Meet George Allen, the Republican Party’s Great White Hope

Shameless bump. This is pretty scary stuff, folks.


Cheers,

TH

Oh, and for those of you who attended Reproductive Freedom Summer '06 events: Is it just me, or does this guy sound just like Flip Benham, right down to his vocal mannerisms? Is Flip from the same part of Virginia, or is there some Right-Wing Dimbulb Elocution Class that folks have to take before they're allowed to pick up a microphone?


Cheers,

TH

More on Allen's slur.

You know, it's funny. The Dean scream was all over the place within hours, but the media seems to be very reluctantly covering this, and in as little detail as possible. Most reports, for example, completely omit the fact that Allen speaks French and that he learned it from his white Tunisian mother--vital information, given that French is after all the language of the "macaque" slur, and that it is commonly used by French-speaking whites in North African countries such as...well, Tunisia.

I also hear lots of references to the Confederate flag lapel Allen wore in high school, but not quite as much about the fact that he still had a Confederate flag hanging in his livingroom in 1993, and a noose hanging on a small tree in his law office. He didn't take either down until they became an issue during his gubernatorial campaign. And after he was elected, he issued a declaration describing the Civil War, again, as a "four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights." He isn't even pretending to disguise the fact that he's still rooting for the Confederacy!

The general media consensus is that this will not hurt him in the Virginia Senate race, because he's already lost the black vote and Southern whites can apparently be counted on not to care about racial slurs. Given how much Fordice got away with--praising the Council of Conservative Citizens (which sells "WHITE PRIDE" T-shirts, condemns interracial marriage and non-white immigration, and was literally built from the White Citizen's Council mailing list), among other things--I'm afraid the mainstream media is right about this. But the fact that they're not covering this issue in any detail can't help.


Cheers,

TH

I hope the Republican party will act quickly to drop him. This is only one incident in a general parade of missteps which clearly show that Mr. Allen is....a dunderhead. As a former resident of Virginia, I'll venture that I never particularly cared for Allen and wondered why his star rose so quickly within the party. There are many good people within the party. Why, why , why must the national party choose the slow ones like Alen (and our current president, for that matter) to lead? I'm traditionally Republican, but people like Allen make me want to steer clear of the Republican party. I'm registered as an independent, and I suppose it wil stay that way. Both parties have major flaws, but the Republicans need to demonstrate better judgment in their choices. Allen should be dispatched quickly.

Agreed. It's bad enough that he ended up as governor and senator, but the fact that there's a huge part of the Republican Party that's grooming him as Bush's successor freaks me out big time. The only thing that makes him stand out is his quasi-racist, Southern Strategy past. He'll win the Senate race handily, no doubt, because allegations of racism only energize his base. I mean, to us it's a scandal, but to Allen it's probably a get-out-the-vote drive.


Cheers,

TH

Man, they're looking for ways to give it to the Democrats, aren't they? Both sides of the political spectrum need a serious clue.

I saw this mess on the news. Thank God for YouTube!

Oh yeah, for a good laugh, do a search on the word "failure" on Google and look at the first entry. Says a lot...

Looks like he just issued a public apology, so if they he (or his campaign) was trying to imply that he didn't really say that, I guess they've abandoned that plan. It's pretty obvious what he said.

And in other news... it looks like 'ol Joe Biden was caught on tape stereotyping Indians (saying something like "you can't walk into a 7-11 in this country without an Indian accent").

I don't have a link to the clip, but I guess it's on youtube.

So, is he the Democrats' Great White Hope?

We already kicked the Joe Biden horse to death and then some. I don't have much use for Biden after the 7/11 comment, but what Allen said was much, much worse--and the "Great White Hope" label was a reference to the Southern Strategy, which obviously wouldn't help Biden since he needs minority voters if he intends to run as a national candidate.

Here's a report on Allen's apology. He didn't really concede anything--it was in effect one of those "I'm sorry you're hurt, but I didn't actually do anything intentionally wrong" type apologies, made only after he'd been holding his finger to the wind for long enough to realize it had to be made. A statement leaked to the press by one of his aides went on about how it never should have been in the media to begin with, but if it wasn't, I think it's safe to say that Allen would have never apologized--publicly or privately.

Allen doesn't get a bye from me. Not for the Confederate flag, not for the public endorsement of the Confederacy as a "struggle for independence and sovereign rights," not for the noose hanging in his law office, and not for this. He knows exactly what he's doing when he pulls these stunts, he doesn't care if he offends liberals and minorities (since they're not really represented in Republican primaries), and as long as he can rub shoulders with other Republicans to show he's still okay, and as long as he can count on the media's notoriously short memory, he gets to energize his old-school white base without suffering any serious political consequences for it.

No, I think it's safe to say that all the apology is is a statement that he still intends to seek the 2008 presidential nomination.


Cheers,

TH

Oh, I didn't know you guys had discussed Biden before. Sorry about that.

I agree that what Allen said is worse -- but not because of the content. It was worse because he really seems to be trying to insult the guy. The only thing that gives me pause about that is that I'm not sure how a politician could be quite that stupid. So maybe he was just gomer.

The Biden thing, though, does point out something which should be obvious I guess -- that stereotyping crosses party lines. The great White hope question is because Biden is white, and I was wondering whether the fact that he's a Democrat makes people less likely to assume something sinister about him with respect to his attitudes about race. I understand your explanation, but "white republican" ofen has a very negative connotation, and I was wondering if "white democrat" is similarly negative.

GLB writes:
Oh, I didn't know you guys had discussed Biden before. Sorry about that.

No apology needed--I'm glad you brought it up, actually.

I agree that what Allen said is worse -- but not because of the content. It was worse because he really seems to be trying to insult the guy.

Agreed, depending on whether Allen knew what he was saying when he said macaque. I still think he did. The fact that his other is Tunisian, and that he learned French from her, is too much of a coincidence.

The great White hope question is because Biden is white, and I was wondering whether the fact that he's a Democrat makes people less likely to assume something sinister about him with respect to his attitudes about race.

No, not at all. It's because a Democratic senator from Delaware is probably not, by definition, trying to employ the Southern Strategy in any significant way. Biden has never had to appeal to racial bigotry to get votes; he lives in Delaware, which (a) doesn't have the South's history of Dixiecrat politics and (b) has so few non-whites in it anyway that there's no real strategy for either party that hinges on conscious race politics. Not that institutional racism isn't just as much of a problem in that part of the country, but it isn't a form of institutional racism that has been connected in any politically effective way with politics.

I understand your explanation, but "white republican" ofen has a very negative connotation, and I was wondering if "white democrat" is similarly negative.

In Mississippi, it absolutely can. This has actually been one of my talking points for a long time--that the Mississippi Democratic Party has plenty of whites who employ something that at least resembles the Southern Strategy on a regular basis. Witness George Dale casually remarking that he doesn't think a black statewide candidate can win and subsequently shouldn't be nominated, or Wayne Dowdy endorsing Trent Lott. This is a party whose leaders are terrified of being thought of as too "black," despite the fact that at least two-thirds of the party voting base is African-American. So the Southern Strategy certainly lives on in the Democratic Party. It's just that it's more common among white Republicans, in part because they can take it for granted that they won't get very many minority voters anyway.

I do like the recent flurry of viable black Republican candidates--Yvonne Brown being only one example among many. Another 10 or 20 years of this and the Mississippi Republican Party might be a less scary place to be. But right now, it's not there yet. We still have a governor who gave the Council of Conservative Citizens his blessing to let them use his photo on the web site, and whose Republican predecessor actually praised the CCC as reflecting his own beliefs about how society ought to operate in the South. There have certainly been Democrats who spoke before the CCC (example: Ronnie Shows at the very least sent a representative, and may have spoken himself--I've heard conflicting stories), but most of its people are Republicans.

So "white Republican" is still a problem, but this is not to say that all white Republicans are racists. Some do need to do a better job of distancing themselves from racists, though. I'm frankly a little disappointed that McCain--heck, that even Bush--didn't think twice before going out to campaign for Allen right after this happened. That's the kind of enabling behavior that makes "white Republican" a problem phrase among so many people of color and race-conscious whites.


Cheers,

TH

Tom:

With respect to Bush, I'm curious what you think about his appointment of minorities to high positions of power. He's had 2 Secretaries of State -- both black. He has a Latino Attorney General. And yet, somehow, beacuse of the politics of these people, they don't seem to "count" in some way. You get the impression that, if John Kerry had the same minorities in the sme positions, they would be seen as the first "real" minorities in those positions.

I'm not sayig you think this, of course, but I get the impression that this is an underyinth theme in American politics.

We also see this with people like Clarence Thomas, who doesn't seem to count as a black Supreme Court Justice, primarily because of his politics (and also because of Anita Hill).

All this tells me that most people are not principally interested in seeing minorities in positons of power, but rather they are interested in seeing people who they believe represent their interests in positons of power.

Which, of course, is what all of us want.

So does that means race doesn't really end up having a lot to do with our preferences for political leaders?

Sorry about all the misspellings. I must learn to proof better before I post.

Your point is very well taken GLB. This analogy probably best describes the defeat of former Mayor Harvey Johnson. The fear of some is the loss of power by the dominate group if minorities are in successful leadership roles. This is also understood in our Confederate Flag issue. If we give up the flag, then we are aaknowledging the loss of supremacy (power).

This is an interesting topic and one that should, in my opinion, be explored. This issue is the germ of the problem of racism. Once this obstacle is out of the way, the fear of retribution for our past will slowly dissipate and minorities deserving of these positions will be supported. It will also clear the way for minorities to support member(s) of the majority if that person is qualified. In other words, our covering (skin) becomes the issue - not our knowledge base, leadership ability or good will.

Not for the Confederate flag, not for the public endorsement of the Confederacy as a "struggle for independence and sovereign rights," not for the noose hanging in his law office, and not for this.

Just in case anyone needs a reminder of why the Civil War was fought, here it is again:

Articles of Secession, State of Mississippi, 1861

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Read it in all its glory.

I just watched the video......like watching the Titanic on fast forward....He sunk so fast I hardly noticed his campaign stump. His presidential bid is over.....I'm conversative but I don't represent this kind of trash, what a bomb. This is as bad as Dukakas in the Tank or Bush senior's "Read my Lips"...or Dole sitting by the pool in Palm Beach with the beach wear shorts, dress shoes, and black socks...

Ladd:

One thing I would point out about that Civil war statement. The South was right about one thing. They needed slavery to sustain their economy. Without slavery, the Southern economy collapsed, and many people were made destiute and suffered great loss.

Does that justify slavery? Not at all. Horribly negative consequences to some, even to the majority, do not justify such an immoral institution.

That is, the violation of anyone's fundamental rights , ONCE RECOGNIZED, render irrelevent the claims of those injured by the reestablishment of the recognition of those rights. This does not render their claims meaningless, it just renders them secondary.

That is a general principle I see exemplified in what happened in the South during and after the Civil War.

Justjess: I think I undestand much of what you're saying, but I'm not sure if you and I are entirely on the same page about this. Let me ask a question.

Would you consider Condaleeza (sp?) Rice to be a successful black leader? I'm not asking if you agree with her politics, I'm just asking if you think she is a successful leader.

GLB writes:
With respect to Bush, I'm curious what you think about his appointment of minorities to high positions of power. He's had 2 Secretaries of State -- both black. He has a Latino Attorney General. And yet, somehow, beacuse of the politics of these people, they don't seem to "count" in some way. You get the impression that, if John Kerry had the same minorities in the sme positions, they would be seen as the first "real" minorities in those positions.

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but I definitely agree that the Bush administration isn't getting its due in this respect. The fact that many conservatives are seriously and non-patronizingly talking about Condoleezza Rice on the 2008 ticket and Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court tell us that Bush's appointments have certainly changed the Republican Party. I'm also impressed by his unwillingness to pander on immigration reform. Bush has many problems, but you have to go all the way back to Jimmy Carter to find a president who find a president who has done more to dismantle the Southern Strategy (ironic, given that Carter was actually the last Democrat to win the South).

We also see this with people like Clarence Thomas, who doesn't seem to count as a black Supreme Court Justice, primarily because of his politics (and also because of Anita Hill).

Well, and because he was set up to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education. The problem with Justice Thomas is partly that if you look at his resume prior to his Supreme Court appointment, he suffers from a "he's the only black conservative we can find" problem--and even Justice Thomas himself talks about this, how he wanted to do tax law but kept getting offered these more lucrative civil rights gig because he was the only remotely qualified black guy conservatives who could find who agreed with their ideology on these issues. And the appointment itself was obviously a case of tokenism--replacing one black justice, a giant of the past half-century of Supreme Court history on both sides of the bench, with someone whose most impressive qualification is a short stint as Reagan's head of the EEOC. Supporters of Justice Marshall understandably took this as an insult. And when Bush Sr. (whom I usually like) said that race played no role in the appointment, nobody believed him and nobody really should have. But I think Justice Thomas has carved out a very real legacy for himself since then as someone who is visibly more conservative than Scalia, and the more I read his rulings, the more I realize that, whatever his on-paper qualifications, he has carved a legitimate role on the Supreme Court and has established a legacy that goes far beyond "the only black guy we could find."

All this tells me that most people are not principally interested in seeing minorities in positons of power, but rather they are interested in seeing people who they believe represent their interests in positons of power.

I think people are interested in both, but that when you get down to brass tacks the latter trumps the former. If you ran Alan Keyes against Bill Clinton, I think it's obvious Keyes wouldn't win the black vote. Likewise, if you ran Kay Bailey Hutchinson against Russ Feingold, I think it's obvious Hutchinson wouldn't win the women's vote. Progressive people care about race and gender, but they care about it across the board as policy concerns, and not just vis-a-vis the race or gender of the candidate.


Cheers,

TH

Thanks, Tom. That's very intersting stuff for me to ponder.

Here's more on Allen. I generally take anonymous sources with a grain of salt, FWIW, but the rest of Allen's record is certainly troubling enough on its own.


Cheers,

TH

While we are talking about race and party, here is something interesting I read this morning. and by the way, your word counter is off.

Washington Prowler
The No Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
By The Prowler
Published 9/25/2006 12:09:25 AM
DIRTY DIRTY POLITICS
With Democrat hopes to retake the House and Senate seemingly crumbling by the day, both Senate minority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi have grown increasingly alarmed about the growing anti-Semitic and racist tone of their party's base, say House and Senate Democrat leadership staff.

"They have been monitoring the [Ben] Cardin and [James] Webb races and they are extremely concerned," says a Senate Democrat leadership aide. "On both campaigns' staffs and on the Internet we are hearing and reading an ugliness that we haven't seen in probably decades. It's embarrassing, but we're chalking it up to a small segment of young people who are frustrated at constantly losing and are lashing out. To think otherwise raises too many uncomfortable questions about our party."

Apparently the House and Senate leaders are more uncomfortable than their party's most visible leader, because according to Capitol Hill sources, both Reid and Pelosi have pressed Democrat National Committee chairman Howard Dean to renounce the racist and anti-Semitic language and campaign tactics employed by those most closely associated with Dean's wing of the party, but Dean has refused to do so.

He doesn't think it's a problem," says a DNC source. "This is something dreamed up by desperate Republicans. If Dean were to speak out, it would undercut the morale of a party that is on the verge of a historic victory. He's not going to take that away."

In fact, the DNC may actually be encouraging it.

In the past two weeks, the DNC and Democrat Party have been embarrassed by racist and anti-Semitic attacks against Republican Senate candidates Michael Steele and Sen. George Allen. In the case of Steele, it was racist blogging posts. In Allen's it was planted questions in the media about his Jewish heritage. Within minutes of Allen's addressing the issue of his family's Jewish roots, popular Democrat Party sites, such as the Daily Kos, Daily DD, and MoveOn.org, were inundated with such posts as:

"George Allen's New Jew Revue"

"They seriously want us to believe that Allen never knew why is grandfather was thrown in a concentration camp?"

"[Allen has] something against Jews."

"... 1) he's an anti-Jewish bigot, or 2) he's afraid he'll lose the bubba vote if people think he's a Jew."

"George Allen has a nasty, sadistic, vicious, violent streak... "

"What did [George Allen's mother] tell her son all these years, that her father was imprisoned by the Nazis because he was gay or a gypsy?"


WEBB TOO
Supporters of Virginia Senate Democrat candidate Jim Webb apparently aren't satisfied with pushing the story to reporters about Sen. George Allen's Jewish heritage. Late last week they were trying to attack his children.

According to DNC sources, some Webb staffers deployed to the campaign by the party have been mentioning to reporters that it's "interesting" that Allen purportedly named his son, Forrest, after Nathan Bedford Forrest, a legendary Confederate general. But that isn't their only point.

"Bedford was a founding member of the Ku Klux Klan, and these Webb supporters were working reporters to push the KKK angle and link it to Allen's desire to have his son named after him," says a DNC source. "This is opposition research our own staff pulled together. Some of us are uncomfortable with it, others here aren't."

Allen, who had dealt with a series of controversies related to race, religion and family heritage, has never commented on whom his son was named after, if anyone.

Some DNC insiders have been monitoring the Webb campaign closely due to concerns about the influence MoveOn.org and other far-left organization have been having on some campaigns, Webb's included.

Recently, Ben Cardin, Maryland's Senate Democrat candidate, had to fire a relatively new, low-level aide, who posted racist and anti-Semitic remarks on her blog. She came to the campaign via MoveOn.org and the DNC.

Cardin's campaign disavowed the remarks, and has attempted to weed out other staffers on the campaign who might place the campaign in more embarrassing situations. "Anyone who came to us via the party of outside groups is being re-vetted," says a Maryland state party consultant. "It's an embarrassing situation for us."

Other Democrats silent on the matter are the two men responsible for recruiting House and Senate Democrat candidates, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Rahm Emanuel. Both men have thus far refused to repudiate the words of their base. "That they won't is embarrassing and perplexing," says a House leadership aide. "Both of them have been strangely silent on the matter, and there are some of us who would like to know why."

Part of their silence might be tied to their need to keep what they perceive to be their critical base happy and focused on victory. "Our party has changed," says a Democrat consultant. "It's not what it was five years ago. The Internet, and young people who can behind screen names online, have changed us. Dean ushered in the Internet age for fundraising for us, now we're seeing the ugly part of the Internet, but no one wants to talk about it."

Dont' forget Dean pandering to the "guys with confederate flags in their trucks" comment. :)

If I were the Democrats, I would hope for Allen to get the nomination. He will be a dull candidate. He will not be hard to beat. Guiliani, McCain and some others would be much tougher.

For what it's worth, my cousin named his son Forrest, and he WAS named after Nathan Bedford Forrest. But he named him that because he admired Forrest as an officer -- I don't think the KKK angle had anything to do with it.

Anyway, next time I see my cousin I'll try to remember to ask him about it.

Oh, for God's sake.

The recent complaints about Allen are not anti-Semitic, as anyone who reads the coverage carefully will see. Rather, they are exactly the opposite: the point is that it appears Allen may have tried to conceal his own Jewish heritage. Any anti-Semitism that's involved would be Allen's own.

:rolls eyes"

-- Tim

Forrest started it more as a guerrilla force against the North. He left it and said to the effect of we all live here n ow in the same place, we better learn how to get along together. I guess not everyone is not allowed to change their minds as they experience life.

as a general was an outstanding one.

Tim: I don't take what some bloggers or posters on a site like moveon or dailykos or town hall seriously. there are all kinds of kooks out there on both sides.

After what he's said and done already, I don't think it matters what he's naming his son.

Forrest County, as in Hattiesburg, is named after Nathan Bedford Forrest. And it's remarkable to me that some people think he can be honored as a general, without taking into account the wee little detail that he started the freakin' KKK to scare black people out of claiming their rights.

Dont' forget Dean pandering to the "guys with confederate flags in their trucks" comment. :)

Except that he wasn't, Ironghost.

I'm missing how the attacks on Allen are "anti semitic". I haven't been following him that closely, but this piece on Salon at leaves gives some context for the brouhaha:

It doesn't matter if Allen is Jewish. What might matter to voters -- and legitimately so -- is the way in which Allen has handled the question. A Charlottesville Daily Progress columnist who has covered Allen for decades says the only time he has ever asked for a correction came when the columnist wrote about Allen's Jewish ancestors. When reporters asked about the senator's heritage recently, the Post says, campaign aides refused to comment and refused to put the question to Allen. And when a reporter finally got the chance to do so at a debate this week, Allen exploded, calling the question an "aspersion" and encouraging the boos and hisses that emanated from supporters in the audience.

A man who's quick to defend the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage and regional pride" has been awfully hesitant to acknowledge his own heritage, one that might cast a little cloud on the boot-wearing, tobacco-chewing, racist-coddling image he has created for himself. Should that matter to anyone looking for the "authentic" candidate in the Virginia Senate race? Sure. Will it hurt Allen with the kind of folks who clapped and cheered when he asked them to join him in welcoming "macaca" to America? It's probably too soon to tell. Allen is already off courting a new voting constituency just in case. The senator said in his statement Tuesday that he's proud to be at least a little bit Jewish, and his campaign attacked Democratic challenger Jim Webb as the real anti-Semite in the race.

I mean, when someone asks you if your grandfather was Jewish, and you say in response that they are casting 'aspersions', it doesn't look that good. Made me wince, when I read it.

Tim: I don't take what some bloggers or posters on a site like moveon or dailykos or town hall seriously. there are all kinds of kooks out there on both sides.

And yet you are willing to repeat other people's lies implying that those bloggers are exhibiting anti-Semitism?

Seems to me that, as usual, the "kooks" are mostly on one side.

Kate made the basic point in her immediately previous post, done in her usual distinguished style.

-- Tim

I think its kind of crappy of a reporter to ask you about your race period, much less in a political debate. It has NO place in a formal debate. Has ALOT to do with how he will govern or vote. just like I wouldn't ask a white candidate with a tan how much Black blood is in him. It had no place in a debate.

Now if he was say a big supporter of Arab causes etc and anti Israel, its an interesting point to bring up some time, but in this format, I strongly disagree.


As for whacko posters, what means more to me s what the moderators of the site do. For example, when Pat Tillman was killed, several posters on DU were saying how glad they were he was killed, how they should not be sorry at all a soldier for the corpoations was killed, etc. Idiots are otu there but if crap like that is left up, its a different story.

I think its kind of crappy of a reporter to ask you about your race period, much less in a political debate. It has NO place in a formal debate. Has ALOT to do with how he will govern or vote. just like I wouldn't ask a white candidate with a tan how much Black blood is in him. It had no place in a debate.

Now if he was say a big supporter of Arab causes etc and anti Israel, its an interesting point to bring up some time, but in this format, I strongly disagree.

You didn't even read Kate's post, did you? Here's the relevant quote from the Salon piece:

A man who's quick to defend the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage and regional pride" has been awfully hesitant to acknowledge his own heritage, one that might cast a little cloud on the boot-wearing, tobacco-chewing, racist-coddling image he has created for himself. Should that matter to anyone looking for the "authentic" candidate in the Virginia Senate race? Sure. Will it hurt Allen with the kind of folks who clapped and cheered when he asked them to join him in welcoming "macaca" to America? It's probably too soon to tell. Allen is already off courting a new voting constituency just in case. The senator said in his statement Tuesday that he's proud to be at least a little bit Jewish, and his campaign attacked Democratic challenger Jim Webb as the real anti-Semite in the race.

It is, of course, normal for reporters to ask candidates about their background. There's nothing unusual in that, and certainly there's nothing improper about finding out that a candidate's grandfather was imprisoned by the Nazis and then asking him or her about that. Your attempt to make that sound racist or otherwise improper is just ridiculous.

It's Allen's reaction to these questions that should be giving all of us pause, not the fact that they were asked.

Allen's campaign trying to paint Webb as anti-Semitic for raising these issues is so absurd I just can't even say anything about it (and besides, I covered the point above).

-- Tim

Kingfish, it was "at" a debate, not "in" a debate. Unless Allen is now debating reporters in his spare time.

I for one am not going to make up a bunch of stuff about whether or not the question was appropriate, because I don't have *any* details on the scenario or the context for the question.

I can imagine alot of scenarios where it's a perfectly viable question (reporter wanting to do a profile/background piece on the candidate, wanting to simply verify a bit of background, etc). Given the guy's overall persona, I'm kind of curious about what he would have to say about his family's past.

The relevance of the question is, in this instance, overshadowed by his response that merely asking if he was Jewish was viewed by him as an "aspersion."

I will say that Kingfish's comment about a white person with a tan reminds me of Chappelle's "Racial Draft" skit, which was pretty freakin' hilarious.

Agreed, Tim. This is patently stupid. George Allen needs to take responsibility for his own words and actions—rather than try to attack the messengers for being willing to call him out on it. And, frankly, it's the candidate you should be worried about—not the reporter. Taxpayers don't pay the reporter.

And, yes, it's remarkable that anyone would think that asking someone if they are Jewish would be an aspersion. Very telling.

I also wonder about Allen's supporters, and the fact that they are all "but it's not an appropriate question". Um, hullo. It may not be "appropriate", but is it really *that* difficult to come up with a civil answer? "Was your grandfather Jewish?" "Why, yes, he was. And he was sent to a concentration camp. Which is why I ... blah blah blah ... chance to bridge to some other topic". It's called Media Training, people. One of the first things you learn is to bridge from the question to a topic that you want to talk about. It's not that difficult. Unless, of course, you're all emotional and defensive about something.

I seem to remember Cuomo going ballistic over being called Mario by Quayle.

I was under the impression a reporter was asking the question in a debate format as a member of the panel. I would say that has no place in a formal debate. I want to know what their ideas and plans are, how they plan to fix certain problems, what their goals are. There is NO reason at all to bring the personal stuff in a debate. In a debate, I don't care who his grandaddy was.

In an interview then I think it is an appropriate question. I still think the purpose of the question is not to letimitately gain useful information for the public but to embarrass the candidate. It also is somewhat racist of the reporter asking the question as it assumes from his political stances that he will have some of the Klan types backing him and this will be a way to discourage them from voting for him.

And to show that I am even handed, I do not support Allen in this race. I also thought it was stupid when it was reported that she was of Jewish ancestry. to me it had NO bearing on her qualifications for the job and her ability to do her job. I take the same stance on Mr. Allen.

Well, it has bearing if he goes around acting like an Aryan Supremacist. Think about it.

That is, it is relevant if it points out his hypocrisy.

Kingfish, why don't you go see if you can find out what the context of the question was, since it worries you so much? All I have is the very brief info from Salon, and that doesn't really clarify the context, though it does provide the quotes.

Also, you're omitting the fact that his campaign wouldn't provide the information to reporters prior to the debate, so I'm not surprised that it came up in a public forum.

Again, he *could have* easily used it to bridge to another topic: "Yes, my grandfather was Jewish, and sent to a concentration camp, which is why I'm opposed to that crazy #### going on in Jackson, MS, where the Mayor is knocking down houses just because he thinks he can get away with it. Now, what we really need, is a strong plan for bringing down crime and ending drug abuse... blah blah blah."

Any time a question is asked, the candidate has the chance to make a point, to deliver an answer that fits with his agenda.

To me, the question is, why did the question generate such an inappropriate response?

And, please explain how the question is "embarassing" or "racist." You wrote:
I still think the purpose of the question is not to letimitately gain useful information for the public but to embarrass the candidate. It also is somewhat racist of the reporter asking the question as it assumes from his political stances that he will have some of the Klan types backing him and this will be a way to discourage them from voting for him.

I believe it was embarassing to Allen because he is a racist, but to say that asking a factual question is "racist"? Not sure how that works. It's not like he was asked "When did you stop beating your wife".

I seem to remember Cuomo going ballistic over being called Mario by Quayle.

Seriously, what is your point? Maybe Cuomo just didn't think he and Quayle were on a first-name basis. In any case, I don't see how this relates to the discussion about Allen's anti-Semitism.

Kate is right. It sounds like the conservtive blogosphere is trying to swiftboat a reporter here—instead of paying attention to the real issue: George Allen sho' does act like a racist.

My point Tim, is feigned outrage is nothing new.

Kate, I clarified the conditions I though it was in so as to cover if it was asked in a debate format or not. I'm part Indian. It would not occur to me to put that out there if I ran for office. Just would not think about it. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he thought my Grandfather was Jewish, so what. He knew it all his life, probably did not place on it the same emphasis others did. If a reporter asked me if my Grandmother or great grandmother was Cherokee I'd probably reply, yeah so what? Is there a reason why my race or ethnicity matters?

I think asking someone about their race and ethnicity in itself is racist in most situations and not important.

Yes, Kingfish, but it would be relevant to ask you about it if you went around touting white supremacy -- and certainly if you bashed Indians in some way.

You might go find the context as Kate suggested to help yourself get out of the corner you've painted yourself into. ;-)

that is why I pointed out I do not support Allen. I have a problem with the question regardless of the candidate.

But you keep skipping the part where they might have been a reason to ask him.

I'm not in a corner. If its in a debate setting, I think it has no place.

If its part of an interview and trying to learn more personal things about the candidate, that is part of it. What did you learn from him? How did that influence you? What would he think about some of your stands on some issues etc? In a personal interview I think its fair game. That is why i specified a debate in case it was one. I am not in favor of gotcha journalism where a question is asked that gives one about two seconds to respond either.


I just don't place the same emphasis on some factors as others do apparently.

Just saw your post Ms Ladd. I have more of a problem with it being asked in a debate. We obviously disagree with it being asked in a debate setting.

Actually, it makes the most sense to ask it in a debate setting -- if there are reasons to ask it (like to point out his possible hypocrisy). It's not "personal" if he himself has made race and ethnicity a political issue (which he has). It's his game; he needs to take personal responsibility for pandering to the racist vote, and answer the question, instead of whining about it being "inappropriate." That's silly.

One of the most disingenuous things I can imagine is a candidate, or a party, that panders to a racist audience then turning around and whining that it's "inappropriate" for a reporter to ask them ... get ready for it ... about ETHNICITY!

It reminds me of the hypocrisy of people who will go before racist groups, or to racist rallies (like Blackhawk), to pander for votes ... and then turn about and whine about "all that's in the past" when someone starts talking about an issue like affirmative action or white flight. They just want to focus on race when they want to focus on race. My answer: screw 'em. Our society NEEDS to talk about race. Let's get it on.

AND, if we don't talk about race issues—past, present, future—then it's open the door for black demagoguery such as we heard the other night on the Tisdale show. You heal division by facing it head on, and calling out a dinosaur like George Allen, not pretending that it doesn't exist.

This state has tried the denial route for all these years, and look where it's gotten us: right slap on the bottom of the barrell—because we don't think we're all in it together. We end up with two Jacksons—the Northside Sun's and the Jackson Advocate's—neither of which we should be proud of.

There is a third way, ladies and gentlemen, and it doesn't include getting bent out of shape when a reporter is willing to talk, and ask questions, about race.

Kingfish, you still have not explained how this question would "embarass" the candidate, or how it is "racist." Which is the part that really freaks me out about your obsession with the topic.

How is it "gotcha" journalism to ask this question? It's not a "trick" question that requires any foresight to answer.

What the heck does "feigned outrage" have to do with this? Who do you think is "feigning" outrage?

And, I agree with Donna's points. The man has made race a political issue.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind at all if someone asked me if I'm, say, Scotch-Irish.

What's the big frackin' deal?

Ladd, what is the Tisdale show reference?

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=10836_0_27_0_C

Donna writes:
What's the big frackin' deal?

But, what would you say if someone asked if you were a Cylon?!?

Uh, oh, I busted myself. People aren't supposed to know about my sci-fi fixation. ;-)

Thanks Ladd.

I don't want to be tangential, but I just wanted to say something about racial dialogue. I am all for it as well. But I think it must be open to all comers --even those we deem racist. Only by addressing all these concerns can we make any progress And first few steps will be necessarily ugly.

I think worrying about whether a particular statement is racist or not is generally counterproductive. Nevermind is it racist -- just ask if it is true.

For example, remember all the discussion about that book "The Bell Curve", which purported to show a statistical difference in intelligence between black and white people? If we just dismiss that as "rasict", then it never gets dealt with -- and people are left with lingering doubts. But if we look at it head on, then it's not hard to see a simple truth. That is, even if the study tells us something true (which I doubt), then so what? Statsitical averages tell you nothing about the capacity of an individual, so what relevance does it have? Since when do we place artificial limits on what people can do based on statistical means associated with some arbitrary classification of them?

So anway, sorry I'm being tangential,and I don't mean to divert the conversation away from where it was going. I just wanted to echo the need for dialogue, but to add that labeling only defers dealing with issues.

I'm not accusing Ladd one anyone else here of such dismissive labeling, by the way. It's just a general point.

Battlestar Galactica is the best show on TV. Just two more weeks till the third season... :o)

Re the Jewish heritage thing: Let's acknowledge two things off the bat. First, antisemitism is a serious problem on both the Left and the Right right now for different reasons, even in the United States, and something that needs to be confronted.

Second: When a reporter asked George Allen if his mother was an observant Jew, he reacted as if it was a political scandal. I just got through watching the TiVo'd Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater, where Goldwater proudly said at the '64 RNC that his grandfather was a Polish Jew. 42 years later, George Allen considers his Jewish ancestors such a huge embarrassment that he won't even claim them.

Though in all fairness, he's no worse than John Kerry on this point. Kerry's grandfather was Jewish ("Kerry" is, in fact, an Anglicized version of "Cohen"), and he refused to say so--claimed, incredibly, that he didn't know--until well into the '04 campaign, over thirty years after he entered politics.

So there is a hate that dare not speak its name, it's antisemitism, and it is obviously a very real problem in both parties. But when we look at this in the context of Allen's other racist actions, a disturbing pattern starts to emerge.


Cheers,

TH

Which is why I want to know why Kingfish thinks the question itself was "racist" and "to embarrass" the candidate. And why he thinks it's a "gotcha" question.

As to Kerry, did he ever claim that being asked was an "aspersion", or did he at least answer rationally...

I don't really see a distinction between Allen's behavior and Kerry's. Allen sinned by comission and Kerry by omission, but both made it very clear through their actions that they were embarrassed of their Jewish heritage, which is a testament both to their incredible cowardice as candidates and to the level of antisemitism that obviously exists in both of their respective bases.


Cheers,

TH

Just a question -- are Kerry and Allen just worried that being Jewish makes them less electible in some way? That is, are they afraid of the anit-semitism of the electorate?

And, for the record, I have Jewish heritage, and didn't know it until last year. They were Germans Jews, who anglicized the name when they came across the pond.

Of course, if I was a fancy politician I'd probably know my family history better, but since I'm just a peasant no one cares where I came from anyway.

If a reporter asked me if my Grandmother or great grandmother was Cherokee I'd probably reply, yeah so what? Is there a reason why my race or ethnicity matters?

And as I think should be obvious by now, if Allen had done that, nobody would be asking questions about him now. Instead, his staff refused to answer the question; they refused to relay the question to him for a response; then Allen, when he was asked the question directly, accused the reporter who asked the question of casting "aspersions."

That's obviously an overreaction, and it clearly smacks of anti-Semitism.

-- Tim

I'm just different. If someone asked me my heritage, I'd ask, why do you care? My heritage is my business. If I choose to put it out there, then it is public business, but if I don't, I have the right to ignore questions about it.

Also, I am against that kind of question in a debate. I did say its ok for an interview. However, I want to know policy, plans, strategy, ideas, etc from each candidate in a debate. I don't think a guy's race will have any or should have any bearing on him pushing the nuke button or deciding whether to cut taxes or act on serious issues.

as for Allen having Jewish heritage, he probably should've taken some of Kate's advice, yeah I am, so what? its not an issue as far as I'm concerned. is it an issue to you? next question.

Tom, since I know *nothing* of the Kerry thing, I'm going to forgo judgment on his behavior. Though he did choose ridiculous topics upon which to avoid making a firm statement, so it wouldn't surpise me.

I do find it plausible that people don't know much about their heritage, so that's not really the part that bothers me in the case of Allen. With Allen, it's the "Macaca", it's the "aspersion", it's the "Confederate Flag", etc.

GLB, I guess that your guess is probably correct - that they fear that they will be 'less electable'. But, if we all traced our heritage, we'd probably all find that we're such mongrels that it doesn't really matter anyway.

Kingfish, you're still not saying why you think the question was racist, nor are you saying why you think it was meant to "embarass" Allen.

Kate, I am absolutely convinced that both Allen and Kerry have known since their childhood that they had Jewish ancestry and chose not to say so because they wanted the votes and donations of antisemites. I find this reprehensible, and something that both candidates should be working very hard to atone for. But I agree that Allen's other behavior puts him in a special class of reprehensible.

GLB, I would say that both decisions are blatantly antisemitic. It's sort of like the Southern Strategy: Is the candidate using it because he is himself a racist, or because he wants votes from racists? In the final analysis, it doesn't matter--it's a racist decision regardless.


Cheers,

TH

Agreed, GLB. That's why I allowed Jim Giles to post here—but when the racist rhetoric runs too strong, it shuts down dialogue. There is a fine balance.

Re: "Bell Curve," again I agree that you need to look deep into such scientific racism to really show people why it's a problem. That's why I have the book, "The Bell Curve," on my shelf, alongside a book refuting it step by step.

t's sort of like the Southern Strategy: Is the candidate using it because he is himself a racist, or because he wants votes from racists? In the final analysis, it doesn't matter--it's a racist decision regardless.

Amen, Tom. As I always say: I don't give. a. damn. what's "in somebody's heart." What matters in the public arena are their words and their actions. That is, if they are just playing a racist on TV, in order to get the racist vote, guess what? That's digusting.

I have mixed feelings about when we should engage racists in debate. Deborah Lipstadt has a policy of never debating Holocaust deniers because that implies a legitimate pro/con debate where none exists. Some global warming scholars and evolutionists have similar policies. I am personally angry at Andrew Sullivan for dedicating an issue of The New Republic to discussion of The Bell Curve, and haven't really forgiven him for that, because he gave scientific racism a platform and gravitas that it didn't deserve.

On the other hand, when an argument becomes prevalent or assumed--if people start silently believing The Bell Curve, but don't discuss their privately held racist views because it isn't "politically correct" (I hate that phrase) to do so--then it's time for aggressive refutation. A good example of this is Farai Chideya's Don't Believe the Hype--a book every Jacksonian should own--that rips apart negative "statistics" regarding race.


Cheers,

TH

By the way, Donna is actually much less of a tyrant than I am. If I'm moderating a forum and people start arguing that men are more naturally intelligent than women, or whites more naturally intelligent than blacks, or they start throwing around Paul Cameron's pseudoscientific crap about lesbians and gays, I don't bother debating them. I just lock out their accounts and delete all evidence that they ever posted. If someone sent a letter with racist arguments, I wouldn't print it to show the racism that exists in the community; I'd put it through the shredder. That's the difference between a real journalist, like Donna, and a pundit, like me.


Cheers,

TH

Maybe if Allen does have Jewish heritage he's going out of his way to prove he's "with" the white/Southern Strategy-type voter. To compensate. Ew...

I'm just curious. Did anyone bother to read the Bell Curve?

Yep, it's a tough debate, and I've had it plenty (especially when I wrote regularly about hate on the Internet for the Village Voice). But I pretty much always fall on the side of more information rather than less. Maybe it's because I'm from Neshoba County—and saw firsthand what ignorance (in the truest sense of a word) can do to a community. And you're right—if we don't discuss, and refute, ignorant notions, people just go around and believe they're true because no one is refuting them. That, to me, is the biggest danger. I believe you expose the ugly crap, and then tear it apart piece by piece. If that had been done much sooner in this state, Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner, Evers, Dee, Moore, Dahmer and others might still be alive.

For instance, I firmly believe that many of the N-JAMmers and their favoriate talk-show personlities simply do not know that they often repeat, word for word, the rhetoric of the White Citizens Council. Is that because they know so little about history that they don't even know the verbal form that racism takes? Maybe. But it's no excuse.

Yes, Kingfish.

I'm just curious. Did you bother to research the backgrounds, and funding sources, of the people who wrote it?

Kingfish, I've skimmed it enough to look at its methodology and conclusions but I don't own a copy. The truth is that it's a book-length discussion of an article-length study.


Cheers,

TH

Donna, it's a tough tightrope, no question. You know I'm never reluctant to call out racism when I see it, but there are times when I think people say horribly offensive things to get attention--or tenure--and in those situations, I find myself falling back on the old biblical curse: "May their names be blotted out."

On the other hand, there needs to be enough coverage that we're all informed, especially when it comes to politics. What if you never interviewed Jim Giles? Would we know that he describes himself as a white separatist? Would we vote for him because he's the only opponent to Chip Pickering, assuming that means he's more progressive on race rather than less? So there's definitely a tension here, and I'm glad you're doing what you do. It's just not what I'd do, myself, though maybe I'd have to if you weren't here to do it for me.


Cheers,

TH

And thanks, Tom. I do walk a tightrope here. It is very important to me that my work, and that of the JFP, *expose* the racism that still exists in the community—and the best way to do that is to bring the nastiness to the top (as we've seen happen to a number of people in the community who have surprised others mightily). If we don't do that, then others will never know what they're really like, and need to, if we're going to tackle this monster and be all that we can be.

However, I cannot give a full platform for folks to spew anything they want and insult readers and drive them away. The goal of exposure, though, is why you will often see me go a few more rounds with someone espousing racist views than might make you comfortable. I'm particularly interested in the ones who don't even know what they're doing themselves. They're the saddest, of course, because they're simply parrotting what they've been taught without studying history themselves. And to bring this full circle, THAT'S exactly why we have to continue to study and learn from (and, as necessary, make atones for) our racist past. If not, we end up with a bunch of ill-informed voters who think that black people were born violent (or whatever) without the benefit of understanding the forces that have created the communities where violence is bred. The worst part then is that they do not support public policy that can help cure these problems—simply declaring that everyone is equal now, so get over it. It's that kind of ignorance we must overcome. And we shall. ;-)

Kingfish, I'm still curious as to why you label the question about Allen's grandfather as 'racist', and why you say that it was meant to 'embarass' him.

Think of the caller on Kim's show Friday. He starts out talking about "Jafrica," and then denies vehemently that he might be one of the ones harping on Faye Peterson (rather than McMillin or Hood) because she's a black woman. His reason that he couldn't possibly be racist? Because he supported Frank Melton.

How much ignorance of history is there in that one example?

If you mean that one group, what is the name of it, I know who you are talking about. Pioneer Group. yeah, I know who they are.

However, only a small part of the book dealt with race. I think it was less than 25 pages. Most of the book talked about society becoming more specialized and how people of similar IQ types were marrying each other, further splitting society. Interesting thesis I thought. For example, three generations ago you might have had a bricklayer or factory worker who actually had a fairly high IQ but due to opportunity or lack of it, he was stuck in those jobs. You'd have him marry someone in his class usually or a little above or below. then they would produce kids with high IQs and then he or his kids would then get advanced schooling meet someone of similar backgrounds, education, IQ etc. I thought that was an interesting premise.

Then he gets into how specialized society is becoming and how a premium is placed even more on intelligence at even more menial type jobs and hmmm...there might be a problem there. Controversial? absolutely. worth discussing in that context? possibly.

brings into play things such as Nafta/Cafta etc that are exporting the jobs that less intelligent people can do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. On these points my minds is not made up, just thinking out loud. However, even if you were a eugenicist that believed all of that, then by that premise what do you do with a sizeable segment of society that is going to be left behind?

He could have had a decent book without that one chapter.

One hint that someone doesn't understand race history: If they say someone can't be racist (or racially profile) because they are black, then they are woefully, tragically ignorant of our history.

I have a copy of the Bell Curve. I read a little bit of it but never finished. I can't even remember what I read. I'll look at it again tonight so as to rememeber some of the conclusions. I know too many smart and dumb people of so many races to conclude one race is smarter or in some way superior than the others, despite our enviroments and socialization processes. Couple this with the long histories of tales and lies about the poor, underpriviledged, southerners, blacks, indians, mexicans, women, and so on, and I just can't stand to hear or read any more of these claims.

Hmmm...Kate, why do I think its racist? I think asking a person about their ethnicity itself is racist to some degree. Of course, I've also bought into the color blind theory. If a person wants to put it out there that is their business but I don't think its a proper question to ask.

that is why I used Albright as an example. I would have never asked her about that or gone digging around looking for her ancestry like that. Gail Wynand may have to sell some papers but I wouldn't have done so.

Yes, Kingfish, it was a very eugenical book. A hint: Folks promoting eugenics *always* pad it with a bunch of palatable-seeming stuff. Careful.

BTW, are y'all familiar with just how strongly Jackson was tied into the scientific-racism movement there for a while—especially through the work of Bill Simmons (former owner of Fairview Inn; sold it recently; brunch anyone?)

Read more here.

Kingfish, the authors were well aware of the fact that the "one chapter" would the defining one. That was the objective, and it's what decodes the rest of the argument--regarding intermarriage of "different IQ grades" (segregation to prevent "miscenegation"), labor and caste (slavery), and so forth. It's very much like a cryptogram puzzle, where you get a jumbled mess of hypotheses for 820 pages of the book and the legend to what it all means in the other 25.


Cheers,

TH

And Donna, let me go on record here as saying that I completely support everything you and other real journalists do. I also completely support the work of proctologists. Both efforts reduce the amount of time the rest of us might be obligated to spend dealing with assholes.


Cheers,

TH

Tee, hee, Tom. ;-D

No, I have not read the Bell Curve. So I am speaking with some ignorance.

But I'm willing to concede their argument anyway, because I think it is irrelevant. Even if they are right, then so what? What does an average characteristic of a race have to do with anything?

Having said that, though, i think it is much better to LOOK at what people say than to dismiss it out of hand as racist, sexist, socialist, communist, or what have you.

For one thing, I think that presupposes a starting point that a lot of people don't necessarily share with you.

In the case of racism, why do you assume racism is bad? There are some definite benefits to being racist -- otherwise people wouldn't do it. You and I may WANT a world without racism, but that doesn't mean that it is better for all concerned in all situations.

But if avoid the 'label and dismiss' method of debate, and instead just try to look at the truth and/or value of what people are saying, then the REASONS that we don't like rasicm will bubble to the surface. But if we stop with just "that's racist so it's bad" then no one who thinks racism might be good is ever persuaded.

And isn't that what we want? or do we just want to preach to the choir?

GLB you lost me on this one.

Sorry, Ray.

I'm just trying to make a case that I agree with having open dialogue about race, but that that dialogue should include arguments that are often considered racist. If we look at what is actually being said, then we can make judgements of truth and value about the content of the arguments, and sort the wheat from the chaff that way. I think it will be ugly in some cases, because people will say things that are painful to hear. But I think it has to be done that way, at least for a while.

I tihnk this sort of thing does happen, but mostly in small groups of people who trust one another's goodwill. I think Mission Mississippi has this sort of dialogue, for example.

I know Blacks can be racist. I saw the episode where George Jefferson didn't want the Puerto Ricans moving into his neighborhood.

You lost me, too, GLB. No one here is arguing for "label and dismiss," as you put it. In fact, around here, we do quite the opposite. I personally make people crazy because I spend a lot of time trying to figure out *why* people feel the way they do (whether Mideast terrorists or Mississippi Klansmen) in order to attack the root. If you don't bother to do that, then you run the risk of never curing the disease.

In the case of racism, why do you assume racism is bad? There are some definite benefits to being racist -- otherwise people wouldn't do it.

You really lose me here. It might be handy to define "racism" as you see it—especially since you're makin gan argument that it might not be "bad." Maybe we define it differently. And your argument that one should decide that racism "might be good" in order to dissuade others from being it is wholly unconvincing. That's very different from being willing to listen to others to understand how they got that way; you can do that without deciding that, well, maybe racism isn't so bad after all.

Of course, racism is bad. That is, if you understand what the word means. Do you? And I ask that seriously.

GLB I understand what you just wrote, but I ain't going to accept the overall finding of the Bell Curve as generally truthful or scientifically valid although I wouldn't be surprised to find some apects of the truth in it every now and again.

I prefer to start with the premise that no one is innately or genetically superior to another simply based on race. It want be hard to find someone of every race to refute the claims by example and performance.

The beginning premise often determines who is willing to ride along for the discussion.

I know Blacks can be racist. I saw the episode where George Jefferson didn't want the Puerto Ricans moving into his neighborhood.

Maybe this is a good time to broach the difference between bigotry and racism. Not wanting another race to move into your neighborhood could simply be bigotry (which ain't good, and merits further education, but not necessarily *racist*). Actively trying to keep them from moving into your neighborhood is more akin to "racism"—which is joining with others (or being willing to join with others) to act on your prejudices in a way to disadvantage groups of people based solely on their race. This is where the debate over whether a member of a minority group can actually be "racist" toward the dominant culture comes into play—if you don't have the power to disadvantage a group with your actions, is it "racist" or are you simply a bigot?

Neither is good, but it's not particularly helpful to lump any act or thought of bigotry together. For instance, someone could be a bigot in their heart, but never take an action or vote in any way to try to hurt people based on their race. Would you call that person a racist? I wouldn't.

Anyway, this is sure to set off a firestorm, so have at it. It's interesting stuff to contemplate, although the answers aren't easy. I do think, though, that Jackson is ready for another level of sophistication (or complexity?) to be added to our discussion of "racism."

Salon today: Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college -- either he's being swiftboated or his college football teammates remember him as a very comfortable racist.

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

I agree with Ray. The Bell Curve was written to prove something that some nefarious folks wanted proved to serve an agenda. That is important to understand. There is nothing redeeming there.

It's kind of like putting a dose of poison in a smoothie filled with all sorts of healthy things. The poison infects the other ingredients, and all you're left with is poison.

Folks, I would suggest careful consideration of your own feelings about wanting to accept *some* eugenic ideas, but not the ones that society will find the most disgusting. That strikes me as a dangerous slippery slope.

Re iTodd's post ... and Allen argues that it's "inappropriate" for a reporter to ask him about race!?! Please. What a pig.

GLB, if you're arguing honesty is important, I'm all for that. And I won't totally condem a person for having a view different than mines, or even racist. I don't beleive any racist can convince me that racism is good for mankind. Clearly it's not even good for the racists, no matter their color.

Right, Ray. Exhibit A: Cro-Magnon George Allen.

BTW, interesting reading about the Bell Curve scam.