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“Negro” may be out of date, but it is definitely not the same as calling me a N!&&@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

Dr. Dyson coming with the fire…..

Comments anyone?

From cbs news

Posted by Brian Montopoli

There was a moment in Sunday night’s “60 Minutes” piece on revelations from the 2008 presidential campaign in which Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s former top campaign strategist, was asked if the choice of Sarah Palin “was about winning an election, not necessarily about who’s gonna be best as vice president.”

“My job was to give political advice,” Schmidt responded. “We needed to do something bold to try to win the race.”

That exchange is worth remembering when considering the controversy that broke over the weekend involving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, it was revealed, privately stated that he believed Barack Obama was well suited to a presidential run because he is a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Reid, an early Obama backer, immediately apologized “for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments,” but that didn’t stop Republicans from pouncing on the comments and calling for Reid’s resignation from the Senate leadership. They drew comparisons to Trent Lott’s 2002 comments that America would have been better off had then-segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, which resulted in Lott being forced to leave the GOP leadership.

There was a clear difference between the comments, of course: While Lott’s words could be interpreted as an argument that segregationist policies would have been better for America than the alternative, Reid was discussing a political calculus. Like Schmidt, his thinking seemed largely confined to the realm of politics.

On NBC’s “Today” show Monday, Matt Lauer asked PBS’ Gwen Ifill this question: “Isn’t Harry Reid implying that a dark-skinned African American who speaks in a way that some would consider more stereotypical would not be electable?”

Ifill’s response? Well, yes. Because it’s true.

“There is actual political science that backs that up,” said Ifill, who is black. “I don’t know that Harry Reid has read it, and what Harry Reid said was certainly impolitic, at least, but there is evidence to support that people – whether it is a matter of voting for a white candidate or voting for a black candidate – if a person is very much different than who they are, or what they perceive the mainstream to be, they are less likely to vote for that person.”

Indeed, what Reid has now said publicly is what everyone in Washington was saying privately as Mr. Obama prepared his run – it’s just that he seems to be the only one whose words eventually became public.

Well, maybe not the only one: The best comparison to Reid’s comments is not what Lott said but rather comments by then-candidate Joe Biden, who in 2007 said Mr. Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Biden came under criticism for the comment, but the controversy didn’t endure – and Biden, of course, has gone on to have a pretty close relationship with Mr. Obama.

Reid was right to apologize for his comments: As we’ve seen with the recent census flap, many are offended by the word “negro,” and notions of “light skin” and a certain type of black dialect raise legitimate questions about America’s still-unsettled relationship with race. (Wrote black historian Blair LM Kelley: “I find it horrifying that fair-skinned blacks are seen as more acceptable candidates in the 21st century.”)

But Mr. Obama is too savvy a politician not to see the basic truth in Reid’s comments, which is part of the reason why he was quick to accept his apology. (It also didn’t hurt, of course, that Mr. Obama needs Reid in place for final passage of the health care bill, along with a host of other issues.) As Ifill went on to point out on “Today,” someone who looks and sounds like Al Sharpton is a harder sell to the American people than someone who looks and sounds like Mr. Obama. (Indeed, Sharpton is among the black leaders who are largely backing Reid.)

Or, as Joan Walsh of the liberal online magazine Salon put it: “if progressive racial-justice Democrats don’t think politicians of every race size up the field in terms of competitive advantage — and sadly, even today, accord advantage to African-Americans who put white folks at ease, speak ‘white’ or ’standard’ English, and even, yes, look ‘less non-white’ — we’re kidding ourselves.”

From TheGrio by Bonnie Davis

On Monday, the U.S. Census Bureau launched their campaign to count more than 300 million American residents. They are relying on cutting-edge technology and social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to appeal to African-Americans and heighten awareness about the 2010 census.

Yet, one of the form’s 10 questions uses what many consider an outdated and offensive term, and may lead some African-Americans to ask just how far the country has come.

Question No. 9 on the form, which will be mailed out beginning March 15, asks: “What is Person 1’s race?”

The answer choices are: “White; Black, African-American, or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native.”

While the term “Negro” has appeared in previous census forms, some young or first-time African-American census participants may find it offensive, which could present a problem for the 2010 census campaign, which has focused on inclusion.

Shelly Lowe, a U.S. Census Bureau spokesperson, agrees that the use of “Negro” is antiquated, and says that the bureau was surprised to learn there still are people who prefer to be called by the term.

Lowe also noted that all of the census questions are “tested ad nauseam,” enough so that using the “Negro” term “outweighed the potential negatives.”

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines the racial category of black or African-American as “a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa,” and further stipulates that terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “black or African-American.”

The term was left on the 2010 form after a number of respondents to the 2000 census opted to write-in “Negro” when answering the question on race, census officials said.

Jeanne R. Stanley, a 78-year-old retiree in Richmond, Va., says she is not surprised that some blacks, particularly older blacks, prefer to be called a “Negro” as opposed to black or African-American.

“Some prefer it because of their complexion, whether they’re light-skinned or dark,” says Stanley, who routinely discusses such matters with colleagues her age. “Others still have a slave mentality. There are a lot of people who still have a color complex.”

The use of “Negro” to describe people of African descent was popular up until the 1960s. The civil rights movement during the late 1960s and 1970s led to the use of “black” or “Afro-American.” Jesse Jackson spearheaded the trend that blacks be called African-Americans in the late 1980s. The label pretty much has stuck, although many Americans of African descent still prefer “black.”

Many younger blacks find the term “Negro” insulting and demeaning.

“I find the word ‘Negro’ to be quite offensive when it comes to the census and separating and differentiating among races because of the history of the use of the word,” said Taryn Anthony, a 25-year old graduate student. “I’ve yet to hear someone use it in a respectable manner, so placing it on a census seems as yet another way to set back African-Americans.”

Others find it a perfect target for jokes.

“Well, if the census form authors are going to go so far as to include an the archaic term ‘Negro,’ why not put ‘Colored’ on there … just in case someone hadn’t graduated from that word usage,” said Patrick Riley, a New York-based television producer.

Cathy M. Jackson, Ph.D, a journalism and media studies professor at Norfolk State University, offered these thoughts:

“In the years I have taught and studied diversity or multiculturalism and the mass media, I have never read any studies that quantified a preference for the racial descriptor ‘Negro.’ However, after researching, I found that the Census Bureau doesn’t list ‘Negro’ as a separate category, but includes it in the choice of ‘African American, Black, or Negro.’”

Jackson notes that in a 1995 survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Census Bureau, 3.28 percent of respondents wanted “Negro” used. On the other hand 1.09 percent wanted “Colored.”

She’s happy that the bureau did not use that “Colored” racial designator.

“I believe the Census Bureau has come a long way from the 1890 census when the racial categories include white, black, mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon,” Jackson said. She also noted that each change in the race categories is a sign of changing social relationships between people of different races in America.

Jackson says that although the U.S. Census Bureau still has problems, she’s happy that America is no longer considered a ‘melting pot.’

“Perhaps the bureau’s actions to seek approval of its racial categories is evidence that our ethnic and our cultural contributions are becoming recognized as a valuable part of this mosaic tapestry we call America,” she says.