posted
Come on. Talk about not listening. Carter said this black....boy, who grew up... it was not out of line or offensive unless you were looking for offense. I know you don't like some of the things he has done trying for peace in the Mid-East. But, this is not a mis-step.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't know Artemisia. I think you can chalk a lot of that up to how and where Carter grew up, but I think Lisa has a point that if someone other than Carter had said it, it'd be a pretty big deal.
I think you can look at it as him talking about Obama as a child, in which case black boy isn't a problem. But if you don't look at it that way, which I think it's very easy not to do, then it looks like an offensive slip of the tongue, but obviously not an intentional diss.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...talking about "growing up", and about being raised in American...and what a positive wave of "approbation and admiration around many countries in the world"....
posted
Lyrhawn; Having known Carter when he was Governor, I am sure that it is the latter. He did not use condesending language then, even though it would have been politically advantagous.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I'm perfectly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I was just agreeing, at least partially, with Lisa's point that if someone else had said it, it would've been a serious kerfuffle. It would depend on who said it and in what context.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how the two have anything to do with one another.
Are children no longer allowed to be called boys and girls if they're black? He was talking about Obama's childhood, when he was a boy.
Obama was a boy when he was young, just as I was a boy when I was young. It's obvious from the context, and anyone who finds offense is trying to be offended. Period.
Just to put this out there to make sure nobody is confused, I have zero emotional investment in Carter, and I'd read the same lack of racism into it if Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilley said it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see it in a completely unoffensive light, after watching what he said in its context. He was clearly emphasizing the how far Obama had come from being an ordinary child like anyone else. I think the short pause or stutter or whatever it is may make it easier to take issue with what he said, but I chalk THAT up to him being pretty old.
I think this is absolutely nothing to get offended by. Just my two cents.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, please. He could have said "child". Anyone with any sense knows what "this black boy" will sound like.
Carter gets a pass on everything he does. Bush gets slammed for saying "nukyuler", but Carter never does.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. This whole "not allowed to use certain words, including the word boy, even in the correct context, or words that just sound like they might be racist, like niggardly, because they sound like they could potentially be based on racial slurs used by previous generations, whether they really do, or just have the unhappy accident of sounding something like it by sheer coincidence at worst, and then getting slammed as a racist for doing so" bit annoys the heck out of me.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole phrase is "this black boy who grew up with just a loving mother and---and grandparents and that was about all he had to start with". I think that following "boy" immediately with a phrase about him growing up indicates that Carter was referring to Obama as a kid. But since "this" indicates something right in front of you (or thereabouts), and Obama as a kid was obviously not nearby, I can see how it technically says that Obama is now a "boy". But it would be a stretch to say that Carter meant that.
Has Obama's campaign condemned this statement?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did listen to it but it doesn't seem to be from the beginningof the conversation.
"Black" bothered me more that "boy" as it seemed pretty clear that he was talking about the child who grew up. "Child" would have been a better choice. But it seems pretty silly to think that President Carter was making a slur.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Black" bothered me more that "boy" as it seemed pretty clear that he was talking about the child who grew up. "Child" would have been a better choice. But it seems pretty silly to think that President Carter was making a slur.
I am living in a country that is majority black and based on what I have observed, I think that "black" was extremely pertinent to the point Carter was trying to make about the impact Obama's nomination is having around the world.
If Carter had been giving a prepared speech, it would be reasonable to argue he should have said "child" rather than "boy", but he wasn't. He was responding off the cuff to a question.
Obama was a boy and is black. Those aren't derogatory terms
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you. I should have been more clear. I don't think President Carter meant "boy" in a derogatory way. I think he meant "child that is male". I also don't think he meant black in a derogatory way, it just sounds a little "old fashioned", I guess. Goodness, the man was born in the 1920s. He likely grew up hearing "negro".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't understand the whole hoopla about Obama being "first black" everything anyway. I mean, his father is black (Kenyan, right?) and his mother is white. So how does that make him any more black than he is white?
On that same train of thought, it always bugged me when people who are like, one-quarter Native American make a big deal of being Native American. What about the other 3/4ths of you?
Maybe I just don't have enough of any ethnic blood in me of one type to understand why people only hold on to "one part" of what they are ethnically.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not necessarily more black than white, but he's more black than anyone else who's ever had a really good shot at the presidency. He also *looks* black which in many ways is the most important distinction.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A considerably smaller percentage of African American ancestry would have been enough to keep Senator Obama from drinking at white water fountains and eating at white diners not that long ago. And made it difficult to vote for elected office much less vote.
edit to add: the Voting Rights Act wasn't signed until two days after Senator Obama's fourth birthday.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots: It's exactly that, I think. The "one drop" rule was actually legislated by several states -- The fraction was usually around one-sixteenth, if I remember correctly -- to "preserve racial purity," among other reasons. That's why the signs usually read "White" and "Colored" rather than "White" and "Negro." The laws disappeared when they were deemed illegal, but the mentality behind it stuck.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A considerably smaller percentage of African American ancestry would have been enough to keep Senator Obama from drinking at white water fountains and eating at white diners not that long ago. And made it difficult to vote for elected office much less vote.
edit to add: the Voting Rights Act wasn't signed until two days after Senator Obama's fourth birthday.
I see. So he's enough black that he would have been discriminated against, if we (as a nation) were still discriminating. That makes sense.
I guess I not old enough (even at 47) to really have any experience with discrimination practices/policies, at least not in my area, so I hadn't thought along those lines.
I'm glad this shows we've come a long way. I hope.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I guess I don't understand the whole hoopla about Obama being "first black" everything anyway. I mean, his father is black (Kenyan, right?) and his mother is white. So how does that make him any more black than he is white?
It should probably be pointed out at this point that most, if not all, African Americans are of mixed race, unless they're first generation immigrants from Africa. Genetically speaking, Barack Obama is about as "African" as most black Americans.
I think it can be strongly argued that the relevant factor here is how Obama's African ancestry affected his life in America. And in that respect, he is most definitely a black American. Let's face it- racists don't really care whether you're 100% African or 1/8th Kenyan and 7/8ths Scotts-Irish. If you *look* black, they'll treat you as an inferior. Obama's written at length about how he struggled as a youth with his identity, and much of it came from his experience as a young black man.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that a 47 year-old African American woman would be aware of discrimination, even now and in your area, that you may not notice.
But we have come a long way. I get teary when I see the faces of older African Americans who likely never thought they would live to see this day.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that Carter's hesitation sounds like he actually considered the negative connotation of the word, and decided to use it anyway, specifically because it was exactly the right word for what he was saying.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I see. So he's enough black that he would have been discriminated against, if we (as a nation) were still discriminating. That makes sense.
I guess I not old enough (even at 47) to really have any experience with discrimination practices/policies, at least not in my area, so I hadn't thought along those lines.
I'm glad this shows we've come a long way. I hope.
I wish we had come farther. There are some very good studies out from just a few years ago that compared the results of sending out resumes with standard WASP names and with stereotypical Black culture-associated names (Shaniqua, for example). Same level of resumes, different names.
The difference in who received interview invitations was remarkable, and it segregated along name categories as might be expected.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, please. He could have said "child". Anyone with any sense knows what "this black boy" will sound like.
It doesn't sound at all offensive to me in this context. I wouldn't have given it a second thought if not for this thread. There's being insensitive and then there's being oversensitive.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I see. So he's enough black that he would have been discriminated against, if we (as a nation) were still discriminating. That makes sense.
I guess I not old enough (even at 47) to really have any experience with discrimination practices/policies, at least not in my area, so I hadn't thought along those lines.
I'm glad this shows we've come a long way. I hope.
I wish we had come farther. There are some very good studies out from just a few years ago that compared the results of sending out resumes with standard WASP names and with stereotypical Black culture-associated names (Shaniqua, for example). Same level of resumes, different names.
The difference in who received interview invitations was remarkable, and it segregated along name categories as might be expected.
That's sad. On another level I find it interesting to note that by choosing names that are ethnically aligned, people basically hold up a flag that says "if you were looking to discriminate against my group, here I am." Not that it excuses or mitigates the discrimination.
I actually do hold a stereotype in my head of people with names like "Shaniqua" and it's a bit dumb of me - it's just a name. I should consciously avoid making assumptions based on a name.
Some advocate that we become "color blind." However pride in ethnic and cultural heritage seems to sometimes be at odds with this goal - or at least it's a sparkle in a corner of the room that we want not to look at when we're trying to be "color blind."
It creates the unfortunate choice for parents of deciding whether to give their child a name that celebrates a part of their history and culture, or de-emphasizes it. Do you tacitly challenge others to overcome their preconceptions, or do you try to dodge them (hoping for the same eventual result)?
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: It seems to me that Carter's hesitation sounds like he actually considered the negative connotation of the word, and decided to use it anyway, specifically because it was exactly the right word for what he was saying.
I had exactly the same impression. I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but in a way using a racial charged term in this particular context actually reinforced Carter's positive point by calling to mind how not that long ago it would have been unthinkable that a poor black child could grow up to be President of the USA.
As a middle class, well educated American its easy to believe that racial discrimination has been eradicated in our society. It is easy to forget that in 1961 when Barack Obama was born, his parents marriage was still illegal in 22 states.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I was just agreeing, at least partially, with Lisa's point that if someone else had said it, it would've been a serious kerfuffle. It would depend on who said it and in what context.
I'm bothered by the racial climate in this society when I have a hard time getting the words "black boy" out if I am talking about a boy who is black.
Maybe that says something about why being black is invested with more importance in our society- so much so that we expect each other to mention someone's "blackness" as a personal characteristic. People of all races in America seem to take that as a given, but maybe it shouldn't be.
It's unreasonable, for instance, to assume you know anything about my uncle's background just because he's black. It seems unreasonable to me to have a black cousin who people assume isn't really part of my family, as if our association is temporary or unstable because he's black. I don't know.
We're so well trained in this society to think along racial lines, that we confuse honesty for decency. Comedians talk about race pragmatically, and we laugh because we see the assumptions we all make- but laughing doesn't seem to make it better, and the underlying problems of interpersonal distance don't really get addressed because there isn't anything clearcut about them- they're infinitely harder to tackle than "White people! deedeededee, black people! dudugadu" (reference to ytmnd). I don't think any number of hours of "empowerment" in any whole minority community is superior to a quiet conversation between two individuals. That's not something the nation seems ready to accept... in fact it kind of negates the idea that we should be forming our opinions *as* a nation.
To have an "American people" creates a need for identification with a common culture. The mainstream culture is most commonly the majority, but minority culture can be naturally oppositional. If there is a large group with power based on a common language and culture, then a smaller group can protect itself with the same tactics. I guess what I always wonder is, why should America have a mainstream culture at all? Has it been proved to benefit us in our own personal lives- rather than simply as an economic and military power? What is America really good for? Are the drawbacks worth the rewards and the security of our arrangement? I feel that these are questions that will eventually have to be answered, and I don't think the America of the 20th century will last because of them. Wow, tangential.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
