Prejudice or Political Analysis
Let’s talk about Harry Reid’s controversial comment about President Obama. In discussing Obama’s chances to be elected president, Reid was quoted as saying that Obama is “light-skinned with no Negro dialect, unless he wants one.” In the context spoken, what makes this offensive? Reid’s statement is a reflection of prejudice that still exists in the United States. He is saying, in his opinion, that the US voters are less likely to vote for a darker-skinned black person than a lighter-skinned black person. And he is saying that US voters are less likely to vote for somebody who speaks with what he calls a Negro dialect than somebody who speaks without one.
Harry Reid didn’t say that he thought it was right for US voters to have this bias. He was portraying the political landscape as he saw it. Before you criticize Harry Reid, ask yourself if you believe these things to be true. Have you noticed that many newscasters and other professional African Americans speak without a “Negro dialect?” Could it be that they do so because of a prejudice that some have toward those who speak with that dialect? Isn’t that what Harry Reid is saying? Even if you don’t think such a prejudice exists, is it wrong for Harry Reid to say that he thinks it does exist?
Didn’t people question John F. Kennedy’s chances to win the presidential election because he was Catholic? Didn’t people question Al Gore’s choice of Joe Lieberman as a running mate because Lieberman is Jewish? Didn’t people question George W. Bush’s chances for election because of the way he speaks? These discussions are political analysis, not prejudice.
We would all be much better off if we discussed real issues rather than those fabricated by the extremist pundits and partisan strategists. If you want to criticize Harry Reid for his stance on an issue or for the way he performs his job, have a blast. On this issue, don’t waste your breath.
