Okay, I have done enough of these stories about white college students in blackface to make it clear that this is an issue. However, while most of these incidents I talk about occur at off-campus parties, what should happen if such an incident takes place at a school-sponsored event.

This brings us to a recent event at North Dakota State University. With a student population that is 92% white, diversity is probably not high on the list of priorities. Okay, maybe this is not a fair statement but, it certainly makes for a fertile breeding ground for those who harbor acrimony towards people of color, as well as other groups.

Which, again, brings us to the incident in question. At the Mr. NDSU pageant on March 18, which was to benefit diabetes research, there was a skit performed by the NDSU Saddle and Sirloin Club. While it lasted only 30 seconds, they packed a lot of hate into such a short time. Here’s one account of the skit:

People who attended it said a pageant contestant from Saddle and Sirloin dressed as a woman from the Internet video “I Got a Crush on Obama” and performed a strip tease for another student who was wearing dark makeup and an afro wig.

In the background, two male students dressed as cowboys simulated anal sex while holding an Obama sign that one student ripped at the conclusion of the 30-second performance…

In a word…”wow!” I don’t know where to begin but, I get the impression that the school is not about to do much because of the following:

(NDSU Dean of Students Janna) Stoskopf said she expected the investigation could take until May 9, the end of the school year.

“One of the issues here is how do we balance what our policies and expectations about behavior are with the issue of freedom of speech,” Stoskopf said. “Where does all of that get us?”

It sounds like somebody’s getting a free pass. I wonder if one of the 1.5% of the black student population had gotten up and said something like, “God d*mn America” during a skit, would this be allowed to pass?

Popularity: 14% [?]

From the Springfield (Illinois) Journal-Register.

Popularity: 12% [?]

It funny how this “controversy” is being treated like it’s something brand new. Over a year ago, I posted a couple of entries about Obama’s relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright (see here and here). In them, I criticized (and posted someone else’s criticism of) Obama on his snub of his then-pastor and, today, this still doesn’t sit well with me.

So, today, I just wanted to let people know that this is not new and that, once again, it is a black person being asked to strongly repudiate someone with whom he’s been associated while white candidates (Clinton and McCain) are allowed to get a pass when their supporters say controversial things with little more than a slap on the wrist.

Even more importantly, we allowed a president (George Bush) into office whose grandfather helped plot a coup to topple the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and whose family had business ties with the family of Osama bin Laden.

So, needless to say, the double-standard is wearing thin with me.

Popularity: 12% [?]

In a brilliant post on the Democratic Underground, David Zephyr articulates well what I had been thinking — if the recent issue about Barack Obama’s ex-pastor and a sermon this pastor gave last December is enough to get white voters not to consider him, they were likely looking for some excuse to exercise their bigotry. Zephyr doesn’t specifically reference this incident but, given the time of the posting, it had to be a consideration.

I have reprinted the post below in its entirety.

Barack Obama Isn’t Being Tested. White Americans Are Being Tested.

We have ourselves a real learning opportunity right now in this country. And the test is not about Barack Obama. The test is about white Americans. I don’t know if we (white Americans) are going to pass it. But it is almost divine, this test.

Barack Obama is only a man of his times. He can not change those white Americans’ hearts who will seek out excuses to rationalize their bigotry, their fear of people of color. He can not do that. As I said, he is a man of his times. And so we are about to learn a lot about these times, aren’t we?

If white Americans are looking for a reason — no matter how irrational or how great the double-standard may be — to justify their bigotry, then they will find their reason to justify their bigotry.

Barack is not the one being tested anymore. It’s white Americans who are being tested. Really tested.

How white Americans respond to this “clean” (Joe Biden’s curious term), brilliant African-American man — who has labored for those less fortunate because he so believed in this American dream, who has played by all the rules his entire life — how we respond will be revealing.

For as Barack Obama gets closer and closer to putting his hand the door of America’s big, boastful promise of equality, we will learn a lot about our fellow citizens and all about that promise of equality that we love to brag about.

Will my fellow white Americans judge this man on his character, his life’s work, his good soul? Or will we look for excuses to lock that door as he approaches? Will we grasp for any quick rationale, no matter how pathetic it may be, to grease our consciences?

How will we deal with this very good man, this faithful husband and father of two beautiful girls? You know, this decent and inspiring All-American family.

Will we concoct new standards at the last moment for him? Will we participate in ugly gossip with our neighbors about this man of color?

Yes, we have ourselves here a real learning opportunity now. It’s a test for the whole world to watch.

And the test is not about Barack Obama.

The test is all about white Americans.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Well, Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from the Clinton campaign.

Of course, rather than apologize like the party elder she was expected to be, she accused the Obama campaign of twisting her words.

Well, I read her words without being told by anyone how to interpret them and their meaning was clear: she demeaned his candidacy by trying to paint it as affirmative action on steroids — a play to the racial fears of some in the Democratic party.

At any rate, she’s out but, not before adding her name to the long list of race-baiters in the Clinton campaign.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Well, it looks like Geraldine Ferraro’s race-baiting ways go back a while.

The D.C. newspaper, The Politico, had dug up an old statement of hers from 1988. What it shows is that she not only has she pulled this garbage before but, also, that she needs some new material. If you remember her recent statement on Barack Obama, she stated that “(i)f Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

In 1988, she had this to say about Jesse Jackson when he ran for president:

“if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

Notice any similarities?

As you noticed, no doubt, I am greatly soured on Hillary Clinton. One big reason is that she continues to surround herself with people who are willing to play games with race for political advantage. Well, for some of us, it’s not a game — race actually impacts our lives in a very real way.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Okay, when you’re caught saying something racist do you:

a) Deny it.
b) Apologize.
c) Say something even more absurd.

If you chose ‘c’, your name might be Geraldine Ferraro. As I posted previous, Ferraro made what could only be described as a stupid, racist statement.

Now, after being questioned about what she said, she came back with this witty retort:

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

So, calling you on racism make others racist?

With her still being on the campaign, I guess Clinton, despite her weak public “disagreement” with Ferraro’s statement, actually approves of her actions.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Well, guess what — another Clinton backer is playing the race game. This time, it’s former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Tuesday, Ferarro had the following to say:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

You know, some things are so stupid that, they you don’t need anyone to make them apparent.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong but, America’s not exactly handing out positions of power to black men, willy-nilly. If so, why was it that Obama is the last of only 5 black people to ever serve in the U.S. Senate (there have been 4 black male senators and one black female senator, Carol Mosely Braun). Why is it that black men don’t make up a majority of the House of Representatives. How many black governors are there? (the answer would be 1.)

In other words, being black doesn’t make one lucky in politics. In fact, it exposes one to greater scrutiny because, by being black, a certain lack of competence in always implied — even from other black people.

How did Hillary Clinton respond? Well, she offered the following:

“I do not agree with that…It’s regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal.”

Yes, some of Obama’s people have veered off and, because of that, they are not part of his campaign any longer.

Now, I know what you’ll tell me — Ferraro is not part of the Clinton campaign. Well, Louis Farrakhan is not part of the Obama campaign but, Obama was called on to “reject and denounce” him just the same.

My question is, “when will Clinton ‘reject and denounce’ the statements of Geraldine Ferraro?”

Correction: Ferraro does, indeed, serve on the Clinton campaign in an official capacity.  She serves on the Clinton finance committee.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Okay, I’m reloaded! After taking a needed break, I am back at it and I am heated.

We already saw a golf commentator get in trouble for a lynching joke in regards to Tiger woods. We have seen a huge rise in the number of noose incidents around the country and even George W. Bush spoke out against lynching references when he said the following:

“As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive…They are wrong. And they have no place in America today.”

So, when someone makes a reference to symbolically lynching someone, particularly a black woman, we can’t let that slide. A few days ago, there was a flap over a statement made by Michelle Obama when she was speaking in Rhode Island. She stated, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.” She later clarified her statement:

“What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process…For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out — and that’s the source of pride that I was talking about.”

Regardless of how you might feel about what she said, I can tell you this, the way Bill O’Reilly responded to it is not at all acceptable. On his radio show, O’Reilly chimed in by saying the following:

“And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.”

Okay, there are really two key words here. The first is, of course, the use of the word “lynching” in regards to a black person. I am not sure of why this is even part of his vocabulary. But, there’s another disturbing word here. That word is “unless”. So, we are at the point of saying that we need to “lynch” people because her opinion or view of America is different from that of others? Personally, I can relate to Michelle Obama’s statements but, even if I couldn’t, my first thought would not be to lynch her, symbolically or otherwise.

Needless to say, I am tired of people playing with that word. Lynching was a method of torture and public execution, even over the most petty of transgressions (even for merely whistling at a white woman). Moreover, it was an act of terrorism (yes, terrorism was carried out by some whites in this country long before we even cared about a threat from the Middle East) meant to show blacks that if they dared to step out of “their place”, which included trying to do things even as mundane as voting or competing in business with whites, they could suffer the same fate. So, when the question of “lynching” a black person is raised, red flags should go up.

Personally, I believe that the Westwood One Radio Network, which gives O’Reilly a platform for his radio program, or Fox News, which allows him to host a show on their network or, better yet, O’Reilly’s advertisers should be concerned with having their names associated with someone who clearly has a history of making stupid racial comments (see here, here and here).

Now that I’ve ranted, you can hear his words for yourself (thanks to Media Matters for the clip):

 

 O'Reilly speaks of "lynching" Michelle Obama: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 18% [?]

How can you tell when Hillary Clinton’s supporters believe their candidate’s in trouble? When the race-baiting starts, of course.

The latest of these supporters is Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. Rendell offered the following insight on the politics of race in Pennsylvania: “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

Then, he goes on:

“I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so…And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama’s ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool.”

Okay, he compared the Obama campaign to the campaign of Lynn Swann? As far as I know, this was Swann’s first attempt at elected office anywhere. Obama was, at least, a stage legislator and is now a U.S. Senator. Furthermore, Obama is currently beating out Hillary Clinton with the white male vote so, it’s not like he can’t attract white voters.

But, this is not my beef with Rendell. Rendell seems to be saying that because there are some white people who won’t vote for a black candidate, his candidate, because she is a white person, is more electable.

At this point, I believe that Obama has shown that he has a broad enough appeal to garner votes from all constituencies — some more than others — but, still, he has broad appeal. I think the Clinton surrogates, and by extension, Hillary Clinton, need to quit playing these games before they either end up costing her the nomination or winning her the nomination but turning off so much of the base that it ends up costing her the presidency.

Popularity: 18% [?]