hillarys racist joke

[Trey Brister]

FIRST-PERSON: A double standard
Jan 9, 2004
By Kelly Boggs
McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--A conservative makes a remark that could be construed as offensive to someone -- anyone -- and liberals along with "mainstream" media types go absolutely apoplectic. Hillary Clinton cracks an insensitive joke and it seems silence is golden among the politically correct elite. Can you say double standard?

Sen. Clinton was attending a Democrat fundraiser in St. Louis on Jan. 6 when she made her disparaging remark. While introducing Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, she prefaced a quote by Mahatma Gandhi by quipping, "He [Gandhi] ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mister Gandhi -- you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station."

After the crowd quieted from laughing, Sen. Clinton continued, "No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century." While the crowd chuckled at the allusion to Indian-Americans seeming propensity to own gas stations, not everyone found the joke humorous.

Michelle Naef, the administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence -- an organization founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson, reacted coolly to Sen. Clinton's attempt at humor.

While she did credit the senator for long having "supported the Gandhi message," Ms. Naef said the joke "could be incredibly harmful." She added, "... Perhaps I am overly sensitive, but I find it offensive when people use stereotypes in that way."

When questioned about the joke two days later, Sen. Clinton said she in no way meant to fuel the stereotype that certain ethnic groups run America's gas stations. "It was a lame attempt at humor and I am very sorry that it might have been interpreted in a way that causes stress to anyone," the senator stated. "I have the highest regard for Mahatma Gandhi and have been a longtime admirer of his life."

Perhaps Sen. Clinton did not intend to demean Gandhi. She did, however, attempt to get a laugh at the expense of hard-working legal immigrants who contribute to America's strength and diversity. Where is the "mainstream" media in pointing out the senator's insensitivity? Why aren't the politically correct police issuing her a citation?

It seems that Sen. Clinton wants to pass her insensitivity off as a matter of "interpretation." Isn't that like saying, "It is not my fault you took my joke the wrong way"? I thought among the politically correct that offensive was in the eye -- or ear -- of the beholder. I was under the impression that no matter the intent, guilt was determined by the offended party.

A year ago I probably would have shrugged off Sen. Clinton's remarks as merely unwise. I would likely have dismissed it as a bout of foot-in-mouth disease. But that was before Trent Lott.

You may recall that in December 2002 while attending a party for the 100th birthday of Strom Thurmond, Sen. Lott stated, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Many took Lott's words as an endorsement of Sen. Thurmond's former segregationist views. As a result, the senator from Mississippi was bludgeoned in the media. Apologize as he might, nothing would appease his detractors. Eventually Lott resigned from his position as Senate majority leader.

I was one who felt Lott's remarks flirted too close to racial indifference for comfort. Concerning the senator's plight I wrote, "Does anyone seriously believe that Trent Lott is a racist? I doubt it. However, the perception of insensitivity toward blacks hangs ominously over his head right now."

In light of Sen. Clinton's glib response to her own insensitive remarks, I find most interesting her reaction to Trent Lott's plight. Did she defend him? Did she indicate his remarks might have been misinterpreted? No. In fact, Sen. Clinton made it clear that she could not support such racist rhetoric.

I suggested Sen. Lott should resign as majority leader. However, in so doing I believed that all politicians should be held to the same standard of responsibility for perceived insensitive remarks. I naively thought that Lott's situation would herald a new accountability among our nation's leaders.

Was I ever wrong! It seems that only conservatives are capable of insensitive speech. And no matter how much they might grovel in regret, no grace is granted. Why? Because, of course, they intended the insult, while "loving and compassionate" liberals would never, ever intentionally offend. The double standard makes me doubly nauseous.

[Krash]

Making a quip about a racial stereotype and proposing racial segregation are two ends of a very long stick.

To compare the two is like comparing Assault and murder - both are distasteful, one is quite disgusting.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Krash
Making a quip about a racial stereotype and proposing racial segregation are two ends of a very long stick.

To compare the two is like comparing Assault and murder - both are distasteful, one is quite disgusting.

Hillary Clinton made a crack about Ghandi being the equivalent of Apu whereas Lott said at Thurmond's 100th birthday party that if he had been elected president things might be better now. Did you happen to see the speech he gave, or did you just read articles about the one sentence that he caught the flak for? I saw the speech, to me it sounded less like a proposition of segregation and more like a guy trying to say nice things about an old man at his 100th birthday party.

[Krash]

No, I did not see his whole speech - yes I am aware that he was making a speech at the guys birthday. He was advocating voting for someone that wanted to re-introduce / maintain (I forget which) segregation. That's like saying "It's ok, he didn't actually want to do it himself, he would just support someone who did so".

Originally posted by Krash
No, I did not see his whole speech - yes I am aware that he was making a speech at the guys birthday. He was advocating voting for someone that wanted to re-introduce / maintain (I forget which) segregation. That's like saying "It's ok, he didn't actually want to do it himself, he would just support someone who did so".

I think you're missing the point.

Lott's comments were in no way an endorsement of segregation. Many made his comments out to be so - but as noted by Dionysos - Lott was simply trying to say kind words about an old man.

What Clinton said was not funny - but that's just because she can't tell a joke.

Back to the Apu thing - that is funny because the Simpson's writers are funny.

Neither is meant to be offensive to Indians. So much humor is based on general attributions to ethnic groups. Ever heard an Ole and Lena joke? How about a polish joke? Ever seen a black comedian commenting on white people?




In addition - and I may be wrong - didn't Thurmond reverse his stance on segregation eventually?

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by xiannaix
In addition - and I may be wrong - didn't Thurmond reverse his stance on segregation eventually?

He did for a couple hours one night 78 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/15/thurmond..paternity/

*rimshot*

[Krash]

Xiannaix - Fair points.

Originally posted by Dionysos
He did for a couple hours one night 78 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/15/thurmond..paternity/

*rimshot*

hehehehehe

Originally posted by Dionysos
He did for a couple hours one night 78 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/15/thurmond..paternity/

*rimshot*

ouch.....

tipping hat

[bfp]

She has every right to make a statement like that, but it just shows the double-standard. Someone from the right says something, they're forced to resign; someone from the left makes a racial joke, no one from the right makes a sound, and they get a free-pass. It's a shame that the left can't act like civilized human beings when someone other than them makes a statement such as what Hillary said.

[Adam D]

I wish she would just resign, racist joke or not.

To quote my favorite ostrich, "That Ain't Funny."

One could argue that they are indeed just words, and that any meaning/association attached to them is voluntary and subjective on the part of the listener, but when you're in the public eye and you use language with the importance that a politician does, that's a pretty bad call to make, lame or not.

I think this has all already been said in this post, but felt inclined to add.

[Holmes Davis]

Originally posted by Trey Brister


Perhaps I am overly sensitive