Should George Allen lose re-election for his "Macaca" gaffe?

Allen didn't break any law by using the racial slur, but he did offend lots of people, and he might be a racist, as his history suggested. Some might not be offended at all, but that fact doesn't mean others shouldn't either. I don't see any point in discussing whether one should or should not be offended by anything. Everyone is different, even people from same background or ethnic group or race, or even from the same family. Being offended is one's right, just like being a racist, if not more. Actually, we see more discussion about whether some should feel offended or "sensitive", than whether racial slurs should be used in public.

I see nothing wrong with political correctness, it helps your career, image, and maybe win you some friends. That being said, nothing forbids anyone refusing to be politically correct. It's his/her own choice, but it's quite absurd that he/she demands others to dismiss political correctness, simply because he/she did so. Every company claims that they support equal opportunity. People won't put you in jail, if you run around the office and claim to be a racist, or throw racial slurs around, but once it's reported, employer will definitely kick you out.

Again, individulism is about diversity and difference. If a Chinese said that he is absolutely ok with the term "chinaman" after he's explained the background of that term, I am perfectly fine with that. But if that same guy claims that every single Chinese should be fine with that term, simply because he is, I will not be ok with it. Not because he's having a different opinion than I am having, but rather that he's questioning others' right to be different from him.

As for Allen's career, it depends on the voters in VA. If they don't mind a ricist to represent them, it's their choice. Although his racial slur didn't offend everyone, it definitely offended a lot of people.

 

I think in the context he used Macaca and his own family knowlede of what the word means it makes that incident racist. I can't say 100% what is in his heart. I can say that when he knows that the word is used to put down Africans by colonists because his own mother is one, and that was the word he chose to use, it shows racism.

Could he have said worse things? Yes. Are people too sensitive? I think much of the time they are. However Allen deserves every bit of flak he gets from this incident.

 

I have lived my past 16 years in countries where free speech is allowed, in Europe, Canada, and now US, a little bit less than the time I spent in "a culture where free speech is not allowed". When I talked about working environment, for I never worked one single day in China, I talked about my experience where free speech is allowed. I don't know whether you ever had any orientation in any company, because "zero tolerance" was standard policy everywhere. It's baffling to me that it actually was baffling to your mind, that someone will get fired for being a racist in a company.

You tend to change circumstances all the time. I clearly gave you the circumstance of claiming to be a racist and throwing racial slurs around, and you change that to a much weaker version of "political incorrect comment". Allen used racial slur against a supporter of his opponent, in the public, you changed that scenario to poke games between your friends. One of my best Jewish friends always called me a "commie nazi" and I always returned him a "F U", but that happened between friends and there is context. Both comments were wrong to a stranger.

As for Allen, his voters will decide whether being a racist is important to them. Posters here only discuss whether they feel that was offensive and wrong.

Again, some people are offended by something, some might not. What I don't understand is, why is the tireless effort from those not offended to those offended, that they shouldn't feel offended at all? Isn't free speech allowed?

 

He heard it used when he was too young to understand what it meant, and it just happened to be the first that came into his mind more than 4 decades later?

If it was a reasonable doubt I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I haven't seen anything to show that there was a reasonable doubt.

Even if the scenario you painted was correct, it still would have been racist. It might not have been intentionally degrading but to imagine a childhood named associated with people who have darkskin, is still associated first and foremost in his mind at his age, shows racism. The reasoning is that he saw a skin color and was unable to move beyond that, and setteled on the name he associated with it as a kid.

 

again, sidharth introduce himself to allen.. allen knew his name and was always good with remembering names.. he called him macaca not once but twice..

and sidharth had a mullet.. which I would think is not exactly uncommon in the south.. why make a big deal out of it?

 

never heard of a stupid racist?

 

Intention is a very subjective matter, because except for himself, nobody knows his true intention. Therefore, action weighs more than words. People will be judged by actions and the result of his actions in the society. Non-verifible aspects are not reliable. There is NO support for your interpretation of his intention to be right or wrong comparing to those from others.

Most criminals claimed to have good intentions, and most people spin with their bad deeds. If a claimed good/harmless intention can help you escape from any consequence, nobody will be held reponsible for anything. If someone shoots an elderly dead in the middle of the road and bright day light, then he claims that he saw the elderly had such trouble to walk and was suffering obviously, he shot him just to put him out of misery. Is he just stupid or a cold-blooded killer?

 

Racism doesn't have to be malicious in intent. In fact racism that is malicious often isn't as serious of a problem in that it is easy to recognize and to dismiss for exactly what it is.

Racism that is worse is the kind where people assume things based on race, or can't see the person but see a race instead. They may have love in their heart for everyone, and would never consider themselves a racist. But when they see a black teen with baggy clothes, and wearing a hoody with the hood pulled up, they will automatically move to the other side of the street or clutch their purse/wallet etc.

They are selling someone short based on only their skin. They have broken no laws, but they are upholding stereotypes, and doing damage just the same. Those attitudes may write someone off for a deserved promotion, etc. They are more prevelant than the malicious overt racism and prejudice that still exists, and that also makes that brand of racism bad for society.

 

I have too much respect for dogs to use them as an adjective describing mere humans! As for a PC, that's the clunker I'm typing on at the moment. DD, you should give me a modern machine... I bet you have them just sitting around the house.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Every message the NAACP has brought up in their annual meets is that Jim Crow is over, but Jim Crow Jr. isn't. Meaning that blatant racism is over, but subtle isn't. No one uses racial slurs offensively can get away with it, as Mr. Allen has had the displeasure of realizing. However people's stereotypes don't start from nowhere. You can look at pro sports and ignorantly think all Blacks are naturally athletic. While that's seemingly innocent and complimentary, it was only a few years ago that the issue of Black qbs came up where these stereotypes became hurtful. Doubters pointed that Black qbs liked to run instead of throw or couldn't make good decisions, which are all bull as we know now. But these things didn't come from nowhere. It came from the idea of the physically gifted Black athlete can only be a superb wr or rb, but couldn't have the smarts to be the leader at qb. This is just a trivial example, but just shows have racism, stereotypes, no matter how small, can have a resonaning effect in greater things, therefore you cannot simply dismiss them.

 

NewYorker is a monkey because he's brown. LOL. Welcome to America and the real world, monkey. LMAO.

 

You don't talk about intent without mentioning the consequence.

Why is there so much political correctiveness about race in America in the first place, but not much in say Japan? Why is it OK for Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker to joke with each other's race in Rush Hour? Because there was history, there was racial tension in the US, and still is, particularly among whites and color-skinned minorities. There's no history or tension between African Americans and Chinese for there to be massive PC backlash, that's the brilliance of Rush hour.

Now George Allen, as a white man and a politician, should know very well that his racial slur would has possibility of offending the person and deepening the racial divide. It actually doesn't matter that he meant not to offend the said person. At the very least, he contributed negatively to the racial problem in the America. His blunder makes him unfit for public office, though that's up to the voters to decide.

NYers arguments here are not unlike his in the shrine thread (intention etc), so at least he's consistent for once.