There’s absolutely no racial component to the criticism of Barack Obama, and I think all you liberals are the real racists for suggesting there is:
When you walk into the Georgia Peach Oyster Bar in Paulding County, you feel like you’ve walked into a different era.
Behind the pool tables stands a mannequin in a Klu Klux Klan costume, but it’s what’s outside of the Patrick Lanzo’s restaurant that has some people angry.
Lanzo put up a sign that reads “Obama’s plan for health-care: N*&%*r rig it.”
Only he didn’t say “N*&%*r” (to paraphrase Ralphie). He used the racial epithet, the big one, the queen-mother of racial epithets, the “N-dash-dash-dash-dash-dash” word. Spelled out for all to see.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. The guy is willing to use that word on a sign advertising his restaurant. He also has hosted a neo-Nazi rally, and his restaurant’s interior features “a number of racist images in his Georgia Peach Museum bar such as cartoons of Klan members lounging on lynched black men and items disparaging Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” It also features a mannequin of a Klan member in full regalia. So you’re probably thinking this guy’s a racist. Right?
Wrong! We know he isn’t a racist, because he says so:
Despite the sign, Lanzo said he’s not a racist.
He said he’s just against what he calls a “sub standard healthcare plan,” which he said President Obama is trying to push through.
Well, of course! I mean, obviously, he’s just making a reasoned point on health care reform that just happens to use the ugliest word in the English language to refer to the President of the United States who just happens to be of the ethnic background said word defames. How could you think he was a racist?
Now, vile as Lanzo is, I actually would defend his right to display his racist utterances. It makes him easy to identify as a racist, for one thing. But that’s beside the point. The point is that even this guy claims he isn’t a racist, just like every other teabagger out there. Because opposition to Obama has no racial element. The right keeps saying so, and maybe, if they keep saying it, eventually they’ll even start to believe it.
As for me, I’ll trust my lying eyes.
Pingback: Georgia Oyster bar owner not telling the truth about being a racist | Political Byline
Why not just show the isign and discuss the word as a adults? It says “nigger”. What, are we two years old? It’s a hurtful word, so bring it into the light.
Excellent observations Jeff Fecke. I would suggest that this cretin, Patrick Lanzo is in classic denial, but I think we all know better than that.
Lanzo knows that he is a provocateur. He knows their is nothing in his statement which bolsters his sad “argument” that he thinks the health care plans being promoted by President Obama are “sub standard.”
Lanzo believes that if you state a lie often enough, enough people will believe it is true. Racism is alive and well in the USA, and Lanzo is its poster child.
Very well said. Regrettably, the people who begin their statements with, “I’m not a racist, but…” will continue to believe their own proclamation.
Just like an 8 year old with cookie crumbs all over his face standing by the broken cookie jar and spilled milk insisting that he didn’t have a cookie, break the jar or spill the milk. Do either one think that we are that stupid to believe them?
Steve–
I know what the word is. I do not use it, not even in quotes. Given the ugliness of the word and its history, I believe it will be best for everyone when it’s never uttered at all. It is not childish to choose not to say a word that was used as part of a concerted effort to dehumanize a vast swath of my fellow Americans. It is choosing not to engage in hatred. And given that anyone who reads this knows what word I’m talking about, I see no reason to type it.
y’know, there’s no actual quote from him saying “i’m not a racist” or something similar.
Manju,
As someone who works in this genre, this could be for one of two reasons.
The reporter may have asked him “Are you a racist?” And he said, “No. I’m just against a sub-standard plan.” So there’s no “I’m not a racist” to quote, but it’s six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.
Or he may have said “I’m not a racist,” the reporter didn’t use the quote because it’s a boring quote that adds nothing as a quote. An article can’t be just a list of quotes, unless it’s in Q&A or interview format. There’s parts where the writer writes, and the quotes are woven through. For better or for worse, this is how we write. It’s how just about every newspaper article is written. So we usually only put in quotes the things that are put just so or that really demonstrate something about the speaker or are controversial and we want to be super-duper sure readers understand it is the subject and not the writer making the statement.
The third option is that the reporter made it up. If the reporter is a complete liar who makes everything up, then having it in quotes or out of quotes makes no difference. If I had no professional ethics, I could slap quote marks around something I made up just as easily as I could paraphrase something I made up.
But that would be, to say the least, a very odd thing to make up. What would the reporter be trying to accomplish by making up the part about he says he’s not a racist?
And what are you trying to accomplish by raising this objection?
And what are you trying to accomplish by raising this objection?
Manju is trying to raise the point that — look! Behind you! What is that enormous thing?
What? You don’t see it? Oh well. What were we talking about again?
May have asked? We can’t draw conclusions on what may have been asked.
Given the context, that quote would’ve been precious. In fact, it would be the whole ball of wax.
Or perhaps the reporter’s interpretation of what the guy said was he was saying “i’m not a racist.” So she reported her own interpretation of reality, rather that reality.
To see the world as it is, not as it appears to be. I’ve learnt to be skeptical when one side says this is what the other side is saying , but fails to provide quotes to back it up.
To give you an example you’ll probably sympathize with: over at the open thread RonF linked to piece claiming that obama co-sponsored a UN resolution that would violate the first ammendment. Knowing how many in the UN view free speech especially in regards to what they consider hate speech, this sounded like a plausible scenario. but soon enough the detail oriented PG was on the case pulling up the actual document which revealed that what was reported was only the columnist’s interpretation of events, not reality.
As Amp himself warned: “Ron, did it set off any sense of skepticism in you, at all, that the article you quoted nowhere linked to the resolution in question?” Well, that’s why I’m skeptical here. The reporter didn’t provide the deadly quote.
look, when you’re inside the echo chamber you don’t have to back up what you say because your interpretations sound so correct to the like minded folks in the aforementioned chamber. That was my gripe with Myca’s intellectual right post where all sorts of contructions of what the intellectual right says were presented–like ““We believe in free speech! (But people who criticize the (Republican) president should watch their goddamn mouths.)” –devoid of any actual quotes. Then you look into the specifics and things aren’t quite said like the other side interpreted them to be.
so here we have a meme that racists don’t admit being racists. its a good meme and frankly i think there’s a lot of truth to it. but just like the meme that the UN is a hotbed for anti-free speech activism, I’m not sure if this is an actual example of that larger truth.
Manju,
I had a whole response, but I’m not going to play into your thread-jack.
Jeff,
I would have to concur with your assessment of Mr. Lanzo’s status as a racist. At least the description of the decor of his establishment would strongly indicate so. But I totally disagree with the premise that everyone on the right claims there is no racist criticism at all. Of course there is. But it is not limited to just those on the right. This is the problem with labels; once a label is given it becomes a generalization. Not all right-wingers are racists, nor are all racists right-wingers.
Racism is not a political belief; it does not have a political party. Yes there is a segment of the population that criticizes due to racism. There is also a segment that criticizes because he has less political experience than any other presidential candidate in history. There is a segment that criticizes because is so self-absorbed. There is a segment who criticize due his lack of accomplishments thus far. There is a segment that criticizes because of the teachings of his pastor of thirty years. There is a segment who criticize because thus far he has done little more than try to appease all of this county’s enemies. So you see, it’s not just racism. There are several legitimate reasons to criticize the man.
As for me, I’ll hold judgment until I see his first major accomplishment, because after all is said and done, all I care about are results. If, in the end, I join the throngs of those who criticizes him, it will be due to his failure, not his race. That would just be silly.
Manju, there’s a significant difference between a reporter saying what someone said, and a columnist giving his opinion of a text. This guy was not a public figure, and people are using this statement to mock him for being stupid. If he did not say anything to the reporter that could plausibly be described as “Lanzo said he’s not a racist,” there’s a potential defamation lawsuit here. In contrast, a UN resolution cannot be defamed, and moreover statements of opinion are protected from libel claims. So your comparison between a factual article and two opinions columns is an extremely poor one.
Also, if you’re going to assume that the reporter misinterpreted the guy she’s reporting on, you might want to watch the video instead of just relying on the article summary. There’s a whole bit where Lanzo shows off his pictures of MLK (you’d appreciate this) and pulls out his NAACP membership card to prove he’s not racist.
PG: I’m not assuming anything. the reporter says the guy said he’s not a racist but didn’t supply the deadly quote, which would’ve been the punchline to the whole story, imo. to assume she must posses this quote because otherwise she’s at risk legally is to assume, which i didn’t.
No, the punchline to the story the reporter actually reported, as you could see in the video if you watched it, is his proudly showing off his NAACP membership card, shortly after which they put up the written statement from the local NAACP chapter condemning him. Really, watch the actual work of the reporter. The fact that the reporter did this story in a subtler way than you apparently are willing to comprehend does not nullify the summarizing statement, “Lanzo said he’s not a racist.”
Yep, this story is precious.
If I see one more white man talk about how “this isn’t about race”…. well, my head is going to blow up.
I just watched David Gregory of Meet the Press do it last week on the Colbert Report.
I feel that these white men, whether lib or repub, cannot countenance an admission that their white privilege makes their lives easier, and that any time a black person has achieved as much or more than them, that person has had to be smarter and work harder than they ever did or will.
Because they succeeded all by themselves without any help or special advantages.
Admitting otherwise would be a deathblow to their self-esteem.
Another from the annals of “even racists don’t think they’re racist.”
what the LA judge is doing is racism but its very common old world racism. most indian parents i know want their kids to marry Indians, or at least others from the subcontinent. or if they’re old enough perhaps only other sub-identities like language, region, or caste. interestingly, i’ve noticed the generation younger than me have picked up these sub-identities like caste whereas i have no inkling of them, which i attribute to more Indians in the US these days as well as the influence of multiculturalism. but i digress.
we usually don’t label racist the japanese immigrant who thinks the younger japanese Americans should stick to their own kind. i not sure why we should expect more from whites.
Manju–are you freaking serious here? I sometimes think you’re on to something when you come in here and play devil’s advocate, but this is just ridiculous. A parent expressing the desire for her child to marry someone of the same race is in no way equivalent to a government official refusing to marry a couple he has no relation to whatsoever. The first is definitely racist and sucky, but the second is a violation of basic civil liberties.
Ladies and gentleman. Please note. The reporter supplies the money quote. “I am not a racist.” In quotes. Manju says hey, the guy says he isn’t a racist.
And Manju, we’re not talking about what your grandparents or my grandparents think. We’re talking about someone acting in his capacity as a government official to refuse someone a marriage license they are legally entitled to.
I think the first person over at Ta-Nehisi’s place wins comments on this story.
as one who leans libertarian, i can appreciate the distinction, but it isn’t critical to whether or not the person is racist. for example, if some white dude in LA said “i don’t think blacks and white should date” he would not be acting in the capacity of a government official, but he’d still be expressing racism.
similarly, the lanzo guy isn’t a govenment offical either.
chingona: you’re missing the brilliant nuances of my comments. i’m not who you think i am.
I don’t think you can sensibly equate a parent who would like to preserve a particular cultural legacy and relationship with her child and prospective grandchild, with a justice of the peace who doesn’t even know the people he’s marrying but still sees fit to judge whether they should be married. My parents would have been troubled if I’d married my ex who had been previously married and already had a daughter because they would be concerned that he had a bad relationship track record (and on that one, they’d be right…), and that I would be burdened from the beginning with caring for a child and dealing with being a stepmother. That’s not at all equivalent to someone saying that a guy who has been previously married and who is the custodial parent should not be able to get married at all. There’s a huge difference between saying “I don’t want this for my child” — my child whom I have raised, and known, and who will always be my child and with whom I want to retain the relationship we have developed and fear having that relationship disturbed — and saying “No one should do this, ever.”
Manju,
I understand the nit you picked with Jeff’s post was not the same nit you picked with the reaction to the story of the Louisiana justice of the peace. But somehow I suspect that if Jeff’s quoted bit had included the words “I am not a racist” in quotes, you would have just found some other nit to pick.
You are not who I think you are? I think you’re someone whose primary pleasure in life (at least in blog-commenting life) is finding nits to pick so you can be the center of attention in every thread you participate in.
I am completely comfortable labeling any parent who would not ‘allow’ their child to marry someone of another race as prejudiced.
There’s a debate over the meaning of racism, and if you accept the definition that racism is ‘prejudice + power’, those parents may not meet that standard. That being said, if we use the more everyday definition, I’d say that, yeah, they’re racist.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with Manju’s constant need to sidetrack any thread he is in, deny racism, and defend racists like Pat Buchanan ad nauseum, but I digress.
—Myca
Myca,
I am not sure that it is racist to want your child to marry someone whose cultural background is similar to your own, especially if you are a small minority culture where you live and the person your child is marrying belongs to the majority culture. It’s really difficult in that context for your child and grandchildren to end up retaining the minority culture.
I think it’s racism if the parent looks solely at appearance and doesn’t care that her prospective child-in-law is actually more immersed in the minority culture (through study, religious conversion, etc.) than the child is, but I don’t think all forms of “I would like for you to marry someone like us” are racist.
Sure, PG, and I don’t really disagree, which is why I used the word ‘race’ rather than ‘culture’ and ‘allow’ rather than ‘prefer’.
Now, a reasonable person might say that this is a distinction without a difference, to which I would respond, “The difference is that the use of ‘race’ and ‘allow’ is what makes this the appropriate parallel to the judge’s actions.”
The judge did not disapprove of people from different cultures marrying.
He disallowed people of different races from marrying.
—Myca
You can go back and forth on the issue of whether or not children of bi-racial couples have a hard time or not, and whether that’s racist or simply a fact based on racism. But why the heck this guy thought it was any of his business and why he thought that he had any right to deny this couple access to his services on that basis is beyond me.
The answer is simple, RonF. He is a racist.