Use the Term 'Coon' To Attack People

I've noticed a growing trend among people in the so-called black community to attack a certain type of person with which they have disagreement.

What I've noticed is an increase in the use of the slur "coon" to attack black people who hold a certain type of view on particular political and social issues.

So, I see "coon" used in a couple of different ways. But, before we get to that, let me start with the word's definition. It's a derogatory term (obviously) used to attack black people who are perceived to be against the interests of the majority of black people. It is sometimes, for example, used to attack black conservatives. More recently, it has been used to attack black people who do not do everything humanly possibly to serve the interests of black people as perceived by the "conscious" and "scholarly" black community leaders.

"Coon" is a dangerous and ugly term. What I find particularly ironic is that most of the people who use it are the same ones who call for black unity. Is this to say that we can only be united if we agree on 100 percent of the issues? If so, this seems like a nonstarter to true collaboration.

People have to be able to come together to solve issues. However, it seems counter intuitive to the true spirit of collaboration when some are deemed "coons" basically because they do not agree on every single issue.

Next time you see someone call another person a "coon" you should ask a few questions:

• What do they really mean?
• Is the slur based on a true large body of evidence, one incident, a few incidents?
• Is it used to create dialogue, to call attention to something significant, or is it a petty and one-dimensional ad hominem attack designed to hurt?
• Does the person attacked have a reasonable position?
• Is it done because the person using the slur lacks the ability to articulate a coherent and reasonable counterpoint?

I believe "coon" is an ugly slur that needs to largely be put to bed.

Think before you slur.

Hater Rush Limbaugh Exploits Haiti Disaster, Race To Attack President Obama

Rush Limbaugh, who has built a financial fortune and a large fan base on hate, sunk to a new low (and that is saying something by his standards), with his words in the wake of the devastating earthquake in Haiti. The disaster in Haiti, by the time everything is said, done and written, could claim in the neighborhood of 100,000 lives. The death toll, the destruction and the loss of life are so incredible it’s almost impossible to fully comprehend. But, that has not stop the disgraceful and hateful Limbaugh, the lowest among us, from taking this international tragedy and using it as an opportunity to score political points against and take a racially tinged shot at President Obama.

Jan. 13, on his hate radio show, Limbaugh had comments that you can check out on this video clip from Media Matters for America.

Rush Limbaugh never misses an opportunity to take a shot at President Obama and rarely misses an opportunity to use race as a wedge issue.

Still, so many people continue to support this man and so many people wonder why black people turn away from Republicans and are disgusted by so much of what Republicans stand for in this country. It’s a shame (and I’ve written it so many times on this blog) that good conservatives (reasonable conservatives) lack the character to stand up and speak out against hate speech like this from Rush Limbaugh which serves only to divide people. Instead, they either go silent or they make every excuse possible for Limbaugh and his hate speech.

Be honest, this is Limbaugh’s way of using race to attack President Obama for wanting to go out of his way to help black people (suggesting the president would not have done the same, as quickly, for white people … because all black people stick together).

I commend Ed Schultz (and the others who did likewise) for calling out Rush Limbaugh for these unbelievably callous comments in the wake of a disaster of epic proportions.

Rush Limbaugh is a disgraceful man who has no decency. Limbaugh makes his millions of dollars off such hate speech, but what about the cowards on the right who are unwilling to face him on his bigotry. What do they get out of supporting his hate and daily forms of bigotry? Maybe he speaks to what truly exists in their hearts … things they want desperately to say, but lack the courage to say it. Those are the people we should truly fear.

News Hounds Documents Bill O’Reilly And Bernard Goldberg’s Attacks On Michael Jackson And Black People

Conservatives Bill O’Reilly and Bernard Goldberg were on Fox News jumping all over the black people while slamming Michael Jackson (after his death) … it was kind of an all-you-can-eat buffet of hate for the two men. News Hounds has documented so much of the angry comments from Goldberg (nothing like a clearly-biased media critic) including defending Rep. Peter King’s reprehensible comments, bringing up the unproven child molestation charges against Michael Jackson to invoking the name O.J. Simpson to smear black people, in general, and Michael Jackson, specifically.

Here is one excerpt from the News Hounds blog:

Then Goldberg added, “What makes this thing with Michael Jackson so sad… is that it’s not enough for the elites to simply… honor him as a great American entertainer. They have to make him a black hero.”

So what, exactly is wrong with that? And what gives Goldberg the right to decide who should be a hero for anyone else? Sure, there are very troubling aspects of Michael Jackson’s life, especially in his later years, but over his 40+ year career, there was lots to admire. It wasn’t just African Americans who thought so. Who could listen to Brooke Shields’ heartfelt eulogy and not feel that there was plenty to love in Jackson’s character?

On the other hand, Goldberg, who, unlike Shields, did not seem to know Jackson, sneered, “A black hero of a man who bleached his skin to the point that at the end he was as white as you and me? It’s one thing to honor him as an entertainer. But as a civil rights hero? That just strikes me as ridiculous.” The truth is, Jackson wassomething of a civil rights here. As Rev. Al Sharpton explained, Jackson fans “grew up from being teenage comfortable fans of Michael to being 40 years old and being comfortable to vote for a person of color to be the president of the United States of America.” Also, Jackson broke an extremely important color barrier when his videos were played on MTV.

But “fair and balanced” O’Reilly did not point out those positive aspects of Jackson’s career. Instead, he allowed Goldberg to further and gratuitously malign the black community as he said, “Then again, to many black people, if you remember the reaction after he was acquitted, O.J. Simpson was a hero.”

“Here’s the sad part, Bill. Race in this country is the wound that never seems to heal,” Goldberg added. Yeah, and we can guess at whose feet Goldberg lays most of the blame.

The anger coming from Goldberg is the elephant in the room.

Here are a few takes I will leave you with:

I doubt many people are thinking of Rep. King as racist. He may or may not be racist, but he clearly is a crass jackass with little class.

Lastly, I will leave you with this from the same News Hounds blog:

Palin was, in fact, up next in the discussion. But unlike Jackson, Palin’s bizarre behavior was not to be mentioned, much less criticized. O’Reilly complained about “the glee” that CNN’s Rick Sanchez, whom he referred to as “that clown,” supposedly exhibited by asking reporter Candy Crowley whether Palin might have resigned from the governorship because she’s pregnant again. Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see any glee from Sanchez. But whatever it was, it paled in comparison to the kinds of attacks on Jackson made by Goldberg and O’Reilly right on that very show.

“You don’t have to express every thought that pops into your head and certainly not on national television,” Goldberg said, by way of “friendly advice” to Sanchez. Goldberg then ran through his list of “legitimate” kinds of speculation over Palin’s resignation: whether she quit to run for president or to make money in the private sector. “But it is not legitimate speculation to wonder out loud… if she’s pregnant.”

The reason I am citing this is because it is classic O’Reilly. Notice he singled out Rick Sanchez of CNN? In classic O’Reilly fashion, if you call him out he will use his platform to get you back at some point (if not repeatedly). If you recall, Sanchez lit into O’Reilly for lying about CNN’s coverage of the death of Pvt. William Long. Even when O’Reilly apologized for his falsehood he attacked Sanchez and is back on the attack again.

This was another case of paybacks from O’Reilly, who again abuses his Fox News platform to wage his personal battles against many who dare criticize him.

Who Is It That Tries To Portray Jesse Jackson And Al Sharpton As Leaders Of So-Called The Black Community?

This is an excerpt from a story on Fox News (but, it could have been just about any other mainstream media outlet) about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the so-called black community.

Here it is from Fox News:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton have converged on Michael Jackson’s family since the King of Pop’s sudden death last Thursday, acting as semi-official spokesmen and advisers.

Now the two preachers — who have spent decades jockeying for the unofficial title of America’s leading black activist — appear to be auditioning for a role in Michael Jackson’s final act: his funeral.

It remains unclear just what they are hoping to do for the clan in mourning as they offer their services to Michael Jackson’s family, but both have been vying for a prominent position.

Who exactly is pushing Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton to be “America’s leading black activist” these days? There is little question that both men enjoy the spotlight and media attention. I’ll be the first to concede that. But, what is up with the media outlets that shower Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton with this attention any time there is some big-time news involving a black person?

Why does the media look for these two guys all the time in stories involving black people?

Who are the spokesmen for the white community?

Who are she spokesmen for the Latino community?

Where are the spokesmen for the gay community, for Asians, for Native Americans, for handicaps?

Why do these leaders have to always be men? Can they be women?

Who are the leaders for the women’s community?

Maybe Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton are not vying to be THE black leader. The media always run to the two men whenever something big breaks out involving black people or a prominent black person. Of course, the two men could say “no comment” to the media, but that’s not often going to happen.

I think the media controls their status as “leaders” of the so-called black community more than the Rev. Jesse Jackson or the Rev. Al Sharpton.