Here is the full version of the story: http://newsone.com/entertainment/sports-entertainment/casey-gane-mccalla/team-may-boycott-hs-basketball-coach-jason-popp-for-racist-comments/RICHMOND HEIGHTS — Racial tensions between a coach and his players have an undefeated high school basketball team threatening to boycott the rest of the season.
The Richmond Heights basketball team is 15-and-0, but the team planned to sit out Tuesday night's game, unless their coach was fired.
Monday, parents sent the school superintendent a letter, claiming he uses racist and degrading comments.
"Everybody in this room are responsible for these children, it's time to stop," said parent Nneka Slade Jackson, during a heated school board meeting Monday night.
"They been dealing with this for months (years), this ain't something that just started yesterday," said parent Alvin Fulton.
The parents are demanding the superintendent, Dr. Linda Hardwick, remove high school varsity basketball coach Jason Popp, alleging he uses inappropriate language, as well as racist comments towards his players.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Quayle said if Parker wins the primary election he would be a “national poster boy” for the Democratic Party, paving the way for a Democrat, presumably Jon Hulburd, to win the general election.That’s when things got dirty.
Parker spokesman Jason Rose issued a press release saying Quayle called Parker “boy,” a racially charged word against African Americans.
“To have the 33-year-old son of one of the wealthiest families in America refer to a leading Republican African American as ‘boy’ is over the top,” Rose said.
The only thing “over the top” is Rose issuing that statement.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous. ‘Poster boy’ has absolutely no racial content to it. It was just to say that if elected in the primary then he would be somebody who was emblematic of bad ethical behavior,” Quayle said.
OK, now I get it. I don't agree with it, but at least I understand where the Parker folks are coming from with the allegation.
Quayle is in a little hot water ... maybe not boiling, but it is heating up. There have been calls on him to issue an apology for his words.
This is, to say the very least, a reach. Saying "
In this context, "boy" clearly is not used in a racist way.
Sorry Vernon, I can't black you up on this one. From what I read, you're wrong.
Fox News right winger Bill O'Reilly found his black tea bagger who took great pleasure in attacking civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis. This far-right nut then went on the attack against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a ham-handed attempt to portray her as some kind of racist. It was stupid and illustrates a few things: ignorance is color blind, there is always some Jesse Lee Peterson-like black man who will say whatever is necessary to earn most favored Negro status and Bill O'Reilly once again showed that he remains a biased right winger.
Once again, leave it to "fair and balanced" Fox News to come to the defense of the tea parties through a one-sided Bill O'Reilly interview.
Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003310050
A still fairly recent release of a Harris poll that put into sharp focus how ignorant some Republicans are when it comes to their views on President Barack Obama. Some of the revelations in the poll show the depth of the hatred that some close-minded Republicans have for this president. And, that hatred started long before he was president and long before he became the official nominee for the presidency in 2008. The hatred started before this nation knew much of anything about Barack Obama.
The findings of the Harris poll continue to reflect the hatred that exists in the dark hearts of some of these Republicans. Below are summaries of the Harris poll results as compiled by Media Matters for America.
According to the Harris poll, conducted of 2,320 adults between March 1 and March 8, a majority of Republicans believe President Obama:
It goes on:
There is your Republican party (still believing in thoroughly vetted and debunked garbage. It basically shows that everyday Republicans and tea baggers are like storm troopers from the Star Wars movies. They operate like robots taking their marching orders from right-wing extremists like Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.
Black far-right commentator Lloyd Marcus is back at it trying to score points with conservatives (including Tea Party extremists) through his latest attack on something representing black people. The saddest part of Marcus's attack (an opinion piece titled "NAACP Image Award Reaches New Low") is that he strangely attempts to use Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a weapon to take shots at the NAACP, organization president Benjamin Todd Jealous and NAACP Image Award recipient Van Jones, the victim of a vicious smear campaign led by right-wing extremist Glenn Beck and other on-air personalities at Fox News and on the radio airwaves.
Here is a portion of what Marcus wrote in his attempt to smear the NAACP and take another shot at Jones:
Dr. King's once-great NAACP has become a negative, shameful tool of the left: overseers committed to keeping their fellow blacks dependent and subservient to the Democrat party. Including once-self-proclaimed Communist Van Jones [pictured] among the honorees at this year's NAACP Image Award show last night epitomizes the organization's descent into liberal Hades. Jones was forced to resign as the Obama administration's green czar due to his radical, far-left ideas, which include believing the Bush administration blew up the towers on 9/11. Jones has spouted extremely vicious and vulgar comments about political opponents. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous called Jones 'an American treasure.' Is Jones the 'image' that the NAACP wishes to present to young black America while treating black U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and black former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice like dirt? Utterly outrageous and shameful.
I am not sure I totally get the connection Marcus is attempting to draw to link the NAACP to Dr. King. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. I don't know that Dr. King really had a particularly strong affiliation or relationship with the NAACP. Contrary to popular belief, not all activists during the Civil Rights Era were directly involved with the NAACP.
Marcus's column sounds like more right-wing hate targeted at Van Jones, a man conservatives have tried to portray as an extremist, as a communist and as someone who is anti-American (primarily to attack President Barack Obama through his association with Jones).
Right wingers are upset because Jones called Republicans "assholes" at some point in his life. To those who are upset about it, I say, "quit crying."
Come up with your own awards if you don't like the ones the NAACP Image Awards are handing out.
As for the comments about former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I see a split decision. I don't have a huge problem with Rice (I probably do not agree with her on a whole lot in terms of politics, and that is OK), but Thomas is a completely different story. Sorry, but there is not a whole lot of love over here for Justice Thomas.
As for Jones linking Bush to 9/11, that is disputed. Here is Jones, account of the controversial issue.
Whether people like Lloyd Marcus like it or not, people are not going to throw a talented and bright man like Van Jones under the bus.
I applaud the NAACP for recognizing a man who has given a lot to this country and has much more to give in the years to come.
UPDATE ON VAN JONES: Jones also holds a joint appointment at Princeton University, as a distinguished visiting fellow in both the Center for African American Studies and in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Leave it to conservatives to take an ad that most normal Americans thought was funny and turn it into some liberal plot to attack black people.
Yes, and many of these same conservatives are apt to accuse black people of playing the so-called race card. For some on the right, the formula is rather simple. Mix a tempting bowl of Doritos, an attractive single mom, an overprotective (albeit funny young son), a would-be date, and the fact that they’re all black, and conservatives see a sinister plot on the part of liberals to reinforce stereotypes of black people. We are in the middle of a discussion on the topic on one of my new favorite blogs, Diversity Ink. I was about ready to go on to the next topic when I became aware of a blog you will see referred to below.
First, however, is the Super Bowl commercial in question.
Some right wingers of color have lost their minds over this commercial.
Here is a fellow blogger’s take on the commercial she found to be far from funny.
I found NOTHING funny about this superbowl commercial for Doritos.
It is white liberal condescension towards black in its most heightened form.It has white liberal disturbing humor written all over it and reinforces its messages loud and clear.
Now if you’ve been reading here long enough, you know I don’t cry racism over racial situations. I see them for the individual events they are, driven by individual idiots, no matter what their color.
However, as a reminder to those who’ve been brainwashed all these long years by liberal and Democratic white ideologies, it behooves me to speak up about this buffoonish commercial.
It goes without saying that I completely disagree with that assessment of the Doritos commercial and the attempt to use it as a weapon against “liberal and Democratic white ideologies” and to advance the tired “brainwashed” theory. This blog I am citing seems less angered by the commercial and more interested in how it can be used as a weapon to attack liberals and Democrats.
The blogger adds:
The little boy’s reaction is instant hostility and violence. When his mother leaves the room he gives this adult male – who he’ll one day grow to be – a warning slap across his face about touching his food and/or his mother.
I don’t care what intentions an adult indicates in front of a child, short of violence, children should respect authority. It is not cute or funny to have them do otherwise.
Further, the message in the (no older than five, this child) boy’s actions suggests, this is a baby-mama, single-parent household, and the boy intends to keep it this way.
These days, we see beer commercial after beer commercial of white guys drinking beer and wanting to push up on white women. Is that indicative of something bad as far as white men and white women are concerned (drinking and potentially hooking up)? I don’t see it that way. I think it was just a funny commercial and I did not see the racism at all. Even more difficult than the racism is seeing the angle about some liberal Democrat plot. That line of thinking is farfetched to say the very least.
The blogger does not see a funny commercial, a young boy protective of his mom or the kind of dating that occurs every day in our society (there are a lot of single moms … whether we like it or not).
This was a cute ad and there was no racism or liberal plot.
MSNBC host and commentator Chris Matthews has a habit of making comments that make you shake your head in disbelief.
Matthews offered yet another in regard to President Obama’s State of the Union speech:
MATTHEWS: You know, I was trying to think about who he was tonight, and it’s interesting: He is post-racial by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he’s gone a long way to become a leader of this country and passed so much history in just a year or two. I mean, it’s something we don’t even think about.
I was watching, I said, Wait a minute, he’s an African-American guy in front of a bunch of other white people. And here he is President of the United States and we’ve completely forgotten that tonight — completely forgotten it. I think it was in the scope of his discussion. It was so broad-ranging, so in tune with so many problems, of aspects, and aspects of American life that you don’t think terms of the old tribalism, the old ethnicity. It was astounding in that regard — a very subtle fact. It’s so hard to even talk about; maybe I shouldn’t talk about it, but I am.
Well, Chris, we almost forgot how foolish you can be, but then you typically bring us back to reality.
Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/27/matthews-obama-black/
Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001270078
Right winger Scott Baio, an actor of the former hit comedy television show Happy Days, took a cheap shot at first lady Michelle Obama and the backlash has been blistering.
Like many on the right wing, even as hundreds of thousands of Haitians are dying and suffering in the wake of a massive earthquake, Baio has been celebrating the U.S. Senate victory for Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. While basking in the glow of Brown’s victory, and confident in their efforts they hope will result in the destruction of proposed health care legislation, Baio attempted to take a cheap shot at Michelle Obama.
Baio tweeted, about the first lady, “WOW He wakes up to this every morning,” and posted the below photo for the added shot:
Check out the Huffington Post article because it gets particularly interesting when Baio goes to a variation of the “I’m-not-racist-because-I-have-black-friends” handbook. Somewhat to Baio’s credit, however, he found a new (or perhaps rarely read) chapter, “I’m-not-racist-because-my-wife’s-best-friend-is-black.”
I’m not saying he’s a racist, now. In fact, I think he really is just the typical far-right kind of individual. Arguably, that might even be more disturbing than being a straight-up racist.
Also, from Huffington Post:
“I’m NOT racist for posting a pic of M.O. My WIFE’S BEST FRD IS BLACK,HELLO” he tweeted.
And: “Do I look like I’m racist? This is Renee’s BEST frd. STOP USING THE RACE CARD!!!” Here is a picture Baio tweeted of himself with said black person:
Baio next Tweeted a photo of him hugging his wife’s black female friend. Nice touch.
I do find it interesting how much time Scott Baio seems to be wasting defending himself from the charges of racism.
I also find it interesting that he accuses others of playing the race card before turning around and playing it himself by saying he is not racist because his wife’s best friend is black.
Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/scott-baio-tweets-michell_n_431214.html?fbwall
Far-right conservatives have gravitated to this tired “race card” thing like flies on a pile of … well, you get it.
“Race card” become a racism-accusation shield for many on the far right.
This leads me to a column written in the Midland (Mich.) Daily News by Chris Stevens who is whining about criticism he says he has gotten for his criticism of President Obama. He goes to the hysterical concept that basically everyone who criticizes the president is considered a racist …
Not all are racists … most are just straight-up haters who were in full hate mode right from the beginning.
It begins …
It never fails.
Say something critical about President Obama and a response(or two or three) on the website always has to include something about race. As in, “You’re a racist, Stevens.”
It’s not always the main point expressed, but it is usually mixed in with the other comments critical of what I write.
Now, keep in mind, I’ve written several pieces about Obama, and I’ve yet to mention his race. Never dawned on me, actually.
If I had written a sentence such as, “Our president is a socialist, and by the way, did you notice that he’s black? …” then I think those playing the race card would have a reason to be upset.
First, you don’t need to mention race for racism to be a motive. If you’re smart you figure out better ways of making such a point. “I’ve yet to mention his race” Stevens writes. OK, maybe that’s true. He continues, “never dawned on me, actually.” Not buying that part. I have no evidence for my belief, but anyone who says President Obama’s race has never dawned on them seems unlikely to be truthful. In fact, this flat fails the truth test unless you live in that Bill O’Reilly imagined utopia … in a galaxy far, far away … where you supposedly don’t notice race (even though everyone knows he damn well does).
His last paragraph of that excerpt shows a classic case of trying to throw you off the scent. It’s the because-I-didn’t-mention-his-race-it-can’t-be-racism defense. Then, Stevens invokes the customary “race card” statement as a sort of boilerplate … the standard defense against any and all charges of racism (whether real or imagined). Similar to the old American Express commercials … the motto for this would be don’t enter a debate without (your Race Card Charge plate) … don’t leave home without it. Yes, when you’re accused of race (real or imagined) you automatically scream “race card” as your defense.
Stevens continues:
But I haven’t written a statement like that in my columns and I never will. That’s not me.
For a white man, such as me, it comes with the turf. You criticize someone who’s black, and, chances are, there’s someone out there who believes your real motive is that you don’t like people of color.
This is step two of the defense against a charge of racism (real or imagined). You turn the tables and begin to play the role of victim, “For a white man, such as me, it comes with the turf.” This is right out of the textbook.
Anyway, cutting to the end…
Stevens then proceeds to talk about a nutty columnist named Erik Rush who has been on Fox News from time to time to play his understood role (the black man who will come on and say negative things about President Obama so that the far-right nuts can keep their hands dry). Rush, who is nuttier than Mr. Peanut, shares this role with the likes of the dubious Jesse Lee Peterson (who is akin to a modern-day slave catcher) and others.
Yes, this is the same old stuff.
We should never be surprised by the very conservative and anti-black perspective that Sean Hannity always seems to bring to virtually any discussion about race. News Hounds points out a Thursday episode of Hannity’s Fox News show followed the right-wingers usual script. In a discussion about race, Hannity (as part of an all-white panel) predictably blamed the two black people involved in the issue: Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and President Obama while pretty much completely absolving Sgt. James Crowley of any wrongdoing in the highly-publicized incident that created a national conversation on the topic of race.
Honestly, it was probably best Hannity didn’t have any black conservatives on there to be showpieces to do his far-right bidding (while attacking the two blacks involved).
The depth and breadth of Glenn Beck’s stupidity is virtually beyond human comprehension. The crazed Fox News host, who has proven he has no business with a platform on any legitimate news network, recently said this: “The president has exposed himself, I think, as a guy, over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or white culture.” Beck, like a lot of the far-right conservatives, is working overtime to attack President Obama using racial politics as a result of the controversy surrounding the ridiculous arrest of Prof. Henry Louis Gates for, as Bill Maher described it, the crime of not kissing an officer’s butt.
From Think Progress:
Yesterday on Fox News, host Glenn Beck went on a rant about President Obama’s comments about the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the upcoming meeting Obama will have with Gates, who is African-American, and the arresting officer, Jim Crowley. “This president has exposed himself, I think, as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or white culture,” Beck complained, later adding, “He has a, this guy is, I believe, a racist.”
The NAACP came out with a statement chastising Beck for his comments. “We commend President Obama for having the courage to discuss an issue that all too many Americans consider a third rail,” the statement said.
Like the NAACP, I also commend President Obama not only for speaking out on the issue, but of standing up for a friend of his. He could have phrased his original comment better, but I think the sentiment was right on the money.
Also, as cited by Think Progress:
This morning, the crew on MSNBC’s Morning Joe ripped Beck for an entire segment of the show:
WASHINGTON POST’S JONATHAN CAPEHART: How is it possible that this guy can sit on national television and call this guy a racist? The President is half white!
MSNBC HOST MIKE BARNICLE: In reality, Glenn Beck is just show business. …The larger, dumber statement is that the President of the United States has a deep seeded hatred for white people. Hello Glenn!? His mother was white! He was raised by a white woman, his grandmother! Hello!? Glenn? … Come back down to Earth please!
HOST MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Outrageous is one way of putting it. I would say irresponsible, especially now…selfish, self-indulging.
Beck is disgraceful, but maybe it goes to show if you’re partially black to some people you’re all black. I honestly think there are times people forget that President Obama is half white.
If the man had any mind to begin with then he clearly has lost it.
Maybe it’s that whole one-drop thing.
From Wikipedia:
The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black (unless they have an alternative non-white ancestry, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, Polynesian or Australian aboriginal).[1] It developed most strongly out of the binary culture of long years of institutionalized slavery.
This notion of invisible/intangible membership in a racial group has seldom been applied to people of other ancestry (see Race in the United States for details). The concept has been chiefly applied to those of black African ancestry. As Langston Hughes wrote, “You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word ‘Negro’ is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown.”[2]
Henry Louis Gates Jr. one of the most respected scholars in the United States of America, may have become the latest victim of racial profiling. Essentially, it appears that Gates was harassed by police officers because he forced his way into his own home a woman reported seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch” with one “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.” Ah, the infamous two black males accusation. Apparently, two black males look a little bit more suspect in an upscale neighborhood, huh?
This is an excerpt from a Yahoo News/AP story:
BOSTON – Supporters of a prominent Harvard University black scholar who was arrested at his own home by police responding to a report of a break-in say he is the victim of racial profiling.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. had forced his way through the front door of his home because it was jammed, his lawyer said Monday.
Cambridge police say they responded to the well-maintained two-story home near campus after a woman reported seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch,” with one “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”
By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in.
“Why, because I’m a black man in America?” Gates said, according to a police report written by Sgt. James Crowley. The Cambridge police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.
Gates — the director of Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research — initially refused to show the officer his identification, but then gave him a Harvard University ID card, according to police.
It’s a disturbing tale because it does make (or should make) a person wonder would white guys trying to get into a house have been perceived the same way.
More from the story:
“Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him,” the officer wrote.
Gates said he turned over his driver’s license and Harvard ID — both with his photos — and repeatedly asked for the name and badge number of the officer, who refused. He said he then followed the officer as he left his house onto his front porch, where he was handcuffed in front of other officers, Gates said in a statement released by his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree, on a Web site Gates oversees, TheRoot.com
He was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge after police said he “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior.” He was released later that day on his own recognizance. An arraignment was scheduled for Aug. 26.
Gates, 58, also refused to speak publicly Monday, referring calls to Ogletree.
“He was shocked to find himself being questioned and shocked that the conversation continued after he showed his identification,” Ogletree said.
Yeah, why would a guy be upset about being harassed by police for trying to get into his own house and having a dime dropped on him by someone worried about the two black guys? The police come and harass a man getting into his own house and then arrest him on his own property for disorderly conduct. How much of an insult/slap in the face is that? I think most people would have “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior” (how broad a description is that?) if they found themselves in a similar situation.
One more excerpt:
Allen Counter, who has taught neuroscience at Harvard for 25 years, said he was stopped on campus by two Harvard police officers in 2004 after being mistaken for a robbery suspect. They threatened to arrest him when he could not produce identification.
“We do not believe that this arrest would have happened if professor Gates was white,” Counter said. “It really has been very unsettling for African-Americans throughout Harvard and throughout Cambridge that this happened.”
It’s difficult (if not impossible) to get in the heads of the officers and the individual that called in the complaint. But, it is enough to make a lot of us pause and think about one of the many faces of racism – even in the Obama era.
The New York Times has a story written (based upon recently-released tapes) that give insight to former President Richard Nixon’s views about abortion and about abortion related to interracial relationships and rape.
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”
What an appalling comment.
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24nixon.html?_r=1
Margery Eagan, a columnist for the Boston Herald, probably did not win any friends on the VERY far-right Fox News Web site, Fox Nation, with a recent piece she wrote.
Here’s a small taste of her column:
It’s been such fun watching the right-wing white boys sputtering over the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman nominated by a black man!
“Our world domination’s slip, slip, slipping away,” you can almost hear them whimper. “What to do?”
Well, you can’t dump on the woman thing. That’s more than half the country. Can’t dump on the Hispanic angle. They’ll be more than half the country soon.
Knowing how so many people (particularly the loyal hardcore right-wing followers of Fox News) feel about racial issues, you can imagine the controversy this has sparked.
Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2009_05_28_Men_in_throes_of_Supreme_panic/srvc=home&position=2
Fox Nation (check out some of the anger-driven responses):
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/29/right-wing-white-men-threatened-world-domination-slipping
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele rarely misses an opportunity to open his mouth to offer criticism of President Barack Obama. Sadly, however, Steele is resorting to old and tired Republican talking points: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. Steele, however, steps into an interesting territory with this comment he recently made (as documented by Think Progress):
STEELE: The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know.
Some of the tired talking points from Steele in the above comments:
These are some of the same tired and old talking points we heard over and over again throughout the presidential campaign. Additionally, it’s evidence Michael Steele and Republicans refuse to bring anything new to the table (that is positive). The public wants something more for the Republicans than to play the fear card and the woe-is-us (the press supposedly in the pocket of President Obama) card.
Check out Think Progress’ article because it points out a little hypocrisy coming from Michael Steele (with his implications about the president based on race). Maybe it’s time someone took the microphone away from Chairman Steele. He may be a good man, but it seems as though nearly every time he opens his mouth something damaging to the party comes out. Comments like that may strengthen the Republican base, but it hurts the ability for the party to expand beyond its far-right base.
I will say one thing about Michael Steele: He knows how to stay in the public spotlight.
Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/22/steele-obama-race/
