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?”

  1. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-03/news/21655085_1_hostage-crisis-spill-president-obama

    Oil spill crisis make it or break it for Obama
    THE PRESIDENCY
    June 03, 2010|By Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

    The president checks a Louisiana beach with LaFourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph and Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.
    Credit: Evan Vucci / Associated Press

    Washington – — With the possibility that oil could gush into the Gulf of Mexico until August, President Obama faces the kind of crisis that can make or break a presidency.

  2. I have to agree with mespo, who is well known for making insensitive bigoted remarks, perhaps post-intentionally, that Hanlon’s law can be just as sharp as Occam’s Razor.

    I also know that many of you calling DeMint’s remark racist are fully aware of the phrase “make or break”, which leads me to think you are disingenuous and partisan and let politics override what you know to be true.

    Nice dog pile over there, shame if you weren’t to jump on it.

    idiots.

  3. http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/make-or-break

    What does make or break mean?

    Cause either total success or total ruin, as in This assignment will make or break her as a reporter. This rhyming expression, first recorded in Charles Dickens’s Barnaby Rudge (1840), has largely replaced the much older (16th-century) alliterative synonym make or mar, at least in America.

  6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/politics/07obama.html

    Obama Faces a Critical Moment for His Presidency

    By PETER BAKER
    Published: September 6, 2009

    With his honeymoon seemingly over and his White House on the defensive, Mr. Obama faces what friends and foes alike call a make-or-break moment in his young administration. Because he has elevated health care to such a singular priority, advisers said he must force through a credible plan or risk crippling his presidency.

  8. The thing that fascinates me is there seems to be so much hatred for the President,and for now at least one of the leading contenders on the right is another Black Man.

    rcambell:
    ” Eniobob doesn’t seem to have been exposed to it either, but that does mean something.”

    You are so right on that assumption.

  9. Blouise,
    I agree it would be fun to see what kind of tin foil crazy would be the Teapublican candidate. Of course, they would have to get the Koch Brothers’ permission first!

  10. Racists can not claim exclusive rights to the verb ‘break’.

    It has been successfully used against women and poor people for (well, for a very long time…).

    It has been used in similiar manner by mobsters, gangsters, thugs, corrupt territorial types and Armies as well. I would suggest that using this word in this manner is a perfect identifier of the motives of the user. And I would hope that people would understand that if this is indicative of the language that is becoming more acceptable in political discourse that we may be in for a long and ugly ride.

    I can scarcely wait for the break of day….

  11. How do we know that the word wasn’t “brake” or “bake” or something else unintended, or a word from DeMint’s past like the possibly unconscious “macaca” that just couldn’t help itself from slipping out like afterbirth?
    Surely it was as innocent as the driven snow? Ya can’t be too white, ya know.
    And as for Cain, can you picture anybody from his party voting for a darkie or your choice of words starting with n or c?

  12. Point of clarification, the ACA isn’t a health care law; rather, it is a health insurance law (with no meaningful price controls).

  13. mespo, I think you are conflating criminal standards of thinking with a more psychological standard. First of all, mens rea would not apply in the case of unconscious racism. In the part of the world Jim DeMint hails from, racism is part of the everyday culture and language. Many racists might even deny the racism, but make hurtful comments anyway due to not being sensitive to what is hurtful.

    Some years ago, I had lunch with the (now retired) Dean of Education at an Ivy League university. During the conversation, the Dean gave an example of how subtle racism can be. He told of a lecturer who was naming the ethnic groups that were to be found in Maine. He named all the groups except for Native Americans. They were “invisible” to this learned professor. He described the blank noncomprehending look on the face of the fellow when his omission was pointed out to him.

    And that’s how it works for Jim DeMint.

  16. Mespo,

    I’m sorry, but that’s just demonstrably not true.

    Red Delicious apples were for quite awhile the dominate apple in the U.S. market. Compared to other varieties, their sub-par in both flavor and texture. On the other hand, they had one very important trait. They were red for much longer than other apples, and consumers across the board will pick the redder fruit, even knowing that it’s an inferior product. Do you suppose that most of them thought “I know this apple will suck, but it’s red, so I’m going to buy it anyway”? Heck, the whole of point of marketing these days is to play on the consumers biases they don’t know about.

    There’s a reason taste tests should be done “blind” and auditions for Symphony orchestras are often done with the judges facing the other way or behind a curtain.

    That said, I’m only disagreeing with the assertion that bias has to be known. I don’t think one can be unknowingly malicious.

  17. SwM & raf,

    “Blouise, If they do that, the tea party could get so mad that they run a third party candidate.”

    Wouldn’t that be a hoot?! I’d pay money to see that.

  19. Blouise, If they do that, the tea party could get so mad that they run a third party candidate.

  20. SwM,

    This time around the republicans wanted to draw out their primary a bit … having witnessed the continuing back and forth between Obama and Clinton as compared to McCain’s quick sweep last time, they thought it wouldn’t hurt to get into a bit more public awareness by allowing some more interplay between their contenders rather than just immediately giving it to Romney.

    Now, I’m a democrat so naturally I’m biased but, at least between Clinton and Obama one had some substance … the goofballs in this pack are simply making the Republican Party look ridiculous. I’ve been told that the guys in charge are seriously thinking of ending this strategy before it completely ruins Romney’s chances.

    Let’s wait and see what happens.

Comments are closed.