Black Intel

By Sam Sanders, check out his blog at The Not So Angry Black Man

I’m not usually one to defend Harry Reid. He’s ineffective and a horrible Senate Majority Leader. (AND he has really bad posture.) But in light of “Negro-Gate” 2010, I’ve felt the need to come to his rescue, at least as much as this one, lowly blog will allow.

I’m sure you’ve read about it by now. Mark Halperin’s new Campaign-2008 gossip-blog masquerading as a book details Harry Reid’s rather awkward words on race. He said that Barack Obama’s light skin and lack of a “Negro-dialect” made him more electable. Since the book’s release, the GOP has been calling for Reid’s departure from his seat as Senate Majority Leader.

My defense, after the jump…

I think a reaction that harsh is too much. We have to understand Reid’s words in context. While the word “Negro” might not be as PC as some like, it should not be thought of as a slur, particularly in the way Reid used it. Keep this in mind: There’s been a move from using the word “colored” to “Negro” to “Black,” and now to “African-American” to describe the descendants of African slaves in America. At times, each of these words were the preferred term of Black people, as evidenced by the existence of organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), both founded and maintained by African-Americans.

“Negro” may be out of date, but it is definitely not the same as calling me a N!&&@

Secondly, an honest discussion about politics in the United States will acknowledge that Reid’s sentiment was true. It IS easier for a light-skinned Black person who speaks “well” to get ahead – not just in politics, but in the corporate world and so many other spheres. America’s light-skinned preference is well documented and studied.

But the worst part of all of this is to compare Reid’s words to those of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, when he supported Strom Thurmond’s segregationist bid for the Presidency. After those remarks, and Lott’s incredibly awful BET interview asking us for forgiveness, he was forced to step down. (Yes, Trent Lott really did go on BET News. At least he didn’t bring collard greens and corn bread as penance…)

Lynne Cheney and other Republicans are saying that Dems who wanted Lott out are hypocritical when they don’t demand Reid’s ouster. But Reid was really denouncing close-minded Americans who might look for any excuse to not vote for a Black man. On the other hand, Trent Lott was actively supporting segregation, which he had done several times before. And lest we forget, Harry Reid was actually a big, early, and powerful supporter of our nation’s first Black president.

When I see folks like Lynn Cheney yelling about “hypocrisy” at the top of their lungs, what I really hear are Republicans implying that Reid got a pass just because he has Black friends. That’s not the case. Reid gets a pass because what he said was more about the bigotry of voters, not about his racism towards any Black politicians. He doesn’t get a pass just because he’s cool with the CBC. But my bigger question for the GOP as a whole is this — why don’t YOU have more Black friends? (Michael Steele, alone, is not enough.) It might look a little better if the folks making your case were a little more diverse.