Clayton Cramer has found something shocking! Not only a Democrat but no less a Democrat than James Carville has spoken against racial preferences!
Speaking to the Northwestern University Democrats, Carville said Democrats need to change their message.
John,
I blogged on this linking and you Cramer — I think you both missed something.
Isn’t the quote:
“No Kumbayah crap”
Potentially racially offensive. In fact, I find it mildly stupid.
Is Carville going to be held to the same standard as Trent Lott or Bill Bennett (whose statement, I’ll grant, was poorly reasoned and offensive)?
Combine that with the heresy of exposing race preferences. I suspect that Carville has enough “liberal bona fides” that it will be ignored, but …
Chet – I take Carville’s “No Kumbayah crap!” comment to be no more than a plea for Democrats to drop their goody-two-shoes-peacenik mantra. Others have long referred to “Kumbayah” singing as a way of putting down what they took to be naive 1960s idealism, etc.
John, I took it that way too. But the word has two distinct modern meanings. One is the peacenik-mantra of the 60s – presumably without racist intent – and the other is the older african origin of the word and its usage among african american religious folks.
What happens when a conservative makes a statement that has two different meanings where only one is racist? That’s the double standard I’m referring to.
Concerning “Kumbayah”.
At U Penn a few yeares ago, a student was brought up before the office of something-or-the-other (hurt feelings?), because he used the term “water buffalo”.
He was yelling at black students who were making noises outside his dorm window in the late hours of the night. Turns out a water buffalo is native to Africa, so …
Carville presents the only truly dangerous Democratic idea out there today. That Democrats get behind one cause at a time.
As long as they are incapable of not admitting every group into their ranks with equal volume, the Democrats are hamstrung by their own shrieking. A single well-thought out, limited platform would be highly dangerous in light of recent GOP failings.
There are a lot of upset middle of the road Americans who fail that the Republicans have broken a lot of small government promises.
If Carville’s idea catches on, and I’ve seen it gaining steam at KOS, the GOP may have trouble in 2006 unless they start keeping promises.
Somebody Stop Him!
James Carville has begun speaking in terms that could be very dangerous to the GOP in 2006, if the Left decides to follow the message that he’s preaching. Found at Discriminations. Originally chewed on by Clayton Cramer.
“Turns out a water buffalo is native to Africa, so”
Actually its not.
‘actus’ is correct, but Dom can be forgiven for remembering it that way because that (that water buffalo are native to Africa) was precisely the well publicized basis for claiming “hate speech”. They are native to Asia.
The University of Penn President who permitted the incredible series of disciplinary hearings that followed was replaced with a woman who immediately declared that student speech is no longer subject to punishment at UPenn.
If I remember correctly, the student said that calling a noisy bothersome person a “water buffalo” is a fairly common insult in his family, and he never knew it was native to Africa. Turns out there is a reason he didn’t know that.
The student brought a law suit against the University, which dragged on for years. He won at the end — and mikem is right, the University changed its rules because of it.
“Dom can be forgiven for remembering it that way because that (that water buffalo are native to Africa) was precisely the well publicized basis for claiming “hate speech”
I think the fact that its a large black animal was the basis for the offence, rather than nativity to any particular continent.
“The University of Penn President who permitted the incredible series of disciplinary hearings that followed was replaced with a woman who immediately declared that student speech is no longer subject to punishment at UPenn.”
Some people advocated that the president usurp the independence of the judicial process at Penn. But he didn’t. I don’t know how the rule was later changed, or whether it was done by Fagin or Rodin.
“He won at the end — and mikem is right, the University changed its rules because of it.”
How much did he win?
actus,
Had he had called them “geese,” say (to take something loud and obstreporous, but neither particularly large nor usually black), do you think there would have been no complaint? I doubt it.
“Had he had called them “geese,” say (to take something loud and obstreporous, but neither particularly large nor usually black), do you think there would have been no complaint? I doubt it.”
I know. That’s my point.
“I think the fact that its a large black animal was the basis for the offense, rather than nativity to any particular continent.”
Perhaps in their minds, but that is not what was stated. It was the use of a ‘symbol of Africa’ or recognizably African as an insult that made it “racial”. In fact, when zoologists corrected the racialists, they quickly countered that although water buffaloes are perhaps not native to Africa, there are in fact some transported WBs being raised in Africa. (!!!)
He won in the sense that UPenn was shamed into dropping all charges, and ending the proceedings against him. All of which happened under the bright glare of negative publicity from both sides of the media. And then, of course, the Board of Trustees of UPenn replaced the President with someone who committed UPenn to a greater respect for student rights to speak without fear of punishment.
actus,
I didn’t make myself clear. I think that there’d have been a complaint whatever nasty, loud animal featured in the epithet. I doubted that “there would have been no complaint” had it been geese; that is, I don’t think the size or color of the beast had anything to do with whether there would have been a complaint or not. Sorry for the ambiguity there. Pesky double-negative constructions.
IIRC the student was an Israeli national, and “water buffalo” was a common, non-racial epithet in Israel for loud and obnoxious people. So it was claimed, at least.
I believe the student, Eden Jacobowitz, had something else in mind when he shouted “water buffalo.”
Here it is:
An Israeli-born Orthodox Jew from Long Island, N.Y., Jacobowitz explained at the time of the original case that his use of the term “water buffalo” came from the Hebrew word “behema,” which can mean “water buffalo” but has often been used by Hebrew speakers as a mild rebuff when someone commits a thoughtless act.
“Perhaps in their minds, but that is not what was stated.”
I was there. I followed the case. The nativity of the animal didn’t have much to do with it.
“He won in the sense that UPenn was shamed into dropping all charges, and ending the proceedings against him. ”
the complaint wasn’t dropped by Upenn, but by the complainants — other students.
Back to the topic …………
I’ve very often thought that the country would do better with a true two-party system. It seems to me that what we have is “the Republican line” and “no to whatever the Republican line is”. I know that’s an oversimplification, but the fact that Carville of all people made that statement seems to indicate that he sees what I see.
Laura,
In fairness to the “no to whatever the Republican-line” Party, it has usually been the case that the Republicans have been the “no to whatever the Democratic-line” is when Democrats were in power. This is the nature of politics, I believe, and it has some upsides in the checks/balances process, even though it itself does little to advance a Party’s progress. The truly great recent exception to this was the 1994 Contract with America – where the Republicans regained control of the House with an original and focused message. I think that is where Carville’s mind (properly) is focused.
Reagan had some new ideas, didn’t he? “Morning in America”. I really don’t remember much before him.
actus: Whatever. Your ho-hum version of the events is belied by the campus and outside newspaper articles that I read at the time (as well as a couple of books, including one written by the ousted President). But how can I argue with someone ‘who was there’?
Damn campus papers and their lying reporters!
“actus: Whatever. Your ho-hum version of the events is belied by the campus and outside newspaper articles that I read at the time (as well as a couple of books, including one written by the ousted President).”
What ho-hum version? The President of the university refused to intervene in an disciplinary hearing. The complaining students — not penn — dropped their complaint. Whats so ho hum?