Rick, I've been reading your blog for a while now and remembering our days back on I-Oka and Austin--the fun & the fights! I am so proud of both you and Terry for your reporting on this dreadful disease. We are losing the battle on mom's side now--my aunt (uncle's wife) is is the final, dreadful stages. The personal often does have to become the political, sad to say, but I am ever hopeful that as more issues touch more lives (unforutate that it may take this), we will all begin to recognize, in the words of John Donne, "No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. ..."Comment Posted By Kathy On 26.03.2009 @ 08:26
Obviously, your explanation is one possibility. But it is, in my opinion, the least likely explanation, and declaring it to be the only possible explanation is just nuts. Yes, the interviewer had a strong Spanish accent, but *I* understood what she was saying. I listened to the English version of the interview several times, and I had no real trouble understanding what she was saying. Of course, I was listening attentively, which is something one should do in any case if one is being interviewed, but which is also important to do even for ordinary listeners, if the interviewer is speaking in a language that is not her first language.
Also, McCain did not seem to have a problem answering the interviewer's questions that really were about Latin America. I mean, his answers were vague and short on specifics, but it was clear he had heard and understood her questions. So why did her accent suddenly slay him only at the very end of the interview?Comment Posted By Kathy On 18.09.2008 @ 15:44
After 9/11 I was completely confused by the sudden cries of "Anthrax! Oh my God, they're going to use anthrax on us!" Over and over, on every channel, and I wondered where the heck this was coming from. Why should we be afraid of anthrax specifically? What evidence did we have that this was a possibility? I derided them about this until, for heaven's sake, anthrax actually showed up. My opinion was always that they screamed until somebody giggled insanely and gave them what they wanted. I guess the truth is that it takes longer than a few months to come up with weaponized anthrax, but I still think there is something really wrong with the way this played out.Comment Posted By Kathy On 2.08.2008 @ 09:46
To me he was a boy—he was 20 and I was 55. If he had been female, he would have been a girl—to me. One shouldn’t take offense where none is intended.
Miriam, your intentions in this instance are irrelevant. It does not matter what you intended. You should *know* how disgustingly offensive it is to call a black man "boy." A 20-year-old is a man, not a boy, no matter how old YOU are. I am 57; everyone under the age of 30 is a baby to me, but I know that you don't call a black man "boy," no matter how innocent you think it is. It's not your intentions that make it offensive to call a black man "boy"; it's centuries of history that make it offensive to call a black man "boy." It can't NOT be offensive, and if you grew up in this country, you should know that. Hell, even if you didn't. I highly doubt that any reasonably well-educated person in the entire world who knows anything about U.S. history would be ignorant of the fact that calling a black man "boy" is extremely, deeply insulting.
One should not give offense where one should know that one *will* give offense. And if you do, then everything you say after that is just contemptible excuse-making.Comment Posted By Kathy On 16.04.2008 @ 21:37
This is not “PC.” This is what we call “common courtesy” at the least or better yet, being aware of other people’s feelings and sensibilities. In other words, being compassionate.
Exactly.Comment Posted By Kathy On 16.04.2008 @ 20:31
And, I’m not, (wait for it….rimshot) Black.
Exactly. Which is why being called "boy" doesn't offend you. Because you are not black, and the word does not have the same connotations as it does when a white person refers to a black man as "boy."Comment Posted By Kathy On 15.04.2008 @ 21:35
That "but" should have been "because."Comment Posted By Kathy On 15.04.2008 @ 07:38
Yes, Macs, but you *can't* "use it all the time" when referring to a black man, but it *just doesn't have the same innocent meaning.*Comment Posted By Kathy On 15.04.2008 @ 07:37
Rick, I agree with what you wrote here and I don't think it's too strong. Calling a black man a "boy" is unquestionably racist. One or two of your readers commenting here got that; the rest are just wrong. Perhaps they should consider brushing up on their Southern history as it relates to the treatment of African Americans before the civil rights movement (and even after). Grown men were called "boy" exclusively. The word "man" just did not apply to black males. "Boy" and the "n" word were the only terms of address used in regard to black people. It doesn't matter that "those days are over"; it's still an incredibly degrading term, and cannot be taken as anything but a racist put-down if one is black. (And by the way I am not.)Comment Posted By Kathy On 14.04.2008 @ 22:41
And if one more lefty throws the coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh (after he had prorogued Parliament over a dispute involving compensation to the Brits for nationalizing the oil industry) in my face as a reason that the Iranians hate us, I am going to slit my wrists. We certainly supported it.
We didn't just support it, Rick. We engineered it. And what came after Mossadegh was a reign of terror and savagery that was among the worst of the 20th century. And we supported it. And so did Israel. I think we should allow for the possibility that Iranians' collective memory deserves to be taken seriously, and not dismissed as "selective." We would not like it if Iran dismissed our national memory of 9/11 as "selective." And that was one day, not 25 years.Comment Posted By Kathy On 23.09.2007 @ 14:11