Mary Beth Schneider has an article in the Indy Star entitled Rokita apologizes for slavery remark which refers to the incident wherein Secretary of State Todd Rokita compared black voters’ relationship to the Democratic Party as that of slaves to a master. From the original Washington Times Herald article:
Rokita spent some time revisiting the party’s history, especially concerning the African-American vote. He said that African-Americans vote 90 percent Democrat and questioned why.
“How can that be?†Rokita said. “90 to 10. Who’s the master and who’s the slave in that relationship? How can that be healthy?â€
Rokita’s apology today:
Rokita said Monday that his overall message about the black vote was meant to encourage the Republican Party to continue its efforts to diversify, in part by continuing to reach out to blacks.
But, he said, “The word choice that I used in one part of those remarks was poor, and if I offended anyone then I ask their forgiveness for what was an insensitive metaphor.â€
From the Washington Times Herald article, it didn’t sound like Rokita was encouraging his party to do anything else. Rather, it sounded like he was bragging that the Republican Party had done plenty already — why, the GOP is the party of Lincoln after all; and the initiator of the civil rights movement (the rise of the former Dixiecrats, Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and the events of the past 40 years notwithstanding). Instead, from the article, it sounded like he was saying the Republicans had done a great many things for black people but simply were not receiving the proper gratitude, perhaps because of this master-slave relationship. Obviously a lot depends on how faithfully the Washington Times Herald article reflected Mr. Rokita’s speech.
Reps. Bill Crawford and Rep. Charlie Brown had some unkind words for Mr. Rokita’s commentary:
Rep. Bill Crawford of Indianapolis — one of 12 black lawmakers, all Democrats — called Rokita’s words “personally offensive” and inappropriate for a statewide elected official.
“A half-a-million or so persons of African ancestry are in this state,” Crawford said. “To use the analogy of the master-slave relationship implies that people are compelled to do something, that they don’t act with their own free will. And I think that in essence what he said was that African-American voters are ignorant, ill-informed, are compelled to vote for Democrats.”
Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, who also is black, said he was shocked by Rokita’s statement, “especially this close on the heels of the (Don) Imus debacle, that a public official would not have chosen better words.”
I suppose it bears mentioning that Democrats Brown and Crawford benefit politically by having the black vote break down 90 to 10 in favor of Democrats. Still, I think Mr. Rokita’s choice in metaphors was, at best, remarkably bad.
Ch.13 did some actual reporting and discovered Todd has only two Black employees out of 56 on his office staff — and he wonders why African-Americans and others question his sincerity?
I guess I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from that, particularly without knowing what the racial composition of the Secretary of State’s office in prior administrations — and without knowing how many of the employees are political appointees. If, as he said, 90% of the black vote goes to Democrats, he would have a tougher time finding black Republicans to fill the political slots.
The Indpls SMSA is about 22% Black — you’d expect a workforce to be comparable in composition. You’d also expect such a champion of diversity as Rokita to work consciously for a more integrated workforce than he has. His 2 out of 56 will not go unnoticed by African-Americans — it sure doesnt help minimize the perception of the current racism of the GOP !
I guess the skin color of his staff members matters, in a practical political sense.
How do we get to a place where skin color does not matter – isn’t that where we want to go?
As long as we’re disposed to count people on the basis of race – and have any seemingly valid reason to – I submit we have a problem, and one that appears to be self-perpetuating.
I’ll listen with respect to anyone who can help get us out of this loop.
Marion County is 24% Black yet it was only 5 years ago that Democrat Frank Anderson was elected as the first-ever African-American officeholder. It was only last year that Democrat Billie Breaux became the first-ever Black woman elected county-wide. The GOP had total political dominance for well over 30 years but had never put up an African-American in a guaranteed-winnable seat. They could have put in a “token Black” in say, the Recorders Office but they kept their candidates lily-white. Shameful!
Racial segregation was kept alive and well by the GOP — it’ll take years to overcome its legacy. That’s why 2 out of 56 employees is still so revealing about Rokita and the GOP – old ways die hard!
How do we get to a place where skin color does not matter[?]
When we get to the place where people stop using that as a dodge. There’s a story of the student who came upon a Zen master sitting quietly on a riverbank. He asked, “Master, how do I become Enlightened?”
“I will answer your question when you have drunk up the river in one gulp,” was the reply.
“But I have already drunk up the river in one gulp,” said the young man.
“Then I have already answered your question,” said the Master.
You take the point, Parker? “Colorblindness” was one of the prepared rallying points in the long retreat of the die-hard segregationists. “The law should be color-blind,” they said, meaning they should be allowed to continue opening voter registration offices two hours a month, and rejecting applicants who’d been selectively confronted with long, arcane “voter tests”, since that had been good enough when only whites voted. Meaning they could go on operating lily-white state universities on the grounds that noticing the segregation was itself a racial act.
The goal is the elimination of racial bigotry from public life. Once that occurs society will be color-blind de facto and you won’t have anything to worry about.
doghouse Riley –
I have not drunk up the river in one gulp – and you have not answered any questions.
Interesting comments, but I don’t know why you addressed them to me.
As long as political offices have less than 4% Black employees in a county 24% Black, there is obvious exclusion based on race. Rokita is hiring based on race: white supremacy, that is. He is now being called on it. He needs to stop white supremacy in his own office. Maybe then we can be truly colorblind. Maybe then voters will stop seeing the GOP for what it currently is: a white-supremacy party.
Wislon, the Secretary of State serves ALL Of Indiana, not just Marion County. What is the percentage of blacks in IN as a whole. I’d wager a lot closer to 4% than 24%.
Parker,
I guess Doghouse Riley took your question a lot less rhetorically than you posed it. :)
Branden –
I think he just has some points that he wants to be sure and make, which is fair enough.
But, my questions are not rhetorical – Do we want a color-blind society?
If so (and I don’t think you can take it as a given, in many cases), how do we get there?
If I am reading doghouse Riley correctly, then we will be there when we are there.
Well, that much is self-evidently true – but offers no guidance on how to get there, or even how to get some company for the trip…
Indiana’s total Black population is 7.8% so Rokita’s hiring is about half the statewide percentage – but of course, routine office hiring is done from the Indpls SMSA which has 22% Black population. Anyway you slice it, Rokita has an obvious statistical antipathy to African-Americans being hired in his own office.
Can someone remind me what SMSA stands for? Statistical Metropolitan Survey Area or something like that?
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, I believe.
Perhaps poor phrasing, but what Rokita said was totally correct.
The Democrat Party is a lot like the airline industry was until de-regulation (or like flying Delta today). They don’t have to worry about earning your business as you have no other options.
Sadly for the black community, because the vast majority follow pseudo-Reverends like Jackson and Sharpton, and think Obama is a genius simply because of his skin color (if he were white, he’d be treated like Mike Huckaby) and because they are tied to the Democrat Party like slaves to their master, that party doesn’t have to make an effort to earn their vote.
1. “Democrat” is a noun, not an adjective. If you want to modify “Party,” it’s “Democratic”. Saying “Democrat Party” is like flashing a Republican gang sign.
2. You’re probably right that the Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted to some extent and, therefore, does not work as hard as maybe it could at addressing “black” issues, whatever those might be specifically.
3. That blacks might not be well served by Democrats does nothing at all to address the question of whether blacks ought to vote for Republicans.
4. I’m open to the idea that Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton are self-serving publicity hounds first and representatives of black people second. (I’m not sure what, precisely, differentiates a “pseudo” Reverend from a “real” Reverend.)
5. The error of Rokita’s statement was not in the phrasing, it was in failing to address the reasons blacks were not voting for Republicans even if they are not being well served by Democrats. It’s not because blacks are enslaved by the Democrats. He needs to figure out what it is that the Republicans are doing that causes only 10% of blacks to consider the issues and conclude that the GOP does not serve them very well.
1)The omission of “ic” was intentional, as the party that brought us Lake County is anything but democratic. I’m not stupid, and your sly attempt to paint me as such is lame.
4)As as been well documented, Jackson has never officially been ordained by any denomination, or at least as of a few years ago wasn’t (it’s quite possible he had something done after this fact was made public). Sharpton appears to have ordained himself at the age of eight. That makes them “pseudo” in my book, not to mention the fact that they only appear to serve the church of themselves.
5)One must admit the problem before it can be fixed. It isn’t anything the GOP is or isn’t doing (and I’m no Republican). It’s the fact that the Democrat__ Party literally has the black community enslaved through their policies of fear and intimidation. Anyone recall the commercials James Byrd’s family ran against “W” accusing him as being just as bad as the men who killed him? Or the radio commercials telling black voters that voting for a Republican candidate was the same as burning a cross on their own front yard?
That has nothing to do with GOP policies, which generally advocate self-responsibility (even if we have to borrow our way there, according to this administration) versus chaining oneself to the government and the party who will do anything to prevent progress as long as it endures the loyalty of a particular voting block.
Look Rokita isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and I know him pretty well. He probably had no clue of what he was saying or its intent when he made that statement, I don’t think he’s bright enough to think that far ahead. But he brings up an interesting point, and I find it interesting that we are so worried about the words he used instead of the larger picture it represents.
Re: “Democrat Party” v. “Democratic Party” – I had no intent to imply you were stupid. As a general rule, I don’t get too worked up about grammatical errors. But, in this case, I wanted to point out a) that your usage was incorrect; and b)the reason your incorrect usage was a problem. I figured the usage was probably intentional.
While not 100% accurate, when someone uses “Democrat Party” it acts as a flag that the person is probably not really interested in having a discussion, but mainly just wants to get into a my team versus your team rhetorical food fight — the same way it would if someone was using the term “Rethuglicans” or whatever.
Doug and Scribe –
Can we just stick with ‘Moonbats’ and ‘Wingnuts’?
They seem to carry equivalent emotional freight, and both can be used either endearingly or insultingly.
There’s the added advantage of the two terms being the same length – a boon to text compositors everywhere!
Good point, and an accepted one Doug and Parker. My sincere apologies for going overboard in my response.
Is nutjob still an accepted term?
When I really want to lower the hammer, I go with something like “smegma felching pederast.”
(Can’t wait to see what kind of hits those keywords get me from incoming Google traffic.)
As far as I am aware, ‘nutjob’ is considered an acceptable accusation of mild lunacy, and is without a current party or ideological affiliation.
(Although I think the Libertarians have made overtures…)
Doug –
Aren’t you supposed to include the mandatory disclaimer:
Parker,
Zing! :)