By Linda Chavez May 2, 2014 Racism is ugly, no matter who is spewing it. But there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to public outrage on the subject. It was less than a week after LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling's racist comments to his girlfriend in a private conversation became public that he was banned for life from NBA games and venues, fined $2.5 million, and on the verge of being forced to sell his team. But when a Democratic congressman engages in racist, public name-calling of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the reaction is muted at best. First, let's be clear: What Sterling did was offensive and hurtful, and the man is clearly a repulsive character. But what was most shocking about the incident was how quickly the NBA moved to punish Sterling for uttering his prejudices in a private conversation, when the league earlier had ignored that Sterling engaged in actual illegal housing discrimination. In 2009, Sterling settled a suit with the Department of Justice, paying a nearly $3 million fine, the largest in history for federal housing discrimination. The precedent seems a dangerous one to me, not to mention hypocritical. However toxic Sterling's views -- and they are -- is it worse to reveal prejudiced sentiments to an intimate partner than it is to refuse to rent to individuals on the basis of the color of their skin? And what about forcing black and Hispanic tenants to live in dangerous, unsanitary buildings by refusing to make necessary repairs? But the NBA treated the former as a hanging offense and turned a blind eye to Sterling's egregious flouting of federal law. But if the NBA is guilty of hypocrisy, what about the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP, which awarded Sterling its Humanitarian Award in 2008 and its President's Award in 2009 -- despite Sterling's record of housing discrimination? That raises the double standard at play in another ugly example of racial prejudice. Last week, Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Bennie Thompson hurled a racial epithet at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the radio, but his comments barely raised an eyebrow. Apparently a member of Congress calling Thomas an "Uncle Tom" -- and doing so on a program sponsored by the New Nation of Islam, no less -- is acceptable. And Thompson didn't leave it at that. When asked about his comments in an interview on CNN, Thompson doubled down, telling reporter Dana Bash that it's OK for him to use the term because he's black. Yet no one is suggesting that his colleagues reprimand Thompson for his clearly racist remarks. Directing racial slurs at blacks if they happen to be conservative has no consequences. No one gets ostracized. Apologies don't follow. And those with exquisite racial sensibilities see no problem in calling Thomas an "Uncle Tom" or depicting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a self-proclaimed "house n*gga," as cartoonist Ted Rall did in 2004. The selective outrage is troubling. If a private organization decides it wants to exclude a racist from its midst, that is its right. But wouldn't it be good if we condemned racism in all its forms? Arguably, we ought to hold members of Congress to higher standards than we do private individuals. When former GOP Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott praised his colleague Sen. Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy on a pro-segregationist ticket, he was forced to resign his leadership post in 2002 -- as I believed he should do and stated so at the time. Thompson should be held to the same standard. The congressman -- like Sterling -- can say what he wants, but his colleagues should shun him. If we're serious about abhorring racism, let's at least be consistent. Selective outrage undermines the legitimacy of our sentiments. Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/lind...tive-outrage-when-it-comes-to-racism-n1832459 Double standards coming from the Progressive Left are par for the course. However, it's up to we the people to hold their feet to the fire. The honorable Bennie Thompson should be held to the same standards that Democrats hold for their opposition .Furthermore he should be censured before the House for his racial and unseemly remarks of a member of the Supreme Court.
Bennie isn't contributing to the discussion when it comes to race with his remark but when a black calls another black (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) or uncle tom that wouldn't be called racism, maybe playing into stereotypes, but i don't think Rep. Bennie is a racist against blacks. the googling of the definition of racism probably will clear this up.
You are saying if a white mans calls a black man uncle tom its racism but when a black man says it, it isn't. Is that correct?
I did perhaps you could answer a simple on point yes or no question. Is there a reason you don't want to?
Call me crazy but isn't that what RACISM is all about?? 'SELECTIVE' SENSIBILITIES of one group from another? Were you intending to state the obvious? - - - Updated - - - You really haven't spent much time around black folk have you??
Correct, would you call a white person racist for calling someone a craker? You should look up the (overused) definition of racist
I spend a lot of time around lots of people. Im not sure what you mean by "black folk". Are they a different kind of people? IF so whats different about them. Perhaps you could explain.
Don't need to. You have just illustrated that there is a difference between two men making the same exact statement based only on the color of their skin. *MLK rolls in his grave.*
I used the term 'cracker' on another Political Forum (in a joking manner with another poster) and the fever swamp there went absolutely bonkers. I was living proof that all black people (actually, all racial minorities according to a couple of posters) are white-hating racists.
those remarks might not fall within the strict definition of racism but it implies and fulfills the same purpose as racism does it berates belittle degrades and dismisses because of a difference and your attempt to marginalize it is noted
when you preface your question "you are saying" and then continue with something completely unrelated with what i said it means you didn't really understand it. what i was saying was what Sterling did was racism (of the discriminatory type), what Bennie said was ignorant, not racism. now i'll glady answer your totally unrelated question. if a black man uses uncle tom on a black man he is being derogatory. if a white man uses it to intentionally be malicious towards a member of another race, then yes thats racism.
So two men making the same exact statement should be treated differently based on the color of their skin? Is that 100% correct? - - - Updated - - - So two men making the same exact statement to the same exact person should be treated differently according to you based on the color of their skin. Is that correct?
Don't blame me, its the American way. Almost everything in America is based on skin color, even in 2014. [
Now what happens when I call you an Uncle Tom on this forum and you can't see my skin color? Do you consider it banter or racism?
yes its weird how our language has definitions, and those definitions go to words. "berate, belittle, degrade because of a difference" kind of like how republicans and democrats go at it right? i think derogatory may be a better term for that, not racism.
There is a difference, absolutely - have you looked up the deffinition of Racist yet racĀ·ist ˈrāsist/noun a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist Can you really not see the difference?