Republican Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele, who's black, is taking umbrage at Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer's comment that Steele has had "a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party." The comment is "racist," Steele says.
This isn't quite L.A. County's demand that the terms "master" and "slave," used to refer to computer equipment, be expurgated from County-owned computers. It's at least possible that Hoyer was trying to make the "oreo" charge (which had been made by a staffer for Steele's opponent); such a charge is indeed racist, because it holds black candidates to a "loyalty to his race" standard that white candidates are not held to (and that nobody should be held to).
But that's all it is -- possible. Before you make an accusation of racism, it seems to me, you should have more evidence than just that someone had used the word "slavishly" (or "niggardly" or whatever else), coupled with the possibility that maybe he had bad intentions. That's true if you're someone on the Left who's trying to cast what is facially a perfectly legitimate, nonracist substantive argument as having racist motivations or being filled with supposed "racist code words." And it's true if you're someone on the Right who's trying to do the same.
#1) Did he mean "lavishly"
and
#2) Were the Slavic people upset by this comment?
So the question is how much is the statement that Steele had "a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party" like my made up quote above? It all comes down to whether the word slavishly was used with forethought. I would say at first blush that it probably was used with forethought. Slavishly is not that common a word. It would be more common to hear that Steele had a career of "toeing the Republican Party line" or some such. A google search of "slavishly supporting" does bring up a good number of hits not related to race, but this really does have a "you're acting like a slave" ring to it.
What's less sad is the hilarious notion that Democrats have some kind of oft-repeated talking point about Congress being a "plantation" - when I can recall exactly one instance of that reference being made, by Hillary Clinton to an African-American audience which was so offended that they cheered wildly. Of course, no Republican would ever use such an offensive analogy.
Again, while I certainly agree with Prof. Volokh's take, the fact is that this is simply the kind of game-playing one routinely sees in the closing weeks of an election, and thus commenting on the propriety vel non of the statement is virtually irrelevant. Of course Steele supporters are going to be outraged or at least pretend to be, and Cardin supporters are going to act like it's no big deal.
This comparison seems to me to be completely inapt.
The word "niggardly" has nothing at all to do with race or any racial epithet. The word "slavishly", however, refers directly to to the racially-charged term "slave".
The better comparison is, as EV posted above, to the complaint over the use of the term "slave" when referring to computer equipment. However, even with such comparison, there is a crucial difference: in the case of Cardin, he was referring to a black person as acting in the same manner as a slave; that is quite difference than referring to a piece of computer equipment as acting in such manner.
Accordingly, I think that EV misses the mark, somewhat, with this post. The term "slavishly" both refers directly to the racially-charged term "slave" (in a way that the term "niggardly" does not) and refers to a black person (which the slave-as-computer-equipment does not). Crucial, crucial differences.
During his speech at the protest, Anderson accused Bush followers of “slavish, blind obedience and deference” to the administration. Evans asked the City Council to censure Anderson for his obviously racist speech.
I have no idea if the link still works, but the story was reported here: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199479,00.html.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the evidence of Cardin's racism, as the comment that started this thread was made by a third party.
Unfortunately, it's "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." These charges score points and thus the Rs are forced to stoop to that level as long as the media will run with it.
Given the context in which Webb used that phrase, on what ground would you criticize it?
I'm not upset.
I will admit that I clicked this post to read expecting to see something about Eastern Europeans.
That would warrant about a week of front page coverage in the Washington Post, at least.
Exactly right. I should have said Hoyer's racism. My apologies.
I presume that it's "racially-charged" because of its derogatory and demeaning refernce to Slavs.
BTW, that wasn't an apology Hoyer issued. Translated into English, If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended" actually means "Steele shouldn't be offended by my racial slur because I meant it in good humor." The words "I'm sorry" don't have any bearing on Hoyer's non-apology.
You mean like this?
No, no, no.
Translated into English, "If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended" actually means "Steele shouldn't be offended by my racial slur because I am a Democrat and, by definition, only Republicans are racists."
Can we please get past this? Whoever first got offended by the word "niggardly" should be a punchline and nothing more. Do we have any recent examples of people STILL offended by this? If so, laugh and move on.
The term slavish is a common term in English and does not only mean "acting like a slave." Calling someone slavish is much more mild than calling him a slave. Pick up any dictionary and you will find several definitions including "servile" or "not displaying freedom of choice." For instance, here's a sentence I came up with by googling slavish: "Britain should be 'solid but not slavish' in its friendship with America."
Given the mild nature of the term, this is not hyperbole -- it's just expressing the view that Britain is in danger of showing too much deference to the U.S. So does this mean that it is acceptable to use the word slavish unless you are referring to a black person, in which case it is racist and inexcusable? That is the very nature of political correctness.
Yes, of course, it is a silly point, and a mountain being made of a molehill. But that's politics today. Just ask George Allen.
Still, Republicans need to work on their form lest they be docked style points. During the nuclear option fight, various Republicans were simultaneously pushing the lines that 1) Dems oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she's black; 2) Dems oppose Priscilla Owen because she's a woman; and 3) Dems oppose William Pryor because he's a man of faith. My friends, yes I know it's fun, but you really mustn't overdo it.
"If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended. In the future, I'll use the word 'mindlessly' to prevent confusion."
Not that I'd have a hard time imagining someone who thought he was clever walking around using the word "niggard" to refer to every black person he saw... that would not be using it properly in context.
I was actually asked to remove the word niggardly from a document I wrote for a client, on the grounds that managers in my company were concerned that the client would assume, as did CJColucci, the connection to the similar-sounding racial slur.
I can't top that, but my secretary did yell at me once for dictating a brief that referred to a "hoary precedent."
Towel-head is not the proper term. The proper term is rag-head, unless he's making a reference I don't understand.
We should probably object to the term redneck, but I have discovered lately that it covers people of all races.
I am not surprised that several seem to have forgotten that position this week.
No! That can't be! Everyone knows that the only people who ever been enslaved or victimized are people of color!
The whole discussion os silly. People need thicker skins. Sticks and stones, sticks and stones.
Slavishly seems like a pretty common word that is appropriate for the sentiment being expressed. If one is specifically not allowed to use the term innocuously with respect to people of African ethnic origin, that seems like a double standard.
To me, a better analogy than niggardly would be to someone who made a critical comment of a Jewish politician, insinuating that they may as well be in a concentration camp. Would that be ok?
I agree that if a Republican made the comment, it would probably cause a bigger stir. I'm not sure about the reason, though. Probably it has less to do with the media than the hesitancy of Republicans to loudly raise that fuss.
1. of or befitting a slave: slavish subjection.
2. being or resembling a slave; abjectly submissive: He was slavish in his obedience.
3. base; mean; ignoble: slavish fears.
4. deliberately imitative; lacking originality: a slavish reproduction.
And gives its origins as:
[Origin: 1555–65; slave + -ish]
The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
1. Of or characteristic of a slave or slavery; servile: Her slavish devotion to her job ruled her life.
2. Showing no originality; blindly imitative: a slavish copy of the original.
In other words, Hoyer, whether he meant to or not, was saying that Steele was acting as a slave to the Republicans. And, given Steele's race, and that race's long experience of slavery in this country, that is about as racist as you can get.
Well, maybe you can call Michael Steele slavish without even realizing what you're saying, but I can't see it.
I wasn't saying Republicans should raise more of a fuss though. I was simply suggesting that if Republicans want to make this into a big issue, they're going to have to do it themselves, not just blame the media. For various reasons, though, I don't think Republicans actually want to do that. Why not? Basically, because racism just isn't their issue. That's fine (well, it's complicated), but my point was simply that it makes their complaints against the media bogus.
A gay black friend of mine is of the opinion that saying "the N word" is more racist than saying "nigger". He has two reasonably convincing arguments, which I will attempt to present here without mangling them too badly.
1. When you say "the N word" instead of "nigger" because of your skin color, you perpetuate the idea that you can only use certain words when your skin is a certain color. This is fundamentally a racist idea, and if we are serious about ending racism, we have to oppose ALL racism - not just the racism we don't like.
2. Whenever you say "the N word", you still thought "nigger", and you still meant "nigger", and everyone who heard you still got "nigger" out of it. So while you can pretend you didn't say "nigger", you actually did, and you shouldn't expect to win any points for it.
An interesting little exercise he suggests is to pull out any racist speech, replace the word "nigger" with "N word", then read it out loud and see if it sounds any less racist. It made a believer out of me: the resulting speech inevitably sounds MORE racist.
Not that this in any way means people should merrily run around saying "nigger" all the time, but certainly food for thought.
If I take this to mean what it says, then Mr. Hayden believes there's really nothing more racially offensive Hoyer could have said, short of something like "I wish all those goddam niggers would just up and move back to Africa." That of course, is nonsens.
And speaking of nonsense, Caliban Darklock's gay black friend is full of it. No one would say (to alter the hypothetical racist Hoyer statement above), "I wish all those goddam the N-words would just up and move back to Africa." Pace Caliban, the substitution doesn't make the statement "MORE racist"; it just makes it sound silly. (In fact, about the only time some uses the term "the N-word," it's to refer to *someone* else's use (actual or hypothetical) of the offensive term.)
Of course, we've gotten to the point where the actual term, even is quoted for the most innocent of reasons, calls forth reactions like this one to the use of the word "Jehovah."
Baloney. It's not racist in the least to call Steele "slavish" for acting like a unthinking party loyalist. It's racist (as in "predjudiced belief of racial superiority") to say that Steele isn't capable of anything more, or that he could be expected to behave that way with the white Republican leaders.
I think we have a bigger story here than the one we have been posting on. Steele sold his children into slavery!
"[Origin: 1555–65; slave + -ish]"
In truth, every civilization has a history of enslaving people who looked just like them, if not of actually enslaving their own. Race-based slavery is a historical anomaly, caused by the coincidence of vast new agricultural lands opening up in the Americas and requiring a labor force with the discovery by explorers along the African coast of people willing to sell their neighbors, cheap. Although the Portuguese were slavetrading on a small scale in the 1400's, I don't think English speakers were much involved in this trend until the 1600's, and the first slaves in the English colonies were white bondservants and kidnapped Indians.
Of course, you can observe that this is in fact much, much better. This is an Uncle Tom Swifty, a rare, precious and never-before-seen subcategory.