More Republican Racism
Where’s the Outrage?
Washington Post: Friday, April 11, 2003; Page A26
It was less than four months ago that Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott lost his job as majority leader, and deservedly so, after praising the segregationist presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond. Now another lawmaker, Republican Rep. Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, has out-Lotted Mr. Lott. Mrs. Cubin’s remarks came not in a birthday tribute to a centenarian but on the floor of the House of Representatives, in the midst of a serious debate on a gun measure. No historical memory is needed to adequately appreciate their bald racism. And unlike in the case of Mr. Lott, Mrs. Cubin’s remarks seem to have provoked barely a word of protest from her Republican colleagues. For fear that some may think they are taken out of context, we reprint the offending part here in its entirety: “My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my — “
At this point, Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) demanded that her words be stricken from the record as inappropriate. You might think that Mrs. Cubin then would have realized she had equated African Americans with drug addicts and apologized as profusely as possible. Instead, she told Mr. Watt, who is African American, that she wanted “to apologize to my colleague for his sensitivities.” When Mr. Watt noted, correctly, that it was not a matter of whether his feelings were hurt but of “using words that are insulting to the entire African American race,” Mrs. Cubin declined the opportunity to back down. “Mr. Chairman,” she said, “I do not withdraw my words.”
Mrs. Cubin said later that she was simply trying “to make the point that stereotyping is always wrong.” If so, she chose an odd way to do so. The reference to her sons, she explained, was headed in the direction of asking if they should be kept from buying guns because they look like “the children at Columbine.” But to argue analogously that the amendment would have kept dealers from selling guns in the black community is true only if you subscribe to a worldview in which “African American” equals “presumptive drug user.” Yet more astonishing than Mrs. Cubin’s obtuseness was that when the full House considered whether to have Mrs. Cubin’s words “taken down” as offensive — a move that would have stricken them from the record and kept her from speaking for the rest of the day — it voted in her favor, 227 to 195. Not a single Republican lawmaker voted against the remarks. Afterward, not a word of criticism from House Republican leaders. Upon being asked for comment, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday ventured (through a spokesman) to say that the remarks “clearly left the wrong impression.” He also described Mrs. Cubin as a “sensitive and at heart a very good person.” Maybe so; but shrugging off the offensiveness of her statement is no more appropriate now than when Republican leaders tried the same tactic immediately after Mr. Lott made his remark.
April 15th, 2003 at 12:36 pm
As a former staffer on Capitol Hill, I’m neither surprised at her statement nor the lack of outrage from the public. As with Trent Lott, the first instinct of whites (and some blacks) is to dismiss the comments as a “poor choice of words” or “commentary taken out of context.” Like most issues dealing with race, if a blacks (or any other group) are offended by a statement, then we are “sensitive.” However, if a “legitimate” white person points out the racist nature of a statement, then of course it must be racist. To make racist statements and at the same time hold the power to determine what is a racist statement is the irony of white supremacy. In other words, whites know that racism exists but many of them often believe that something is not racist unless someone acceptable to the white community signs off on it. In this situation, the Republicans and Democrats who voted not to have Rep. Cubin’s words stricken either will or can not acknowledge the racism in her statements because that would mean she (and many of them) are wrong in the way they view the world. Rather than admit that, the Speaker of the House dismisses her statements by stating that they may have left the “wrong impression.” What Denny fails to realize is that these “wrong impressions” perpetuate racial misconceptions and when the architects of American policy hold racist beliefs, you should only expect public policy to reflect white supremacist viewpoints.
Rep. Cubin may be a nice lady, but that doesn’t mean she’s not a racist. Racist language and actions do not have to be cloaked in the n-word or white sheets. Whites define racism differently than those who have been the beneficiaries of white supremacy for over 400 years. Therefore, if someone calls you an “acceptable” racial slur (e.g., n-word, chink, spic, etc.) then you have reason to be upset. However, equating welfare and drug use with blacks is not necessarily racist because to a large majority of whites (and others) those things are synonymous with the reality of their worlds. So often people like Rep. Cubin say that if you look at their intent, rather than look at what was actually stated, then you would realize that the statement was not racist. I would argue that Rep. Cubin knew exactly what she was saying, but didn’t know (and didn’t care) it was racist. Just because she didn’t know the statement was racist doesn’t make the statement less racist. Many people (including Rep. Cubin) suffer from unconscious racism, which means that racism and white supremacy is so ingrained in their state of mind that it permeates every aspect of their life. Equating blacks and drug use is only one example of unconscious racism. Earlier in this month, a Florida State Legislator stated (in a conversation with other state legislators during a session) that the Democrats in his state would win a charity basketball tournament because they had all of the blacks. He later apologized to the entire legislative body but only after some people overheard the comment, not because he believed the statements were wrong. Rep. Cubin didn’t apologize because she unconsciously believes in her statement and I personally do not have a problem with her not offering an apology. Why should she apologize for something she believes in and do we really need another fake apology? It is her right to believe in whatever she wants. Instead of trying to have her words stricken from the record, some of the Members of Congress should have used their time on the floor to expose her racist thought process. When Rep. Cubin and her supporters decide to cry foul, just ask her supporters to look at the intent of the statements rather than what was actually said.
April 15th, 2003 at 12:46 pm
I feel a bit negligent in not having written or posted about this Cubin incident sooner; but I have been rather obsessif in tracking Iraqi War news.
For what it’s worth, I couldn’t agree more with Jackson’s comments. I especially like the suggestion that instead of papering over racist thoughts and attitudes with faux apologies, we ought to talk about them, openly and critically.
April 16th, 2003 at 4:22 am
Although it’s impossible to say with 100% certainty, since Cubin wasn’t allowed to finish her sentence, it’s fairly obvious that she wasn’t trying to equate blacks and drug users, but rather was trying to make the point that discrimination against drug users is as unfair as discrimination against blacks. One might agree or disagree with such an argument, but to say that Cubin was calling all blacks drug users is preposterous.
“Mrs. Cubin said later that she was simply trying “to make the point that stereotyping is always wrong.” If so, she chose an odd way to do so.”
Not really. Most people believe that stereotyping blacks is wrong. Hence if one opposes the stereotyping of drug users, it would be a good idea, strategically, to say that stereotyping drug users is as bad as stereotyping blacks.
It strikes me as comical how desperate “anti-racists” are to find examples of the racism they claim is so pervasive that they have to distort completely non-racist statements in order to come up with them. I am reminded of the recent “Dame Edna” nonsense, where a piece of advice was taken seriously despite the fact that the entire premise of the column is that the advice is horrible.
April 16th, 2003 at 4:32 am
While I’m here, why don’t I share what I thought was the most intelligent commentary I heard on the whole Trent Lott controversy, which came from Louis Farrakhan:
FCN: How did you view the Trent Lott controversy and its outcome?
MLF: I was sickened by the hypocrisy of the debate that raged on for three weeks or more, the outcome of which has not changed the suffering of Black, Brown, Native American and poor people one iota.
Although my friend Jude Wanniski seems to feel that Senator Lott was joking with Strom Thurmond, the emotional intensity of his remarks did not to me seem that he was joking. If I were questioning Senator Lott, I would have asked him, “What did you mean when you said that if Strom Thurmond were elected President in 1948 the country would not have the problems that it is having today?” What are the problems as Mr. Lott sees them? What in Strom Thurmond’s philosophy offered in 1948, would have made America less problematic and get America out of the mess that she is in? What is the mess? Is the mess integration, inter-racial dating and marriages? Is the mess the degeneration of the culture of the United States? Is the mess the ending of the White race through miscegenation? What would Strom Thurmond’s ideas have meant for the future of this nation in Senator Lott’s mind? I would have tried to force him to speak openly of his thinking, and if we disagree with his thinking, say so. However, in a society that prides itself on freedom of speech and to discuss and promote ideas no matter how repugnant they may be, should you punish a person for their thoughts or ideas that may not be in harmony with the majority? What happened to freedom of thought and speech? In a country where honest debate over the rightness or wrongness of ideas is encouraged, does this punishment of Senator Lott lead to less or more freedom of expression? I believe that many in the United States think just like Senator Lott, however, they never would have expressed it in that manner, but, if you probed them deep enough you will find great similarities in their thinking. He’s being punished for what those who have punished him may very well think and say in closed quarters or say in other fora.
From http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_357.shtml
April 16th, 2003 at 10:23 am
Re Rurik:
In response to that quote. When the ideals of a country are one way, and 1 persons views don’t fit that ideal thats ok, especially if that person holds no office of power. When a person holds an office of power and those ideals aren’t inline with the ideals of the majority. That person loses their place in power. Farrakhan was simply diggin into the situation deeper, as no one never wants to talk about the issues in regards to race he just didn’t want Lott gone but he wanted meat on the bone. Before he goes let him speak about what is really on his mind. Personally, I wanted to know as well what his views were.
April 16th, 2003 at 2:37 pm
Where do I begin? The fact that Rurik believes that you need to be desperate to find examples of racism is a prime example of white privilege in every day life. I didn’t make Rep. Cubin equate blacks and drugs; nor did make the FL legislator equate blacks and basketball or Senator Robert Byrd (former Klansman) state that he also knows “some white niggers too.” I don’t need to be desperate to find that black Haitians are treated much differently than white Cubans when reaching the Florida coast. I don’t need to be desperate to realize that crimes like shooting someone 41 times because they held a wallet; shooting someone 6 times in the back because of speeding violation; or sticking a plunger up another human being’s rectum do not happen in white neighborhoods. My desperation even led me to believe that the application of the death penalty in this country is inherently racist. Blacks now account for over 43% of those on death row, up from 40% at the beginning of the 1990s; and Latinos accounted for about 10% of the death row population. If defendants are charged with killing whites, they are 4.5 times more likely to be given the death penalty than defendants who are charged with killing someone black. The odds of a death sentence in cases in which a Black killed a white victim is as much as 11 times higher than in the murder of a Black victim by a white person. My desperation even led me to level-playing field of the sports world where black players make up 42% of Division-I football athletes. However, out of 117 Division-I football coaches, 4 (3.4%) are black. Translation: we want blacks to play and as a matter of fact, we encourage them to play; however, blacks should be “patient” in waiting for the administrative positions. Rurik, you might be right. Since we’re not hanging from trees and there haven’t been any burning crosses in my yard, I guess one would have to be pretty desperate to find racism these days.
Anyway, I’m in agreement with Farrakhan regarding the need for more dialogue with people like Cubin and Lott. Unlike staunch racist like David Duke or Tom Metzger, it’s
safe bet that the congressional leaders will not come out and say any racial slurs. The U.S. now finds itself in an era of race relations more complex than in the days of Jim Crow. Bigotry then was blatant, so entrenched that it could be shattered ultimately only by the conscience of a few and legal remedies. Today, when explicit discrimination is prohibited and blatant racism is no longer fashionable in most circles, much prejudice has gone underground. It may have diminished in some quarters, but it is far from extinct. As one author put it, racism is “like a virus searching for a congenial host, it mutates until it finds expression in a belief, a statement, or a form of behavior that seems acceptable.” What people like Cubin and Lott attempt to do is make subtle (and not so subtle) comments, which may not equate to a racial slur, but nevertheless are still racist. You see it’s not in most people’s
financial interest to be an outspoken racist these days. However, it is in their interest to make others feel comfortable with them and their positions regarding race. Just consider the overwhelming images and assumptions that flow naturally in our society. If blacks are less intelligent, in whites’ belief, then it follows that whites are more intelligent. If blacks are lazier, whites are harder working. If blacks would prefer to live on welfare, then whites would prefer to be self-supporting. If blacks are more violent, whites are less violent; therefore, the source of violence should be kept at a safe distance. So at the end of the day will we really know how people like Cubin, Lott, and Byrd really feel? Yes and no. Yes, if you expect and demand people (especially elected public officials) to take ownership of their words. No, if you expect people like Cubin to walk around Congress with a white robe and cone on their head.
April 16th, 2003 at 5:51 pm
Ruik has been exceptional at proving that white privilege does exist; maybe even more so than Kendall. By continuously visiting the site and disguarding anything Kendall has to say, without even trying to view the other party’s point of view, Ruik is an excellent example of someone who does not want to accept the fact that white privilege exists and white supremacy occurs on a large scale. Thanks to people like Kendall (and Jackson), white supremacists who dont realize they are racists, such as Ms. Cubin (and maybe even Ruik) are exposed. White supremacists might be able to fool everyone else, but you can’t fool me.
April 19th, 2003 at 4:50 pm
“Where do I begin? The fact that Rurik believes that you need to be “desperate” to find examples of racism is a prime example of white privilege in every day life. I didn’t make Rep. Cubin equate blacks and drugs…”
The point is that Rep. Cubin DIDN’T equate blacks and drugs, rather, she claimed that discrimination against blacks and discrimination against drug users are equally wrong, an argument which one may or may not agree with, but it’s certainly a lot different than what it’s being made out to be. Look, do you REALLY think that over half of Congress, including at least some Democrats, voted that all blacks are drug users? Get real. I’m about as racist as they come, and even I don’t believe that. And I’m not trying to stick up for the Republicans here - I hate the damn Republicans, probably even more than most of you here do. The point is just that if you’re going to make accusations of racism, or accusations of anything really, you ought to have a legitimate complaint rather than just twisting someone’s words in order to damage her.
This Washington Post article is a classic smear job. The dishonesty of its author is appalling, as is the dishonesty and/or gullibility of those who repeat this garbage.
April 27th, 2003 at 5:59 am
Jackson repeats a number of important statistics concerning white privilege. They are real, undeniable and important. But like Farrakhan says, they are important because they are REAL, and they reflect real attitudes. The problem with this column is that it is about suppressing LANGUAGE which impinges on these real issues. So that instead of being addressed they are evaded. It is Jackson’s assumption that Cubin is part of the problem he describes that is the problem here. The logic seems to be something like this. ‘She REFERRED to racial stereotyping, therefore she WAS racially sterotyping, therefore her stereotypes are part of the REALITY of racial inequity.’
But it seem obvious that she was giving an example of racial stereotyping as a ‘reductio ad absurdam’. She was jumped on before she had even been able to finish her sentence! White privilige is a reality in the US, but so much of this is devoted to suppressing speech that does not pussy-foot around this fact. If you stop people talking about the issue YOU are the ones who are helping to keep things underdercover.
May 15th, 2003 at 8:08 am
Stop making republicans out to be racist, when democrats support racism towards whites consistently with affirmative action and other examples. You do not have to go far to realize that a large percentage of people in drug rehab are black.