Free Speech, Politics, Society

Is “Break” A Racist Term?

I was curious recently about a statement by Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s the Ed Show, that Sen. Jim Demint, R-S.C., used racist langauge in his opposition to Obamacare when he said “If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” There are ample reasons to criticize this statements — not the least of which is the notion that we will destroy health care simply to gain a political advantage. However, is “break him” a racist term?

Schultz also accused Herman of pandering to “white Republicans out there who don’t like black folks.” I am not sure how that tracks either.

However, I was most intrigued by the support given to Schultz for his view that “break him” is racist. Dr. James Peterson, director of Africana studies at Lehigh University, agreed that “break” is a racist verb, “a term that was used to destroy, mentally and physically, slaves.” He insists that the Demint comment is proof of “how dark some of these racial discourses can be in presidential politics.”

I may disagree with Demint about many, if not most, things. However, I do not believe that his comment was racist or that “break him” is a racist term — anymore than denouncing “dark” politics. I do not question Professor Peterson’s account of how slaves were often “broken.” However, the term “break” someone goes back to Roman times if not before. A broken man is a common expression in literature and common language.

I also do not believe that Cain is pandering to white people by running against Obama and advancing many of the same positions as his Republican colleagues. There is no doubt that there is racism in this country and in this election. However, it does not advance the effort to combat racism by manufacturing controversies. We have plenty of real racists and racist comments around.

Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson, however, insists that Cain and others need to address “post-intentional racism” – racism that people don’t intend to have or to act upon. I am not sure how one defines “post-intentional racism” (which sounds like unintentional racism), but I am pretty sure that the verb break is not a racist term. Moreover, I am not sure how much of a burden Cain should have beyond other candidates in fighting “post-intentional” comments.

What do you think?

Source: Washington Examiner

137 thoughts on “Is “Break” A Racist Term?”

  2. Jeff,
    The word itself is not racist, it is the context, including who was saying it. DeMint wasn’t calling for smaller government, he was saying we have to “break him”!

  3. A great and well-known quote:

    Adversity causes some men to break; others to break records.

    Saying break is racist is of course asinine but it is par for the course. In an age when anything a republican does is called racist. When anyone, including african-americans that call for smaller government and join the tea party are called racist, when any disagreement with Obama of any sort is called racist and treasonous, when voting against obama is labeled racist yet voting for Cain is also labeled racist, you have crap like this.

    Recently, Florida looked to use the term “Shine” as in sunshine as part of the tourism advertising. Surprise surprise, some claimed “shine” was racist as well.

  4. The only color that is a substantive issue and not simply a distraction to the electoral process is green. However, you won’t see clowns like Demint addressing the political spending/corruption issue in any substantive manner. I wonder why (he asked rhetorically)?

  6. The use of “break him” by DeMint was an intentional, racist slur. Let me ask the group when has that term been used on any other white candidate in recent history? The earlier posters are correct that context is important and considering DeMint’s past history, he is guilty of making a racist reference here. Is anyone surprised after how much crap has been directed in Obama’s direction during the campaign and after the election?

  7. Gyges:

    I find it hard to accept that a person is unaware of his prejudices or his biases. The first thing we humans learn is what we like and what we don’t like. If we can’t articulate a rationale for either attitude, it’s either a bias or prejudice. That said, the intention needed for culpability is simply the intent to harm or demean not the awareness of the attitude motivating the conduct. All humans can form that intent.

    If a person could be found who doesn’t realize his own biases and prejudices ( I distinguish this from someone who simply won’t accept them for what they are) and doesn’t intend to harm or demean, he wouldn’t be culpable for intentional harm. One needs to be aware of another’s intention before another’s act is deemed intentionally wrong. That is why we do not punish four-year-olds for firing a found weapon at another child since they are unable to form the intent to harm.

  12. “Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson, however, insists that Cain and others need to address “post-intentional racism” – racism that people don’t intend to have or to act upon.”

    *****************************

    Like so many academics (our host excluded), Professor Dyson is identifying a solution in search of a problem. If one does not intend racism, by definition his act cannot be deemed racist. To be complicit in intentional wrongdoing, one needs an act and the intent. Without the former, one has only mens rea; without the latter merely unintended consequence. It’s worth remembering that you cannot “address” mens rea without an assault on conscience or on unintended consequence without an assault on innocence.

  15. Demint gives many indications of being a bigot. This term does not seem one of them to me. It’s a common phrase to use in the context of one person wanting to harm their opponent.

    I have noticed that concern about racism has collapsed into what is said about Obama. The Obama campaign and his supporters used charges of racism to silence opponents who were making perfectly reasonable objections to his stances and actions. It was very effective in shutting down dissent from the left. It is still an effective maneuver.

    Black Agenda Report is one of the best places to read coverage of the devastation of racism. They consistently cover the massive amount of unemployment and incarceration of young black men and women in America. They are not afraid to point out that both these things occur and have increased under Obama, nor do they let the rest of society off the hook for the refusal to rectify these injustices. It’s a good site because it speaks truthfully, re-expanding the idea of racism beyond what is said about Obama to include what is happening to the other 99%. Their’s is always a call for racial and economic justice.

  16. “Why then should we raise an emotion-laden charge of racism without substantial proof of his intent?” (mespo)

    I agree with that statement. (or question)

    Perhaps it was an oblique racist maneuver on Demint’s part for I have heard the term used as racial code, but, in this case, without being able to judge his tone or body language, I’ll give Demint a break.

  17. Iremember
    1, October 18, 2011 at 8:57 am
    I grew up in segregated Oklahoma. My grandfather owned a lot of the black housing in the southwestern part of the state. Break is definitely a a racist term.

    I’d like to see Iremember expand on this. I’ve never heard the word “break” used in a racial context, but that doesn’t mean much. Eniobob doesn’t seem to have been exposed to it either, but that does mean something.

    Now, Jim Demint is a political thug without a doubt. He may or may not be a bigot. However, his attack seems to me purely political–dumb, but purely political.

  19. Let’s admit one thing: We have utterly no idea what was in Demint’s mind when he uttered those words, and the evidence on his intent is mixed. Why then should we raise an emotion-laden charge of racism without substantial proof of his intent?

    I am no fan of Demint or his policies, but irresponsible aspersions serve to demean only the asserter and undermine legitimate instances of criticizing real racism. “Crying Wolf” remains the single biggest marker for credulity now as it was in Aesop’s time.

    I agree with Hanlon’s Razor that one should “[n]ever attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

  20. Break dancing … breaking away … breaking dawn … coffee break …

    In one sense, when any racist uses any word it is racist, but I am not going to give it bandwidth.

    Don’t spread the disease.

Comments are closed.