Trent Lott: was his comment racist?

last week, Republican senator Trent Lott mentioned @ Strom Thurmond's 100th b-day part that the United States would have been better off if Strom had been elected President in 1948. that year, Strom ran on a ticket that promoted racial segregation & now there is an uproar here in the U.S. many saw his comments as racist, & Democrat Senator wants Lott to step down from his upcoming spot as Senate majority leader.


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

Al Gore was concerned about that too, made public comments, and Lott apologized.

Conan pointed that out, and also pointed out how Al Gore called for Bush to fire his economic team, which he apparently did...What's going on here?

 

His comment was pretty stupid, but I don't think he meant to praise Thurmond's segregationist views, only his other platforms.

I also think it isn't quite fair the amount of scruitiny he's getting over this, even since he's apologized numerous times for his comments.

Look at Sen. Byrd, a Democrat who was actually a KKK member. He made some obnoxious comments last year as well, yet the scrutiny wasn't as harsh. By the way, were were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on that?

Bill Clinton gave the Medal of Freedom to a former segregationist as well. Where is the outrage on that?

Politicians make these stupid comments all the time at one time or another, but you can bet the Dems are going to use Lott's comments on other GOP candidates during election years.

I'm not a huge fan of Lott being the Senate Majority Leader, even though I'm a Republican, but this whole thing is a tad ridiculous.

 

i agree, although i believe that Lott should have known better to make his comments, knowing the bad history behind them.


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

No. It was stupid and misplaced, but not racist.

And for all those people that are calling for Lott's head based on this statement alone, I'll accept their position ONLY if they also call for Jesse Jackson to step down as the "unofficial" premiere African-American leader of the country, for the "racist" statement he made 17 years ago where he called NYC a "hymietown".

 

I don't think he should have known better. What I got from the quote was that he (Lott) was talking about his years of service to his state. Not about a specific instance or one general idea, to me he was toasting the man's service overall.

 

To paraphrase "The Onion":
"If I were a resident of Mississippi, I'd be ashamed. Now what's all this about Trent Lott?"

I wrote that purely for laughs. I know many fine people from Mississippi. I have no problem with Mississippians.

I dislike Lott for a number of reasons, not the least of which is comments similar to this one. I don't think Lott planned this to be interpreted as racist or supportive of segregation (he's a politician - it's too controversial). However, I do see it as a Freudian slip.

"His comment was pretty stupid, but I don't think he meant to praise Thurmond's segregationist views, only his other platforms."

I don't know if you can go around seperating platforms like that. Then why not say that if someone says they like the Klan, they only mean the white hoods and sense of "comradeship" that it provides, not their backwards racist views. Segregation was a MAJOR part of Thurmond's platform in 1948.

"Look at Sen. Byrd, a Democrat who was actually a KKK member. He made some obnoxious comments last year as well, yet the scrutiny wasn't as harsh."

What did he say? I believe you, I am just not familiar with his quote.

"Bill Clinton gave the Medal of Freedom to a former segregationist as well. Where is the outrage on that?"

And we have slaveholders on most of our currency and a man who locked up 120,000 people because of their race on our dime. Should be some outrage there too. (I'm serious)

"Politicians make these stupid comments all the time at one time or another, but you can bet the Dems are going to use Lott's comments on other GOP candidates during election years."

It's not like the Democrats have anything else to run on!! Ha Ha! (Yes, I'm ashamed of my party)

 

A great example of a brain-farted-foot-in-mouth statement? Yes.

Racist? No.

 

Lott's statement:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't of had all these problems over all these years, either."

So is it not racist to exclaim the you are proud that your state voted for a man whose retoric in the campaign in question was, and I quote:

"I want to tell you that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Now, let's revisit Lott's quote again:

"And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't of had all these problems over all these years, either."

To what problem does Trent refer here? Negros in the theatres, pools, or churches?

Simply racist. Dance around it all you want. Strom Thurman has always held highly charged racist views against all non-whites. Sadly, it tells how common a notion that racism still is today that this man still holds a seat even though he seems not to know where he is even at a celebration to honor him.

 

To what problem does Trent refer here? Negros in the theatres, pools, or churches?

How about the collapse of the inner city? The immoral policies of affirmative action? The failure of our system of public education to teach our already most disadvantaged youth how to read, write, add, and subtract? Or a welfare system constructed so poorly that poverty didn't decrease, but the number of young women having unplanned, illegitimate children increased?

The fact is, segregation was a horrible thing, and blacks in general faced far too many obstacles to achieving their dreams. But, in many ways, the cures proscribed by liberals was worse than the disease.

What I wan to know is this: Is there any history of Lott making comments like this, or supporting racist policies?

I don't think there is, and I think those of you who say this is "simply racist" and a "Fruedian slip" should provide some evidence that this WASN'T an isolated stupid comment. Either that, or let's be consistent:

You MUST ALSO concede that Bill Clinton has made equally racist comments:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, Bill Clinton traveled to Fayetteville, Arkansas to honor the life of the late Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright by dedicating a seven-foot-tall bronze statue of the man.

According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "The $100,000 sculpture is the final [expenditure] of an $850,000 fundraising campaign for a project to honor Fulbright. The $750,000 fountain was dedicated October 24, 1998."

Among other things, Clinton said, "If [Fulbright] were here today, I'm sure he would caution us not to be too utopian in our expectations, but rather utopian in our values and vision."

And back on May 5, 1993, in what the Washington Post characterized as a "... moving 88th birthday ceremony for former senator William Fulbright, President Clinton last night bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor.'" Clinton added, "It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours.?The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."

Of course, the man Clinton was praising, who he called his "mentor," who supposedly embraced utopian values and made the world a better place for everyone, was also a rabid segregationist.

In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement entitled the "Southern Manifesto." This document condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Its signers stated, among other things, that "We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means." They stated further, "We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation."

...Fulbright later voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And he did so because he believed in separating the races ? in schools and other public places. He was a segregationist, heart and soul.

Some of these comments occured less than two months ago: WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

Or are you guys gonna give a Clinton a pass the way everyone else has - on the assumption that a liberal Democrat cannot possibly be racist and a conservative Republican cannot help but be racist?

 

On the one hand, he was trying simply to praise Strom Thurmond, but there is no defending what he said and I am rather upset about it.

Do I think he should step down as Majority Leader? I am still thinking about that one. Has he given a truely repentent apology? Not yet and untill he does....well I don't know.

Granted, yes, politics are involved and this has given the Left alot of ammunition to use in the mean time. THere is enough racism to go around, ie Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV) using the N word in an interview a year ago, and the NAACP hardly said a word about it.

 

No, Clinton doesn't get a pass, but he also doesn't get my attention in a thread asking about Trent Lott's comment.

Let's judge the comment on it's own merits without convoluting the issue with unrealted topics such as Bill Clinton.

In my opinion, the notion that America would be better off with a bigot at the helm is deplorable. We might as well have elected David Duke. I don't care if the rest of his platform was spotless, the fact remains that he ran as a racist and I would NEVER support that under any context.

 

Ok, can we not bring up Clinton everytime a Republican does something bad. Let Lott live or die by his statement. If Clinton is bad, we can always talk about how Nixon hated the Jews so much. (also on record)

Let's keep this in context.

Yes, Lott does have a history of making racist statements like these. Even his Republican allies admit that. He even supported the Conservative Christian Council until the media jumped on the fact that they didn't like minorities too much.

For anyone that actually saw this on C-SPAN, even the audience was shocked by his comments.

I don't believe this was a Freudian slip.

This was a statement that he's probably made in private many times in his life, and an idea he's obviously lived with for a while. He just mistakenly decided to throw it out there while the cameras were recording. And now he has to take RESPONSIBILITY for it.

 

Yes, Lott does have a history of making racist statements like these. Even his Republican allies admit that. He even supported the Conservative Christian Council until the media jumped on the fact that they didn't like minorities too much.

That's one. In fact, that's the ONLY other evidence that I've heard. And hardly compelling evidence. Anything else? Or are we just going to assume he's repeated this statement in private?


Both parties are denouncing these statements, and they should be denounced as grossly stupid.

But the fact is, the other party is exhibiting selective outrage. While this comment is deplorable, there's not one word about Clinton's comments from two months ago and Jesse Jackson has gotten a pass every time he's shot his mouth off (like calling New York "Hymietown," slurring its Jews).

The Democrats have a history of selective outrage: see also, Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton.

Am I digressing to make this point? Fine, I'm digressing. But the point is valid and needs to be made: many of those who are denouncing these statements are doing so for political advantage only - as shown by their inconsistent treatment of similar statements. They actually don't care that much about racism itself.

 

Actually, it was the conservatives and libertarian blogosphere that started the criticism, from what I saw.


"In fact, that's the ONLY other evidence that I've heard. And hardly compelling evidence. Anything else?"

Previous comments on Thurmond

Twenty-two years ago, Trent Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." The phrasing is very similar to incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott's controversial remarks at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond last week.

...Thurmond, according to the story, told the gathering of 1,000 people that the country "cannot stand four more years of [President] Jimmy Carter. . . . We've got to balance the budget. Jimmy Carter won't do it, but Ronald Reagan will do it."

Then Thurmond declared: "[We] want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states." For many supporters and opponents of civil rights, the phrase "state's rights" stood for the right of states to reject federal civil rights legislation.

After Thurmond spoke, Lott told the group: "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."

Thurmond ran as the Dixiecrat candidate for president in 1948 on a platform calling for the continuation of segregation in the South.

 

All I can say is, get used to these "manufactured-controversies". With the Democrats completely out of power, they're going to be on the hyper-offensive for the next two years. Anything and everything they can latch onto to promote hostility and bad press for Republicans, they will do. Right now, it's all they've got. The last election proved they certainly don't have any issues to focus on. All the Democrats can do now is react.

 

As opposed to the way the GOP operates? Both parties engage in too much instant-spinning, planned PR campaigns and base decisions on opinion polls. Trying to call that behaviour endemic only to one party, despite the partial truthes in your statement, is not a balenced view.

 

I never said I had a balanced view.

My point is that the Democrats now almost have to resort to this kind of crisis-making, spin, and negativity because it's all they've got at the moment.

Sure, the GOP politicos are just as spin-saavy and did the same thing when roles were reversed. But right now, this kind of thing isn't really necessary for them. The GOP is "King of the Hill" (pun intended) and can just play good defense while the Democrats go on the offensive with anything they think will cause a commotion and get some attention.

 

Is what he said bad? I think so, but I also think it's really just 'some reason' to attack republicans. It seems to be the case a lot of the time now. When all else fails, bash the republicans.

I don't know if he's racists or not, but he is a politician, so, just like any other person, he has his own views, but more importantly, whether genuine or fake, he has the view of his constituents.

For example, take George Wallace, former governor of Alabama. He was seen as a big time segregationists, and is probably most know for not allowing black people to enroll in a state university. He basically became governor because his platform was based on segregation, which makes him an obvious racists, right? Was he really racists or just a politician? Well, in the prior governor election, when he lost, he ran with an antisegregation platform.

All other things left aside, let's say he's a full blown racists. Actions speak louder than words. I don't think it's wrong for someone to not like someone based on skin color. Closeminded, yes, but not wrong. Isn't it everyone's on freedom to decide who they like or dislike based on their own opinions? However, it crosses the line of a personal freedom when it infringes on others personal freedom. Where is he denying black people their rights? If he's doing that, then he should step down or be removed. Whether it's a positive or very negative statement, under the first amendment, doesn't he, or anyone else for that matter, have the right to state their opinion?

Also, think of the double standard. One infers from his statement that he's racists, so that means he doesn't like black people because they're black. It's pretty bad, IMHO, to not like someone based on skin color, but isn't it just as bad to like someone based on skin color?

If he said, "I don't like black people because they're black." - Well, I think it's wrong to make such a judgement based only on skin color.

What if he said, "I like black people because they're black." - Isn't that just as close minded to cast such a judgement based only on skin color? However, if he would have said this, I doubt people would have been calling for his resignation.

 

"All other things left aside, let's say he's a full blown racists. Actions speak louder than words. I don't think it's wrong for someone to not like someone based on skin color. Closeminded, yes, but not wrong."i


"If he said, "I don't like black people because they're black." - Well, I think it's wrong to make such a judgement based only on skin color."

So which is it here. Is he wrong or isn't he?

"Whether it's a positive or very negative statement, under the first amendment, doesn't he, or anyone else for that matter, have the right to state their opinion?"

Opinions are fine, but when you're in a position of leadership in this country where you vote on laws and are elected by the people, you have a moral and legal responsibility to those constituents. Last time I checked, there were black people in Mississippi. It is legally and morally wrong to hate people based on the color of their skin. It's also ignorant, bone-headed, uncivilized, insidious, and just about any other negative label you can put on that.


Isn't it everyone's on freedom to decide who they like or dislike based on their own opinions? However, it crosses the line of a personal freedom when it infringes on others personal freedom. Where is he denying black people their rights? If he's doing that, then he should step down or be removed.

As to where he's denying black people their rights, I believe his statement included the admission that he was glad his state supported Strom Thurmond in 1948. Since Thurmond was running on a segregationist platform at the time, Lott voted to deny black people their rights. And yes, you can say the same about Robert Byrd or any other segregationist at the time who did that.

The main reason this is a big deal is because it is 2002, not 1948. We're supposed to be past all this BS about racial discrimination. The Majority Leader of the Republican party in the Senate has no business making these statements, regardless of whether he "meant" it or not.

 

How about the collapse of the inner city? The immoral policies of affirmative action? The failure of our system of public education to teach our already most disadvantaged youth how to read, write, add, and subtract? Or a welfare system constructed so poorly that poverty didn't decrease, but the number of young women having unplanned, illegitimate children increased?

If these are the problems, supposedly, to which Lott referred... what publicized aspect of Thurmond's platform would have resolved them? Seems the most prominent part of his platform was continued segregationism. Or is there some part of his platform we're missing that would have addressed these issues?

That being said... politicians are often hypocrites. Ask any politician, even a "liberal democrat" like Al Gore, if he had a choice between two equally-affluent communities, one predominantly white and another with a considerable black population... which one he would consider moving in to. Where does he live now?

How many politicians would put their money where their mouth is when it comes to issues regarding diversity? How many already have?

 

The_Abstract

---

[color=blue]As to where he's denying black people their rights, I believe his statement included the admission that he was glad his state supported Strom Thurmond in 1948. Since Thurmond was running on a segregationist platform at the time, Lott voted to deny black people their rights.[hr]
Opinions are fine, but when you're in a position of leadership in this country where you vote on laws and are elected by the people, you have a moral and legal responsibility to those constituents. Last time I checked, there were black people in Mississippi. It is legally and morally wrong to hate people based on the color of their skin. It's also ignorant, bone-headed, uncivilized, insidious, and just about any other negative label you can put on that. [/color][hr][/blockquote]

Trent Lott was born on 10/09/49, so how exactly did he vote? Besides, as you said, it's 2002, so what has he down recently to deny black people their rights? I don't care about what he said twenty years ago. What are some actual actions he has done recently that can be specifically proven to bring wrong doing on the black race? Where are the laws he has passed or fought for that are against the black race.

I definitely agree with you on the part about it being morally wrong, but to play devil's advocate, morals are abstract, and what's wrong to you or I, can be right to someone else. Where is it illegal to not like someone for there race, or for any other shallow reason? It's wrong to discriminate, etc, but that doesn't fall into the category of liking.

 

It is legally and morally wrong to hate people based on the color of their skin.

Morally, yes. Legally, no. To put any kind of illegality on whether or not someone dislikes someone else based on any criteria they wish, even one as trivial as their skin color, is treading waaaaaay to close for comfort to thought policing.

 

The legal issue doesn't even impact this situation. The fact is Mr. Lott represents the people who elected him and secondarily his party. Both groups are not happy with his comments to put it mildly. His stance, as a racist, is not indicative of the people whom he is supposed to serve and I think he will be reminded of that when his seat comes up for election.

He made a very stupid statement that contained within it a racist connotation. Whether or not it was a slip or an accurate reflection of the man's personal views is irrelevant.

 

Ask any politician, even a "liberal democrat" like Al Gore, if he had a choice between two equally-affluent communities, one predominantly white and another with a considerable black population... which one he would consider moving in to. Where does he live now?

How many politicians would put their money where their mouth is when it comes to issues regarding diversity? How many already have?

Well, Bill Clinton did set up his headquarters in Harlem, NY last year in order to help revitalize the black community there.