the center" are laughable)."
No, not laughable. Left-wingers are left-wingers and right-wingers are right-wingers, and I will never misidentify them.
"Racism did not end."
Obviously...
We are not living in a post racial society.
With this comment dmarks exposes himself to be utterly clueless regarding the impact of slavery on African American as a group"
The reference to "as a group" is a purely racist concept. My comment show I have a clue. No individual in this nation was a slave, or owned slaves. It is immoral for a person like you to bash people based on this.
"This is why dmarks also opposes Affirmative Action."
The reason I oppose affirmative action is because I believe we need to move toward a level playing field.
"In his mind racism no longer exists."
Racism does exist. And examples such as the U of Mich law school system designed to punish people for their skin color is pure dictionary racism.
"Or he likes to PRETEND it does not exist"
I never have pretended. I have confronted and condemned ALL forms of racism. You defend some forms of it. That is the difference between us.
"he will certainly deny this..."
Of course. As there are no instances of me defending or denying any instances of racism.
"but his prior comments say otherwise"
And yes, this is based on my prior comments, in which I consistently oppose all racism.
"It is this denial of the existence of racism that is a form of racism itself... in my strong opinion."
Fits you perfectly. You passionately defend racist policies, and deny they are racist.
Part 2: Hate speech... pro and con?
"I did not say the N-word isn't hate speech. It is hate speech when used in hatred by a White person against a Black person."
To deny it isn't hate speech in ALL instances is to defend the word, and deny it is hate speech. Also surprised with your "hatred" escape route. In which you now seem to say it is OK for a white person to use it lovingly against a black person.
"The concept of CONTEXT is obviously lost on dmarks."
Not at all. The N-word is not hate speech in the context here, when we are discussing it. It is always hate speech when being used to refer to other people.
"I care little about her use of the N-word 30 years ago. It is her continued tolerance of racial insensitivity (in her business) that concerns me far more."
It does concern me far more. But that she was such an immoral person close to 20 years after the civil rights era should not be brushed under the rug. Unless someone is a person like you, who thinks that "context" justifies hate speech.
"If she had changed and expressed genuine regret for her use of the word I'd say forgive her."
Me too. But she has not, which makes the person she was 30 years ago the same as she is today.
"But the lawsuit she is currently defending herself against says (to me) that her mindset is still the same as when she first used that word."
Amazing. We agree on something other than Columbus.
Since Deen has not changed one bit, the 30 years ago is yesterday. I am not 'overcompensating'. And I have always condemned such hate speech. I was brought up right, to not use such words. And to not imagine a "context" in which it would be OK to call people this.
dmarks: You're spinning like a top, but I'm used to it. Don't tell me what my theory is because you haven't a clue. Also, I don't disagree that racism is never acceptable. Just because people don't agree with your broad definition of racism doesn't mean they condone it. No one here has bashed Herman Cain for being black. All we've done is say that we feel Herman Cain didn't stand a chance of winning the GOP nom. Not because of Cain's black skin, but because of how racists in the GOP base feel about his black skin. If you can't comprehend that, it's on you. I'm done debating it because it's become a waste of time.
Still waiting for a response from you in the Common thread. Tick tock, tick tock...
People on the left back then said Obama had no chance of getting his nomination due to his skin color also. Whatever the intent, it ends up bashing such a person due to skin color. I "comprehend" it more than you, and yes it is a waste of time trying to convince me that it is OK to bash either man for their race in such a back-door fashion, especially based on a baseless idea of how people would vote.
Its the same Republican Party, after all, as the one who ran black Bill Lucas against white Jim Blanchard. The Republicans in that election overwhelmingly voted for the black guy, and the Dems for the white guy. Just look at reality and not prejudices and fears.
dmarks: This will come as no surprise to you, but we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes race bashing.
The reason most whites and blacks voted the way they did in the Blanchard-Lucas MI gubernatorial election you referenced is based on political views. No surprise there because that's generally the way elections will go when a black candidate faces off with a white one. However, there are going to be outliers on both sides.
One thing I found laughable is when some righties felt that black voters would be faced with a dilemma if Herman Cain went up against President Obama in the last election. There was no way Mr. 999 was going to move a sizable amount of the black vote over to the GOP side.
"The reason most whites and blacks voted the way they did in the Blanchard-Lucas MI gubernatorial election you referenced is based on political views"
Ah... now you start to get it. That's the main reason for the way people voted on Obama and McCain too.
My main point on "race bashing" is that both Cain and Obama deserve/deserved to be judged entirely on their own merits, and not hobbled before they are out of the starting gate by such fears or claims as these.
Here is an example of this back-door bashing coming from the Left when Obama first ran:
Ferraro
George Will did similar crap
Just let them run! Geeez...
"One thing I found laughable is when some righties felt that black voters would be faced with a dilemma if Herman Cain went up against President Obama in the last election."
Now, that I agree with completely. What you said, that is.
As I said, I saw Cain fever at its pitch. Talked to the local Tea Party folks who were all so excited about him. And the reason really wasn't skin color... it was the "outsider businessman/general/etc" variation on the age-old "We need a Mr Smith to go to Washington" meme.
The one that in the past had people excited about Trump, Schwartzkopf, Colin Powell, and Lee Iacocca.
dmarks: "Ah... now you start to get it. That's the main reason for the way people voted on Obama and McCain too."
What, no virtual pat on the head?! I'm not starting to "get" anything. I have long said that most people vote based on political views. However, there are some who allow race to influence their vote. In the Think Progress article you linked to, it mentioned a study that suggested President Obama lost a net 3-5 percent of the national vote in 2008 because of his race.
Simply acknowledging that there is a segment of people who won't vote for a candidate because of race isn't race bashing. However, to say that a candidate isn't qualified to run because of their race is race bashing. See the difference?
"However, there are some who allow race to influence their vote"
Like Samuel L. Jackson?
Anyway, saying that a candidate shouldn't run or has no chance due "segment of people" is a form of race bashing. There is a difference between this and the other form, of course. This version, however, is an insidious, back door form, which will come up and slap in the face any candidate like this.
There are other forms of this. From the New York Times, during Obama's first campaign:
"The Democratic presidential contest was jolted Tuesday by accusations surrounding race and sex, set off by remarks from Geraldine A. Ferraro that Senator Barack Obama had received preferential treatment because he is a black man."
No, it is not the same as saying Obama's race disqualified him. But like with what happened to Cain, it is unfortunate.
Just let them run, damn it!
dmarks: Acknowledging that some people won't vote for a candidate because of race isn't race bashing. You apparently think it is. It's time to move on to something else because this has gotten tiresome.
dmarks: In case you are wondering why I deleted your last two comments, please refer to guideline #5 in the Comment Policy
The previous comment has been deleted by myself; it does not stand a chance due to ideological nonconformity. Have fun in your echo chamber!
dmarks: You completely missed the point of why I deleted your comments. You should know that I have no problem debating with people who share a different point of view. If what you said was true (I deleted your comments because of ideological nonconformity), practically every comment you've made on my blog would have been deleted. One of your problems is that you have a tendency to drag out arguments. Neither one of us is going to change our mind on what we consider/don't consider race bashing. The debate had degenerated into an "is not" "is too" argument. I even said it's time to move on and you still wanted to keep the argument going. Sorry dmarks, but I don't have time for that foolishness.
You are more than welcome to comment on this blog. However, please know that when I say I'm done debating a topic... I am done!
Post a Comment