The Glade 4.0

SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT!
By
Neal Boortz
@ September 18, 2009 8:20 AM Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

... Other than me, of course.

Here's your link to an article by Jesse Washington. Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. Washington says that all of these claims of racism out there are taking a word that once had some power and turning it into nothing more than a spitball. He quotes one John McWhorter, who studies race and language at the Manhattan Institute: "It gets to the point where we don't have a word to use to call people racist who actually are."

Now isn't this just exactly what I've been saying for about ten years here on the show? How many times have I gone over the differences between prejudice, bigotry and racism? Enough to make my listeners scream in agony, that's for sure.

Washington goes to Webster's Dictionary for the current definition: "Someone who believes in the inherent superiority of a particular race or is prejudiced against others."

Now while I'm thrilled that someone has actually spoken up about the overuse of the "R" word, I want to address this "prejudiced against others" thing. As I said, this is the current definition. Go back a few decades and the "or is prejudiced against others" bit is not there. Why? That would be because prejudice against other is ... well ... it's prejudice. The word means "pre-judging." People do that all the time, and it doesn't make one racist.

Now my little example here is sure to cause the more ignorant among my Nuze readers to call me a "racist." Like that really matters any more. OK ... you're standing at an ATM withdrawing a few hundred bucks because there's a shoe sale down the street. While you're waiting for the machine to give you your card back a young black male walks purposely towards you. His pants are bunched up around his ankles, he's wearing a hoodie. One hand is grabbing his crotch and the other is in a pocket. You are immediately concerned for your safety. You have pre-judged this situation and your considered judgment is that this young stud is not coming up to you to compliment your hair. There ... you pre-judged a young black male. Does that make you racist? Well; what if this young black male was wearing a business suit? What if he had a briefcase instead of his crotch in one hand, and an ATM card in the other? You're not alarmed, are you? But wait! I thought you were a racist because you showed prejudice against a young black male? But now here you are confronted by another young black male .. and suddenly you're not a racist any more? The explanation, of course, is the young black male in the hoodie was representative of one culture, the black male in the business suit was representative of another. Your prejudice is based on culture, not skin color. Hardly something to support a charge of racism, is it?

Anyway ... we're making progress here. At least some members of the MSM are starting to look at the overuse of this word and trying to set the record straight.

Racist.

Jesus?

I have a hard time understanding why people come to the defense of folks like Neil Boortz. He has repeatedly displayed his racism on his show and in print, and any time it's pointed out, an alarming number of people scramble to find a symantic justification for ignoring his racially charged rhetoric.

Why? Why do people defend him, with snark or any other tactic? Is he someone you admire? Is he someone who's rhetoric pleases you?

These questions are not intended to be inflammatory or trollish. I am sincerely curious as to why people defend folks like Boortz.

However, I don't know that you can separate his positions from his racism. I don't think people are tired of it in the way you describe, either. It's still a powerful rallying cry in the Tea Party movement, and it finds itself comfortably ensconced in right wing talk radio, which is incredibly powerful and politically influential in our country.

Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage spring immediately to mind. Limbaugh's racism is well documented and well known. He is unapologetic about it, and his fans seem to eat it up. And, he has a great deal of influence over the Republican party.

Micheal Savage is much more blatant about it, and also has a large viewing and reading audience for his radio show and books.

The Tea Party movement is fueled and promoted by Right Wing radio and television, like Fox News. Fox, especially, is responsible for a huge portion of the marketing of the Tea Party movement and their events, as is talk radio. That's not just reporting happening in a vacuum. And racism is a rather strong undercurrent at those protests.

The Tea Party movement is the right wing's version of ANSWER. The difference is that elected republicans are embracing the Tea Party movement, and the left generally can't stand ANSWER and does everything it can to distance themselves from them.

I have a hard time understanding why people come to the defense of folks like Neil Boortz. He has repeatedly displayed his racism on his show and in print, and any time it's pointed out, an alarming number of people scramble to find a symantic justification for ignoring his racially charged rhetoric.

Why? Why do people defend him, with snark or any other tactic? Is he someone you admire? Is he someone who's rhetoric pleases you?

These questions are not intended to be inflammatory or trollish. I am sincerely curious as to why people defend folks like Boortz.

Michael Savage is an ***, but in exactly what terms does he have a "very large" audience?

Herman Cain kicks ***.

Definitely. I rarely like it when talk radio hosts are on vacation

For the most part I agree with this, except Michael Savage. Usually most times he goes on vacation his guest host is better than he is.

Replace Savage with Hannity for me. Hannity's guests (which are few and far between) are at least 3x his calibre.

You're a great American, DFK!