Apr 24 2008
Davis’ “Boy”
Boone County Kentucky’s Congressman Geoff Davis speaking of Senator Barack Obama:
“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.
So much is wrong about that statement, I don’t even know where to begin. Don’t tell me it was a comment about Obama’s age, because even if it was, what congressman calls a U.S. Senator and leading Presidential candidate a “boy?” Show some class. Some respect. Davis himself is only three years older than Obama, so what does that make him? A “young man?” Rail against our PC culture all you want, but that was a racist remark, and it reinforces unfortunate stereotypes about Kentucky I’ve encountered myself traveling the nation. It’s just more of the same old hate-driven, fear-mongering, negative-propaganda-Carl Rove politics we’ve had for the last eight years and I’m through with it.
Davis rode in on Bush’s coattails, and maybe he should ride out on them, too. This is so embarrassing.
I’m upset with you Bradley. That you can be so confident about “your” opinion of a statement that you can call it racist. I think sometimes you look for scandal when there may be none. Yeah sure you’ve encountered racism traveling the country, well guess what. Racism is real and it’s everywhere. Not just in KY or CA. It’s unfortunate and unacceptable but so is murder and rape. But to come out and call a Congressman a racist for using the term “boy.” Sure it could have been, but it could also be an honest mischoice of word. I would hope you would have a little more evidence other than, he’s from KY(perhaps you help the stereotypes along) and he’s white and Senator Obama is African American. I know i couldn’t arrest somebody with evidence like that. This honestly has nothing to do with my politacal views or yours. Accusation of racism is a VERY STRONG weapon. You just better be sure before you fire it.
I\\\’d be upset if any Congressman called any Senator \\\”boy,\\\” first of all. It\\\’s classless and disrespectful and not becoming of his position. His position doesn\\\’t excuse him from criticism in any way, Botts. What is this? China? I can\\\’t call out my leaders when they screw up?
And I\\\’m not talking about racism I\\\’ve encountered. I\\\’m speaking of assumptions and stereotypes about Kentucky and its people that I run into all the time that are reinforced by statements like this.
But in what way is a white man calling a black man \\\”boy,\\\” not racist? That word carries HUGE historical baggage. Like I said, they\\\’re practically the same age, so he couldn\\\’t have meant inexperience. I know Davis is a well-respected military man. People like him. I could do some political back-spinning and write, \\\”I didn\\\’t say HE was racist, just his comment.\\\” But really…go out and call Willie Anderson \\\”boy\\\” next time you see him and see what that gets you. He wouldn\\\’t misinterpret it and assume you were talking about his age. He\\\’d kick your ass.
I\\\’ve seen grown men call each other \\\”boy.\\\” Two white men. Two black men. But I don\\\’t think that in this case it was used in a Good-Ole-Boy-Down-South-Ah-Shucks-we\\\’re all buddies kind of way. And I don\\\’t think Davis was attempting to sound \\\”street,\\\” either.
The kicker here, is that it occurred at an event to honor Lincoln!
I love the new design of the blog, it looks quite professional and refreshing.
On the Davis comment, I think I will just let you and Chad fight it out, it looks like your doing a fine job. Whether it was intended to be a racist comment or not, I really don’t know, Davis says not, but then Davis is a politician. I have not really been a Davis proponent, but I do believe he has been a man who has served his country well. His choice of wording in his speech may have just been a poor choice, but if it was intended to demean Obama as far as his race, shame on him. This is a new age and thank God people are becoming more open to the idea that we are all Americans regardless of color. As you in the family know, Sid and I have temporary guardinaship of a beautiful little bi-racial girl, when I look at her I don’t see any color at all, I just see a beautiful little face who needs love and gives love, she has brought complete happiness and joy, and has given back way more in return than we could ever give her. Obama is a man (not boy) of integrity and I do believe has the best interest of the people of America in mind…..all races. That is not to say that I am 100% behind him politically, I am still examining all sides, discussions and philosophies.
Thanks, Sherry. I always appreciate it when you chime in on the blog. I’m glad you like the new look, and I love what you have to say. You have a gift for neutrality!
I think the emotions and point of view you write about regarding the wee one you care for are epitomized in Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. A world where we all just see each other as people. He was called a boy, and far worse I’m sure. As was Jackie Robinson. Both of them were, and created, historic “firsts.” And now, many years later, Barack Obama — the first serious African-American candidate for President — is called a boy by a Kentuckian. That’s why I’m upset.
Slips of the tongue, I’ve always thought, are a sure-sign of what someone’s really thinking. Freud did, too. And I can’t help but question whether Davis’ use of “boy” was intended to remind borderline GOP voters that Obama is black, “and we don’t want that,” just like Cunningham’s repeated use of “Hussein” was supposed to make us doubt his heritage.
Obama’s “bitter” comment in PA was “taken out of context” and “misunderstood.” After reading more about this comment I would have to agree. I think it was taken out of context. Could that be the case here? After all, it is just a 2 sentence statement in quotes.
I knew this was coming, El Senior. Good to hear from you.
A) You cannot take calling a black man “boy” out of context. That’s the world we live in now, or at least the one we should be living in. B) Obama’s “bitter” comment was policy and politics related. And, bring on the hell fire, but I think it was correct, too. Disenfranchised poor republicans have been sold a bill of goods that the democrats want to take away their guns and their God to cover up for the fact that the party to which they show such allegiance does little to improve their economic status, and cares more about tax breaks for the rich and serving private interests.
I don\’t really know if \”neutrality\”would be the proper adverb, but I do try very hard to be objective and look at all sides. I remember a family member (long, long ago) being very racist and I vowed I would never be like that.
I do agree, Kentucky, sadly, has the stereotype of being racist and behind the times, comments such as made by Davis don\’t help that image at all!
This from Beth:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=354
In the prologue to this episode of This American Life, Ira Glass reads Congressman Davis’ apology letter to Obama. I have to say, it is a good one and sounds heartfelt. I am in no way excusing him, just passing along the next chapter of the story. Blog looks great.
I’m not defending Davis. I know nothing about the man, his politics or the comments he made. I just think taking a small clip of a quote and hanging it on someons’e beliefs or character is judging and dangerous. That’s why I found out more information before I forwarded any emails regarding the “bitter” comment. I was mad at first but then saw how the media truly did take it out of context.
Let us discuss this comment for a moment…
“Disenfranchised poor republicans have been sold a bill of goods that the democrats want to take away their guns and their God to cover up for the fact that the party to which they show such allegiance does little to improve their economic status, and cares more about tax breaks for the rich and serving private interests.”
– Brad Riddell
April 25, 2008
Do you really stand behind this comment? Dude, that’s out there! The governement is not going to take guns from people and can not take away the one true Living God from a believer! That’s crazy talk! As for improving economic status, Obama will do everything he can to make that happen for everyone if he’s elected. After all, he is promising “hope and change” for everyone!!! There are a lot of followers out there clinging to that slogan. How is he going to do this? Can governement really bring hope and change to someone?
As a Northerner, I will admit that hearing a middle-aged white man refer to one of our country’s Presidential candidates as “boy” certainly reinforces stereotypes about white people from the South as being racist. Perhaps the best reason to be offended is out of self-interest: 1) it makes you and your neighbors look bad, no matter how unfar that characterization is; 2) for you Republicans, your party needs to court the minority vote as the country becomes increasingly non-white (by mid-century, estimates are that whites will be in the minority) and such comments aren’t helping the cause in appealing to other demographics. In Calfornia, we have to deal with the issue of racial antipathy toward Mexicans given how we’re on the front lines of the illegal immigration issue. Racial problems are still throbbing in this country, and the more we talk about it, the more we call out comments that are (possibly or obviously) offensive, the better.
Is a white man calling a grown black man “boy” offensive? White men calling each other “good ole boys” is benign, sure. But when a white person uses it with a black person, well, that’s evoking a racial hierarchy and history born out of slavery. Part of the rationalization for how a moral christian nation like the U.S. could capture, buy, and sell other humans was that we were giving these pagans a better life in America, even if it was in fetters. For a long time, there’s been that sense of paternalism when it comes to whites acting as caretakers for blacks–it started in slavery and refering to blacks as children is part of that dynamic. To me, “boy” also evokes the problem of the “uppity negro” who doesn’t know his place–so calling him “boy” in public is an emasculation intended to put him back in his (naturally) subservient position. After all, what’s more uppity that thinking you can run for president?
I believe it’s possible that Davis grew up in an environment where no one ever challenged his world view, where he thought the use of “boy” was innocuous, and in his heart he never thought referring to black people this way is racist. Ok, so he may be coming late to the party, but having your consciousness raised is important. His apology seems genuine and maybe this event will start a new path for him–and for others. I believe in forgiving people when they come out of places of ignorance. I still cling to this notion that our leaders should be chosen from the best of us, however, and there are plenty of people who’ve journeyed down the path of equality Davis only now seems to be discovering. In the best-case scenario, Davis didn’t intend to offend but rather invoke (in his white audience) their shared understanding that blacks simply aren’t smart enough to take care of themselves (let alone the US nuclear arsenal!) and that it remains the white man’s burden to look after these children. Whether or not you find that attitude troubling is a reflection of your own values, I suppose. I feel it’s my burden to speak out when I hear something in which I do not believe.
I am sympathetic to Chad when discussing this idea of people jumping too vigorously on public figures for “misspeaking,” of sometimes getting too carried away with the critiques of public statements–sometime these incidents are not revealing and are innocent gaffs. But I’ll also propose a scenario for him: imagine a fellow white officer does a traffic stop of a black motorist. He asks, “Where are you going in such a hurry, boy?” Casually, he rests his hand on the hilt of his gun and asks this “boy” why he’s out so late. And when that black citizen complains, he responds with: “Now boy, don’t get all uppity.”
Without “uppity,” “boy” would still be acceptable–as would the Jim Crow south.
No doubt, this is the hottest blog post on the Dime, EVER.
Senior, I’m not saying a democratic government could take away guns and God, what I’m saying is, that there are many republicans who vote only b/c of these hot issues — which as you say are not under any direct threat — because their flames are stoked by a party that does not truly represent their broader interests. It’s a distraction technique: we’ll protect religion and the 2nd amendment to earn your vote, while we cater to big business and the rich to keep our jobs and our wealth.
Obama was saying there is a great number of people who could be better represented, but are primed by their party to remain poor and bitter, but cling to Guns and God as the center of their political lives. I’ll stand by my statement and his that this situation is unfortunate.
Regarding hope: the Republican party tacitly sells the idea to its members that there is no hope for change, that change is bad, so when someone comes along that can provide both, they scoff in denial.
Leave it to liberals to bog everything down with useless chit chat that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. (Kinda joking) Here’s some issues i have.
1) Brad-”but in what way is a white man calling a black man “boy” not racist.” My question is in what was is it racist. Depends on his use of the word “boy”, could be, could not be. You have the benefit of reading minds so i guess we’ll take your word on it.
2) Brad-” go out and call Willie Anderson “boy” next time you see him and see what that gets you. blah blah blah “he’d kick your ass.” If he could catch me. Willie Anderson, that boy can sure play football. Was that racist or not racist. Brad can read minds so he already knows but for the rest of you, IT WAS A NON RACIST USE OF THE WORD BOY BY A WHITE MAN ABOUT A BLACK MAN.
Brad-(don’t worry Jan, i’m getting to you) “You cannot take calling a black man “boy” out of context.” Not a true statement, because you did.
Yeah i hit the submit button accidentally, hope it’s not taken out of context and i get called a liberal.
4). Let’s discuss stereotypes. Somehow KY is the stereotypical racist state. My question is are we in front of Georgia, Mississipi, Alabama, and Florida or behind them. Just like to know because isn’t stereotyping a stereotype a stereotype.
Number of stereotypes in this discussion.
1-Carl rove politics we’ve had for the last eight years
2-I’m a republican and i’m not bitter like barack obama called me.
3-”poor republicans who think democrats will take away their guns and god. Care more for tax breaks for the rich and serving private interests.”
4.a KY congressmen growing up in an environment where no one ever challenged his world view, where he though the use of “boy” was innocuous.(my favorite part of the snippet is “maybe this event will start a new path for him.” Jan, exactly what path has he been traveling. Can you read minds too?
5. Southern cops are racist and call black people boy while holding there guns.
6. Last one cause i could go on forever-”there are many republicans who vote only b/c of these hot issues”(gun/god control) Name two republicans you know that do that or give me a source where this is proven true.
Finally, Jan Jan Jan
I was joking about number 5. Your scenario is in no way comparable to this issue we are discussing. That is clearly, undeniably, no questions asked a racist use of the word “boy.” If you think that that is comparable to Cong. Davis’s use of the term then this is a hopeless argument. Somehow this started as a moral/social issue and turned into discussions about Martin Luther King, republican stereotyping, and Jan calling me a racist. Just joking again. I enjoyed it but i think it’s odd that the republican part of this argument is calling for open mindedness and understanding while the liberal sect is preparing for a crucifixtion. Times do change, if you believe in stereotypes.
Good luck today Bengals, hope them boys draft well.
On the issue of mind-reading: obviously, none of us know just what Davis was thinking when he made his statement. Yes, we’ve all made conjecture about it. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t aware of just how hurtful “boy” can be. But I also disagree that there’s any context where a white man calling a black man “boy” is acceptable. My scenario about a cop using the word at a traffic stop is not to say cops in KY are racist (hey, it’s the LAPD that’s operating under a consent decree and I haven’t heard anything like that happening in KY) but to suggest a situation where we all agree that the use of “boy” is unacceptable. Ok, so if I can get Chad to agree that it’s unacceptable in one situation, where’s the line? How does a white person judge, “Hey, it’s cool to do it here, but not to do it here”? Cop at a traffic stop is bad, but a Congressman at a political rally is ok? Tell me what’s in between where we switch from naughty to nice? A teacher talking to a janitor? A little old lady talking to the bagger at her grocery store? A resident catching the attention of his mailman? If you say it is acceptable in some circumstances, then you take on the burden of delineating the use of “boy” and telling us when it’s acceptable and when it’s not. I’d rather not have that burden. More importantly–and I guess this is a point where we differ–I don’t think a white person using “boy” can be acceptable. Blacks using the n-word among themselves is largely accepted, but if a white person tries using it with them… yeah, we know that’s trouble. Boy isn’t as hot-button as the n-word, but I maintain that it’s bad enough (for the reasons I stated in my previous post). I guess I want to know from Chad, just what does boy mean to you–or perhaps you think it means to Davis (dreaded mind reading, I know)? How can it be benign? The days of Emmett Till are gone (Google the name if you don’t know the story), but “boy” certainly reminds me of those days when a black person not knowing his place in the white south could lead to dire trouble.
Is the Republican party racist? Well, southern democrats were racist because they supported segregation and the south remained reliably democratic. Then the party changed in the 60s when JFK and LBJ supported Civil Rights and the Dems lost the south. Now it votes reliably Republican and, like the Dems before them, the party strategists rely on subtle racial cues in their campaigns: visiting Bob Jones Univ., supporting the flying of the Confederate flag at state capitols, using the code-word “states rights” (the South argued it was a federal infringement on their states rights to say slavery was wrong or Jim Crow was wrong), John McCain and his illegitimate black baby, George Allen, and the spot which suggested Harold Ford, Jr. was lusting after our white women. I don’t know if I can label everything racist–I won’t say that. But I’ll say there’s at least room for improvement.
Related to who votes Republican, the Obama bitter and clingy comments. Basically, he was referring to an idea explored in depth in the book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” It’s about why people vote against their own economic self interest. To really do this argument justice, I’d suggest reading the book. Flag burning, abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, teaching evolution in schools: these are hot-button social issues that appeal to some working class people and so they vote Republican because that’s the party platform. And what do they get in return? Constitutional amendments to ban those things remain far, far away. But they do get busted unions, outsourced jobs, disproportionally high tax burdens, stagnant minimum wage, dirtier air and water, worse health care, etc. In the nuts and bolts area that really affects their lives, voting Republican has made their lives worse. In this lofty “moral” arena, nothing’s changed. And the truth is, it’s against the party’s self interest to pass those amendments–then they could no longer run on them. Keeping the boogey man in the closet to bust out every election cycle is so much more effective. It’s that bait and switch which has Brad and me and Obama and other people scratching our heads. Of course these voters have the freedom to vote according to whatever criteria they choose; I wish voters do a little more questioning, a little more exploration, a little more newspaper reading…. Your vote is your power and your privilege. On a day of reckoning where I have to defend my choices, I’d much rather make the argument for social justice than support writing discrimination in the US Constitution or kicking around a group that’s already down and out.
This will never end because it is impossible for you to accept that it is possible for a white person to use boy to a black man and it not be racist. That’s all i’ve been trying to say from the beginning. I understand your position but you do not understand mine. I understand that it is probably not the best word to use, i understand that it “can be” a term used to insult and injure. But so could me calling you a swooshy swooshy foo foo face. A word is just a word until it conveys it’s message. Swooshy swooshy foo foo face could also be a term of endearment. It’s up to the person hearing the word to make their determination as to what the word is trying to convey. What you are forgetting is that boy can also be a term to convey gender. People do use it everyday in a non-racist way. This was turned into a huge deal when all it started out as was me being shocked that Brad could call somebody a racist by reading one word that he said in a speech. And then assuming he understood the context. And yes it is an assumption.
You’re right, Chad, that we remain apart on this issue and will likely never agree. I do understand your point how, in some circumstances, “boy” can be used by a white man toward a black man without it being racist. Given my understanding of word and associated legacies (however correct it may be), I just can’t think of a scenario where it isn’t–to some extent–offensive to a black person. That’s our difference.
In closing out the argument, I again agree that context is important. Davis was at a political rally addressing the like-minded when he attacked Obama’s ability to defend our country. That Democrats are somehow less patriotic and less willing to defend our country is an old Republican talking point and getting into the merits of this odious tactic would no doubt launch another long discussion, so I only use it to provide the all-important context to this situation: unfriendly, rally-the-troops, and attack your party’s opponent. That’s the context of his comment. So while in this fear-mongering attack mode, he threw out a word of dubious taste. You can imagine how it was hard for Brad or I to believe “boy” was the one friendly thing he had to say about Obama while otherwise demonizing him.
Most importantly: my mom used to call me “swooshy swooshy foo foo face.” How’d you know?
Man, if you guys think Davis is offensive now, you should’ve seen him before he shaved off his dirt squirrel.
Hey Senior. You should see the Zebco hat I just bought. Pretty sweet. Chad’s seen it, and can attest to how cool it is.
I attest, it is cool. I only wish i had it back when i used to get ate everyday. And Jan, we agree to disagree. This is an extremely important time for our country and our voters. I must say that I am unhappy with the direction the country is going. However, my comments are not partisan in any way. I feel it was an extremely strong response by my much more literate, much less better looking brother. Democratic debate, it does a country good. That’s my motto marty(spinal tap). I won’t comment on the “democrats are somehow less patriotic and less willing to defend our country” comment because the internet would shut down with all the posts. Nice debate.
And thank God for the University of Southern California, without it the Bengals would have no team. Gotta go, Keith Rivers is on NFL network and i gotta listen.
My motto is: “Have a good time all of the time.”
Zebco is not bad as long as it has Quantum stamped on it. Chad, what is this “…when I use to get ate everyday” stuff??? You never got ate. Who ya foolin’?
I think Zebco conversations would be perfect for Scott’s “Fishin With Quasi” Blog. You can reach it from my blog roll on the home page.
Brad, I ran into Sean Alexander’s mom at the grocery store. As everyone knows Sean, a most revered and super player for the Seattle Seahawks for 8 years, and was just released, is a Boone County native. He holds the yardage gained and most touchdowns for his high school alma mater, as well as his college alma mater of Alabama. Sean was in town last week to talk to the Bengals about possibly signing with them. As I was talking to Sean’s mom I said, “well is our boy goin’ to come home?” She said she sure hoped so, as did I. Sean is our hometown boy (i.e. greatest football player to ever hit the turf in Boone County). He is young man who will always be extoled for his talent as well as his character.
I left, was in a hurry and forgot to wait for the change from my purchase, I had 21 young boys and girls who were to be sworn in as Jr. Deputies at the Sheriff’s Dept and I was in charge and moving fast. As I approached my car I heard her call out to me to give me my change, I thanked her, got into my car and thought. “what did I just say when I call Sean ‘our BOY’. I certainly meant nothing racial or demeaning to Sean, his color or character and wondered how she percieved it. We were both laughing and talking about our hopes for Sean and she seemed to take no offense to my choice of wording, but the discussion of Geoff Davis and his wording of “BOY” sure gave me a moment to think about it. I guess if I can do what I did yesterday and meant nothing demeaning, it makes me wonder if perhaps that is what happened to Geoff Davis. We don’t know what was in Davis’ thoughts when he used the term, but after yesterday I felt it could happen to any of us.
I’ve used that phrase many a-time. “He’s my boy.” It’s common in the hip-hop world, in sports, etc….. You raise a great point, though.
Very good point Sher. Spot on.