Boss Hog Rush Limbaugh thinks that school buses should be segregated again.
Remember folks, this is the leadership of the GOP.
Boss Hog Rush Limbaugh thinks that school buses should be segregated again.
Remember folks, this is the leadership of the GOP.
I hate to defend Limbaugh, but isn’t it fairly obvious his words are dripping with sarcasm here? Misguided sarcasm, one might think, but sarcasm nonetheless — he’s not actually advocating segregates buses, it seems to me:
Okay, let’s unpack this. If Limbaugh’s words are to be taken literally, not sarcastically, he is saying that black-against-white racism is “justifiable.” Is it plausible that he thinks this? Of course not. He is mocking what he perceives as the liberal viewpoint, which he thinks leads to the conclusion that segregation is necessary, according to liberals. He’s saying that, in “Obama’s America,” “we’re being taught” that black-against-white racism is “justifiable,” particularly when whites are “invading [the] space and stuff” of blacks — and therefore, it folows logically that “we need segregated buses.”
Now, Limbaugh’s rant is completely absurd, not to mention borderline incoherent. Moreover, his repeated insistence on asserting that an isolated incident on a school bus in Missouri has something to do with the mores of “Obama’s America” is so fucking ridiculous that he should never be taken seriously by any thinking period ever again, about anything, period. He’s an ass and a clown and a buffoon, and his statements are dangerously inflammatory. He is literally blaming the President of the United States, who has done absolutely nothing remotely race-war-ish during his presidency (whatever you think of its merits otherwise), for somehow inciting black kids to beat up white kids on a school bus. Nothing Obama has done could possibly support this conclusion — the only reason Limbaugh is saying this is because of the color of Obama’s skin. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch, therefore, to say that Limbaught is, in fact, being quite clearly racist here. And I don’t say that lightly.
Nevertheless, he is NOT saying that we should have segregated buses, and it’s dishonest for Raw Story to spin his remarks that way. There is plenty to criticize about Limbaugh’s comments without portraying obvious sarcasm as being literal and non-sarcastic.
I’m not convinced. Based on what he says here and what he has said before, I honestly think he believes segregation would be a good idea.
Brendan, I disagree.
He is quite clearly being racist. And he is quite clearly being sarcastic. But I don’t think he is being sarcastic about segregation. I think he is being racist about segregation. That is to say, just because it comes as part of a remark that is, overall sarcastic does not mean that the entire remark is sarcastic. And indeed there is generally some grain of direct truth about the speakers position in a sarcastic remark. I believe the segregation result that he comes up with is indeed a grain of direct truth. What he is, in fact, saying is fairly clearly: what we’ve got to do is segregate white kids and black kids to keep the black kids from beating up the white kids because black kids just go around beating up white kids for no reason. Presumably due to whatever stereotypes Rush believes about black people.
The comments are indefensibly racist. And also fairly blatantly a call to turn back the clock on integration.
Admitting to my own bias I’ve always thought Rush to be a cantankerous ignorant ass. Still this does indeed seem to take his absurdity to all new heights. So I don’t discount the plausibility of Brendan’s read on this. Still I find it equally plausible that he straight up meant what he said about segregation.
I was totally going to skip this conversation, knowing that I was likely to offend someone, but then I had a strange insight that may be a conversation piece. So here goes –
First, re: Limbaugh – I recall hearing an interview with a relative of Limbaugh’s who described an interaction with him at a family wedding ~20 years ago. This was at the beginning of his radio show, just before his rise to fame. The relative recalled how surprised she was by his show, that in real life he was friendly, warm, and empathetic, but on the show he was the opposite of his real-life self.
When she confronted him about this, he allegedly told her that the radio persona was developed solely for the show. His view was that you maximized your audience if half of the people loved you and half of them hated you – in that case everyone listened to you.
In the context of this alleged conversation, Limbaugh’s show is really just infotainment, like Oprah…or Jerry Springer. Unlike Oprah, if his cousin is correct, Limbaugh is trying to rile up everyone either for or against him. And unlike Springer, it seems like Limbaugh’s fans take their hepped-up state beyond the boundaries of the show. Hillbillies fighting on Springer may get you riled up while watching, but they are forgettable milliseconds after the tv is off. Not so sure the same is true about Limbaugh.
Finally, the promised insight. What have the Democrats done about the fact that a profiteer is using public airwaves to drive up disturbed folks’ discontent to make money? They invoke the fairness doctrine. Fairness. Not the prevent public resources from being used to incite crazed loons to violence doctrine, but the “fairness” doctrine. How positively, horribly, 21st century Democrat of a protest.
I bet I’m like a lot of folks who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, who don’t feel particularly at home in either party, but tend to gravitate a bit more toward the Republicans because the Democrats seem so….weak, as the recourse to “fairness” illustrates. Maybe it wasn’t always that way. Heck, 50 years ago a Democrat assumed the White House, and just after his first 100 days were over, he incinerated 1 million Japanese civilians.
Course (here’s the insight) that guy also said “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. That’s what you get out of the Democrats these days, long-suffering folks who take pride in their forbearance at “standing the heat”.
The Democrats really need a leader who says,
“If you can’t stand the heat, find the a****** who turned it up, roll some knuckles on him for being so stupid, and then put the heat back to a normal level”.
Just an idea.
Just for the record:
Who is doing all of the segregating at this point? Who is forming race based organizations and excluding other races?
The reason there are all Black dorms on our college campuses isn’t because the White kids kicked the Blacks out. The reason there are Black Student Unions isn’t because the Black students were kicked out of the regular Student Unions. Compare the number of Black kids in the Greek system with the number of White kids in the Black Greek system.
There is still a Miss Black America, even though at least eight Black woman have won the regular Miss America recently.
How would you feel about a channel called White Entertainment Television?
I agree that segregation is a problem today, but don’t lay it at Rush’s feet.
Jazz, I’ll take a slightly weaker party than a slightly racist one.
yeah..because the party that demands we treat people as members of a victim group based on ethnicity is slightly less racist than one who demands we treat people as individuals……
I’ll take a slightly weaker party than a slightly racist one.
David K., Republican.
Brendan is obviously right — Limbaugh was clearly being sarcastic. Deliberately misconstruing his sarcasm only makes Limbaugh seem more reasonable by comparison.
My take on this is that Limbaugh doesn’t personally believe in segregated buses, but that him even suggesting this in the fashion he does is a bad, bad thing. As I’ve seen else where, too many people have worked too hard to kill this countries racism demons to have Limbaugh toy with bringing them back now. He either believes this or is playing with a fire he has no business playing with.
Gahrie,
Speaking only for myself, and in the context of a generally overarching faith in the enfranchisement of the individual (rather than the state), and considering the true implication of the Jim Crow south in the first half of the 20th century, where laws restricting blacks’ right to work, associate, and even choose where to eat or how much to spend on dinner, essentially slavery by any other name smelling as bad,
I really really really really REALLY do not have a problem with Miss Black America or Black Entertainment Television. I do get a bit miffed when blacks ask me to financially compensate them for the sins of the past, since I find this a practical impossibility.
But the affirming compensation of a Miss Black America? Not racist. Not a problem at all.
too many people have worked too hard to kill this countries racism demons to have Limbaugh toy with bringing them back now.
I agree, but the bigger problem with that is there are way more folks opposite Limbaugh who are doing precisely that.
Re: Miss Black America, BET, etc. … um, do we have a problem with Irish-American organizations? Polish-American ones? No, because those are sensible expressions of extant subcultures that mean something which isn’t necessary exclusionary in nature.
The problem with comparing “Black Entertainment Television” to a hypothetical “White Entertainment Television” is that there is fundamentally no such thing as a “white” cultural identity. “White” only means something in the context of being not-black, not-Hispanic, etc. This is why all-white clubs, a “white” TV channel, etc., seem instinctively racist to most of us — because the only reason to have such a thing would be specifically to exclude minorities. (Well, either that, or to snarkily make an oh-so-clever conservative point about how the REAL racists in this country are the blacks. *sigh*) By contrast, nobody would contend that the core purpose of an Irish-American club is to exclude Polish-Americans or German-Americans — obviously, the purpose of an Irish-American club is to promote Irish culture, to bring people together who take pride in their Irish heritage, etc. That makes sense, just as African-American organizations/groups/etc. make sense, because there is an identifiable African-American culture, a common legacy and history, etc. I grant you, it’s not universal (Barack Obama, for instance, is not really within the African-American archetype by birth), but it’s prevalent enough to be sensible as real, genuine cultural expression. People can, and do, genuinely take pride in their African-American heritage, without merely meaning by that, “I hate whiety.” Whereas there is NO such thing as a White American or Caucasian-American culture… unless you just mean the sort of generic suburban middle- or upper-middle-class lifestyle… and if you mean that, there are PLENTY of clubs, organizations, entertainment venues, etc. etc. that cater very specifically to that “cultural experience.”
This argument about “White Entertainment Television, ” the “Fightin’ Whities,” etc., is just intellectually lazy snark dressed up as serious conservative thought.
P.S. Having said all that — I think it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that clubs/organizations/pageants/entertainment outlets/etc. etc based on specific racial or ethnic groups do more harm than good. I’m not saying there is no serious argument to be made against BET, Miss Black America, etc. But that serious argument does NOT include the notion that White Entertainment Television or Miss White America would somehow be equivalent, or that the only reason for BET, Miss Black America, etc. to exist is anti-white racism. Those notions are complete bullshit, and obviously so.
I think Brendan brings up an interesting point in comments 12 and 13. I’m not sure I agree with him or with Joe Mama. Semantically Joe Mama has a very good point. But I think Brendan poses a very good logical point. And a rather sound rebuttal to the gut level reaction to things that Joe poses. My general tendency has been to sort of agree with Joe’s position just at a gut level–BET ect have always seemed a little awkward to me. Whereas, say, Telimundo doesn’t. But are BET and Telimundo basically the same thing? And by Brendan’s logic they basically are. And his logic there is quite compelling.
Seriously, and legitimately, this is a topic where I would be interested in more debate. Screw the Rush controversy, this is actually an interesting topic.
If its true that Rush’s radio persona is an act, I have to say that offends me even MORE than if it were his genuine feelings. If he genuinely felt and believed that at least he could be justified as holding to his convictions. If its a trumped up act that he’s using to just inflame the masses with his bigoted hate filled rhetoric in order to be succesful, profitable, powerful, then he is a far worse kind of human being.
dcl –
I agree, this is an interesting conversation, and like you I don’t fully subscribe to the views argued so far. In re: Brendan at 12/13, it seems to me that the ubiquity of cultural organizations is not what justifies Miss Black America; at a certain level discrimination is discrimination, it’s impact grows as a function of its profile. Mr. German Staten Island might thus be a potential source of offense if anyone knew about it. In any event, Miss Black America represents discrimination, if (certainly) not racism.
But I’m okay with that discrimination. Recently I started reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog, when Sullivan’s blog went in the tank during his hiatus. Ta-Nehisi paints a very interesting picture of race relations – from the black point of view -in the US, what I found striking was his discussion of the legacy of inferiority vis-a-vis whites that affects many blacks today. On several threads TNC discussed his fear of whites, a fear that is existential, and easily distinguishable from the white man’s fear of blacks, which is usually circumstantial (i.e. a scary-looking black man is approaching me on the street). TNC suggested that the existential fear of whites is widespread in the black community, though understandably few blacks discuss it.
One race having an existential fear of another is totally intolerable in a fully enfranchised, fully free country. I suppose one could argue that this fear is totally the blacks’ damn fault, and that we whites have never done anything to foster such feelings. If you feel that way, I am sure you won’t be interested in anything else in this post, but you certainly knew that already.
To the extent that existential fear is the legacy of being on the business end of generations of discrimination, it doesn’t bother me at all that such races engage in culturally affirming activities as a means of overcoming such fears. FWIW, I see Judge Sotomayor’s Wise Latina comments largely through this prism; for the same reason I take absolutely no offense at the things she said.
Ideally, we’d live in a country where none of us had any systematic existential fear of any others, but until that blessed day, I suppose its okay for discriminated-against groups to prop themselves up. We white folks do not have a moral claim on the same dispensation.
I feel like making Woody Allen related existential angst jokes now.
But I shall try to be serious. Clearly we all need roll models, more or less throughout our lives for different things and for different phases of development. So then the question might become, do things like Black Student Alliance or BET provide these kinds of support and or roll models that those seeking them would otherwise lack. If that is the case, then they are overall a good thing. If they don’t or if they simply perpetuate the mentality or approach that made them necessary or led to the angst in the first place, the they are a disaster that should be done away with.
My basic point is simply this…..you cannot complain about the horrors of segregation or accuse someone of being a segregationist without recognizing the fact that most racial segregation today takes place when “minorities” insist on segregating themselves.
gahrie, there is a huge difference between forced segregation and dehuminafying treatment like the type Rush Limbaugh is talking about and groups of culturally similar people associating voluntarilly with each other. Last time I checked BET wasn’t advocating that black people were superior to white people, or that white people should only be 3/5 of a person.
This is a total geek-out on my part, but reading dcl @ 17 I started to question whether these black identity cultural phenomena are as affirming as folks like me reflexively believe. I remember watching an NAACP image award show a few years back with a really quite awful skit lampooning the black gangster experience by showing a couple of bumbling, failed black thugs. Then they did what every black image show seems to do: gave a lifetime achievement award to Smokey Robinson. Smokey’s a good dude, and all, but shouldn’t a guy like Robert Johnson be more celebrated than a glorified singing bird like Smokey Robinson?
I’m starting to sound like the Cos. But maybe there’s something to it. Hell, maybe Gahrie isn’t the one that shouldn’t be complaining about these black cultural phenomena.
Maybe black people should.
Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person was BENEFICIAL to Black people who were slaves because it weakened the strength of slave states. And it wasn’t Black people who counted as 3/5 of a person but “those bound to service”. They deliberately did not refer to color or race or even usethe word “slave”.
Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person was BENEFICIAL to Black people who were slaves because it weakened the strength of slave states.
First, you are an idiot.
Second, the 3/5 rule gave the slave States MORE representation so no, it didn’t weaken the strength of the slave states at all.
David K:
Where did you go to school? If I was you I would demand a refund.The 3/5ths compromise was added to REDUCE the amount of representation the slave states got..they were demanding that slaves count as a whole person for representation. The Northern states balked. The South then proposed a 4/5 value for slaves, the North responded with 1/2 and the ultimate compromise was 3/5.
The quote is:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Free Whites, slave owner or not, were referred to with the exact same word as slaves, to wit: PERSONS. They explicitly acknowledged the shared humanity of the slaves by referring to them exactly as they did free men.
By the way..here’s a free one you failed to catch…I was wrong in my comment #21..I mis-remembered the exact wording of the section, so I wrongly stated that the slaves were referred to as “bound to service”.
Yes, clearly because it could have been far worse it was better that they were ONLY counted as 3/5. Brilliant logic gahrie.
Lets extend that logic shall we? A parapalegic is better off than a normal person because they could have been a quadrapelegic!
Do you see how wrong you are yet? The 3/5 “compromise” gave more power to the slave states than the free states because they were getting representation for people who had no rights and it increased their power in government. It doesn’t matter whether it was 5/5 or 1/5 it was STILL overrepresentation and gave increased power to people who wanted to keep black people enslaved.
No wonder you believe in things like death panels, you fail at even the most basic logic.
David K: So..you would have preferred that there be no Constitution, and thus no means for eventually freeing the slaves?
The choice wasn’t 3/5 or not counting them at all…it was 3/5 or no Constitution.
Neither side was happy with the compromise…which is why its called a COMPROMISE. The North would have vastly preferred that slaves not count at all, but that WASN’T AN OPTION!
Please tell me you slept through your history classes.
But let’s set aside your failure at the history of the Three Fifths Compromise for the moment.
Your original proposition was that Black people were told that they ” should only be 3/5 of a person”. This is clearly and absolutely wrong. They were clearly considered “persons”.
Three fifths clearly refers to the word “number” and not “persons”, exactly as the word “whole” refers to the word number and not “persons”.
You epitomize the expression: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
By the way, if the Constitution had stated that slaves did not count as “persons” for the purpose of apportionment at all (which you apparently believe should have happened), leftwing moonbats like you would be arguing that that was proof that the Framers didn’t even consider the slaves to be human.
Um, no gahrie, thats not what I would have argued at all. What I AM arguing and what you are ignoring is that being counted as 3/5 of a person did not HELP blacks, it didn’t weaken the slave states power it INCREASED it. Whether or not it was a necessary compromise to pass the Constitution is an entirely different argument and not the one you made. Your attempt to change the subject after you have already lost the argument is sad.
1) No, actually…you changed the arguement. Your original inference was that the Framers called slaves 3/5 of a person. When I showed that to be false, YOU changed the arguement to the 3/5 Compromise was bad for Blacks.
2) You have stated that counting slaves at the value of 3/5 meant that Blacks “should only be 3/5 of a person”. The logical extension is that if the Constitution counted slaves at a value of zero, you would claim that that meant the Framers said that Blacks “should have no value as a person”.
3) When you reduce something from a strength of 5/5 through compromise to a strength of 3/5..you are WEAKENING it by every measure known to man. Reducing the ratio did nothing but weaken the power of the Southern states. The value of slaves for representation of slaves did not start at 0, and get increased to 3/5. Since it was indeed recognized that they were persons, the value started at 1, and was reduced to 3/5.
When you reduce something from a strength of 5/5 through compromise to a strength of 3/5..you are WEAKENING it by every measure known to man.
Well, that assumes that you did in fact start from 1. This is a little blank in my knowledge of American history, and something I could not find the answer to after a little googling:
I know that there was originally a proposed amendment to the articles of confederation that would count slaves as less than 1 person for purposes of taxation. This failed, but what I don’t know is what that meant. Did that mean slaves were not counted at all or were counted?
And of course that is a slightly different question than how they were counted for the purposes of representation. I’d assume they weren’t counted before the 3/5 compromise, but I admittedly don’t know.
If so, that would mean they went from zero to 3/5, not 1 to 3/5. I don’t, however, know what that means in the context of this argument because I honestly only skimmed this last skirmish between gahrie and David K. 🙂
At any rate, I’m curious if someone can shed light on the historical questions I raised.
Ha, “historicaly questions”! These questions are an important moment in our history!
Doh. Self-quote fail. “historicaly?”
I promise I’m not drinking!
pthread (and gahrie, but he’ll just ignore this),
It doesn’t matter whether it started at 1 or 100, as long as slaves were counted at ALL for purposes of congressional representation it meant that the slave states power was disproportionately larger than what it should have been and was therefore detrimental not beneficial to the slaves. Lets go back to gahries original quote:
“Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person was BENEFICIAL to Black people who were slaves because it weakened the strength of slave states.”
See right there, he claimed that it was BENEFICIAL (his emphasis, not mine) and that it weakened the strength of the slave states. His argument only makes sense if slaves were initially counted in some other way, they weren’t. This wasn’t a reduction of power for the slave states, it was the initial starting position. The reduction of power, and therefore beneficial position for slaves didn’t come until that line was ammended out of the Constitution.
gahrie’s argument is akin to saying that being beaten to within an inch of your life is beneficial because you could be dead. It’s like saying getting a pay cut and demotion is beneficial because you could have been fired. He seems to lack the level of understanding to differentiate between “not completely awful” and “beneficial”.
He blew this argument from the get go by trying to claim that slave states were weakened by giving dissproportionately MORE representation than they deserved by asserting, in essence, “well hey it could have been even worse”. He then tried to change the subject multiple times and even argue some really arbitrary semantics. He even accused me from out of nowhere of not wanting the Constitution at all. These are not hallmarks of a genuine argument or reasoned discourse, but of desperation in the face of a losing battle.
What gahrie doesn’t want you to remember is that this all started as a comparison between the existence of things like BET and forced segregation born out of slavery and a sense of racial superiority. He seems to think the two are equal. Rational people disagree with him.
1) The intital position of the Southern states was counting slaves as a whole person for the purpose of representation or no Constitution. The North was able to forge a compromise that reduced the value of representation to 3/5. (Ironically the positions were exactly reversed under the Articles of Confederation, because that issue was taxation, not representation. However the proposed Amendment to the Articles never passed.)
2) My sematics were hardly arbitrary.
3) You presented a false choice: slaves counting as zero or as 3/5. The only way that slaves would have counted as zero would be no Constitution. Since you are so insistent that the 3/5 compromise was so horrific, I asked whether you would have preferred no Constitution. (see the question mark..that means I’m asking a question…or is that semantics?)
4) Actually I began with a comment that you cannot discuss segregation today without discussing the fact that today “minorities” are segregating themselves. BET was just one of many examples I cited. In reality, I find the all Black dorms, the all Black Greek system and the existence of BSUs to be far more troubling than BET. If segregation is an evil (as I believe it is) than we must condemn all forms of segregation.
Ooookay. So I guess nobody knows the answer to my question?
1) Under the Articles of Confederation, each State only had one vote. They could send anywhere from two to seven representatives, but when voting they voted as a State and had one vote. So the issue of whether or not slaves counted for representation was moot.
2) There was an attempt to tax the States based on population. The South argued that slaves were property and thus should not be counted, the North argued that they were people and should be counted. A compromise was reached to count slaves at a value of 3/5. The Amendment failed however.
3) While writing the new Constitution it was decided to have a House of Representatives based on population and a Senate with equal representation. So the beginning position was that all persons living in the states would be counted. The North recognized that this would give too much power to the South, and balked. The issue was so important that it threatened to derail the attempt to create a new Constitution. Eventually they returned to the 3/5 compromise from the Articles. So no slaves weren’t counted before the 3/5 Compromise, but nobody was.
Just to clarify my point #1 in comment # 37……it was completely up to the States as to how many representatives they sent…it was not based on population.
Bloody hell!
Now that I’ve got that out of the way. David you are wrong on the facts on this one. You may be right on the outcome. I can’t see being counted as 3/5 of a person being beneficial psychologically. But from a purely power / history stand point gahrie is right on the facts.
At the time all disenfranchised persons, other than those that were bound in service, were counted as a whole person. This included the 50% of the population that was female. Children still can’t vote but for the purposes of the census count as a full person.
Whether you like it or not the compromise in question inherently weakened the political power of the Southern states giving up 2/5 of the slave population for census purposes. And this was an inherently different count from all other disenfranchised persons. Also including non-propertied northerners, who could not vote (but generally the first group to gain the vote in the first couple of decades of the nation’s history) and were counted as a full person. The South at the time was arguing that the slaves were no different from the Northern workers that would get counted as a full person even though they could not vote.
I’m leaving it here because this is a major can of worms issue that I really don’t want to deal with. But in terms of the facts, David, you are wrong. Stop arguing that you aren’t, there are better arguments to be made on this issue anyway.
Umm no Dane. As long as Slaves were counted AT ALL it gave more power to the slave states than they should have had. Just because it could have been worse does not mean the 3/5 compromise was better or helpful for them. And it certainly didn’t weaken the slave states. They were still over-represented. And allll of that is still beside the point where gahrie claimed that the existence of BET is just as bad as segregation and slavery.
I can’t figure out if David has atrocious reading comprehension skills or is just deliberately distorting my statements.
Oh well..he was probably asleep in English too.
Yes David. Slaves were counted. So were other disenfranchised groups. That they were counted as less than other disenfranchised groups was a power concession by the South to the North. That had real political consequences. Now you can babble about what if they hadn’t been counted. But that doesn’t make you any less wrong on the facts. Nor that outcome a historical possibility. There are plenty of good arguments to make on the 3/5 compromise. And several of them would have it being bad for the slaves. But dude, you flat our aren’t making one of them because you are ignoring the historical realities, the facts, and the political realities and consequences of the situation. You’ve also switched your argument from “it’s atrocious that they were only counted as 3/5 of a person” to “they shouldn’t have been counted at all.” Now it frustrates me like all get out when gahrie et al completely ignore the facts. But in this rare instance he is right about them.
As for the outcomes and the comparisons–that is a completely separate issue that is a far more interesting discussion. The current politics and realities of this I mostly agree with you on. But ridding a loosing argument into the ground is just silly and makes this discussion harder for those of us that agree with you. So from a tactical stand point, get your *** off the argument that you can’t win on and move onto firmer ground.
gahrie: right, so when the amendment failed in regards to taxation, what was the default that it fell back on? Were they counted or not?
Sorry if I wrote a lot just to ask that simple question. 🙂 Anyone know?