And rightfully, this is the kind of thing that makes folks angry, for example, Bruce at Gay Patriot, "Was Obama Channeling Robert Byrd on The View?"(via Memeorandum):
I initially was going to resist posting on this because I really despise racial politics. But since we are getting some new readership from the Left (and they have no clue about American history), I thought it was important.Does President Obama have any idea what he just put out there on the table? Perhaps the most incendiary language in American history.
From the article ‘D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster“‘: [Reference: Who Is D. W. Griffith?]
D.W. Griffith’s 1915 motion picture The Birth of a Nation — originally titled The Clansman — a film which presented a re-writing of the actual history of post Civil War Reconstruction by the same Confederate traitors aginst whom the war had to be fought. It portrayed African-Americans in the post-Civil War South as depraved, lascivious beasts whose rampant lawlessness and alleged domination of the South — through military force and control of the state legislatures — threatened to destroy “Southern civilization” and “mongrelize the races”. The film asserts that this could only be stopped by the glorified lynchings and reign of terror carried out by the “honorable” new, secret order of the “chivalrous” Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
<…>
In most of the Northern cities where the The Birth of a Nation was scheduled to be shown, political fights exploded, and some small riots did occur in Philadelphia and elsewhere where the film was shown. The NAACP and others attempted to seek either a banning of the film completely, or to force the editing-out of the most egregious racist scenes. For the most part, those attempts were futile. Endless hearings were held before mayors, state legislatures, city councils, and state and city censorship boards across the country. The Illinois legislature voted 111-2 to ban the showing in that state, but eventually lost on judicial appeals filed by the film’s promoters.
Those hearings became platforms for the pro-Griffith lobby to pronounce the alleged virtues of eugenics. In New York City, Griffith’s lawyer Martin W. Littleton told Mayor Mitchell that the film was a “protest against the mongrel mixture of black and white.”
It is disgusting and putrid that a President of the United States bring this kind of filth language into the public discourse when our nation has moved so far past it. Laura Ingraham is correct, Obama is not “post-racial” — he is the most racial and divisive President we have ever had.
6 comments:
Because he HATES himself, obviously- ask any shrink!
Excellent post!
Linked!
Man, does he have issues... but now his bad childhood is all OUR problem, too
Linked at RR:
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2010/07/age-of-un-serious-presidency.html
Enjoy your weekend, sir-
I don't think Obama hates himself. I think he lives in a bottled -up, dream world, though. The “mongrel” comment was meant to be tossed out in a self-deprecating manner. This should have been a casual, amusing comment, and should have been fine, evidence of how far we have come. Instead, because of the race bating, shame mongering of the Left, we happen to be cast backward into Jim Crow associations, pre-Civil Rights white guilt mentality.
I have more often heard this term used by white people in the same vein humorously referring to themselves as, say, my wife’s family does of their mixture of Irish, English and Choctaw, “We’re mongrels.” I think he meant it this harmless way. But, there is a problem that arises when in the current climate of sustained, unfounded accusations of racism by Leftists, NAACP, New Black Panther Party against the Right, and uncorroborated claims of racism in Tea Parties, of all places, the president’s comment becomes outrageously inappropriate. He referred to himself as mongrel. Can we now refer to him as mongrel? Of course, not, but it makes a mockery of the hopeful post-racial politics tacitly promised by Obama.
Maybe my memory is a little hazy (it's all prescription, I swear...) but I don't remember Obama promising to take us to a post-racial society. I remember him saying that electing the first black president would help us get there and I remember Rightists (is that what I'm supposed to call you guys in response? I can't keep track) mocking him by saying that he was promising to part the seas and cure racism but I don't remember him actually saying that.
As Rusty says, this was obviously meant to be a self-deprecating comment. He does this a lot: making fun of his own ears, talking about how his wife is really the boss and the brains of their marriage, etc. It's one of the things that makes the guy charming and to accuse him of actually intentionally slurring blacks because he hates himself or his childhood or his race is stupidly partisan and nakedly disingenuous.
As for referring to him as a mongrel: why would you even want to, Rusty? Sure, your wife's family does it to themselves but would you be cool with someone else you didn't know calling her a mongrel, regardless of context? This notion that it should be OK for white guys to refer to black guys as their niggers now that Obama is president is bullshit, mainly because electing one black man president is hardly comparable to owning another race of people for centuries of our nation's history.
When Obama said mongrel he meant mutt and it should have ended at that and yes, the "race bating, shame mongering of the Left" is partly to blame (yes, some claims of race-baiting are legitimate, but then some also are not) but the concerted effort on the right to demonize Obama and vilify his every word and action since his inauguration also plays a large part. "He didn't say the oath right, he didn't use a bible the second time, he wasn't born here, that birth certificate isn't real, he hates white people, he's a secret Muslim, he hates America and is trying to destroy it from the inside, etc, etc."
Since he's Obama whatever he says or does is obviously vile and outrageous. Now that we've established that, let's actually look at what he said or did and then backtrack to explain our original assumption. This is why Don, an intelligent man who has been trained in political science, can write things like this and think that he's astute and correct. Do you guys honestly think voters can't see through this line?
Post a Comment