Comments on: Harry’s Negros

By: kar5349

kar5349 — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:49:15 +0000

While I agree that Harry Reid could have picked better choices of words (or really not made any remarks about the color of Barack Obama’s skin), I do think that the reaction against him is a little bit strong. I agree with the majority of the people that commented on this who blame his age for his choice of words. I did not pick up on any negative connotation in Senator Reid’s words, he was just saying why he thought Barack Obama would succeed. He was not degrading him for skin color, he was just stating his opinion, which happen to include a word that apparently is not so politically correct anymore.

By: madcraze

madcraze — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:54:52 +0000

I am not surprised that an elected official would use such word repeatedly. Although I think it’s definitely an issue with political correctness and ignorance. How are you going to be an elected official and not know when to say that right thing at the right time? I mean people elected this elected official to speak out for them as a voice for them. They are also elected to represent the people. I would hate to have voted someone in, that would basically call me a racial slur when I put my hope and confidence in hoping that person would be able to make changes for me.

By: nzh5009

nzh5009 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:27:56 +0000

I feel like Mr. Harry Reid’s comments were a result, as Sam said, of him not speaking in a language appropriate to 2008 or any time in the past decade, for that matter. These may have been alright things to say when he was growing up, but in today’s world, speaking like that is not acceptable, especially to be talking about someone in such a highly respected position as President Barack Obama, especially since he is a current senior United States Senator. The fact that he insinuated that a person of dark skin could not be a successful president is disturbing.

By: jakedasnake

jakedasnake — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:23:01 +0000

No matter what the story is, there always seem to be supporters and protesters; from something as simple as a movie or book, to something as public as a magazine article or speech. Unfortunately, no matter what is said about another race, some will react proclaiming the speaker a racist and hater. This all stems back to our inclination towards maintaining political correctness. As soon as something is said "out of line," the White Man has overstepped his boundaries into racist territory. Perhaps Harry Reid is unaware of this political correctness, and is able to speak his mind because of this. After all, the old man has some catching up to do when he’s still using words like “Negro.”

By: jml5261

jml5261 — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:30:20 +0000

Harry Reid obviously used the wrong phrasing with that statement and I can see why it would cause controversy. Saying that, I agree with the blog entry in the fact that his age and social surroundings had a part in that phrasing. I do not think that the statement was at all supposed to be racist or insensitive. I think if you look at it realistically that statement makes sense in some ways and the republican’s try and twist it as much as possible to cause a disturbance. If Barack Obama was a dark skinned black man that spoke a bit differently it may have affected his public image among the white community. Despite all that, I still do not think that he should have used the word negro because it is an insensitive and extremely outdated word.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:35:49 +0000

Of course, we’re not just looking for things we can’t say. We’re looking for things we can’t say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open. But many of the things people get in trouble for saying probably do make it over this second, lower threshold. No one gets in trouble for saying that 2 + 2 is 5, or that people in Pittsburgh are ten feet tall. Such obviously false statements might be treated as jokes, or at worst as evidence of insanity, but they are not likely to make anyone mad. The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true
Certainly, as we look back on the past, this rule of thumb works well. A lot of the statements people got in trouble for seem harmless now. So it’s likely that visitors from the future would agree with at least some of the statements that get people in trouble today. Do we have no Galileos? Not likely.

To find them, keep track of opinions that get people in trouble, and start asking, could this be true? Ok, it may be heretical (or whatever modern equivalent), but might it also be truef we could look into the future it would be obvious which of our taboos they’d laugh at. We can’t do that, but we can do something almost as good: we can look into the past. Another way to figure out what we’re getting wrong is to look at what used to be acceptable and is now unthinkable.

Changes between the past and the present sometimes do represent progress. In a field like physics, if we disagree with past generations it’s because we’re right and they’re wrong. But this becomes rapidly less true as you move away from the certainty of the hard sciences. By the time you get to social questions, many changes are just fashion. The age of consent fluctuates like hemlines.

We may imagine that we are a great deal smarter and more virtuous than past generations, but the more history you read, the less likely this seems. People in past times were much like us. Not heroes, not barbarians. Whatever their ideas were, they were ideas reasonable people could believe.

By: sublime7143

sublime7143 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:42:21 +0000

I find this whole issue very interesting because of the entire Political Correctness issue. While Harry's comments may have been seen as insensitive or rash by many, I believe that people have the right to say whatever they want to. That is what this whole country is founded upon. Elected officials are constantly walking on egg shells and the minute they slip up, face steep consequences and might even lose their position and jeopardize their future. We are all human here and no one is perfect. How can we expect politicians to be? They are just like anyone else, just constantly being scrutinized so that someone else can take over their position.

By: jjk5071

jjk5071 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:07:35 +0000

I agree with what you said about this just now coming to surfice. Where was it in 2008 when it was said? Why is this coming out now? I read an article the other day that the approval ratings for the president were 53% of whites approve and 96% of blacks approve. This is where things get me a little upset. He is supposed to be the leader of the free world and make sure things go smoothly, this has not happened and for us to bringing back 2 year old news is a little rediculous. I dont think he meant harm in what he said, the man just needs to pick better words. He is a light skinned black man and he does speak very well, definatly better than me, especially because im from pittsburgh and we have our own language. The fact hes light skinned and speaks well just means he was born that way and payed attention in school. The remarks im my opinion werent bad just not phrased in the best of ways.

By: smp5120

smp5120 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:02:15 +0000

What WAS he thinking? If an ethnic slur was what he wanted he had a decent size list to chose from, but he thought "negro" was the way to go? Does he think we are still living in the slave days? Negro was rid of during the Civil Rights Movement because of its association with slavery and black oppression. The term is archaic. I can try and look at it from his side. I guess Reid thought he was expressing what he might be public opinion. If you want to speak for the people, learn how to speak like the people. Not only can the comment be seen as offensive to Obama in particular, but what is it saying to the rest of Black Americans? You are only favorable if you are light skinned and do not speak too "black" (whatever that means)??

By: phillygirl91

phillygirl91 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:32:56 +0000

With his comments I truly believed he showed his ignorance and age.”Negro” seriously though….. How old is this man? He probably still believes these “negroes” shouldn’t be sitting at the lunch counter. In society we always take a few steps to better ourselves but it’s always that one person that screws it all up. Since when is it okay to call the President a “negro” like come on Massa! Get with it! And it’s funny when Bush was president his race didn’t matter one bit and we never referred to him as that “white president”. But every time someone refers to President Obama that is the first thing that flies out of everyone’s mouth. It’s so sad that no one hasn’t corrected him before this because I do believe he has done this more than once around a group of people and no one said anything. It’s not about being politically correct it’s more like a level of respect that you have for the opposite race. And since when being light-skinned and being able to speak in proper English have anything to do with the person’s ability to be president, it doesn’t matter if he is an elected official….Ignorance is Ignorance! It’s not about being “politically correct” it’s about thinking before you speak. It’s so sad that a man or woman has to define by the color of their skin last time I checked isn’t it 2010? Why is this still a problem in our society? The comments maybe “harmless” to some but still being defined by the color of our skin still stings a bit it seems like no matter how hard we work this is the first thing people see and then or accomplishments. It’s funny because he know what he said was insensitive but he doesn’t care I personally think he said this out of jealously he may be an elected official but he’s damn sure not President! This I believe can spark jealous in anyone.