Color Blind or just Blind.


brock1.jpgford.png     Liberals are crying foul and claiming that an attack ad against Harold Ford Jr. has a not so subtle message that a black man is after white women.

     The benchmark American film dealing with this issue is To Kill A Mockingbird. The film showcases true racism and has a powerful message. Brock Peters played the falsely accused Tom Robinson.

     Mark Shields on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer describes the political ad as playing to our “atavistic, base fears of the Mandingo black man is after our white daughters.” What?

     I am confused. What is it about Harold Ford Jr. that would possible trigger an atavistic fear in anyone? Even if that fear still existed in the Tennessee, wouldn’t the man need to look black in order to trigger it?

Friday 10-27-06, 8:40 pm


Comments

  1. Are you kidding me? “Wouldn’t the man need to look black in order to trigger it?” What kind of a question is that? Plus, the pictures that you choose to use showing two black men who in those pictures have obvious different shades of complexion, is that supposed to be meant to prove that Harold Ford, Jr. isn’t really a black man or something? Judging people by the color of their skin even within smaller subsets of groups within the human family is racist. It’s almost as bad as those who threw Oreo Cookies at Michael Steele to try to show that he was black on the outside but white on the inside or that he really wasn’t “that black.” The problem with our society is that it isn’t a colorblind society. The message of the ad is that Harold Ford, Jr. was a deviant because he was hanging out at the Playboy Mansion not that Ford, Jr. is a deviant, because he likes white girls. If that is the message that people choose to take from the ad, they are wrong. If that really was somehow the intended message of the ad, then the producers of the ad are wrong. I don’t think that it was, and I see no evidence to prove otherwise. But your post, does have some very racial charged and offensive elements to it.

  2. Oro Valley Dad says:

    My post is a direct response to the criticism from liberals that the ad was racist. Their charge that the ad is racist is ridiculous.

    Harold Ford Jr. may be a black man but it is simply not possible for someone who looks like that to trigger the supposed atavistic response of which Mark Sheilds spoke. It is really the Democrats that have interjected race into a simple attack ad. Go to the NewsHour web site and listen to Sheilds. His comments are the ones that border on offensive.

    I do not see what is offensive about my post. A sensitive matter to be sure but discussing race in this county should not be and in this case is not offensive. I chose a photo of a black man from a movie that was made about real racism. I put it next to the picture of a person about whom a false claim of racism is being made. I think it is relevant to discuss the difference between real racism and a false charge of racism. To Kill A Mockingbird is a great American film and touches the soul of even a hardcore conservative like me. I was trying to honor the meaning of a story where someone really did suffer an injustice because of the color of his skin. The same is not true in the case of Ford.

    206 I think you let yourself be offended and in the process missed the point of the post. Liberals cried wolf and in this case (the ad against Ford) they were wrong. There is still racism in American and we should point it out where it exist not where it doesn’t.

  3. These ads are carefully created. It was no coincidence that they had a white woman make the call-me remark.

  4. Oro Valley Dad-
    I agree that the liberals’ charge that the ad is racist is ridiculous. And cc burro doesn’t know what she’s talking about. But you dig yourself deeper in a whole in regard to how you present and defend the whole thing.
    When you say that: “Harold Ford Jr. may be a black man but it is simply not possible for someone who looks like that to trigger the supposed atavistic response of which Mark Sheilds spoke.”[italics and bold added], what do you mean by “somewhat who looks like that?” Someone who looks like what? This phrase is even more offensive than the original post. The point is not whether or not Harold Ford, Jr. has a lighter complexion for a Black man. The point is whether or not the ad is meant to stir up anti-mixed relationship feelings. And I think that is such a bunch of junk that it may be the farthest stretch that I’ve ever heard in the history of politics.
    You also say that you were “trying to honor the meaning of a story where someone really did suffer an injustice because of the color of his skin. The same is not true in the case of Ford.” But I’m not sure if you are saying that because you correctly don’t think that Harold Ford, Jr. was racially victimized in anyway or because you incorrectly feel that he isn’t “Black enough” to be a victim.
    OVD, I agree with you in your points that “Liberals cried wolf and in this case (the ad against Ford) they were wrong. There is still racism in American [sic] and we should point it out where it exist [sic] not where it doesn’t.”

  5. Sonoran Truth Squad says:

    I think 206 is getting closer, but still somehow missing the point. If you see a man and woman together and one is obviously black and the other is obviously white, that triggers an automatic reflex among some people. Those are the people Shields was saying were targeted with this ad. The problem is that if you see two people who both look white, you may not know that one may be mixed-race, so the reflexive reaction that Shields is looking for doesn’t happen.

    206 is also wrong on the notion that it is racist or offensive to say “someone who looks like that”. You really can’t have a conversation about race that has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, particularly in the context of Shield’s accusations. When he said that the ad was designed to trigger a reaction among those who react to a black man and white woman, he was referring to the visual ad and the colors of the people. The women was white and Shields could have cared less if she was Nordic white, European white, North American white or what her racial background or descent was. He was talking about color.

    We have made enough progress in this country that we can talk about color and race without the mere act of talking about it making us racists or offensive.

    Carry on OVD!

  6. Randall Holdridge says:

    I think it may add something to this discussion to remind you all that this ad was targeted for the Tennessee audience, and that Tennessee was a state of the Confederacy.

    For those of you who think that Southern aversion to miscegenation is about complexion, consider this ordinance overturned by the Supreme Court:

    It shall be illegal for any “white person and any Negro to have sexual intercourse with each other within the corporate limits of the city,” and Negro was defined to “include a mulatto, or colored person or any other person of mixed blood having one-eighth or more Negro blood.”

    You may think old-fashioned race hatred is dead in the Old South, but if you do you’re wrong If you think that pollsters and political tacicians don’t know this, you’re wrong. And if you think that this RNC ad wasn’t about race, and that Harol Ford, Jr. would be a viable candidate in Tennessee if he were more darkly complected, you’re wrong.

    Remember that if Ford is elected (unlkely, I believe), he will be the first African-American senator from the South since Reconstruction — nearly 140 years — and more than 40 years since passage of the Voting Rights Act.

  7. Randall Holdridge says:

    I should have said maybe, that while 206 is either insufficiently cynical or is attempting a little back-hand spin, in general 206’s points are in the right direction; so I give the imp his due.

  8. Sonoran Truth Squad says:

    Interesting factoid… 5 African-American U.S. Senators in our history. 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats… You’d win a lot of bar bets with that!

Speak Your Mind

*