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. SwM,

    No, but they were all over the news … and the roads. I think only one monkey is still free.

    I feel for the sheriff down there … he only had about an hour before nightfall and they did get a few with tranquilizer darts but then, out of a concern for public safety, he ordered his deputies to shot to kill and they got 49 of the 56 released.

    It’s a tragic event any way you look at it.

  3. Pat Buchanan has definitely lost the last remnants of his mind. He wants to force people to behave in a certain way. His way.

    All hail Pat or something like that.

  5. eniobob,

    re: – “Pat Buchanan: Blacks Have Lost The American Identity They Had During Segregation”

    This kind of crap makes me very angry … ‘nough said …

  7. eniobob, regarding Buchanan, West and Cain;

    Idiots comes to mind, but the word seems so inadequate.

  10. I’ll just throw this in the mix on my way out the door.WOW!!!!!!!!!

    West counters Obama: MLK would not have backed Wall Street protests
    By Alicia M. Cohn – 10/19/11 01:15 PM ET

    Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) rejected President Obama’s comparison between Martin Luther King Jr. and what he called the “Occupy Wall Street gangs.”

    “Martin Luther King Jr. would not have backed these types of protesters,” West said, noting that he was born and raised in King’s neighborhood. “First of all, Martin Luther King, Jr. had a focus, a message. He was divinely inspired. I don’t know what the inspiration is for these individuals.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/188519-rep-west-occupy-wall-street-protests-not-divinely-inspired

    Between Cain and West I’m trying to figure which is trying to get to the bottom the fastest.

  11. Bron:

    OS hit the ball out of the park with his point and raff seconded with his comment.

  13. Yes, and those statements can be treasonous.. On page 716 of THE TWILIGHT ZONE UNLOCKING THE DOOR TO A TELEVISION CLASSIC is an observation of THE TWILIGHT ZONE and the republican party. Not only is this the best book on the series ever, this statement made in the 1960s by a TV viewer describes the republican viewpoint now better than any thing I’ve ever read. It deserves your attention.

  15. Otteray Scribe:

    I hope not, a philosophical disagreement is one thing but to wish someone ill because of race is pretty evil in my book.

    I would hope most people are better than that.

  16. Bron, I think you missed the point. Of course simple disagreement or philosophical differences are not racist. However, it is racism if the outrage is fueled by a blind hatred of the idea of a black man and woman living in the White House. The repeated outcry of the right wing to make his a failed Presidency is based more on not wanting a man of color to have a successful Presidency than it has to do with philosophy.

  18. eniobob:

    I know you disagree, I was wondering if you think race is relevant if you have a fundamental opposition to someones philosophy? I disagree with Obama and would still disagree with him if he were white.

    Does race escalate the philosophical difference or is it moot at that point? When you have such an ideological chasm does race even enter into it?

  19. Bron:

    “I think Cain is right on most of the issues ”

    We can disagree without being disagreeable.

  20. Otteray Scribe:

    I hope Seig Happe posts some more so people can see how evil those ideas really are.

Comments are closed.