I have no idea what ‘Buckwheat’ is supposed to mean, but I’m under the impression that it’s a racial slure. In that case, I can understand the reaction of the ACLU: I’m pretty sure there are non-racist (no, I’m not calling her a racist; read the comment section) individuals out there who would make great politicians, no?
A dispicable comment of course (and yes, I do know what it refers to; the article explains the expression). Something tells me this Democrat will - rightfully - lose her job asap.
Carla Dartez’s response? Why, blame Eddy Murphy of course.
There’s one thing that saves Dartez: she’s a Democrat. If she were Republican the media would’ve destroyed her, bigtime.
Yeah, not surprisingly I’ve noticed that this story has been up at Memoerandum all morning and the only blogs which seem to be picking up on it are the right leaning ones.
If it were a Republican who’d made the comments, it would be the opposite, of course.
And when left leaning blogs pick up on any wrongdoing by a Republican, the reason usually stated is that it’s the hypocrisy that they can’t stand. Yet it’s not hypocritical for Dems to make racial slurs, nor for their supporters to give them a pass on it, apparently.
This incident should be taken in the proper context. The Boykin woman’s son was instrumental in getting a Judged suspended for a year without pay for dressing as a Black prison inmate at a Halloween party! Another man at that party was dressed as Buckwheat.
I’m guessing that there’s a bit of rancor right now between the Boykins and the local government.
I also notice the ACLU didn’t offer to defend Judge Timothy Ellender. I guess in the US freedom of speech is race specific
For more on this: http://www.uwm.edu/~gjay/Whiteness/ellender.htm
As it happens, I know Carla Dartez. She’s a decent woman who said something stupid at the end of a phone conversation with a political supporter. As is often the case, this is being blown WAY out of proportion the farther it has spread. Certainly the word she used is inappropriate in the context in which she used it, and she should AND HAS apologized, sincerely and immediately. Does it reflect some deep-seated racism on her part? Does it make her a racist? Personally, knowing her, I don’t think so at all. Even if I didn’t know her, I would say that we certainly should not be reaching such damning conclusions on the basis of one, isolated incident.
Yes, she would be treated differently if she were a Republican. That’s unfortunate. But that one political side is unfairly demonized in such situations is no reason to expand the practice.
Calling some one a racist should be considered a serious, grave insult, something akin to suggesting that the person committed a crime. It should not be done lightly or on the basis of one misspoken word, however offensive that word might be.
The people of her district know her better than commenters in the Netherlands or elsewhere in the U.S. They’ve known her a long time, and they will judge for themselves whether she is fit to represent them or not. If they choose to re-elect her, it will be because they will have decided that the one bad word is not the true testament of her character, not because they have decided to vote for a racist.
PatMHV,
I agree with your overall sentiment, and just because left leaning bloggers tend to pile onto GOP politicians who have lapses in judgment doesn’t mean I think it’s OK for right leaning bloggers (and commenters like myself) to pile onto a Dem politician who puts foot in mouth. So, I hope my comment didn’t come across that way.
I still can’t help but be bothered by the double standard though. I noticed on the WDSU website there were quotes showing that the black community is divided over whether or not to support the ACLU’s withdrawal of support for Dartez. One black church leader said that blacks should show forgiveness in cases like this, and that Dartez’s whole record should ameliorate any perception of racism. I can’t help but react to that by saying “great, now where will you guys be when a Republican is demonized for a similar slip up”?
I’m with Christine.
Oh, I’m extremely bothered by the double standard. I just don’t think we should lower ourselves to their level, just because the other shoe is on the foot of a Democrat at the moment.
To the contrary, we should be setting a good example, not piling on, politically. Show the other side that we hold ourselves to the same standard by which we ask them to abide. Then, when the same thing happens to a Republican down the road, if the other side reacts differently, we can show that we’ve been consistent in the standards we apply, while they have not been.
Yes, on that point I completely agree, Pat, and that’s why I mentioned that I hope my first comment didn’t come across differently than I intended. My position is that Dartez shouldn’t be condemned for this: she apologized, and if she doesn’t have a record of acting as a racist then there’s no reason to blow it out of proportion.
No worries, Christine, my first comment was aimed at our host, not you…
There’s an important difference between her and, say, Don Imus though: she’s a politician. O, and she’s not a shockjock.
People are right to criticize her, I’m not saying that they should create a media frenzy like they would were she Republican.
I hasten to add, not our host generally (as he is a fine fellow and a friend), just at this particular post, which is, I think, a bit out of character for him. I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions on his general character just because he had one injudicious post…
Damnit! I forgot to delete your comments Pat! You know, you disagreed with me…
A sa right winger, so to speak, I have to say…her comment WAS kinda funny.
Not if taken as a slur, but, (I am aging myself here), I LOVED Buckwheat and Murphy was great at it…it was such a funny SNL skit and Murphy was able to laugh at himself.
Personally, the double standard does bother me, but instead of piling onto the dem for doing it this time, maybe everyone on the left should start admitting when someone on the right does it and the intent is not malicious, that sometimes jokes just go wrong and they weren’t meant as a racial slur.
It is all about intent.
Everyone is always so worried about being politically correct that humor is taking the hit.
Criticizing her particular action on this one occasion, Michael, is very different from calling her a racist and suggesting that she should “rightfully” be voted out of office. That goes beyond condemning what she said and makes a sweeping judgment against her as a person on the basis of that one thing, which is the only thing you know about her.
Doh! Sheesh, what an incompetent blog-dictator you are!
Pat: read the post again. Do it again. And the again. Now reconsider the “calling her a racist” part. You’re reading things I didn’t write. Did I call her a racist? Please tell me exactly where. You’re someone with a background (where you’re still in it I guess) in law. I’ve studied law for two years. We both understand that words matter. A lot.
Also look at the “vote her ouf of office” charge. Did I word it like that, or did I word it slightly differently, in a more passive manner?
Words matter Pat.
In context, I took that to be a pretty clear statement that she is not a “non-racist.” You’re saying that there must be some non-racist individuals who could be elected to that district. Is that not what you meant?
As for the other, you said that you suspected that she would lose her job, but you qualified that by saying that such would be “rightful.” What does the word “rightfully” mean in that sentence, if not that you agree that she should be voted out of office?
[...] Michelle Malkin weighed in. Heck, Michael van der Galiën weighed in. [...]
I can see Michael’s point, though, Pat- maybe he’s saying that he’d agree with those who’d vote her out of office just because he feels it’s a serious lapse in judgment, not because it means she’s a racist. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it is a different point of view.
It means that people who make mistakes like that may be unfit for the office they hold.
Non-racist: yes, I’m sure there are.
In philosophy we had a rule Pat: “if…then.” but you can’t turn the order around as you did now.
Perhaps, Christine, but as I read it, any neutral observer coming by and reading this story would come away with the belief that Michael agrees that she is a racist who ought to be immediately voted out of office. The blogosphere as a whole has turned into groupthink on this situation.
So you would have no problem clarifying that you had no intend to imply that she is a racist, that you don’t know whether she’s a racist or not? That anybody who reads your post and comes away thinking that you belief she is a racist is completely mistaken, because in no way are you trying to imply that?
To respond specifically to your “non-racist” remark, is Carla Dartez one of those non-racist politicians who may be out there?
You concluded that, but you’re not neutral are you (knowing her, etc.)?
I can’t look into her heart, and I made clear in my post what I wanted to make clear. If people don’t understand it, they can read the comment section.
Or perhaps, Michael, you could clarify whether you are adopting Christine’s defense. Do you mean that it would be rightful to vote out of office any politician for saying one racially insensitive or offensive remark?
Well, I’m not at all clear what you mean, Michael. After your comments, I have no idea what you meant by “rightfully”, whether you are adopting the policy that Christine suggested, because that would seem to conflict with your agreement with Christine’s early statement that it’s not appropriate to pile-on, just because this time a Democrat put her foot in her mouth. You truly don’t consider your post to be “piling on” against Dartez?
Am I piling on? If so, how? I wrote a bit a middle of the road post, basing my opinion - if I were in her district I would vote her out of office because someone capable shouldn’t make silly comments like that - on what happened, without gonig over the top by writing “she’s a racist! Action, Protest Marches, where’s Al Sharpton?!”
I criticize her because she made a stupid remark, and when you do you should be held accountable, in this humble Dutchman’s opinion.
Umh - yes it is. Why, because it’s stupid. Just like Hillary deserves to lose if she continues to make bad ‘they attack the girl!’ defenses.
Pat,
I feel a bit like a defense lawyer here, but here goes…
I think the point Michael’s making is that for him personally, the lapse in judgment that allowed her to say this was a serious thing.
And in some ways I can agree with that. It’s one thing for a comedian like Eddie Murphy to say that, another for a white guy in everyday conversation, and another thing altogether for a politician in a racially sensitive district to say it (to a black civil rights icon, no less! LOL) I can’t help but picture this as one of those dropped cell phone call commercials, but this time the camera cuts to the shocked, silent face of the person on the other end of the line instead of showing a person who isn’t upset by the remark as the caller thinks they are….
In other words, it was a monumentally dumb thing to say under the circumstances, and Dartez needs to have a really good record in order to overcome that. Apparently for Michael, it would be impossible for her to have shown good enough judgment overall to outweigh the lapse here; I don’t happen to agree but I don’t think it’s completely irrational to think that way.
Also, from some of Michael’s previous posts, I think there’s a cultural difference in how people take responsibility for thing in the Netherlands vs. US. I’ve seen him say that politicians should and do step down over screw ups that were not any more serious than this; here, that isn’t the norm.
Exactly. What’s more, if you make a stupid remark like that in a situation like this - when there’s not that much damage done thank God - I wonder whether you won’t make a similar remark in a more serious surrounding.
Christine: yes. From my perspective, she should step down, or at least consider doing so. If not, she should do some very serious things to show she’s intelligent, capable, and understanding.
and the “non-racist’ thing has been put in the post.
Racist comments should be taken in context. If there’s a history of a politician repeatedly making those types of slip-ups it indicates a sensitivity problem (which is how I would characterize Biden’s remarks about Obama that got him in hot water last year). If their voting record reflects bias or they take money from white supremacist groups, there’s more evidence of racism.
As kritter says, a politician should be taken as a whole, not judged on the last sound byte they used. A very inappropriate remark does mean we should pay attention and see if there is any past pattern. If not, though it’s a bit of a black mark, it shouldn’t disqualify the pol from office by itself. There’s no doubt that there is a double standard, but it doesn’t just end at democrats vs. republicans. Black vs. white is a very important divide. A black politician can make very racially charged comments on both blacks and whites and still usually get off fine. A black pol could say “Black women need to stop having all those kids out of wedlock and get their act together!” and maybe get some grumbling, but if a white politician were to say the same thing….Jessee Jackson would be on their front lawn the next day burning a “PC” effigy.
Another double standard is the one applied to race vs. all other biases, and even race issues having to do with blacks vs. any other race. Granted race has been a very contentious issue in the US for a long time, but I still think we are way over sensitive about it, or at least out of proportion to other biases. You can get away with sexist comments with little consequence, most of the time, and you can get away with blatant homophobia in many places with actual positive reactions in some cases. Why are these bigotry’s somehow lesser to the racial one?
Well, I still utterly fail to understand the message you actually intend to convey with the “non-racist” sentence, Michael, though I certainly appreciate the clarification. I’m not being argumentative, here, I really don’t understand what significance or meaning that sentence has if you’re not calling her a racist by it. If it is conceded that we have no way of knowing whether in her heart she is a racist, then she may well be included in the set of non-racists to which you refer.
Perhaps you meant to say that you are pretty sure there are politicians out there who have enough sense to never let slip a word with derogatory racial meanings. And perhaps there are, and were you a voter in her district you would certainly be entitled to desire a candidate for a legislative seat who never slips up and says anything really bad by accident. But saying something racially insensitive does not equal being a “racist.”
I’m not sure I understand your position even still. You referenced Hillary Clinton and said she should lose if she continues to make “they attacked the girl” comments. “Continues” implies judging a pattern of behavior. But the standard you seem to be setting for Dartez is “should lose because of ONE incident.” I’ve got no problem judging and evaluating candidates for a pattern of behavior, and even for a single incident if it is in fact serious enough. But one misspoken word, in this particular context, is not sufficient for me to make that conclusion, nor do I think it should be for anybody else.
You’re right Pat, the difference: racial insensitive is more serious than ‘they attack me because i’m a poor girl.’
Just that. That there probably are non-racists out there. If she isn’t a racist, well, nice, but she still made a big error.
And the non-racist, also - to me - touches on the subject of Allen (macaca).
Yes, and she apologized for it. I can’t imagine why she said something so stupid, but it doesn’t sound like she has a racist record.
But what is the relevance of saying that there are “non-racists” out there, Michael, in the context of this story? If you don’t know if she’s a racist or not, and you aren’t calling her a racist, then why not just say “there are other candidates out there”?
Because you want candidates that are definitely not racists.
And yes Pat, I realize she’s your friend, but I stand by those words.
Your friend should take responsibility for her error and resign.