Negro: The Other “N” Word

January 12, 2010 at 5:27 am | Posted in Political | 1 Comment

I was content to ignore the controversy surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his apparently audacious 2008 evaluation of Senator Barrack Obama as a viable presidential candidate due to his “light skin” and lack of “Negro dialect.” Then I turned on the radio Monday morning and heard talk radio host Mike Gallagher having a nervous breakdown over George Will and other conservatives who have defended Reid’s remarks. While I recognize Gallagher as a well-meaning conservative voice, he is also my least favorite. Gallagher consistently engages in blindly partisan commentary so two-dimensional it has the effect (albeit ad hominem in nature) of discrediting his valid points.

I, like Obama, am a light-skinned black man with no discernible Negro dialect. So, if anybody should be offended by what Reid said. It should be me. I am not. Here is why:

He was right!

Is it racist to make the political observation that a candidate’s demographic and personal characteristics will have an effect on their viability? Commenter Nancy Morgan puts it bluntly, “Reid knows, as do most Americans, that if Obama’s skin was black as coal and he spoke ebonics (sic), there would be absolutely no chance he could be elected President.” Likewise, if he were a woman from Alaska with a rural dialect, there would be absolutely no chance he could be elected President. Even if these observations are indicative of racist or sexist attitudes, the person making the observation is not the source of the discrimination!

To call out Reid as a racist in this instance justifies the same kind of silly alarmist mock-offense the other side uses when they play the race card. The reaction of Gallagher and others seems no less ridiculous to me than when liberals accuse conservatives of being racist for stating uncomfortable truths. Here, let me find one quick (googling), here we go: “Black males are nearly eight times more likely than whites to suffer from AIDS.” What does that do for you? Offended? Am I racist against myself now?

There is legitimate racism in the world which should be confronted and denounced. That task is made more difficult by inflating an offense as slight as Reid’s. This gaff was far more reflective of Reid’s antiquated vocabulary than genuine racism. We already have an N-word. We refer to it as the N-word, as in the one we all know is bad. Since when is it one of two?

Let’s be honest, shall we? This is a political play made during a controversial legislative process. I would love to see Obamacare derailed as much as the next guy. But this is not how to do it. What offends me is the legitimizing of disgusting racial politics which conservatives should be above.

Another thing, what is the point proved by rehashing the Trent Lott travesty? How can one argue both that Trent Lott ought not have been driven from office and that his removal serves as valid precedent for running out Reid? If it was wrong the first time, it’s wrong now. Are we not grown up enough to move past this kind of but-Mom whining?