The controversy over statements made by Harry Reid are important in the debate about when race matters.

It is obvious to me that Reid's words were the misguided and poorly chosen words of someone who lives in a different era, but not intended to be hurtful or derogatory.

By the same token, Steele's use of the term "honest injun" was equally misguided and poorly chosen wording not intended to be hurtful or derogatory.

I personally don't think either should be expected to resign. But they should be equally remonstrated both for the inappropriate references and the inaccuracy of their statements.

Ironically Steele's use of the term "honest injun" was not only misplaced but inaccurate. He was implying that the matter referred to was "honest" whereas his use of it suggested that it was not, since the racist assumption behind the term is that Native Americans were not honest and only someone whose veracity was in doubt to begin with would need to over-emphasize their honesty by its use; and Reid's statements that Obama would win because of his light skin and lack of use of vernacular normally associated with African Americans is, IMO, wrong on all accounts. Obama is no lighter than many African Americans and occassionally does slip into a "Chicago" accent. His lack of slave ancestry was more important in my opinion.

When viewed away from the context of who spoke them, the two are not comparable. There is a valid discussion about skin color and accent's effect on other people's perceptions. "Honest Injun" is just a racist statement and doesn't invoke any discussion of the veracity of Native Americans.

In the context of the speakers, I would say both statements had racist meaning, whether the speaker's intended that or not. If you speak French you're still speaking French, even if you thought it was Spanish.

Being a Mormon Reid's history is filled with racism. Not that familiar with Steele, just hope the R's keep him as their front man, he's good for Democrats.

Here's the thing about Mr. Reid and other white people of his kind. They don't know any better. The meaning behind what Harry Reid said is NO DIFFERENT than what our Vice President said about Obama being "clean" and "articulate" early in the campaign. It both means he's an acceptable black. I've dealt with this all of my life and have heard similar comments from countless white people. One of the frequent "compliments" I get is about how well spoken I am. I was president of my senior class in high school (predominantly white) and most of the comments I received after the speech included something about how well spoken I am. I still get it to this day and I'm 31. Its all about the way you look. I'm light skinned, have "good hair", am well spoken, and my wardrobe is pretty much all Ralph Lauren so I'm just a nervous white person's dream because there's no way I'll be lookin to jack them. Chris Rock did a bit on this in one of his comedy specials about white people always saying how articulate Colin Powell was. Hello? He's an educated man and a GENERAL!!!!

The thing is though...I said the same thing early in the campaign when Obama's stock really started to rise. I said that if Obama was dark skinned there was no way he would've made it that far. But, he's light skinned, well spoken, and non threatening so he's more acceptable to white people. Again in high school I would get comments from other white kids like "You're cool because you're not like other blacks" WTF does that mean? That is a back handed compliment in the same way that "you're so well spoken" is a back handed comment. Harry Reid is an old white guy who lived in a different era. But remember, Lindsay Lohan referred to Obama as "colored" so obviously that kind of foolishness is alive and well. Now yes Lindsay spends her time drinking liquor and snorting powder, but still. Reid's use of the word "Negro" really shows his age though. And yes there's the whole Mormon thing....HISTORY of racism with that crew!!!

But ummm..nope...not surprised by Harry Reid's comments. Trust and believe, he's not the only Democrat who made them. Its just something that I know is true. And its not just among white people. Go to Puerto Rico and you see the same thing. Lighter skinned Puerto Ricans are held in much higher regard than darker skinned Puerto Ricans. They don't all look like J.Lo and Ricky Martin. They are dark skinned with kinky hair as well. Same thing in the Dominican Republic. Look at Sammy Sosa trying to lighten himself up. Its also black people too. We still have a color issue in our community which still causes resentment from some darker skinned blacks about the preferential treatment that lighter skinned blacks DO GET!! But many darker skinned blacks have fallen into it by treating lighter skinned blacks better and many light skinned blacks want nothing to do with darker skinned blacks. My own MOTHER made comments when most of the girls I dated in high school were darker skinned. I remember when started dating this girl in high school (yeah I was still pretending then lol) my mom said "You sure like em dark don't you?" Well...she got it from my grandmother and the rest of my other family members, many of whom have that same mentality; that the darker you are the less desirable you are.

Race does matter and when Obama senior campaign advisor David Plouffe was the speaker at a forum at a college earlier this year I posed that same question to him. He claims that there should be no longer talk of the Wilder effect and that he thinks this election meant that race is not a factor anymore. WRONG BUDDY!!! I told him that I believed if Obama was not light skinned and had the appearance and presentation that he did, that he wouldn't have been acceptable enough for white people to vote for him. Its the truth. I see it in the gay community as well. In my business, when I talk to people on the phone and then they see me in person I get that confused look like "YOU are who I spoke to on the phone?" Ummm..yeah bitch it was me. One time I remember going into a meeting with some new department heads whom I was over!! The looks on their face was priceless and I said "Yeah I'm black..get over it"

Again...not surprising to hear these comments come from Harry Reid and he should be called out for them just the way he would've been if he were a Republican. If he was a Republican, the same white democrats on tv today trying to downplay the situation would've wanted a Republican's head. Nice to see Al Sharpton consistent this time and go after Reid's throat! At the end of the day, its just more ignorance from a white person who doesn't know any better.

Obama won because he is not "ghetto". (are we clear on the meaning of this word? I hope so.) He is a very well spoken, articulate, educated individual. If he were of a darker shade, I am sure he still would have won. The days of "brown paper bag test" are over, I hope. SIL hit it on the head...Reid IS of a different generation, and no ill-will was intended during his PRIVATE remarks, which he never thought would see the light of day. I'll never forget the Connie Chung interview with Newt Gringich's mother. Chung kind of tricked this woman into saying something ignorant, in what she thought was a private moment, and it ended up becoming a campaign issue. I guess there is no such thing as "private" in politics.

Interesting discussion taking place this census year about the inclusion of that word as part of the "Black and African American.." option.



I tend to agree with the last commentator that it is not needed.

Even my 78 year old parents would know that Black or African American is the option to pick, without the inclusion of "Negro". They would probably consider themselves "Colored" which doesn't even appear any longer - I assume because it is considered outdated and/or demeaning. Or more accurately it would be insufficiently distinctive since there are many USA citizens of "color" who would not consider themselves African American.

But it at least shows that someone believes Reid has lots of company.

I'm curious as to why it's OK to be a racist in private, it's just when it's made public that it's an issue. Several posts have rationalized Reid's remarks as being made in private. Aren't they still as racist no matter the audience?

Isn't being a "private" racist something we should all know about those who have control over our government? I'm sure for some Nevadans it would be helpful in making their decision to know that Reid has not shed all the racism of his religion BEFORE voting to elect him to the Senate. Just like I would want to know more about former KKK Grand Wizard Robert Byrd "racial reform" before voting for him, etc.

I'm in the same boat as mdterp01, viz., light-skinned, well-spoken, etc. I'm dismayed to hear that mdterp01 was still hearing this in high school which would be less than 15 years ago for a 31 year-old. I'm 58, and heard it in high school and college ('60s and '70s), but I thought this kind of thing would have died out by the time Gen-X reached high school, but never mind.

My tactic beginning in the 70's when I'd heard "you're different..." just one too many times was to respond with, "I think you have me confused with someone from a different social class," thereby turning the exchange to more of a "we don't all look alike" bent. It made the "you're different" speaker think for a minute, and I can say that I never heard if from anyone within earshot ever again, these things not necessarily said in one-on-one conversations.

Ummm...no darlin...the days of the brown paper bag test ARE NOT over. One of my good friends is dark skinned and I see how differently we are treated when we are out together, even by other black people. Look up the Kenneth Clark Doll Test and see how the days of this are far from over. It is something that is so deeply embedded in our history that I think a lot of people do it not realizing that they are doing it. Its not as bad as it was but trust and believe the brown paper bag test are not over.

Also, why the need to hightlight the fact that Reid's remarks were private? Does it make what he said somehow less ignorant because they were said in private? And yes...no ill-will is ever intended when these kinds of remarks come out. Joe Biden meant no ill will in his "clean" and "articulate" comments but they are still insulting nonetheless. This morning's edition of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC was very enlightening on this particular subject. Watch it if you get a chance.

2006 Doll Test Reveal Not Much Has Changed

In addition, have you heard what Bill Clinton allegedly said to Ted Kennedy in a phone conversation as the primary race was about to get going?

The former president allegedly claimed during the hard-fought Democratic primary race: ‘A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.’
He is said to have made the racist remark in a phone call entreating Senator Teddy Kennedy, the party’s vastly influential elder statesman, to endorse his wife, Hillary, in the delicately balanced 2008 nomination battle. But the call so offended Senator Kennedy that it backfired and helped make up the veteran Washington power broker’s mind to throw his complete support behind Mr Obama’s historic bid for the White House, according to a new book.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...l#ixzz0cKKckuSa


Now if true (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was) that comment is worse than what Harry Reid said. Clinton has had one too many slip of the tongues in the past couple years. I still don't get why many blacks considered him the first black president. I never viewed him in that light.

What I don't understand it, how is what Reid said racist? Where in his statement does he express approval of the idea that an articulate light-skinned African-American is a more electable candidate? Stating the racism exists and will factor in the election, as Reid does, is far different from praising segregation, as Trent Lott did.

I just saw part of a panel discussion about this on CNN and not one of the minority participants, both African-American and Latino, had a problem with the statement, although the word "Negro" was seen as problematic. In fact, they all acknowleged its truth - in today's America, Barack Obama represents the type of African-American who proves acceptable to white Americans. Given the racism we saw arise during the campaign and, even more so, the racism we have seen become public during his short Presidency, can anyone doubt that white America would likely reject a more "ethnic" or "urban" African-American politician? For that matter, are there any African-American politicians who have achieved high office and NOT conformed to some extent? Are there any politicians of any stripe who have achieved high office and NOT conformed to perceived society ideals? After all, Clinton continued his trailer-park trashy ways in the White House and nearly lost his office.

We will never get past our own racism until and unless we agree it is a subject we must discuss. Where Reid went wrong was in addressing a subject that politicians are supposed to pretend doesn't matter anymore.

Two things: 1) There's a difference between having a conversation about a topic, and making a statement. A conversation starts with a question like "do you think voters will see Obama as too black to be elected?", or "is America ready for a leader of color?" Reid made a statement that was a judgment about electability based on factors that enlightened people would view as not pertienent. 2) There is a long history of the hegemonic power structure of the US assigning more worth to African Americans of lighter complexion. No clearer example of racism could exist. For Reid to continue to buy into it, is for him to co-sign on that racism. Further, no matter how it's said "articulate" "lack of negro dialect" "speaks well", it's all the same "not black"...again pretty clearly racist.

I do agree with you that we need to discuss race and racism and not try to hide it. But to really have an effective conversation then most people would have to admit that at the very least they have racist moments. And as we can see with Reid, everyone is rushing to assure us he's not a racist. Kind of a different discussion.

Further, with Reid, it cannot go unmentioned that he is part of a religion that believed, and many still do, that men of color were not fit for their "priesthood". Reid may have overcome that, who knows, but it was a main part of the Mormon faith until recently and therefore a part of Reid.

Not completely following this either. Even if he made a statement rather than putting it in the form of a question....what was he saying? That he thought America could elect Obama. That America has issues with race and image...can anyone say Willie Horton...but that Obama doesn't fit into those stereotypes and might/would be seen (more) for who he is, not an image.

He wasn't speaking about the "enlightened" people, but about the average American. Who cares if enlightened people don't think those things are relevant in a candidate's electibility, if they actually are relevant to many voters. It is unfortunate and frustrating that race is such a factor. And that so often it doesn't go beyond media images. But what he said was an assessment of how the American votes would view Obama...a reality based assessment, not an enlightened one about what should or shouldn't matter.

If you or anyone judges Reid to be racist, then so be it. And, as you've done, you've pointed to words and ways that gave you that impression. So he might have his own racist issues to deal with. But I don't see how assessing the American voting public in a frank way should be such a problem. IMO it's better than the private conversations of how we can use racial images and fears to undermine black candidates (see Willie Horton, North Carolina a few times by...forgot the senator's name) or candidates African Americans are likelier to vote for.

Regarding his background and church...do you know those things, that such attitudes are still prevelant? Or are you surmising? It might be so...after all there are many whites who think that way who are not church members/attenders as well. But your own hostility toward such leaves one to wonder.

Sign on completely that frank discussions of race need to include the possibility, at least, that you, I, she, he, they might have racist attitudes, or hostile/judgmental ones. We can get so caught up in not offending, and in getting by, that we aren't honest. And then hard to actually challenge our own assumptions and go forward.

Regarding his background and church...do you know those things, that such attitudes are still prevelant? Or are you surmising? It might be so...after all there are many whites who think that way who are not church members/attenders as well. But your own hostility toward such leaves one to wonder.

[/quote]Reid was stating his opinion, based in stereotype; hence racism. A conversation would look at whether it would matter; would it matter in different communities in a different way; why would it matter; is that what we want in our society. Those are some things that further a conversation. Saying he's electable based on broad racial stereotypes is a judgment not a jumping off point for examining racial dynamics.

IMHO, I think it's not helpful for our society to dismiss, discount or deny the level of racism that exists in our society. It's different from plantation days, it's different from Jim Crow days, and it's different from the 60's. Most people, and I include myself in this group, have some racism, racist ways or racist tendencies. Whether they realize it or not. I don't get to say oh well I'm part of a racially mixed family, date within and outside my own race, believe in equal rights, so therefore I can't be racist. I have my moments. I'm a white male who benefits from the privilege that goes along with it, and society tells me (as long as it doesn't know I'm gay) that I'm the chosen one. I deserve more. I'm entitled. That's not what I believe or want for broader society. But as long as I stay in denial that I could say racist things/have racist thoughts/do racist things I can't adjust or fix that in me. We need to acknowledge this in order to be able to move beyond it. As long as society stays in denial that racism is alive and pervasive, we cannot change it.

Very familiar with the Mormon Church and many Mormons. I grew up in a mostly Mormon area. As with all organizations not all members believe any one way. Mormon beliefs go further than just racism. They believe Polynesians are really the lost tribe of Israel among other race-based things. There's a famous slaughter of Indians done by Mormons colonizing Utah that the Church is not willing to flat out renounce. Their history is a history of racism and racial violence rivaled only by the KKK in the US.

I'm of the opinion that when you associate yourself with an organization for your own gain (i.e. to get the benefit of Mormon money, organizing and votes) you associate yourself with the entire organization. And I haven't even touched on their from the top, systematic desire to outlaw any law or benefit to the GLBT community. I'm also at a point in life that I'm not willing to sugar-coat abhorrent behavior for the sake of being "nice". The organization that runs the Mormon Church does truly evil things. We should take them as they are and have an honest discussion about them and not try to rationalize away how they hurt innocent people.

Good Hands...I hear what you're saying because the CONTENT of Harry Reid's statement was ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!! And guess what....as SeaCraig said...we all have our moments. I have had mine. I'm aware of it and I'm not proud of it but the fact that the doll tests prove that from a very young age, this issue of lighter is good and darker is bad is something that is obviously reinforced in society in many ways. The argument from many blacks with the movie Precious was that the dark skinned characters were the bad characters and the light skinned characters were the more educated and sympathetic saviors in the movie. Even in black oriented magazines and black videos, the models who are lighter skinned are thought of to be prettier. I'm a member of a fraternity that is long known for a history of being light skinned pretty boys. The women of my family are part of a sorority that did have a brown paper bag test during its early years that in part caused darker skinned blacks to start another sorority because of that reason. Its a part of our history and its not going anywhere anytime soon. But at least Reid's statements are allowing us to have this discussion. Its something I always knew and something a lot of other people know but probably never talked about until now.

One of the statements in Reid's comments however are telling. He said that Obama has no negro dialect "unless he wanted to have one" which to me means that basically he thinks Obama can turn the "Negro" on and off. So while he may have been talking about the electorate, trust and believe...those remarks reflected his own attitude as well.

Honestly, I think this topic is a sad testimony to how much we haven't truly progressed in this country, especially when one places it against the backdrop of MLK, Jr's famous "color of skin/character content" quote...Still after almost 50 years when we heard it w/ great awe. Truly is sad imho.

Actually this is a fairly reserved conversation compared to the extremist hyperbole on the issue of race being spewed on some websites.

Take for instance the National Socialist Movement where any and everything is interpreted as an assault against "white" people to read their articles.

That Reid or any other credible politician should be accused of promoting the notion that white people are being victimized by Obama's election would be ridiculous. Yet this documentation of the growing legitimization of such extremist notions shows where mild misunderstandings can lead.

The self-proclaimed Ohio branch of that movement is a case in point. Its misinterpretation and misuse of statistics to denigrate African Americans and Barack Obama in particular is concerning.

Many of their newer members, especially, start out with legitimate concerns about the economy and its effect upon their livelihoods. But that it is turned into racism and anti-semitism is a predictable consequence of taking extremism lightly. The way to fix the problem is to address the legitimate causes underpinning anger.

I was also referring to the general American public not just OS.

Seacraig...appreciate the response and the chance to dialogue. As Sport said, this seems to be a pretty respectful discussion, which is as it should be...and since it's so often not in our society when it comes to race, it's worth noting. As usual, glad you are in it Terp...because some of it's so simple, but none of it is.

Seacraig...again, not sure I follow your assumptions regarding what he said. To identify the American voters as sensitive to racial images and ideas...based on past experiences with specific candidates (Jesse Helms was the senator from North Carolina who used negative images and hints regarding his black opponent (Sanford?)) or images (Willie Horton is the easiest example)........that is not racism.

If you are referring to Reid's own thoughts/ideas about Obama (or other blacks), and conclude that Reid's ideas about Obama are based on assumptions and label that racism...that I can follow. And, as you and others have said, I think we each do at times. Some, unfortunately, do it a lot...and typically get sharper with it the darker the skin of the other person.

Regarding the whole idea of racism in our society...even bad things such as this can be helpful to push the discussion. I actually would have thought we would have progressed some after Obama's speech last year...when he acknowledged the humanity and imperfections of people he knew and loved. Sometimes it's necessary and vital to challenge bad assumptions. But sometimes I think the talk radio heads should be given room to spout...because the ridiculousness of what they say can become exposed when it's out in public. At least, that's my hope.

Don't know much about the Mormon church (although thought the Native American Indians were also thought to be part of the lost tribes...Lamanites (sp?)). I do wonder if you can find an organization, religious or secular, faith based or atheistic, that doesn't have issues with race. (Look at Cuba under the atheistic communists....skin tone matters there still, apparently.) Serious issues in some ways. That does not excuse the past. But is now the attitude in the church that blacks are inferior? Not officially, not since 1977 or 1978. Aren't the majority of Mormons worldwide now people of color?

Again...not defending anyone or anything. Just wondering splatter of broad brush that seems to be added on to this focus. Don't have to look further back in this country than to Katrina, and how our own government was so slow in responding to so many poor people. Could it have been because they were also mostly black? The government is not a church, yet racism seems to have been shining through.

Anyway, again, appreciate that we can talk, share thoughts/opinions, and even disagree without becoming hostile or belittling. Maybe we can start a trend.

Personally, I feel the media (especially the liberal media) went over-board with the coverage of the Harry Reid comments. I think it's important that we discuss the race issue when situations such as this occur, however, at the same time, I feel the entire incident was blown completely out of proportion. Basically, Reid's comments are TRUE....plain and simple. Of course, he should have used a more contemporary term other than "negro", but he is from the generation when the term "negro" was widely used.

Similar to a few a previous posters, growing up I was also viewed as somewhat of "an exception" by my white peers for the simple that I spoke and used proper/correct grammar and did not have a noticeable accent or dialect. Well, it's called ENGLISH!!! My point is.....why is this "controversy" so shocking and such a revelation? The simple fact is....one must look the part, speak the part and act the part in order to achieve whatever goal one is pursuing. This is especially true for minorities. Therefore, Harry Reid was simply pointing out the obvious. It's just that our overly politically correct society gets all up in a fury when it comes to issues of race. Political correctness infuriates me!!! I mean isn't it better to encourage people to speak their minds in a respectful, non-malicious manner rather than put up this vail of political correctness which hinders all of us from truly communicating with one another for fear of offending someone? Had the same comments been made by a black politician, it would be a NON-ISSUE. Just my opinion.

To even debate whether President Obama's appearance and manner of speaking/communicating were determining factors in how far we went in the election is absolutely ridiculous. Of course they were determining factors. Wouldn't this apply to any of us when let's say we're on a job interview? Not to compare the Presidency with a simple job interview, but you get my point.

At any rate, I'm sure comments much more inflammatory, deragatory and offensive have been made and will continue to be made by individuals you least suspect. Until we all agree that we will never be able (nor should we be able) to censor other's thoughts and/or speech and that there are double standards when it comes to who can say what, we will never advance this dialogue.

Also, with regards to the "Obama getting coffee" comments from Bill Clinton....I must give him the benefit of the doubt that his intent was not to make a racist statement. I do believe that Clinton was simply referring to Obama's medioric rise and also his age and experience. Keep in mind that Obama is much younger than both Clinton and the late Ted Kennedy. I think he was making a simple harmless joke and would have made the same joke had he been referring a white politician who was battling his wife for the Democratic nominaton.

Actually running for president IS a job interview. And that IS the point.

It fact it is often compared to the most important job interview on the planet.

So you shouldn't apologize for calling it what it is.