Everything Racial Isn’t Racist

Spencer Ackerman applauds Megan Carpentier for her rejoinder to Geraldine Ferarro: “People coming up to you and complaining that they can’t complain about black people is them complaining for being looked down upon for being racists!”

It’s a great line except for its being gobsmackingly stupid.

Ferraro was passing on complaints of Clinton supporters frustrated that every attack made on Barack Obama was greeted with cries of “Racism!” That’s not an inherently unreasonable thing to complain about. If one can’t criticize a black candidate without being called a racist, then there’s no way to have a legitimate campaign. That’s highly problematic.

Of course, given that Ferraro and company were whining about how unfair the world is to women candidates and crying “Sexist!” every time Hillary got called on something makes this particular complaint ironic. Sort of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, if one can still use that phrase without being called a racist. But hypocrisy and lack of ironic awareness doesn’t necessarily make the charge untrue.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2008, Race and Politics, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. anjin-san says:

    Actually, Ferarro was greeted mostly with cries of “moron”… not “racist”.




    0



    0
  2. Spoker says:

    The idea that one can be white only (blacks not allowed) to be racist is what is really moronic.




    0



    0
  3. glasnost says:

    Yeah. The only comments that anyone ever claimed even might be about race were comments… dealing with *race*, like Bill’s comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson, who was all but a self-proclaimed token black candidate, or Geraldine Ferraro’s explicit claim that Obama only got where he was because he was black.

    The Obama campaign has at no time and in no way blamed criticism of him on racism when that criticism was not related to the color of his skin. And frankly, even when it has been, they’ve been pretty muted.

    This is a rewrite of history.




    0



    0
  4. jainphx says:

    Glasnost- that is just not true. You are labeled racist if you have the gall to mention his middle name for crying out loud. Not allowed to speak of his(whose to remain nameless) wife. How many more examples do you want.




    0



    0
  5. Michael says:

    I’d think there is a difference between complaining about a black man, and complaining about a [insert any other adjective] man.

    For example, you were to complain about the liberal running for President, the implication is that your complaint revolves around them being liberal.

    Lacking any other specifics in the complaint, if someone said they were complaining about a black man, I’d also assume their complaint revolved around him being black.




    0



    0
  6. G.A.Phillips says:

    I’d think there is a difference between complaining about a insert any color man, and complaining about a [insert any other adjective] man.

    For example, you were to complain about the liberal running for President, the implication is that your complaint revolves around them being liberal.

    Lacking any other specifics in the complaint, if someone said they were complaining about insert any color man, I’d also assume their complaint revolved around him being that color.




    0



    0
  7. Michael says:

    I’d think there is a difference between complaining about a insert any color man, and complaining about a [insert any other adjective] man.

    Still holds true, if someone is complaining about a white man, I’d assume their complaint revolved around him being white.




    0



    0
  8. od says:

    Ferraro more or less lost creditability when she suggested that being a black man was in America and advantage over being a white man or woman. It’s almost impossible to come up with any historical data to support this.

    She’s right that the attempt to redefine racism as something that can only be done by the dominant race (white in the case of the US) is basically silly, but that kind of got drowned out by how crazy her statement suggesting blacks are advantaged compared to whites in America.




    0



    0
  9. davod says:

    “Ferraro more or less lost creditability when she suggested that being a black man was in America and advantage over being a white man or woman. It’s almost impossible to come up with any historical data to support this.”

    Bullshit.

    What she said was that being a Black man in the Democratic primary was an advantage over being a White woman.

    If you take a look at the demographics she is right.




    0



    0
  10. DL says:

    The real issue is about liberalisms game of keeping blacks on the left’s plantation by protecting them from any criticism while building the anti-white, political correctness wall of anti-healing.

    Blacks are just another special interest group that libs wheel out during election time.

    Their cures (do they really want a cure?) for the black delima was to destroy their family and integrity by making them wards of whitey through the welfare state known first as the Great Society”

    Sadly the black coummities bought into the permanent victimhood mentlity necessary to justify to themselves the acceptance of the idea that they can’t make it without big government. care.




    0



    0
  11. Bithead says:

    First of all, the reason Obama won, here, is Hillary Clinton.

    That out of the way, we can stretch our minds a bit, to an election whrere Hillary Clinton isn’t involved.

    Let’s imagine the white woman running, isnt Hillary, but some other nameless face. Or, hell, since Ferraro is the subject let’s imagine she’s 30 years younger, and run her, instead.

    At that point we have a Democrat race between a black man and a white Woman. The black man wins. WHy? Because Blacks have been on the Democrat ‘protected species’ list for a heckova lot longer than women. More, most of the politics surrounding woment were borrowed from the issues invoked by Democrats ostensibly in support of Blacks.

    What I’m suggesting here is the black guy wins because the Democrats have been identified… (Incorrectly) with working for Blacks a lot longer than they’ve been identified (incorrectly) as working in the interests of women. It’s a self-identification thing much as anything else, by now.




    0



    0
  12. od says:

    Bullshit.

    What she said was that being a Black man in the Democratic primary was an advantage over being a White woman.

    If you take a look at the demographics she is right.

    She said it was being an advantage over being a white woman or a white man. Which explains why there have been so many Democratic presidential nominees …




    0



    0
  13. od says:

    that were black … (sorry, hit wrong button 🙁 )




    0



    0