It often seems like race is a magnifying glass that exaggerates the emotional aspect of any interracial interaction. Did we have a nice quick chat in line at the grocery store? Better for me if you’re black, I do feel better about it to be honest. And you two are celebrities now …sort of. So you have that working against you as well. Anyway: keep up the good work!
I couldn't resist putting this personal story out there. I'll try to be as nondescript as possible.
Many, MANY years ago, when I was a proud Black Republican, I attended a luncheon with fellow Black Republicans; who, frankly, were always more loyal to the party than I was.
The main speaker at this event was a US Congressman--White, middle-age, not very well-known nationally--who decided to open his speech with a joke, presumably to loosen up the crowd. Not a problem, right?
Anyway, this man proceeds to tell a joke about a criminal attempting to negotiate his way out of a hanging.
I honestly don't recall the specifics about the joke, probably because I hit a mental pause button the second I heard this man utter something about a hanging.
In fairness, I don't think *he* was thinking "race" at the time. If I *had* to guess, the characters in his joke, in *his* mind, were probably all White. But who the hell knows? That's really neither here nor there.
The idea that a sitting US Congressman had no problem telling a joke about a hanging--at the start of his keynote speech, no less--spoke volumes about a certain faction within the GOP.
I will never forget "our" reactions in that moment. We were (mostly) seated at the same two or three tables. We started looking at each other and whispering; our facial expressions were LOUD:
"Is this guy seriously telling a joke about hanging?"
The answer was yes.
It reminded me of something I already knew: Just because two people share a party label doesn't mean they share the same values or perspectives.
This was the 90s. But this Congressman was obviously not a Jack Kemp Republican.
Fundamentally, though, the problem was not that the speaker was a Congressman, or White, or Middle-Aged....and it was not that there were (evidently) a number of Black Republicans in the audience listening to the 'joke'....but rather that the speaker was an idiot.
Opening a luncheon with a 'joke' about a scheduled hanging is just plain stupid -- regardless of the situation. As a matter of fact, It's difficult to imagine a context in which 'hanging humor' would ever play well (and, of course, some contexts are worse than others when it comes to terminally idiotic stabs at humor). Bad enough, for example, to offer a 'rape' joke -- worse, to do that at a NOW Convention.
The point is, as Einstein is said to have noted, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe!"
And the problem is: our own natural human tendency to see the world through our categorically biased glasses.
If we are Black, as a for instance, when we suffer the inevitable instances of stupidity, rudeness, idiocy, inefficiency, laziness, and ill-will (to name but a few of our least favorite things) it's easier to see them as Racist, in nature, exactly because we're Black. If we are Women, it's easier to see them as Misogynistic. If we're Gay, those same assaultive, micro-aggressive things are Homophobic. If we're Trans, they're Transphobic. If we're short, it's because Tall People get all the breaks...and if we're fat or ugly (or God forbid, both) then we're being so afflicted because 'Everyone Hates the Fat & Ugly, especially if they're short.
Sometimes we're right. But most of the time the inevitability of stupidity, rudeness, idiocy, inefficiency, laziness, and ill-will is entirely generic.. It's not racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-fat, whaterver...it's just another example of the infinite plenitude of stupidity. And WE (whoever we are and whichever categories we inhabit) are just collateral damage. We're the ones who happen to be standing there when a local 'idiot bomb' goes off.
I read a story a few years back, written by Tim Constantine, which illustrates this point perfectly. Here it is (sorry for the long quote):
"On a recent episode of her podcast, Mrs. Obama recounted a story of taking her two daughters out for ice cream with a friend after a soccer game. When their turn came to place their order another customer tried to jump in front of them. Mrs. Obama spoke up and the would-be line cutter shamefully and silently moved back.
I experienced a similar incident at the security line at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Some individuals can be slow in removing their shoes, pulling their laptop from their bag and adhering to the other safety protocols required by the TSA. I was fourth in line with another half-dozen backed up behind me as we all waited for the person in the front of the line to move along. One woman at the rear of the line ignored us all and walked to the front. She apparently didn’t believe the societal concept of waiting your turn applied to her. Like Mrs. Obama, I spoke up. The woman was angry, but went back to her correct location in line.
Two very similar incidents. We were both waiting in line. We both experienced a rude person trying to cut into our line. Mrs. Obama and I both spoke up and corrected the person. The only difference? Michelle is convinced the rude line-cutter, who was White, cut ahead of her and her daughters because the Obama family is Black. Further, she believes this ice cream line bandit represents, in Mrs. Obama’s words, “the white community.” She has no doubt this societal faux pas was racial in nature. Conversely the airport security line violator that I experienced was a Black woman. It never occurred to me that race had anything to do with it. I just thought she was impatient and rude. Ironically, the woman who attempted to jump the security line at DCA angrily told me to enjoy my “white privilege” because I asked her to wait in the same line as everyone else."
Sometimes...indeed, probably most times... a cigar is just a cigar. And a bad and tasteless joke is just a bad and tasteless joke: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." When we realize that, it should be easy to let it go.
No, no, no. When conversations with White Conservatives go wrong? No!
What John & Glenn describe here is not that... nor is the problem rooted in either the individual's skin color or presumed political allegiances. The problem is not 'when conversations with White Conservatives go wrong', it's when we have conversations with idiots and assholes. Not to put too fine a point on it.
As Glenn himself said, such conversations (and much more typically they're monologues and not dialogues) are "the result of social ineptitude, clumsiness, and mild ignorance." And I susupect he's being nice.
Based on my own experience, such unfortunate interludes are the result of the Other (whatever social, racial, cultural, educational, experiential categories they happen to fill) believing themselves to be much brighter, much more perspicacious, much wiser than they actually are....while simultaneously believing you to be a naif (untutored, less-experienced, clearly not as wise, and badly in need of in the keen & piercing insight the Other KNOWS they can provide). God save us!
Such conversations are always painful -- regardless of whether it's 'Craig Husock' or 'that one guy' who's always somehow at your elbow at the neighborhood get together, or the woman who shows-up at every HOA meeting, or or or or. These people are not limited to Cringe Moments with White Conservatives. I wish they were, they'd be easier to avoid. They're everywhere.
And...truthfully...if we're honest with ourselves....sometimes We is They. As Prof. Pogo himself sagely observed, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Sometimes, God forbid, WE are That Guy. Sometimes it's our voice we hear rattling around the room....and we then, if we're honest, we take a deep breath: "And you may ask yourself, "Am I right, am I wrong?" And you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done?"
Next time, we say, we'll do better. Next time we'll be a bit more self-aware. Next time, maybe we'll really try to listen more and talk less. Next time, maybe. But in the meantime, God, please keep all the earnestly obnoxious 'Craigs' as far away as possible ...regardless of skin color, politics, college program, age, size, sex, etc. ... because none of that really matters... what matters is the idiocy which burbles forth.
Very true. And equally true, we've probably all played both roles more than a time or two.
Easy to forgive the awkward & clumsy. (There but for the grace of God, etc.) Harder to be that generous with the Pontificators, the Pronouncers, the Potentates (the "Ted Baxter's" of the world, if you happen to remember The Mary Tyler Moore Show!)
It's pathetic that anyone with common sense views on race, policing, etc. is considered "conservative" these days. It's one topic of dozens on the political spectrum. Glenn might consider himself conservative, but definitely not John, nor Coleman Hughes, Adolph Reed, Cornell West, Bill Maher, etc. and so many others who are making similar points. Note the tone between current mayors and the speech that Philadelphia Democratic Michael Nutter gave concerning flash mobs a few short years ago (gets into it about 8 mins in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXwCOcBjpbg
I read text transcript, rather than listen to audio. Thank you. Liberals and conservatives are somewhat destined to err in their respective directions with Group X. X is whichever group activists choose to target as victims of propagandized grievance. I’m so glad the activists have forgotten about us gays. Let’s keep it that way.
Group identity creates all manner of problems for us. oth, stereotypes are necessary and generally useful when referring to groups. “Blacks vote Democrat” is useful if you are developing a political strategy but it is dangerous if you are trying to develop a relationship with Reggie because Reggie is an individual and not a group. We really need to learn to deal with individuals; they are much more interesting than groups.
Exactly right. The problem is the reduction of the Other to Group Rep (whether the group is White, Black, Conservative, Liberal, Hockey Fan, Midwesterner, City Folk, Academic, etc.). Such reductions, as you note, are useful if you're dealing with large group dynamics, averages, strategies, etc. They are absolutely worthless and worse -- dangerously stupid -- when applied to any given individual.
In fact, that is the source of the error in the title. The problem Glenn & John have with 'Craig' is not the fact that he's a member of two groups they easily see, but that he sees them -- evidently -- only as Category Reps themselves.
In a similar vein, Blacks should not feel responsible for Africans selling Africans to Europeans. Both past groups were morally corrupt. When a Black criminal commits a crime today, that is not the fault of the Black community.
The problem is exacerbated by Conservative/ Republican policies that are seen as specifically targeting the Black community in a negative way. The rhetoric from Republican Party leaders is frequently off putting.
Serious question: Where does Vivek Ramaswamy fit into that paradigm? He's an unapologetic, unbending conservative whose message is red meat to the right. Is he off putting?
He feeds the Republican base what they want to hear. Obviously, he would not get my vote. We ran the experiment of electing a rich guy with no government experience, it was a disaster.
Vivek Ramsdwamy is an East Asian ( a member of a buffer group) that is used by white politicians on both the left and right to white water down the benign neglect of black folks.
I didn't ask if you'd vote for him. My question is: does his rhetoric resonate with you, or is it off-putting?
The political aspect doesn't interest me as much as the messaging does. Does an aggressive, equality based message make you open or cover your ears?
As a specific example: He's said something like, "The greatest privilege is growing up with two parents in the house."
You can hear that as a denial of structural racism and an attack on the black community, where half of all children are raised in single parent households.
You can also see it as a very strong pro-nuclear family position. This is not a situation unique to blacks-about a quarter of all US children live in single family households.
Off-putting dog whistle? Or universal observation?
He's a probationary white opportunist (the buffer group that whites use to water down the benign neglect of black folks). Jim Crow's open-border policies do the same thing. Blacks are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Joe Biden, and their turnout for the 2024 presidential election will be dismal.
To add to Marty's explanation about Biden, children are having their parts lopped off, female inmates are getting raped in prison, women and any who support women are being told to shut up and get with the "trans" program. Under Trump: we had to put up with a guy who wouldn't shut up and who said childish and ridiculous things, but who was able to govern very effectively. That's a start.
In any case, it quickly gets tiresome to ask from a person just because that person is black--both for yourself and the person asked. Seek affirmation from someone who is knowledgeable and wise. Seek absolution from someone you have wronged.
This is a difficult issue, because it's very human to over-generalize. "White conservatives" is a generalization that characterizes many individuals unjustly. Similarly, some people use the category "black person" [or some obnoxious synonym] as a generalized pejorative label. Rudyard Kipling wrote about "the white man's burden". President Woodrow Wilson, that Progressive icon, was no better. It's the way people are and probably will continue to be.
We could use a few more discussions on this topic, particularly with regard to people whose last names rhyme with Fax and Flurry. But that's just my humble opinion.
A sincere "Thank You" to Glenn and John. I certainly understand Craig. They may not be able to forgive me, but they can at least help me from coming across as an ass in the future ;-)
Oprah…Chuckles!
It often seems like race is a magnifying glass that exaggerates the emotional aspect of any interracial interaction. Did we have a nice quick chat in line at the grocery store? Better for me if you’re black, I do feel better about it to be honest. And you two are celebrities now …sort of. So you have that working against you as well. Anyway: keep up the good work!
I couldn't resist putting this personal story out there. I'll try to be as nondescript as possible.
Many, MANY years ago, when I was a proud Black Republican, I attended a luncheon with fellow Black Republicans; who, frankly, were always more loyal to the party than I was.
The main speaker at this event was a US Congressman--White, middle-age, not very well-known nationally--who decided to open his speech with a joke, presumably to loosen up the crowd. Not a problem, right?
Anyway, this man proceeds to tell a joke about a criminal attempting to negotiate his way out of a hanging.
I honestly don't recall the specifics about the joke, probably because I hit a mental pause button the second I heard this man utter something about a hanging.
In fairness, I don't think *he* was thinking "race" at the time. If I *had* to guess, the characters in his joke, in *his* mind, were probably all White. But who the hell knows? That's really neither here nor there.
The idea that a sitting US Congressman had no problem telling a joke about a hanging--at the start of his keynote speech, no less--spoke volumes about a certain faction within the GOP.
I will never forget "our" reactions in that moment. We were (mostly) seated at the same two or three tables. We started looking at each other and whispering; our facial expressions were LOUD:
"Is this guy seriously telling a joke about hanging?"
The answer was yes.
It reminded me of something I already knew: Just because two people share a party label doesn't mean they share the same values or perspectives.
This was the 90s. But this Congressman was obviously not a Jack Kemp Republican.
Great example...in all kinds of ways.
Fundamentally, though, the problem was not that the speaker was a Congressman, or White, or Middle-Aged....and it was not that there were (evidently) a number of Black Republicans in the audience listening to the 'joke'....but rather that the speaker was an idiot.
Opening a luncheon with a 'joke' about a scheduled hanging is just plain stupid -- regardless of the situation. As a matter of fact, It's difficult to imagine a context in which 'hanging humor' would ever play well (and, of course, some contexts are worse than others when it comes to terminally idiotic stabs at humor). Bad enough, for example, to offer a 'rape' joke -- worse, to do that at a NOW Convention.
The point is, as Einstein is said to have noted, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe!"
And the problem is: our own natural human tendency to see the world through our categorically biased glasses.
If we are Black, as a for instance, when we suffer the inevitable instances of stupidity, rudeness, idiocy, inefficiency, laziness, and ill-will (to name but a few of our least favorite things) it's easier to see them as Racist, in nature, exactly because we're Black. If we are Women, it's easier to see them as Misogynistic. If we're Gay, those same assaultive, micro-aggressive things are Homophobic. If we're Trans, they're Transphobic. If we're short, it's because Tall People get all the breaks...and if we're fat or ugly (or God forbid, both) then we're being so afflicted because 'Everyone Hates the Fat & Ugly, especially if they're short.
Sometimes we're right. But most of the time the inevitability of stupidity, rudeness, idiocy, inefficiency, laziness, and ill-will is entirely generic.. It's not racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-fat, whaterver...it's just another example of the infinite plenitude of stupidity. And WE (whoever we are and whichever categories we inhabit) are just collateral damage. We're the ones who happen to be standing there when a local 'idiot bomb' goes off.
I read a story a few years back, written by Tim Constantine, which illustrates this point perfectly. Here it is (sorry for the long quote):
"On a recent episode of her podcast, Mrs. Obama recounted a story of taking her two daughters out for ice cream with a friend after a soccer game. When their turn came to place their order another customer tried to jump in front of them. Mrs. Obama spoke up and the would-be line cutter shamefully and silently moved back.
I experienced a similar incident at the security line at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Some individuals can be slow in removing their shoes, pulling their laptop from their bag and adhering to the other safety protocols required by the TSA. I was fourth in line with another half-dozen backed up behind me as we all waited for the person in the front of the line to move along. One woman at the rear of the line ignored us all and walked to the front. She apparently didn’t believe the societal concept of waiting your turn applied to her. Like Mrs. Obama, I spoke up. The woman was angry, but went back to her correct location in line.
Two very similar incidents. We were both waiting in line. We both experienced a rude person trying to cut into our line. Mrs. Obama and I both spoke up and corrected the person. The only difference? Michelle is convinced the rude line-cutter, who was White, cut ahead of her and her daughters because the Obama family is Black. Further, she believes this ice cream line bandit represents, in Mrs. Obama’s words, “the white community.” She has no doubt this societal faux pas was racial in nature. Conversely the airport security line violator that I experienced was a Black woman. It never occurred to me that race had anything to do with it. I just thought she was impatient and rude. Ironically, the woman who attempted to jump the security line at DCA angrily told me to enjoy my “white privilege” because I asked her to wait in the same line as everyone else."
Sometimes...indeed, probably most times... a cigar is just a cigar. And a bad and tasteless joke is just a bad and tasteless joke: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." When we realize that, it should be easy to let it go.
No, no, no. When conversations with White Conservatives go wrong? No!
What John & Glenn describe here is not that... nor is the problem rooted in either the individual's skin color or presumed political allegiances. The problem is not 'when conversations with White Conservatives go wrong', it's when we have conversations with idiots and assholes. Not to put too fine a point on it.
As Glenn himself said, such conversations (and much more typically they're monologues and not dialogues) are "the result of social ineptitude, clumsiness, and mild ignorance." And I susupect he's being nice.
Based on my own experience, such unfortunate interludes are the result of the Other (whatever social, racial, cultural, educational, experiential categories they happen to fill) believing themselves to be much brighter, much more perspicacious, much wiser than they actually are....while simultaneously believing you to be a naif (untutored, less-experienced, clearly not as wise, and badly in need of in the keen & piercing insight the Other KNOWS they can provide). God save us!
Such conversations are always painful -- regardless of whether it's 'Craig Husock' or 'that one guy' who's always somehow at your elbow at the neighborhood get together, or the woman who shows-up at every HOA meeting, or or or or. These people are not limited to Cringe Moments with White Conservatives. I wish they were, they'd be easier to avoid. They're everywhere.
And...truthfully...if we're honest with ourselves....sometimes We is They. As Prof. Pogo himself sagely observed, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Sometimes, God forbid, WE are That Guy. Sometimes it's our voice we hear rattling around the room....and we then, if we're honest, we take a deep breath: "And you may ask yourself, "Am I right, am I wrong?" And you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done?"
Next time, we say, we'll do better. Next time we'll be a bit more self-aware. Next time, maybe we'll really try to listen more and talk less. Next time, maybe. But in the meantime, God, please keep all the earnestly obnoxious 'Craigs' as far away as possible ...regardless of skin color, politics, college program, age, size, sex, etc. ... because none of that really matters... what matters is the idiocy which burbles forth.
We fear silence and say silly things to avoid dead air. Silence is often the best policy.
To your point, there are idiots and there are the awkward.
Very true. And equally true, we've probably all played both roles more than a time or two.
Easy to forgive the awkward & clumsy. (There but for the grace of God, etc.) Harder to be that generous with the Pontificators, the Pronouncers, the Potentates (the "Ted Baxter's" of the world, if you happen to remember The Mary Tyler Moore Show!)
Next up: what Glenn and John find annoying about white independents.
It's pathetic that anyone with common sense views on race, policing, etc. is considered "conservative" these days. It's one topic of dozens on the political spectrum. Glenn might consider himself conservative, but definitely not John, nor Coleman Hughes, Adolph Reed, Cornell West, Bill Maher, etc. and so many others who are making similar points. Note the tone between current mayors and the speech that Philadelphia Democratic Michael Nutter gave concerning flash mobs a few short years ago (gets into it about 8 mins in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXwCOcBjpbg
I read text transcript, rather than listen to audio. Thank you. Liberals and conservatives are somewhat destined to err in their respective directions with Group X. X is whichever group activists choose to target as victims of propagandized grievance. I’m so glad the activists have forgotten about us gays. Let’s keep it that way.
In most situations, we are not going to change the political positions of others. We agree to disagree. Our disagreements can remain civil.
Group identity creates all manner of problems for us. oth, stereotypes are necessary and generally useful when referring to groups. “Blacks vote Democrat” is useful if you are developing a political strategy but it is dangerous if you are trying to develop a relationship with Reggie because Reggie is an individual and not a group. We really need to learn to deal with individuals; they are much more interesting than groups.
Exactly right. The problem is the reduction of the Other to Group Rep (whether the group is White, Black, Conservative, Liberal, Hockey Fan, Midwesterner, City Folk, Academic, etc.). Such reductions, as you note, are useful if you're dealing with large group dynamics, averages, strategies, etc. They are absolutely worthless and worse -- dangerously stupid -- when applied to any given individual.
In fact, that is the source of the error in the title. The problem Glenn & John have with 'Craig' is not the fact that he's a member of two groups they easily see, but that he sees them -- evidently -- only as Category Reps themselves.
You should consider directing them to the Walter Williams “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon”
http://walterewilliams.com/WalterWilliamsAmnestyProclamation.pdf
In a similar vein, Blacks should not feel responsible for Africans selling Africans to Europeans. Both past groups were morally corrupt. When a Black criminal commits a crime today, that is not the fault of the Black community.
The problem is exacerbated by Conservative/ Republican policies that are seen as specifically targeting the Black community in a negative way. The rhetoric from Republican Party leaders is frequently off putting.
Serious question: Where does Vivek Ramaswamy fit into that paradigm? He's an unapologetic, unbending conservative whose message is red meat to the right. Is he off putting?
He feeds the Republican base what they want to hear. Obviously, he would not get my vote. We ran the experiment of electing a rich guy with no government experience, it was a disaster.
He's probationary white taking advantage.
Your response makes no sense.
Vivek Ramsdwamy is an East Asian ( a member of a buffer group) that is used by white politicians on both the left and right to white water down the benign neglect of black folks.
Understood
Disaster for who ? Way better then it is now -
I point out my disagreement in comments to another poster
I didn't ask if you'd vote for him. My question is: does his rhetoric resonate with you, or is it off-putting?
The political aspect doesn't interest me as much as the messaging does. Does an aggressive, equality based message make you open or cover your ears?
As a specific example: He's said something like, "The greatest privilege is growing up with two parents in the house."
You can hear that as a denial of structural racism and an attack on the black community, where half of all children are raised in single parent households.
You can also see it as a very strong pro-nuclear family position. This is not a situation unique to blacks-about a quarter of all US children live in single family households.
Off-putting dog whistle? Or universal observation?
He's a probationary white opportunist (the buffer group that whites use to water down the benign neglect of black folks). Jim Crow's open-border policies do the same thing. Blacks are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Joe Biden, and their turnout for the 2024 presidential election will be dismal.
He is running for President. His statements are made to gain Conservative votes. The political stares us in the face.
We ran the experiment of electing a rich guy with about 4 decades of government experience and we ended up with Cat 5 hurricane devastation.
Please explain
To add to Marty's explanation about Biden, children are having their parts lopped off, female inmates are getting raped in prison, women and any who support women are being told to shut up and get with the "trans" program. Under Trump: we had to put up with a guy who wouldn't shut up and who said childish and ridiculous things, but who was able to govern very effectively. That's a start.
Trump had high unemployment rivaling Herbert Hoover
Trump talked about mental health and then wanted to cut the budget
Trump damaged relations with Europe
Trump politicized COVID
When did this effective government happen?
Edit to add:
What do you think Biden should do about transgenders?
Under Biden:
We have had the highest inflation since Jimmy Carter.
There is a war in Eastern Europe that could go nuclear.
The US dollar is losing its status as the world's reserve currency.
China is flexing its economic, military, and political muscle.
The government is accelerating its censorship programs.
The DOJ is a weaponized, corrupt institution.
That's just a short list off the top of my head...
Explain the one with no government experience or the one with decades of government experience? Or both?
The annual rise in debt was higher under Trump than any other President
Trump invited Putin to attack Ukraine when he was silent after the attack on the Sea of Azov
Putin created fear in the region, Finland is now a member of NATO
Republicans suggesting they would ignore the debt ceiling weakened the dollar
COVID 19 caused an international rise in inflation
Inflation in the US is decreasing
Unemployment is > 6% overseas
The United States unemployment is low
The Gym Jordan DOJ weaponization hearings are a farce.
Please explain your allegation of government censorship that is not put into place by Conservatives
I seek no absolution for the sins I did not commit. With metaphysical certitude, I look only to my lord and savior for forgiveness.
Absolution or affirmation?
---
In any case, it quickly gets tiresome to ask from a person just because that person is black--both for yourself and the person asked. Seek affirmation from someone who is knowledgeable and wise. Seek absolution from someone you have wronged.
This is a difficult issue, because it's very human to over-generalize. "White conservatives" is a generalization that characterizes many individuals unjustly. Similarly, some people use the category "black person" [or some obnoxious synonym] as a generalized pejorative label. Rudyard Kipling wrote about "the white man's burden". President Woodrow Wilson, that Progressive icon, was no better. It's the way people are and probably will continue to be.
Kipling wrote in the age of empire—"the sun never sets..." and the like.
And President Obama degraded his maternal grandmother as a "typical white woman". Over-generalizations persist.
She was. Lol!
"Bad analogies are like corn." —Scott Adams ("Dilbert" creator and recent cancelee)
We could use a few more discussions on this topic, particularly with regard to people whose last names rhyme with Fax and Flurry. But that's just my humble opinion.
A sincere "Thank You" to Glenn and John. I certainly understand Craig. They may not be able to forgive me, but they can at least help me from coming across as an ass in the future ;-)
(And, poor JW, who might just read that last bit of totally sloppy grammar. There’s my mea culpa request for absolution. )