How else do you explain this?
A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship [Chip Saltman] said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas — which included a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — was clearly intended as a joke.
Saltman, Huckabee’s former campaign manager, distributed the song on a “satire” CD, the overriding theme of which was that all Democrats hate America, which he gave as a Christmas present to his Capitol Hill colleagues. The song in question has its origins on Rush Limbaugh’s show – surprise! – but the title comes from a Los Angeles Times article, which explained the folklore character of the “magic negro.” Why is it offensive when Saltman says it, or Limbaugh plays it, but not when the LA Times talks about it, you might ask?
What we have here is an issue of context: when phrases like “the magic negro” are tossed about by newspaper columnists, in largely academic & respectful articles, it means something far different than when a national politician, and a member of a party generally hostile to minority rights, uses the phrase satirically or as a pejorative to mock a black man.
Saltman should know better, but he doesn’t, and that’s the modern Republican party, whose members are more content to defend the offensive things they do, than to avoid them in the first place.
A quick visit to Wikipedia documents the origins of the term in cinema (and literature). Examples of those using the term include Spike Lee in his classes. The avatar of the MN is that of a sexless, selfless dark male who comes, deux ex machina, to the aid of hapless white folk. The satire then is appropriate to the opponents of Mr. Obama, who are casting him as a supernatural force, a Hollywood President, rescuing jobless, unemployed whites.
Posted by John Bailo | December 27, 2008, 5:26 pmIt may be “appropriate” satire if viewed strictly in pedigological terms, but I’m with Ames – it speaks volumes about who Republicans are, and who they stand for.
Posted by Philip H. | December 29, 2008, 10:27 amFrom Ames: “…and a member of a party generally hostile to minority rights.”
By ‘minority rights’ do you mean some sort of special rights created exclusively for minorities or just general rights that all Americans have?
From Phillip: “…it speaks volumes about who Republicans are, and who they stand for.”
I would suggest it speaks volumes about certain Repuiblicans and who they stand for. I think it also probably speaks volumes about certain Democrats and what THEY stand for as well, lest we forget that racism exists on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 29, 2008, 12:08 pmI’d go with the rights that all Americans have, but some people view as “special” when given to different looking people.
Posted by Ames | December 29, 2008, 12:24 pmMike, until I see other prominent Republicans, and Republican party organs, repudiating this, I will operate under the assumption they do not object. All we have to do is look at the serious and nearly instantaneous condemnation of similar statements fro supporter of Democrats by Republicans to see the precendnet.
And the straw man about it being bad by coming from Rush but good coming from the LA Times doesn’t wash with me either. Bad is bad as far as I’m concerned.
Posted by Philip H. | December 29, 2008, 12:58 pmTo the GOP’s credit, they have piled on Saltman. But just have many have tried to defend it :-/
Posted by Ames | December 29, 2008, 3:12 pmFrom Ames: “I’d go with the rights that all Americans have, but some people view as “special” when given to different looking people.”
So what specific ‘universal’ rights are the GOP hostile to when viewed throug the lense of people who ‘look different’?
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 29, 2008, 4:28 pmI’ve been thinking about anti-discrimination laws, especially for protecting gays from discharge, and women from disparate compensation, which the right spins as “special rights,” but are only special laws to secure rights everyone else already has.
Posted by Ames | December 29, 2008, 4:55 pmThe right isn’t hostile to anti-discrimination laws. At worst we aren’t big fans of boondoggles for trial lawyers and cumbersome legislation that will have every HR office in the country swamped with claims.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 29, 2008, 11:37 pmAt the risk of pulling a reverse “no true scotsman,” I think you’re atypically intelligent, conscientious, and well argued :)
Posted by Ames | December 29, 2008, 11:48 pmBe afraid Ames. Moderate, thoughtful conservatives are making a big move in 2009. We’re best positioned to lead the party since we’re the only ones with fresh ideas. There are new sites popping up all over the place like The Next Right and Rebuild the Party. RtP has already gotten most of the RNC chairman candidates to sign off on an aggressive plan to rebuild our fundraising and networking infrastructure.
I’m not making any predictions for 2012 (it’s probably Obama’s to lose) but I don’t think you and Phillip are going to have the ammo to make such generalizations in a couple of years.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 30, 2008, 9:18 amChip Saltman and most of the RNC is just the group of KKK. Is burning the cross next or dragging out black people of of their house going to be considered “satire” also.
Enough is enough, everyone knows racism when they see and hear it, call it what is it!
Posted by Kerrine | December 30, 2008, 10:35 amI finally read the lyrics to the song…and I guess I don’t get the hubub. The songs seems to be primarily making fun of white liberals. Something tells me that if ‘negro’ wasn’t in the title this would be a non-issue.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 30, 2008, 11:07 amM ike,
I hope you are correct about the Republican party. Unfortunately, their losses in the latest round of elections is due to 30 plus years of Republican policies, as well as 20 plus years of Republican harrangs about “culture war” issues to hide real economic damage being done (and often to minority communities). You don’t undo that in 4 years. You also don’t undo that when you are a pro-business (but not pro-worker) party.
Posted by Philip H. | December 30, 2008, 12:43 pmIf GOP losses were due to 20 and 30 years of policies, then I guess presidential victories 80, 84, 88, 2000 and 2008 were anomallies? And what about heavy congressional victories in 94, 96, 2004?
Clinton moved to the right. Obama moved to the right. You don’t see Republicans doing the same dance. I think that demonstrates that the country is center-right. That means we have less ground to make up.
Obama has a tall order in front of him. So far I think he’s doing the right thing, but time will tell. Massive infrastructure investment is wise, but if it becomes a pork spending spree or we see a lot of corruption in the process, Obama is going to look bad. The potential is there for him to be a hero or go down in flames.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 30, 2008, 1:30 pmAbsolutely right on the last part: he needs to remain ethically flawless, and work his ass off. Democratic power is his to lose, but the odds (multiple international crises) are long.
As to the center-right country, we disagree. I think there are some markers for guidance, though: Bush 2000 ran on a centrist record, Bush 2004 was too far right except during time of war, Dean was too far left, so was Kerry, and Obama is symbolically right, economically left, and socially center-left. The message, at most, is that the country prefers a center-right symbology, dead-center-but-slightly-right politics when everything is okay, and center-left when work needs to be done. Aaand it’s moving left. So…
Posted by Ames | December 30, 2008, 2:44 pmThe country is about to get a massive ‘center-left’ spending spree. If it turns into a big entitlement, make-work program, liberalism loses again. If it’s a true transformative effort, liberalism is vindicated.
One thing that troubles me (and is going to be a 2009 blog post) is the way that environmental policy has become linked to economic policy. ‘Green’ is not necessarily the answer to all of our problems.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 30, 2008, 3:13 pmMike,
Environmental policy has long been linked to economic policy, just not as openly as we do it now. When Eisenhower started the Interstate highway system, he tried to disguise a shift in basic transportation policy (to cars away from trains and interurbans) as a new network of roads to improve defense. What he really did – and consciously I think – was decide that the U.S. would become a car dominated country. From that decision and its subsequent environmental degradations during construction, indecently, sprang several of the environmental laws of the late ’60′s and early 70′s. From that decision we lost streetcars and other functional forms of mass transit. And from that decision, we encumbered our economy with massive tail pipe emissions, which are a significant part of U.S. greenhouse gas releases. Those missions have both environmental and economic costs.
So cry about it if you want, but this is not a new linkage. And as to Green Economy jobs – that is about the only sector left where we can grow employment for the foreseeable future. It won’t happen in traditional manufacturing, retail, banking, or traditional construction.
Posted by Philip H. | December 31, 2008, 10:42 amHere’s why things like the “magic negro” song aren’t cool. Because they unlock things like this:
Posted by Ames | January 2, 2009, 4:22 pmInteresting comments. I just posted on Rush’s song at http://soozah.wordpress.com/
Posted by Federal Farmer | October 12, 2009, 3:56 pm